The URL can be used to link to this page

3. Plat review of Pleasant View Road and Vineland Forest Plat subdividing CITY O F PC DATE: 10/17/90 3 `\1 '' C11AflA3E1 CC DATE: 11/5/90 1 �: - CASE #: 90-15 SUB By: Al-Jaff/v 1 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 8.7 Acres into 15 Single Family Lots, II Fmm Troendle Addition Z LOCATION: Lots 4 and 8, Vineland Forest - West of Vineland Forest, 1 Q south of Pleasant View Road, north of Carver Beach V Estates and east of Lots 5, 6 and 7, Vineland Forest IIaw APPLICANT: Fortier and Associates Frank Beddor, Jr. (owner) 408 Turnpike Road 7951 Powers Boulevard Cl. Golden Valley, MN 55422 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 8.7 acres (gross) 7.5 acres (net) DENSITY: 2 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND I 5 LAND USE: N - RSF; single family S - RSF; single family Lose E - RSF; single family W - RSF; single family 1 a WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W Fm PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The northeastern portion of the site is heavily vegetated with mature trees. The ' site generally slopes to the northwest to form a low area. 2888 IAMB N3'L PLAN. Lvw 15C11Dity nc�l�lcul.lal 0poSEr) I E Stab' F o OM p O o 0 o o ch o o O O M gr f I I I III I I I nr 1 CH- :� T A '' 1 . . PIN COUNT`11 -R 7 rIN igt ,.. - • , - ?if i_. MI Itswrip:mr.KE ,, ,7BUIIW w-A7111.111.,-LI-z-Pl 0-17,-.. ' . : '-c)_._ _ _ ! Aria '-- �.. TRAPLINE , . '�.,%111h..,..1 • g'#. .L..; , "I _..,......./._4_, .4,,..# ,,,,, ,,,,, N . . - IS \:----- 111.1 alsoKLIII .7fA-: ' -- 44Z14)‘L'.. 1 _ _ . ,, A-ri- • , . i,_, ,„. i ribl'" c'''s -'4 - MM.' - '- Attc. • ' 11-:_i___2.1_‘,.,,-, . 4 er , -m a, ,, , v . -- _---. A '4 III All ' -*Amalfi:. e,' at -4-"• ., N i AI ( . irluirjuni imma-NIFF" l'it7 L idorrnmuLt&N-- #4 ,) \\***A 1 )rikil1/4:% i �--- ` ■ L norm_A: 4/40._ 44 5_hr E ,/-4114 E 3 Ktel477,:-! ; l'ai'C'-m?1,- ‘ , 401111111 I P�t�. -;? _-, 411111111 I 44 _LOTUSf- its w a .. :"v ,�(' ZfAirar a ' ri IA' " '-z-1:= -----wAttino I* ttValFrigl. " 1111111■-- - j 1 a MI iltg- 6' vi .vim ----u....e.--- Iv 4-'tin: t:a li■ %,3•\- 411 ,A mann\\\ 11 ---- ,. ,.�:�., f 4, G1 411h, `fie+ \ R,\ 11■.I%th�� 't- ve_mac"lionslim , --,- nettcvz; 1 4momm,. ,,I�iii:WM 0'O MEW • IIIIIW= 1SHADDV.MF''E I c31 4.1°I ' RS E -- - - o s.�= gum -. � �� atte4-suilfpo )1 ri i __ •,Ii it .c R'E / -,---- SA.. n 4.3 Vie r-_, 0•1 1 writ IhT.-~ 1 Rd ��.��' • a �_mum'�' ��+� �l�1 I Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY ' The applicant is proposing to subdivide 8.7 acres into 15 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF. The average lot size is 21, 855 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.7 units per acre. The site is located north of Carver Beach Estates and west of Vineland Forest. Access to the subdivision will be provided by an extension of Nez Perce Drive. The extension of Nez Perce Drive is consistent with a conceptual access plan developed by the City during review of the adjacent Vineland Forest plat. It will terminate in a temporary cul-de-sac at the west property line. Ultimately, when the adjoining parcel is developed, the street will be extended to Pleasant View Road via Peaceful Lane. A cul-de-sac, Troendle Way, extends south from Nez Perce to service many of the proposed lots. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed Lot 2, Block 1 has an existing residence and an existing garage/barn. Presently, access to this site is gained from Pleasant View Road via a gravel driveway. The barn will be located 21.7 feet from the proposed extension of Nez Perce Drive. City ordinance does not permit any accessory structures to be located in the front yard setback. Therefore, staff is recommending that this structure be removed or relocated as it will create a non-conforming use. Grading and drainage issues are relatively straightforward. Storm water retention will be provided by an expanded storage pond on Lot 4, Block 1. This will overflow into a wetland on an adjoining parcel that has been partially filled by the property owner. Municipal utilities are available with no unusual issues in this regard. In summary, staff believes that the proposed Troendle Addition represents a high quality plat that is consistent with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and with city plans concerning this area. We are recommending that it be approved. BACKGROUND ' On September 11, 1989, the City Council approved an access concept plan for Vineland Forest. The concept plan would loop Nez Perce Drive to the west parallel to Pleasant View Road and hook up with Peaceful Lane (Attachment #1) . As designed, the access concept creates a road that bisects and provides access to the Troendle parcel. The Vineland Forest plat was approved on December 18, 1989. The plat has been constructed with Nez Perce terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the Troendle property line. , I I 11 . Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 3 ' Access ' Access into this area of the City was explored in detail with the review and approval of the adjacent Vineland Forest subdivision. During review of that subdivision, it became clear that the City wished to maintain continuity of north/south flow between Pleasant ' View Road and Lake Lucy Road and points further south to maintain reasonable access for emergency vehicles and residents. At the same time, residents along Pleasant View Road were concerned that ' if traffic were introduced too far to the east that Pleasant View Road would have an undue burden from increased traffic. Consequently, an access concept was developed whereby Nez Perce Road would be ultimately extended through the Vineland Forest plat and over to adjacent parcels where it would intersect with Pleasant View Road at the current site of Peaceful Lane. The ultimate completion of this roadway connection was to be contingent upon the ' development of adjoining parcels. Vineland Forest plat was consequently built with Nez Perce Drive terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the east property line which it shares in common with ' the Troendle property line. The current proposal is fully consistent with the approved access concept. Nez Perce Drive would be extended through the Troendle ' Addition where it would terminate in a similar temporary cul-de-sac at the eastern property. The temporary cul-de-sac should be provided with an easement to accommodate the temporary pavement and ' be provided with a barricade equipped with a sign indicating that the road will be extended in the future. This is being done to put all future residents on notice of the City's intent to extend the ' street. A new cul-de-sac called Troendle Way will extend approximately 400 feet south from Nez Perce Drive to service most of the lots in the subdivision. Nez Perce Drive as proposed will far exceed city guidelines for cul-de-sac length. However, since ' we believe that this is a temporary situation that will ultimately be rectified by it's extension to the west, staff does not believe that this presents a problem. Preliminary Street Design • The preliminary street designs are generally consistent with City standards. The Troendle Way needs to be increased from the proposed 50 feet to the current 60 foot requirement by ordinance. Two of the lots, Lots 1 and 4, Block 1, will have direct frontage ' on Pleasant View Road and will gain access from this street. Pleasant View Road is a highly traveled- street and traffic levels are expected to increase in the future. Since the number of curb cuts is directly related to potential for traffic safety issues, staff is recommending that Lots 1 and 4 share a common curb cut on the property line. A corresponding cross access easement in favor of both parcels should be provided and notice should be placed in • 11 Troendle Addition I October 17, 1990 Page 4 the chain of title to give information on the access provisions to future property owners. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are corner lots fronting on the intersection of Nez Perce and Troendle Way. Since Nez Perce will be the through street carrying a higher volume of traffic, staff is recommending that these lots be required to take access off Troendle Way. An appropriate notice should be placed in the chain of title of these lots. An existing gravel driveway serving the existing home on Lot 2, Block 1 should be removed. This lot will gain direct access from Nez Perce and there is no longer the need for the driveway connection. It is highly likely that Pleasant View Road will need to be upgraded in the future. A desired right-of-way of 80 feet should be maintained: Therefore, an additional 7 feet of right-of-way should be provided along the Pleasant View exposure. Final street plans should be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. Utilities , Municipal sewer is available to the site from the Vineland Forest Addition. They will serve all but two of the lots which front along Pleasant View Road and will take access from lines in that street. Watermain is similarly available which is stubbed into Nez Perce Drive. The watermain will be extended through this plat ultimately creating a loop when the property to the west is developed. Final utility plans should be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. • Grading/Drainage ' Natural site drainage is in two directions, much of the site drains to the northwest into a partially filled former wetland located on an adjoining parcel. The balance of the site drains to the southeast into what is being developed into Vineland Forest plat. The proposal calls for most of the site drainage to be directed into a newly expanded retention pond located almost entirely on Lot 4, Block 1. The size of this pond will significantly impact development on this lot since it essentially eliminates the potential for an actively developed rear yard area. In staff's . opinion, the future residence would be better served by pushing the pond somewhat to the south onto the adjacent Lot 3 so that the burden can be shared in the buildable area on Lot 4 can be increased. Drainage calculations need to be provided for this pond to ensure that it is appropriately sized to eliminate impacts on adjoining parcels. Final plans should be submitted to the City Engineering Department for further review. The small portion of the site that will continue to drain to the southeast is accommodated by drainage provisions in the adjacent Vineland Forest plat. - 1 I. . 11- Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 5 I An erosion control plan has been submitted and is generally acceptable with some modifications as proposed by the Assistant City Engineer. Project approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed 1 District is required. Park Dedication IStaff has concluded that cash should be obtained in lieu of land on this plat. An appropriate condition is provided. IEasements The following easements and rights-of-way should be provided: I1. Right-of-way for all street improvements. 2 . An additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road. I3. Standard drainage and utility easements. II 4 . Drainage easements over the retention pond and provision of adequate access to the retention pond. I 5. Utility easements over all storm sewer and utility lines running outside of right-of-way. 6. Cross access easements for the common driveway on Lots 1 and I4, Block 1. ICOMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home IArea Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15, 000 100' 125' 30' front/rear 10 ' sides I BLOCK 1 Lot 1 35,420 140' 259 ' N/A 1 Lot 2 32,200 140 ' 232.5' 134 ' front/ 73 ' rear 50'-E63 '-W ILot 3 37,200 215 ' 187.5' Lot 4 49, 050 195 ' 259.5 ' I II II Troendle Addition I October 17, 1990 Page 6 Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback BLOCK 2 Lot 1 15,750 Double Frontage 140' II 120' & 140' Lot 2 15, 000 107 ' 140' I Lot 3 15, 000 107 ' 140 ' Lot 4 15, 000 110' • 130 ' I Lot 5 19, 400 55 ' cul-de-sac 126. 5 ' I90 ' front setback Lot 6 16, 340 55 ' cul-de-sac 155. 5 ' 90 ' front setback I Lot 7 15, 625 55 ' cul-de-sac 148 ' 90' front setback Lot 8 15, 250 125' 129 ' Lot 9 15, 000 107 ' 140 ' II Lot 10 15, 000 107 ' 140 ' Lot 11 16, 940 Double Frontage 150 ' I 95 ' Troendle Way 160' Nez Perce Dr. I Variance Required - Lot 2 , Block 1 contains an existing residence and a garage/barn. The proposed front property line will be located 21.7 feet from the garage/barn. City ordinance requires 30 I feet front yard setbacks. To support a variance, the applicant must show that there is a hardship that is not self-created. In this case, the applicant is creating the hardship and a non- conforming I use which is prohibited by city ordinances. For this reason, staff does not support granting the variance but rather have the garage removed or relocated. ISUMMARY Staff believes that the proposed subdivision is reasonable and II consistent with city plans and ordinances. Our issues with it are relatively minor and can be accommodated through ' appropriate conditions. There is, however, an issue relative to the existing II home and garage on Lot 2 , Block 1. It is our understanding that this home and garage will continue to be utilized for a period of time. This lot currently gets access via a private driveway II II I Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 7 running north to Pleasant View Road, whereas, Lot 2, in the future will have frontage and take direct access from Nez Perce Drive. Additionally, we note that the garage structure would be located ' only 21.7 feet from Nez Perce Drive and thus would become a non- conforming structure as to setback, whereas a 30 foot setback is required. Staff believes that this building should either be ' removed or relocated to an appropriate site so that no variances are required. ' ,PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On October 17, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed the request. The major issue that was brought up at that meeting by the public ' was the additional traffic that will occur on Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce Drive and also the future extension of Nez Perce which would eventually hook up with Peaceful Lane. At the present time, ' Peaceful Lane is a 27 foot wide road. The mouth of Peaceful Lane as it connects with Pleasant View Road is 130 feet. The residents were concerned that introducing additional traffic onto Peaceful Lane could create some safety issues. The property located west to the Troendle plat is currently under the ownership of Art Owens and is not currently proposed for development. Staff gave an overview of the development of access concepts for this area. It was ' explained that the access concept presented by the applicant's architect was inconsistent with the city's approved concept in that it indicated Nez Perce running into Peaceful Lane at a "T" ' intersection which was oriented towards and existing home. It was explained that it was the intent of the city that Nez perce have a rounded curve to the north and that the intersection between Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View would be rebuilt at such time in ' the future as the connection is finally made. It was indicated further that although no final plans have been developed and that staff would work to ensure that the home located west of Peaceful I Lane is provided with a sufficient setback from the new street. { ;ams wo; ; mpt be developed until the Owens parcel is platted. The residents then indicated a desire to see an access to Pleasant View be provided with the development of the Troendle plat, since in their opinion this would off-load traffic from Lake Lucy Road. While this would in fact offer an alternative means of access into the subdivision, staff described why it is not possible to install ' this at this time. It was indicated that site topography makes it inappropriate to make this connection and that while we acknowledge that we can not give a definitive date as to when the connection ' will be made, it is clearly the city's intent as evidenced by the approved concept plans to ultimately make the connection between Nez Perce and Peaceful Lane/Pleasant View. The residents then raised questions regarding the use of Lake Lucy Road as a through ' street. Staff agrees that Lake Lucy Road is being used as a through street but that this is in fact the intended design of this street. Lake Lucy Road was connected as a through street to Nez I Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 8 Perce prior to the construction of the homes in which most the persons present at the meeting reside. The city will attempt to do whatever it can to minimize traffic safety hazards but this is a through street that serves a large neighborhood that otherwise has only one means of access. Lastly, the residents raised concerns with the intersection of Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road. There is a difficult curve with inadequate sight distance in this area. Staff acknowledges that there is a problem with this curve but the city has attempted to remedy this problem in the past and it would be difficult to make a significant change without a large expenditure of funds to acquire property. This curve is well outside of the specific Troendle Plat and is only peripherally related to this request since an increase in traffic will be experienced. Should the residents wish to see this matter pursued, we believe the City Council could direct staff to further investigate this matter but you should be aware that there is likely to be a significant cost attached to any proposed improvements. ' A second issue that was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting was the vacation of right-of-way on Pleasant View Road. The applicant had indicated that they do not wish to give up any additional right-of-way on Pleasant View Road as they do not wish Pleasant View to be widened. It has always been city policy to require right-of-way at the time of subdivision. Staff believes that the right-of-way should be acquired at the present time and should be a condition of approval. We do not anticipate proposing the widening of Pleasant View at any time in the future and recognize that any such widening is likely to be extremely controversial. However, we are aware that traffic levels on this street are already high and are building and will continue to do so, particularly with the opening of County Road 62 to Hwy. 100 in the next few years. We believe that the issue of safety related improvements, if not capacity related improvements, on Pleasant View will ultimately need to be addressed in some way. Therefore, we are recommending that our original proposal for the taking of additional right-of-way along Pleasant View to preserve future options to be approved. ' A third issue was proposed Lot 4, Block 1. Lot 4, Block 1 appeared to be an unbuildable lot. It contains the detention pond for the Troendle Addition. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant ensure it's buildability to the satisfaction of city staff. The applicant reshaped the detention pond by extending the perimeters further to the south and leaving the area to the southeast as a back yard. While the pond has been revised to buffer a larger back yard, there is still some question as to the adequacy of engineering calculations that have been provided by the applicant. In an attached memo, the Asst. City Engineer is indicating that we still require engineering calculations consistent with the current plan to ensure that city standards are • 1 I Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 9 ' complied with. We believe that city standards are in fact being met, however, if upon review of this information, this appears not to be the case, we would again recommend that Lot 4 be eliminated. A fourth issue that was discussed at the meeting was the relocation of the garage/barn and it's setback distance from Nez Perce. The ' applicant requested a temporary variance to the setback requirements. There is no such thing as a temporary variance and the city has never granted one before. There also is no hardship ' to granting a variance in this case. The Planning Commission recommended the following condition: 11. The garage/barn on Lot 2, Block 1 will be removed or ' relocated or the road shall be adjusted so that no variances are required. If it is necessary to remove or relocate the garage or barn, that shall be done prior to ' the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 or when Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property, whichever should occur first. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the 1 gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be removed. Staff maintains it's position of recommending that the garage/barn ' on Lot 2, Block 1 be removed or relocated to an appropriate location so that no variances are required. We do not believe it is possible to effectively administer the Planning Commission's ' condition. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: ' "The City Council approves Subdivision #90-15 for Troendle Addition as shown on the plans dated September 17, 1990, subject to the ' following conditions: 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear ' cutting, except for the house pad and utilities, will not be permitted. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the city with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. ' 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. I I Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 10 4. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- 1 of-way for permanent ownership. 5. The cul-de-sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 60 feet and the street name shall be modified to either Troendle Circle or Troendle Court to eliminate any confusion in applying it as a through street. Final street plans shall be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. 6. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around the ponding area until such time that turf is established. Turf or sod shall be placed behind all curbing. 7. Shared driveway access off of Pleasant View Road for Lots 1 and 4, Block 1 is required and a cross access easement shall be provided. This common section of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet and have a maximum grade of 10%. 8. Provide the following easements and rights-of-way: the drainage and utility easements along the westerly property line of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 2 and the ponding area on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 that are shown on the grading and erosion control plan shall also be shown on the preliminary plat accordingly. the acquisition of a drainage easement through the property immediately west of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 will be required for the discharge of the detention pond. additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road. 9. The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying size and capacity of the storm sewer system and ponding basin. Eight inch sanitary sewer at a minimum rate of 0.4% shall be constructed on this subdivision and service locations for all of the lots on this plat shall be shown for final submittal review. The final plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. , • 10. Park and trail fees shall be required in lieu of parkland dedication. ' 11. The garage/barn on Lot 2, Block 1 will be removed or relocated to an appropriate location so no variances are required. Lot 2, Block 1, shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be removed. Troendle Addition October 17, 1990 Page 11 ' 12. The temporary cul-de-sac should be provided with an easement to accommodate the temporary pavement and be provided with a barricade equipped with a sign indicating the road will be extended in the future. ' 13. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are required to have access from Troendle Way. ' 14. Lot 4, Block 1 appears to be an unbuildable lot. The applicant must either adjust the lot lines or combine the lot with the other 3 lots in Block 1 or in some other way ensure it's buildability to the satisfaction of city staff. " ATTACHMENTS ' 1. City Council minutes dated September 11, 1989. 2. Memo and Update from Asst. City Engineer dated October 12, 1990 and November 15, 1990. ' 3 . Vineland Forest City Council staff report. 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 17, 1990. 5. Letter from Lake Lucy Road neighborhood dated November 11, 1990. ' 6. Letter from Daryl Fortier dated November 12, 1990. 7. Revised configuration for Lot 4, Block 1. 8. Letter to Art Owens dated November 15, 1990 and aerial photos. 9. Aerial photo of Troendle property. 10. Preliminary plat. I I 1 I � • __ • ipairlip • • • '%ri4 i AO . '1"' I 1 . ',' $ , . . ,_ •. • ).01 . PI 4 aisiop 1 Itiri. '4 . - ' t.. • • Ull it OM QM It -41 IL A 4f _J. ..,90,14, IX Y r , . . . , ffli. 'Sir •ti , t ,, ,..!..;;•s iiiiit .,,,, , ... . !„114 • , .. ...,.. . i .. ao, . It 1 • ii 4 ... " City Council Meeting - Stember 11; 1989 II Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to deny the appeal to the decision for a lot area and lot depth variance, 185 Pleasant View Road, Carl McNutt. All voted in favor and the motion carried. IICouncilman Boyt: Mr. Mayor, J would move that we adjourn. iCouncilman Johnson: Second. Mayor Chmiel: I would make that motion that we carry through with the balance of the meeting at our Wednesday budget work session at 6:30. I Councilman Workman: Who are these people? ICouncilman Johnson: Yeah. We do have another group of citizens here too. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Was there someone here who was... IICouncilman Johnson: For another issue. Councilman Boyt: That's a good hour's discussion. IResident: We're here with the Near Mountain discussion. IIMayor_ Chmiel: The PUD amendment? Resident: We're. . .Pleasant View homeowners that have this concern with you II planning to open up that emergency access on Indian Hill and sending more cars down Pleasant View Road again. Mayor Chmiel: Is that the item 14.5? Councilman Johnson: Yes. IMayor Chmiel: I would like to take this at this time but with limited discussions. Directly to the points and then we can go from there. ITorn Sykes: I've looked at this property a number of years, a number of times. Mayor. Chmiel: Would you like to came up to the microphone please? ICouncilman Johnson: Bill, do we want to withdraw our motion and second? Councilman Boyt: I'm willing to go until until 25 after and then I'm leaving. II hope we adjourn before then. Tom Seifert: I'll just make this real quick. We were sitting here with, we came up with the Pleasant View Homeowners group and my name is Tam Seifert, 600 II Pleasant View Road. Our concern was, when we were up here we ran into Peter Pflaum and his group and they said they were on the agenda because you were going to open up or the City staff was requesting that the emergency access that I was platted a number of years back for the Near Mountaan development would be opened back up for some reason and sending more traffic down Indian Hill Road onto Pleasant View Road. Do I have this wrong? II 76 II City Council Meeting - Selrnber 11, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second and you're saving to deny the proposal? Is that correct? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I'm saying that because no matter how-we cut this, the lot will not have sufficient depth so we would be creating a lot that was non- conforming and it doesn't meet the criteria. Mayor. Chmiel: Even if he had that 9 1/2 feet. Councilman Boyt: It still wouldn't make it. ' Mayor Chmiel: It still won't make it but would the City be willing to /give up additional footage on that to make that into a conformance and how many more feet would that take? many Councilman Johnson: Into Pleasant View. 5 feet into the asphalt. Jo Ann Olsen: He has to have 125. Gary Warren: I don't know where the roadway lies at this moment in relation to I the right-of-way line. Councilman Johnson: It says 25 feet. 25 feet from his property line is the asphalt in the drawing and to get 125 foot, he's at 87 foot now so it'd be about to the center of the road. Gary Warren: We'd have to vacate to the center of the road? I Jo Ann Olsen: He's got a 33 foot right-of-way and it comes up to 38 feet. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not going to work. Mayor_ Chmiel: No. I don't think it will unfortunately. Carl McNutt: What kind of houses are we building in Chanhassen..., Councilman Johnson: It's not as much that as it is the state law that requires ' us to how we function on variances. Quite simple the need to subdivide your house is the need for economic profit. You have reasonable use of your land. Carl McNutt: Who came up with this 125 foot depth? You people. it doesn't matter whether we come up here and discuss it. I'm... I don't care particularly. I can see that I'm lost here but it really irks me that we can come up here and have all kinds of discussions like the direction, the Heritage House, the old church was facing down here. We can put our input in. Wb can do all this stuff. Who decides it? You 5 people. I don't like it. Councilman Johnson: How do we 5 people get here? Councilman Boyt: Jay, let's vote on this and get going. Carl McNutt: Maybe you're not of to be here 9 n9 the next time. 11 75 I City Council Meeting - Wtember 11, 1989 rmpt Paul Krause: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to point out that it's probably possible, depending on how much right-of-way the City is willing to bicker with, come up with a lot that meets the area requirement but there's still going to be a lot ' depth variance and that won't go away. Councilman Boyt: That won't make it then. I Mayor Qiniel: O Even if you had that, it would not make any difference to it then? Okay. II Jo Ann Olsen: You'd still have a variance. Mayor Chmiel: You'd still require a variance to what's existing? Jo Ann Olsen: Exactly. Councilman Johnson: And you won't meet the hardship because he's got adequate IIuse of the property as a single family home. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I had a question Jo Ann, or whoever wants to I answer it. If you do then, say that we would allow this just hypothetically, we have 2 non-conforming uses that are now lots of record right? ' Jo Ann Olsen: If you approve the. .. Councilwoman Dimler: If we approve it they become lots of record. Is the buyer of that lot there have to come in for variances? IJo Ann Olsen: No. It's been approved as a lot of record. ICouncilwoman Dimler: So they can build without any variances? Jo Ann Olsen: As long as they can meet all the setbacks. ICouncilman Boyt: They probably could. Well, given the lot depth problem, I would move denial of this variance. I Councilman Johnson: He's existing non-conforming to lot depth at this time? His existing home. He's a legal non-conforming as we discussed earlier. Carl McNutt: All the people along there are too close to the road. Councilman Johnson: So all the lots along Pleasant View are legal non-conforming lots? I don't know whether that makes any difference. The IIdifference is going to be if the legislature passes the new laws on how we decide variances. At this point we're tied by state law. ICouncilman Boyt: Have you got a second? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I'll second that. Mayor Chniel: I'm having discussion here and... Councilman Boyt: You can discuss. We just have a motion on the floor. I 74 City Council Meeting - SeF"*mber 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: As far as his prediction that this was just taken and there was no real records of it being taken. He wasn't paid for it or anything, that it's not a legal right-of-way. Roger Knutson: What is it curb to curb? , Gary Warren: Actually it's 73 feet of right-of-way. Councilman Johnson: This has 73 feet of right-of-way? Gary Warren: Fran this. ..section it looks like it's 73 feet there. Changes immediately west of that to...but there is a little jog there in front of his property that looks like it's 73. Herb Cast: My name is Herb Cast. I live 2 doors east of Curly McNutt and ' that's a real pretty map you've got there but when Pleasant View Road was made, it was a dirt road and the township took 33 feet off the front. of our property. All of our plantings and everything went at that time and that map has been made since then. Probably even a date on it and if you could find the map that when my house was built in 1959, it's going to look a lot different than that. Gary Warren: I'm just saying now on the County records it shows a 73 foot 1 right-of-way. Roger Knutson: It can be established in many ways. One is by use. Under a ' State Statute, if the City or County or whoever, maintains a street for 6 years, plows it and takes care of it, the City owns it by adverse possession but they only own the traveled portion plus the shoulders necessary to maintain it. ' Councilman Johnson: 73 feet's a little wide for that particular road. Councilwoman Dimler: . ..sane back does that make his lot conforming? , Councilman Boyt: No it doesn't. It doesn't have enough. Even then he needs 9 1/2 and he gets 3 1/2 assuming that half of that 73 is on the north side and half of it's on the south side. He gets 3 1/2 and he needs 9 1/2. Councilwoman Dimler: Can we have staff look at that? , Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Councilman Johnson: But on the straight merits of the variance, I think we 1 probably ought to move to deny the variance but... Mayor Chmiel: But before we deny that variance, what I'd like to do is have I staff take a close look at this. Cane up with a conclusion as to what is really needed to be in conformance with that total footage. • Jo Ann Olsen: You mean as far as vacating a portion of the right-of-way? Mayor Chmiel: Right. And determine that and then come back to us with that answer and I think that way we can came up with a conclusion. I 73 i City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 i ' II Councilman Johnson: We got full 66 at this point. Does that go all the way out . to TH 101 is 66 feet? Jo Ann Olsen: I believe so. I Counca 'loran Johnson: That's not mt_ich for front yards for some of the people further up TH 101. IICarl McNutt: All along that place they've all built the same way. Years ago, they're all the same setback. But we mow it anyway...They'11 never need it unless they run a freeway through there. ICouncilman Johnson: I mow the right-of-way in front of my house too. Then when we get to the curb, we drop to 33 feet? IJo Ann Olsen: Which curb is that? II Councilman Johnson: When we get to the curb by Trapper's Pass? The new addition there it drops to 33 feet? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't know exactly where it starts but it gets narrower. . . • ICouncilman Johnson: In general. How many feet off of, the argument seams to be instead of going, do we need 66 feet of right-of-way there and has there been a I calculation done to see how many feet it has to be narrowed in order for him to get to 15,000 standard? ICarl McNutt: 9 1/2 feet. Jo Ann Olsen: We haven't done that calculation. It's not a whole lot when you do the whole length of there. ` ICouncilman Johnson: What he should be first requesting is vacation of part of the street easement in order to get the proper width there. Then that would Isolve the problem. What's the classification of this? Collector? Councilman Boyt: Yes. ICouncilman Johnson: And all collectors have 66 feet? Or most collectors have 66 feet. Sane collectors have 66 feet. Pick one of the three. I Carl McNutt: Can I ask another question? When was this made a collector? I don't think it was ever made a collector. They've added developments all along that for years and especially in the last 5. So it becomes a collector now yeah Ibecause everybody uses it but it's just a little, old country road. Councilman Johnson: For the property owner, if he believes that this right-of-way was taken without any compensation, that's a long time ago. I'm IInot sure what kind of legal recourse he would have. Mayor Chmiel: I don't know. Maybe Roger can address that. Would there be any < IIother recourse? j I 72 I City Council Meeting - Sember 11, 1989 11 realize I was buying a substandard lot. It's not deep enough. At that time it was real big. I want to approach this from two directions. First, it's 55 feet from my house to the edge of the blacktop. It makes me a nice lawn out front. In fact it's, well there's 55 feet all the way down from well it would be about 25 feet from the legal edge of the road, what they own to the edge of the blacktop. Now I've mowed that. Kept it like a park if anyone's gone along there for 35 years but .then I want to go back, way back in history to when I bought that house. It was the first one built on the Olest Johnson development and at that time it was a township. In the County Courthouse, that road was only 2 rods wide. 1 rod on my side and 1 rod on the Kenny Kerber's side. He owned a farm where the Near Mountain development is now. Bud Cask can attest to that fact that none of our abstracts said that the township owned 2 rods or a 4 rod road. 2 rods on each side. We petitioned after, I think it was 1954, we petitioned the town board to have that road dustproofed somehow. Well they hashed that around for a while and decided that they needed another rod from us and a rod on the north side from the farmer, all along there. So we were hashing this, deciding whether we should give an easement for another rod or not and the farmer, Kenny Kerber who now lives in Arizona or Texas, somewhere, offered to sell us all an extra rod on his side. 2 rods so it wouldn't interfere with our property at all. While we were debating this, old John Kerber who was the Chairman of the Town Board at that time, somehow conveniently, this went on for quite a few months didn't it Bud? Maybe 6 ' months. Conveniently Mr. Kerber found in the deceased town auditor or treasurer or whatever they had, township auditor, found an article that said this had been eased many years ago. Well we don't know how many years ago. It wasn't in the Carver County courthouse and we don't know. Olest Johnson, the man who originally owned that is dead. I can't check with him. I was going to have Al Klingelhutz, the former Mayor, come and talk. This kind of snuck up on me. I wanted to get a letter from Kenny Kerber and attest to that fact but I think 1 it's unfair that things have caught up. If I had known this was going to happen, I would have built a house on that piece of property myself 10 years ago and got out of all this hassle. But events have caught up with me now and really if you people would come look at that property, if someone couldn't build a big house there and have a fine piece of grass out in front to mow and 30 feet in back, they'd be over 100 feet from the nearest neighbor which is way farther than all of the developments around there. Directly south of me they put 5 pieces of property on 1 acre of land. Now that's not 15,000 square feet per. That's within the last 5 years. The front of those lots there's 30 feet wide. The backs are 250. My piece of property would be a nice rectangular spot. Easy to build on and everything. Would need a little bit of fill probably. y Otherwise all it's good for is to look at and for me to mow and I'm getting tired of it. Thank you. Mayor C oriel: Thank you. Any questions? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Jo Ann or Paul or Sharmin. How wide is the ' right-of-wa_y there? Total right-of-way from Pleasant View. Carl McNutt: There's 66 feet on my end and right around the corner it goes down to 33. • Jo Ann Olsen: We've got the full right-of-way at that point. 11 71 1 1 City Council Meeting - 40Rtembet 11, 1989 r Councilman Johnson: A lot of people walk that. It is a good, I've seen quite a - few people walking that area. ' Mayor_ Chmiel: Yes they do. Councilman Johnson: It's a good candidate for sidewalk to the park even though. Councilman Boyt: It's not the consistent best option. I guess it's the best one but it's not that it's necessarily... ' Mayor Chmiel: It's the most viable option. Okay. We have a motion of item 3A. Councilman Boyt: 3. IICouncilman Johnson: Item 12, Alternate 3. I'll move that the City Council voices it's preference to using Alternate 3 as the access alternate for Vineland subdivision. Vineland Forest plat. ICouncilman Boyt: I'll second that if you'll accept that we also direct the City Attorney to investigate the best way to see this pursued to the west. We should have that. Councilman Johnson: Yes. No P roblem. IICouncilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the concept plan for Vineland Forest Addition using Alternate 3 as the access alternative and r directing the City Attorney to investigate the best access route to the west. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ' Chuck Van Eeckhout: One question. What is the correct procedure at this point? We have a preliminary plat...We take it you will approve a preliminary plat. . . next time? IIJo Ann Olsen: Normally we would go back to the Planning Commission but the Planning Commission essentially gave. ..configuration to the Council so I think rwe could just bring it back to the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, bring it back to the Council. • APPEAL DECISION FOR A LOT AREA AND LOT DEPTH VARIANCE, 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, CARL MCNUTT. rCarl McNutt: Carl McNutt. Curly McNutt everyone knows me by. Mr. Mayor. Councilpersons. I want you to put out of your mind if you can same of these Imathematical figures that have made my lot almost worthless. I have the longest piece of property from between TH 101 and the curve on Pleasant View Road. It's 315 feet long but do you have a transparency for that Jo Ann? Okay. The legal description says my property is 120 feet x 315. However, the road owns 2 rods Iof that on my side now which makes it only 87 feet deep. Consequently leaving me 1,300 square feet short on one piece of property if I divide it. A little less than that. In other words, when I bought this property in 1952, I didn't r 70 II . City .Council Meeting - Sei fiber 11, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to address that? Arthui Owens: There's no way I can develop it now so it will expire. Councilman Johnson: Then have you looked at Alternate 3 and Alternate 2 that ' affect your property? I'd like to hear from you on those. Arthur Owens: 3A would be the most effective. ..I think for all the properties. ' Councilman Johnson: That's good. 2 out of 3 landowners in agreement. That's better than usual. Councilman Boyt: Well it's the same concept. How you divide the lots up. Mayor. Chmiel: Any further discussion? If not, thanks Chuck. Can I have a ' motion? Councilman Boyt: I'm not exactly sure how we would word it. Does anybody got ideas that would convey that we, I think if the rest of you agree, that the S curvature with one entrance being off Lake Lucy Road and the other Peaceful Lane, and I think that the developer should come back to us with a specific lot layout. Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Definitely. Councilman Johnson: I think the motion would be that the City Council prefers the Alternate 3 type of option would be the motion. Councilman Workman: With, I guess the discussion Jay. I'm not excited about a right only turn and I don't know if we're fully taking into account that park and everything else down there but I have... Councilman Johnson: That's true. Those people will be served by that park and to get to it you'd have to do Nez Perce. Very good point. I missed that completely. " I Councilman Boyt: I'm not a right only fan there either. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Well when it was a straight through. With Alternate 1 3 being as crooked as it is, it no longer looks like a short cut. I live next door to a short cut. Most everybody here has probably taken Santa Vera at one time. You haven't? Councilman Boyt: It's not short there. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not a short cut to me. Councilman Workman: I guess it's going to be our next Carver Beach Road. Nez Perce coming down here is going to be the next one because I think it grades down doesn't it a little bit? It does one of these. It's thin and it's going to be the next place where people are going to be screaming for patrols and the park and sidewalk and everything else. It's definitely going to be a chute going down there. r 69 City Council Meeting - Politember 11, 1989 1 Councilman Johnson: Does one of those exit out on Pleasant View then? That top ' green one then? II Frank Beddor: Yes. There would be a driveway here to go into this one and this would probably be 2 lots with a driveway caning in serving 2 lots that is not sketched in. One of the things that we did object to in Plan 2 and some of the other plans, they had a lot of lots along Pleasant View Road, a half a dozen 1 that would all be separate driveways coming out onto them and we did not want a lot of separate driveways caning out. I don't think the City wants that either. That doesn't help so again I want to thank the stafff or working on this and 1 getting this worked out. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address this? 1 Chuck Van Eeckhout: My name is Chuck Van Eeckhout. I'm the developer of this proposal. My proposal, which is still before you is as it has been since May or whenever I first brought it to the Planning Commission. I still believe that II represents the best use of this property after considerable study and evaluation. The proposal that was put forward by the Homeowners Association is acceptable to me if that is what the Council would like to do. It has the I negative of being a little bit more disruptive on the south end with regard to the wooded area and it does leave us in kind of a limbo on that strip going north to Pleasant View which is okay. I'll deal with that either as an outlot or will approach maybe 2 lots from the south and 1 from the north or 2 from the 1 north and 1 from the south or something like that which is workable. I have no further comments. I'll be happy to answer any questions. IIMayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Councilman Johnson: What about my, do you understand what I was saying about the access off of Nez Perce and making that to where if you coming down out of 1 that, even on Option 3, if you're coming down out of your subdivision, that it's a right turn only versus going onto Nez Perce? So we're using a full standard city street, Lake Lucy Road instead of Nez Perce. Does that give you much IIproblem? Chuck Van Eeckhout: Not at all. IIMayor Chmiel: Okay. Any further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I've got one comment. I think that what I would really 1 be committing to here would be some sort of, call it the S plan if you want but something that would come off of Lake Lucy Road and end up on what we're calling Peaceful Lane and how the lots are configured in there is a whole different 1 topic. Whether the staff or whether the proposal we just saw is better, I have no idea but I think it gives us a lot of what we want. Unfortunately it's not all at one time and that's a serious drawback so I'd like to see Roger directed 1 to come up with the strongest assureties that the City could have that we could put into place to assure us that this road will eventually continue on to the west. .. I 1 Councilman Johnson: When in October, or Mr. Owens is here isn't he? Is he going to let that expire? 