5. Preliminary Plat to Subdivide Lots south of Pleasant View Road and East of Powers ■
CITY of
I. , 44'. ..,.,.:, .
CHANHASSEN
. _
1 Nti . .
. „ .,. .
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
woe by City Administrator
MEMORANDUM
Endorse �/ D14)
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
aleot
to Submitted to Commission
IFROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning
DATE: November 1 , 1989
hat Submitted to Coon~
/- 1
I SUBJ: Amended Preliminary Plat Review for Vineland Forest
Subdivision
IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY
On August 28, 1989, the City Council first reviewed the prelimi-
I nary plat for Vineland Forest. The subdivision would result in
the platting of 21 single family home sites on 11. 5 acre parcel.
The site is presently occupied by two existing homes , one of
which would be removed to make way for new development the other
II would remain on a newly platted lot. Access was the primary con-
cern of staff at that point in time. The development illustrated
serving the project by a long cul-de-sac from Pleasant View Road.
II Staff generally supported the proposal but sought to gain a
through street connnection to the south to Lake Lucy Road and
recommended accordingly. During the review of the project, the
U Planning Commission was unable to make a determination as to
which alternative to recommend to the City Council with regards
to access. Due to concerns raised by staff and residents, pri-
marily along Pleasant View Road, the City Council voted to con-
Itinue the item to allow staff to study access alternatives.
On September 8, 1989, staff presented the City Council with four
I alternative access concepts, after reviewing all possible alter-
natives for serving this site and adjoining properties. It was
ultimately determined that Alternative #3, which extended from
I Lake Lucy Road on a northwest alignment to intersect with
Peaceful Lane then onto Pleasant View Road, was the optimal
remaining alternative. It provided the street connection advo-
cated by staff to improve access and emergency vehicle response
I times. It also provided a reasonable plan for accessing a large
undeveloped area and was designed to minimize traffic impact on
Pleasant View Road.The applicant was directed to prepare a
1 revised plat and return to the City Council.
On September 25, 1989, a revised plat was presented to the City
Council. Staff concluded that the general layout of the plat and
II
I
i
1
1
1
1
i
IMr. Don Ashworth
A November 1 , 1989
I Page 2
the street alignment were consistent with earlier recommendations
I and were acceptable. We noted, however, that there were three
additional issues that warranted a discussion. Staff noted con-
cerns with the drainage plan which would have utilized three
small drainage basins, several which encroached significantly
I into back yard areas and would have also required substantial
alteration of a steep ravine on the east property line. The
applicant, in responding to staff' s concerns, presented a revised
I drainage plan for the first time at the meeting. Staff reviewed
it as quickly as possible and thought it represented improvement
conditioned upon an in-depth review staff found it to be accep-
table. The second set of issues related to a variance to allow
1 30 feet of street frontage for Lot 2, Block 3 which is a "neck
lot" accessing by a private driveway from Pleasant View Road.
Staff indicated support of the variance for several reasons,
I including the fact that the lack of frontage on this lot is pri-
marily due to the selected street alignment which is based upon
larger access issues. In all other respects, the lot exceeded
I RSF District standards . We also noted a contradiction with the
ordinance in that neck lots served by a private driveway were
permitted by the subdivision ordinance but the RSF District
requires full street frontage. Finally, we believe there are a
I number of precedents for this type of situation found in the city
and believe that a good homesite that is adequately served will
result. The third issue pertained to a variance to allow a 10%
I grade on Vineland Drive at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road.
Staff supported the variance because we believe the design could
be safely built provided that a sufficient landing area was pro-
I vided near the intersection. We also noted that elimination of
the variance would require extensive grading on the site and on
adjacent properties which would likely result in additional tree
loss. At the meeting, additional concerns were raised regarding
I the ability of the applicant or the city (through condemnation)
to acquire sufficient land to accommodate off site grading that
would be required for the street.
IThe applicant has worked with staff to prepare a revised plat
that resolves the issues that have been raised. The drainage
plan largely resembles the proposal that was viewed at the last
I Council meeting in that it utilizes a single ponding area that is
located in the northeast corner of the property. This pond can
be built without impacting rear yard areas in the way the origi-
I nal proposal would have. It is designed to hold standing water
as an aesthetic amenity. Drainage calculations have been pro-
vided to illustrate the fact that the ponding area is sufficient
I to comply with all retention requirements. Staff supports the
plan with several modifications. A related concern that was
raised by the City Council was tree preservation. We believe
that the steep, east facing bluff line occurring across the
II eastern portion of the property is extremely important in terms
of preservation since it is visible over a large area. As
currently proposed, the ponding area would result in the removal
II
Mr. Don Ashworth 114
November 1, 1989 r
Page 3 '
of some trees in this area. Planning and Engineering Department
staff are proposing that the pond be shifted somewhat to the
northwest so that it partially is located on Lots 1 and 3 of
Block 3. This would have the effect of increasing the size of
the tree preservation area on Lot 5. We also believe that the
contours of the pond could be massaged to enhance tree preser- '
vation efforts. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement
will be required over the storm sewer connection between Vineland
Court and the pond to allow for the placement of the pipe and for
city maintenance crews to access the area. The pond outlets into
a pipe that will run down the adjacent ravine to connect into an
in-place system, in Fox Path. The use of this outlet is reaso-
nable
but could also result in tree loss. Staff is recommending
that the plan be modified to minimize tree loss and that the
developer be required to reforest the area.
At the Council meeting there was some concern raised regarding
the design of the pond. It was indicated that it would be pre-
ferrable to have it be designed with a sculpted bottom as is
often used in wetland enhancement efforts . Staff notes that the
pond in question is not a wetland, or even wet at the present
time, but rather is to serve a retention function. Due to the
grades found in the area, it would be extraordinarily difficult
to provide it with a sculpted bottom, still meet retention
requirements, and, minimize further impact on tree cover in the
area. However, staff does have a concern with the design of the
pond. As proposed it will have a water depth of 9 feet and is
considerably larger then what is needed to provide required water
storage. A certain amount of depth, 4-5 feet, is required to
maintain water quality but we believe that the proposal is
excessive. The primary motivation seems to be obtaining suf-
ficient dirt by excavation to balance site grading. The impact
is on tree cover. We are recommending that the size of the pond
be reduced to theminimum required to provide water storage and
maintain water quality. If additional fill is required it should
be brought in from off-site sources. '
The issues concerning roadway intersection with Lake Lucy Road
issue has been resolved by the fact that the developer has
acquired Lot 8, Block 2, Carver Beach Estates, that is located to
the west of the Vineland Drive alignment. The design has been
modified to provide the grades that staff had earlier recommended
while shifting the burden of grading onto the lot that was
recently acquired by the developer. Staff is recommending that a
10 foot wide roadway easement be taken across this property to
provide a satisfactory boulevard area for the street which is
otherwise constructed in an undersized 40 foot right-of-way.
Additional grading easements may be required. No new variances
would be created on the recently acquired lot and ultimately it
will be developed by the applicant. We further note that there
is a remnant right-of-way for Lake Lucy Road occurring between
1
•
Mr. Don Ashworth
A November 1, 1989
' Page 4
Vineland Forest and Lake Lucy Road to the south. This right-of-
way is not needed for any public purpose and staff is recom-
mending that the Council vacate it so that the property may
revert to the adjacent land owners. This will further increase
buildable area on the lot.
As we noted above, the City Council raised concerns regarding
tree preservation on this property. Plans have been revised
' to show the outline of significant stands of trees and illustrate
the locations of certain location of free standing trees. Based
upon this information, we have recommended reconfigurations to
' the retention pond to enhance tree preservation efforts . We also
note that there are two large maples , one 20" and the other 30"
in diameter, that are located on the north side of Vineland Court
near the Vineland Drive intersection, right at the curb line.
' Though there is minor grading in this area, we are recommending
that plans be revised as necessary to shift the pavement to allow
the preservation of these trees . A small retaining wall may be
' required. We are further recommending that a tree preservation
plan be developed by the applicant prior to the initiation of any
grading on the site. Staff will walk the site with the developer
' to mark trees designated for preservation and to modify the plans
to enhance these efforts. Trees designated for preservation that
would be lost due to construction, would have to be replaced by
signficantly sized material approved by staff. The tree preser-
vation plan should include a tree replacement program, as
outlined in city ordinances that would require the planting of
tree material elsewhere on the site.
In our discussions with the applicant, he has raised an addi-
tional concern regarding the status of two outlots that have been
' proposed on the plat. Outlot A covers the former driveway that
served an existing home from Pleasant View Road. Staff is
generally concerned with the creation of outlots that have no
present purpose and can never be made buildable. Often times
these outlots go tax forfeit and become a problem for the city.
Staff would have preferred that the developer arrange to sell
this land to an adjoining property owner that could benefit from
' it. However, based on further discussions with him, we are
willing to alter our recommendation and allow Outlot A to be
created. Potential problems with this outlot are minimal and the
developer indicated a desire to see it sold to an adjacent property
' owner. Failure to plat it at this time would require additional
subdivision approval in the future. The second outlot, Outlot B,
is being created to provide access from Vineland Drive to an
adjoining property located outside the plat to the north. Staff
has recommended that Outlot B either be dedicated to the city as
right-of-way or be given to the adjoining property so that it may
' have valid access options in the future. The applicant is
objecting to this condition believing that he is entitled to com-
pensation. Staff continues to believe that it is valid to require
Mr. Don Ashworth I
November 1, 1989
Page 5
the dedication of this property
since it may well be needed to pro- II vide access to adjoining properties and we believe that anyone
platting land in the city has this obligation. I
Based upon the foregoing, staff is continuing to recommend appro-
val of the Vineland Forest plat subject to appropriate con-
ditions . The list of conditions has been modified as required to
respond to the current preliminary plat. The variance for a 10%
road grade and for the 30 feet of frontage on Lot 2 , Block 3,
continue to exist and continue to be supported by staff. The
City Council appeared to agree with staff' s recommendations on
this variance at the last meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the preliminary plat #89-8 for Vineland I
Forest be approved with the following variances :
Vl - Variance to allow 30 ' of lot frontage for Lot 2, Block 3
V2 - Variance to allow a 10% grade on Vineland Drive I
and subject to the following conditions :
II
1. Obtain final plat approval and enter into a development
contract with the city and provide the city with the
necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation
II
of the improvements.
2. Final design and approval of utility, drainage and street
plans, incorporating comments contained in the staff report
and attached report from the Engineering Department. Plans for
retention pond are to be modified by relocation of the pond to I
the west, and by revising the grading plan to create the mini-
mum sized pond required for water storage and quality. Tree
preservation shall be taken into account during the redesign.
IThe pond shall be equipped with a skimmer device. Detailed
construction plans and specifications, including calculations
for sizing utility improvements, shall be submitted for approval
by the City Engineer. All construction shall be in accordance I
with MnDOT specifications except where modified by the City' s
standard specifications. As-built mylar plans will also be
required upon completion of construction.
I
3 . Comply with all requirements of Watershed District approval.
4 . Change the name of Vineland Drive to Nez Perce Drive. The I
street shall be paved up to the western property line. A barrier
shall be erected at the edge of the pavement indicating that
"This street is to be extended in the future" . Notice of the
II
street extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each
lot in Vineland Forest.
II
IIMr. Don Ashworth
A November 1, 1989
I Page 6
5. Dedicate Outlot B to the city for access and utility purposes .
I6 . Provide a tree preservation and erosion control plan prior to
grading the site. The plan should strive to minimize tree
I loss. The plan should be revised to protect the two maple
trees along Vineland Court, protect trees around the retention
pond, and minimize tree cutting in the ravine, while providing
I for its reforestation. Walk the site with staff prior to
grading to mark preservation areas. Protected trees that are
lost due to construction will be replaced by suitably sized
trees approved by staff. A financial guarantee covering the
I cost of landscaping should be provided with the development
contract.
II7 . Provide the following easements
a. ROW dedication for all platted streets .
I b. Temporary road easements over the temporary cul-de-sac at
the end of Vineland Drive. The easement would be vacated
whenever the street is extended.
IIc. Outlot B should be dedicated to the city for access and
utility purposes .
Id. Drainage and utility easements over all storm water
retention areas, access to these areas for city crews and
over storm sewers.
Ie. Standard drainage and utility easements over each lot.
I f. Ten foot roadway easement over Lot 8, Block 2, Carver
Beach Estates and such grading easements as may be
required.
Ig. Temporary grading easement over property located east of
Vineland Drive near Lake Lucy Road.
I h. Utility easements over sewer lines located outside the
public right-of-way, including 20 ' wide easement between
Lots 4 and 5 , Block 3 .
8. Park dedication and trail fees are required in lieu of
parkland dedication.
I 9. Upon final plat approval the applicant shall supply to the
city two mylar copies of the plat, one reduced to 1" = 200 '
scale and the second at 1" = 500 ' scale.
10 . Provide a comprehensive erosion control plan for the project.
Type III erosion control is to be outlined as required. Seed
II
I
Mr. Don Ashworth II
November 1, 1989
Page 7
I
and mulch all disturbed areas immediately upon completion of
rough grading activity.
11. The City Council review the vacation of the unused Lake Lucy II
Road right-of-way concurrently with final plat approval. "
ATTACHMENTS I
1 . Revised plat documents for Vineland Forest.
I
2 . Back up material on previous actions and reports concerning
this project.
I
I
II
II
I
II
II
I
11
II
MI OM IIIIIII NM MI IMO NE MS UM NM IIIIIIIII IIIIM MI RE NE OM • NE' MI
r
, r-
ft
1 . Ili
! NMI INNIMIII ••■•■ litt
IP arr.vrar•-•-.
I . PLEASANT VIEW;ROAD
- I.I- -
RSF , 0■••••• 00•001
WOO 000111
100,10.=00
...I..
10••OMR .•••■■•• ■••••••••••
••■•• sop■
0 0
0 Ili g a
i S
!
ill 1
/ ....., _ Om.•1E0
000.•■■ 444 044
.......■• .......„ . 1
1111.PMV*011,0.4111 II WU ow.am
i t I. ... ■•■••■ ......... ..,,,,■,..
1 v.SMOOMPOIIIMO • '...\ . • , : Illiiiiit
s 0010, MI /117 a
\ - 1 , . , 1 ,
. t \ %....,/
I /
... ....ma. ••••low seem WI(MOM 1.•
MN=•ON low
*vows ,.........
1
'" 111■11,.—-.Z., ,.
--11 •00 Serol,0011"E\.: -
1
.1. ,r_r:.. --- --------------_,----,..r.-7----- ',I■ • , ' -tk;---
, • , .......... ....,... ---
1P0MD,MO LA
NB UMW 01=10
MAW ••■•■
.. q.''' .1■1■111.111110%., - ”-1 I 1 1 . V' 1‘ c (761 .0101111V . ‘ .. '\ It = 16
%...... • .,‘ '..7441•* \ ''' '` \ -s\*
411111. WOW
. . It-
. ) •\ •
q::: ,,, \\ .‘ . \ ' ',1•41::/al ."
...
.. I%
1 \.\\IWW1..i r:..ftr) • mm, 111613711:41 •••••••••...I. aim h
V ':Ns \'.. R..••••-•11.• UMW
''''.-..-.,.,‘ ,0&IIIN,
/
\., 4,N , I 1'14 I , •..# 111
I: T...„, ,
. A :!:!j s ; . .' ,' .
.-••
s . •_ Ati iti 111^ ai 0) 4. 1 liese
Wm saw MO Ile le lip gnu a 1101 I
; . ..
kri.4 ' iL "11' 4
-... , t Illwillablealill IMAM lai 11 ,
-., mor . _ ,... k ........____11,..., .1 , . ._ir, 4, ,: , •-;::::„ kt, ....fr, ; ) ,' - sow
1 . I 1 4, .,'::7 71. • -Ntfe / • PUD-R 11 1
i i 1
•: - s• .— —-7.--- -,..„...ze. f * ..: t-.•. - ,• .,%. :"
— . giAmr7—::.....1iiimi.:2":-;117 . 6* /e ' \'. : "7-iv1. • 1".:r
I . .1 ', ' rr" ---;:"''''r ' 7-7 "....".` ., , . 7,..:..... ,7:::..-..-a ___ 11-1-[
f 1 i ,-..,,, --- irig,-... : i_ . ,- 4.... w......'. ..L.:-...-_,.!.....‹,,-
. .
. . - ii : -III "liti r e-' Vrsio. -, %; Ai vis.,441i—Ibi.
6\ 1 ,, ..1 ...ii7 ,, ., .....,.. .. ,i... ;,.,{1( ' f- _.„.-_-... ....: \ ... ..: fc4 II Mill ,. ,
......
