Loading...
8. Reivew of Teton Lane Access Condidtions, Curry Farms 2nd Addition I ..-, CITY OF 4.0•111....1 •i.-. CHANHASSEN i `- 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 __....„ (612) 937-1900 II MEMORANDUM ✓ /" l TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1 FROM Gary Warren, City Engineer i . 0 . DATE: May 3 , 1989 1 SUBJ: Review of Teton Lane Access Conditions ` _ Curry Farms 2nd Addition .-._-. -:-1--- .----- IFile No. 88-5 _ 1 In response to neighborhood concerns to restrict through sub- division traffic from the Curry Farms Additions on Teton Lane and Lilac Road, the City Council approved the Curry Farms 2nd Addition plat and construction plans under the condition that the Developer 1 provide barricades to prohibit normal residential traffic from utilizing Teton Lane as an outlet from the subdivision. The attached minutes and staff reports highlight the discussions which led to I this condition. The construction plans for the subdivision were approved with the installation of barricades as required. In late fall , 1988 , the Developer was stopped by City staff from I installing the last barricade after the City was notified that the easement rights of the respective property owners had not been released. The City Attorney advised that the City could I have legal liability had we required the Developer to complete the barricade without the release of the access easements from the property owners . IThe property owners who currently hold access easement rights to Teton Lane are as follows: 1 - Mr. Franco C. Loris Mr. Richard J. Oerter Mr. and Mrs . Henry L. Wong I Mr. and Mrs . Richard D. Carlson Mr. and Mrs . Robert B. Cameron Mr. and Mrs. Stewart Reamer I In February, 1989 , the City Attorney ' s office contacted all ease- ment holders requesting their cooperation in releasing their easement rights to Teton Lane by executing the release document. IIAs noted in the attached April 4 , 1989 letter from the City I so 1 Don Ashworth May 3, 1989 Page 2 1 Attorney (attachment #9 ) , none of the easement holders have expressed an interest in releasing their rights to Teton Lane. On February 20 , 1989 , the City notified the Developer (Centex Real Estate Corporation) that we were requesting these releases and notified them that any expense the City might encounter in obtaining these releases would be the Developer ' s responsibility (attachment #7 ) . The attached February 24 , 1989 letter from Briggs and Morgan, legal representatives for Centex Real Estate Corporation presents the Developer ' s position on this issue. ' In light of the easement holders ' refusal to release, the City is faced with either initiating condemnation proceedings to condemn these easements with reimbursement to the respective property owners for this release or to amend the conditions of approval . It is ironic perhaps that with all the discussions that were held with the neighbors concerning the Teton Lane issue and the discussion that revolved around the final compromise to barricade this roadway, all parties seemed to be in agreement that this was an acceptable solution. It was implicit in approving this access restriction that the easement holders would need to release their rights . It is therefore frustrating that now when it comes time to actually make good on this condition that the residents have chosen not to release their easement rights. Be that as it may, the Council is faced with a decision to either authorize the commencement of condemnation proceedings for the release of these easements (and at who' s expense) or to amend the condition concerning access to Teton Lane. Attachments 1. March 10 , 1988 staff report. 2. March 14 , 1988 City Council minutes. 3. March 24 , 1988 staff report. 4 . March 28 , 1988 City Council minutes. 5 . January 10 , 1989 letter to Centex Real Estate Corporation. 6 . February 17 , 1989 letters from City Attorney to easement holders . 7 . February 20 , 1989 letter from City Attorney to Centex Real Estate Corporation. 8. February 24 , 1989 letter from Briggs and Morgan . 9. April 4 , 1989 letter from City Attorney. 10 . April 7 , 1989 letter from City Attorney. 11 . Location map. 12 . Development Contract excerpts, p. SP-1, 4 . cc: Tom Boyce, Centex Real Estate Corporation Daniel Cole , Jr . , Briggs and Morgan Teton Lane Property Owners I a_ ll . .,,,- C ( t 1 �: - CITYOF ___-- z.A , , , CHANHASSEN 1 \ , . 