1 68 1 City Council meeting - Sek_omber 11, 1989 obviously we are not in favor of any more traffic on Pleasant View. Then on this report I read the initials ADT, average daily traffic and I believe staff is reporting that there were 360 to 1,300 cars a day going by this area of Vineland development. I understand that a local road is supposed to carry about 1,000 cars and a collector carries more. Well this is a local road so we're already at some point in time, 300 cars over on Pleasant View Road so we are very much against any more traffic on Pleasant View. On the plats, which you've already gone through, we really recommend Alternate 3 and when I picked up this material last Friday, I realized that this was a rough sketch. It needed to be fine tuned and the first thing we noticed was that in the property that the developer's bought, he wanted 18 lots and then 3 off Pleasant View. Well the way it shows now it's only 15 lots so we had Daryl Fortier take this same plat 3 and refine this a little bit so it does came out with 18 lots. At the last meeting we were here both Chuck agreed I believe and also the Pleasant View that we do not want a thru street. You still agree to that don't you Chuck? You don't want a thru street? We had such a long wait tonight that we had a lot of time to talk and we know this needs a little bit more work but I don't really think we should have to hold the developer up if he agrees to number 3 and getting the other owners position. I would think that in the future if anybody wanted to develop this property they would have to conform if this road is dedicated to whatever the City plans would be. There is one disadvantage to this route and that is that it's going to be an imposition on the position that live here and here. That's going to put a lot of traffic at same future date there. While we were waiting I was talking to Daryl and maybe we could leave this way but maybe it's possible to take the end of this cul-de=sac and this is very steep right here but you can come at an angle like this and go over and cane back down so maybe you could have another access here. You'd have this access which would relieve part of the traffic this way. You'd have this access and also the one we're proposing. I asked Chuck tonight before we started. i said would you oppose this plan or if the Council accepted this plan, would you accept it? It's my understanding that Chuck said he was not opposed to this plan which is, I'll call it 3A so we would hope that the Council tonight would vote on this plan and accept this plan with a temporary cul-de-sac here so the developer could go about his business and develop the rest the property. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Councilman Boyt: i have a question for you. What's the difference between the City's 3 and your 3A? ' Frank Beddor: Very little. It's just that we redid the lots so we came out with 18 lots instead of 15. See when the City did it, they were doing it and they were under pressure and they were concerned about the roads but obviously the developer doesn't want to lose 3 lots and he had developed his for 18 so Daryl Fortier developed this so it would cane out to 18 lots in that area. Not counting the 3 that go up here. Councilwoman Dimler: I assume all' those lots are standard? You don't know? Frank Beddor: We just got this late Friday night and Daryl worked on this this afternoon but Daryl, are these all standard size lots? 15,000 square feet? Daryl Fortier: They're all in compliance with the City ordinance for depth and ' width as well as the square footage. 67 40. City Council Meeting - member_ 11, 1989 1 Mayor Chmiel: Did he have any objections to the proposal? Dave Hempel: Not to my recollection, no. • Frank Beddor: Now that I'm up here can I? IIMayor Chmiel: Frank, go ahead. II Frank Beddor: First of all I'd like to thank you Mr. Mayor and the council people for giving us the time to look at this challenge. We really appreciate the time and I'd also like to thank staff because they worked very hard in I giving some alternatives. Maybe that's the first time I've seen this happen in all the years I've been here where staff came up with same alternatives so we didn't have to start from scratch so I really appreciate that. And Don, maybe you would thank the Chanhassen patrolman who was parking on Pleasant View Road I to try to enforce the speed limit. Last Friday night I drove over and he was parked there and he was parked there so it was kind of a reverse situation. I pulled over. Got out of my car. When over and introduced myself and I thanked ' him. His name was Don, for being there. Usually that's the other way around. Usually they're stopping me but I wanted to thank you. And I also want to thank Chuck, the developer, for being very patient and working with us on this. The issue really, as we're talking about Pleasant View Road, is safety is the main issue and let me just show you a couple of pointers on that. This is our driveway on Pleasant View Road and we, because of the safety and the traffic, we are moving our driveway about 60 feet to the west so that we can see when we II come out both ways and also the people can see us when we pull up. Now we're having to tear up this driveway, tear out all the electrical and then we're going to have to bulldoze a new driveway. This is Joe Trundle's, driveway thru ' this area and hedge because it is a safety problem. People come up that road. It's wide and so they come up fast and they don't realize it narrows down a little later so safety is a real issue. This is the developer's property directly across the road fran, we call it the farmhouse. This is a borderline ' and this is where the proposed road was set to go was right here. This house sets 30 feet from the road and this driveway comes right out so all those headlights are going to hit the front door and the living room coming out on the Ioriginal proposal. When I read the staff report, they said there are 10 trips • per day per household so with 21 houses, that'd be 210 trips a day. Now I don't know how many of those are at night but somebody who lives there is going to Ihave a nervous breakdown with all those headlights coming out right smack into their front roan. And it's so ,close to the road and the way the ground is set, I think it'd be hard to diffuse that. It could be done but I think that would be very hard. Marilyn and I drove this area from 2 or 3 times on Nez Perce ' Drive and we clocked it from the southerly access that we could like to see down to Kerber and that's 5/10th's of a mile and that road, as you say Jay, is the same as Pleasant. It might look a little narrower but there's one bad turn and Ithat's where Western Road canes in. Than we went back and clocked it fran the proposed entranceway on Pleasant View and we went to TH 101. Now we only went as far to Pleasant View in that direction to where the road opened up nice and ' wide. And the first 5/10ths of a mile there are 6 tight turns. Either they're • tight S turns or blind turns. In that mile stretch there are 11 turns so it's a lot more serious for traffic going down Pleasant View I think, and this is my opinion, than the same amount of traffic caning down Nez Perce road to Kerber. IINow I never go that way so I had to drive it 2 or 3 times to check it to see so • 66 City Council Meeting - . r i1, 1989 eis Councilman Johnson: Near Mountain. But see the signs never, went up there. I That was the problem. When you build the road and day one on the road you have a sign saying right turn only. At Near Mountain, 3 years later we put up the right turn only sign. Or left turn only sign. That didn't work after you had 3 years of people making right hand turns to came in and do it If on day one you put up the sign, you're not going to get as much problem. But without that, I won't be in favor of any connection to Nez Perce. Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? 11 Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Jay I guess. What you're saying is that I the right turn only is for people caning out of Vineland? Councilman Johnson: Right. Going south. So they have to go down Lake Lucy Road down to Powers. Councilman Boyt: ...Option 3. It has a lot of drawbacks. I agree with Paul and we have not shown that we're very successful in making these future road hook-ups. We keep trying to put in systems that guarantee that everybody knows the road's going thru but I'm confident that the people who are living there will fight that diligently when the day canes to put it through. I think if we go with 3, the developer of Vineland has got to give us sane sort of assurance that the other property owners agree that that's a reasonable connection. Gary had talked about one way to assure that is to cane up with a, what did you call it Gary? Some kind of a comprehensive road plan or something? Gary Warren: Well similar to what we did on the Stratford Ridge. We did a concept layout here. We didn't take that any further but what I suggested or my comment would be that the concept could be recorded against the properties, remaining properties out there but at least you've got it on record. Maybe it •could be done as part of a comprehensive plan for this particular area. ' Councilman Johnson: Are the property owners of this center property, were they involved in any of this discussion or have they been talked to at all? 1 Frank Beddor: Frank Beddor at 910 Pleasant View Road. Do you want me to answer that question first? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Frank Beddor: Joel Trundle owns the property right down the middle. .Ice's lived ' there, he's 80 years old. His parent's lived there and he's lived there all his life and at this current time he's not interested in selling. As of today anyway, or developing so that's the status as much as I know on who owns the property. The property next to it is Art Owens and he's here tonight. The property next to it. Councilman Johnson: Did staff talk to Mr. Trundle? ' Dave Hempel: Jay, Joe did cane in quite sane time ago and spoke with me about it and he did express that he had no desire to sell or subdivide at this time. , Councilman Johnson: Right. But we're still talking the future here. 65 i IICity Council Meeting - E :.ember 11, 1989 +II r somebody walking. If another car comes by, it gets difficult. You take Option 4, making that straight of a route through there, I personally would rather encourage people to go on out to Powers out of these neighborhoods. I think I that the neighborhood needs a back door. Every neighborhood needs a back door for public safety purposes. Sometimes you may not be able to get in from Pleasant View so I can't see everything coming off of Pleasant View but I'd hate I to encourage increased traffic on Nez Perce. That is even worse than Pleasant View as far as I'm concerned. Especially since your trees overhang it. It's not like, Pleasant View there's some areas where the trees. Pleasant View just I seems wider even though pavement wise Pleasant View is probably the same width of pavement but because of the vegetation and everything on Nez Perce, Nez Perce just seems narrower. I really have a problem with 4. Not as bad of a problem with 2 or 3. If we could do 4 to where caning south. That's 3 up there but II even 3. Coming south it was a right turn only so it doesn't become a short cut to come from Pleasant View and into Carver Beach area so down here at the intersection of Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. If you're coming south it's a right I turn only and going north on Nez Perce, you could leave it to where you have one lane. You've got enough room in there to make an intersection that functions that way. 4b where you have a one lane to the right both ways. IIDave Hempel: Not intersect Jay. We just proposed like a T intersection I guess. That represents road right-of-way. 1 Councilman Johnson: Right. That's what I mean. You've got enough road right-of-way there to bring, instead of a T intersection, to have a single lane that's oriented to where you have to turn right. I want to say right turn only 1 so we're not getting people coming off of Pleasant View. Cutting through this neighborhood and then running through Nez Perce to go to the grade school or come to City Hall which is not what we want to encourage people to do is to go through residential areas as short cuts. We want them to use the arterials and IIthe collectors and all that stuff rather than the residential streets especially one like Nez Perce and Pleasant View. If we're going to do that, I would want to see that people coming out of that and going south are forced to go over IIto Powers instead of cutting through. It certainly isn't the straightest way. Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, do you have an alternate, which one are you il proposing? Mayor CTniel: He said 2 or 3. • 1 Councilman Johnson: Yes, 2 or 3 but if 4 is decided on, I want some modifications on 4 so southbound's right turn only. In fact on 3 I would even.. . ICouncilman Boyt: It's awfully hard to enforce that right turn only stop. ilCouncilman Johnson: It is. But with street design, you make it difficult to make the left turn. Councilman Boyt: Well you know that doesn't work. IICouncilman Johnson: Pleasant View? IICouncilman Boyt: That's right. 64 II City Council Meeting - Sember 11, 1989 Y ' • going. I Paul Krause: Okay. The second alternative we looked at was a variation of the theme that was presented by an architect working for the homeowners association where they illustrated two cul-de-sacs. One coming in from Pleasant View. The other coming in from Nez Perce. We took that design and tried to modify it again. Enlarging it to serve adjoining properties. What we did is we took the southern cul-de-sac and extended it back through back again to Peaceful Hills. This goes a lot further to providing that north/south routing. We see two problems with it though and the first is that this routing is very convoluted. You've basically got a switch back road design in here, which the more , complicated you make this, the less likely it is that people are going. to use it. The second issue, and this will come into play a little later, is that the completion of this loop is contingent up on the decisions of two other property owners to develop. Now, we can and will continue. In the past we have. We would continue to advocate stub rights-of-way being dedicated so we can extend roads in the future and we'll often push for those things but they're always difficult issues to resolve. Neighborhoods always object and no matter what you do, it's a difficult problem. So while we think this is a step in the right direction, we don't think it's the ideal one. In alternative 3 we basically tried to start with a clean sheet of paper. We took the Nez Perce connection and assumed that the Peaceful Hills plat was voided out or was replatted and what we tried to do is come up with a straighter shot through the neighborhood. Now, one of the advantages to exiting on the north side to Peaceful Lane is that you're quite close to Powers Blvd.. Father than further to the east and we think the closer you orient people to Powers Blvd. the more likely they will be to exit the neighborhood that way rather than shoot back down to the east. So this is an option that we felt had some merit. The final one is basically the one that was presented at the first meeting illustrating the staff proposed access to the south. The original plat is still over here. We just popped that road through. At the last meeting there were some questions as to whether or not Nez Perce was a legitimate connection in terms of grade. Whether or not we could make that grade. Dave did quite a bit of work on that and refined the grading plans to the point where we're comfortable that a good safe street can be built through there and provide that connection. We think this plan has some merits and it has some problems. The meritorious aspect of it for us is that it provides that north/south connection in a very centrally located point between Powers and the lake so we think the utility is there. The second aspect of it is that it can be built Immediately. All the land is under the control of one property owner. The down side of this is that it introduces the traffic onto Pleasant View fairly far to the east and does have that factor, potentially encouraging more traffic to use that street to exit the neighborhood. At the last meeting we recommended that this alternative be selected. We're continuing to recommend that it be selected for the two reasons. That it can be built today and that it's appropriately located but we do acknowledge that problem. Our recommendation further though is that if this -alternative is not acceptable to the Council, that you look at alternative 3 since it meets most of those criteria that we had established for the design and is generally successful in that. With that if there are questions. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say that you haven't addressed Nez Perce yet. You drive Nez Perce and you're saying this is almost a one lane road in the first place. If anybody's walking in there, like they were the other evening when I drove it, it is a one lane road. You've got room for one car and • 63 IICity Council Meeting - ibtember 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I thought they recommended 4? IIPaul Krause: We recommended 4 with a series... Councilman Workman: I thought 4 with the pass thru was not a real exciting option. • Councilman Johnson: Paul, before you go on. The little stub caning off of Lake Lucy on the west side by the water tower there. That wasn't considered in any IIoptions. What's the problem there? Driving by it and looking in there, it doesn't seem to be too bad of topography in the first couple hundred feet looking north at that point. Is there something that runs into a problem later? 1 I know the current Peaceful Hill plat but if that expires next month, which is again an if, which is a huge 2 letter word. But if it does expire, then would that be a viable second entrance? IIPaul Krause: Theoretically yes. I should say that we're showing you 4 concepts. Dave and I generated a lot more than that and the waste basket is full of them. There's a lot of different ways of serving this but there is same II difficult grade there. It's probably something that could be accommodated. One of the primary concerns we had with that is when you look at the bigger picture. ICouncilman Boyt: Excuse me Paul but if you don't have the microphone, nobody's hearing you out there. IIPaul Krause: one of the concerns we had is that if you're looking at the bigger picture of how to provide access to the larger neighborhood, we're concerned that there's no means of a north/south connection between Powers and the lake. II If you orient that connection at that point there, you're basically serving the area just within throwing distance of Powers Blvd. and that it would be more advantageous to centrally locate this in terms of promoting that north/south movement. Again, we think it's a connection that is potentially viable from a grading standpoint. We just didn't feel it warranted a lot more consideration at this point after seeing how the whole area functioned. IICouncilman Johnson: So you're saying that you're trying to get a north/south connection up to a road that we don't really want people going on that much? IIPaul Krause: That's true but what that also does is it helps to bleed off some of this traffic to the south. Right now the way the original plat was proposed and presumably the way individual property owners would choose to develop their property in the future, all of that traffic's going to be introduced onto Pleasant View. The north/south routing allows for another option. Yes, it does have potential of introducing more traffic one way or the other but we think IIit's generally a benefit to provide two legitimate ways in and out of an area that's going to have that many hares. There's also questions of emergency vehicle access. That's our public safety folks that also stress that we try to get that southern access. Again, routing all the traffic back up to the north IIdoesn't resolve that question for them. Councilman Johnson: The southern access, to get two accesses, that one would also work. Gets you the second access without making it a drive thru. Keep 62 1 City Council Meeting - Seanber 11, 1989 4 APPROVE CONCEPT PLAN FOR VINELAND FOREST ADDITION. I Paul Krause: At the last City Council meeting there was discussion on the Vineland Forest plat and at that time, access was a primary issue that surfaced and staff was asked to prepare access concepts to look at how best to serve this plat and adjoining properties. In view of the hour I guess I can cut to the chase but there was a lot of background investigation that went into this in terms of creating a study area and reviewing existing plats that had been 1 approved in this area. There was one in particular to the west side of the study area that has been approved. It has been final approved. It has not been filed and it's due to expire in October. We looked at the variety of ways of serving this area. All the road stubs. The undeveloped rights-of-way. Bordering roads. Whatever and tried to define which of those were feasible. We then tried to develop which sort of issues we were encountering in this area in terms of what sort of goals we would have for the access system. We wanted an access that provided ideally same thru movement on the north/south orientation through the area. Public Safety's requested that and we feel that there's going to be a considerable number of homes eventually in this area and that it was • warranted to provide a north and a south outlet. We're aware of the access and traffic concerns on Pleasant View. Sane information the City developed in terms of traffic on this street as it exists today verifies that it is carrying a considerable amount of traffic so providing another means of outletting that neighborhood becomes a concern. We basically wound up with 4 alternative concept plans. Alternative 1 is basically the original plat as recommended or proposed by the developer. What we did is we tried to take a reasonable extension of that. ..how that could serve the remaining undeveloped ground in the area. One thing we want everybody to note though is that the orignal Vineland plat showed two stub rights-of-way oriented to the west. The southern one we think works fine from the grading standpoint but as we got into this, the northern one causes a problem because the only way to build it is to take out the house on the adjoining property which is something we were concerned about. We thought it was presumptuous of us to get into that at this point and assume that that's going to be the case. It's our belief that that's not really an effective means of providing service...recorrmen ding the position of caning up with something that would lead people to believe that would provide service in the future so we're recommending through all four options that this connection here be eliminated for that reason. Again, this is the original plat. If you basically take that off, you've got the original plat. We show serving the adjoining properties with a street connection that would cane through the Peaceful Hills plat. That is a stub right-of-way that had been provided coming back out from Peaceful Lane back up to Pleasant View. The proposal has some merit in terms of serving internally generated trips. The major problem as we see it though is all the traffic winds up on Pleasant View. It doesn't provide us any means of ingress and egress to the south. We feel the long term is rather short sighted. Again, all these trips... We have not done an indepth traffic study. We don't have that capability in house to figure out where these cars are going to go once they're out here but the more traffic you have on Pleasant View...it's reasonable to assume that the percentage of that is going to travel east... Councilman Johnson: Before you move on Paul. Councilman Workman: I was going to say. Could it be assumed that we're down to Alternate 2 or 3? 