Loading...
9. Final plat Zimmerman Farm on Dogwood Rd .41,! , , CITY OF 9 , i CHANHASSEN w , ._ ,. 4 V ' ' 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O.BOX 147• CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-1900• FAX(612)937-5739 1 bl ft AdnKrit Endorse ✓-7)W/ MEMORANDUM iAodiffed I Rajectec+ 0st - -S :��-" TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager JIM.Submlttad to commission 1 FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner '=~so-nusad 13 Council DATE: May 25, 1990 --.... �g6 • SUBJ: Zimmerman Farms Final Plat IOn April 9, 1990, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Zimmerman Farms with the fo owing conditions: 1. The City shall officia 'ydx map the road alignment as illustrated by Exhibit 2f e Sr. Engineering Technician memo dated April 4, 1990, c ft 2. Erosion control shall bType I . I 3. The applicant shall Eceive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed Distri and Department of Natural Resources. I4. The street name ` the plat should' a changed to reflect the current street:aame of Dogwood Road I 5. The applicant shall dedicate to the ity a temporary roadway easement ,:for e: • 6. Require 4edication of 40 ee <Sa onQ .5V4.'H - `` ine of Lot 1 and 2 to*boycombined with the existing 20 'of right-of- way for the .. • ._ pot rural s = - ght-of-way but improvement of that r • •f- ,,t_ P y • * of be required until Ithe rest of Dogwood or Drive is improved or until development in the area w 12 requirement improvement. I 7. Require dedication of 30 eet of roadway easement along the north lot line of Lot 1, Block 1. ' 8. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm 1 i1 . i i ' t Mr. and Mrs. Brandt Zimmerman Farm Plat April 24, 1990 Page 2 Ii from the southeast corner of Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision. 9. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, I Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. . Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. Ill. Construction plans and specifications for the temporary turnaround shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The turnaround shall be built in accordance to the City's rural road design (7 ton) . IThe applicant has submitted a final plat for City Council approval. The final plat is consistent with the preliminary plat and meets II conditions #1-10. The only condition that the applicant is not agreeing to is Condition #11. The applicant does not feel the turnaround should be designed to a 7 ton standard. IThe City has already allowed the applicant a private drive rather than the required public street. The reason the City ever allows such a compromise is if the access/turnaround is designed to City I standards to ensure safe access. In his memo (Attachment #2) , the Senior Engineering Technician further reviews Condition #11. Staff feels Condition #11 should continue to be required and recommends I approval of the final plat with Condition #11 as currently stated. The Senior Engineering Technician has also recommended that the trail easement be extended to the west to include access to Crimson Bay Road to the south. IIRECOMMENDATION IIStaff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the final plat #89 -11 for Zimmerman I Farms as shown on the final plat dated May 21, 1990, with the following conditions: 1. The City shall officially map the road alignment as I illustrated by Exhibit 2 of the Sr. Engineering Technician memo dated April 4, 1990. I2. Erosion control shall be Type II. I . II 1 • Mr. and Mrs. Brandt Zimmerman Farm Plat April 24, 1990 Page 3 3. The applicant shall pp hall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources. 4. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. ' 5. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. 6. Construction plans and specifications for the temporary turnaround shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The turnaround shall be built in accordance with Alternative No. 1, to the City's rural road design (7 ton) . The grade for the turnaround should be reduced to 3%. 7. The applicant shall extend the description of the trail easement westerly 25 feet to be continuous with the extension of Crimson Bay Road. 8. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract and provide the necessray financial security to assure the property installation of the improvements." ATTACHMENTS 1. City Council minutes dated April 9, 1990. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician dated May 30, 1990. 3. Letter from Jerry Steiner dated May 18, 1990. 4. Final plat dated May 21, 1990. ' 1 1 1 i -- - W( wUEIcia rwezi Aprii 54-14M- 1--) y PRFZDl naRr Pue Pat =maw pans, was= WEST CF MOW 41 AM i MOTH CV IM MO= DRIVE, DONALD W. I i 1111 Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, maybe I'll give a brief overview and then Clary can , explain the alternatives. At the March 12th meeting staff was directed to reassess access options for the Brandt parcel and surrounding areas. As you may recall, staff originally proposed providing a loop street back to Highway 41 i_ i II fran Dogwood Road over the Brandt parcel. We believe that a connection between Dogwood and Crimson Bay, which was pointed out in the report, was technically t B1 feasible but we did not recommend that due to previous actions where alternatives to serve the area were considered. Both the Planning Camiission and the City Council asked that that connection be reassessed at which time staff indicated that we thought it was technically feasible from a grading standpoint based upon new grading information, topo information that we had and I that since the power company put through the power line, that it was reasonable fran a tree loss standpoing since the trees herd already been removed. Since that time working with the engineering department, 3 new alternatives were developed. Thus if you add in the original Crimson Bay/Dogwood connection that I we'd been considering, plus the obvious alternative of doing nothing, there's 5 alternatives to consider. Any of the four potential build alternatives, if you will, provide a response to the concerns that have been raised regarding the I need to provide an overall access plan for the neighborhood and eliminate the over length cul-de-sacs while maintaining traffic safety. In reviewing the alterantives, the Planning Department has concluded that Alternative B, which II Clary will show you in a minute, is probably the most effective one in providing all the access requirements for the future that we see for