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager IFROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer 11110 DATE: March 10, 1988 ISUBJ: Acceptance of Teton Lane Feasibility Study Curry Farms Subdivision - Phase II iFile No. 87-16 On May 4 , 1987 , City Council approved the preliminary plat for I Centex Homes Corporation for the subdivision of 53 acres into 81 single family lots located at the northwest corner of Lake Lucy Road and County Road 17 . Phase I improvements (the southerly 1 portion of the site) were installed with the exception of the wear course in 1987. Adequate access is provided to the Phase I portion of this development from Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. I Centex Homes is anxious to resolve the outstanding access issue for the Phase II portion of the site as soon as possible since I they have purchase agreements for the property which expire apparently in April of 1988 and also a purchase agreement with Mr. Richard Carlson for the Teton Lane property which expires in I June of 1988 . Condition 3 of the preliminary plat approval required that Teton Lane, which provides access to the site from the north, shall be improved to an urban section and shall con- nect the subdivision with Lilac Lane. The neighborhood has been I quite vocal ( letters attached) on this matter regarding their disagreement with the upgrade of Teton Lane and the traffic impacts that will result from the Curry Farms subdivision. To 1 address this issue properly, including those voiced by the City of Shorewood ( correspondence attached) , the Council requested that a feasibility study be prepared to review the level of upgrade I which will be required if Teton Lane were utilized as the northerly access to the subdivision but also to look at other alternatives which could provide the secondary access to the Phase II portion of the subdivision. IA draft feasibility study was prepared by Engelhardt and Associates and distributed to interested parties in August, 1987 . IIA neighborhood meeting was held on September 9 , 1987 to receive I MI s'y • Don Ashworth March 10 , 1988 Page 2 inpu t on the draft (m eeting minutes utes attached) . As a result of this input, staff revised the feasibility study and recently held a second neighborhood meeting on March 3 , 1988 (paraphrased minu- tes attached) . The attached feasibility study dated February 18, 1988 I believe presents an accurate summary of the access alternatives for the Phase II Curry Farms development. The attached minutes and let- ters from interested parties explain in detail their concerns on this issue. In simple form, the Teton Lane/Lilac Lane neigh- borhood does not want their neighborhood "violated" by the increase in traffic from the Curry Farms subdivision. The feasi- bility study estimates the impact to be approximately 210 trips I per day. They feel that any upgrade of this roadway is strictly for the benefit of the Curry Farms subdivision and Centex Homes, not the abutting properties. The developer, on the other hand, is obviously looking for the least expensive alternative available to him for meeting the City' s requirement for secondary access to the Phase II portion of the subdivision. Drawing No. 1 in the feasibility study presents the best overview of the area. Alternative #1 presents a hypothetical alternative which calls for upgrading of Teton Lane to a full City urban standard with concrete curb and gutter with the cost of these improvements to be borne by the benefitting abutting properties. Alternative #2 is structured to recognize that an "interim" road section could be utilized to address the 210 trips per day impact anticipated from the Curry Farms subdivision with this interim upgrade being totally the expense of Centex Homes. Alternative #3 proposes a totally new access to the subdivision across a piece of property owned by the City connecting directly to Powers Boulevard and doing away with Teton Lane as access to the sub- division. ' From the engineering standpoint, all three alternatives are viable. In my opinion, alternative #3 has the greatest potential for satisfying all parties concerned i .e. the neighbors, Centex and the City' s access requirements, however, as briefly laid out on page 11 of the feasibility study, there are a number of tran- sactions which need to occur to make this alternative happen. At first I was pessimistic of the ability to realistically pursue alternative #3 due to the number of agreements it depends on however, discussions held with the respective parties who would be involved in these transactions lead me to believe that there is a worthwhile chance of the alternative being implemented. The Teton neighborhood certainly wants to see alternative #3 pursued. Since it would strike the best compromise for access to the site I believe that alternative #3 should be given an opportunity to succeed. The alternative #3 scenario as I view it is summarized as follows : 1 r r t 3 ' Don Ashworth March 9, 1988 Page 3 1 . City Council approves alternative #3 as the preferred access to Phase II of Curry Farms and remands this item back to the Planning Commission for their review. 2 . Neighbors abutting Teton Lane individually enter repurchase agreements with the City for their respective portion of Teton Lane. 3 . Centex executes their purchase option for Teton Lane with ' Richard Carlson. 4 . Centex deeds Teton Lane property to the City. 5 . City has its triangular piece of property along Powers Boulevard (parcel #25-0020500 ) appraised. ' 6 . City designates 50-foot right-of-way on City parcel for alternative #3 road construction. 