61 ATTACH. # 1 City Council Meeting - Srle„ber 11, 1989 r I Councilman Boyt: I don't think that was one of the... Councilman Johnson: I think it's as an emergency access. Not as a street. Mayor Chmiel: Strictly as an emergency. ' Linda Kramer: I'm Linda Kramer and I live on Indian Hill Road and I have a real interest in this because 10 years ago when it was discussed as an emergency entrance, it was going to be something with an arm or some kind of device so cars were not using the road and I am very concerned tonight hearing that the ' City is proposing having traffic from Near Mountain go down Indian Hill Road which, have any of you been on Indian Hill Road? ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Linda Kramer: Okay. The grade is twice as steep as your city standard for a road and at the bottom on the hill is a sharp 90 degree curve with no sight ' distance whatsoever and it would be a very, very poor road to have any traffic using at all so I would propose same kind of arm or something where emergency vehicles could use it but cars could not get through. Mayor Chmiel: I think that's basically the intent as to the use on that. Councilman Workman: I'm not sure where that road is. Can you show me on a map? Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, do you have a map to show Tam? ' Councilman Boyt: We have a tap right here. Councilman Johnson: It's on the front of your thing. See that one that says Iroquois? Councilman Workman: Yes. IICouncilman Johnson: That's Indian Hill Road. Councilwoman Dimler: Does that makes sense? It says Iroquois but it's Indian Hill. Councilman Johnson: Iroquois' a type of indian. ' Gary Warren: They changed... Mayor Chmiel: Do you have it? Basically, Jo Ann would you clarify that? Jo Ann Olsen: Let me clarify that. That was in a condition that still got carried over and it should have been removed but staff had originally shown the I • plans and specs which show a second street access through Outlot C but the Planning Commission agreed that it should just be only as a secondary, emergency access and that's what we have to work on the plans and specs to follow that ' through. 77 I City Council Meeting - 1 )tember 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I thought the emergency access was up on Trapper's Pass. It Outlot A up there? Jo Ann Olsen: That's just going to be a trail. That's not going to be. Maybe ' I'm getting them confused. Mike Pflaum: I could perhaps clarify a couple of questions that we had and do it in 30 seconds hopefully and get out of your way. My name is Mike Pflaum. I'm with Lundgren Bros. Construction. With me here tonight are Rick Sathre, the consulting engineer for the project and Peter Pflaum, my brother, the President of Lundgren Bros.. Iroquois Lane issue has already been brought up. The only m reason that we were concerned, as also has bee explained, the recommendation of the Planning Commission was different from the recommendation that was shown in the report for the recommended City Council action and that was just I guess an error. There are two other issues that were of concern to us. One relates to park and the general consensus of the Park Commission, the Planning Commission and the interested neighbors was that it would be desireable for the City to acquire park in the area of the property that is shown as Lot 7 and 8. We were not overjoyed by this but we can understand the benefits of it. The two points I'd like to make are first, there was an error at the Parks Commission level as to what 10% of the property equated to. 10% of the property equates to 3.9 acres, not 4.5 acres and it just so happens, coincidentally that Lot 7 and 8 and the trail outlots combined equal 3.9 acres which is a happy coincidence. Our desires, if they would be heard regarding park is that it be strictly a passive nature observation type use. It's on Silver Lake and that does present great opportunity for that. We would hope that the City would accept deed restrictions prohibiting public access, public boat access or the development of the site into something other than a passive use. We and the people who live in close proximity to the park area, the future proposed park area, are very concerned that it not turn into an active recreational use. The other issue was one that we have visited before and that is sidewalks. In the subdivision that we were proposing on the top of the mountain, the Parks Commission recommended the construction of a sidewalk, 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on the street that loops the top of the hill. There are no other sidewalks anywhere in Near ' Mountain. This issue was raised just a year ago with the addition of Trapper's Pass 3rd at a preliminary stage. The City Council at that time felt that sidewalks were not necessary there because of it's inclusion as part of the Near Mountain project. We feel it's unnecessary here also and just as a point of fact, the Parks Commission, when they made their recommendation. I was at the meeting. There was a split vote. The vote in favor of their recommendation was 4 to 3. The 3 people that voted against the recommendation voted against the recommendation because they were not in favor of a concrete trail around the hilltop. The Planning Commission chose to remain silent on this question because they did not feel it was appropriate for the Planning Commission to be second guessing the motives of another advisory body. We would like to see the concrete trail go away and we'd like to see the connecting trails from Trapper's Pass below on the one side and down to Pleasant View Lane on the other. Either woodchips, crushed rock or bituminous. What I heard earlier tonight and what I seemed to have read in the report is that bituminous is the staff's recarmendation. I guess woodchips would be our recommendation. Beyond that, I'll be more than happy and Rick Sathre would be more than happy and Peter would 11 be more than happy to answer any questions you may have regarding our proposal. We are naming this project the summit at Near Mountain. We feel it will be a tremendous asset to the community and a real showcase development. Thank you. 1 78 11 City Council Meeting - Se4 )tuber 11, 1989 11 Councilman Johnson: The real issue tonight is whether it 9 should stay the way it used to be and we don't need to get into that tonight. Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Boyt: I would move that we adjourn. Councilman Johnson: I second. ' Councilman Workman: We don't need to approve the amendment or anything? Councilman Boyt: What this? Councilman Workman: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Do you want to be here until 1:30? I can assume you we will be. Mayor Chmiel :: No. Councilman Johnson: There's a lot of discussion to go along whether we approve this amendment or not. Mayor Chmiel : There's a motion on the floor with a second for adjournment to be carried over until Wednesday of this week at 6:30 here in the Council chambers with the balance of our budget work session. At 6:30 p.m.. ' Councilman Johnson: When was our budget work scheduled for? Mayor Chmiel: 6:30. • Linda Kramer: I have a question. Is there going to be more discussion of the ' Indian Hill? Mayor Chmiel : Yes. Linda Kramer: Cn Wednesday night? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. As far as Indian Hill is concerned, it's just going to be ' used as emergency access period. So if you'd like to came back to listen to the balance of what the presenter has, you're more than welcome. We'd love to see you. ' Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann? So item 14 was not... ' Jo Ann Olsen: It should have been taken out. Councilman Johnson: Should have been deleted. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth, City Mananger Prepared by Mann Opheim 79 AU► C I CITY OF k. , CHANHASSEN f 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900-• FAX (612) 937-5739 I MEMORANDUM I TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer / � I DATE: October 12 , 1990 ff..//�� SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Troendle Addition I 90-28 LUR This site is comprised of 8 . 7 acres of rolling terrain located I south of Pleasant View Road west of Vineland Forest Addition and north of Carver Beach Estates . I Sanitary Sewer 1 Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site from the Vineland Forest Addition to the east. The sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended from the connection point on Nez I Perce Drive to approximately 175 feet west at the intersection with the proposed Troendle Way then extended south through Troendle Way. I The proposed sanitary sewer system will provide service to the majority of the lots in this subdivision with the exception of I Lots 1 and 4 , Block 1 . Lots 1 and 4 will need to cut into Pleasant View Road to make the needed sanitary service connection. It should also be noted that all of the sanitary sewer shall be 8-inch and have a minimum grade of 0 .4%. I Applicant shall provide detail plan and profiles of the sanitary sewer for final review and approval by the city engineer. I Watermain The plans submitted propose to connect to the existing watermain I stub on Nez Perce Drive and extend to the west including a lateral service to the south for Troendle Way. It is anticipated that future extension of the watermain on Nez Perce will connect I into the existing watermain on Peaceful Lane. I ATTACH. #1 11 (41 Sharmin Al-Jaff 1 October 12 , 1990 Page 2 ' Eight-inch size watermain will be required on Nez Perce Drive. Applicant shall submit detail plans for the watermain for final review and approval by the city engineer. The fire marshal shall verify adequate hydrant location and spacing. ' Streets The plans submitted propose a standard urban city street of 31 feet wide back-of-curb to back-of-curb within a 50 foot right-of-way for both Nez Perce Drive and Troendle Way. The radius of the right-of-way for the cul-de-sac on Troendle Way is proposed to be 50 feet. • - rrent . .. . d radius of righ.tmol_rw.ayfor an urban, ul-de-sac.. is_ 60___feet, thus, the ' applicant shall make the noted change. Construction of a temporary cul-de-sac will be required at the ' west end of Nez Perce Drive. This cul-de-sac will require temporary barricading with signage noting it as a future road extension. This temporary cul-de-sac may also require a ' temporary easement, pending the final design layout, which will be vacated with the future road extension. ' This plan submitted is not totally consistent with the previously approved concept plan (see attachment) which displayed an additional cul-de-sac north of Nez Perce Drive. The need for this cul-de-sac has been somewhat eliminated by the proposed plan which displays a four-large lot layout. Currently, Lot 2 , Block 1 has a private driveway access from ' Pleasant View Road. It is recommended that this driveway be eliminated and access be changed to Nez Perce Drive. Lot 3 , Block 1 will also have driveway access off of Nez Perce Drive, however, actual driveway access locations should be clearly shown on the final submittal. By necessity, Lots 1 and 4 , Block 1 will have access to Pleasant View Road. In an effort to minimize the number of driveways on this well traveled road, it is recommended that a shared driveway be constructed and this shall be located to maximize sight distance and reduce safety problems with a corresponding cross-easement as necessary. Grading and Drainage 9 The majority of the site grading will take place south of the Nez Perce Drive. The proposed grading will yield a drainage scheme similar for the most part with that existing, which primarily drains to the northwest. A proposed detention pond and control structure is shown on the plan submitted, however, actual I Sharmin Al-Jaff October 12 , 1990 Page 3 calculations for the predeveloped and developed 100-year, 24-hour I runoff discharge rates will need to be submitted to verify the pond capacity. The majority of the runoff from this site will be conveyed through storm sewer to this detention pond. Storm sewer calculations for the entire system will also need to be submitted at the time of final review. Erosion Control , The plan submitted shows erosion control silt fence along the , rear yard areas of Lots 2 through 6, Block 2 and downstream of the outlet structure for the detention pond. It is recommended that silt fence also be installed around the ponding basin until turf is established. The site should be seeded and mulched immediately following grading operations to minimize erosion potential . , Recommended Conditions 1 . The cul-de-sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of right-of-way of 60 feet and Troendle Way shall be modified in the name to be either Troendle Circle or Troendle Court to eleviate any confusion in the name, implying it to be a through street. 2 . The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around ' the ponding area until such time that turf is established. One strip of sod shall be placed behind all curbing. Entire site shall be seeded and mulched immediately following grading operations. 3 . Staff recommends a shared driveway access off of Pleasant . View Road for Lots 1 and 4 , Block 1 . This common driveway shall be located to minimize safety concerns and constructed to a 7-ton design, 20 feet wide and have a maximum grade of 10%. A corresponding cross-easement shall be provided. Driveway access locations for all lots shall be shown on the final submittal. 4 . Appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be provided , on the plat as follows: a . The drainage and utility easements along the westerly ' property lines of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 2 and the ponding area on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 that are shown on the grading and erosion control plan shall also be shown on the preliminary plat accordingly. I ,P Cal i Sharmin Al-Jaff October 12, 1990 Page 4 ' b. The acquisition of a drainage easement through the property immediately west of Lots 3 and 4 , Block 1 will be required for the discharging of the detention pond. ' 5 . The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying size and capacity of the storm sewer system and ponding ' basin. Eight-inch sanitary sewer at a minimum grade of 0. 4% shall be constructed on this subdivision and service loca- tions for all of the lots on this plat shall be shown for final submittal review. Detail final plans and specifica- tions for street and utility construction shall be submitted to the city engineer for review and approval. ' 6 . Applicant shall obtain and comply with all requirements of the Pollution Control Agency, Health Department and Watershed District. jms Attachment c: Gary Warren, City Engineer Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 1 I . • 1 1 C4TTACHMENVN 1 . t f •-.../ Q t /PG€.444A/T VEw I 11‘ • I 1 111 1 qt v T n " Ii ri 1 I . . 4 ..,_,..,,,, ; cJ � . T . --7-1 Lj t ?..4- / a _____ . ‘ 1� • ATE,. / • Tewt12. 0 • . .1 Mdk L uG y 2o,ap 11;'k • ALTERNATIVE 3 gF 1 f - I CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I ' FROM: Charles Folch, Assistant City Engineer Cc\ DATE: November 15 , 1990 1 SUBJ: Engineer' s Update - Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Review for the Troendle Addition File No. 90-28 Land Use Review Since the time that the report for the Planning Commission was prepared, the applicant' s engineer has submitted storm water retention calculations for the proposed subdivision. These calculations present a design that, as a minimum, meet the prede- veloped storm water runoff rate as required by City ordinance. However , the plan layout shown for the detention pond does not appear to be consistent in size and design with the calculations submitted. Therefore, Engineering is requesting that the appli- cant' s engineer resubmit a storm water detention pond plan layout that is consistent with the design calculations. This is a key issue that needs to be addressed in determining the developabi- 1 lity of Lot 4 , Block 1 . ktm 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 .A CITYQF ._ _ I . I ' I CHANHASSEN II , . it k t 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 '~ (612) 937-1900 II MEMORANDUM II TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager II FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: September 8, 1989 1 SUBJ: Alternative Access Concepts for the Vineland Forest II Subdivision #89-8 BACKGROUND II On August 28 , 1989 , the City Council reviewed the preliminary plat request for the Vineland Forest subdivision ( see location map) . The plat as proposed illustrates the creation of 21 single II family lots accessed by a cul-de-sac from Pleasant View Road that is approximately 1250 feet long. The proposed plats and existing homes are shown on an attachment. I Access into the plat is the primary issue. Area residents raised concerns over traffic on Pleasant View Road at the Planning II Commission meeting with the result that the Commission was unable to reach a consensus on the plat. Staff recommended approval of the plat conditioned on the addition of a southern outlet from the plat, using Nez Perce right-of-way to intersect with Lake Lucy Road. The inclusion of the southern outlet would result in the creation of a north/south connection between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road and also provide a second access as II requested by Public Safety. At the City Council meeting further discussion on access issues was heard. A series of revised access concepts were introduced II by an architect representing homeowners located on Pleasant View Road. The City Council ultimately voted to continue the item to give staff an opportunity to review access alternatives. 1 Development of Alternative Access Plans Prior to preparing alternative access plans staff considered a I number of issues. These are described below as follows: 1. Access plans for Vineland Forest should be designed to serve , not only the site but also adjoining vacant and under- developed parcels in a comprehensive manner. For the pur- poses of this analysis, we have defined the study area as the II ATTACH. #1 I - . t f . i • E Q O O p O i O O O M o m O O co O I I I I T 111L AC LANE . CHRISTMAS H E N N E PI h: . • •• . .� �d� ,NI iFt5P#111,1(.. AKE awry E. , -,t-Qfeet ii E 7� •Sr ION' ✓/ _ w � (p � , T LINE . Irak& -oN• �.il ■ CIRCLE illST AK 111 `iv� `�� STUDY AREA '. j%S v �, . ..::,:. ,,, : 7 ■ *L ,_ 1, :-:•::.7:1711-Plill4t..447V,‘,\ A ' VI :17772u<-,i.ii+A•��1m■li. " *42 . MI - - - ...) lif..11r4"Kalt-Or4iP-gigal;44F-.PROJECT L �% L1��1`1 ' '�` ;.,' � \p,OCATION at' � �2�� `, ` I - 1 _fit �►?A ,ez, ,� V I. i Esp. wir rtn_.,,,A0 - ..,,, = ,. s p !&'''' - �_ — NMy 111111I- A •., „airralais il ri:irt_c ,,,c4):40.47-=-' . 11,1.•1 It.AT. \ _. , „ _ , . ME FIN 1•WillW67.;;_, :',17 Trr.Tin ..1 Ir.,"t'A .air , , ' !iv 4* - tk, As ts s.tt. .....1„,tom ,,,..,,, - - , NN ,_,, 1 _., _ Aw veins" do_ -- - . --4-114c;w \-1. oink ,, J �: .a• �_� t� Tyr'• _ lk: , I . K 43 e41411 en; •3 .��vt,W •at,4,,OR. L 0' „ckijllIllIll `, iA E LUCY l its -�' AS.II E - /ki 1 rik 01 - "" i"Al tt. ;*:-•.1t_____-a Elk mE1 � 3 gri �111N MI.. ..,4,47 -� CRY �-, A li NI Mil D s'a J'=.i : LA I • /\" ' 1 ■Il1111''!i 11 1 AmMain jai ar `y ��-',� ��"2.� otidainit,ww,;‘) 7.... .0: .r off ! 1►4��,0 4,l1ii IIiiiirMI V► A nuns . now__ i•1 LOCATION MAR 71PIP-A % IKE ANN En s- " �' `�'� � 7m �.��b ,_,�OMB r t. liii ■---... Asa - _----flomp .., mil.... e- 1 ts ;010 gm 1 � sum „n w1914 • . a'''_ . ..... . • , i -N _ 4_ i i I P --...../ a`" d4$14 ________ I .ni: II , 1 r -, 'l 1 I �- I. i It 4 V 4' ' IP - --- � I l , ' \ \ I S. \ 1 � I "Pni \ \ P00 L EACE LIL.. IPbAN , ' � �� _--\ 1 aVINEL D F- - - - I -- 1\ \ , V �� r r PLAT > > 'Tw►+ER ( r I t..______,______// \ c • \ .., 1 4)I s '` n' 1 I PROPOSED / f PLATS EXISTING HOMES I Aft. eft 1 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 11 Page 2 land located between Peaceful Lane on the west, Pleasant View I Road on the north, the Fox Path neighborhood _on the east, and Lake Lucy Road on the south. We acknowledge that these par- cels may not be developed in the same time frame. However, II . we believe the overall access plan is essential if adequate levels of service are to be provided while minimizing neigh- borhood and environmental disruptions . Existing platting and I neighborhood ' s development pattern should be taken into account to maximize feasibility of the concept and minimize neighborhood disruption. I 2. Given the size of the study area, staff estimates that approximately 55 homes could eventually be built. Each single family home will generage approximately 10 trips per II day. This estimate is based upon the access and development concept plans that are presented in this report. The plans attempt to provide lots consistent with city development standards . In our opinion, to adequately serve this large an I area a through street connection is warranted. The connec- tion is important to being able to provide adequate levels of service for local residents and reasonable emergency vehicle II response times. From the standpoint, of the larger, surrounding neighborhood a north/south connection is con- sidered to be of benefit for traffic flow and emergency I vehicle access since it would be the only connection between Powers Boulevard and Lotus Lake. 3 . Traffic levels on Pleasant View Road are a consideration. 1 The street carries a fairly high traffic volume and is on the city' s state-aid system. Recent counts taken by the city show traffic levels of somewhere between 960 and 1300 ADT 1 ( average daily traffic) at the Vineland Forest site. An ADT of 1000 is commonly thought to be the dividing line between local and collector streets . Portions of the street exist as I a substandard design exacerbating traffic problems . 4. The access concept should result in a high quality residen- tial environment. Significant stands of trees and wetlands I should be protected. Cul-de-sacs should be created where feasible. 1 Potential Access Points into the Study Area There are a series of roads and undeveloped rights-of-way that could provide access into the study area (see attachment) . Each I was reviewed to assess its feasibility for extension into the area. These are described below: I1. Pleasant View Drive Advantages - Street functions as a collector with east/west II access . Grades and sight distance make access feasible along much of the frontage. 1 ' i w DC..LD t`o.. I w�.ir^ur • I I •. • \ 8 • 7::roi.1;4 a • I b •••• , t ,...:y.'\-.:;( •/,-1,•:. 1,0.:..' . -1- — - "%c.,-1"k4kl'v I ' - I C1.415.1 E'clv ''. 13 • ;; __ \ 4p�_j g 2. •r. Fs•• Si•l•ip .1.\\lk .d3._ _ / ,--• ... - , lb / R O. s• •:.3 Car...I -.