this area while minimizing impacts on area parcels. It would however require the dedication of an easement over the northern 33 feet of the Brandt parcel plus right-of-way 1 would also be provided for the cul-de-sac, the formal cul-de-sac at some point in the future for Dogwood as had been shown an the original plat. When you look at alternative B though, it sort of begs the issue of whether that Crimson Bay/ I Dogwood connection should still be made. It would technically again, be a fairly easy thing to do. It's not part of Alternative B per se but it is a question that needs to be resolved. Staff normally recommends preserving as many access options as possible and that clearly is one that we've gone an Irecord as saying is feasible. on the other hand, it does impact lots an the Brandt subdivision and does require the procurement of right-of-way fran the Arboretum to became effective. We believe that in general the overall access II alterantives being explored under Alternative B resolve the neighborhood issues pretty much as we see them. Therefore we're really not recommending anything particularly an that Crimson Bay connection. We're going to defer to your direction an that matter feeling somewhat comfortable that Alternative B does the job for us. We've recannended approval with conditions that are pointing towards Alternative B being the selected alternative. We're proposing that I official mapping of all future streets also be procured by the City Coiaicil so we have something as record as properties do develop over the years. That we can continue to effectuate this response. With that I'd like to defer to Gary to give you an overview an bow those alternatives worked out. 1 Mayor Cbmiel: Have any of the adjacent property owners had a chance to review this prior to this evening? Good. I see some heads nodding. 1 21 • airy Warren: It couple of preliminary cotaments maybe additional to what Paul has II said. When we took a look at this item, I believe this was to be pictured as sanething to be...quick overview look at the grades. At the vegetation and basically try to fit in alternatives that fit with the contours of the land and 11 mould pose as little environmental harm, so to speak, as possible and still abate the... It's not to say that there aren't numerous scenarios that can cane cut of this. ..but we came up with basically 3 alternatives here. On the other II hand, we did look at it and did look at grades and such and have talked with hbDot to further define sane of the issues as far as cut on TH 41 and as far as the TH 5 are concerned. We had talked about the fact that...controlled access situation for a quarter mile on both TH 41 and TS 5 where lrinDot will not allow access to...TH 41 and TH 5 intersection in the future. We already are experiencing problems there... We did lock-at utilising existing access points of which there are two north of that location on TH 41. Sort of touchdown points but gives us sane criteria to where this connection might be. What I have up here is Alternative A which is in the packet. Basically it shows caning off of the north side of Lot 1, a 60 foot -right-of-way and connecting to the , north here at this touchdown point. The road could be taken through the Arboretum property as shown here in a number of configurations and connected into that so we'd have sane form of thru traffic ciruclation. The grades that II we're looking at here are approximately 7% grade or less. The steeper grades are on the westerly part of the project here. As you get further to the east we end up with rolling farmland and such and we're talking about 5% to 7% so a pretty modest grades for example. Tree removal, up again in this area primarily but again, as Paul mentioned, there's utility work that has been done by Minnesota Valley. Not as big of an issue as when we originally had looked at this item. Alternative B, a little different twist to the scenario. Basically II again caning off of the north side of the subject property in this area. Now we show, I think we have a good sense here, connects to Tanadoana Drive off of the Zimmerman parcel here and here it's going to be an attachment point here. We've chosen this access point which just meets the quarter mile criteria and there's an existing building there that would have to be raised. Some additional tree removal perhaps.in here. But again, the same grade situation. A.little bit different concept for accessing through the Arboretum property. ..It .does meet the criteria and does provide... . . - Mayor Chmiel: The State Highway Department requires that quarter stile setback II from major intersections? Is that correct? - Cary Warren: That is typically their criteria, that's correct. This is Alternative C and the only difference here, sajor difference is showing the road I accessing through a common property line of the two lots... We're looking at this to provide a more gradual access to accommodate traffic movements and that basically cuts down...Alternative B. The grades through here are, we can get a II 7% grade but it canes at sane cost. The existing grades are a little steeper through this area and tae would have to tolerate more significant cuts out there which would result-in a little bit wider path of construction so to.speak. The II City has entertained conditions of this to utilise or waive our subdivision criteria and go to 10% grade. This is certainly.possible but to minimise the amount of cut in•that particular area, it would be about 5 feet. This exhibit 4 shows the 7% grades and the 10% versus the existing terrain so that's one way that the impact could be minimized. Tree removal with this alternative on the westerly end is somewhat less than on the other two alternatives because it's in 29 ' the area Where the trees bioally.., shows the ree area fairly well defined. Just looking at aas ,s area oh . is ta little narrower... leaDot, current traffic is sumaarised in the report for SE 5 and '18 41 and Paul and I have been diligent in working with the Carver unt caning to rapid conclusion bare:..� 5 will be Y..