\ % IML- ----i ii '..- kV t 1 ' 11 .,1111111-- ‘‘. . ..4 rif
.1.
-.1 ■
- -- '10 •I 1 7 _Mili
i\i 4,/,,::. yf Pira-----NITNI ....t..... ..- - i \
. co,* --------. . . ',,, 4:: . 1 T• I 1 ..........—
I PAL I( i —
AI& - •
1 I 0
z 01-
5ia...",„-- ' :.• .... - ..
iii_411.-ligilAir
• kg
.......
------....... '
4 ...e...r;;Firlailil 11".4C Iii gC
Z°
51L
esomess IU *IP ..,/.4sigasa......._..aigA I osol..............
....--.' ----- ;--:7----..._
-......-. , 7VZ%..■- ''-^,„.\iitit• 19A ---MEW ....
t. "Lj• '
-----" ; r. 1; Y".°1-17-ill.VAdint 0'..RoAD-. N,
wv•nmer......awrouv makenlilmmeamas.
I . ...''
I1--1--- , '-,.. . \ -::-....--....--... -- .-.4...s—. •-- „."--- ---.N--— --
.,.. , It. \- .....,.... -7------ \ . /5
I ( • - :,, t Lv pg;• ::---:: ,• • •-. •- •-• N•.1- \c:t :• ' :: ‘,
:*--• 'Ill'alaril\ -----..- -'• •-.' I: '- \ tr -- ' • i
I l‘c,:---:-.:- ._-. .f '; SIMI ''-__---,''d-- ------'`'.......___,..., .-- \
04.111111 F !I
._.. - . --).-..-"--7.':S''' \ RSF 4-"" ---
\
t.,._ ....„r.,.•__,...•-.. i, ... ,-.. . o En
....._......_.../...ir__ _ f■....... / . \/ N■ ' la
..../ 4...5t.1130.
/ ----- -...... ,.. . . , •........ 000 011N.
— IF LUCY-,:••:r i-:: ROAD ••••1 ( ------- \ i
•2••:..1*.:. 1=3 EilifiXT:=XIXO!"
._._ . \!:::11:,,,
assi !11P go
I - %.
:/ .. t I*St MO 1/4r...00 k
WIWI COMM 111111,1CIVIe
Alpo
• I -EN um ow — NE — um N1 we am am = EN Nu r Ns ow No
PLEASANT VIEW;ROAD
I . RSF r—••--. -- 6f+'`` Z
11•01.Mow
•i •p.LM[ e..QT t--\ \\ ; • ' 1 i ` 1 • .-..� J~ — •▪••••••••• Q gCFr •+
r w......... .–.�... W ! k
�� � • ►��✓..ti \ MOON meta vent-,.:. ......... ^•7 /'�_`�_r� •_ o o \ \ .�,�'.... SWWE. ..�... a �Vl
` ` c49 '' � r�a� ■: __ gym + ▪ ' — EI
, ! / 1 s„ it. lit - i .-7—:,.—_-1—)vr..\s: .........„, \ : ) : , • 1,.....3.===.37.=... ••••••••• ••••• allimi
1•••••••••••••• MINIM i Pli 1 j $.
• I ,s. •••"• 111):1 i \ ..;'711.L•ood i
II
'1 1 )0�e 1%
, if - . •' 1 I i,- •••••M•N.Mt&&&&&01. 1
R. G._ - t0 _ SILT FENCE ���i•
I . �., •=�q".tifix.4�` r�''' y` -� 3':-.4- r^ ._-..:•- I r ;
._„. ,, II
, ., 01_ _. ; l �`� ` a-_..ii JIr� rs-" yew 1j1 o A FO
IIIII
st t 1 ■ --- 1 ' " li; r ■ . • ,it Pil tii
le..‘., \ kr .. 1 t .. : f tiVP ( ... t '.....'Ns. \ \ * , ip:.—=.... .9
..a...7.-
ss) .s I i irf 4.e i I IT.7-. -3. 12 13-' -- ----- " .---- \ . :s:,'',.. .., -... _L'
--
i _ ill !..i . t sail- ..---;Ittii:. 9,..00s - 4 ii4 ... _ ,
.. -,i. 6 1'' . lei el& Al e ill --—-,
1
t 1
1
.... ...
_.c.,..,
,_ ...-c...___ ,.;,._ _---
I ................_ its
z 0
5..u.
. • osi.. ik, _
_ . i . ., .- ,r\N‘v....s„ .#_. —me!.. .
. .____
LI tbet.� y I ► �� UCY TO BE•.- ..--:. . FdOAD,•�_ _' - N I T..'.......�...•....... _ (Ij_l►
'��4 ----..='----:-::7.- L W tft
J ' 7.— \:. �� � ^RSF` �_"�-_` �; -.._ = r
■ •-- \ w•. •r v.•. O cr ti)
-- LAKE LUCY-.: ROAD
••' ( ` `
\ .M-.-..
, a w w vne•e•.t Li N
- F•-- ".,— en . .• • .ov —17--
�..
...„..) L L/ 2 ~VV..ru.v.n..r•••••e.••
a M..to nrv+a...•.111......•.• VI Z
%1 .,•.•o n m I.•w n TM..: Dunn cwTtoa treucTUw 4
..en
CITY OF
1 • CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
T0: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician i(A/
IDATE: November 1, 1989
SUBJ: Review of Revised Preliminary Grading Plan
Vineland Forest Addition
File No. 89-13 Land Use Review
Upon review of the revised preliminary grading plan for Vineland Forest Addition
dated May 30, 1989, revised October 30, 1989, submitted by Melilla & Associates,
' I offer the following comments and recommendations.
Grading and Drainage
The revised plan proposes construction of a retention pond over the northeast
corner of the plat, specifically Lots 4 and 5, Block 3. The entire storm water
runoff fran the site will drain into the pond via a pipe system. The runoff
will be detained by an outlet control structure and discharged at a runoff rate
not to exceed the existing peak runoff rate in this development. The outlet
control structure will also maintain a pond depth of approximately 9 feet. This
' will help extract sediments out of the water before being discharged downstream.
In addition, the pond's outlet pipe will be submerged to provide skimming of
floatable debris. Materials removed from the excavation of this pond will be
' used to build roadbeds and building pads which in turn will require some tree
removal. To lessen the impact of tree removal, it may be desirable to re-design
the shape of the pond and adjust it westerly away from the trees along the east
edge of the plat and still achieve the same ponding results.
The site grading over the rest of the site remains approximately the same or
less with the exception of the segment of the roadway between Lake Lucy Road and
the plat. The right-of-way in this area is proposed to be expanded to fulfill
the City's request for a standard 50-foot wide right-of-way. Slopes from this
road will extend approximately 15 feet outside of the 50-foot right-of way. It
is staff's understanding that the developer has signed a purchase agreement for
this property and therefore should not constitute a problem in placing fill
material over it. Although, on the east side of the proposed road the slopes
extend outside of the right-of-way into the adjacent property owner's lot. In
this area, temporary slope or construction easements should be obtained.
I
•
Paul Krauss
November 1, 1989
Page 2
The applicant has received Watershed District approval for this grading plan ,
with the stipulation that the City review and approve it together with the sub-
mittal of a performance bond for the construction. Staff feels that this
grading and drainage plan overall is a much better design than previously sub-
mitted. We are requesting that the applicant provide a 20 foot wide drainage
and utility easement between Lots 4 and 5, Block 3 for access to the retention
pond for maintenance purposes. '
Erosion Control
The plans indicate provisions for erosion control measures. Areas proposed for
erosion control are adequate; however, an additional area along the east side of
Vineland Drive over Lots 12 and 13, Block 3 and approximately 50 feet south of
Lot 13, Block 3 should be included. The plans proposed both Type I and Type III
erosion control fence. It is recommended that the Type I erosion control fence
be replaced with, as a minimum, Type II erosion control fence over the site.
The site should also be seeded and mulched immediately after rough grading to
minimize sediment runoff over the site.
Recommended Conditions
1. The applicant shall relocate the pond westerly and modify its shape to
reduce the amount of tree removal in the area.
2. The applicant shall provide a 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement I
between Lots 4 and 5, Block 3 for access to the pond for maintenance pur-
poses.
3. The applicant shall modify the storm sewer where it connects to the existing
storm sewer with either a beehive or additional stub out to collect runoff
from the ravine area.
4. Type I erosion control fence shall be replaced with Type II or Type III ero-
sion control fence. '
5. The applicant shall seed and mulch immediately after rough grading to mini-
mize sediment runoff over the site. '
6. The applicant shall provide a slope or temporary construction easement for
the placement of fill on the east side of Vineland Drive south of the plat.
7. The applicant shall provide to the City a warranty deed for a 10-foot wide
street, utility and drainage easement over Lot 8, Block 2, Carver Beach
Estates to achieve the necessary 50-foot wide right-of-way.
c: Gary Warren, City Engineer
I
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
IIResolution #89-107: Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to
II award the bids for the City Hall and Library remodeling projects as follows:
City Hall Contract Bidder Amount
I Painting Lund Painting & Decorating Companies $ 3,200.00
Carpeting $10,579.00
Electrical Page Electric $14,975.00
II Library:
Painting Lund Painting & Decorating $ 1,300.00
II Carpeting Pink Companies $ 7,230.00
Acoustical Tile Architectural Sales of MN $ 1.246.00
Mechanical Allied Mechanical Systems $ 4,660.00
II Electrical Page Electric $ 2,624.00
General Contracting Dean & Associates $14,969.00
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.5 ACRES INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, SOUTH OF
I PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VINELAND FOREST, VAN EECKHOUT
BUILDING CORPORATION.
Paul Krauss: On September 18th the City Council reviewed access alternatives
prepared by staff to serve the Vineland Forest plat and the surrounding area.
Alternative No. 3 was selected as the preferred alternative. This routing would
ultimately result in the construction of a street connection from Nez Perce at
II the south to Pleasant View Road via Peaceful Lane at the north. The applicant
was directed to revise his plat accordingly and to return to the City Council
for review of the preliminary plat. The applicant has worked diligently with
II staff to prepare the plat as requested. We believe that the result is generally
acceptable. The street alignment that you see before you is consistent with the
selected alternative and most of the lots meet or exceed RSF standards. We do
I however have several remaining areas of concern with the design and note that
there are two variances that result with this final design of the plat. The
first concern is with the drainage plan and there's been some recent updating on
this. The original drainage plan utilized a series of three ponds which would
I be coupled together before outletting water down the hill into an existing storm
sewer system. Staff had same concerns with the use of three independent ponds.
They become a maintenance nightmare over time and same of the designs of the
II ponds that were originally proposed really had same severe limitations on
individual rear yards. What people would perceive as their rear yards really
couldn't be used as such because of easements that we would have to take. We
have worked with the developmer's engineer and he has prepared a revised plan
Ithat we received tonight that we're really not in a position to show you but
basically what it does is replaces the three ponds with one large pond on those
two lots and we think the plan has a lot of merit. It does combine all those
IIponds into one and it does avoid the need to build basically a dam at the end of
the gully over there which would have been used to provide ponding. We had some
concerns in terms of stability of that and what it would look like if you were
down the hill as well. So we think they made a lot of progress with that. We
propose some stipulations for dealing with the drainage issue and we're quite
11 42
II
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
confident, especially based on what we received tonight, that those issues can
be worked out prior to the final plat. The plat design is based on the new
street that we proposed. However, it results in the need to serve one of the
lots by neck off of Pleasant View. If you recall the original plan had run the
street parallel to these lots and provided direct frontage to than and we had
same issues of concern regarding a stub end of a right-of-way that ran into a
home on an adjoining property. Based on the City's redesign of access in that
area, there is sufficient area to create more than adequate lot areas for an RSF
lot. However, there's inadequate frontage. What they're proposing is a neck
lot with a 30 foot wide frontage up to Pleasant View which does take a variance.
Staff supports that noting that the lot is oversized and that all other respects
it exceeds our ordinance requirements. The second variance is to allow a 10%
grade on what's called Vineland Drive on the plat. When we came to you last
time we acknowledged that there was, going back to the original, that there was
a bit of a design constraint in the area of the road connection there and that
our engineering department had designed a road section that used a 10% grade for
a short distance and did have an acceptable landing area at the top which we
believe would be a safe way of routing traffic into the area. That is however a
variance situation. I've been informed that we've granted similar variances
previously and we are comfortable that a safe road design could result. We've
also tried to look at alternatives. What it would take to lower the road grade
in there to 7% and you wind up with an unusually large amount of grading that
impacts the adjoining lots severely and you lose a lot of tree cover as well so
we believe this is the way to go. Based on the foregoing, we're recommending
that the Vineland Forest preliminary plat be approved with the two variances
subject to appropriate stipulations.
Mayor Cfimiel: Thank you. Mr. Van Eeckhout. Would you like to? '
Chuck Van Eeckhout: This drawing represents the current proposal of the
proposed change. The concern I have however is the stipulations that are being
suggested. One of which is that I seek to obtain additional right-of-way and
slope easements along what is now Nez Perce Drive to the south. I have no means
of doing that. I do not have the power of eminent domain. I have an adjacent
landowner who does not want the road there and so with that stipulation, I have
been cast in the muck so to speak. I cannot proceed. I'm dead in the water.
The other stipulation as related to that also in that slopes no greater than 3:1
which again we can't function on our own property with those slopes. The only
other mild concern was the watermain requirement where they're asking for an 8
inch watermain to loop from Pleasant View down to Nez Perce or Lake Lucy. The
extra size being a city requirement and probably more a city expediate in that
it does help then to circulate the waterline and perhaps if we did that, we
would like to receive the credit for the cost between the difference of the 6
inch line and 8 inch line. The 6 inch being all that we need for our purposes.
If the reservation on the right-of-way and slope easements were lifted, I have
no problem with the other reservations but with that stipulation, I am nowhere.
If that stipulation has to be, and we knew that going in. I think I pointed out
to the Council that we did have substandard right-of-way and we also, the grade
is no problem. Never has been for me but I have no way of dealing with the
substandard right-of-way. I would like that stipulation removed. If it can't
be removed, then I would propose that we go back to the original proposal which
contains no variances and does meet all the City requirements as to lot sizing
and so forth.
43
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Could you tell me what number those are in the
requirements?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: There are two sets of requirements. One by the planner and
one by the engineer in the staff report. In the engineer's report, numbers 2,
3, and 6.
Mayor Chmiel: What page are you on?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Page 3 of the engineering letter from Dave Hempel to Paul
Krauss.
Paul Krauss: It's item 7(f) in the staff report on page 9.
Councilman Johnson: Are you saying that you're not going to be able to get the
' necessary grading easement to get us to 10%?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: 10% is not a problem. It's the slope, I would have to use
' very steep slopes on the sides...with some sort of an erosion control method. It
would have to be steep slopes with plantings and retaining walls of some sort. I
have no means to acquire the additional right-of-way.. .
' Councilman Johnson: You're about to show us where that is right?
Paul Krauss: Yes sir. The issue that's confronting us is that Park Drive isn't
under right-of-way. The dashed lines outside the limits of the right-of-way
indicate where we think slope easements would need to be acquired. I've been
informed that, well there's two property owners there. One, as I understand it
is more willing to negotiate than the other but be that as it may, we don't have
final topog in that area. The engineer for the developer is shooting that
today. Based on our preliminary investigation, the data we had to work with, we
think it's workable. Now there may be sane easements that need to be acquired.
' That could either be through the developer doing it or through the City's use of
eminent domain if it came to that. We are not sure of the final design of that
road though until we have that topographic information and would like to be in a
position to resolve that before the final plat.
Councilman Johnson: ...when we had to get an easement in order for things to go
ahead. lib want to make sure we have those before we go ahead instead of trying
to get them after we went ahead. That's something that may change by final
plat.
Paul Krauss: It could very well.
Councilman Johnson: 8 inches is pretty standard. I think we've done this on
several subdivisions. Take 8 inch.
Dave Hempel: Mr. Mayor if I may address that. I believe under the first
submittal of plans they did show an 8 inch line going through the subdivision.
It was felt that for looping purposes and adequate fire flows that 8 inch would
be most desireable.
Mayor Chmiel: 8 inch as opposed to normally for the subdivsion that size, 6
inch would be sufficient? Would it or wouldn't it?
' 44
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Dave Hempel: I guess without calculations to be exact, it's etti. close I
9 ng
guess. Borderline. For future flows, possibly to the west to insure quality of
water and so forth. I
Councilman Johnson: Do you have the cost difference between 6 and 8 inch is?