7 . City sells remnant pieces of City property to interested par- ties, e.g. Centex, Larry Kerber, others ( ?) . 8 . City exercises repurchase agreements with property owners and transfers Teton Lane land back to abutting property owners . City accepts proceeds for repurchase of Teton Lane as payment for alternative #3 road right-of-way. ' 9 . Centex files final plan showing alternative #3 access and extension of road G ( feasibility study drawing #1) to the ' north 200 feet to provide access to the Natole property. 10 . New owners of the City property remnants abutting the new ' alternative #3 roadway shall reimburse Centex for their pro- portionate cost of constructing this roadway improvement ( NOTE: If owners are other than Centex, this may require the City to undertake a Chapter 429 improvement project in order ' to facilitate this step. ) . As indicated earlier, this list perhaps looks overwhelming. The ' developer and property owners indicate they will be in attendance at the City Council meeting and the Council can receive a better impression from that discussion as to the likelihood of this alternative being achievable. Centex obviously could choose to not develop the Phase II portion of this subdivison in which case the Phase I property would exist ' as-is with no further access required at this time. The City received a letter at the last minute on Friday ( 3/11/88 ) from Centex (Attachment #10 ) which explains their position. IN ( 1 ' Don Ashworth March 10 , 1988 Page 4 As pointed out in item no. 1 of the alternative #3 scenario, con- 1 dition #13 of the May 4 City Council approval of the preliminary plat states that " . . . if the street configuration is changed, the preliminary plat shall again be reviewed by the Planning Commission. " The Council may wish to address this review in light of their discussion Monday night and the timing involved with Centex' s purchase agreements on the property. I I will be prepared to go into this in more graphic detail at the Council meeting to hopefully clarify some of this discussion. Likewise, the neighborhood and the developer have indicated that they will be in attendance to address the Council with their concerns. In order for Phase II of the Curry Farms subdivision to be final platted, this access issue needs to be resolved. Hopefully there is enough specific information now available to do this. Attachments: 1 . Feasibility Study 2 . Subidivision Map 3 . May 4 , 1987 City Council minutes 4 . September 9 , 1987 Neighborhood Meeting minutes 5 . March 3 , 1988 Neighborhood Meeting summary 6 . July 21, 1987 letter from City of Shorewood 7 . Letter from Ann Ware 8 . September 12, 1987 letter from F. Natole 9 . March 4 , 1988 letter from C. & D. Pickard 10 . March 10, 1988 letter from Centex Homes min 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii." I ,j1P1P , i L -it., t,.. ..4os It A L lip:Vair Alticl 111 Ili . (),,,IS I • 1111/1611 • LIOW 5 1 '1.-: ■ I MIN � .. 63 ' • ,-- ■ AMR aka OMB � �, A 41 ' ill mil 4 P - 1 a Mr/ ..._,....,,,,,,,■'"--4-Ju wi, wig my 4, V len 0 N eV ° 4• V) lir 417 , ; (4, 1 -1-711111111 L • KE 11, -1111111.101111FAIIPMEII Mt : LU y �o"° �I&'iiw_� I !him ( 11111 air E I I)* EMI MI Limi c . - z B 11111. rill • Prillal ' IIM fle ■41111111 n.: "SIP ‘i..) / -7-N \ IP -.SUB hill 111 * C" L t ga .10, :04t‘ . I - . SUBDIVISION MAP r WASIZ NI LAxE LUCY *Alm ` � 'kiln 271 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 ' CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 17: A. SUBDIVISION OF 53 ACRES INTO 81 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER CLASS B WETLANDS. Jo Ann Olsen: This is a subject made up of two parts. The first one is a subdivision proposal and the second one is a wetland alteration permit. It's 81 single family homes in the single family district. The net density is 2.13 units per acre. The lots layout is within six lots and there are some variances that are required. Eight of the lots didn't meet the 90 foot minimum public street frontage requirement. Six of them are on cul-de-sacs and three of them are flag lots. The cul-de-sac lots could be adjusted with the lot line being adjusted and Staff did recommend that those lots meet the 90 foot street frontage requirement. The flag lots required a variance and the Planning Commission did approve those variances. Some of the lots also ' required a variance to the 150 foot lot depth requirement and those were also approved as a part of the subdivision approval. There are also some triangular lots and Staff recommended that those be adjusted. We have spoken to the applicant and he has shown some preliminary designs for making those more standard configurations. As far as the streets, the site is adjacent to CR 17 and Lake Lucy Road. It also is adjacent to Teton Lane which connects with Lilac Lane which is partially within Chanhassen and partially within Shorewood. The City of Shorewood has submitted two letters stating their concern with the development