•wards of 30 which vehicles per day in the year 2000 and TR 41 we're up to 10,000 so I think�wee're very sympathetic to MnDot's criteria on the quarter mile for the access restriction and it also makes stole as we look at our developments through here... and maybe if Chide:T h you. Is there anybody that would like to say something go on the repetitions as we had fran the last time and just bring out sane new points, we'd appreciate that. ' Peter Brandt: I'm Peter Brandt. I'm not sure who Donald Brandt is but that's a name that's on the application. Mr. Mayor and Councilmerbers, tonight I would like to first endorse the plan subnitted and second, just very briefly reiterate ' some of the items that we brought up last time when we were here on March 12th. Councilman Hoyt: Which plan is that you're endorsing? Peter Brandt: I'd like to endorse the plan submitted April 5th by Paul Krauss, the plan that endorses Option B as you've already seen and have discussed very briefly here. We feel that given the amount of study that's already been done ' on this piece of property over the last 3 years and the reiteration of that tonight, that this plan should now pass as recommended. As it stands, the easements that are being requested take at least 2 1/2 acres of the 20 acres ' being subdivided and we feel that that inpacts the land already. Without any real benefit for either of the two properties being This . done However, we're willing to live with this for the future needs opted' that might happen in the area. Just to reiterate the points we diiscussedll�t ' tine we were here. We told you how we intended to use the land. Basically for our residence and our desire that the subdivision be done without the road easement from Crimson Bay to Dogwood Road across the middle of our ' property. feel that most of those points are net by this plan now and I don' want beat a dead horse but now there is an overall plan and it Hakes sense to us and it appears to address the 5 major ca terns that we had mentioned last time. Again, ' we urge you to pass this subdivision, Option B as illustrated and as the Planning staff recommends. Any questions? Mayor amndel: Thank you. Kurt La hinghouae: Mr. Mayor, I'm Kurt the owner of the land and we too endorse the 10 a representing Tim !Ester, Krauss' maw except we want to tt little i t off min l i between item 1 and item 7 in that item 1 calls forathe trroads illustrated lin Exhibit 2 to be met and item 7 calls fora portion of it to be dedicated in the plat. We feel that that road that runs along the north line of our ' a road. If a road is put in there, it will be for the future property is ef properties concerned and should not be dedicated at this time. Weaagree of all with the napping process which is designed for such future considerations so we would ' prefer that. . 1 30 1 / 1 ' City Council Meetu. pril 9, 1990 ) f Councilman Boyt: I've got a question about that that it might be helpful to ask now. Gary, isn't it our normal procedure when we're platting properties to try II to get this land dedicated to the City? i Gary Warren: Definitely. 1 Councilman Boyt: And so this would be the time to do it? Gary Warren: That's correct. II Councilman Workman: It's ally half of it isn't it? 30 feet? t Gary Warren: 30 feet of the 60 foot right-of-way. II Councilman Johnson: If no road's built in the future, it'd be just like the CL sewer easements we got rid of earlier. II Gary Warren: The City can always goose to vacate it's right-of-ways or easements, that's correct. I Councilman Johnson: We must do 4 or 5 of these a.year that we vacate that we reserved earlier and ended up when the development occurred, didn't need it I anymore. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Yes sir. Nick Dennis: M name r. Mayor, honorable Co mcilmenbers, my me is hick Dennis. I II i own Lot 5 in Crimson Bay and after having vfng reviewed what we've seen here tonight, I guess myself and mgr family are in favor of Plan B without the II connection going through to Dogwood. That's ra ally comment, thank you. Councilman Boyt: What about the people in Lot 3? Are they here? It looks to me like we're going to have the greatest impact on them. II Councilman Johnson: If the Arboretum ever sells that property and develops it which is the bi est if I've ever heard. ' � I've never heard of a university ever II getting rid of property. Acquiring it yes. Getting rid of it, no. Mayor Camel: Yes sir. Please state your name and your address. I Ken Daniels: Daniels is the name. I think I've been here before and I've spoken to you before about this situation. What I wondered were some questions that I wanted to ask. We're talking about the west side of Lot 1, which is the II lot I'm concerned with. We're talking I gather a 40 feet easement or right-of- way or what are we talking about? As I understand there'd be an assessment if that road was developed. I F- t C cilman Johnson: That's right. Kai Daniels: Who would pay that assessment? I Councilman Johnson: Benefitting property owner. I 31 f City Council Meeting April 9, 1990 - . - - . ) Councilman Bolt: You're it. - - • ill ' ' illMa y or Cndel: Gary? . r I Ken Daniels: That's what I thought. t, nary Warren: The benfitting property owners Mr. Mayor. IKen Daniels: Now that would be, I don't view that as a help tome from the 550 and I understand you can't look at it that way but I'm having the west end of II that lot carved up to the tune of 40 feet plus the setback of 30 feet and then in addition to that, right now I'm giving an easement over I think 20 or 30 feet in addition to Lot 2 to get at the property he its to go down to. flow I had that question and than I'm wondering about the north end of that lot which is I 1,130 feet. Under Plan B I gather that that would be involved and that would run approximately 115 feet at present day costs times 1,130 feet. i the other side 550 times 115. Now maybe 10-15-20 years when and if you go ahead with it, II those costs, I don't think they'll be going down. They'll be going up. Then I understand with regard to the east side of that lot, 346 feet. There's a trail easement. Would there bean assessment on that? ICouncilman Boyt: . No. Ken Daniels: Well what I wanted to make clear is that I don't see any benefits I really to Lot 1 fran this. That's the lot I'm speaking of and when you take away the setback, you're talking about 2 1/2 acres caning off of Lot 1 plus the assessments. I'm not really in favor of B. I'd really probably be in favor of II C but if you were tamp that property, I understand there would not be an assessment. Councilman Johnson: It'd be even worse on Lot 1. IKen Daniels: Would it? IMayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think so. Ken Daniels: It goes down the middle then right? 