Loading...
7. Review of Teton Lane , Curry Farm 2nd Addition CITY OF CHANHASSEN •. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM 4"""-' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer ;,a;* ,; r;, story DATE: May 17 , 1989 !rate SuLmitten to Wm', ' SUBJ: Review of Teton Lane Access Conditions, Curry Farms 2nd Addition File No. 88-5 At the May 8 , 1989 City Council meeting, the Teton Lane access issue as it relates to Curry Farms 2nd Addition was discussed with the local residents, the Developer and the City Council. At the request of Centex Real Estate Corporation representatives , ' the Council tabled the item to the May 22 , 1989 meeting to allow staff to review the situation and any alternatives which might be negotiated. On Monday, May 15, 1989, the City Attorney and I met with John Spiess of Centex and discussed several options which ' are elaborated as follows: 1 . Release of Easement Rights - The City could choose to pursue ' a release of easement rights by using its eminent domain/ condemnation powers . This would be a minimum 90-day process if it were pursued as a "quick-take" proceeding and would ' result in releasing the easement rights of the parties in question on Teton Lane which would then allow the City to have installed its barricade as proposed. It is difficult to forecast what type of award would be made by the hearing corn- ' missioners . If one were to guess, including attorney fees, it is pretty easy to come up with a total amount of $8 ,000 to $12 ,000 for this settlement. ' 2 . Teton Lane Access Association - The easement holders are the people who have the right to use Teton Lane. It was discussed that possibly a retractable security gate could be ' constructed across Teton Lane which would be operated electronically similar to an automatic garage door opener . The gate could be designed such that if it fails, it would ' fail in the closed position . Maintenance of the gate and payment of the power would be the responsibility of the asso- ciation members ( easement holders ) . Construction of such a gate could cost in the range of $5 , 000 to $6, 000 and there obviously would be annual maintenance and operation costs that would be the responsibility of this association . Don Ashworth May 17 , 1989 Page 2 3 . Barricade at Lilac Lane - The City could choose to construct a barricade on the north end of Teton Lane at Lilac Lane within the Lilac Lane right-of-way. This would be outside of the Teton Lane easement area (see sketch ) . Unfortunately, this would require the Natoles to utilize Bretton Way and Devonshire Drive for ingress and egress instead of Teton Lane to the north. 4 . Unrestricted Access - The City, of course, could choose to reverse its previous condition and not provide any barricades on Teton Lane. The road has a three-inch bituminous mat and is approximately 22 feet in width and therefore below a City standard street. It would therefore need to be signed for restricted axle loads and also a reduced speed limit advisory would probably be in order. I have had the opportunity to discuss these alternatives with Mr. Franco Loris . In fairness , it is difficult to say specifically whether any of these alternatives are better than others with the obvious exception that Mr. Loris would prefer the unlimited access alternative. I verbally reviewed this scenario with Mr. Mark Simcox, as representative for the concerned neighbors on May 18 , 1989 . ' As noted in the attached letter dated May 16 , 1989 from Briggs and Morgan representing Centex, Centex is willing to pay the cost of the appraiser to give the City some idea of what the condem- nation amounts might be. It would be staff ' s recommendation that the City proceed with the appraisal step at this time. Attachment 1 . Sketch - Alternate Barricade Location. ' 2 . May 8, 1989 City Council meeting minutes . 3 . May 16 , 1989 letter from Briggs and Morgan . c: Mark Simcox, Neighborhood Representative John Spiess , Centex Real Estate Corporation Daniel Cole , Jr. , Briggs and Morgan ' __ __ 1 I . I n=ip pFm= Ym 3`"Z Nc y9 I r E4 Z . LILAC çLLANE i 1 JH[ Tfl! , i s :m 7;CI I IL ` I '2; -Q II a I-: !:,3 vm $ t v n r—t" i.i .. 'r I m o m v�^m g8 —I Z '' R"i I: ,� ; °op °-+ j _" Z m d A 1 Aa m :, k 1 , I 0t r m m " : D - . ..z m i ,rn 1 cT N � _._ I I i,1' : s ASHTON COURT .1 n� ,, — I\ I I 10 m _i I I I A-TTACN MENT I --city Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to reimburse the Family of Christ Lutheran Church $7,500.00 of rental payments for use of Old St. Hubert's Church. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REVIEW OF TETON LANE ACCESS CONDITIONS, CURRY FARMS 2ND ADDITION. Gary Warren: Curry Farms 2nd Addition, most of you are familiar with, is ' located off of CR 17 just northwest of our ground storage reservoir across from Lake Lucy Road. As a part of the conditions of the development of the 2nd addition of Curry Farms, there was considerable discussion concerning or relating to the concern of several of the existing property owners in this area concerning the use of Teton Lane which at that time was a gravel road for residential access to the 2nd Addition. A separate feasibility study was done on Teton Lane to locate an option as far as the road itself was concerned. It also was an issue because Teton dumps out on Lilac on the north here which is shared with Shorewood City and some affected property owners up there. Basically the results of the feasibility study and provided considerable history on this in the Council packet but basically the result of the effort and the approval of the plans and specifications for Teton Lane called for a compromise. One thing was that Teton Lane would be paved as a rural section. Compromised actually to 2 inches of bituminous by the developer and this has happened. Secondly, Teton Lane would be barricaded to prohibit traffic from using Teton Lane from the subdivision. The subdivision has adequate access out through Devonshire and out to Lake Lucy Road so at least as far as the use of Teton Lane is not that important an issue. Plans and specifications were prepared with the barricade. The developer went to install the barricade in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. We were notified I believe it was Mr. Loris came in and objected to the barricading of the roadway. The comment he had was the easement for access had not been released and threatening civil action against the city if we pursued this so we backed off on that issue. In turn the City Attorney sent correspondence to the respected property owners of which we've got 6 of them. The Reamers, Loris, Carlson, Shakelton, Natoles. We have not received any releases to this point in time and have received refusals at least specifically from Franco Loris verbally and the Reamers in writing which is also in the packet. The issue I guess before the Council, we currently have one barricade up that you circle around so that's probably not even a desirable situation. The question is, whether the Council wishes to pursue in having these easement rights released which we're confident that through condemnation proceedings the City will be able to have them released. There will be an expense obviously involved of some sort. Or to not require the barricading of the roadway and to alter the conditions of approval to so state that. The property owner who currently uses Teton Lane is really the Natoles on the end here who need the access. The Ware's I believe have access up to Lilac across the Pickard property and Pi.ckard's have an access on Lilac. Mr. Donovan has his access in here. The Reamers of course and the Carlson can get out through the subdivision. Mr. Si.mcox to the north from Shorewood is on the end of the road here has also been very adamant in opposing this is as a thru road so that's pretty much the history of the issue. We were I guess taken aback a little bit. I was personally with all the discussions we've had here and neighborhood meetings and such about this being a good compromise here. I think maybe we all took it for granted that the property owners, since they were at the meeting, or, a majority of them were, that that solution would work and the neighbors there would be agreeable to releasing 18 ATTAClIMEN7' 2 1 City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 "f Itheir easement rights. However, we have not received any the issue has been brought to the Council here for directi_onvasafar ass what`isso I the appropriate course of action here. Do we enforce the condition of aoproval of do we change the conditions and allow access onto Teton Road? With that I'll open it up for discussion. Mrs. Natole: I tell you, this meeting that we had last fall, we thought it was all settled. Everybody should have been here. We were all notified so Mr. Loris and Mr. Reamer weren't here, I don' t know why they waited until after the whole thing was settled. Bill Boyt was the one that made the motion and everybody approved that we would close it right here because they can 'use this road and they can go out that way or they can go out off of Lake Lucy but we ' only have that. one access to go that way. And everybody said that was great. It would cut out all this traffic and especially the traffic that is going up there and they are using it. We've had a truck today that went up there with a whole load of one house that they're going to build up by Reamers so. you know what a ' whole load of house is. That's a lot of weight so that one went up there. And later on another truck came by with a backhoe thing so they are using it. Now, they've put the sign on this side saying no construction traffic. Okay, the ' truck gets up there. Where the heck is he going to go? He goes right. through there and goes to where he's going. They do not back up so if they were going to have a sign -for then not to use that, they should have put it