using Lilac Lane and has requested that the City include Lilac Lane on any feasibility study if Teton is moved to be improved as a public street. Carver County has approved the access location onto CR 17. As far as utilities, sewer and water is available through an internal watermain and also along Lake Lucy Road. Drainage, the applicant have worked very hard to maintain the natural characteristics and have provided a ponding system that is maintaining the existing run-off. The drainage is consistent with the City and Watershed District and is being protected with an easement. Vegetation, the applicant again has worked closely to preserve much of the vegetation and the only areas that are going to be impacted is where the street constructions will take place. Staff is recommending that a conservation easement be granted along the 982 contour along the southern wetland area and the 992 contour around the northerly pond where the park area is. We are also requiring silt stablization and erosion control. As far as the Park and Recreation Commission, they reviewed the proposal and determined that the area was park deficient and recommended that the development provide park area. The applicant is proposing approximately 6.38 acres of active park area and the Park Commission has reviewed this park proposal and has approved it. They were concerned with the wet soils but the applicant has assured them that it will be drained adequately after every rain storm. That you will be able to use the field within 24 hours. They are also recommending a trail along Lake Lucy Road, an off-street trail and internal trails around Roads D, B and G which will also connect with the park. There are several outlots with the subdivision. Staff is positioning that these are unbuildable until they meet the City's requirements. Finally, the street name, Staff is recommending that Teton and Lake Lucy not be used just to reduce any confusion. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision with the condition 1 • 23 1278 . k • City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 1 that Teton Lane shall be improved to an urban section and shall connect the II- II subdivision with Lilac Lane and that Staff will work with the City of Shorewood to address the concerns on the impacts of Teton and Lilac Lane and if the street configuration is changed, that the preliminary plat shall again I be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Also, the subdivision is next to Larry Kerber's contractors yard and we are requesting that the applicant landscape or berm part of the property so the property owners would not be impacted by the contractor's yard and we are also requesting that the 1 developer be responsible for notifying lot owners that there is a contractor's yard at that property that has been approved by the City and will remain there until they decide to move or ceases to do business. So we added those two IIconditions that the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan landscaping for the lots abutting the contractor's yard and that othe lapplicant shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners that a contractor's yard exists. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps the developers would like to present their overview of the project. Tom Boyce: I'm the president of the Minnesota division of Centex Homes. Centex Homes is a subsidiary of Centex Corporation which is listed on the New I York Stock Exchange. We're currently building homes in 21 cities across the country. In Minnesota we're a relatively small builder I guess building between 150 and 250 homes per year. We're currently building projects in Eden Prairie and Bloomington. We hope to build one here in Chanhassen and are 1 planning projects in Apple Valley and Mendota Heights. In Curry Farms we will be the builder as well as the developer. We will be building homes in primarily two price brackets from $110,000.00 to $140,000.00 and from I $140,000.00 to $200,000.00 because of the two distinct areas we've got there on top of the hill and the low kind of standardized lots. For the most part it will be primarily what we would classify as a move up neighborhood. We I started the project back in October and I met with the Staff and the neighbors a couple times. At least at the Planning Commission meeting one of the major concerns was more with Teton Lane and Lilac Lane than really with the project. I guess we've tried to deal with that as best we think we can. We looked at a I number of alternative plans to serve the upper portion of the site as well as Teton. Saw the possibility there of us purchasing Teton and actually dedicating it back to the City for potential future improvement later anyway. II have a couple other people I would like to introduce and I can have them walk through the plan briefly with you. Dick Putnam is with Tandem Corporation and Tandem is the planner for us on the project. Keith Nelson is right behind him with Westwood Planning & Engineering, the engineering 1 consultant on the project and Kevin Clark is next to Keith and he will be the project manager for Centex out there on a daily basis. I guess I would like to ask Dick to kind of briefly go through the plans and then we're here to 1 answer any questions that you or the neighbors would have. Dick Putnam: I'll try to be very brief. Between the Park and Rec Commission I and the Staff and Planning Commission, I think we have beat most of the issues around and if you get a chance to go through your packet and look over the Planning Commission discussion that went on for a couple hours, I think most i:: Iof those issues were pretty well discussed. If I could I would like to 24 i 279 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 1 highlight what some of those major concerns were. Maybe we could start with the easiest one. There was a major concern initially about the project that the property was being overdeveloped. We looked at probably eight to ten different ways of developing the site ranging from 100 units of single family under your Planned Unit Development Ordinance with 12,000 foot minimum lots to what we'll call a larger lot concept which is reprsented here on the plan that's before with roughly 80 to 81 lots. I guess through the process of hearing what some of the folks around the site had to say, the Staff and then looking at some soil borings, and I can appreciate the discussion you had about Lake Lucy Road. When we took an extensive set of borings throughout the property, we found the soils were very variable. From bottomless where the auger never did hit anything that was worth a darn to 3, 4, 5 feet of bad soils with good underlying materials so the soils really changed quite a bit throughout the site. That provided us with some very good information. As you might expect the poor soil areas correspond to where they were low. That's nothing you would expect except in one area which was right up here where there is a riding ring today which is right off of by Teton. ' Evidentally, that was a marsh at one time because under about 4 or 5 feet of reasonably good soil was about 8 feet of organic soils. You wouldn't know it by looking at it so every once in a while you get surprised. What we looked at was if you can put a plan together that had some densities that made sense in the scope of what the City of Chanhassen was looking at in your Zoning Ordinance as well as some of the concerns that the neighbors brought, we'd be money ahead i.e. out goes the Planned Unit Development idea with smaller lots and a little higher density and back to your more conventional zoning approach. The other thing was that since we were on the cutting edge of the MUSA line and the Urban Service line is on our western boundary and then again on the southern boundary on a portion of Lake Lucy. The areas west and south are outside of the MUSA. We had kind of the unique situation where abutting owners, some of which would be very interested in the ability to connect to sewer, ,others had absolutely no interest whatsoever and wanted to make sure that our project wasn't going to force them into sewer service and urban costs. One of the things we did do quite consciously was in the southwest portion of the site, which is the knoll and primary wooded area, we tried to make those lots as large as possible to reduce the grading and just basically cut the streets in and let what amounts to custom homes go in on rather large lots, 30,000 to 50,000 square feet. I guess that responds a bit to the terrain as well as some of the quality and size of the neighbors adjacent to us. Another thing that was brought up that we tried to address was the park issue. I think that was quite well discussed at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting. The plan that you have in your book which is a blow-up of . the park area shows some changes in the grading in that area that will allow some development of park facilities in the future that the Staff and Park and Rec Commission felt were important there. The plan has changed slightly. After the Park and Rec Commission meeting we provided a trail connection, parking area and made sure that the park area was large enough to accomodate the facilities that the Staff had outlined to us. Ballfields, tennis courts, totlots, that sort of thing. Keith might touch a little bit on the issue of how the ponds and that sort of thing work. Basically, this is a revised grading plan. You can see that there are a couple ponding areas in the park. Those are connected with storm sewer and the other portion of the property is graded so it will work for those facilities. The other issue that we dealt I 25 c)80 • • City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 with early on in the project was the question of wetlands. What we had on the site in terms of wetlands and what we ought to be doing with them. We were made aware early on by the Staff that the City was very concerned about wetland