Dave Hempel: I would say approximately $3.00 a linear foot.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: It's about $2,500.00 approximately. It's not a real big
deal. The smaller the lines you can use to serve the property properly is the
best line because you have the best flow and the best quality water. 6 inch
line is all we really want in there. If the City wants more for looping,
I understand that. I'm just suggesting that perhaps...
Councilman Boyt: I think we have a lot of precedent where we've required full
size lines.
Councilman Johnson: And for adding or getting into the city water system, this
becomes a part of the city water system. We will be doing the city a disservice
if we put anything in there less than what the City requires for that line.
That is not one of the best areas in the City for utilities already. The area
to the south of that. Anything we could do to help would be appreciated.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? 1
Councilman Boyt: Sure. Paul, I assume that in your staff report where you
indicate home setbacks, that that's a typo under the rear setback? I
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. They look like they all fit. Where is Lot 2, Block 3?
I don't think we got that on any of our plat maps. Maybe you can...me on this.
Councilman Johnson: Page 4. '
Councilman Boyt: Ah ha. Good. Got it. And that needs a variance because of
what? '
Councilman Johnson: No frontage.
Paul Krauss: Lot 2, Block 3 has only 30 feet of frontage up on Pleasant View so
basically it's a flag lot...
Councilman Boyt: So what you're saying there is that that lot faces Pleasant I
View?
Paul Krauss: Yes. That and the one north of it, yes. '
Councilman Boyt: Well, my understanding is that variances require an
overwhelming reason, especially when the developer has got a raw piece of land
and is carving and is laying this out and now they're saying to us, we can't do
it. Can't lay it out and meet city standards and what's the overwhelming reason
they can't do it? There's any number of starred lots here that apparently don't
45
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
I
have the required width. I guess I'm not convinced that the development meets
our standards for a development.
Paul Krauss: If we could take the lot width at the right-of-way standard first.
I think the ordinance is a little ambiguous on that as well. The ordinance
' appears to allow up to 4 homes on a private driveway in the subdivision section
I believe but then says that all lots shall have 90 foot of frontage on the
right-of-way. Well, you can't have both. In this case, there was an original
' road plan that would have avoided the need for a variance. It was designed
specifically, and sort of gerrymandered if you will, to avoid the need for a
variance in the plan that you saw originally. This City Council has given some
' guidance as to the correct road alignment for serving this area which results in
the stranding of quite a bit of acreage inbetween Pleasant View and the new
street. The lot as we see it meets all other RSF standards and would be a good
building site. Only by nature of the fact that we decided that the road should
run somewhat south of there, it can't be accessed. Given that kind of ambiguity
in the ordinance and the fact that we contributed to the situation, we felt that
the variance had some merit.
' Councilman Boyt: When you're talking about Block 3, Lot 2, I think I can follow
the logic that generates that although then of course to take your definition or
' the City's definition of this, then what happens to the other two lots in that
since they have no frontage, if that's your definition?
Paul Krauss: No, the other two lots have full frontage. The north one has full
' frontage on Pleasant View. The south one has it on the new street. It runs
just off the bottom there.
Councilman Boyt: Is this what we've got up here?
Councilman Johnson: Yeah.
' Councilman Boyt: Show me what we've got.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: We're talking about these 3 lots here. This one has it's
' frontage right here. This is the variance lot with the 30 foot frontage here to
serve the center lot. This one has both frontage on the south street.
' Councilman Boyt: Excuse me for laughing but I've seen that kind of street
before and what you've done by putting that bubble in there is create frontage
footage. You've got made the roadway safer but you're created a plowing
problem.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: This is a temporary cul-de-sac until this gets built.
' Councilman Boyt: Okay. Excuse me. So when that's straightened out, the
frontage is available.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Right is what we vacated.
Councilman Boyt: So what you're saying Paul is that this private drive accesses
the middle lot and that lot has no frontage on anything other than the private
drive?
46
1
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Paul Krauss: It has 30 feet of frontage on Pleasant View.
Councilman Boyt: Oh because we create that flag?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: The width of the private drive. '
Paul Krauss: As to the second group of apparent variances, that was something I
came across in reviewing the plat. Again, there's an ambiguity in the ordinance
where it says that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac require less than 90 feet of
width. You measure, I think you measure the lot width at the setback line for
the home. Now it just says on a cul-de-sac. It doesn't say where on a
cul-de-sac or how and in speaking to Jo Ann, it's been my understanding that
that's typically been construed to mean on outside curves as well as on
cul-de-sac bubbles, which is the situation that we had in here. All these lots
exceed, far exceed the standard, 90 foot standard at the building setback line. '
Councilman Boyt: Now this development hinges upon that access. So tell me, I
seem to follow that you said the City was going to be in a position to need to
condemn that property?
Paul Krauss: That's not an implausible scenario. I discussed it with the City
Engineer and he indicated that that's a possibility. It would be our preference
to have the developer negotiate the easements but condemnation I suppose is one
route the City could use.
Councilman Boyt: Remind me again why we're doing this? I guess I need to see
the overwhelming public need for that piece of property.
Paul Krauss: The overwhelming public need if you will goes back to the access i
concepts that were developed to serve the area and on the presumption that the
selected alternative had some merit from an overall neighborhood standard. That
given all the options for serving that area, that this was the only reasonable
way of doing it. Hence it was something that we probably need to make work if
it doesn't work that easily on it's own.
Councilman Boyt: Are we in any better situation if we came up to Nez Perce or
Lake Lucy someplace else?
Paul Krauss: Well we looked at all those alternatives and Nez Perce really lent '
itself to the thru movement and to off loading traffic in both directions so
that hopefully none of the streets in the area were severely impacted. We did
look at all the other opportunities to connect and one of the ones was I think
Kiowa which is to the east had some grade problems and runs into a very dense
stand of trees. We looked at that outlot further down Lake Lucy Road and while
that's technically feasible, it really didn't provide the thru movement that we
were looking for and didn't provide any direct service to this particular plat.
Cotlocilman Boyt: We've generally not created flag lots, which is what that
Block 3, Lot 2 is. How deep is that holding pond?
Paul Krauss: How deep is the new holding pond? 8 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, and how deep is it during normal conditions? What's the
bounce? While I'm interested in other people's questions, I guess I'm not real
47 1
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
comfortable with this development as it is.
Councilman Johnson: Why 6 foot of depth at normal time?
Paul Krauss: I'd like to defer that to the engineer.
Steve Johnston: My name is Steve Johnston. I'm the engineer with Merrill and
Associates. The reason that we have 8 foot of depth in the pond is two fold.
One is that it was desirable we felt to create a pond that would be an amenity
back there rather than just a hole in the ground that collects water during a
storm. We had sufficient room to do that and that's what we've tried to
'
accomplish here. The second reason is with the increased fill required to
extend the road off of Nez Perce, we found ourselves extremely short of fill
material on the site. By going in there and mining that out to create the pond,
it served the purpose of obtaining that fill and at the same time create an
' amenity and alleviated the staff's concern regarding the three smaller ponds so
we thought it was a very good compromise and met all of our design needs here.
Councilman Johnson: Are you going to have rolling bottoms, varying from 1 to 4
foot in depth as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends?
' Steve Johnston: What we've got shown here is a, probably not the most desirable
from a Fish and Wildlife Service but what we have got is a 6:1 slope above and
below the normal water level for depth of 3 feet at which point again, above and
below that it goes to a 3:1 slope. What this hopefully will do is to make those
side slopes as safe as possible while providing us with the maximum amount of
fill material to come out of that hole.
' Councilman Johnson: Are you saying you've got 3:1 slopes outside the pond?
Steve Johnston: We've got 3:1 coming down the back yard areas. Flattening out
at around the normal water elevation to a 6:1 slope and then once we get out
over 3 or 4 feet deep, we were taking out a little more material out to make it
a little deeper.
' Councilman Johnson: We have in the past asked that the Fish and Wildlife
Services, I think it's 4 or 6 conditions for wildlife ponds and this would be a
good place for kind of a wildlife because it's in the back of same folk's yards.
I It's not really a swimming pond or anything like that. That those conditions,
we'd like to see those put in here. One of those is a rolling bottom so the
feeding birds that feed at 1 foot depth have 1 foot depth and those that feed at
deeper depths, you know.
' Steve Johnston: I think we're going to find though on this pond, it's going to
be very hard to obtain that rolling bottom. The pond itself is not that large.
A whole lot of differential is going to be difficult to obtain although I'm not
saying it's impossible to obtain.
I Councilman Johnson: Since it just came up today and it's not before us to even
consider since it wasn't brought to us in time for us to see it other than that
drawing, something has to be done.
IIMayor C oriel: Any other discussion or questions?
48
I
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilman Boyt: What's with Lot 13 and Lot 9 in Block 2? There were staff
comments on both of those.
Paul Krauss: I believe that that's referring to the original pond design which
quite severely impacted those lots. I don't see the right illustration in front
of us but the original ponds basically absorbed their entire back yard. The
edge of the contours comes quite close to the rear of the houses.
Councilman Boyt: Well there must be, is there quite a bit of grading going on
in their new ponding site?
Paul Krauss: Yes. That would have to all be excavated out.
Councilman Boyt: It looks like, from what I see right now, you've got a fairly
gentle slope across the back of Lot 5 and they're going to be recontouring that
whole area. What's that do to the trees? I'm sure you wipe them out but how
big a percentage are you talking?
Paul Krauss: Fortunately that area of the plat, the tree cover is very sparse.
There's clearing in the general location of the pond and the tree cover
surrounding that...small ash on the order of 1 to 2 inch diameter ash...but the
reason that location was selected was because of the clearing that was there.
The natural break in the trees.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I agree with Jay that the pond should be bigger. '
That's basically what it comes down to when you start changing the bottom
contour. You've got to have a certain volume so you've got to make it bigger.
Item 6 in the staff's conditions where we talk about tree preservation, I'd like
to see added to item 6 that all erosion control be put into place prior to any
grading permit being issued. That all trees be reviewed by the DNR, staff and
that all trees that will be saved be staked off at appropriate distance from the
trees prior to any grading permit. And that all that be maintained throughout
the life of the development contract. I think there should be something in
regard to, I know that we specify tree preservation. I've walked some of that
piece of property but I'd like to think that if we've got any trees in there
that are hardwoods in the nature of 80 to 100 years old, that we know about it
before those get removed. I want to avoid any radical changes in the woodland
part of this development.
Councilman Johnson: Bill, as long as you're talking about trees, can I
interject something? I believe preliminary plat suppose's to show where the
trees are. I haven't found them yet. This has quite a bit of forest. Usually
you have the little squiggley lines showing where the forest ends. Where is
that? That's a requirement of preliminary plat I believe to show that on the
drawings. In the past I've moved to table if I don't see where the trees are
and don't see what the grading is.
Steve Johnston: When the original topographic survey was prepared...the nature
of the site which is condensed open areas and wooded areas and so forth, at that
point they were doing a rough topo for preliminary plat purposes.. .which will
incorporate the final but it was felt that this preliminary, we needed to see
where we going with it before a lot of dollars were spent on the design...
I
49
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
1
Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying, our city ordinance requires that
information to be provided at this point. If we don't have that point, we
' can't evaluate what you're doing. If you don't give us any information, we
can't evaluate it. We shouldn't continue looking at these.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: We've spent 4 months on this application. We've never been
asked for it until right now. We certainly would provide it. The site is
almost entirely wooded mostly with young trees. You can't see through there
right now so it's essentially all wooded except in the northeast quadrant is
sauewhat lighter. The rest of it does contain a smattering of mature trees
amongst the smaller ones. It would be kind of difficult for us to try to
delineate the trees. An aerial survey is probably the only way you really get a
' good feel for it because it is a brushy, young forest interspersed with maybe a
few, maybe a dozen, maybe 2 dozen, more mature trees. I don't know if that
helps any but we have not been asked that information. We certainly would have
' provided it.
Councilman Johnson: Have you read our city ordinances? We don't take
developers by the hand and say you have to do this, this and this. We have a
fairly new planner here that maybe missed that point. It's one of the points
that I've made over the years but it's in the ordinance. When you hire somebody
to do this for you, they take our ordinances and read them and I believe it's in
there. I didn't bring my ordinance book with me tonight. It's in my car, which
doesn't help.
' Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you know whether that's factual or not?
Paul Krauss: As Councilman Johnson indicates, I'll have to plead ignorance by
' reason of being a novice at it. I'm familiar with the tree preservation
statute. I wasn't aware that that was a requirement. It was certainly
something we were going to look for given the level of impact on those areas.
Roger, are you familiar with the exact citation?
Roger Knutson: Location of wooded areas is listed in the requirements...
Councilman Boyt: Well if the whole thing is wooded.
Councilman Johnson: If the whole thing is wooded but they've said that it's not
because where the pond is it's not.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: It is wooded with young trees. How you want to qualify
that I don't know. I walked through it and you can't see through it right now
' but 15 feet above the ground you can, that's the height of the trees.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, your engineer says it's clear and we're not affecting
trees. You say it's wooded so you don't have to show a line.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I don't think so. He's saying there's no significant
trees. He's saying they're very small, 1 and 2 inch ashes I believe is what he
said. There's probably a few in there that might be 2 1/2 or 3 inches, I don't
know but there's no significant large trees that would be disrupted and we do
plan to move the trees that we can salvage from that area. That's what the
nature of the area is. It is a young forest of primarily ash and other similar
deciduous trees. A lot of decent trees in there for moving.
50
i
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
Councilman Johnson: It's hard to get in and look at this spot. I
g spo came in from
the east up towards that retaining wall and above the retaining wall it looks to
be some fairly substantial trees in that area. '
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Off to the south, yes. That whole strip, which was my
original intention to try and preserve that was the original plan. The whole
south third of the property or fourth of the property contains the majority of
the mature trees and the more mature forest. The north half or two thirds of
the site is scattered small trees with a few small open spots, especially around
the house and then there are a scattering, a half dozen or a dozen of more
mature trees on the north half of the property but it's essentially all wooded
or partially wooded, depending on what you want to define as being wooded. ..
Councilman Johnson: I've got to let the engineers tell me what is the normal on '
that. I'm not a city engineer but, I've not walked the whole property so I
don't know. The City does not normally go out and condemn property for
developers so he can develop his land. Of course by saying we want this access
the way we want it, we're kind of forcing him into that situation. The other
alternative is to go back to the original plan which then puts it straight
through many, many, a very long cul-de-sac off of Pleasant View which I don't
think is very desireable either.
Councilman Boyt: If I might suggest something. I think that the developer and
the City need to know a lot more about this condemnation action that's proposed
and I don't know, if we can pass the preliminary plat with a condition but I'm
not ready, for my part, to say that the City will condemn that land.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I think the preliminary plat and the final can be handled
without additional right-of-way. I think we can get by with the 40 feet of
right-of-way.
Councilman Boyt: Well I don't. The City has a standard of 60 feet?
Dave Hempel: 50 feet. I
Councilman Boyt: 50 feet? And we need all of that and we're looking at going
to 66 feet at sane point in the future so 40 feet, what you're asking us to do '
then is squeeze the utilities into 10 less feet than we should normally have. I
don't know. I think that's the most volatile issue on this whole thing is how
do we get access onto Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce. I'm not prepared to say
that I'm going to condemn that guy's back yard.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: Fortunately it's a vacant lot yet but that doesn't
necessarily help the situation if we have an unwilling participant.
Councilman Boyt: Well we may want to shift that road to the east some and move
that participant out of the negotiations. But if we do that, it's going to
change your lot sizes which is going to change the layout of your development.
It seems to me we have a tree issue. We have a holding pond issue. TO some
extent we may have a variance issue. Maybe not, from what Paul has said, and
then we've got this access issue.
I
51
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989
I
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I just want to remind the Council that we had a proposed
' plat that has no variances in it and the Council selected this one with all the
problems. I'm relunctant to accept all those problems. I think if you accept
this revision as a preferential one, that we have to find same way to go forward
here otherwise I'd like to go back and have action on my original proposal which _
perhaps...
Don Ashworth: In regards to the street access issue, I really do not think that
that's going to be a problem. I have not talked with Gary but I think you can
recall, time and again on projects that we've had where the project has crossed
another parcel. It's literally impossible for a developer in that instance to
carry out that construction. He has no means to ensure acquisition of the
parcel and carrying out the construction. Although we don't like to go into
condemnation, in many projects it's the only way it can be done. It doesn't
mean that it's going to have to be that way if we can work something with the
owner but I think again, if you think about, I think almost 50% of the projects
that we've had, have involved the necessity for the City to came in and do some
portion of the project. I mean you wouldn't have a business park if the City
hadn't gone...I can't remember now the farmer on the corner of CR 17 and TH 5. '
Even with the recent waterline down in the Lake Susan area, that was another one
that traversed a number of parcels. Anytime you get a project that again
crosses other properties, the City needs to seriously consider doing that
project as a municipal project.