1 Councilmen Johnson: Between Lot 1 and Lot 2 and also cuts through the edge of Lot 1. You thinking A maybe? IIKen Daniels: I just saw those a little while ago. Councilman Johanson: Are you buying Lot 17 . IIKen Daniels: Yeah. . Councilman Johnson: This would take the little thing in the front and then cut 1 through the corner of your lot. I don't know where you're planning an putting your house. II Fen Daniels. That's part of the problem because there is about, really about 2 1/2 acres including setback caning off that so I don't view this as an advantage I 32 II -- • City Council Weetinc )April 9, 1990 } II end I realize that you can't look at it that way but I think you're really putting that Lot 1 at a disadvantage. For Lot 1 to give you an easement over that, I think we'd really be in a bad position at a later date. li Caauilmen Boyt: While you're there I might suggest to you that since this is being brought on by the subdivision of that property into two lots, that maybe you want to look at something between you and Lot 2 to mitigate the loss of II property there. Ken Daniels: Yeah, but see I was looking at 1 too on the north and. What II happened is you've taken, now I've never understood why you wanted, I wasn't part of the earlier plan I think which came in 2 years ago I think that was and that I think involved the north end of that lot but what you're really doing II under that Plan B is carving up three sides of that property: Your east, north and west. Aren't you? Councilman Boyt: I don't follow the east side. II Ken Daniels: The east side you're putting in the trail. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That would be the trail portion. II Gen Daniels: See the only part you're leaving alone is the south side. I Councilman Johnson: We're putting in a fictions line on apiece of paper for a . future trail if such trail is appropriate in the future. I f Ken Daniels: There aren't any setbacks? Councilman Boyt: No. I Councilman Johnson: No, you just can't build on top of the trail. You wouldn't be building that far back on the lot probably anyway. You'd be... I Ken Daniels: I see a tremendous hardship. I figured it over $200,000.00 in assessments. II Cbuncilman Johnson: Actually when they build, you're on a corner, they usually only take what, is it the shorter of the two? 'there's sage kind of formula there for corner lots that reduce those assessments considerably. 1 Gary Warren: The scale is one factor here I think you have to keep in mind. Residential lot assessments versus here a 2 1/2 acre parcel which puts it in a II little bit different league. Yeah, i.e.do try to-recognize that-the property or parcel is getting bit m more than one side for a road,-we typically adjust with one half of the shorter side and they get a credit.:for that distance. The bottom line in any of the assessments are that_the assessment value bss to II sustain the test of benefit so that if the property's not increasing in value, as a minimum the value of the assessments that are being levied against the ' property then it cannot be sustained. •-8o its not an arbitrary thing that can II be placed upon this that the City decides in the future to actually construct Iroads through the easement or the-officially mapped:areas. At that time the 429 process which requires hearings sad feasibility:study and such would be done I :_ 33 II II illCity Council Meeting April 9, 1990 with full knowledge of the shutting and benefitting property owners and that II whole thing would be studied very thoroughly at that time. f Kea Daniels: But you're not talking about...right-of-way. Pardon me, I should III say an easement being given by Lot 1 over all that area. = Gary Warren: Well right-of-way is an easement. Actually giving of the easement at this time, as was pointed out earlier, it could be vacated. I think I the thing that the official mapping, where that canes into play here is we're talking about an area that's more encanpassing then just these two lot areas and ' all that that is doing is preserving the City's right to either call the question and acquire that property for the right-of-way or to allow it to go under development. In this case, this portion of the subdivision, Lot 1 as we were discussing, is being asked to give it's share of the right-of-way as that ' road would extend to the east. If it were actually built, the rest of the x right-of-way would be required to be dedicated through the rest of the land there so every property owner along the way, if it were subdivided, would be II responsible to give their 30 feet let's say of that area so you wouldn't have to pay as an owner of Lot 1 for acquiring their land. So you're being asked in this case to give your proportionate share of that future roadway. ' Ken Daniels: Do you see how it benefits me? I don't. Councilman Johnson: When sewer canes in in the future, which is when the II property is subdividing this, then you do have a benefit in there if you subdivide your lot. IIKai Daniels: You may not subdivide... Councilman Johnson: Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on how they do the assessment on a per lot assessment. Ken Daniels: What about the lots to the west? The lakeshore? They're going to benefit from the easement over on the west side but that would all be assessed Ion mine... Gary Warren: Again, the whole assessment and the reason why it goes through the II statute process here is because it is a unique element of each project. We have entertained, Sluff Creek Drive is a good example where we have utilised an area assessment policy instead of a front foot assessment policy to levy the benefit to properties that nay not actually have frontage abutting the roadway I improvement but that actually can be argued that they are receiving benefit. I don't know if that would be sustainable in this case but it certainly is ft something that would be looked at if and when a roadway improvement project were 5 I authorized and petitioned to decide what is the follow. And if there are off line benefits, then aassiin Sluff Creek assessment to extended the benefits to off line parcels. ' I Ken Daniels: Then my final question is, are you 'talking about mapping this property or what with regard to Plan B? I Paul Krauss: What we're talking about doing is taking the right-of-way easements over the property which is being subdivided now and the ability to do 3 Si a 1 " City Council Meeting April 9,1.990 ) 1 that, if we use those in the future, it will save the City the need to acquire the land at same point in the future. For those parts of this roadway system I I that lie outside of this subdivision, we're recommending official There's quite an extensive roadway system that would ultimately be developed in there and we think the official map is the best and least