protection as well as wetland enhancement so the Staff had arranged to have a biologist from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Elizabeth Rockwell out to ' the site who looked at the site and basically her recommendations and her appraisal of it were included in a letter to the City that basically came back and said that there is one good wetland area which is in the southwestern 1 corner of the site which has water on it. The balance of the site is, through years of agriculture draining horse operations, farming, whatever, really didn't degrade it to the point where it isn't functioning as a wetland really at all so what we did was look at it and said to enhance the site, first of all. Deal with the poor soils that we have in some of those areas. Provide for a water detention system, ponding area that will help in clearing up the water and that sort of thing. Holding the water on the site before it can be discharged in the natural drainage to Christmas Lake and also take the water that comes from off-site. There is drainage through the site in really three directions. East of CR 17 where the pond is there is an overflow here. There is a wetland area that's north of Lake--Lucy but flows into our site coming from the south and there is a culvert system going under Lake Lucy Road. There is also a ravine on the western portion of the property by Jim Donovan's property that comes up back and hits a little lake that's up here. Those three areas provide drainage into our site. That drainage then goes out under CR 17 through a wooded ravine down toward Christmas Lake. We're all very aware of Christmas Lake. In fact, Keith Nelson, our engineer, is a skin diver in Christmas Lake so we were well aware of the concerns about the water quality going off the site and I think the system that Westwood has designed will work very well in that case. It also provides some zip and pizazz frankly to the back of the lots with ponding and some natural areas around those ponds should make for better lots quite frankly. The other thing and I'll just touch on it with this map, because of the terrain that we have, where we have probably 60 to 70 feet -of grade change on that site, if you go look at it right now you would say you need a mountain goat to get around. That's both good and bad. From our perspective for homesites, if you're trying to provide $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 homesites, it good and we've been able to keep most of the trees ' that you see which are located, lucky for us, along the slopes and by the same token it allows us to put some homesites on top of those hills. Both on the southwestern portion and up where the riding arena is today without really disturbing very much. It results in big lots that we think will be some really, really nice homesites. That's the good news. The bad news is that because those lots are in a strange shape, we call them flag lots or some rather odd shaped things, they don't necessarily meet the requirement that ' says 90 feet 30 feet back from the street. They may be 150 feet 70 feet back from the street but they aren't 90 feet at 30 feet. I guess what we've been asking is, in a lot such as number 5 for example, which is up here off of Road G, at the building pad setback we're at about 110 feet or more in width. Unfortunately is you take a straight 30 foot setback because the street curves, we're probaby closer to 60 feet and we've got an easement for another flag lot as well as a trail easement coming there also. We think that's an ' awfully nice lot. The lot is very large square footage wise but doesn't really meet that standard so what we would be looking at is, wherever we [:: building, if we choose to build 40 or 50 feet back from the street rather than 26 r_ 2 811 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 a straight 30 foot, that we would have to have a 90 foot minimum setback and we feel on all of the lots in the project that won't be a problem at all. The flag lot like number 6 or number 5 in the same instance or down here, 13 is probably the most vivid example, where we build going across that lot with the minimum at the front with a 90 foot setback, we think that would meet the requirements that your city has. Lastly, I guess I would just hit Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. As Tom mentioned, Road G really is on the Teton Lane alignment. I guess early on when we talked with some of the neighbors and got a jist of what some of the issues were, where some folks would like to see 4 or 5 homes on the site instead of 50 or 80. There is also concern about access. What we found was that Teton Lane is a private easement, 33 feet. It's owned by Mr. Carlson who owns this chunk of property which is listed as an exception. It provides easements to I think there are probably 13 or 14 separate people listed on that document surrounding this area. It became evident to us that there were some very different opinions as to what the status of Teton