Mayor Qrmiel: Basically what you're saying is that that 40 feet would be?
Don Ashworth: Yes. We could either do that 40 feet or literally carry out the
entire construction. Very similar. We had one this evening. The Meadow Greens
' where we carried out the entire sewer, water, street construction. Assessed the
lots. I think the developer was very pleased with that project. It involved 3
additional lots that really weren't under his control. That's one of the issues
he brought up to this evening was he had carried out the financing for those 3
II lots and was hoping that at same future time he might get a reimbursement for
those. I mean those are the type of things that you work out with the
individual and I would anticipate that the city would be able to work with this
II developer to ensure equitable payment for the construction of that 40 feet or
whatever the distance is down there.
' Mayor Chmiel: I guess I feel comfortable with that if that's something that
we've done previously.
II Councilman Boyt: I'm not comfortable with agreeing or suggesting that we're
going to condemn part of somebody's lot when they don't even know it. I just
don't think that's a smart action for us to take. I have same real qualms. You
want to go back to your first development, your cul-de-sac's too long as
III recall.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: It's well shorter than, it's half as long as a number of
others that have been recently approved.
Councilman Boyt: Nothing by this Council.
Don Ashworth: A question for Paul. The property owner where the road is
II proposed to go across, was he notified of the various hearings that we've 9 one
i52
1
City Council Meeting - September 25, 1989 '
through? He has to be from the standpoint that everyone within 300 feet.
Paul Krauss: Certainly he would have been on the mailing list, yes. I have not
spoken to him myself.
Mayor Qmiel: Have you received any calls?
Paul Krauss: No. Dave?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: The engineer has talked to the gentleman who owns that lot
very recently. His indication was he would not cooperate. I don't know if
that's just an off the cuff remark or. He does not want the road going his way.
He was in the first meeting where everybody didn't want the road going to the
south.
Councilman Workman: I thought Daryl Fortier discussed this with the owners in
there and said that everything was on key and going great. I
Chuck Van Eeckhout: On the east side.
Councilman Workman: Well there's two sides to this. '
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I know...
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd move tabling this until we can figure it out. I
don't know. I think we're running this thing around. We had some plans. I had
nervousness about Nez Perce anyway but I think there's enough unsettling going
on to table at this point. I'm not quite sure what this 22 foot high dam is.
Councilman Boyt: That's gone. '
Councilman Workman: Oh that's going to be eliminated? Okay.
Paul Krauss: Which we had a lot of concerns with and we're glad to see it go. 1
Councilman Workman: We went from 3 ponds to 1.
Mayor C oriel: I think with all the questions that are here, we have a motion on
the floor to table this.
Councilwoman Dimler: I'll second that motion. I
Mayor Qmiel: And I think there are many questions that we have to get resolved
and get it resolved quickly. Is there any other further discussion? ,
Councilman Boyt: I'd sure like to see the developer and the staff work on those
conditions about erosion control and such that I mentioned. I think if we can
get this road access situation cleared up, the rest of it seers like it's pretty
straight forward to me.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table the preliminary
plat to subdivide 9.5 acres into 18 single family lots for Vineland Forest. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
53
. .
I .
C I TY 0 F [T .
i ,„
i _ ..
cHANHAssEs
1 , __ ?' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
4 (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
111 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager . _ _.
FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning1_/?/ %•a1_,___
IDATE: September 20 , 1989
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for the Vineland Forest
ISubdivision 74,_;-/i 1
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
IOn August 28, 1989, the City Council first reviewed the prelimi-
nary plat for Vineland Forest. The subdivision would result in
I the platting of 21 single family homesites on a 11 .5 acre site.
One of the lots would be occupied by an existing home with the
remaining lots made available for new construction. Access was
one of the main issues surrounding the proposal. The developer
I illustrated serving the project by a single long cul-de-sac from
Pleasant View Road. Staff generally supported the proposal but
recommended the use of a "through-street" design that provided a
I connection to Nez Perce Drive to the south. The Planning
Commission had earlier discussed the issue and was unable to
recommend a solution to the access concerns . Due to concerns
I raised by staff and residents, action on the matter was tabled to
give staff an opportunity to analyze alternative access concepts
for serving the site and surrounding area.
On September 8 , 1989, staff presented the City Council with four
alternative access concepts. It was ultimately determined that
Alternate #3 (see attachment) offered the highest degree of ser-
I vice for the plat, surrounding parcels and neighborhood while
minimizing impacts on traffic levels on Pleasant View Road. The
applicant was directed to prepare a revised plat that was con-
figured to respond to this access alternative.
IStaff has reviewed the current proposal and concluded that it is
consistent with the selected alternative. Until adjoining par-
I Gels are developed, "Vineland Drive" , the street that serves the
subdivision, will be constructed as a 900 foot long temporary
cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac "bubble" and the easement in which it
I is located would be removed at such time that the street is
extended.
11
•
•
Mr. Don Ashworth I
September 20, 1989
Page 2
Staff continues to support approval of the plat subject to
appropriate stipulations. We belive that in addition to con-
forming to the access concept, the plat will create high quality
homesites that generally meet or exceed ordinance requirements.
There are, however, three additional issues that warrant
discussion. The first concerns access to lots located between
Pleasant View and Vineland Drive, the second pertains to drainage
while the third concerns a variance to allow a 10% street grade
on Vineland Drive.
The proposal illustrates the platting of three lots between
Pleasant View Road and Vineland Drive. The approved access con-
cept
places Vineland Drive 520 feet from Pleasant View. The
resulting site is sufficiently large enough to support three lots
that far exceed RSF District minimum lot areas but it is not
possible to comply with lot frontage standards. As a result, Lot
2, Block 3 is illustrated as a flag lot accessed by a 30 foot
wide strip of land leading to Pleasant View Road. Staff supports
the 60 foot lot width variance that results for the following
reasons :
1. The subdivision ordinance allows serving up to 4 lots off a
private drive. In this case, there will be only one home
using it.
2. The lot contains 31,100 square feet and is greatly in excess I
of the 15,000 square foot standard.
3 . The lot width at the actual building setback line is 145 feet,
far in excess of the normal 90 foot standard.
4. An acceptable home site results .
3. The city approved access concept is reasonable when reviewed
in a comprehensive manner but in this instance it creates a
hardship since it is not possible to serve the lot with a
public street.
Staff has several reservations with the drainage concept that is
proposed. The applicant' s engineer has indicated that sufficient
ponding is provided to meet retention requirements. Our concern
is that the retention is provided in a series of three ponds.
The ponds are generally small and pose long term maintenance
problems for the city. In addition, the pond located on Lots 9,
12 and 13, Block 3 severely constrain the utility of the rear yard
of these homesites. Lots 9 and 13 are most severly impacted. We
are proposing that the applicant be required to obtain Watershed
District approval prior to requesting final plat since the
district may have similar reservations. We are also proposing
that the applicant work with staff to refine the plans. We are
making this proposal since revisions to the drainage plan, if
I
I
1 Mr. Don Ashworth
September 20 , 1989
I Page 3
required, could result in alternatives to the plat up to the
potential loss of a lot to provide adequate storage.
IThe last issue concerns the design of the Vineland Drive connec-
tion to Nez Perce Drive. As indicated by staff at the last City
' Council meeting, a 10% road grade is required to make the connec-
tion. A variance is required to the 7% maximum grade permitted
in the subdivision ordinance. Staff supports the use of the
variance for the following reasons :
I1. It is the only way to serve the site from Nez Perce due to
prevailing grades . A road constructed to a 7% standard would
I greatly increase the amount of grading that is required.
this would have a severe impact on adjoining parcels along
Lake Lucy Road. We should note that even the proposed 10%
I grade impacts these parcels and the applicant should be
required to obtain grading easements as a condition of appro-
val.
I 2. The street design incorporates a landing area at the inter-
section. We believe this is a safe design compromise.
I 3. Vineland Place will ultimately have a second outlet offering
an alternative for accessing the homesite.
I 4 . There is precedent for using a 10% grade with the Trappers
Pass plat being the most recent.
At the September 11, 1989, meeting, the City Council expressed an
I interest in having staff explore methods to insure that the
selected access alternative can become a reality. Staff has
reviewed the potential for utilizing the official mapping process
I as used for Highways 101 and 212 to provide legal standing for
the concept. We believe that this has some merit but note that
it would require that the city undertake engineering design of
the entire road and complete a centerline survey. There would be
II a significant expense to complete this program. As an alter-
native we would propose the following:
Il . The access concept is now a part of the permanent record and
will be used by staff in the future to prepare reviews of
subdivision proposals on adjoining parcels.
I2 . To insure that all future residents of Vineland Forest
understand the City' s intentions we recommend that the:
II - street be paved up to the west property line,
- a barrier be erected at the end of the pavement with a sign
stating that "This street is to be extended in the future" ,
I and
- that a notice be placed in the chain of title of each lot
indicating that Vineland Drive will be extended in the
' future to connect to Pleasant View Drive.
1
Mr Don Ashworth I
September 20, 1989
Page 4 I
Based upon the foregoing, staff recommends that the preliminary
plat for Vineland Forest be approved with a variance to allow a
10% grade on Vineland Drive and a variance to allow a 30 foot lot
width at the right-of-way on Lot 2, Block 3 , subject to
appropriate stipulations. Details on these stipulations is pro-
vided below. '
ACCESS
The proposed access plan for the plat has been revised to accom- ,
modate Alternate #3 as prepared by staff ( see attachment) . We
are satisfied with the design but note that there are a series of
other issues that warrant discussion. The question of the
variance to allow a 10% road grade on Vineland Drive was discussed
in the proposal/summary. Staff supports it in concept but
believes that the grading plan for the Nez Perce connection needs
further refinement. As proposed there is a fairly significant
amount of grading for side slopes occurring on lots located out-
side the plat. Staff believes that by refining the design, the
amount of impact may be rediced but we want to stress that
grading easements must be obtained from these property owners.
We believe that the developer should be responsible for obtaining
the easements and he has indicated that at least one of the prop-
erty owners is willing to work with him. Staff is proposing that
a more refined grading plan and securing of the grading easements
be made a stipulation of approval. The final road design should
provide a 30 foot long landing area having a 1% or lower grade at
the Nez Perce intersection.
We are recommending that the street name be changed from Vineland
Drive to Nez Perce Drive. Alternative access concept #3 results
in a connection between Nez Perce and Pleasant View Road. This
continuity should be reflected in the street name to avoid con-
fusion. The Vineland Court name for the eastern cul-de-sac can
reamain unchanged.
Staff has requested that Outlot B be created to provide the city '
with an opportunity to serve the adjoining parcel to the east at
such time that development is proposed. We are recommending that
the outlot be dedicated to the city for access and utility pur- ,
poses. We are reluctant to allow the developer to retain
ownership since small outlots such as this have a tendency to be
let go tax forfeit over time and are often not maintained. An
alternative would be for the applicant to transfer ownership to
the adjoining property owner so that it can be merged with that
lot into a single tax parcel. A last access issue concerns the
undeveloped right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road which the plans
suggest be vacated by the city. Staff believes that discussion
of the vacation may be premature. Although it is not needed for
use as a roadway, Vineland Forest plans do illustrate using por-
tions of it to accommodate stormwater retention. We believe the
question of vacating the road cannot be resolved until drainage
issues described below are resolved.
•
Mr. Don Ashworth
September 20, 1989
Page 5
GRADING/DRAINAGE
' Staff has reservations with the drainage plan that stem from two
areas of concern. While the applicant' s engineer has indicated
that a sufficient volume of ponding has been provided
' ( calculations have not yet been given to staff for review) . We
are concerned that the plan calls for using a series of three
small ponding areas to meet the requirement. While this tech-
nically complies it presents the City with a long term main-
tenance problem. Smaller ponds are more difficult to observe,
they tend to silt in more frequently requiring a higher level of
maintenance and they are difficult to access. As a policy
' matter, it would be our preference to require fewer, larger
ponds. Based upon past actions we believe that the Watershed
District may share this concern. How this issue is resolve could
have bearing on the final design of this plat since lot lines may
need to be shifted or a lot may evenneed to be eliminated.
The second related issue is the impact of one of the ponds upon
Lots 9, 12 , and 13 , Block 3 . The pond is large enough that the
rear yards of Lots 9 and 13 are compromised since a protective
easement will be needed over all retention areas . There is ade-
quate room to accommodate the homes but use of the back yard
areas will be limited. We further note that the home on Lot 12
is proposed to have a basement elevation of 1009 feet while the
ponding area has a natural overflow of 1010. If the outlet pipe
11
becomes plugged the house may flood. We believe it is advisable
to locate the basement elelvation at least 2 feet above the pond
flood elevation to provide a safety factor.
Staff is proposing two stipulations to resolve these concerns.
The first is that the applicant be required to obtain Watershed
District apporoval prior to requesting final plat approval from
the City. At the same time we are recommending that he work with
staff to repond to the issues that have been raised. This will
allow any adjustments to the plat that may be required to be
incorporated into the final plat.
There is a farily extensive amount of grading that will be
' required to develop this plat. An erosion control plan should be
required to isnure that impacts are minimized. In addition to
requiring the use of erosion control techniques the plan should
' require the establishment of ground cover on all disturbed areas.
The impact of grading on tree removal remains a concern. Staff
continues to recommend that clearcutting be prohibited and that a
tree preservation plan should be provided to staff for approval.
' Drainage plans call for constructing a dam as part of an outlet
structure near the east property line. The dam will be 22 feet
' high and disturb what is now a forested area. We believe that
the impacted area should be revegetated with a mix of compatible
trees to minimize visual impacts and help to stabilize the severe
I
•
Mr. Don Ashworth
September 20, 1989
Page 6
slopes. We also feel that the final grading plan should be '
designed to minimize the loss of mature oaks. A suitable
reforestation and tree preservation plan should be prepared for
approval and financial guarantees for installation included in
the development contract. We are also concerned as to the struc-
tural safety of the dam. We are therefore recommending that the
plans be reviewed and approved by a professional engineer. 1
UTILITIES
Preliminary utility plans are generally acceptable although addi- '
tional refinement will be required by the Engineering Department.
The plans currently provide the sanitary sewer connection to
Pleasant View and the watermain loop between Nez Perce to
Pleasant View Road has also been incorporated. All water lines
located in Vineland Drive should be increased to an 8 inch
diameter pipe to insure adequate flows .
EASEMENTS/ROW
The following easements and ROW should be provided: '
1. ROW dedication for all platted streets.
2. Temporary road easements over the temporary cul-de-sac at the i
end of Vineland Drive. The easement would be vacated
whenever the street is extended.
3. Outlot B should be dedicated to the city for access and uti-
lity purposes.
4. Drainage and utility easements over all storm water retention
areas, access to these areas for city crews and over storm
sewers. '
5. Standard drainage and utility easements over each lot.
6. Grading easements as required to accommodate the roadway con- I
nection to Nez Perce Drive.
7. Utility easements over sewer lines located outside the public
right-of-way.
PARK DEDICATION
The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed the plat and
found that the area is served by existing parks. It was recom-
mended that the City accept park and trail fees in lieu of '
parkland dedication.
I
I
1
COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT
1 Lot Lot Lot Wetland Home
Area Width Depth Area Setbacks
1 15, 000 90 125 N/A 30 ' front
20 ' rear
10 ' side
Block 1
ILot 1 17,700 120 141 0 N/A
2 15, 200 103 145 0 N/A
I3 15,200 100 146 0 N/A
4 15,600 117 133 0 N/A
1 5 15,200 118 137 0 N/A
1 Block 2
Lot 1 21,700 60* 212 0 N/A
1 2 16 , 700 95 167 0 N-33 ' E-16 '
S-52 ' W-34 '
1 3 15, 200 95 160 0 N/A
4 29 ,575 77* 260 0 N/A
I5 42, 900 77* 260 0 N/A
6 20, 230 95 151 0 N/A
II7 20, 900 75* 151 0 N/A
II8 19 , 480 50* 169 0 N/A
9 20,600 50* 140 0 N/A
1 10 15, 540 140 128 0 N/A
18,700 115 150 0 N/A
Ill
12 15, 750 100 159 0 N/A
1 13 15,000 108 144 0 N/A
Block 3
1 Lot 1 17,500 118 152 0 N/A
2 31,100 30-V1 180 0 N/A
I3 29 ,000 108 205 0 N/A
1
Mr. Don Ashworth 1
September 20, 1989
Page 8
CHART
The following comments refer to the chart on the following page. 1
The "*" lots are located on outside curbes and cul-de-sac having
90 or more lot width as measured at the building setback line.