intrusive may of r dealing with those other parcels. t Ken Daniels: When you're talking about Plan B then you're talking about f right-of-way as drawn? II Paul Krauss: We're talking about the easements being taken off of your future lot and the lot to your south, yes. - II Ken Daniels: As laid out in B. Then we're talking about assessments being assessed to the property by foot I believe. I Councilman Johnson: We're not talking any assessments. Gary Warren: There wouldn't be any assessments. I Ken Daniels: If you exercise this? Gary Warren: If the project is authorized and built, that's correct. I Councilman Johnson: If somebody develops that property and asks the City to II build the streets for them and assess it back to the benefitting. If somebody builds that and builds the streets themselves, the person who owns the retaining f 80 acres builds that property themselves. When the sewer comes in, they put in the sewers. They put in all the streets as part of their subdivision, you get a II street along your property line for no cost at all the way I see that. Of course what he would probably do is move it over a few feet where it wasn't along your property lines so you couldn't utilize it. Then you'd have to pay II him to use the street if you ever subdivide. We're trying to preserve something for the future and the future's a long ways off in here because we're not seeing sewer in here until well after the next century starts. . IIKen Daniels: Then do you camterplate doing anything with regard to the west side now? I don't think you do. It's just an easement right? Paul Krauss: That canceiveably could be considered in a different context. With II Dogwood Road you have an undersized street that doesn't have a turn around. It's not incanceiveable that at same point in the future the Council may II possibly respond to a request for property owners in there to improve that section of it. That could be done without the connection going back toll! 41. It's within the realm of possibility at any rate. . Councilman Johnson: Yeah, it's been requested before and feasibility studies have been done numerous times I think on that particular patch of roadway. Councilman Workman: Does Plan B suggest that all of Tanadaona Drive as we know II it now would be open? Is that what you're saying there? Mayor Chmiel: It would have an access to it, yeah. . - II . 35 i \\,_______ __ II - • City Council Meeting' )April 9, 1990 _ . _ II . Councilman Workman: Connect up with Dogwood? - • - : - Councilman Boyt: It does now. A Councilman Workman: Yeah, but we've seen other plans where Tanadoona has been own. shut d Cary Warren: If I could answer that. T here's an option there that Tanadocn,a i could be considered to be closed down if we had that access but then you have your two long cul-de-sacs again. . IIPaul Krauss: We would prefer to maintain a loop. Councilmen. Workman: By keeping it open? ICouncilman Johnson: One thing I see a reason for acquiring easements now is when you believe that in the future when something else divides that it would be difficult to obtain those easements. By officially mapping a street through here and if we move that street 30 feet to the north, and officially map it through the other 80 acres and not whatsoever, if the remaining 80 acres decides to subdivide, it'd be to their benefit the subdivision, the road would be I completely within their subdivision which what happens here, as far as I'm concerned, this 100 acres did the subdividing. Not the 2 lots. It was a two step subdivision. The 20 subdivided fran the 80 and now the 20 is going into two parts and so we don't really have pull on that other 80. Can we officially map because this other 80, I think I'm getting into a separate question, but the other 80 is not even involved in this subdivision. Now are we officially mapping it? It doesn't really matter. We could go out here and officially nap I anybody's farm if we decided we wanted to. So what I'm saying is, I think the 80 acres was getting off because of the whole scenario of how this was done. They snuck away and I see those roads benefitting the 80 acres. I'd just move I the road 30 feet to the north and officially nap the entire 60 foot of the road within the 80 acre parcel versus within Lot 1. ' I Conanci lean Boyt: I'll Hake auction to approve Alternative B. Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? IICouncilwoman Dimler: What was your motion? Mayor Chmiel: To approve Alternative 8. IICouncilmen Boyt: Alternative B with staff recommendations. Councilmen Workman: I guess I'd like to have a little more discussion an the I connection that we're talking about here. Certainly on am* it looks like it should be connected. It's kind of a Teton Lane situation. It sure looks like that should go through but a separate deal, for same other reason it's not. IIStaff isn't necessarily giving us any arguments why we should connect it. Councilman Johnson: Connect what? ICouncilmen Workmen: Dogwood and Crimson. 36 II C o u n c i l f . . -. il 9, 1990 • -s II 7 1 Coamciiman Johnson: But we're not even recommending doing that. I it Coouncilman Workman: And that's what I'm asking. That was the whole point of why we were attempting to look at Options before because we had concerns that maybe i that should be connected. Have those fallen by the wayside completely? 4. f Paul Krauss: Councilman Workman, it's a good question. Plo, I don't think that I they've fallen by the wayside. I think Alternative B achieves the connections that we wanted to achieve with the Dogwood cectien and does it in a more comprehensive manner than simply looking at that connection would have dcae. Wow k as I pointed out earlier, if you're going to ask us if additional connections , are going to...we're satisfied that it achieves that long term goal. : Gary Warren: At sane time in the future. I Councilman Workman: Is it realistic to think that we're going to be able run a road through the Arboretum property? i Councilman Johnson: slope. Paul Krauss: Well the Arboretun question is one that we have to face with I either the Dogwood connection or with Alternative B. Alternative B can resolve the northern loop without involving any Arboretum property. The southern connection to Crimson Bay has to have Arborettm involvement one way or the I other, whichever alternative you look at. t Councilman Johnson: If the University ever got in such a financial condition that they had to raise sane money. I Mayor Cbrniel: They were raising it today. They called me just right before I left hare. I Councilman