• . 2 ,••,..... \\ • .44.R'r....... � a;MKw =o \ Z • pCRs Lira ,. I :P: t � -` it\'''•\ CKRISTMaS ;5. +,. � 3i �s ' t.i view - :' --N3 ‘•:. l'' il• ' t t•••• 'Opt . I. ■ arit .. a \ \ 4,0 '. • -.., 1 ...-,•a• es..• ! ''� p = � �+ 7 ' t4 r i1i ,I eCI Q ty T S _ / ^_r a LLLB� >r •2: �V ♦•E YL)L.l( 1 i Jae b '� - _-_, •�se•• t. 1 a ii, 3.02 e V \t ,„,_-.? vok /... r -2 , 1 •\1, - Q =YY v i I z. S. �Q 7 S / Q INP.2 '' i v4►/ • • FpX 44 7......''''''''''''''''.."......? " \ 2 a.-; . si . - 1 nem 0 4 • �y..,,, ..,, , 4 e.1111 0. k , I 2? 1 --1"--.------—I-----------H i liti:.1 a I llinnens • u^' • }•1 .Li U Cr Room 1pi2 oLc- -•-• - •1 '1 s•„.I-.i.•---A. v. e.sC.0=0 / 'i' .:. . • .L.1 .: \.: *-:-4 •. 46146AM-L- 7/ '!. .j 1 - ,.1C!• •.♦• ..A . • -!gel �zj •4• I S 1YES^ERM 1 a' Wm Lc, 111 01111/3 • t•i.,;,: ',;:. y M • r w ��RV SS .+_ I.�, - - .. .-•- .S` -'•-i i,•t• ` to .(' 12!,; '� ND♦ ' • wt �t 11• .... ! ,r� POTENTIAL ACCESS POINTS 1 I Aw 11 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 3 I Disadvantages - Street is built to substandard design and carries high traffic volumes . Neighborhood impact and traffic safety considerations . 2 . Fox Path Advantages - Ability to use an undeveloped, dedicated right- of-way, north/south alignment that could serve to create street connection, while eliminating an existing over-length cul-de-sac. Disadvantages - Connection is extremely difficult to make, due to severe grades and environmental impacts . Also, potential neighborhood opposition in Fox Chase if through street considered. It is not considered to be feasible. 3 . Park Drive (Nez Perce) ' Advantages - Provides good access to the south via undeveloped dedicated right-of-way (40 foot) and has access to Powers Boulevard via Lake Lucy ' Road. Disadvantages - Grade on Park Drive is a concern. However, ' upon further investigation it was concluded that a maximum 10% grade with a 40 foot long landing area at 2% grade at the street inter- ' section could be provided and that grading limits are acceptable. Staff believes this is a reasonable alternative from a design stand- point. Sketches showing street profile options and grading limits are attached. 4 . Kiowa Drive (Hopi Road) Advantages - Undeveloped dedicated right-of-way following similar alignment to but east of Park Drive. Disadvantages - Very difficult grades are present. Street construction would result in extensive tree loss. Staff questions if construction is feasible. Access to Powers Boulevard is not direct. The street is presently constructed as a dead end serving several homes. Although right-of-way is dedicated to make a connection to Powers Boulevard it is unlikely that such a connection is feasible due to wetland and ponding areas. I 11 L__#______ ,/ • ..../ ..- ia , - 1:3 eNy _____/ tit $ siF \ ! ill,\I 1 � J / ul■N=�iiii�� =...a.u■■■ / e ■N.� - ■t■ 1 .D 7 6 /III 1 - - - + _ N / ■Np■E■■lOM■EE■■E■1■Ht■M■aC-"'71.+ 1 - ■■■■■N■■GC==∎=a1_ as. _ - / ■■■HE&a 4=r .-_ _ _ 11 :..■ --.......r■+ / ill 11 !" _ \ ■■ .r•... // // ' ■■ME+EUmlrs.. z. " ■.■ as \ O, �7Mt.EEE�C/ EOM / / • _ ., - SCALE E •- ---: .1. 1 I N . K - / _ 50 FEI.— / / ■■■N■■■EMOM■E.M / NMM■ N■■■■■■■ENEW ■■N■ ■■M■ y MA■I 7■3■■I ■■rN■■N1r■ ■■rN■NH■■ N■!■11■ ■N WH■■.U[ML1x51 � 1 M■M1M■ MN! ■wl■■■■ N ■■■■■1 ■ �W■ N N N. . � N■■.aU. N N■ N■■!■■■■W ■w■■NiN MEOW/ / ■N HEN■EN N ■ ■MEEMEI■ ■lHNEEENNaIE■ WME O II W EwrUM! MM / EN N ORPO ■ H l-■ M ■■ ■NM■WNIEEEEEE■MMEMM■EH■HEM■■■M■■■1 11 MM■1Ol r*■■■■ EN■M■■ NM ■ " OMMMNNE SOOMOIPMBEMOMMU / . � - MMOSM■r .u■WOO saum ■■H■■EME Well N■EMWEW N MB MOM Euuu■1■MEM ■■■ 1R■ H ■ MN M■HH■NMMH. ■ . ■■■ 111( OSIIIMMUMM Esau_• NUMIIIIPM • NNNE■ HMI NN E s. .■..MM■■■■ Ewa.■y■EMEEMN MEE■HEH■NE ■MWE■EMN■■EH■NEMMMMMM■■■1u_■■Nw■■■ N�aEE NM■NO■M.....MMrYM..-.M-.BrCr_■_e5■ ■EIMMtl W■■■ - NMMM1„ MOH■EYE■MOs■EEEEME■ ■NMNE.O■NM■ NlwIEauu WOOISMINISMISSOU■MEW NAM Mw E_ ■EMMMMI■-..r =WMwINw■ .. a i wNM/ENM NH■M■ME■Mw W YEEEEM■E■� aa� aS� EM■w5■ M NNNI■GAM■ SWINE ■E.EE■M OUPIESIOSAUMSWAIR LININS PEP- =i.e. ■wN! MMN■!� • 1 20 wME�EM■��•■.�N•-'`— O O --- f� N 87° 5 j (Li LAKE --- —11.-4:11C__Y___L LEGEND Grading Limits `.•>:<<..:- ..� .:: Developer' s g ;::;`: :, �, .. `.• 10% Grading Limits �F $1 7% Grading Limits .•:::• ■ 4 ::::::.::::::::::::.::::: ...„.. .,• ,.., ‘")( /./...-4 ________ ..._______ . ......_ ______ 1031.37 ` �.L� 3 N s D RMoi442 6A.N M Ntr.11/.wl030-•1.., :roib �►� •■•■••■•-••"'"'•-• ---•■•-... ..-.-■-••••-••-•'"'”. L ...±._____. _ _____ GRADING LIMITS 0 s G 4.0.9 1 / • 1 g ...-z. . . . . . . . . . . . . .(5 is-..14,4-. 'Luc :,ev • 0 Cl , 8 1-- . . tt ,,,,ii Z i, 4\ ,/� • I tt:% / : i.r. . . .. . . 111 0 • • . 0 - \k'j/ $ • -W /1 * : fH/: . i 1 � . . . � VI v I s , . . . . :" t m 14 T I I CD Z 1 I 0 1 • 0 i 1 r 1 O rn $ 1 mk cn o I i CC: C I k • • • Mr. Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 4 I 5 . Peaceful (Redman) Lane Advantages - The street is intended to serve the Pleasant Hills plat. The plat was given final approval but has not been filed. Plat approval will expire in October. Access through this area is reasonable and without serious difficulty. Provides reasonably good connection to the north with east/west connection via Pleasant View Road at a good location. Disadvantages - Approved plat (which probably will expire I October) may limit design options. Would still result in the introduction of traffic onto Pleasant View but this is off-set by short distance to Powers Boulevard. 6 . Outlot A, Carver Beach Estates Advantages Undeveloped right-of-way to Lake Lucy Road. Provides good access to the south. Disadvantages - Grades make access difficult. Proximity to I Powers Boulevard may make connection redun- dant. I Alternatives/Comment There are a large variety of alternatives for serving the study 1 area. Staff has attempted to limit the number of alternatives to those which have been discussed previously and a new alternative, that in our opinion, represents the most reasonable remaining . option . The alternatives that have been studied are described below along with comments derived from review criteria established earlier: 1. This alternative is essentially the access option proposed by the developer illustrating serving Vineland Forest by a long cul-de-sac from Pleasant View. The concept has been expanded to illustrate how the balance of the study area could be served in a comprehensive manner. Comment - The option illustrates the ultimate construction of a street loop between the originally proposed Vineland Forest/ Pleasant View intersction to the Peaceful Lane dead end to the west. The alternative will ultimately provide a street loop that should offer adequate service internally within the study area. Construction of the street loop would be con- tingent upon the decisions of other property owners to develop their land. As illustrated, the northern stub street in Vineland Forest has been eliminated since, as proposed, it I I t / I Ilk 74; p ti / L°44UE4.5.Lee vp. / /744040:41A,7- : - , 1 1 4 1 4t a t p..L 1 I ".EACE LL&. VI ELAND ii P ORS T PLAT I I , , I (-) I ii \, . •• • oh a ) __ _ I • iiicz I tic y if 0 osa, I At‘t ALTERNATIVE 1 I I -. . t � N I I lc+T P j L.44414e$-4 lez: /0Lf-Azr,47A/r 0 ckJ - ' I _ 1 a : ,_1 -.... t• s P , i 1,_,- ip I • er t v ttel : li ig ��` i . * • ••.FACE - LL4 . t 1 �° INEL i ND Y P L A —O M t � le.w.m.R. / _ \ 0 ! 07P1 _____N.. M oh a r .C.IkE Lucy 2c•4.i, F ALTERNATIVE 2 c _ 1 . i I I • I I f oW‘ t I"Ew 0. ' �-----'1 - I li , I 7 . _ . : a ' 9 ,i t i , 1 II l 'T11t \ � •r o ` 1 1 • ATE.• Il - 0 T• iLR t . ._ .• ___ 1111 oh a •C.IitE Lucy RoAo e� I ALTERNATIVE �F 3 f I r ril, N t i 1 /111- 7.°2-1C1' 'rex 4 v4 . 1 /C2LEAj tAl7- Y,Ew 7-e , T.-- I . . a . . II P , pi li. I 1 ., I i a I . in = . , .3 . 1 Poe ' FACE iiiii i VINEL ND III ARE T PLAT "--Thi'lan I I J !i\ N.___........_=__:____._ n oh a zov,eE Lacy .eo.•o . 1 ALTERNATIVE 4 A. i I Mr. Don Ashworth,.,,, September 8 , l98 Page 5 cannot be built without the removal of a home on the adjoining parcel . This revision has been repeated in the three remaining alternatives as well. Connecting to Pleasant View from Peaceful Lane rather then the original Vineland location to the east, could have a beneficial traffic impact. We believe this would result from Pleasant Lane ' s proximity to Powers Boulevard that should help orient traffic to the west rather then east along Pleasant View. The streets appear to be feasible from a ' grading standpoint and environmental impact is not excessive. There are two significant problems with the alternative. The ' loop street concept results in the fact that all of the traf- fic in the study area will be required to use Pleasant View. The second concern is that it does not provide any access of the south thus eliminating the potential for a north/south street connection. ' 2 . The second alternative is the dual cul-de-sac option illustrated by an architect working for the Pleasant View area homeowners . To allow for a reasonable comparison the alternative was expanded to create a comprehensive access plan for the study area. Comment - This option tends to split the access burden with most of the traffic exiting south to Lake Lucy Road. Ultimately a connection would be made to the west to Peaceful Lane . A small portion of the traffic would exit directly onto Pleasant View at the original Vineland Forest intersec- tion . This alternative can be reasonably constructed based on gra- des and environmental impacts are consistent with normal residential development. There is a north/south street con- nection but the alignment is quite convoluted which presents a problem for through movements. Distance traveled will be higher as will emergency vehicle response times. Again, construction is contingent upon the development decisions of adjoining property owners. 1 3. Staff attempted to start with a clean sheet of paper to create Alternative 3. The concept is based on a street loop running from Lake Lucy/Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. Comment - The alignment is more direct then the one described in Alternative 2. Street construction is reasonable, all 1 study area parcels are served and high quality residential environments will result. The south } of the Vineland plat remains largely unchanged. The Peaceful Lane connection is 1 contingent upon the vacating or expiration of the Peaceful 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth � { September 8, 1989 Page 6 Hills plat (due to expire in October ) . As with Alternatives 1 and 2 the construction of the street loop is -contingent upon development decisions of adjoining property owners . , 4 . The final alternative is the original staff recommendation expanded to illustrate serving the entire study area. The street connection between Lake Lucy Road/Nez Perce and Pleasant View is probably the best alignment for meeting access needs throughout the neighborhoods surrounding the study area since it is centrally located between Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy. As such it may also have a greater potential for introducing traffic increases onto Pleasant View. A significant advantage is that the connection could be constructed immediately without requiring the par- ticipation of adjoining property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION I Staff continues to support the original access concept illustrated as Alternative 4. Our reasons for this position area based on the advantages of the alignment for the north/south con- nection and the fact that it could be built immediately without requiring participation by adjacent property owners . The impor- tance of the last factor should not be minimized. Constructing street extensions after a neighborhood has been developed is often a controversial process . If this option is not acceptable to the Council we would recom- I mend that Alternative 3 be selected since it meets the established criteria while providing reasonable north/south con- nection . Alternatives 2 and 3 would require a substandtial redesign of the Vineland plat. If Alternatives 2 or 3 are selected we would recommend that the required be returned to the Planning Commission for review of a revised plat based upon your direc- tions regarding access . I The Council should be aware that city staff does not have the capability to prepare an indepth analysis of traffic patterns. We believe the data presented in this report is reasonable based upon our knowledge of the subject. If a greater understanding of this question is desired a consultant would need to be retained to prepare a computer model of the area. While this would pro- vide valuable information, it would involve additional time and cost. The Council should also be aware that regardless of which option , is selected, easements must be provided to construct sewer and water lines north to Pleasant View. 1 I I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17 , 1990 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p .m . . , MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad , Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart , Jim Wildermuth and Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner Al Charles Folch , Asst . City Engineer and Todd Gerhardt , Asst . City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 8.7 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS II ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF"AND LCOATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND VINELAND FOREST PLAT AND EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE, TROENDLE ADDITION. Public Present: , Name Address II Daryl Fortier Fortier and Associates , Applicant Jules Smith Attorney for Applicant Jim & Mary Stasson 6400 Peaceful Lane Brad Johnson 1001 Lake Lucy Road Jim Duchene 961 Lake Lucy Road Craig Weinstock 1101 Lake Lucy Road Rodd Johnson 1061 Lake Lucy Road Linda Bar.rk 960 Lake Lucy Road Sharon Morgan 940 Lake Lucy Road Rob Drake 980 Lake Lucy Road Richard Wing 3481 Shore Drive Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Conrad II called the public hearing to order . Conrad: We 'll open it up for public comments and we 'll give the applicant II who is Fortier and Associates and Frank Beddor Jr . , if Daryl you have anything to say . A presentation or any comments on the staff report . We 'll start it with you . • Daryl Fortier : My name is Daryl Fortier . I represent Mr . Beddor . We are purchasing this property from Mr . Joseph Troendle . I have a larger drawing here and I believe each member of the commission has received an 8 x 10 copy of this so perhaps it 'd be easier if I just show it to the audience off to the side here so they can see it a bit easier . For the most part we are in agreement with the staff report . We do have two items that we 'd II like to bring to the Planning Commission's attention . The first addresses the additional right-of-way off of Pleasant View Road . We understand that staff is of the opinion that eventually Pleasant View Road will be widened . We also understand that the Pleasant View Homeowner Association as well as other people along the Pleasant View Road have fought this issue before and it is a highly charged politically . Previously , I believe it was 1981 there was a proposal to widened the road and that proposal was rejected by the City Council after lengthy debates. We don 't believe that there is any policy or program in place that would suggest that the widening of the road ATTACH. #1 IIPlanning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 2 IIis indeed going to happen . Therefore , Mr . Beddor is not of , he is also one of the people , one of the many who are opposed to the widening of the road . I Therefore he would not like to take any actions which would favor widening the road and that would include the giving of additional right-of-way for that purpose . He is therefore requesting that that be striken from the I staff report or not be accepted . Be rejected . Whichever word we would choose . He is not in favor of giving up the extra 7 feet and he would like to see his property treated the same way any other piece of property along Pleasant View Road would be treated . Should the City decide that they will I widened Pleasant View Road let 's say 3 years from now or 5 years from now , this piece of property should be treated no differently than any other piece of property including Mr . Beddor 's residence across the street . You I would use whatever political consensus and finances are necessary to achieve to take the land by condemnation or to purchase it and widened the road . It will be part of the same battle as the remaining 2 miles I of Pleasant View Road would be . So with that background Mr . Beddor is not in agreement to granting the 7 foot easement . The other issue we have to discuss is the Troendle garage which staff correctly points out is 21 1/2 feet from the right-of-way and this would put it in violation of the 30 I foot setback requirement . We have been unable to reach Mr . VanEeckhout who is the adjacent property owner but we believe , we have reason to believe that we may be successful in altering the alignment of the road such that I the 30 foot setback can be required . If I can direct your attention to the overhead projection , under Block 1 , Lot 2 , which is the Troendle property where the garage sits , if you will look at where the road comes in from the I east which is the Vineland Estates , you ' ll notice that the road does not come in at a right angle . It comes in at about a 97 degree angle . We would like to see that changed to 93 1/2 degrees . If we change it to 93 1/2 degrees , it only affects 7 feet of property , less than 7 feet of I property on Vineland Estates . Mr . Beddor is willing to buy one of those lots to help achieve this . We believe Mr . VanEeckhout will cooperate . This will allow us to make a subtle adjustment to the road such that the ' road will not angle but the road will be closer to a true east/west . This will put Mr . Troendle 's garage 30 feet back from the right-of-way in which case the issue will disappear . However , we haven 't reached such an I agreement yet and so as a result we are asking that consideration be given to a variance , a temporary variance . The reason we are doing this request and we are going through these extraordinary measures in trying to accommodate Mr . Troendle is that his folks originally purchased this land . I He was born on this land and he is now 80 years old and has always lived on this land . We , Mr . Beddor is granting him a lifetime estate and has agreed that there will be no development in the four lots off Pleasant View Road I as long as Mr . Troendle resides in his residence . He would like to make it as comfortable for Mr . Troendle as possible to see the ultimate development of his property without impacting his lifestyle or causing him any II distress . Mr . Troendle does use that barn . I 'm not sure for the exact purposes . He does park a car in there , he does do a number of hobbies in there . He is constantly in the yard so we are requesting that a temporary variance for a non-conforming use of that garage in terms of setbacks be ' granted only so long as Mr . Troendle personally resides in the residence . If he should become ill and require long term care which would not enable him to return , we would agree to immediately dismantle that garage or Iremove it . Similarly , if for some reason he were to decide to sell his piece of property we would similarly agree that it would be immediately removed. We are asking this only as a consideration for Mr . Troendle 's II 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 3 1 comfort and care and it really does not affect the development . We will try our best to get the road moved but failing to do that , we would ask that the variance be granted . The other items we have are really no longer issues . I 've not had a chance to review the issue of a shared access off Pleasant View for Lots 1 and 4 and I 've had a brief chance to review with Mr . Beddor the idea of park dedication fees in lieu of parkland . I 've also I talked to staff and they've indicated that they have some concern with Lot 4 of Block 1 which is immediately off Pleasant View . There was concern as to whether or not this area was filled or whether it was a wetland . We would like the opportunity to talk to Park and Recreation and consider giving that lot to Park and Recreation for a vest pocket sort of park . And depending upon how the wetlands adjacent to it on the Art Owen 's property is defined , it may turn out to be a very fine addition as a park . We are not in favor or opposed to that . We are simply saying that option should be left. open . Park and Recreation may not have a chance to realize that we , would be willing to donate that land . Any questions I ' ll be pleased to answer? Conrad: Okay . We 'll probably have some later on . We ' ll open it up for other comments . Are there any? •Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson . I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane . My house is this house right here with the brown roof on the corner . Back when the Vineland Forest thing was developed , we were never notified through mail by the City that anything was going on there and as I understand when it was first developed it really didn 't affect us because II the access to that was going to go right out to Pleasant View Road . Right now if you could see , they plan on running this right over here to Peaceful Lane and we 're going to have , instead of 3 houses connecting to I Peaceful Lane , an infinite amount of houses . That Peaceful Lane also has a very wide radius corner which people do not slow down to go around at all . With 3 houses there it 's not too bad , although Art Owens has a big family and Sunday afternoons it can be quite a traffic jam in there . Mr . Beddor seems to be going to gain out of this and we 're going to pay the bill by having all the traffic go by our house . We don 't really think that 's fair . He 's so far off of Pleasant View Road , you can see his tennis court between the road and his house . He moved his driveway and took a good half a dozen trees off of Mr . Troendle 's lot . We 're talking big trees and planted them all on so he doesn 't see any of the traffic . I guess I 'd do the same thing I if I was in the position to be able to do that . Peaceful Lane is a 27 foot road . The mouth of Peaceful Lane is 130 feet . If nothing else , we 've talked to Jim Chaffee when he was the safety guy. We talked to him 2 years I ago the last year . I realize he 's no longer here . He said he would report back to us on you know , whether they could square that corner off and we 've never heard anything from him , or from anybody . So thank you . Conrad: Good comments . Thank you . Other comments . Rodd Johnson: I 'm Rodd Johnson from 1061 Lake Lucy Road . The issue I see II at hand for myself and the homeowners along the street that we 're on is number one , it 's open already back to Nez Perce and we get a lot of traffic that way . Sure I 'd like to see that closed off at the end but I know that 11 won 't happen necessarily from what I can see . And I 'm not necessarily opposed to developing the land in here in that I also built a house and the land was developed but what I have a problem with is that if the , and this Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 4 i is corrected to what I see , is that they 're going to put it through but I don 't like the way that it 's going to go through number one . I think it should go straight across . Due to the fact that if it doesn 't go straight across to Pleasant View , people are going to be more apt to come down the road that I 'm on now anyway because it 's straight . I mean they 're already going down it at 40 or 45 which has been witnessed by everybody that 's on the road . And the second we have emergency vehicle access . I look at that and think the route in and out of there would be better facilitated to go straight through . I have to kind of chuckle the way that it 's been all of a sudden altered around the guy that 's developing his property . It 's not , it seems a little like he doesn 't want to bear his part of the burden yet he 's going to make the money on all this and that is kind of outrageous . Conrad: Thanks . Maybe I should just interject and maybe you weren 't involved in previous hearings but we have been and maybe you weren 't notified simply because you may not have been within the notification distance and we have some standards of who gets notified . I 'm not sure but that 's a quick guess . In the past when we 've looked at this parcel , other homeowners in the area have been real concerned where the road 's go and it wasn 't Mr . Beddor as much as it was other homeowners along Pleasant View . They weren 't , although it does look like it benefits Mr . Beddor and it probably does , I think the other homeowners were pretty consistent in terms of what they wanted . Especially the neighbor that that road would have gone right next to , within a few feet of his door and I recall that very clearly feeling rather concerned for a roadway given what he 's lived in for Ia while . You probably have the same concerns understandably . Mary Stasson : But that neighbor was also a renter . IConrad: I wasn 't aware of that . Yes sir . Brad Johnson: I 'm Brad Johnson . I live at 1001 Lake Lucy Road . We 're 1 just concerned about additional lots here . It looks like there 'll be what , 13 additional lots that would have their only access to the trunk highway through Lake Lucy Road . I don 't believe Lake Lucy Road east of CR 17 was intended as a major thoroughfare from it 's construction , design and width . As Rodd already said , we 've got an awful lot of traffic there as it is . I think it 's unfair that we bear the full burden of the traffic out of both the current development and this proposed one . I know that they 're showing this road supposedly going through to Peaceful Lane . That 's kind of presumptious . They don 't own the land. They don 't know that they can acquire the land . They don 't know that they can develop there even when it would be available for acquisition . I 'm sure people on Pleasant View have 1 some concerns . So do we . The burden should be shared fairly . 