The ordinance is somewhat unclear on dealing with all these
situations but handling these without requiring variances is con-
sistent with past actions. Staff will propose clarification to
the ordinance to resolve the matter.
Variances Required
V1 - Variance to allow 30 ' of lot frontage for Lot 2 , Block 3 '
V2 - Variance to permit a section of road grade at 10%
STAFF COMMENT
Overall we believe the applicant has made progress on the pro- ,
posal and the major question of access have been resolved.
Drainage still poses a problem but means to resolve it have been
proposed. '
Staff has one final concern. The plat illustrates Outlot A as a
16 ' x 552 ' long strip running between Lot 1, Block 3 and Pleasant
View Road. This strip accommodated an existing driveway that
will become redundant when the new street is constructed.
Previously in this report, staff outlined reasons to avoid the
creation of small, unbuildable outlots with no defined purpose.
Therefore, we are recommending that the applicant either make
provisions to sell it to an adjoining parcel or keep it combined
with Lot 1, Block 3 . '
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the preliminary plat #89-8 for Vineland '
Forest be approved with the following variances:
Vl - Variance to allow 30 ' of lot frontage for Lot 2, Block 3 '
V2 - Variance to allow a 10% grade on Vineland Drive
and subject to the following stipulations: '
1. Obtain final plat approval and enter into a development
contract with the city and provide the city with the
necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation
of the improvements.
2. Final design and approval of utility, drainage and street ,
plans, incorporating comments contained in the staff report
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
September 20, 1989
I Page 9
and attached report from the Engineering Department. Detailed
construction plans and specifications, including calculations
for sizing utility improvements, shall be submitted for approval
by the City Engineer. All construction shall be in accordance
with MnDOT specifications except where modified by the City' s
standard specifications. As-built mylar plans will also be
required upon completion of construction.
3 . Obtain Watershed District approval prior to requesting final
plat from the City and comply with all requirements of approval.
4. Change the name of Vineland Drive to Nez Perce Drive. The
I street shall be paved up to the western property line. A barrier
shall be erected at the edge of the pavement indicating that
"This street is to be extended in the future" . Notice of the
street extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each
' lot in Vineland Forest.
5. Dedicate Outlot B to the city for access and utility pur-
l' poses . Outlot A should either be merged with adjoining lots
at the time the final plat is filed or be recombined with Lot
1, Block 3 .
6. Provide a tree preservation and erosion control plan prior to
requesting a grading permit. The plan should strive to mini-
mize tree loss . A landscaping and tree presrvation plan
' illustrating the reforestation of the dam, proposed as part of
the outlet structure, should be submitted for review prior to
requesting final plat approval. A financial guarantee covering
the cost of landscaping should be provided with the development
contract. Plans for the outlet structure should be eviewed and
approved by a professional engineer.
7. Provide the following easements
a. ROW dedication for all platted streets.
b. Temporary road easements over the temporary cul-de-sac at
the end of Vineland Drive. The easement would be vacated
' whenever the street is extended.
c. Outlot B should be dedicated to the city for access and
' utility purposes.
d. Drainage and utility easements over all storm water
retention areas, access to these areas for city crews and
over storm sewers .
e. Standard drainage and utility easements over each lot.
f. Grading easements as required to accommodate the roadway
connection to Nez Perce Drive.
11
Mr. Don Ashworth 1
September 20, 1989
Page 10
g. Utility eaements over sewer lines located outside the public
right-of-way.
8 . Park dedication and trail fees are required in lieu of 1
parkland dedication.
9. Minimum basement elevations will be established by the City 1
Engineer based upon final grading and drainage plan.
10. Upon final plat approval the applicant shall supply to the city '
two mylar copies of the plat, one reduced to 1" = 200 ' scale and
the second at 1" = 500 ' scale.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised plat documents for Vineland Forest.
2 . Back up material on previous actions and reports concerning this
project.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1 CITY OF
-II :,, :
, „
. .
,. . ,,
.-\- , , / - CHANHASSEN
I .,,. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Tech et/
1 DATE: September 20, 1989
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat of Vineland Forest Addition Submitted
1 by Merila and Associates dated May 30, 1989, Revised
September 19, 1989, File No. 89-13 Land Use Review
1 Sanitary Sewer
1 The sanitary sewer alignment is the same as previously proposed.
However, with elimination of the north access to Pleasant View
Road, the sanitary sewer and watermain will not be within street
II right-of-way. Therefore, utility easements shall be provided
over the plat to accommodate the utilities outside the street
right-of-way.
1 All sanitary sewer services should be 6" PVC as per the City' s
standard specifications.
1 Watermain
The plans propose a looped system to be constructed from the
1 existing 6" line in Nez Perce along Vineland Drive north through
to the existing 12" line in Pleasant View. The looped water
system consists of ductile iron pipe (DIP) 6" to 8" in diameter.
To insure sufficient fire flow for the area, all water lines
1 should be 8" in diameter with the exception of Vineland Court.
Streets
1 The plans propose a standard urban city street ( 31 ft. wide back-
to-back) within a 50 ft. right-of-way with the exception of two
1 areas. The first area is at the entrance to the site from Lake
Lucy Road. The current right-of-way is 40 ft. wide. The right-
of-way should be expanded to 50 ft. wide with any additional
slope easements that may be necessary. In order to verify exact
1 slope limits for the proposed access road, the applicant should
1
1
Mr. Paul Krauss '
September 20, 1989
Page 2 '
have a survey crew take cross-sections of the existing con-
ditions.
The second is at the north end of Vineland Drive where
a tempoary cul-de-sac is proposed. The tempoary cul-de-sac
extends outside of the right-of-way provided. A temporary
street easement should be provided for this area until such a
time when the street continues westerly at which time the tem-
porary easement would be vacated and the cul-de-sac removed.
Street grades range from 0. 50% to 10% . Since a 10% grade exceeds 1
the maximum grade allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance ( 7%) , a
variance will be required.
Grading and Drainage
The site grading remains approximately the same as the previous
grading plan submitted. Extensive lot grading is proposed over
Lots 4 and 5, Block 1 and Lots 9 , 12 and 13 , Block 3 to create
building pads and detention pond areas which will in turn require
some tree removal. The proposed side slope along the south end
of Lot 13, Block 3 is approximately 2.5:1, which is very steep.
In order to establish vegetation and from a maintenance stand-
point,
slopes on all lots should not exceed 3 :1. As on the
previous grading plan, the applicant is providing another deten-
tion pond to be constructed between Lots 5 and 6 , Block 3 . This
detention pond includes a control structure to maintain the pre-
developed runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a 100 year
storm event. This design should be reviewed and approved by a
qualified soils engineer. Due to the terrain around this deten-
tion
pond, access for maintenance will be very difficult.
Therefore, it is requested that the applicant provide a 15 ft.
wide easement through Lot 6, Block 3, on level terrain for
access to this detention pond for maintenance purposes .
Erosion Control
The plans do not indicate provisions for erosion control I
measures. An erosion control plan should be submitted and include
erosion control fencing in acordance with the City' s Type III
standard. All side slopes greater than 3 :1 shall be stablized
using erosion control blankets. The site should be seeded and
mulched immediately after rough grading to minimize sediment
runoff over the site. 1
Recommended Conditions
1. Appropriate utility and drainage limits shall be provided ,
over all lots .
2. All water lines shall be 8" DIP except for Vineland Court. 1
3. The applicant shall acquire the necessary right-of-way and
slope easements between Lake Lucy Road and the development. I
Mr. Paul Krauss
11 September 20 , 1989
Page 3
4. The applicant shall provide the City with a temporary street
easement for the temporary cul-de-sac on Vineland Drive.
5 . Variance required for 10% street grades.
6 . The applicant shall modify the grading plan to limit slopes
to no greater than 3 :1 (Lot 13, Block 3 ) .
7 . Provide a 15 ft. wide easement for access back to the deten-
tion pond across Lot 6, Block 3 .
8. The control structure between Lots 5 and 6 , Block 3 shall be
reviwed and approved by a qualified soils engineer.
9 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with
the City and provide the City with the necessary financial
sureties to guarantee proper installation of the
improvements .
10 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
1 the Watershed District permit.
11. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right-
of-way and easements to the City for permanent ownership.
12 . Detailed construction plans and specifications, including
calculations for sizing utility improvements, shall be sub-
mitted for approval by the City Engineer. All construction
shall be in accordance with MnDOT specifications, except
where modified by the City' s standard specifications . As-
built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of
construction.
13. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City Engineer.
14. Upon final plat approval, the applicant shall supply to the
City 2 mylar copies of the plat, one reduced to 1" = 200 '
scale and the other 1" = 500 ' scale.
11
I
I
I
DJ„•-- '--.-,33
, . .. .
\ ___--.. ..n. _ ________ „
rt. --H \s \‘ \ \\\::::.---f".- ______,-------- /I/ )I
i. .1 f-,,.—__. s„ •„..s;',....:„.-.....___-------- .--......„_...../jr,,... ,,, .
1 . „ > r ,..._ ›,..._ s. „ ., —44100 6.10I•OW 23".7.—
! ,.....?
.:\ i‘1--, %2, 1 1 li-12111—,,\::' 1 ,,, ....1 . i .
ip. xi ., ___.-optv , _ ! ,1 z •
1 II )— \:\\ 1 A- -1 r------F, ,-„, ,' i (I! ,7---:— , -
i 1 1 1 . . \
111.: : I 1.-7:sills's:/s.:Os'''':::11:71- -jr's '''‘.11.:•"Cill'-'11111-'5.- :I (1 I-". i
)h.
,.---
1 1
\ ii \.
>
t ,' \litirtA\ LLO, ?1,,),;.. I T.....„. zi
•-t-P' i )<
\ , . 1, , I "...•.•---.....) .Z, e __4fI il i VW 10,A
S0,36 ta ■ ..N\ r: I 1i— ---rL----wi i .-- 1 1.--)' ---14--7-....- ;r7I.- --.-7-- r --- < 1 1
\,:. 1 ?:, t `:.. 1 , ; Up :.71- -9-." .--- 1 — Fn-____\
8 )73 ii:L11 ----------- -- If-\-- -4.1"1.--,-- - -- __- ---- %„--- _____ r lE
. r i I 1\ "i t: '1. .. -- : ..- ---'-:...;.°7- ' ,- .."" I
o %• , .I' a r ‘, 3:1 .13•
- co
I
/ co!,;; 1,:1 1..„... o
.... m s•
.., / -111 "' II;:f \, \I \ 4:.--_____i--/--- :T.:: •T-1,--'"7 -' _74-- P
‘,./\ -.....--17.--• -:•
,.;'. ,' / ,,- I .&-----f:- 0
• , , . ...: __ , _,-•.... .. .. . ..r-,. .-
• ,Lqii : 1 , 1 i -,.-- ,-- , 2 t z..-i
I
I Orr, 1 ',A ; if '. t7T. " ,-:'::---,/".•:'i '>.r_ _22.„ °:' '''' -,-
E• ( V.A,,1 P . , 1 1 i *\ \s sli , C's :i -::- ;-... ....../ j 7' u•-' 5;-,
t t 1 I
r I I C I '''/ •••:,7-' , ',4. \ ss‘': "I't -2-•.----.' • .
' ' 1' "-• - '''
- ,,,„;;, 1 ir,:..1 1\ •‘; ,'
/
/ i . 'IV , 61_ It'lpi \ill\ i \ ‘1_1,:i'':4\,'"--,----1-..-405,' -:==f7...
/ 1: II :I \ ; i 1 --4- ---Ii- , 1--1--1 ' frli.:; ,,.\.,--t,•-•---.7.--".7 ',:./--; 1.-=':--
1/ K1'...ii,';'1,p.N....4.--;---;:.-, 7, , _
, , ,, „„„ ,00 „,....?.. ,...._„,...".14' 411,0••_____--_-_-_------*/,' '
. ,i , ,)—i,„(4.,"............„...,,,.--•,.......,-„ , „,„, \
• • ......„. ..,..,...:„,. .,,,,•
,/ , i \4 ......f. `" .,::.. ...i. , •1..._, ......_,,, , ,
e I ' (k) . " ."--. 5 r-'1c=?--------.•,',---:"-::// N ' I
I
i 1 1111 Ilia I =
I 1 i I i q-- c, .., :,•0„.....::....:. .... •_. ...._z:____::._-_-:...:y i ,
/;:. ,",- ... • — 1:., ---..-4,_.•• , %.
i i •s
1 -----... " •%/':;',"" .. I:. ----:-."';')--4,i'''' r.---
i7::)'.;•-,. .//6,P. // . ::I I--P.,,-■- -,,, t„...
1-. 111... III
,, I
.:,
1 i ,
_ 17 0 s Si' .4.41sts.
111
s I 0 3ii )--z--re■m- 0 I
. Ac 33 1
.-..-.-,N .
g ILif a 1„ .1
g , 0.. . 5,1 •:i
isE .g 3
1111111(54111: lifIli?
15.1rios i ri:t4ITI:v3.4 •11
,z .• 01#1, ri+.
ill i.:„4., fir t,.4 1 1 --.1 rale 11.1110
illiii;..h5§ I WI!
t .0 . - - z rg ,f
..... .1 ft ,i; P / a i 1 11r1141111 111111"! ,I151 i 1 1 1
A -45‘. ! I " I ,. . 6
- 43-15 ;-I& MI /
4 1 I I i 1 1
l' ii -1* • IN ;gwi's - tie
otil 1
.-. .-••••:-.Sti; ''' •-••efli
I
fitili I
li .
I
I IFi c
•
i i= g ,
f 1
I
1.1 1
•
• i
• a
I
. '
........,
ND '"ALENIV —''''-' Fltai:.".:4-1471.11
3m
PREUMINARY PLAT
....._,/),„..4,
77 = .
....-tiasz_. .... 6-A.,,A*., • ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
. ,.
I
- •-
I I
r I --------- \ '' s- . ----
.... , \
• , ,
-.4.2700 1,101.,,I'2 3"E- / 1'1 II'
.., '! .ti,I_ 7/1______
P..1 i', ' 1
,
I
,..:1
•
• ,
,
1 , g li
Ii 4 11
' al" ,b ,• )
row. j ovol
J ' %0, 0'„ cezo, 1 i t
, ;!, . 1 ,,,,„ . ..„ . , - , •
.
I 1 ‘,‘,,,, , ..
\ •
,,hrunim--.:-/-„.. .4.......1_ ,______:-,,_ . ------
4 .-.'.
, , - • 0
il", 11 1 Vo .4/gii• If k _At-...77 -'.31114 h. ___; . -,,I. , .," 1
'* -,./ -•-•-* , --4 it-- ri - 4 !`-k • • 7.. :
--,--, -7-
',!„...NATIIIM— • ,.,, i _0.
I .0,
i, „,.,„- „..„‘7,,.,,, ..... .. ......--7 ,. ,:. :, ..41 iii.C:1-71 41-1-1/11 14‘1\\"‘"'\I ic-47/14:41:6 ls- '....-j L.'
• ) i 1)
t-
in
rn \
‘,, _....,r, , r•r I ..s ..*
I ----.., .,--.......--...
ilY4.' . Milk I / I i.. I . 4-7"----- .••-)1 . 7 A , --%
• 6---"..• • ..■t--■ -....--.41 .. ---,--
N11, \ 'N ,- 1 ci 1111=1114 34 .i.f__
..A44 ! ' 1 io
JA 17 1
) );..1 17,1: i /1"mi fr ----'"--; --------- ----
06 /32 . 1.F4). L, C ' 1 I . . ,
/ I. II' / \ oi . '-. 8;' 141f - .._ ,
,,. i
, .,„, nisi; vip ,- -• ,
I 1 ;....: II: , ' 1 , 1 g , ,-
i c „a. ,.. ,...- o ... •,
/ i ilk ' ' I l ' /11.• ; 41 i ' '
I 1 7 I ‘' 1 - •-•
I -. ..1 • I; 1
( -11,0C1‘,419 ' . ,-'•-ii
, , , ..- ,••
„...-7 - ••' 1--- NI 1..:'
f \ – • v .0. !.■,,-, cr 1 ,...•
• - - V x - C- -;.;
1 . ,,,,.,. ..../ , .,
...
'.'1 :, -- ': : .: „„ '''...' ::;
I r lh, /1 '.' / ,a.40 0..r1),
/ 4 % I 1 ‘ „,„. • ,. ,:.:,..