Johnson: Oh I had the State Patrol call um. Their association. Councilman Workman: There again, I think Bill brought up the example that dawn in Falcon Heights, isn't the St. Paul campus actually in Falcon Heights? The • St. Paul campus I mean is surrounded by development and they're planting corn on I it. So I don't think we'll, I'll never see that happen. Fran a nap std point, it looks like sanething, if we can achieve this thing. Heck, I'm not out to split lots for the kick of it. I mean I indicated that yeah, there's no doubt ,the buyer of Lot 2 has got a whole different lot if that easement's going I through there. Samething of a time barb and if we can accomplish it and the staff feels confident that we're accomplishing sanething here by essentially making this a north half and a south half and not really having them connect, it I just doesn't look proper and that doesn't necessarily mean anything:-.But if 1 we're accaiplishing -what we think we want to accomplish then I'm not out to , aggitate. Mayor Ciriel: Tae a, I feel that staff feels very ncanfortable with this I iproposal and it looks very logical to me as well. -- .- - 1 i i . : City Council Meetir �- April 9, 1990 z Councilman Workmen: I just wanted to bring it up and make sure I knew where everybody else was sitting because... I then i just want to, i couldn't believe we weren't going support alternative B. you knew. I ; but you know, if it's a situation that we're to talk about that connection properties in the future that is the main topgoic of our our c c serving safely the ' then fine. oncern an this topic, Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any further discussion? IICouncilman Johnson: well, we've only bed p a motion. We never had a second. ' Mayor Chmiel: No, and we'll call fora second. I'll second it if not. Councilman Johnson: I'd like, based on the discussion I bad, I'm not sure if II Ursula and Tam were busy and heard mfr discussion but I'd like somebody to convince me that it is necessary at this time to take the 30 feet out of Lot 1 versus taking the full 60 from the remaining 80 acres. Councilman Boyt: I'll speak to that. I think that the people who would cane in and buy the 20 acres an the other side of this at sane point are going to say why am I doing all 60 feet when these other lots were platted before and you didhn't take anything from them. I think when a lot is platted, if we need samething for City utilities of some sort, we take it. That's when we do it. Councilman Johnson: So you're assuming that the next plat will be another 10 ' acre lot cut off of this 80 acre lot adjacent to Lot 1. 1 Councilman Boyt: I don't know that that's the truth or not. I don't know that we're ever going to build that road. I'm just saying that now is the time for '. Lot 1 to give us that easement and what I would recannand is that somehow another that these guys figure out how to adjust that between the lt or two lots. But ' that's up to them. If the road needs to go next to Lot 1, then now is the time to take that easement. Or half of it. Councilman Johnson: well what benefit is that to Lot 1? Councilmen Boyt: The same benefit it's going to be to of the road. the lot on the other side Mayor Chmiel: So in other words he's saying 30 to 30 rather than 60 to sip. P Councilman Johnson: what's this adjustment to Lot 2 that you're talking about? t II Councilmen : That's � nothing. Forget that. That's vp to them. Councilmen Johnson: I can't see why Lot 2 would give anything to their next door neighbor at this point except that they're good friends. trice people. 11 Councilman Boyt: Well Lot 2 is looking at an option that looks a lot more bleak to them. I mean we could just go ahead and take the initial easement we were going to take across to Crimson Bay Road. That kills Lot 2 so they've got a real incentive to see this thing work out in a different direction. . II 38 • • ) i/ ilayor Chmiel: Right and I think as it is and I've mentioned before, I think this is the most feasible way at this particular time. We do have a motion on the floor sad a second, any further discussion? I Comcilwaman Dimler: Can we have a repetition of the motion please? Councilman Boyt: The motion was to accept Alternative B with staff recommendations. cbrmcilman Boyt moved, !Mayor C'hadel seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for I Zimmerman Farm using Alternative B for the road alingineat with the following conditions: 1. The City shall officially nap the road alignment as illustrated by Exhibit 2 of the Senior Engineering Technician memo dated April 4, 1990. 2. Erasion control shall be Type II. , 3. The applicant shall receive and comply with any necessary perndts fran the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources. ' 4. The street name an the plat should be changed to reflect the current street I name of Dogwood Road. 5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a temporary roadway easement for the proposed turn around. ' 6. Require dedication of 40 feet al anQ the west lot line of Lot 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of-way for the full 60 foot I rural street right-of-way but inprovement of that right-of-way would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive is improved or until development in the area would require inprovenent. 7. Require dedication of 30 feet of roadway easement along the north lot line of Lot 1, Block 1. - r The applicant shall I 8. provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm from the southeast corner of Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision. 9. The two approved septic sites on Lot 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. I 10. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake iiiunewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. 11. Ccestruction plans and specifications for the temporary turn around shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. The turn around shall be built I in accordance to the City's rural road design (7 ton). 