1 Conrad: It 's a funny thing how everybody does sell their land and we wish they didn 't , some of us who 've been around a while but you 're right . There 's no guarantee that that property will be subdivided but it 's , land in Chanhassen is extremely valuable . Resident: Someday . 20 years from now when my kids have maybe been run. over by one of the fast cars on there . We get a police car through there once every 3 months . Conrad: Other comments . 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 7 Conrad: Other comments? Mary Stasson: I have a comment . Alternative #4 . This one . I live on the I corner of Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane and this proposal shares the access by everybody . Pleasant View Road which I 'm a part of , Peaceful Lane which I 'm also a part of and Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road . Here I see this is the perfect way to go because the burden is shared by everybody in this proposal . Conrad: I think the concern at that time , and there were a lot of concerns . A lot of different opinions . What a lot of residents along Pleasant View were concerned with was to get the access as close to CR 17 as possible . Mary Stasson: But see the thing is , if they want to go down Pleasant View Road , they 're still going to go up Peaceful Lane and then they 're going to turn and go down Pleasant View Road . You 're talking just a minimal amount of space . Conrad: That was their opinion . To get the access as close to CR 17 . 1 Mary Stasson: They 're still going to go down Pleasant View Road . . . Brad Johnson: . . .that stretch can be what , a quarter mile if not a half mile at the most? Conrad: But the other end of Pleasant View as it dumps out on TH 101 had i! the same . The residents had the same concern . Same exact concern and I heard both those . Resident : The traffic I don 't believe would be going that direction . They 're going to go out to CR 17 . Krauss: No , that 's not true really . You 've got to realize that Crosstown Highway is going to be extended to TH 101 in the next two years and that 's going to introduce a lot of movement to the east through there . ) y How they 're going to get there we frankly don 't know . Pleasant View Road 's the only road that goes there . Brad Johnson: I acknowledge that you did the Vineland Forest . Those of us on Lake Lucy , we are naive . We saw the way they were doing things and we thought that street was going through there . It was at one time . We didn 't know anything about these processes so we weren 't here . We were quite upset when we found out it wasn't and we realized it was a little late then . We don't really . . . Jim Stasson: Also at that time the way this is shown on Art 's property, that was already done . We knew about that and okay we 're going to have 15 more houses on there . We can live with that but now when you connect it all up and you get rid of the other access to Pleasant View Road , we 've got 50-100 houses coming by now . Or after that . Mary Stasson: Our driveway , it comes out right here . IIPlanning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 8 IIJim Stasson: You 're looking at the wrong side . We 're right here . Our driveway comes out right there and the people that come around this corner , Ilike I said before . They 'll come around it at 30-40 mph . Mary Stasson: This is 130 feet across here . IJim Stasson: Right now there 's 3 houses accessing that . With 50 or 60 houses accessing that , my dog won 't be safe more than 2 steps qff the driveway . IMary Stasson: We have a 30 foot driveway that empties out on that road . ' Conrad: As Mr . Krauss said , if development goes through that road has to change . Period , In terms of access to Pleasant View . It just has to and the City 's committed to doing that . It can 't stay the way it is . 11 Mary Stasson: We 're not going to be able to get out of our driveway . That 's what 's going to happen to us and that 's why we 've already been trying to get ahold of Jim Chaffee to have him come out there and look at Ithe situation for us . Even the way it sits right now . Jim Stasson: You mentioned that this , Nez Perce is 22 feet on the corner? Krauss: No , I never . Jim Stasson: Where it ties into Lake Lucy? Right down here . II Krauss : Oh ! Jim Stasson: Is that 22 feet? Krauss: Yes . Nez Perce is an undersized street . Lake Lucy Road was built Ito a better standard . Nez Perce road and that whole neighborhood to the southeast 'of there , I think we 're all painfully aware of the fact that it was built with inadequate roads . It was buit without storm sewer and the utility systems are old and beginning to fail and something 's going to have IIto give in there but that is the only thru street in that neighborhood . Brad Johnson: Have you done a study on how many cars are going on it now? IIJim Stasson: That street wasn 't there until what , 3 years ago . Jim Duchene: 2 1/2 years ago when they put Lake Lucy thru . There 's another street down , Carver Beach Road which is down . I 'm Jim Duchene on 961 Lake Lucy Road and what I guess I 'm opposed to is the traffic that we 're getting back from the other side of Nez Perce . We 're getting a great deal of traffic feeding out onto our road our front . It is a bad corner . If you haven 't been down there , 22 feet . They come around on probably a 90 degree corner . It 's a problem . I don 't know . I think the City ought to Ilook at that . I think it should be closed off . I think they should take that road out and still leave a fire lane through there . It wasn 't there before . We 're feeding now these other homes . We have a new development and I 'm not sure how many lots are back there . IIKrauss: 15 . In this plat? I Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 9 Jim Duchene : No . In the previous one? Krauss: Oh , in Vineland was about 21 but 2 of those -accessed out to Pleasant View . Jim Duchene: 21 . We 're talking another 15 plus we 're feeding everyone 1 else off Nez Perce now off of Lake Lucy Road . I have not seen any traffic studies . I don't know if you have as far as cars on Lake Lucy Road but being out there I do know and the homeowners that are here , we 're all here 1 tonight . Every home that 's on that street is represented here . We have one missing? And it 's a problem and that 's why we 're here in front of the Planning Commission . , Conrad: Okay , thanks . Jim Stasson: Lake Lucy tends to become a dragstrip . You 've got a 30 mph II speed limit . You 're got lower speed limits on roads that are wider around here . They come off Nez Perce and they , especially the younger people , and they are really flying . in Brad Johnson: Because it goes downhill . They have a good time on there . Then they go up . . .5 curve before it gets to CR 17 and they 're all over the place there . Then last spring when Vineland Forest was in , all the heavy trucks were coming through before the road restrictions were off fully loaded . Our street 's going to be torn up . You put development . . . Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in II favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Joan . Questions? Comments? Ahrens: Isn 't the option of having Nez Perce Road run down to Pleasant View Road a dead issue anyway because of the plan? Krauss: It 's certainly a dead issue through the Vineland Forest plat . That plat is over and done . We have no capacity to get that right-of-way save buying 2 lots I suppose . 1 Ahrens: So the only access to Pleasant View Road is in this fashion that 's shown on this photograph that we have in our plans? Is that what you 're saying? Krauss: Yes . Ahrens: Unless they purchase these Lots 1 and 2 and run the . . . Krauss: At this point in time running the street north through Vineland Forest is not possible from the standpoint of the City being able to get the right-of-way through the platting process . That 's all platted property. I suppose theoretically you could run that connection over on the Troendle property but I haven 't looked at the grades over there . If memory serves they 're not that bad . But if you move at all to the west of t Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 10 ' Troendle 's house , you start falling off into that low wet area which makes it impossible to make the road connection . Ahrens : What about this low wet area on Lot 4 of Block 1? What do you think about his proposal to turn that over to the City for parkland? I Krauss: The Park Board 's already reviewed this proposal and does not want the property . I don 't know that they were asked specifically about that lot but traditionally taking individual lots that happen to be conveniently ' located for a developer is not , that does not fit the bill for the Park Board . That 's pocket parks . Are interesting design features in urban areas but what they become in communities like ours is a very difficult maintenance problem and they don 't serve enough people to make them I worthwhile . Consequently there 's a policy that the City 's funds and efforts should be devoted to more significant facilities . II Ahrens: I have a lot of questions about that wetland in there as I mentioned to you earlier . There seems to be a question about whether or not it 's even a wetland , from what you said . And I 've noticed over the II last few years trucks bringing fill in there and it was a low area . I mean it looked like a wetland to me before they started filling it in . Can you shine some light on that? What is going on with that wetland? II Krauss : A little bit . For more extensive report I ' ll really have to get Jo Ann Olsen to give it to you because she 's been involved with that property for some time . But Mr . Owens ' has been filling that property . The City 's been going out there and having it stopped for at least the last year and a half to 2 years . That area was never pristine wetland . As I understand it , it took on wetland characteristics when drainage out of I the area was altered and there 's been some indication that the City may have altered it somehow during a construction project , whatever . But since the water 's impounded now , it 's causing wetland vegetation to spring up . The wetland proper or the more significant part of the wetland does not I truly fall on the Troendle property but to the extent that it does , it 's being preserved or improved if you will into a retention pond that will have some water in it . We still have an issue with the fill on Owens ' I property . There was a hope that it would have been rectified . I believe Mr . Owens wanted to have some lots there with his plat and staff always said that that 's where your drainage goes and even if it wasn't a wetland , it 's a retention pond so there was always an issue there and it was one I that was supposed to have been resolved as I understood it when he came in for his final plat but in the event he never did . IAhrens: How was he going to resolve that? Krauss: At this point I 'm honestly not sure . I 'd need to get updated by ' my staff . Conrad: Joan , it was not an officially mapped wetland but , it sure was one . II Ahrens: Well that 's what I thought . I 've driven by it and before he started filling it it sure looked like a wetland . II Conrad: It always was what was mapped Paul? Things over an acre and a half I think . This might have been under so it wasn't mapped. It was a I I Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 11 wetland . Ahrens: The City 's asking for a 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road and the developer has said that they 're not going to go along with that at all . I imagine that , I mean I don 't know how , if Pleasant View Road is going to in the future be improved , I don 't know how we can approve a plat without an allowance for the additional right-of-way along Pleasant View Road . Do you see how that can happen? Krauss: Well it 's obviously our recommendation that we do take the 7 foot right-of-way . As I said earlier , we believe that there is a significant traffic volume on that street now . We expect that to grow regardless of everybody 's efforts to keep it low . Ahrens: Didn 't we require that further up on Pleasant View? I Krauss: There was right-of-way that was taken off a subdivision across the street that was for Mr . Beddor 's son . I don 't recall exactly how much it 1 was . Christmas Acres . Ahrens: And also further east . Batzli : Did we take it for Vineland? Krauss: I don 't believe , no. We did not take it for Vineland . I Ahrens: Not for Vineland but for the one that 's on the other end . The three lots that was , what was that? It starts where Pleasant View curves and goes down the hill . There 's some lots being developed right in there where it 's going to be divided into 3 lots . Krauss: I think that 's the Christmas Acres . That 's across the street . j Ahrens: No, no . It 's way down at the other end . Anyway . Gerhardt : The east end . I Jay Johnson: She 's on the other side of the lake . All the way on the other side . 1 Ahrens: Right . Where we just divided those 3 lots . Gerhardt: Fox Chase? That one? I Krauss: That 's next door to this . Jay Johnson : North Lotus Lake Park . Batzli : Right . Yeah . The one across from the North Lotus Lake Park which I is what Jay just said . Right across the street there where they subdivided those . The guy that had the water in his basement continuously . Krauss: Oh , oh , oh . By the street that . 1 Batzli : Well those right there and then across the street again . II Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 12 IIKrauss: Yes . We did take extra right-of-way off of that , yes . The one where we had the city lift station down by the lake? IIBatzli : Yeah . Those and directly west . - Krauss : Baldur Avenue? IBatzli : Yes . IKrauss: Sathre Addition . Ahrens: I mean that 's a nothing isn 't it? That 's what I thought . You know it seems to me that Mr . Troendle 's also making a lot of money off this ' development . I kind of feel like with all the new proposals that the developer has brought in tonight , I feel like it 's real difficult to discuss this . There 's a road change that 's being proposed and a slight Iroad alteration and he wants a variance . And the 7 foot right-of-way . . . Conrad: But that road alteration would eliminate the variance . 1 Ahrens: The what? Conrad: The road alteration would eliminate the variance . IAhrens : I have more comments but I agree that the sight lines on Peaceful Lane are terrible and I realize that the City does intend to fix that road Ibut boy , it 's bad now . Batzli : Why didn 't we take 7 feet or additional at Vineland there right next door to the east? IIKrauss: Commissioner , we 're really not certain . I think it falls into the category of being an oversight . I mean things were so focused on which end I you 're coming in on and it was running in a different direction from there . I don 't offer that as an excuse but just I think it was overlooked . I 'd also have to say too that the data that we 're using now for the traffic forcast and it comes out of the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study and that 's only been completed and delivered to the City in the last 3 weeks . 1 Ahrens: When was that approved? Krauss: The Carver County Transportation Study? Ahrens: No , no . Vineland. Krauss: It was approved in something like November of last year . Batzli : On the plat it shows a portion of Pleasant View Road to be vacated . on one of the maps here of the plans . Is that assuming I would suppose Ithat they don 't have to give up the additional 7 feet? What is that for? That 's Lot 4 , Block 1 . Krauss: Oh, I see what you 're saying . I don 't know. That 's probably a presumption by the applicant that they were going to maintain existing I I Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 13 right-of-way Daryl? We 're looking to maintain 80 feet throughout . Now that 's 40 foot on either side of the center line and I believe we have a 66 ' footer there so it 's traditional that you take 7 foot on either side . We would seek to , assuming the condition is upheld , we would seek to rectify that . Batzli : How long is this Troendle Way cul-de-sac? Krauss : It 's approximately 400 feet . Well from Nez Perce it 's approximately 400 feet . Batzli : What 's our normal guideline on that just out of curiousity? ' Krauss : We 've traditionally used 500 feet . There 's been a lot of them approved between 500 and 1 ,000 . Until the connection 's put through to Peaceful Lane or to Pleasant View , this is quite a lengthy cul-de-sac because you 've got to add in all the distance back to Lake Lucy Road . The only reason we 're somewhat comfortable with that is that so much effort 's been put into the concept of how this is ultimately going to be connected I that we view this as a temporary situation . Batzli : Is there any problem from staff 's point of view in any of the realignments of the roads regarding lot sizes after it 's either widened and/or adjusted? Krauss: The proposal that Mr . Fortier brought to you tonight? ' Batzli : That as well as the proposal , I think the cul-de-sac road isn 't wide enough as I understand it . I Krauss: Oh , no . Those lots are all oversized . There 's plenty of give with that . The lot in Vineland Forest where they would propose to swap land if they swung that road a little further south , that 's an 18 ,000 square foot lot so there 's probably room for that too. We 'd want to see how this layout occurs that Mr . Fortier 's proposing . It looks reasonable . We don 't want to introduce too many curves into this street though because I it 's already somewhat curvalinear and this is supposed to be a connecting street . The more curves you introduce , the less utility it will have . Batzli : I would be much more in favor if it 's possible to realign the street a little bit than provide a variance even if it 's just for lifetime estate on that particular structure . If I had my druthers . I Folch: Just a correction on that Troendle Way. The actual right-of-way width on the street portion at 50 feet is currently adequate . It 's just the cul-de-sac , the radius of the cul-de-sac that 's being increased to 60 I feet . Batzli : Okay . My other questions had to do with whether Lot 4 is a wetland or not . I guess we 've already discussed that a little bit and having been through staff 's study of the various ways to have traffic flow through these potential developments , I guess I didn 't expect the problem tonight. It sounds like until the road goes through to Pleasant View and until they improve that particular corner , there may be some problems and I II don 't know what we do about that in the meantime . Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 14 Conrad: Problems where? ' Batzli : Regarding traffic both loading up south and as far as eventually coming out onto Pleasant View from , this small route here . Conrad: Is that a concern with Nez Perce traffic? Batzli : Yeah . ' Conrad: Okay . Steve? Emmings: I support the recommendation that 's been made by staff . Just a ' comment on the issues that we 've got that have been brought up tonight . At least the ones on that proposal . There 's no doubt in my mind that we should require the additional right-of-way . We have the right to do that as a condition of the plat and it should be done . As far as treating Mr . ' Beddor the same as everybody else . Everybody else isn 't subdividing or we 'd be requiring it of them too I 'm sure . And with regard to the , the only other one that kind of caught my attention is the garage that 's located on Lot 2 on Block 1 . I guess I 'd make a proposal or there shouldn 't be any variance granted . That 's clear to me but I think maybe , it 's my understanding Mr . Troendle is what , 80 years old? I think that we could make an accommodation here that would be reasonable and I what I 'd propose is that we simply say that either that the garage be removed or relocated or the road will be adjusted to create the necessary setback . And that the timing of that , that will be done prior to the issuance of a building 1 permit for Lot 2 , Block 1 or when Mr . Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property , whichever occurs first . I think I could live with that , to not change his property until he 's no longer living there . Otherwise I don 't have anything else . Batzli : But I mean the road , if it 's adjusted will happen before anything II develops so it 's an either or really . Either the road is adjusted or then you don 't issue a building permit for Lot 2 . Is that what you said? Emmings: Right . That 's essentially right . I guess I just said that ' either you move the building or you move the road . If you have to move the building , you do it before there 's a building permit or when he 's no longer living there full time . I don 't know how we 'd ever know but that 's a Iseparate issue . Conrad: That 's staff 's problem . Anything else? IEmmings: No . I guess as far as the location of the road , that 's done . Resident: There 's always alternatives . IEmmings: As far as the road goes , that's done as far as what we 're doing tonight . It 's a non-issue and what I was going to say was I think you have some valid concerns but I think they ought to be addressed to the City Council . Jim Stasson: You mean the existing roads or are you talking about the 11 proposed roads? I 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 15 Emmings: I 'm talking about Nez Perce the way it 's lined up to go . If you 're interested in . . . Jim Stasson: You mean outside of the development? Where are you talking about? I Emmings: The road, as Nez Perce is designed to go through to Peaceful Lane , that has been determined by the City Council and if you 've got issues II on that , address it to the City Council . Brad Johnson: Are you saying that that part over Art Owens ' property is a done deal? ' Emmings: This path , as I understand it , this path for Nez Perce . Batzli : It 's not. platted . Krauss: There 's a conceptual alingment . It only becomes effective when their property is platted . Jim Stasson: So it 's not done . Emmings : Okay , it 's not done . Then don 't address your concerns to the City Council . I mean I 'm telling you that if you have concerns , this isn 't the forum for them . This is not an issue in this plat . This fits with the II conceptual plan of the road . Brad Johnson: We don 't think the plat should be approved unless that issue is taken care of . Rodd Johnson: This plat is still open . He can still access the Pleasant View Road right through . ' Mary Stasson: Lots 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 . Batzli : What I think , we get our guidance from the City Council and they I have looked at this and reviewed it and basically given the guidance to us that conceptually this is what they want to see and for us to tell the City Council now that no , we don 't like that . Do something else . We probably won 't take that step because they told us what they think they want to see . Mary Stasson: But when do we get a chance to speak? Batzli : You 'll get a chance to go to the City Council when this goes up to the City Council and that 's really , I think you have to get your group back , together and address your concerns to them because they 're the ones that told us this is what they want to see . Brad Johnson: So what is the purpose for tonight then? I Rodd Johnson: Why are we all here for an hour and a half? Jim Stasson: If you guys don 't have anything to say about it . 1 I II Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 16 IBatzli : Well we have a lot to say about a lot of issues but on this particular issue , I don 't think we 're going to change what the City Council. I has told us they want to see . • Conrad: I 'm interested . I think we have our input so I guess I ' ll reflect a different opinion . I feel comfortable with the alignment that was I proposed and only because we struggled with it for so long . I think it 's unfortunate , and there weren 't any good solutions . I think most people that live in the area don 't want that area developed at all , as I would 1 guess you wouldn 't but on the other hand it is . Flat out it is and I think we struggled with that . I think the alternatives that I heard mentioned tonight were not acceptable to me before and they still aren 't . That II doesn 't mean we explored other alternatives . I guess I 'm interested from a Planning Commission standpoint . Not that the City Council decree that this is the road alignment . They did to a degree do that . I 'm curious if anybody feels that you 'd like to reopen that issue and suggest to the City ICouncil that they reopen the issue . Emmings: I can tell you for me I think that this is the plan they adopted II is a good one because it doesn 't put another entrance out onto a road that , out onto Pleasant View . So I preferred this one . Conrad: And that was my opinion when we looked at that . I think two roads I and especially the straight that would have connected the Carver Beach area and the strip straight across to Pleasant View I thought was a negative alternative . This is a better alternative as I see it . This is just me I speaking . Brian . Joan . Do you have a feeling to want to open up or to recommend that the City Council looks at road alignment or are you comfortable or do you not know enough at this point in time to even , you may not have been around . I don 't know . Brian , you were around . Joan , I IIdon 't think you were . Batzli : Of the options that we have remaining since Vineland went in and Ithe road is where it 's at , I think that this is the best alternative that I 've seen . I mean sure there 's probably other alternatives and I thought we addressed a fair number of them and this was a reasonable alternative at Ithat time . Ahrens: I agree . I think that we should be directing as much traffic as we can as quickly as possible onto CR 17 . IIConrad: Just a comment . Paul , this neighborhood obviously was not involved when the other neighborhoods along Pleasant View were and they 're Ithinking they got the short straw in this one . Brad Johnson: How about know? Conrad: Don 't be so negative . We 're trying . Brad Johnson: I 'm sorry . It 's our street . IIConrad: I know it is . I empathize . I know what you 're feeling . What was the reason they weren 't involved? II 11 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 17 Krauss: I honestly don 't recall who was notified . I know that we had some , comments from people on Peaceful Lane because . . . I certainly got phone calls from someone . Conrad: I thought we did too . , Brad Johnson: I called after I found out what was going on but that was after it was already going to City Council . Before we even had a shot at . coming in here and saying . This was done in November . Krauss : The final plat was approved in November . Conrad: Okay , it might have been . Mr . Emmings gave you some input and probably nothing that you 're really thrilled with . I guess I 'm telling you from my position I 'm pretty comfortable given all the negatives and positives and some of the things , requirements we were trying to do and really it 's hard to reflect back months ago . But I 'm not uncomfortable with this road alignment . I think you really should be at the City Council 11 meeting to express your concern . They did say that this is what they 'd like . I don 't say that we ' ll just dump it off on them . I 'm telling you that I feel comfortable with this road alignment as I looked at the alternatives many months ago but I think you 've got to stay , as I prefaced I before , if you all go in with the numbers you had tonight , they may pay some attention to you to reopen the issue . Okay? Some other questions . Block 1 , Lot 4 . That 's a buildable lot? Krauss: Frankly Mr . Chairman I don 't believe it is . It 's very tight which is why we 've recommended a shift of lot lines to increase the building pad . And some of that pond is being excavated out and it 's also possible to shift that excavation somewhat further to the south . Conrad: So , okay . I missed that . ' Ahrens: How could you adjust the lot line of 3 and 4 . . .buildable . It looks like the only corner that 's buildable . • Krauss: No , not between 3 and 4 . Between 1 and 4 . We require 90 foot of width and that lot 1 is 140 . Basically you skew the property line so that it runs to the northeast . Conrad: Help me Paul . Where 's the recommendation that we do what you just said? I 'm scanning real fast and maybe I just can 't pick it up . I Ahrens: You talk about it in the report . Krauss: I 'm sorry , it should be in there . I know we talked about it in the text . Conrad: Yeah , it 's not there so I don 't know that I can approve that unless there 's a motion to claim it an unbuildable lot right now until it 's II proved that a building pad could meet setback . I too, I don't have any problem with the 7 foot requirement in the staff report . That 's the way it 's got to be . It 's an absolute . We 'll take it . Now 's the time to do it . Not that I 'm really wild about expanding Pleasant View to tell you the truth but I think now 's the time to do it and that 's not even a debate in 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 18 1 my mind . I agree with Steve in terms of his motion . I think that road should be realigned to try to meet the setbacks . I don 't know , I could 1 never say what you said but I hope you can reconstruct what you said Steve . And from the neighborhood standpoint , we ' ll look into finding and Paul , can you get back to me next , 2 weeks from now . Is that a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan? What 's 2 weeks from now , anything? IKrauss: It should be a regular meeting . I Conrad: Okay . I 'd like to know why this group was not involved . Every 2 weeks we come here and we talk to our neighbors like yourselves and there 's always somebody saying he wasn 't informed . As Paul says , the first thing II he learned in planning school is the neighborhoods come in and say why wasn 't I informed of this so it 's pretty standard but it appears to me that they 're are a lot of you here that were not informed so I 'd kind of like to look and find that out . It may not help you , you know right now and you 're I sort of at the end of a process which is unfortunate. I think if the Plesant View owners that were here in the other time periods , they 're probably double your numbers that were here talking about they don't want I this at all . Maybe very similar to what you 're saying and then okay , if we 've got to have it , how do we minimize the traffic coming from Carver Beach? How do we minimize the traffic going down Pleasant View? How are we safe? How are we this? How are we that? Here 's what we came up with . III know you don 't like it but that 's what we tried to , we tried to satisfy some of those needs and now you have another one . I think the only other thing I can say is that the road access out to Peaceful Lane will be I improved to be acceptable when that link is made . It would be acceptable to according to standards . There couldn 't be any other way . That may not feel comfortable either but it would have to be . 1 Resident : . . .would that be south where it used to run down CR 17? Krauss : Yes, IResident : That was looked at? I Krauss : There 's actually a stub right-of-way that comes up from Lake Lucy inbetween two homes . Resident: They did look at that? IKrauss : Yeah . As I recall the grade was too significant coming through there . IIBrad Johnson: That 's our big problem. . .Art Owens property . The access to Pleasant View . And to approve this thing now when that is , people can 1 say what they want but nobody here knows when that 's going to happen . Conrad: That 's true . Yeah . We have situations like that all the time . Is that good or bad? It 's probably bad but there 's no perfect way to solve 1 that problem . You can 't hold up somebody 's right to develop unless you can prove that it 's unsafe . I Rodd Johnson: When you talk about being unsafe . . .Nez Perce and Lake Lucy corner that we 're talking about that was 22 feet and 1 believe . . . II I Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 19 Krauss: No . A normal right-of-way which is the land we own is 50 feet . Charles , normal pavement width is what curb to curb now? ' Folch: It is 28 feet face of curb to face of curb on a minor residential street . ' Rodd Johnson: Is Lake Lucy a minor residential street? Jim Stasson: Lake Lucy it would be okay but it 's that Nez Perce corner . . . 1 ( There was a tape change at this point in the meeting . ) Conrad: I think the comments from Mr . Fortier , I understand them but I 11 don 't agree with them . I do agree with Steve , your comments and I don 't want Lot 4 , Block 1 to be a buildable lot at this time until it 's proven to' be buildable . So how do we handle that one Paul? Krauss: Well I 'd add a condition . It was an omission on our part because under the grading/drainage section we do discuss the fact that that lot. is II marginally buildable and there 's no rear yard for the homes should they build one there . Put in a condition to the effect that the lot lines and grading shall either be reconfigured to enlarge the buildable area on that II lot or it should be combined with Lot 1 to make a single larger lot . Conrad: Okay . Any other comments? Is there a motion? Emmings: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #90-15 of the Troendle Addition as shown on the plans dated "Received September 17 , 1990" subject to the conditions in the staff I report . 1 thru 13 as presented in the staff report and then an alteration to 11 as follows . That one will read that the garage barn on Lot 2 , Block 1 will be removed or relocated or the road shall be adjusted so that no variances are required . If it is necessary to remove or relocate the garage or barn , that shall be done prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 , Block 1 or when Mr . Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property , whichever should occur first . The balance of that 11th condition will stay the way it is . Then add a condition 14 that would state the following . That Lot 4 , Block 1 appears to be an unbuildable lot . That the applicant must either adjust the lot lines or otherwise combine the lot with the other 3 lots in Block 1 or in some other way insure it 's buildability to the satisfaction of the City staff . Conrad: Okay , thanks Steve . Is there a second? I ' ll second it . Any discussion . Batzli : Yeah . I 'd like to make two minor amendments to the plan and the II third point of the 8th condition I 'd like to add the following sentence . This is after the additional 7 feet of right-of-way . No vacation of Pleasant View Road shall occur notwithstanding the plans submitted by applicant . And then the 10th condition I 'd cross off , will be accepted and " insert the words , shall be required from the applicant . Conrad: Would you modify your motion? 1 Emmings: Sure . Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 20 Conrad: Any other discussion? ' Batzli : Yeah. I think that that 's the first motion I 've ever heard you second and I was really impressed . ' Emmings: I 'll second that . Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #90-15 for Troendle Addition as shown on the plans dated September 17, 1990, subject to the following conditions: 1 . A tree removal plan shall be submitted for Lots 1 , 2 and 3 , Block 1 prior to issuance of a building permit . Clear cutting , except for the house pad and utilities will not be permitted.. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the city with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the improvements . 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit . ' 4 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right-of-way for permanent ownership . 5 . The cul-de-sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 60 feet and the ' street name shall be modified to either Troendle Circle or Troendle Court to eliminate any confusion in applying it as a through street . Final street plans shall be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department . 6 . The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around the ponding area until such time that turf is established . Turf or sod shall be placed behind all curbing . 7 . Shared driveway access off of Pleasant View Road for Lots 1 and 4 , ' Block 1 is required and a cross access easement shall be provided . This common section of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet and have a maximum grade of 10% . I8 . Provide the following easements and rights-of-way: a . The drainage and utility easements along the westerly property line ' of Lots 9 , 10 and 11 , Block 2 and the ponding area on Lots 3 and 4 , Block 1 that are shown on the grading and erosion control plan shall also be shown on the preliminary plat accordingly . ' b . The acquisition of a drainage easement through the property immediately west of Lots 3 and 4 , Block 1 will be required for the 11 discharge of the detention pond . c . Additional 7 feet of right-of-way along Pleasant View Road . No vacation of Pleasant View Road shall occur notwithstanding the plans submitted by applicant . I Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 21 9 . The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying size and capacity of the storm sewer system and ponding basin . Eight inch sanitary sewer at a minimum rate of 0 .4% shall be constructed on this subdivision and service locations for all of the lots on this plat shall be shown for final submittal review . The final plans and II specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval . 10. Park and trail fees will be required from the applicant in lieu of parkland dedication . 11 . The garage barn on Lot 2 , Block 1 will be removed or relocated or the road shall be adjusted so that no variances are required . If it is necessary to remove or relocate the garage or barn , that shall be done prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2 , Block 1 or when Mr . Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property , whichever should occur first . Lot 2 , Block 1 shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be removed . I 12 . The temporary cul-de-sac should be provided with an easement to accommodate the temporary pavement and be provided with a barricade 11 equipped with a sign indicating the road will be extended in the future . 13 . Lots 1 and 11 , Block 2 are required to have access from Troendle Way . II 14 . Lot 4 , Block 1 appears to be an unbuildable lot . The applicant must either adjust the lot lines or otherwise combine the lot with the other" three lots in Block 1 or in some other way insure it 's buildability to the satisfaction of the City staff . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously . Conrad: This goes to the City Council on the 5th . Are you telling them that? Okay . I think you 've got to go into them with some specifics . It 's pretty characteristic . What you said tonight is pretty standard for what we hear from neighbors on a lot of things . If you want a particular road alingment , if you don 't like that one you know , you should have a recommendation that says City Council we would like you to do this . We would like you to study the traffic patterns from Nez Perce . It 's dangerous now and we can prove it . You 've got to go in with some solid stuff because we hear this all the time . They really were the ones that did set this alignment in terms of the general direction and I think they 're the ones that can take another look into it . So thank you and don 't stop your interest . Mary Stasson: Will they again look at the safety? Conrad: I 'm not sure . It was a major issue of all other homeowners who I came in at previous times and safety is an issue with the Planning staff . We just don 't like to do things that don 't make sense . This is not a high intensive use of that land. It 's a pretty low intensive use . You know if we were talking about 12 ,000 square foot things and high rises and what have you , we 're not talking a whole lot of intensity here . Even though 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 17 , 1990 - Page 22 it 's far more than what 's acceptable to you because you 're dealing with , it is . It 's not out of character with what Chanhassen is becoming . And so it 's , the safety issue was a concern before as we made that link between ' the Carver Beach area and Pleasant View because it was simply a straight shot across and that was the concer . It was going to be a dumping ground for , you know it 's just going to be the quick route to the Crosstown . Paul is telling us tonight , it 's still going to be a quick route to the Crosstown no matter what so you know , we dealt with that information before . Well , I just wanted to talk to you a little bit . Brad Johnson: Lake Lucy now is a dumping ground and a quick shot for everyone down on Nez Perce so , talking about safety , that corner is bad . I think that 's what our homeowners are concerned about . ' Conrad: I appreciate you coming in . - ' Brad Johnson : Is there a record that goes to City Council? Conrad: They get this . We have a City Council member here tonight so . 11 Emmings: They get verbatim Minutes also . Batzli : Tune in every Saturday and watch the video broadcast of this thing . PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2-1 . THE PURPOSE OF THE MODIFICATION IS TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT TO AUDUBON ROAD. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. IIConrad: Steve? Emmings: I don 't have any comments . IConrad: Brian? II Batzli : I don 't have any questions . I think it 's a wonderful resolution . Perfectly consistent with the development of the city of Chanhassen . Conrad: You go along with anything the government wants right? Batzli : Right . Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion? • Resolution #90-2: Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution finding the Modified Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2-1 consistent with the City's 1 s I I November 11, 1990 1 Chanhassen City Council 690 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen , MN 55317 City Council Member: The purpose of this letter is to express the viewpoint of • the residents of Lake Lucy Road residing east of Powers Boulevard, to the plans for development of the Troendle Addition. We have organized together to offer an opinion on the development plans and make our concerns known to the council. In this manner we hope that a development plan can be defined which satisfies the needs of all concerned parties. We support the proposed development plan for the Troendle Addition and feel that a thorough evaluation of the options was performed and the resulting plan represents good work by a number of people. There are several aspects of the plan that are appealing to us: shared traffic burden between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road as a means of exiting the neighborhood to Powers Blvd. , and the proposal for a park in the new development, among other aspects. The major concern of the neighborhood is with regard to traffic safety on Lake Lucy Road (east of Powers Blvd. ) . We feel that a serious problem exists at the present time with the speed and driving patterns of people driving this road in light of the large number of young children living in this neighborhood. There are, or soon will be, thirteen children, ten years old and younger on this street. It is safe to assume that this number will grow in the future as the demographics of the neighborhood reflect young families. The neighborhood is willing to work with the appropriate safety groups to find solutions to this existing problem. Development of the Troendle Addition will add traffic volume to Lake Lucy Road, and increase the risk of injury to children in our neighborhood. We accept this fact as part of development in the community. However, our neighborhood does not wish to provide the only access from Powers Blvd. to the Vineland Forest and Troendle Addition on a "temporary" basis until the proposed Nez Perce road eventually connects with Peaceful Lane. We feel that construction on the Troendle Addition must not proceed until Nez Perce is connected to Peaceful Lane. Witj #1 I IThe residents of Lake Lucy Road are bearing the complete volume of construction traffic for Vineland Forest and feel 1 that this burden should be shared by creating access for construction traffic from Pleasant View Road -for development of the Troendle Addition. The planning committee and the council have previously raised concerns over the difficulty 1 of completing planned road connections at future dates. We agree. This provides another good reason to complete the Nez Perce connection to Peaceful Lane prior to construction Ion the Troendle Addition. Future residents of the Troendle Addition and Vineland Forest would then be provided with a second access for safety reasons without delay. 