/ ',' 1 ' ', / (..,,1 i • . I I ‘1 i . P-:-.--
I, , 's , 7-- -,
--
., "/.. ,,,:,,---
/ ,/ ' :- ‘, I , if 1 : : , ., -...-5---,_ _- //4: , ,
. _- 7--- - -
I /
,...z 1 , . // 1 i
1 / I r r r r, .8■00 501.0:, IV „v ., ••
,) n\,....,./ ...,,,,,,-:-i:--t-._....'i. 11(',% ._...._:.... '.'')/' ' (\ I
..,:- _..--r • - .,„ 1 ,v, , .1. i
''. "/-' .- ._--- 7 ,.',/..* 1
,„ ,. - - -1 • yi■%i? P ‘‘,.--: -.,1 1 ,i:\
\
•
1 , :,,,..,. // ,„
,,,,. / ./.. ' 1
, / , . 3/, . . .'-I - '
,-../ / i •i i: / /. .0:
: II V
/5.iN!,
,
I [NW
ibilig
•
•I 5 :.---z--e --
1 ,7
o
c;
1
33 i!!
NIIIP , 1
- g ; li
OWN, .i. la
,. ti
II ,. II - Ili piE
I Hili
411;1 I "1
..Z
II ! ii P II i • III ili
1 it
ilgir 141
r\ I 1 1 '\'!' ii ii III
II.
Sig t.,11
' ■
I .,.. ,
.
,,,
-- - k
p -17- -1
, ,... . , . ii.
, , • •
. 1 (\t i -1\11; ii
1 t , . 1 : II 1,
,e h . I
. I .
,Il , ;;111, i I
. , Ili
I il'41.. I, 1 • I \
/ ' II
/ .1 ' II N 1
I I
• II i
1 .'
- II
1 1.
I 1 ,
r I •
i __ IIIIP 11111111 111111111 i
1111°1111111 41 Ili' li i
If lb\
' '
..4 UMW i"
1,1
11/Y N F I.-- :1
10 1 I ;
I .
sif
1 ; I)1 , 1
,•
1 I-1 1•,--ii,
N, i Ad ! lil Ill i 1 li."1 Ii
III • 1
I •••,,I I I 1 .
r I '
I • I I 111..1 I k
I PRELIMINARY VINELAND iiiji.4Z
rthliPuu—MI:::j::.....-‘4"."'""”:4":.. A.Nr.MERILA r-:43i.7„i,',•=1"
we Antaril".---r-al ''/,',, .
GRADING PLAN FOREST —
A 7,au — - ...._1Lit—. flicAn ENCIMURNO IUnYIVINO MANNINO
I , ..
i 1 -----i ss-,, \s\s,\\\-ss—l-------—
1
t_ ` �; 4700 NO1603'!)"E• /_ f _
1 • 1I C - ue 1-1!1*--/ f! _) `` \N `� --.• .J- ■ ' ; ° 2 I
1 t '1'111 ' N`. '''` ` Nt +'/'
I
' �: �1.t11 I , . 1i� I _ j ._. )) �ti; 1 1
I
JI % ��`i` O I ii , i
:`. 0 9� e 1 � � 1
} ;n•.• /�' 0 W p i / i H E ': .� 1 am 1.—'-.ji I i i / I N
��J'-/ ' \ f ``` .. 1 I II
" 4 -`
sr w, ■ \ 1 ' 1
Fri
N /i- Cr:�i, : \ b i `I, I '` _----- la-
g :-i/:" .---- r•
.., N \y
III
jl '�'� /ice„ ..
.-*r' 1 1'110\1 \ 1 /''','—', \ % \ \ \' ‘ ,.\,-N-:,.------- ,„-. ,„,-,_„_, _._. .
/ / . I . / 1I ;)0. \ , _ "/
f ';' ..',:-/\ 1 I I / ,� "• ' , t`,, ,, ,. / ' ---—
i ,, , ./..17..0'591.03 a"w - .___. ,, / - / -I-
i ,..! /;;4-;-.-- / ---,77- ::__::%7 I \ i
'1R.� 1 I/ / s c,IIl
. c /::, N.
I
: t
i
E
i
I
�
I
I
•
•
..
1i �t�f�1i jiii I 'fif 1f o _
f 11 11
a
I
11118.11\ I
PRELI�AINAY VINELAND' "4..,......L.,--J";`«""' '" ~-` �'M��I� F.:=1:".."="""��
A � UTILITY PLAN FOREST 44-A! &ASSOCiArES .
N477 i''—.'..yr v vw tl�r/!1 ENOWEERWO SURVEYING PLANNING
• 1, J I k
-:-_-----.. _s f.�7 NOIro!Z!Ems..-. . ..?7 , I
I • �,` /
� S, "/ ,/ i•
! 1 `� ,(,' i ,��; Q
AEA `
- ,� 1 I A', NI
� .
y 1 t I tIti r \ .f 1
I I
21 u • i 1' /I
,-,:, f I--
ii -614.10 WOODS'23"a -- a vI
,---::z- -61464 6000E TS"W- GO I
III t
ew.17` No•oa a �::� _,,,,%,,-. ........_,„,..1' ,
ss....... I. a 17\ 4 ) , :. 1
n4
{{
11
\ ` } ' � `
LC
r
r6 i - 1Z a
'' t.. - ^•A -65 T.10 NOI•Oa'Za"E- v�
'_ / /' OUROT A • P.i
664.%4 601•03•0*"w_ _ ..O I
._ -----: p.,.-AT C.a t�:c�j l r,;;.;�4:,Nil
I m I
I U
- I
i I
-slbs7 NOI.Of'T!"E- I
I
i = I
in I
If
we l .vc•04% *Jyp m I I NM 1 tL, 1-• -•31.11 6o1.O!•T!•w- I ��t
F I
i ��
i I �8
>� 11
1.^. -- -ss0.10 140I.0A 'T "Q_ 0
II
-1144.34. •04.01VTf"W- - 911 91
PAT ` t !S I
I I t B
I it,,1-1..:1 PRELIMINARY 3 a —
VINELAND . OW I,A..Ol.,....,
PLAT,GRADING. i—` :.....r,"-74--.7-7-.-1-•="1.---. �q`MERILA °. WM".
°""' a UTILITY PLAN FORESTi/elf 6Gi1&ASSOCIATES I.^.rPIT°,:,".
y
r- t1/U I
r. .I.tf ENGINEERING BUMMING PUNNING
I
CITY OF 1
_
,c, „ _..
f
,, i t*
CHANHASSEN, I'
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning I
Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
DATE: September 8 , 1989 II
SUBJ: Alternative Access Concepts for the Vineland Forest
Subdivision #89-8
II
BACKGROUND
On August 28 , 1989, the City Council reviewed the preliminary I
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.
Access into the plat is the primary issue. Area residents raised II
concerns over traffic on Pleasant View Road at the Planning
Commission meeting with the result that the Commission was unable
II
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 II 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
requested by Public Safety. I
At the City Council meeting further discussion on access issues
was heard. A series of revised access concepts were introduced
by an architect representing homeowners located on Pleasant View II
Road. The City Council ultimately voted to continue the item to
give staff an opportunity to review access alternatives . II Development of Alternative Access Plans
Prior to preparing alternative access plans staff considered a
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
I
i ,.s ......._ ,
. .
I
•
1 E f
p O O O O O O O O O
I T
d tOrJ N O 0
I I
i
. ! II ILAC _ANE ( ( ' CHRISTMAS ' I I 1 HENNEPIN
is ��o 6,,,,,,41.,( LAK _..I� pSHT ,�� � Al/ � I
ON CT �� J et
T=�•-LINE
._ST M .ON AEI �: ' ■ * CIRCLE
JEW II.1 aliMr-1 71 I , , -r- .
jiiSTUDY AREA �- �
ON � \ ):l�ii.: 'a` o •.T �' �i /V� € � dal_ t`��\ ,, , , G�
KE° Li, rC°4 4.7 '... he' il-T.:41,.._ii_J",.1.111Pk. Irir-14/7 \ #
PROJECT LOCATION teI n e��lsilLu0a*. * tar = , ov
C!' 1 CARVER B • ""111 litalkl ii •
1NF 111IIIIII= \ •/ 1 - 6,i r ■a■E. NE .. 1111 "r041,2..?- :,-• le Yrdaz,1 a'ir.a041 \ .4,,,
-' Olin ry,„, ,..... ;*r..#1101-, JrjaVEA, :41,ktAls._ - -----'--1
I N-y ...__ ,` 4VVIill
--11 �.�1 11 :�% : �J+4$ irr• - . ` - r1'LL pR. 1, L C i
lAKE LUC Y B!�� • _ =,� ' �•� P Ej �+y .° ..tfiS - law. a)
ba i a; I im ii." — litt *41 -..-0 I%-t __________)Kr.d. a. mil — 014. al.-..- Vw2stealtIrAty a-sR
---:- i IPI ge, Elk on — Ei fiziz-7.:::/fiumilitIls \ .au . Y
U EL um D ye, r.,44,Mani &;:a 111■1*`\■ ' \"A- 1 PAW ...,. \
V--' i ,_, Mina AP 1,%:$4.1111 so ‘4=4,;\ 4.411,164,21::viiihit w r I nnun* s''� ' ■11k (,
LOCATION MAO ,9► �� ti N
IIYE ANN o4\ Ø%f!V a A�'a ���� ��4-3, t h IAA I
t n`
'mom �Id� oMO gN
IN.V Oar Oillittiotd ri Iota earn.
wpm imp ♦'i1JJ ?
i
1
1
.rt...T pew
L. €4C A WA _ .,, . --- I
_ Pk .R.vr oEw
1
1 1
1 ® t 1
/m4 —' 1<
k I I I 1
v ' r -, IF
.
1
IP • • I
�� a ; ► 1
P�� ,� , i
EACE .lfyI�LL3 , _ _1 `k �..�
`% .....- 1 i VINEL ND 1
I 7 II -FORMT i
I 1 /--- TrAT\
/ __________! ft P 1 . \ Iv, I
CD 1 \— 6\ ',,,,-/A..... i , 7% _,,, 1
1 I \ . —L....4
ZiotrE Z ue y leoAao •
I
PROPOSED PLATS /EXISTING HOMES �' I
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
September 8 , 1989
Page 2
land located between Peaceful Lane on the west, Pleasant View
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,
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
neighborhood' s development pattern should be taken into
account to maximize feasibility of the concept and minimize
neighborhood disruption.
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
' 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
' 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
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
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.
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
(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
' 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
' should be protected. Cul-de-sacs should be created where
feasible.
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
was reviewed to assess its feasibility for extension into the
area. These are described below:
1. Pleasant View Drive
Advantages - Street functions as a collector with east/west
access . Grades and sight distance make access
feasible along much of the frontage.
1
1
•
•• •�,�•`. ,•wawa„• DCMe LD C rIMY 1 - ' I --I
\ Jy' \ e woec a,ua eN e�,a.) 1 ' I irk Y.
,•,•••wf Y� ,C. Y
ilk <:,",7_
1 • 1 ,•,.•,)a x ii.
•
•£6O� - ..cn.ro,o \. ' i RV's ��►V tos. 17,02- — g
NAND VIM r 4• y a+p A•9a ' 8 , '• .r /%4'4,Z—'°-.7"4:: 7T2
M..,•aa 1 nw-`n 1' /�/ o �,°• ,� •O ✓ • / �I�r '� ~'�%poi,, ` ,•K
F J NATOLE •a. e � 1 V • ` �° S ' \ -
eNre.rss �A � :\' -,,,z •` - \ 400R!R" 2,
s i‘,y
)wN �P i'-..- - --- SM•IfE _ q'4 s?•. Ja 2 2
•r R
o 41 . N °e �j ,6�Y .r SD vi °S.�
•= rn:o•:MnsuN.a, Ns\-\ --w�i•,: e•M. 3 , , ` ` '}' ' • '°'o'jIn A.
Q.., io / �'eo r P
j \` oaM a.r e• 3 1 At t� -40) 1 s �(V
',:!' \`a�•\ / 4 ACRRS '' ' 3' . ..: I i'; '•`�, L
>• .. :,.'a 14:12
�` ,�\ CHRISTMAS ' a•, "xi , �� •i �fN°� Ew - ;° BROAD
_ A �\ \ (L� G �S =` NM°Dr'E z.' es). S• a I.
•' S2 f�^e \\\N . 1 ,t J� i -.^gyp WM I. I:wI ;'Y .1:: ` Q�` 1
O -- ` Pr it '�s s,e y
•-- 1'9. .Wt. _ i i'• _ „'i' iii Q� 1
C I
a•kNLJ LFE METCALF }11�\\� `�i b� b ._ _._ _ _ -
CTr NO 5%3 ,.3 7D:;+` - .n .:.2.
t� - Q 1 •
' a`jJ lh ...+St4 Q Iiirpar i
•
Se
��� N, V4� moo= ” , = a 33•5 °y i•3 3 2 x3
in
3 , 2 Or
St �2Yy,' e',3 V
s ? axe 2 wile . ,
Iv A = rS?
Tr 1111";10) 11
Q.
It
p � a .a 4 :3' ..3..,
A Itolc2.411111/1/12Is
n ` <4 rr - ',F 4_-•.:.:
_ Y p Q
s
1 e 4 O a r. air
4 ze M
D
i �_ ��Ir►_: _
. rz...r.:
11 • ..,.2 . :LA C,...
U f, �, LUCY ROAD S OL C- c--`.`"..- � - '.1 .a.e
2. ...at ,a, - I a r+�*eow ., ecounin r ` •'s.•►i ,` �f
' >1 r • r r12.2.SNENENDOAN.,i_., 1• ••^I - +�pC aoP ,,4\,. ' .�,• p is, :Oe tt
�1 M'ES•rERN 1 47:7
Vfit 40 I• d- I.. ._'+r-73�..�DRIVE
1 --a -� • 'l�/Y//// ,I a j
� i rw,�•.n 2. ,1• .1 -i HIAWATHA ROAD - `( 3�
�,_ L. 1 1, •1 1 ,.
•I. POTENTIAL ACCESS POINTS I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
September 8, 1989
in
Page 3
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.
11
1
0 0- , : \
cp \ I 5, 2Tp/� N. , O`/ . 7
J !5 - aaae. J
, it A-. .._�_- . M■l-= : 2 as.,. ! , "2 / /
1 ‘11\ illta
-.1 1
1 r Rea ....... / Li
/
"'"..../....! -1;. c=_sad ac:
/ &ac ._
/ /A
/ / _1'
/il - aLNaIc/. •/ a U..s is auwau0 ' rm - SCALE ■N■
IP C. H = SO FE
/ lam •
/ / •I
■■ I OM r mmmm E mm smoremmusRE mime/.
rM ,
■imam■`mUa■.4I SACEN.Sa ,l■3L//a11
aaa•a•a .firm.
MOW r■ 11
/ .11:11
_
IK7- II I
til \ / - mwmw.m/.reawm
w.~iiii/
ma■
- .emwmse�ea PP!ee••a•eeNNmwmumN..■
I1.1— ..rmar■
/..: m:M rm-..aPmNa ,
/ 1 \` ■NNmamaN teal/am/� .' eama/m S±amwNm■aaym
NM= x. MEW!
. � p � 1.187° 50 c
1_—_l_
. fin'..•.': i
.:.::.fir.:?:::.:::':..:':. �^�•
1
....... ........:::.......:.: ::::.:::.,:::...1..::.i.:„.4*::::::.:::.:.::_. .... ::::,..4:::,,,,,,ri.....:;.2:::.....:„.::::........-:
LEGEND 3�;.:.. ! /// \ lc-
- ■ :. .' :. :?,fi rm, s- / /
1r'
Developer' s Grading Limits ` '.:<.♦ /....-:':..,.... /ri N§NO 10� Grading Limits „1' F'":
..,...i- 1 ..,i...; 0, _____..,
ezz„] 7% Grading Limits ,:- /
UW�1Glt.1LJJ 1, I
.::**:.,:±::::::::: ..-/ 1093 9T •
SimN µ " 7DR VE 0400 1o37.68
R iM n 1024 42
3 1T N 5PN• M H
\I/.l.1 s 1°2.8 49
• P.P
- --- GRADING LIMITS
,a4-0 9
( I
Ea-144770A/ -
.. .141-4s....141-4s... ,'045
■ .' .4.. ., Lr'-/a3r0/47.6,1,6;0 ?.F G oo
.P.4,soS M :tem :6il4O4
N.
!\ ? \
Mt Ay ~
i.�trl�/.L
t . .gke•itikilli. ire.eil,z t N... ........... ....