up by Lilac Lane saying no thru traffic. No construction but they didn't. Now they've put a stop sign up there so the one family that uses it, us, we have to have a stop sign there because we might speed. I'll tell you who's doing the speeding. Well, I better not mention names that might cause trouble but all these people that are in here that are coming up there are going between 40 and 50 mph and I that's what Mr. Simcox is hollering about, and I don't blame him because those cars go past us and they have to stop there because they did start to make the second barrier so there's big holes. They go to the big holes and then they, swoosh. We have these great big huge trees. We moved there 27 years. Tv'ell they were little then, so we can not go out of our driveway without having to make a full stop and sneaking into the road so we don't get hit so that ' certainly didn't do us any good. Another thing that Gary failed to mention was when we decided this was going to work and Bill Boyt got the idea and we all agreed that it sounded good, we gave an easement for the trucks to use our _ driveway. To come in and turn if they had to take the snow, snowplowing or any work that they had to do on the road so we gave an easement to the City for them - to use our driveway. They then at the same time, Centex put in the well, 10-12 feet of blacktop and then we finished it up to the whole house but this is not working the way it is because the trucks are still coming up there. Construction and the people who live up in here already are using the road so that. did not work. It's either got to be a full barrier and what I don't ' understand is how did Shorewood get away with closing Christmas Lake and Chanhassen can't close this one block. They must have gotten some kind of agreement from somebody because I'm sure those people all had easements to use ' that Christmas Lake Road. So there's got to be something done. I don't know what but something has got to be done. I guess it's Mr. Reamer and Mr. Loris that are the two that are against it for some reason. As long as they have a way of getting out, I don't know what the problem is but that's all I have to say. Franco Doris: I'm Franco Doris. This does create a problem. at 6400 Teton Lane and I really believe that I should not be barricapdedn in-Live ' 19 MI v City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 - -' Besides, the barricade is so terribly ugly, it looks like World War II dividing two countries. It's an ugly site. I really don't believe that it's a little bit exaggerated. It's not that many cars really going up and down at that high speed of 50. It's almost impossible. I've lived up there now 21 years. I should be the one to be unhappy with all the construction but I went along with it, that's fine. At the beginning you gave us even another alternative to get into Powers Blvd. but that never happen so why should we give up our easement now? Personally I will not give it up except if you condemn it. Thank you. Donna Pickard: My name is Donna Pickard. I live at 1215 Lilac Lane which is the top corner property. I'd like to know who owns Teton Lane now. I was under the impression that Centex owned it until they deeded it over to the City. Has that been done? Gary Warren: The City owns Teton Lane. We do have a deed for that. That's correct. Donna Pickard: I guess my question is, why did you accept it knowing that there were easements on that road? I mean why didn't you check to see if the easements were going to be easily handed over first and then accept it from Centex because it seems to me that those people do, if they do have easements they should have been told what was going to happen. Well they knew what was going to happen supposedly according to the meetings last fall but I guess what's happening now is they're demanding fair compensation and I don't know if I blame them or not for wanting that. Not having an easement myself I'm not in the position to demand compensation or not but I guess I'm jus ious why the City accepted it knowing that there were easements. I don't know what you can do about that now. It's the city's road. Gary Warren: Whether-*there were easements or. not, I guess that in my opinion wouldn't have affected our acquisition of the property. That was a condition of approval that Teton Lane be deeded to the City. There were not any conditions that said regardless of whether you have easements or not on them so the easements really are a separate issue that I believe everybody assumed were going to be released as a part of the process because everybody was tied into this verbally. Donna Pickard: I guess I have questions about the condemnation proceedings. Is that something that we'd talk about later because if it is, I don't have to ask them now. Mayor Chmi.el: That's always an alternative but if you'd like to ask the question. Donna Pickard: How does that work and how long does it take normally? Councilman