39 - .r•a I • . . City Coiacil Meetting pril 9, 1990 ) • All voted in favor except Councilmen adman who apposed sod the action carried Iwith a vote of 4 to 1. Councilman Johnson: My only opposition is item 7. Taking the 30 foot at this tine. I don't think is totally appropriate. t I Mayor Chmiel: I think we finally settled something here. IMANDALTERATICW PIT P_. T18r PILLING NAND 801:1)111G WAR mernomum LOCATED AT 80 AMD 100 SAMPIIONMEIMOIRD, 8'1'10M PROST AND BOB Plies. Jo Ann Olsen: ...The Planning Commission recammmmadded approval of staff's ' I recumendations. They added a condition that if the applicants could show that the wetland didn't exist as far as what we have seen, we tried to put together some past surveys, that we would work together to come to an agreement to where II the fill should be removed to. Other than that we are recomnending approval of the wetland and requiring the Applicant to remove the fill to the area staff has proposed in the original edge. IMayor Clmiel: Okay, thank you Jo Ann. Councilmen Johnson: Can I ask Jo Ann a question? IIMayor Oriel: Go ahead. I was going to but go ahead. I Councilmen Johnson: How were you going to determine, what method are we recommending to determine where the wetlands used to be? Are we taking soil borings? Soil samplings or what? Jo Ann Olsen: What we did, what staff did was to look at old surveys, aerials that shows the wetland vegetation. We have surveys fran when the subdivision was first developed and which also has aerials which shows the edge of wetland. I What we did with that was to measure that distance from the lake, the water. The edge of the lake and what we've done is transfer that to the survey to show a different dimension. Also we've used photographs from the applicant and we I also used the dimensions given by the applicant's contractor as part of the grading application. Those dimensions were 40 feet, 42 to 45 foot depth of fill that they showed. ' II Councilman Johnson: The stakes out there that are on the site right now. Jo Ann Olsen: Those are DNB stakes. 1 Councilman Johnson: Because there seem to be two rows of .stakes. :� II Jo Ann Olsen: That's only to the ordinary high water mark. Comcilnan Johnson: That's kind of what I vas guessing was the first row was the ordinary high water mark. Are you saying that we want to, the conclusion at I the end of the Planning Commission wasn't •it that we determined, negotiate or figure out exactly where the edge of the wetland is by same method? Some other .. method than what you've done so far? : 1 40 II I • . CITYOF * 1 t ._ , 4.... CHANHASSEN 1 Y . _ , , , . , , ✓ 690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O.BOX 147• CHANHASSEN,MINNESOTA 55317 I Ali ''P" (612)937-1900•FAX(612)937-5739 It: MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Sr. Planner I FROM: David C. Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 41( DATE: May 30, 1990 II SUBJ: Final Plat Review for Zimmerman Farms II File No. 90-10 Land Use Review Overall, the final plat appears consistent with the conditions I set forth by staff and the City Council for approval with the following modifications: II Temporary Turnaround A V The applicant has II pp provided two alternatives for providing a temporary turnaround. Alternative No 1 deplicts the City's typical seven ton rural road design (1 . inches of Class 5 gravel and 3-1/2 inches of bituminous) . Alte ative No. 2 deviates II slightly by eliminating the bituminous hurface and increasing the depth of Class 5 to achieve a seven ton load design. The applicant would prefer ,tbis scenario for ` stetics reasons and II felt that it was out of the ordinary to require a bituminous surface out in an area that is mainly grav1 roads and driveways. However, staff would recommend that the turnaround be paved as per typical road design 10F7reasons:PCIPaiPtenance and II durability. .,_Although the. C11y U of be maintaining it, the property owners will -Dina`over�be -pears- 14i +ec is graded and plowed .the depth of Class 5 will continuer o be II reduced which at some One, the turnaround may 6 :,e deficient in support. - 7, " Trail Easement The proposed trail easement description leaves a small gap ' between the proposed trail easement and the existing Crimson Bay Road right-of-way. If Crimson Bay Road is not extended in the future, the additional trail easement will have to be acquired. II It is recommended that the trail easement be extended westerly an additional 25 feet to be continuous with the extension of Crimson Bay Road (see Attachment No. 1) . II II Jo Ann Olsen, Sr. Planner May 30, 1990 Page 2 Development Contract As you may recall back at the January 17, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting, the preliminary plat was approved with a i number of conditions including the applicant entering into a Development Contract. However, during the meeting, staff inad- vertently recommended deleting this condition due to the lack of I public improvements in the plat. Although, pursuant to City Code Section 18-42 - "Before the City signs a final plat and before the developer constructs any of the required improvements set I forth in Section 18-78, the developer shall enter into a Development Contract with the City. The contract shall dedicate the conditions under which approval is given". Therefore, this 1 condition needs to be reinstated to assure the improvements are installed properly. IRecommended Conditions 1. It is recommended that the temporary turnaround be built in I accordance with Alternative No. 1 (standard City rural road section) . 2. It is recommended that the proposed grade of the turnaround Ibe reduced to 3 percent (3%) . 3. The applicant shall extend the description of the trail I easement westerly 25 feet to be continuous with the extension of Crimson Bay Road. 4. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract and I provide the necessary financial security to assure the proper installation of the improvements. w I jms Attachment No. 1 IIc: Gary G. Warren, City Engineer II : 1 1 i I . , 1 n170.• •a, I u, 1,r g>4111 II nr1-1111T 1 -IL . ., S t z: 41 i i.4 lamSt v.AA3NNI IN / '!- .,d •,r, ,.4 -.: 0 40.v.v. 4,060.3".preto"`--• . --... *0 1 A 4 •-A- 1.: , I I' ........... ........____ ......_........r,.. . I • .:,,,:ieh .....,. 1 . .„-- i ...„ :----;-,- i # -, -:,- .itgl .-1k: I 1 l!it,r --tr I i I ••4 I .- I I : I I rf: I I• •.; 4., -c) 4 I 3'-' I ti p I-— 1....,•-•ai;.-._ I Mill, I !_ . • - •-e- I Fi ,, CI I e - I 2 I tri I ":41 4* 7" i cp, 1 I ---:_iv.• ..., 1 g osjels:r:-ri.c.--7,2, 1' $2 . 5 r c ;; ; o: --.o■-,■„I I,,r.„-, ' I 4 i 4 a! In f il I i cylO'a; .‘-- ..—-- ------- I vs, .., co• A:, v I // f; 1?' 1 h -s I; = 1.4,;.. „. v f•-•5 ill to°1;13 ..„_... ... il .._ .... .__ ,_...__ • .s.i: I \ 1 -.R i ; / fyl••-i"4 lx,C fT1 I r , I -a 4.b i I Alz/: z -17 - ...c :i 0 N I i c i f r pig Of;g7cT N •1 0 sq. x 0 ri 3 g-4 I i I —1 ne A..k • .0° 14i 5M8(4 ,, 1 ireiSi . le, .4'11 ' N Z:lf-' - a ri c -41 5 8 . •;.i- f'S i 4'. ■■ t I L. igt IIAZM N't I NZ ' ' ril : -40 CI * ear I i . Ntrl 151 k I i i t I 02E1 th — I 1 1,i 11 I I 4 .. Z i it I /47 I I gro SIR 0A t 1 i .0 I ; i , .116 "to 1 1:1 I I 0 ! .: i : s. 1 q ,,,-1 11 If' f• I i g i 1 I Eli ›4 i r. , : ct Xi° 4 % i 1 1 A 01311, N1 Ii Si t. ii i U i I - ,s. a • 1 ,...., ....