1 In summary, the residents of our neighborhood feel that the proposed development plan is basically a very good one. Our major concern is traffic safety, and our philosophy is that 1 traffic volume must be shared. We are not stating that some increase in traffic volume is unacceptable, that is the price of community development. We are stating that this I increase in traffic volume, caused by these additions, must be shared between Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road in an equitable manner prior to construction on the Troendle Addition. This is ultimately in the best interests of all 1 of those concerned. We will continue to strive for a solution to this issue until it can be resolved in an acceptable manner. 1 Sincerely, 1 The Lake Lucy Road Neighborhood II / ,�.s-s ‘1P- It' I de,'� ' 1. 444-, 14*04740' . fp 1 dig ' I ' (3 I //II r , , lir J i/ IF?71/4411‘771L/ 1c `kA4.X."11‘)4.11:".aierek / 1 ��'� .. cl...:Iii r etimiti‘ OfffltiQ . I FORTIER &ASSOCIATES, INC. November 12, 1990 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN, Ms. Scharmin Al-Jaffe RECEIVED I Planning Dept. NOV 14 1990 City of Chanhassen CITY 690 Coulter Drive Ut �-'4lvhftSSEN P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 , Re: TROENDLE PLAT Comm: 89-20 Dear Ms. Al-Jaffe: As requested, we are herein submitting an alternate alignment for Nez Pierce as it connects to Peacful Lane and then on to Pleasant View Road. The revised road alignment does not affect the proposed Troendle Plat and is merely one alternative of numerous alignments possible for the connection to Pleasant View Road. As we have previously stated, we can make no representations on behalf of adjacent property owners, Mr. Troendle, nor Mr. Beddor, as to the desirability of the attached sketch. As previously stated, any design considerations for the road interchange must address the apparant wetland off Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road. It was my understanding that you were to forward to me copies of the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting to confirm their interest in the road alignment and also copies of any information that your engineering staff may have establishing the dimensions and elevations of this pond. We have not received that information as of this date. I have spoken to Mr. Owens regarding the pond on his property. He has advised me that this pond was created due to the collapse of a drain tile and that this area is not intended to hold water. Thus, the resulting growth of vegetation which suggests that it is a wetland is artificial and is not in conformance with the intended use of this land. It is my further understanding that the area now ponding water was intended to be fully developed as residential and that the City of Chanhassen was aware of the collasped drain tile and agreed that this was not a wetland, but rather a buildable parcel of land. It is very important for all parties to clarify this issue and I believe it would be appropriate for us to have a meeting with City Engineering. Mr. Art Owens has indicated that he would attend such a meeting. Please advise as to when your schedule and that of your engineering department will allow for this meeting. ATTACH. 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593-1255 1 Page 2 Ms. Al-Jaffe 1 November 12, 1990 Comm: 89-20 Regardless of the disposition of the ponded water on the Art Owens ' property, we believe that the Troendle Plat should proceed as requested. Should you have any difficulty with this request, please contact me. ' You truly, Daryl P. Fortier ' DPF/sf ' encl: Sketch of Nez Pierce-Pleasant View Road cc: Frank Beddor, Jr. Jules Smith ' Art Owens 1 I 1• 0 0 0 I 0 i I 1 v P f ` \ . '''`':_ it i // /// / / / i is j s,: / / / / i / /1 • / / / I 1 i / / / / _) / I ' ./ / / 7 r I - i-; . I - / / �O a J `� / a. / ( i / ill )� y - 1 I y. / j L 7 1r vi1 `,..1::..,.,--'s-\1-.-;;:;-: _..- I--_--- „__—_, - i 3 \EI •mot _ ' ` _ — _ I ,\ Y �� - _ _ -- - I V / ./ "t ' 3 -sue tip' • I -------0 I : di / / / / / ^ _ — —N \ 1 ' ` / I / I I\ yy�-'.rft. / /�► ` :. / /i J 1 I - ,) -15 I •-.jet./+ N -1r z�b i _ L. ' '�. / ,_ :aT" 1-St'vc‘''-' i Er 1 -. _• �4/ \ ` �. 3 \ d� i0\S r . yi �1 fI / /Q/ ��\ ! 1, I I ' 1 1 \ O � a g 1 , -._ - ) i M V-- - . / 10 \ ,,,t 1 1 . - 'T-..t til'I. t id f N/ ti b . - t V,`.)5 4.. - '.. N ..)fi 14[:-.1-%'..I o - 1 - I ) ) --__-------_ i-I �" _ J _IL '' - • 'PIE) ,/{� I ,� ,, I \ �` -__ 0 —toO_- I ' (- ‘L-1 ,\\ i pi 1 , r_i r , \. , / 4. „K4 ji. •4• IL-c.,.. ,___/, -- ' /cv / V ! a: / / -.. .,.,,_..„.47:-;_,.0,t,e;,•-,,,c.... coAr - • ii . 1 I 9 - .• i 8 a "'— -j •! in,_.• •► . e - rli .I.1 tg /' ti.u wi / 1 — 1.g -. . il 1 t-4`.., ::' trig . , g ---- IV"It c' / N Ati I CS I 2 NI co 1: 1 , (.., . i • ., ii ( ,c ,_-, .1 v 0 . I \' ,1 I • . z •■ --.f- - .. LI 1 l''--I 4 1 I .4 i la N , 1'tif %h \ 17.j t 1 ' a / 1 . 1 k.< a vi, . . ._, , 1 *- E 41 '.g.:' it - \ ,I;I_ i / .. ( r e, t . 1 —\- -'h yip.- S i . , -ch, .- cs �O ~ v • _ A ii� ' ` � , te . ,t 1 it /dc' I I 1 4,i, .• , . *3.4,-.1 ,,.., \ , 0. o,... .... ---,..... . :kik • , ...,....... / ' V , 1 / \-41111111 11...1.. �.! ±., S .- ; , �• y11 ;el r i fit; ..---•. ---- -- r•.;1... o' '"� a — =f ••••••••" ` __.- __ O-Ma -• -eL a�- _...1 ' Sz' '�..Wi • \ •\ r •wv},Q at,• •.� •Oq„f,z a ` ■`�... _ • . -.0r-,,,„. Inky. _ 1 Y 1..I I 1 9 ,- CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 ik 111! 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 * FAX (612)937-5739 1 November 15, 1990 1 Mr. Art Owens 6535 Peaceful Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Owens: This letter is in response to our discussions on whether or not the ponding area located at the northwest corner of your property is actually a wetland which is protected by the City. In our discussions you had stated that in the early 1960's you created a kidney shaped pond on your property simply for aesthetic purposes and that the intent was to maintain it as a clean, clear open pond without any vegetation around the edges. You further stated that the pond was intended to be used as an attraction to lots when you subdivided your property in the future. You further stated that alteration to the pond that resulted in it's being somewhat filled with the the result that it now contains wetland vegetation around the edge was a result of the city breaking an existing drain tile during the installation of a sewer and water project. After being contacted by yourself, the Public Works Department installed a new underground pipe which you claim was installed incorrectly and further resulted in the area taking on wetland qualities and then again after being contacted by yourself, the Public Works Department actually came out and dredged out the ponding area to try to restore it to it's original condition. You stated that both Bill Monk and Gary Warren from the Engineering Department have been contacted by you to have the matter resolved since you feel that the pond is in it's current condition as .a result of the City. In 1989, the City was reviewing the request by Mark Senn to deposit 1 contaminated soils on your property. At that time, action was tabled until staff could determine the amount of fill that was being proposed and exactly what the contaminates were and whether or not it was a wetland area that was being proposed to be filled. Upon inspection of the site with the Fish and Wildlife Service and a representative from the Corps of Engineers, staff did determine that the area was a wetland, including the ponding area and the lower land directly to the east of the ponding area on a portion of 1 ATTACH. 8 1 I . Mr. Art Owens November 15, 1990 Page 2 the Troendle property. Upon inspection of the site, it was apparent that the deposit of soils, placed without approval from the City, was infringing upon the wetland ponding area and the ' adjacent wetland boundary. At this point, staff contacted you to require you to go through a wetland alteration permit process to require you to remove the illegal fill or to allow a portion of the fill to remain with improvements to the remaining wetland area. During that process, it was brought up that you believed that it was not a wetland, never was a wetland and should not be considered a wetland and that if it has any wetland qualities, it is as a ' result of the city. The following comments represent the City's position on this subject: ' i. In 1960, when you created the kidney shaped pond, there was no ordinance to regulate your action, nor was there any wetland inventory to determine whether or not that area was a wetland. But all of the soil maps from the '60'.s and '70's show that area as containing hydric soils which is an indicator of a wetland area. This indicates that the area was a wetland prior to being drained by the tile line. The City also has I aerial photos from both 1980 and 1989 that show your kidney shaped pond in 1989 after the city had once again dredged it out and also shows the piles of illegal fill on the property. The 1980 aerial shows a larger area that definitely contains wetland vegetation and characteristics which is where you had stated that the site took on it's different characteristics because of the city's installation of the storm water and ' sewer. Even with the different ponding characteristics from the 1980 and 1989 aerial, it is still clear that the general larger area surrounding the ponding area contains wetland qualities, including the property on the Troendle property. 2. In 1984, the City adopted the wetland ordinance. The ordinance provides the city with regulation of all wetland ' areas no matter what type or size within the city boundaries. The fact that a wetland area may not have existed in 1960 or earlier does not mean that it could not be a wetland at this ' date and protected by the city. Again, reviewing our materials showing how the property has evolved over the years, it is clear that there was always a large wetland area with ' hydric soils and some wetland vegetation. Even though it may have looked just like a low area to you and may have been mowed and maintained as a yard, does not mean that it does not meet the definitions of a wetland as defined by the ordinance ' today. 3. In summary, upon site visitations of the property in the recent months with the Fish and Wildlife and the Corps of Engineers, the current characteristics of the property including the Troendle property is clearly of wetland quality 1 Mr. Art Owens November 15, 1990 Page 3 and will be protected as a wetland by the city. Therefore, 1 the illegal filling that has occurred on the site is in violation of both our grading ordinance and our wetland ordinance and will require you to continue with the wetland alteration permit application. As previously stated, it was felt by the Fish and Wildlife and Corps of Engineers that some of the filling could be leveled out and maintained on the site if the remaining area of wetland is preserved and protected as a wetland area by the City. As I stated to you on the phone, the City Council will make the final determination whether or not the wetland on your property be protected as a wetland by the City ordinance. The only way for a final determination to be made is for the wetland alteration permit application to be processed. It is still staff's belief that the area always has had a wetland quality to it and that even now in it's altered stated is still considered a wetland and should still be protected by the City's ordinance. We understand that you are out of town for the winter months and will continue the wetland alteration permit process when you return in the spring. Please feel free to respond to the comments made in my letter should you have any further comments or questions. Sincerely, 1 Jo Ann Olsen Senior Planner JO:v , I 1 1 1 1 I 141, ' Vr ,. ''.. . •%... - p OF . ., , , * -A., "1- . _ 4 Jik-S-. ,:- 4 - - `'It1/4 ''' -'4 . .., ' ' „ ' , •-70:-.. ..-4 r - .: — . - .ft vow ,...."-- ,et-.4.,.._ . ' -1111tk - .,t . ..ik. ...:., ..: ...::,,, .,--_: ,.. , ', Ira— 10 _ ... '•' — " '- -'''.z--,—.-ar.''...-- - : --"' —1. ----.4 wi..: ..,_ ii .,. s .. t.„. ._ ,. _ ... ,,‘., . ,k- —ft, .—■,4. '' '''4: 4 4.714--.-f ... _.: *Atflkik *, 'I '`‘..... .-- .,tilit,--7;-"'.. _ _ ',,,?`7:i '. '- ...w * --*-*-1%‘:•N-,,,."!Z.;.'- -"z`:;OA- ,.-r • ' -' I-, -11t* *: -- ".7k, ..,,,S. ' ' :.,,s- s....:-_,::-..',..-e, - ---*•.' ;I..:.,, ,..., •- .. - ,,- it ,.--•-• _ ....it,• .. -,...16, Nbri.,•,,,• , *. At _ . ,- -.- - - -... .., -.. .. , ‘::,.i-.*"\' '.I 5--:-t•.'1t*_:'e/1•l,.4..',:'.."i)-v'--.r.'-:I ir ta'-"i'.k.V'i„.k-,...,.:" .,t..■.t---N..A:=r a, -. ,- t•, t-t s-.'.*.-...--e-,,,-"'i'"',-. 4 s ''...':_',;'.4,4,,l.e._.)4 It--"...i'r_- ..'''':..--.;•4•• 6,..-..,1.1-4.4-.-,,.,... ■.;,A„::.:--■,1 11g01I."',t..-i1...-;'. ... ,_ .,,'-...A-. „-... 4..,.1.E.r.•.-..k5.*... it.-_l lt.•-,4. „ i . - i-1.c',-.,4'..'.,.•. ■...".4--., _1••-c. :t ' .. 4 . .. ,.„1. .s"" e 4........1.. ft...., _ 40 .. .,i_. `er -•-•.,. % -_- ,--..... .-,...' .....- -.. ---3.s,,.. ..-,c_-r•;'-...-,--'_---.-__e ,'`,••-_”.-:=%-.,.--.. %. ':',o-.I-i"',i.t.:,:.:,F.-wi.:‘...9r..1,:-„::4".:;•:,-.1-e-.'----'4-.'-0,-:.. ‘".".rr P C,-a"14s`--t,;,,v,e,N,,,.--,.,,,.1,..,-.-,..„,.•..'.„=.,..r 4...s . . , , . _ , —..-. t _ , _ 7 "77, 7l 41 — "'' , 4 .-"•„r_e..i-,L7,_z:. _,•'. ..4' 1.r . . y e k c :4 :-„: •- 4 a • 1 . -,I:A.ft ” - - • ' - -1,:,•, * - - . ,,_s N,141Li. ...:''' • , r . ,r 014 - ' ..„. .--il- , , -awl, -.A,14.,.•;,. .. 1111111 -1 '',.#--.. ' s *4 ft st. •A ilk .' * - A ' ..., A.- - .. . •'t J. e:,.fi'i-.4.4-:; - ---- ... •• ' ' -11V%tA1:-.41k''''141/4-:'*-` I 4, ,I . /: 'N. 1-- -..Z1:-' t' .tef, P• -,s; -_- 4 '•••• 4 1 1 - ”. i - -' .-.--." '...s " .. . „.. ----,- .- 4 0 '}, -• -,,,:-_,..-;„---, Ft ' • - ,-.. .1* .- , .. o - -, '11` 4,.. "-III ..-:.!., " , 4 ,:- . - '-' p -'3 ' M:.• , "-- '_.■111111/61.11.rliner.1/4 ' - ..• Ai:- - ,. 'um , . . .. ss. 2 iv,. • ,..A.c.„,„., ,.. ... ,. -.. ., ' '''''• 4t. ' 4 s', ,,, , e.i.... ,,,:- 4,.. ,, , , '••,'' rV--___ • I-,-- -. .,- ' --or- -:,..- • rr f. 4; • - - • ' ' - ''' ‘ ----.•-..-rc., . • = - t ..e - ''',..- '--4.-. 41t.1 6 ...-- * . - , - - -4. . . • , ----- ' - ,....,, A •• ' .-144, . - - -,-;Z, - ' . - C '-- - = -,"-. - f'5- •„ , - -,....,.- ..t. •;.-lit „t „ , • -"N.I.rik. ---;---.4. ,A,- . • # ..:_.: *._. . , - - "14!'t. - '- -'' 4.. ' yr-,- . 17, 4_ 9 -- :‘,...-imirk -- -C,114141ty • ..:" r 1- - . 1--‘.4-4- - -;_-- ik,VW . ' ' - -• 44,-; _. :, „, „4„k„ , -_ ..,.....";,_Not„11,Ix„. 1, -ii, . ,•5'4,- --------;-- •'-. t -4. „1- ....-....._ ,fs."4, .-A... ..- 14, ,At , ,---'r ,- „„_i-..1'.. ...%.. . - 1-411111r...`., erl iii: ..-i&L, te--....1._ ?;* iTZ.„'1-,.,'.0,.!'''*i , •••,-..:7-,,-.=. --,-...- to . .. .. .--,- Ire.. . .-• ,- ..-7rt- -..,-A--,, ..-.4c•-.7.-._ ..0.- -...ist.1/416:44,4„ - ... -: - - .- , .........=-,.. ; ..,.. . ..;:c . ...,,r ..„4„.4.:•.4%.4.4. . ,., : ..„..„. ,, __;...: ,,,i,-,::: , ,.. . "--,P--- ---4-1,- t., . 1,0, ..,, . ,,, ,,14.4._....-.., ,,I., I:4.: _.11.- .i. - - - 1 ., , 1174,*' --;st.-; , --' s.'3.": Ls; +-.A 4"''. ft _.:,-,4,,r-IS.. ;',.4,!- o' "---' , t 74 i• - A.'-4 !4-4t t,--iit--I' ,.' ,:-44.*. . - 4",--ft"4"'--, ---- - ..' ;. - ...:--..1zir ,..4...-rei -14:- . et_...,,,;(4.f.t..... ,4;,,. :. ,•• , 1 .i.•,•_, • _1 ,.... .F, A , t. . , - 'Ar.-,..,.- , _w-,..,,, --. •- , 4.- *-i ,..-'` '. -- - -. , ,•-,,.-lii ...-----,e.iC&,'' 1,•'.4.FC ). W:,-; ,,...''t'',44,5:". • * 1. • ; '-• ''' . -- ,- A.4 ''bs- ' -,-, 4ir'''' II -V" ...41. '-'‘ . -...,,,t- V '',14--•,,,,' ''''m.:**' -t -. V' •:‘,.-, A 'Nlit . A t. IA.--.„?.:11.....- f:, .. .„... ....... . 1 s , 4/-.it.; -, v. , . -. - 4... ' v,,,W,, '.,,c7_-'," :It; 4V.i.,..fA 4. if,.:0,1 •,,,' 3 , - '.... -.sA'".'''''", - -`,,• !: •0 '..-i klir. '"- i .' ' 4 7 iical, , ' ? ."7"- :: ,,,,,,''" 'VV... 41-.1,;(4-: ,. 4i.,''' 5t.,. - '. _,----1,--4..m-..-I A cirt a s,':.,- =„ ,.4:v.I` *-*-3-'•--rA",,--• . - ir l i . - .,,.. •i -,. - -...#4.4.- -',.. ' , - ' *--N. - 4; ------ ' .L.4-4--.--tte 4 ' ..0,,,A=17. ' '4-',.q.,',- -' -"`--•... e."'rrkt ..-- '.,„ 'V_ --- '. . , ..-.. 1...,-, s-r ' ' - '• ' .."--. _ .1,- AA *., - ,,,,i•..."...fr"......A..c.,ii i . -`12.„.... .g. .-•-• _-, S. - - '..- ! 'At • ': ` "` ..,, .ohi 4 ...„, ; ' .... , ....,41.,- --,,....A:5,6_44---(-.,:t. ` ,.14' ;",,*:-. -"'?-iciri`1107, `.."..9.' -••• ---4.2-1-•,,, .,-4,t-,1.--0,,,,z,„ -"AA*3/4,,,..." -•-•-• '' , ,, -.1 1' . -.,,kr-;- .:_s•... -t--\ ir‘ ' . " ' t-A'v.,-, ;7--- . l':•.1 -4.-.., 4-,' .,-. - •-,ill, '- 40 ,,T'''' -••• '-..kl'''': -- .c,..,,, . - -'-'; '-144140,14% --:-_. .i '-- ' A6 Ite Le It•-k., 13i. " - -4,-‘1p._,.''i"..-4 ---. -...--p._...;--- --4 ... -4,. 4 ■ . '-,7. 41. -.,` ••• ... ,A... •kt. -.....P ..4,,,, .-,...m- ''':- . ,-- ,4.„,1 - ; .. ,.''‘'''. - -,---ke:--. - ii . `.0i'40,.*:'''''-:."...' • ,' ' ,';- -14, `z,it.'"..--.--- '''''. " '-' -'• ''''' , . }, ....,7. ,z,74,„: ? _ 4. _,,, .. - '44.4.....,1 . 1*', '-,'4,1••, ,..._ 4,,.... 1;4,-..14-0:. , ,,,....4.4,- „,,ffliw.,...1 --.0--.- A. ,.'..: .;% 't' •`',.---e.; -.)c,--....--mr .` 1.00,4,4- .:4.--',„'--:_,;_,,,, - ..,%. _ ,, : -,-,i,cei .,-,I.,. . -"~, ._,, ;...k. ,r■ y,.,-.,- ,,, . . ::::::>-a.._ ,.....,- . _.iL,-. "-''--.. - •-•:..*:, ' - ‘k-,4111. ‘ti'it 4L .. s ,,,-. , , mAm 1044. „A."1,.„A. .'s. mA,4.-? , ' st'-- , '.-'77,mtliA°'- ,k. - 41■ ,1._ ... ,,... ,_ '`.. 1-1L 1...*■ ,,,,Atmes:•,,,...:`,,, .,,,,..-m-Alt. "' -,e - ..----:1-•A -4- --- 5.:Nr=.41.„ -- - ' ' --4:' '-''',' • r• .--- Aar._ '''' -.40')"° ...`.--‘it''1:-..._." 414: Ivii,.7- ,t......--- .1- = .s•-• ---lit, -, , . .i; '• .., '. - i,.,..-. ,‘ - : ,..4.1,.V ., . __,, .: .--..3K ..Ast..... - 3 4...•1.4 -2t. --iw. -4 . .' ., -'., 1'- ' ' ' ' '11. • ' -: ' - -- .•'',. '4" '■4;„-"t1'- ,r* .1P-411.5•16 "- s.. 11. -... - .-4.0.,.. '•.,•:-4.1k -''..--'Cr. .,> '' --_,It t- ;• *." tv. • \ -.,3.1.- ' -"AN. ' ' .,..--*-- illb". - ' '4P-, - -.-14-91-1:"*. * t "'-'-. .. ...z ."%-dir. - ''' - '. ,,,,,.‘ . ,, • '-A , 4 N ...4, . .. •T ......V.,,,.. •.‘ k• . . --44' -t- ' • lecig.- -'--. = _, .* . _ .4, , , . . . *r= --", It•--. '1.**, %. - :f. - , .-.14(..-ir,..- - ' PEN1 -' VE-1.--- .7- _..:.- ^.',A,Yea-".' '4.-.-...:•_. -4,it,• " , ■ „ , , -,_... .. r ,-;p- :...?,.-Airt,,-- . ' -• -rip 3. .- 1■• - - , '3« t • it.t. ,` '. ... '...,.■ - .,-, ..'''' 1441111Kir 111-Ziecitt;ir rArit %OA* * -,,,,,_ - -Yu ,.,- . _ * .., I f”:. 1 .., ,. \6)e)6\ 1>n2-\41 •■,,, Ay. , ,An„.i:ot*.,,' ; :, "i" *4' 's. -`, - '" - . 1 It; ' AKx s:141Fir:". Ir‘- -011111? V ''''a::: ' tIrtill41" ,jam ' y. ( •._ b y .c {• - "yam i. - 'w t . ' '!e� ' i ,sa A 1!. { yr? ._ ! 1 -ice' r k _�yi 1' L . sc- `, ♦* Fs }:•;-._ l/ ice '. �` .,1 #11111V ite „,„. ..- ....- cam. + r.�_ s . f. p.4. v • - - fir' l,o ` ..I, , 1,, _, �. 4 ..-4 ! ^. 4.7 f ! Eli+. . ,..--. . .i.1-. .1._ ....„i-:-...„ _ , .4,..,. ..,_# '•cam N 4: N si`'i _ t 4�.. ,. •r .'� _• I - ` ----Jr 4 ` ( _,fix -- i:R •dam - "! S c -k w - '.'' � , J 1l� 9 s•'�• � • •- - -.s - ¢ <' R ,s. _ ,y._ - it. 4 '4�t 7. irk..5 r. 'sj} ,,,....l-:'Y,:-a1- , t� ! -' T ...i �''..-- ,— -+� ' `�'-y!' -•'s�rE - �Y -. - '4....te .. 3 i k l L ,4: s <. '! s T - -41- =.i:'' ----f-'-- r •. t 0 -- ;` *" . -1_ 4i• sr j6 x - VF .s j i�}7fjl -, 2. F..,i6 • <; !7'iY t-^°yi - - s.� ♦ i. K ,s .'S- :it '�`` - `� ; - ` - { d T _#_' . t t, - - ztl�:a _ L Y : te :E t 4 t .y - - ..47:1:1)1:1 ,-.-4: *-:?:;.!•'::.-•\‘-'4,-.-.1":11rft;;Z*11"-:-..."-'1'.'47- i' *1 ty s:' t s y ► ��ti x s.......„ ‘,_ . .. .._ ,,,, i ,... .n._ ...„... .„ ..,.,1,,. ... .0,..tz... =:. .1.- 3 ...,,,,,,c., ,. .,,, .,-.;-‘,., 3, _ t• _.., . .... _ _._., s2•g - t' . , t ' a_ r `r re . ..{-0 ,. i St s'''... .......,„,:mt„... ,' -' iTe '--"' t .'''--' 44--- -f:3-..- - I . ' --- -• ' 't: - -•:•4- 1`• ..47,4";- ,.._ ..z. --. Ilts,.. i Kee l� '.�', 1 .f f" t it ,ti$. .'Lktti - y- .L , •y, �) e t 4 ,yam ye!iii.s---V Lam- c s i.3 - iG ' • r;`;� f'- ,i 'R•'�b k,,..-41i., _i' .*•' � ` l''_-.�` 1 e ' ` `R:let t,:�. r yam_ - " �- Y t ;'".CJs -' -5;,.-3-;,...- k_<„ +•-a-� 4_-' - - ' -, , ` - " rT -.. -QTY _^- - '*.- •as - -4- ,,..._X - --. _ a "s `.1,;;.-4-::-::_1::"7-_-5-"- �.�1 �� r :ri aic rt°in' '1` y.. t �` # Tj s •"" ,.c iS-:S s'e -,:::it,---:.;. '`- s •,.. - t � !j ; - i t.:M 6-! < -y..2,S'c-3r - 3 r - mot•�= it S.... • t..--c It o .o u y . IPA 100ii . , . , ,_ -- .. • ---rte-f' O yh .� ■ ';, ''' C'''.- ==� �� Greenwood • * ,J , r •~ -_terj a i t / ,�.. - u�E •:_ , ; . .. - • •• 1, • � ..� ,; _.� :j ' • / I I .4 iy` ' =:7 • ∎ ' Qf • . •' ` , .�, ' -. Iv.�.!_- 1. •, deo — Sorbets - -?, K tt16H �+ '•- 0.• �. • point c.. t M l • - /,^•i��- pEt.tG - .'T. x;.27. _ o ,Ji St Albans Bad •• �, -17::, 'd.. °� ,:"�'� C. �- C r �,XCg151or .� .'... i_ ` % •4,42•741,* iar P cr_j.,:_.L— • :. ) :.'••11-.. PS MG ,-, '..4..;.-',--..y4-.-;,,,;74-*-- ':, _ �. {`>` '��, ,'\'.` ,,sp.5c•"rr ••o•�':. f�'"i i - 7!'t_� •' :"�' PF'. .i ��. ; _ •.�-�� . _ i,ffl"r Gd• Z� �p is• f ' if* .T 'J J. v � •� �, ,/rr ".' .; --* _ • ': ' _ ' PI.OlCid F P� i," i o ilsi'. . y i�1 'r �' .• '•_s� , 'i fit• _ p_ �' - 4 ' f Qce1l IF"lBT•l�_•�• _.� y{ PEltt -cl�• � -- :;" • •:• r• PBMF- .•� ,'" H 1/,/' / ht ••fir•• CY!7-•-• • 7 /+ , ' \ . Y i ,4.� �' CVO s'ti • 7i•• b ...--1 , • ' 9c1 e 'G i P9S• •O-.CfkCI_ _•g. , .•v... - 8 9 •N •:jig �� `'�,•• ' .• r "'z°` . 1V1,,//.. • -:-s., 0.,`T _9 P.FO 'P�:IF i PE-C ,..4.5 -c., , 4 ♦ "MC.,--,. ANC __ r, ` �` Ep, .. n .• I:L._FAIN ,y-r -„,:,�' to . . t }? �_ : _- ---- 's - ‘ • "��-• �•�� . � rAC F. .�� • . �:�f�iJ•� �•.. . �/ - l�f�•�i}'�,CJ�•'t �a�i►: Y - - •C• At- -I� PE `f �E�nC-� ; : ML. , ' ,: ' ° c rL So,Lf `«, . -p 1� �. . .p R d t� r; o _ pEMC.Ie w ` 'C _ Ft1 EteC• otc ,- � '-=j �`• . �; r; _ " : '.. fir •'•P.L.15..,G i,.!.,r'-'-'1":-E, ----7.',/i- ;.::_k; ; • -.-.., I' roPAr—,A.,,, -"CO diair 7 .__.s. , .4,..• • f,7.•.S-4-6-. - .l r_ x -J I J _h,�,�� ,: .Pwr3t' �C t i.'•,.4,,,,,.: ;�PEMF ?Luc � - :4 _ "tot �5 f '` -�: , ' 'I. , _ ,,(�.�. -;•,�'. ; \�1 /9E4497 c, ., G 7.‘ .1:4'056 1...\--re* -- -E) - 457 32 30' E. cHaNH< t 35' 454 455 (SHAKOPEE) 456 I NOTES TO THE USER • Wetlands which have Been fie :lei document NOTE on the map by an ante ee I•► As document was prepared primarily by stereoscopic SYMBOLOGY EXAMPLE • Add,trom or corrections to the of high altitude serial photographs.Wetlands were displayed on this map are soil on the photographs based on vegetation,visible SYSTEM information to the address of end geography in accordance with the United - _ I SUBSYSTEM • Subsystems Classes, ress Inc of Wetlands and 79/31 D ter December 1 Habitats of the Unked CLASS m bsyst were developed spa (FWS/OBS - 79/31 December 1979). The aerial lb L2E WETLANDS.i,cs INVENTORY map • Some areas designated as Ri r aphs typically reflect conditions during the specific SUBCLASS.WATER REGIME (INTERMITTENT STREAMS)r a id season when they were taken. In addition,there tion of wetland a margin of error inherent in the ground and the torricai UPLAND(NON-WETLAND) • This map uses the class Unc a i sphs. Thus,a detailed on the g On earlier NWI maps that cl; a is of a single site may result in a revision of the Bar MB).or Flat(FL)class Unc• d boundaries established through photographic . .u•station. In a forest some small wetlands ds cluddedaoon • versions aMB). .scurad by dense forest cover may 1 e 6 / 19'4 C ®r,-) 4044.4. / 0 / ! 7 I 1/1 X 7 �- 1 d4144 _ 1 exK is _ 1 I I I I I I I I I I