Johnson: That's a good question. Gary Warren: The Attorney can probably do better. Roger Knutson: Normally it's about a 6 month process. If you were to order the ' condemnation of those easements tonight, the next step would be to get appraisals and the step following that would be prepare the necessary paperwork to start the condemnation action. At that point the land owner has a few weeks , 20 ' ■ City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 ' F' 1 Ils Ito respond. Go to court and public necessity is established. I don' t know if there'd be a problem with that. The next step is the Court will appoint 3 II commissioners to evaluate the value of the easements. If everyone accepts that, a that's the end of it. If anyone disagrees with that, then it's onto District Court for a trial with jury. A vast majority of these cases end at the commissioner's hearing. Not all of them. A vast majority. That process probably takes 6 months. Donna Pickard: And who exactly pays for it? ' Mayor Chmi_el: The condemnation? The City basically I would assume or conceiveably it could be the contractor or developer. I think I would lean more towards that than I would the City. ' Donna Pickard: I guess my question is, how could you lean towards them now that it has officially been deeded to the City and the City owns the problem now? ' Don Ashworth: They have responsibilities under the development contract. They can't walk away from it. Donna Pickard: Oh I see. So even though the City owns the street, they don't necessarily own the problem of the easement? ' Don Ashworth: We're going to be, if that's chosen by the City Council, condemnation process, the City will take the initiative to acquire those easements at whatever costs and in that process we will attempt to recoup our monies by billing back the developer and our attorney has advised us that he I ` feels that our position would be sustained and that we would be able to recoup those dollars. ' Donna Pickard: Okay. I just wanted to, before I sit down, to say that I think the City and Centex has a responsibility to have what we decided last, I don't know was it last fall? What we decided last fall to go through because at the ' time it seemed like it was the perfect solution to a problem that we'd been working on for a long, long time. So thank you for your time. Frank Natole: I'm Frank Natole. I live on Teton and in the evening from 5:00 ' to 5:30, one night I sat for supper when I counted 35 cars and trucks, panel trucks and everything else coming up and down that road. They don't go slow. They drive 50 mph I know. They come from way down below the hills there in Centex property and they're doing 50 mph before they go by my place and it's dangerous. Very dangerous. I don't dare put my nose of my car out before I look both ways and if you're going to let all this traffic come by my place, then I suggest you put either a bi.g bump on both ends of my property so they've got to hit that and fly through the air. Then I can have some freedom but the way it is, I can't walk out there. My grandchildren come out to play. They don't dare go out in that road. I've got to watch them all the time. It's more traffic than CR 17 that comes down there. At the present time it's a miserable thing. That's all I have to say. That road should be, we agreed that they were going to put break out posts so in case of fire or any emergency, they could go through the breakout posts. That's the way it was agreed in the first place but now they've Y got that half a bi.g sign there which if they would take that out and put break away posts, then we'd get done exactly what we wanted done. Now I don' t know how I'm going to stop this traffic or slow it down but there's got 21 ■ ""City Council Meeting - May 8, 1989 ,' to be a way of slowing that traffic down if you're going to open it up. Mayor. Chmiel: Wlhat's the speed limit on that particular street? Gary Warren: 30 mph. Frank Natole: It's 10 mph. It's been 10 mph since I bought the place. There's a sign on the corner on Lilac that says 10 mph. Nobody goes 10 mph. Gary Warren: In a way paving it hasn't helped anything as far as speed, that's for sure. I don't know that there's any resolution on record with the City signing that road. It would come under the State's Statute that's 30 mph unless signed otherwise by resolution. Councilman Johnson: The 10 mph was when it was a private road too. Gary Warren: Right. As far as the enforceable speed limit, I would say 30 mph. Councilman Johnson: Do you have any problem with the sheriffs utilizing your driveway as a radar point? Mrs. Natole: That road is so short, I don't think anyone would sit there. Is that what you mean? Having a car sit there and monitor_ the traffic? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Is your driveway a good nice hidden spot where he could see them? Frank Natole: Well I've got big pine trees there. They could hide behind the pine trees that's for sure. I've got pine trees that are over 20 to 30 feet high. Run all along the road. All along Teton. Councilman Johnson: Have the sheriff stop in and talk to you. Frank Natole: I don't know what you're going to do about it but something has to be done. Councilman Johnson: Well if it's going to take us 6 months to get the access rights reversed, then it's going to be open for. 6 months. 6Je need to do something about, if there are people speeding there, we need to do something about that. And if there's construction traffic, we need to talk to Centex. They know there's not supposed to be construction traffic and they're the only builder in there. It's not like there's 40 different builders in there so there should be some control. (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) Marc Simcox: .. .As a matter of fact, the construction traffic specifically I think is one item that's been a very sore spot -ever since they opened up that north end. That was one thing that we discussed at length during the process for them getting approval of the north half of the plat. They were very condescending and patronizing to the people who lived in the neighborhood and said absolutely not. They wouldn't do it and I can' t recall, I can't even begin to recall the, I know I couldn't count it if I took my shoes off, the number of times that I've called here and complained about the traffic going up and down. 22 ,) City Council ;-��ti.ng - May 8, 1389 : ., j They also used it steadily during this spring when Teton Lane is posted for, not j Teton but Lilac Lane is posted 4 ton per axle weight limit. And to talk to the drivers, the drivers are instructed to use Lilac Lane and Teton Lane so the developer is extremely versed in that topic and that's just a further example of why we fought this from the very beginning. When we discovered that this was being brought up again, to open up Teton Lane, it kind of opened the wounds up again and we thought that it's further evidence that the developer really doesn't care. There's never been an attempt to compensate anyone or even talk to them about compensation for the easements on Teton Lane. I've spoken to Stu Reamer about this who has written a refusal to turn over his easement and he said, oh no one ever mentioned compensation and that's exactly what it would take. He feels that he has to go out the other direction and it's an inconvenience to him and he feels there should be some type of compensation. And I think in this process, as we sent a letter out with the neighbors all signing that letter, I don't know if everybody got that or not, is it's just part of the normal process and I don't think that that process has completed it's course yet and until that does and either the condemnation proceedings that the Court determines that there's no solution, that's when you should look at opening Teton Lane up again. But until that, we should just follow the course of the original agreement and close it off. Acquire those easements however. I don't think that that expense is going to be real great. Probably won't cost as much as the postage machine or the postage equipment and solve a lot of headaches for the neighborhood and still retain that to be opened at a later date should that other property up there ever be developed. Thank you. John Speiss: I'm John Speiss and tonight I represent Centex Homes. What we've found is that the compromise that we had, it doesn't appear to satisfy as many I ' people as we thought. e ask the Council tonight to table this issue for 2 weeks so that we have a chance to meet with Don Ashworth, Gary Warren and the City Attorney and see if there is something else we can do in 2 weeks. Councilman Johnson: Towards what? John Spei.ss: 6: ll we got the package today at 1:00. I spoke with Gary last Thursday or Friday and he said that it would come before the Council tonight on the Teton Lane issue. II Councilman Johnson: We had a copying macnine failure last week. John Spei.ss: We did receive it today. IMayor Qumi.el: Being this has been going on for 2 1/2 years. Councilman Johnson: Yes, this was the last 2 years was a very big issue. ' I Everybody's been here many, many times discussing Centex. There's a lot of compromise going on both ways. Both between Centex and the neighbors. It took a lot of hashing over. A lot of tablin r'e had man g• many, many meetings discussing Teton Lane. I thought we had finally cone out to a good compromise hare where we maintain the public safety aspects of emergency egress and ingress. Being able to get in there and get out of there by the emergency vehicles and solve the problem of excess traffic on Lilac Lane which can' t handle it and Teton which can't handle it. It's too bad we haven't solve this. I think I haven't heard anything about compensation from anybody saying they want compensation for this. I've just heard they don't want it. ! I I 23 I 7 I � I 1 i I ' II i I I ti II