4:41 Pk
...0+O° 1+o0 Z4.,do •
y
SOUTH : 'ACCESS . STREET P ILE
jo No.
Sheet No. of Sheets
am 1m .. .. .. .., .■ ... .. :... .. — — .. .. — — .. -
•
Mr. Don Ashworth 11
September 8, 1989
Page 4 '
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 '
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
Powers Boulevard may make connection redun-
dant. '
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 I
develop their land. As illustrated, the northern stub street
in Vineland Forest has been eliminated since, as proposed, it
1
i
N
1
ii....7;,, y
le 1.aug*er Sevo I
PLEiRNr OED
p N
1 14, 1, ,- . l
vt -
1
n
i L.. .......
4
•
Paa�
'
EACE 1 .... pip
o VI EL ND .
IPA
A
ORS T .
111111 1 PLAT
'4 T4st
Z•wE.a.
1 0 I ,.
• _..it 1
I ,, 1
1
ALTERNATIVE 1
1
i
1
■C-T p
J C4U4rier 4v0
FJ. i
1
-- /�GE�4A/r 1//Ew
\ r......______ ----]
/ S P ‘ . - ' p i
It ,
Y
/ 1 tt
, i . a 1 1 1
It 4,1
P60 L I • 4
1
..EACE LL4 `
‘ °" INEL i ND
,__
Y PLA
7.;ER i _
C ! .. t _ 7 , _ %. /'-
N El Sig ilk
. i•C.Iicz L,e y 2oiso
7 es
ALTERNATIVE 2
I
'41.1...61■m+rmi....,m,i. ". -:J-
_ ill
..."'"••■/ L.
/04E+112417N7- 0 gig./
1 qtIN I
z • r
IY . p p N f
I y • lir ir- - .
I •
•
Nit
I
. `‘ ` ' 1
I,i/ _ k O.
i
-- - -
404 _____
r
1 pn.
TeWLR , "
1 in Oh a
k ..
.C,IifCE L u e.y 2 c.ao
I ALTERNATIVE 3 F�
I
I
N ' i
t i
•�T 1
ors 1 r___________J pkE...lsoAvr KEG
, -r-i i
1
3 1 a ;
,.. -....,
/
p
0 .
1
IF' I
1 +.
: Ji _ L t
if
i 1
. sn ,,, .
' EACE 1
1ll VI EL Np/ I .
P IA ,
OR-E T ,
4111 1
1 .
_ PLAT 1";'..trc:1
C .
i _ , i
• •ice
ZOO/CL Lucy 2o.4ro
ALTERNATIVE 4 v.�
ill
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
September 8, 1989
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
I 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
I 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.
11 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
I Lane. A small portion of the traffic would exit directly
onto Pleasant View at the original Vineland Forest intersec-
tion.
I 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-
I 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 .
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
study area parcels are served and high quality residential
environments will result. The south 4 of the Vineland plat
' remains largely unchanged. The Peaceful Lane connection is
contingent upon the vacating or expiration of the Peaceful
I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth I
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 '
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-
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.
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.
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
4. The applicant shall submit a revised plat changing Lot 2, Block 1 to Outlot
A.
All voted in favor except Councilwoman Dimler who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Mayor Chmiel: Care to state your reason?
Councilwoman Dimler: I just think there's too many unanswered questions. I
' would have liked to have seen it tabled until we can establish ownership of that
house. If it indeed has been sold and...
Councilman Johnson: It doesn't matter.
' Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I voted against it.
D. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, SOUTH OF
PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BLVD., VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION.
iCouncilman Workman: I guess I'll just let Jo Ann go at this. I think Jo Ann, I
assume that this was not going to be on the Consent Agenda and now would be the
appropriate time to discuss it.
Jo Ann Olsen: The reason it should be pulled off the consent is I believe some
of the public is here and the major issues are whether or not there should be a
thru street. A connection to the south and staff is proposing or recommending
that they do have both the north and south connection. One to Lake Lucy and
also one to Pleasant View. The applicant wants just the connection
' from Pleasant View with a cul-de-sac and the neighbors on Pleasant View wish to,
they even presented a proposal with two cul-de-sacs and no flow thru. So it's
just to allow the public to speak. We're not changing our stand at all.
Mayor Chmiel: Before we hear the public, I believe that Mr. Beddor would like
to address this. I think what we probably should do is see a presentation
from Mr. Van Eeckhout as to what he is proposing and where he's coming from and
11 then address the issue at that time.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: I assume we're all familiar with the general location.
We're south of Pleasant View and we've got approximately 18 lots in this
' section. 3 more lots up above here that we're proposing. We originally came to
the City and discussed the concept of how to develop this piece of property. We
were talking about connections to Fox Chase which is on the east side of the
property or the Nez Perce area which is to the south. We were told that there
were serious grade problems which turned out to be about 17% going to the east.
Something around 10% going south and these were in excess of the City standards
at the time. We also had a substandard right-of-way condition to the south so
I went ahead and acquired another piece of property about 150 feet wide going
off of Pleasant View. We did quite a bit of work on planning and grading and
making sure the thing worked right and the lot sizes and so forth. We then did
[177
a proposal which would show a single access to the north. I very much prefer
the concept of being able to develop a community in here rather than a pass thru
situation where people could kind of identify with a very nice little area.
' 20 very
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
1
It's all wooded and this proposal then was recommended for approval by the
staff. At that time we went through several different Planning Commission
meetings and it evolved at the first meeting these folks were very much against
a south connection down here. The next meeting or so the Pleasant View folks
came and they were very much opposed to this connection up here but wanted to 11 have it go all the way through. The next meeting they proposed that we have
only the access to the south plus a short cul-de-sac to the north. So my
proposal is that we develop this piece by going north to Pleasant View. I
believe it's consistent with all the zoning and planning ordinances and
I believe in having spent some time on it with some good professional people,
this plan does represent the best use of that property. It is feasible from
every point of view. Physically. Sewer and water and so forth and will provide
the kind of neighborhood that I think is very desirable. The public safety
aspect is also a positive factor. in I believe you have less crime and general
nuisance type activities when you have an area where there's not a lot of thru
traffic. It contains less than half the number of lots that I believe Fox Chase
has off of one access and I don't believe there are any standards that would
indicate that putting these 21 lots on this one access, if it's properly done,
would prevent any particular safety or traffic problems. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions by Council at this time? If none. We
have, Mr. Beddor asked to address. It's your turn to come up and please state
your name and your address.
Frank Beddor: My name is Frank Beddor. My wife and I live on 910 Pleasant View
Road. The unfortunate part...
Councilman Boyt: Excuse me. You need to speak back by the mic. If you want to
move that stand. No one is going to be able to hear you.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. We won't be able to pick it up on the recording. '
Frank Beddor. That's the first time anybody said they couldn't hear me. My
loud voice I wouldn't need the mic. We think it's unfortunate that originally
the developer wanted this property to be accessed to the south. The unfortunate
part was that evidentally the City or staff thought that the grade was too steep
and had recommended, or someone recommended that he buy the property off
Pleasant View Road. We're concerned about the safety on Pleasant View Road.
When we first got involved two Planning Commissions away, we also thought that a
thru street would be worthwhile but after talking briefly with Chuck the
developer and then having a chance to study that traffic pattern, we felt that'd
even be worst to have a thru street. And it's my understanding that you also do
not want, where's Chuck? You do not want a thru street right?
Chuck Van Eeckhout: That's correct. I
Frank Beddor: So the developer doesn't want a thru street and we don't want a
thru street. Since that time we asked our architect to meet with the City to
see if it's feasible to have access to this property from the south. First as
you can see, their plan, the original plan is a very long cul-de-sac.
Councilman Boyt: Frank, if you don't go back by the microphone, the people '
watching this on TV can't hear you at all.
21 11
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Todd Gerhardt: You can take the mic off there and hold it in your hand.
Frank Beddor: As you can see by this plan, this is a very, very long
I cul-de-sac. I remember when we were putting in 5 or 6 lots at Christmas Acres,
there was strenuous objection to a 500 foot cul-de-sac and we're talking about
1,200 feet. So we do not want to stop the developer. We're not asking that
they have larger lots. We ask that the Council take a look at another proposal
and that is, where you would access off to the south, and you can still get 18
lots in this area and you'd have a short cul-de-sac coming off Pleasant View.
In the future, you could have a loop by taking this access that's already
' proposed on both plans, here and here. I think it's called Forest Street and
this could run back and loop to the south. We do not want a thru street as
staff has recommended because that's going to end up as a short cut for people
' to go down to TH 101 and it really is a dangerous street driving on Pleasant
View. I mean anybody drives down that road to go to TH 101, you can be driving
as carefully as you want and some other idiot on the wrong side of the road,
' you're going to hit them so it is a dangerous situation. Now we realize you're
going to lose a few trees here on this side but we think when it comes to public
safety and children's lives, the trees are not the big issue. It is my
understanding, from our architect Daryl Fortier, and I'd have to ask staff if
lit's correct that the grade is now permissible or Gary, we do have a grade here
that would be permissible?
Gary Warren: Council has approved up to 10% grade in certain situations.
Frank Beddor: So the grade is no longer a challenge and I tried to get a hold
of Chuck a couple times today and we played telephone tag but my wife and I
talked about it. Chuck, we'd be happy to buy that property from you for your
cost because we realize you went out and bought the property just to develop
this. This particular piece of property. So we are very interested in the
' safety aspect. We're so interested in the safety aspect of Pleasant View Road
that my wife and I are right now in the process of moving our driveway over 40
feet because of the traffic. We want to come out, there's a little knoll, we
' want to come out at the knoll so we can see both ways because people come onto
Pleasant View Road very fast. It's wide open and then as soon you get past our
place, it gets very tight and we think this would serve the community, safety
and the developer to come into the south and you would have future access for if
' there is other development to this direction by a secondary road. I wonder if I
could have, can I ask Daryl Fortier to fill in anything I forgot on this?
Daryl, could you fill in anything else here that I might have missed?
Daryl Fortier: Thank you. I'm Daryl Fortier. Fortier Architects. The one
issue I would like to point out that Frank perhaps didn't mention and it goes
with your previous discussion. Carver Beach Estates, when it was planned a
number of years ago when you went through the approval process, specifically had
two outlets or two access points to serve the property to the north and that's
the property that is now developing. It does make sense to have a loop for
I public safety so you have two ways in. We think our alternate plan can provide
that. We would point out in contrast, if we go to the other plan which is being
proposed by the developer, he does have two future accesses and this is going to
take the number of lots from 21 to some greater number. Much greater than 21.
This whole area will now be developing off of Forest Street and this area up
here will also be developing off of the northerly street so we believe the
22
1
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
proper planning for this area, as it was master planned some years ago with the
development of Carver Beach. You have two access points to it. We'd like to
see those two points developed. That's all I have to add. Any questions?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Coming down to the south, you're saying that would inter 1
connect with Nez Perce?
Daryl Fortier: That's correct. '
Mayor Chmiel: What's the width on Nez Perce?
Gary Warren: The actual roadway? I
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Gary Warren: It's a little bit less than our 28 foot section. '
Daryl Fortier: I had the opportunity to go out and measure Nez Perce as well as
Pleasant View. They both came in identically at 20 feet.
Councilman Boyt: That's what I would have guessed. One difference though is
that what we might call Lake Lucy Road is quite a bit wider. '
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Gary Warren: That's our standard 28 foot curb to gutter. '
Mayor Chmiel: I know that Pleasant View, here just not too many weeks ago,
right at the S turn where the stop sign is. As I stopped at the upper portion
to make my turn, and as I made that S turn, someone was almost on my side of the
road. I unfortunatley scared that woman so badly I was afraid she was going to
go into the lake. I really felt bad but I was hugging the side as far as I
could go but that's not the first time that's happened to me there. I've had
that 2 or 3 different times. I don't know if anyone else has had that
experience but there is a lot of narrowness with that road as far as Pleasant
View is concerned. There's not much hope for widening that road within that
particular area because there's even a garage that abuts right up to the edge of
the road. It's all private property right there. I'm not saying that
condemnation couldn't take place to widened it but I don't think that would be
the intent at this time. I'll throw it open for discussion.
Councilman Workman: Mr. Mayor, my only comment was when I saw this originally
was it appears as though it kind of switched a few times. The Pleasant View
Homeowners are fairly well organized and more power to them. My concern is then
what are we putting on the people on Nez Perce? As I look down Nez Perce there,
that's going to be the straight shot onto Kerber and then into town. It would ,
appear. I don't suppose anybody would take CR 17. Nez Perce is a narrow road
also. We're making a selection between one narrow road and the other. I don't
know how well the Nez Perce people are organized, if they're here or not. Maybe
not.
Daryl Fortier: If I could address some of those points. The issue of the
substandard access point here has already been discussed with this property
owner. He would certainly be willing to assist in widening that right-of-way in
23 1
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
exchange for the vacation so we'd have 50 feet through here. We are putting
' most of this traffic onto a 28 foot road. Nez Perce is 20 feet as is most of
Pleasant View. The issue here really, to alleviate traffic on both of these
roads. Not one over the other but both of them is to preclude any thru traffic.
' If you have thru traffic, you will allow people to short cut this direction and
came onto Nez Perce or vice versa. They can short cut this way and came onto
Pleasant View so the biggest concern we have for public safety is to preclude
' the thru road. The second issue then is how do you get a loop circulation
through there for public safety? If you come off the north, you are putting a
great deal more onto Pleasant View. That is because of future development. If
you come off the south, you are putting both of them onto a road which is
' already 28 feet wide and not necessarily onto Nez Perce.
Councilman Workman: What I'm saying is you're assuming that they're all going
II to head west. If I were going to head downtown to set my watch to the clock
down here, I would go down, straight down Nez Perce. That's definitely the
shortest path. That's all I'm explaining so while we're keeping it off of
' Pleasant View, which is certainly a positive aspect of this plan, we're assuming
that everybody is going to go out to Powers and go south or north to whatever
they're going to do and that Nez Perce, we already have a fairly congested area
in that area with park and everything else right there also so I don't think we
I have any less of a serious concern in this area. So while we're transfering, I
don't know if we're transfering or not. Maybe that's the wrong word but one
road or the other is going to get a lot more traffic and neither of them are
prepared to handle it. So when we're making a decision between Pleasant View
and the Nez Perce people, that puts Council in a tough position so that's why
I'm asking for help.
I Frank Beddor: I think one difference is that this is a much straighter road and
Pleasant View is very twisty and turny. Then it's kind of Nez Perce's turn. See
we got Fox Chase with 41 homes. We were then trying to get a southern access to
II that development so we did get that to add to Pleasant View. But I think that
if we had another map that extended out you'd see how twisty and turny that
Pleasant view is and I think from a safety standpoint, then there's no contest
II between both roads being the same length because this is a straighter run and
there's not as many blind turns or S turns.
Councilman Workman: And again, you're right. There's an awful lot of the
II picture missing. When people come south out of this new addition, you're
assuming they're going to go west. But when they cane out to the north, you're
assuming they're going both ways. I'm assuming that they're also going to go
both ways on this.
Frank Beddor: I assume they're going to go both ways here. Both this way and
this way. I'm assuming that but this road is, if you drive this road and drive
IIthis road, then there's no contest to me.
Mayor Chmiel: We're talking roughly 18 lots. 36 cars at 2 cars per family.
IICouncilman Johnson: I have a question for Daryl I think. If he did this plan.
Where that, I guess it's Forest Street, if you want to use that name for it,
that new proposed street through somebody elses property. It runs out there and
takes the quick 90 and goes south. Is there access at that point or is that
somebody's lot?
' 24
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989 '
li
II
Daryl Fortier: That's a dedicated Outlot B I believe it's called o
which has been...for future access. or Outlot A,
Gary Warren: The City, if I could address that, the City has a warranty deed on II
that as a result of the Carver Beach Estates. One question i have maybe for Jo
Ann, the Art Owens Vineland Plat, has that expired?
Jo Ann Olsen: I'm pretty sure it's expired. II
Gary Warren: Because this looping access is a big impact on that plat which at
that point in time the City had taken action to say that we really didn't need
that outlot for access and we went with the cul-de-sac option for the Owen's
property.
IICouncilman Johnson: We were going to vacate that?
Gary Warren: Until such time as the Owen's plat didn't proceed, then we chose I
to get the outlot.
Councilman Johnson: About a year ago. Mr. Owen's was going to develop the
II
other side of the water tower which then said we no longer needed that
right-of-way which we reserved the year before when we platted that particular
area. That area right there. The developer gave us a right-of-way to give
access to the next development north. Similar to what we were talking earlier. II
Then we're going to vacate it when it was no longer needed so that vacation
doesn't take because the plat expired.