- 1 1 F le :I i —1.-Z I. i. 1 —4--- . . s..,....:_t_. . ...17.15.7.1_,---- —._ er...._..,..- .... , ... , ,.. S Cr 18'14'E .• 64 6 0 2 1 -} -• . I - -"• III - 441 ! Ante.4/meirvf-- t ____---- I VESELY, MILLER& STEINER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1. • SUITE 400 NORWEST BANK BUILDING I HOPKINS,MINNESOTA 55343 JERRE A.MILLER JOSEPH C.VESELY(1905-1989) JEREMY S.STEINER ' WYNN CURTISS i I 612-938-7635 May 18, 1990 FAX 612-938-7670 IJo Ann Olsen BY FACSIMILIE City of Chanhassen P.O. Box 147 IChanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Zimmerman Farm Plat I Dear o J Ann: IEnclosed with this letter is a copy of an Easement that I have drafted for the purpose of satisfying Conditions No. 5 and 8 as _ enumerated in your letter of April 25, 1990 which listed the City I Council's conditions for final approval of the plat of Zimmerman Farm. Please let me know if the provisions of this Easement do not satisfy these two conditions. IThe surveyor, James R. Hill, Inc. , has revised the plat to incorporate Conditions No. 4, 6 and 7 in your April 25 letter and will also be providing the plans and specifications for the I temporary turnaround which is Condition No. 11 in your April 25 letter. I When we spoke on the phone on May 7, you indicated that the City would not require the property owners to enter into a development agreement because no sewer, water, street or other I public improvements are to be installed at this time. You also indicated that no agreement, restrictive covenants or other documentation would be required in order to satisfy Conditions No. 1, 2 and 3 of your April 25 letter. However, I am unclear as to whether or not the City will require that the owners enter into } some form of agreement or restrictive covenant to satisfy Conditions 9 and 10. Please let me know if some form of agreement 3` ' or other documentation will be required to satisfy these two conditions so that this can be prepared and final approval of the plat obtained. ' 1 If possible, we would still like to have the final plat F approval placed on the City Council's May 30 agenda. I .expect to receive the title information necessary to complete the final plat Idedications on Monday or Tuesday of next week from Title Insurance f t I MAY 211993 ICITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 Jo Ann Olsen May 18, 1990 Page 2 Company of Minnesota. As soon as this information has been delivered to me, we will arrange to have ten copies of the final plat and the $100.00 application fee delivered to you. Please get in touch with me to discuss any additional documents that need to be delivered in order to satisfy the conditions of the preliminary plat approval and whether it will be possible to have the matter heard by the City Council at its May 30 meeting. days prior to this meeting in addition to the enclosed Easement and the plans and specifications for the temporary turnaround. Please give me a call to discuss the date of the first Council meeting in June, the deadline for delivering the final plat to the City and any additional documents that must be delivered in order to have the matter heard by the Council at this meeting. Very truly yours, J remy S. Steiner cc: Kurt Laughinghouse Peter and Deanna Brandt Timothy Foster Harold Peterson, James R. Hill Associates JSS:njj Enclosures 1 1 1 riEASEMENT I I 1: KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS, that the Grantors, Jane Smook as I Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter H. Zimmerman, aka W. H. Zimmerman and Walter Zimmerman, and Timothy D. Foster and Theresa A. Foster, husband and wife, for valuable consideration, ' receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby ' Convey and Quitclaim to the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA, a Municipal corporation under the Laws of the State of Minnesota, as Grantee, the Easements situate in the County of Carver, State of Minnesota, described as follows, to wit: ' Temporary Turnaround Easement A temporary easement for , roadway purposes over, under and ' across Lot 1, Block 1, ZIMMERMAN FARM, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota, lying within the circumference of a circle having a radius of 60.00 feet. The ' center of said circle is described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 1; thence South 7 degrees 50 minutes 18 seconds West, along the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 68.15 feet; thence South 82 degrees 09 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 31.35 feet to the center of said circle. Said temporary turnaround easement shall terminate and shall be • released and vacated by Grantee at such time as permanent road improvements are constructed within the right-of-way of Dogwood Road as dedicated in the plat of ZIMMERMAN FARM. ITrail Easements A 20.00 foot easement for trail purposes over, under and across I` ' the east 20.00 feet of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, ZIMMERMAN FARM, _ s II according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota; and A 20.00 foot easement for trail purposes over, under and across the South feet th S 20 00 fe t of Lot 2, Block 1, ZIMMERMAN FARM, lying east of the northerly extension of the east right of way line of Crimson i Bay Road, as delineated and dedicated in the plat of CRIMSON BAY, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned owners have executed this ' Easement this day of , 1990. Jane Smook, Personal Representa- tive of the Estate of Walter H. Zimmerman, aka Walter Zimmerman and-W. H. Zimmerman Timothy D. Foster Theresa A. Foster STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ' day of , 1990, by Jane. Smook, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter H. Zimmerman, aka Walter Zimmerman and W. H. Zimmerman, Decedent. Notary Public ' -2- 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF )SS day of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 1990, by Timothy D. Foster. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) I )SS COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1990, by Theresa A. Foster. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: ' Vesely, Miller & Steiner 400 Norwest Bank Building 1011 First Street South ' Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 1 1 1 I 1 -3- ` '