Gary Warren: The development contract called for Beck-Kevitt developers to II
provide us with that outlot and I know for a fact that we did obtain that.
Councilman Johnson: We also went to vacate it a year later with the Owen's plat I
but if the Owen's plat didn't go through, then that didn't get vacated.
Gary Warren: We never formally vacated it. I
Councilman Johnson: We never formally vacated it. Okay.
Gary Warren: We have a fee title until, they just gave it to us.
Councilman Johnson: So that is there for future development? It makes sense to
me. I agree. We do not want to connect Nez Perce straight through this area to II
Pleasant View. You couldn't imagine how many cars. I'm sure the computers
could chunk out a number for you and you'd be amazed at how many cars would then
take that short cut through there instead of going out to CR 17 and down to
downtown. The folks would cut right through that subdivision, through Nez Perce
and it would make it far worse to both to have it cut clear through. To have it
come from Pleasant View down, go west and then go back down to where you're
II
almost back out to CR 17, makes it to where it is not much of a cut through. To
where the people instead would take it all the way out to CR 17 on Pleasant
View. In other words, taking the option being proposed by the developer and
IIseeing that future connection into there. We have our two accesses we want for
public safety. The piece of the puzzle that's missing is the piece of property
inbetween the two that has to be platted to have a road that connects the two. II
25
II
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
II
But that makes, to me public safety sense to have an access from the south but
II not directly from Nez Perce. I'm not sure what the roads are. I also agree
that Pleasant View is over used. I don't know if over used is the right word
but Pleasant View doesn't deserve more traffic either but then the developer has
II a piece of property he's trying to develop. What rights he's got to that. He
owns both properties.
I Daryl Fortier: I might add a comment to that. The plat that you see, that I've
prepared is slightly different than the developers on the issue of a street to
the west, Forest Lane. I've realigned that. I've taken some liberty with that
sketch. With the overview and at a previous Planning Commission meeting there
II were several members who suggested that that street should be realigned. We
would leave that up to Council and staff's opinion of course but there is sane
liberty in this. It is not a direct representation of his plat.
IICouncilman Johnson: What I would like to see actually is how would Forest fit
through the property next to it? Every piece of this puzzle has to connect to
the next piece of the puzzle. Yes, we're giving you a 50 foot right-of-way to
II get into the next piece of property but is it in the logical place? We can
never guess what's going to happen over there but we can see all 100 foot. Not
even 100 foot. 50 foot. We can see the contours and see that there's no
1 interferences for 50 foot but what happens as you go further west and south off
of the developer's proposed Forest Street?
II Gary Warren: Council has seen it before. Even the Art Owen's property is a
good example of the fact that the cul-de-sac option is more attractive for a
number of reasons with developers. In fact that was the argument that Council
bought into at the time of the Vinelane preliminary plat was the fact that it
I was a better, more appropriate land use and therefore they didn't want the thru
traffic concept there. I think that there may be a combination someplace in the
middle. The Vineland plat had left an access to the east for receiving a road
II coming here. Maybe instead of the U alignment here, an S type arrangement
wherein the connection is still to Pleasant View Road but it's an indirect
access so it isn't as attractive from a thru traffic standpoint. I have a lot
II of difficulty buying into the fact that Carver Beach people, and we're talking
opinions here but that the Carver Beach people would look to this thru route as
an alternate to get to TH 101 recognizing as we've said here the difficulties on
Pleasant View Road. It's just hard for me to believe. We really haven't had
all the documents in front of us to take a look at all the pieces and maybe as
Councilman Johnson is addressing, that similar to what was done a year or so
ago. The Stratford Ridge area, west of Minnewashta Parkway. We actually
II decided to look at a more comprehensive approach. Get a good direction on these
things and perhaps that would be prudent at this time is to try to put some
concepts together for that general area from a development scheme standpoint and
then get back to the developer and such. And I know that that takes time but
II there's a lot of good ideas that are coming out of here that I think need to be
addressed.
II Mayor Chmiel: And I agree with that. I think we have to put all the puzzle
together. Chuck, I was going to ask you. What is your date to start your
particular project?
IIChuck Van Eeckhout: About the first of August. We have looked at all these C
things and I think...it's been 12 or 14 weeks since we first applied and we have
11 26
II
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
looked at a lot of things. We've talked to a lot of people and as the architect
is pointing out, the options that are available for, just to bring out his
drawing here. The options have been worked out and as you can see here, while
they're not connected, we do have a street here that's pointing off to the west.
We have an access back to Nez Perce which is, as Councilman Johnson has pointed
out, very close to CR 17 and would prevent this person and this person from
going down here. Cutting back through here and back and going this way. It
would not be practical so all the Council would be faced with in the future is
some sort of control to see to it that there was a connection between Point A
and Point B. Not too difficult and no amount of study is going to really solve
the puzzle because someone may want to come in here and put in a cul-de-sac
here. There's all kinds of ways to connect Point A with Point B. That's what
you really would be concerned about in my view so I don't think this is
incompatible at all and I don't believe that anymore study is going to provide
anymore information. To get that second access, all we have to do is connect
this point with this point if it's deemed necessary at the time this development
comes in. Now this development may not want to take advantage of this access
and then that would have to be looked at. Such as this access here which was
left for the future but it left us with a 17% to 20% grade which is just not
practical.
Councilman Johnson: Poor planning. Do you know who owns Lot 5 there? Just off
of your Forest Lane?
Gary Warren: That'd be Art Owens. I
Chuck Van Eeckhout: This lot here?
Councilman Johnson: I can't see it from here. '
Gary Warren: This lot here?
Councilman Johnson: Next one down. 11
Chuck Van Eeckhout: This one here?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Chuck Van Eeckhout: No, I do not know who owns that. It might be Joe I
Trundle's. I think he owns 4 but he might own 8 also. So Joe Trundle possibly
owns this. I can't say that for certain. In fact I believe he does. In fact
I've tried to talk to him several times and we've just missed connections.
Because he's not interested in selling at this time he's indicated but that
would be a logical extension from here in same fashion through here and I
believe you'd maintain sufficient control if you've got this access and this
access to do whatever you wanted in here. If you wanted this connected or not.
Councilman Johnson: So you've got two more owners in this puzzle.
Mayor Chmiel: Chuck, I think it'd probably be best for the City for us to do a
little more study on this and I don't want to delay you and I know you're
looking to get this started but I think we have to pull together all the pieces
of this puzzle so we know exactly where everything is going. I would almost
suggest and recommend that we table this for at least within the next 2 weeks
27 1
1
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
I
1 can this data and information be gathered?
Gary Warren: We certainly can look at it. There's another point that relates
maybe to Mr. Beddor's offer here and that is the utility service that the City
is interested in, especially the sanitary sewer, is to connect to Pleasant View
Road. That is very attractive from an environmental standpoint because it
prevent us from having to go down a slope into Fox Chase and there's some land
1 issues there that if the northern piece for example isn't included at this time,
we'd still want to have the easement to run utilities but I would think in 2
weeks time we can get with the developer and other parties here and bring this
' is a conclusion.
John Von Walter: My name is John Von Walter. I live at 510 Pleasant View Road
which is maybe half a mile to three quarters of a mile from the development in
question. In the last 3 or 4 years Pleasant View keeps getting dumped on with
all these developments. We've got Fox Chase, Fox Hollow, Near Mountain.
Lundgren Bros. right now is putting in another one. There's going to be more
' Near Mountain stuff that's going to be coming in pretty soon and all of us know
what Pleasant View is already with the up and down, the left and right and
little visibility. Three of my neighbors have already had head-on collisions
and almost weekly somebody goes off the road and through somebody's yard. I've
seen kids hit. It's just too dangerous. Every single development we've had
options to go someplace else but we keep shoving them back on Pleasant View.
Sooner or later it's going to crack and do we have to wait until somebody gets
killed or somebody gets hurt? I think we should start looking for other ways of
putting some of these. Thank you.
Mayor Cliniel: There's a motion on the floor.
Councilman Boyt: Before we move on that, if I might. A couple of things. Now
as everybody know Pleasant View is just an accident waiting to happen. Pleasant
' View and Frontier Trail are probably two of the worse roads that we've got in
this city. And yet the inevitable is that no matter which outlet you give this
development, if they want to go to TH 101, how do you think they're going to get
' there? They're sure not going to go around Lotus Lake to get to TH 101 down to
the south. They're going to go over to Pleasant View. If that means they have
to go over to CR 17 to get to Pleasant View, that's how they're going to do it
because that's the shortest way to get to TH 101. And I'll bet you that no
matter what access we give it, that if somebody wants to go to TH 101, that's
how they're going to get there. There just isn't another choice.
Councilman Workman: Bill I guess I suggest that I never cross Pleasant View
living south of here. Once I'm on CR 17, I go to Excelsior and go over on TH 7
unless I'm trying to get...
ICouncilwoman Dimler: To get to TH 101?
Councilman Workman: Yes, if I'm trying to get to TH 101, the stuff that I want
to get to on TH 101 is at TH 7 so once you get onto CR 17, I don't know who
would want to, unless you're out for a nice fall drive. I find it much easier
and less hectic for me. I never go that way. Once I'm on CR 17, there's no way
III'm going to take a right into Pleasant View.
28
I
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
Councilman Johnson: There's a lot of people who do. I've followed them clear
through there. Starting from TH 101 all the way across.
Councilman Boyt: I guess it's kind of what you're used to and maybe you're
right. I don't know. I just know that CR 17, when you get into Excelsior is
not a very direct connection to TH 7. You've got to go through town. You've
got to stop at the stop signs. You get on TH 7 and 100 and you're faced with a
left hand turn that's a challenge and I'm just saying that no matter how we
access this, I think we're going to put more traffic on Pleasant View. As John
was saying, I think as other developments come along, the same thing is going to
follow. I discovered today, Pleasant View has a 25 mph speed limit. I
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: How often do we enforce that?
Resident: Never.
Councilman Boyt: And we had the same problem, I'll assume that that's kind of
the general flow of it Jim but we had this same problem come up last year when
Near Mountain was in and discussed their, what I guess is a right hand turn that
they couldn't make or weren't supposed to be able to make. I think it comes
down to among other things, no matter how much traffic is on Pleasant View, the
speed isn't enforced there and that contributes to what's already a bad
situation. I
Jeff Mann: My name is Jeff Mann. I've been on Pleasant View Road for a fairly
short time. About 1 year but I used to live here about 3 years ago and I live
close. I've been amazed at how the traffic's picked up in the time that I've
been gone. We live in the old house on the hill. Used to be owned by the
Osgoods and we're fairly close. We see a lot of the traffic there, maybe in
ways that others don't see it. It's like a race track. We're right on that
curve. I've almost been hit twice in one year right by my own house. I've
almost been hit once down by that one point that you were hit. The concern I
have, to your point Councilman Boyt. I think it's a very good point. I think
if you route traffic out, they're still going to come back through but there's
one major point that no one's brought up. If we allow the traffic to dump off
at the point indicated on Pleasant View Road, it's right where there's a hill.
Okay? Now it's one thing if people go out to CR 17 and then make the choice to
come on Pleasant View Road and enter into the traffic pattern at that point. My
concern is that if they enter at the point that it's currently planned, it's
going to be worse. It's going to be a lot worse because they're going to be
entering close to where there's the hill. There's enough blind spots on
Pleasant View Road now and I think we're going to take a situation that's bad
and we're going to make it worse. Thank you. I
Councilman Boyt: Gary, I'd like to encourage you to look at, since we're going
to apparently table this, come up with a road pattern that sort of follows the
grade through that undeveloped area. I think when we look at Fox Path, that's
crazy that we could ever think that Fox Path was going to continue on to the
west. So maybe at this point we can come up with something and indicate and
figure out a way that we could indicate to these property owners plan on having
a road that connects at these two places and here's one possibility that will
work. I think that a lot of this turns on our ability to connect somewhere. I
1
29
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
I
don't like a 1,200 foot cul-de-sac and if that's our only option, I'll vote
' against it but I agree with Tom. I also don't want to encourage any traffic on
Nez Perce. So that's one. The other issue I'd like you to add, since we're
going to see this again, is in point number 1 where we talk about clear cutting
[-
II and the fact that we don't want that. We need to add a point to that that says
that all trees that aren't going to be cut are going to be fenced off prior to
any disturbing of the soils. Because as we all know, once you run a grader over
tree roots, the tree is dead so I think we should add that to point number 1.
That's all I have. Thank you.
Tim Foster: Tim Foster, 6370 Pleasant View Cove. This is more in regards to, I
have 4 children and my wife will not let than ride their bikes on Pleasant View
Cove. I go east to Edina to work every morning and I do not take Pleasant View
Cove. I will go down and as the TH 5 improves, I think you'll see more people
1 avoiding Pleasant View and going down to TH 5. I make the decision as to
whether to take Valley View when I get to Chanhassen to see how TH 5 is so I
think you've got the options as Tom had mentioned that if you get on CR 17,
you're either going to go to TH 7 and go east into Minneapolis or those suburbs
closer or you're going to go down to TH 5. I think you should try to keep as
much traffic basically, it sears like the number of children are becoming more
on Pleasant View as opposed to less but I'm not saying that's any less for Nez
1 Perce but that's just my comment. We've lived there for 8 years and we've seen
it's drastically, the traffic has drastically gotten worse. Thank you.
Councilwoman Dimler: In the interest of time Mr. Mayor, I'll second your motion
to table.
Councilman Johnson: I have two quick points to make.
[_
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead but be quick.
l Councilman Johnson: Okay. First is the 10% grade. We have approved 10%
grades. This is one of the first points that came out. We have approved 10%
grades in the past. I think in general it's more of a secondary access type of
thing or it's actually the only feasible. It's kind of an alternative of last
resort. If it's the only access into an area, you don't want to see a 10%
grade. So to me to say we could come in from the south with no access to the
north and the only access having a 10% grade portion in it, I'm against that.
1 That gets too steep and too dangerous as an only access. If it's a secondary
access to an area, I can see a 10% grade but again I've said I don't want to see
this connected on both sides of Pleasant View and Nez Perce because then it will
become a number one short cut. The other point is, I think that the gentleman
there just showed, a traffic engineer will say people will take CR 17 all the
way to TH 5 and then TH 5 in and he takes CR 17 up here to 78th Street. Cuts
straight through, all the way through downtown past the St. Hubert's schools, a
couple churches. Through our fun little intersection there and then does the
same thing I used to do. I no longer do it but make the decision whether to go
north or onto TH 5 there. Now that I work north I just go north. But there's a
lot of people that cut clear through town which is the same that we're talking
here on Pleasant View. You say nobody would do that through those windy roads
through downtown but a lot of people do.
[=7
Mayor Chmiel: Your two points are done?
30
City Council Meeting - August 28, 1989
II
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I have a motion on the floor
II
and a second to table to
gather the additional data and information with access and tie in the puzzle as
per se.
I
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to table action on the
II
preliminary plat to subdivide 9.5 acres into 18 single family lots south of
Pleasant View Road and East of lowers Blvd., Van Eeckhout Building Corporation
to gather additional information. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II
E. FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST 2ND AND 3RD ADDITIONS.
Mayor Chmiel: I see where there should be reconiuendation of staff. There II
should be an item 7 which is formerly item 11. That should be added.
Jo Ann Olsen: For the 2nd or 3rd Addition? I
Mayor Chmiel: This would be on the Lake Susan Hills West 2nd Addition. The
recommendation on page 2. It appears as though you left off item 11, the '
sedimentation basin shall be repaired prior to final plat approval. Has that
been done?
Jo Ann Olsen: It has been done.
1._ I
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, it's repaired. Then we'll strike that. I
Jo Ann Olsen: Any of the conditions that were not repeated have all been met.
Mayor Chmiel: Have they? Okay. That was my major concern. I didn't see that.
I
So with that I would move that we approve item (e) .
Councilman Workman: Second. I
Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve the Final Plat for
Lake Susan Hills West 2nd and 3rd Additions pursuant to the City Manager's
I
recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
F. CHANHASSEN HILLS: APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR EXTENSION OF II
SANITARY SEWER AND WATER TO LOTS 9 AND 15, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN HILLS 1ST
ADDITION. I
Mayor Chmiel: Just a quick question to Gary on item f, Chanhassen Hills. The
50 foot easement. Is that going to be recorded with the County on the
Abstracts?
II
Gary Warren: We would record that against the property, that's correct. That's
our normal approach because it's not worth anything until it's recorded.
II
31 I
II