Lane should be and what it will be in the future. We heard a lot of stories about somebody tried to give it to the City back 15 years ago and the city wouldn't take it and a number of other things. The bottom line for us was that this site has a lot-of exceptions that we're building around such as Mr. Loris' house or Reamer's house up in here or Carlson's property or the Kerber property or the Jacques down on Lake Lucy Road. We're really kind of fitting in, if you will, to an existing neighborhood. Granted some of the homes are very, very high value and some of them are very not very high value and they may be within 300 to 400 feet of one another. It's very, very difficult to take a $300,000.00 or $400,000.00 house versus a $70,000.00 house that are 400 feet from each other and come up with a compatible type. I think you can appreciate the problem. As it related to Teton, we felt that the solution was to acquire the right-of-way and provide that to the City as public right-of-way to do with what you choose and that would mean talking to all of the affected property owners who have access to it and finding out if it should be closed off. If it should be improved. If it should be a mat of asphalt applied to it. If it should be given back to the people who take their access from it for them to maintain but one way or the other for the City to be in a position I guess to determine what happens to it rather than currently the situation where the fellow who owns it is not real wild about continuing to pour gravel and oil and money and new culverts and all these things on it because he doesn't feel it's his responsibility for everybody to use it so our solution is, we've gone out and signed a purchase agreement contingent on approval with Mr. Carlson to purchase the right-of-way that you see here that cuts across this property as well as the 33 feet of right-of-way that he has that goes out to Lilac Lane. We would improve Lilac Lane within the confines of our site and that little road H that provides access to Reamer's property and we would do that at no cost to anybody else then we would convey the right-of-way from that link, which is roughly the pillars if you've been out there. If you are used to that area, it's close to where the pillars would be. To provide that right-of-way to the City and they would then make some judgments on what to do. It's going to take a while. If you were at the Planning Commission meeting, you would have gotten the jist that there is no simple solution at this point in time. The letter from Shorewood which I did have occasion to talk with the City Manager today from Shorewood, didn't really provide anything any easier to understand either because I wish we would have known about the meeting and been allowed to attend the meeting. 27 282 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 I I mentioned to him that I think he ought to have a couple positions presented rather than the one that was presented by some folks who talked to the Shorewood Council so at this point the solution to Teton is at least we're providing the right-of-way and it allows something to happen in the future. Quite frankly there are very few units, there are about 18 units in our project on top of the hill, if you count Loris' house and Reamer's, that's about 20 units that are in the general area that would conceivably use this area as well as the existing one or two homes that access it right now so the number of units that would go north would be fairly small to begin with and I guess the traffic wouldn't really be a significant number. At this point maybe what I'll do is ask Keith to very quickly explain the drainage system for you and utilities other than the sewer and water on all the streets that you would normally expect but the drainage system Keith maybe you can touch real quickly on. Keith Nelson: As Dick indicated i am a diver so I do have a special interest here with the water quality on Christmas Lake. Just to go over the drainage here, it's sort of complex. There is a lot of drainage from off-site that ' does drain through this site. There -is a large wetland basin up to the west that does drain through a ravine to the proposed ponding areas and out through culverts. There is drainage from this wetland area that there is presently storm sewer through Lake Lucy Road and empties into another wetland basin that's located south of Lake Lucy Road and again through other culverts. A drain that does contain north and then it goes out the same point out through CR 17. There is another large wetland basin on the east side of CR 17 and 11 there is a controlled culvert and controlled inlet that does discharge into he site and again flows through the site back to this ponding area and out back under CR 17 through this 36 inch storm sewer pipe. We looked at a storm ' water management plan for the entire area. We've looked at possibly restricting some of the flows off-site to utilize some of that existing ponding boundaries that are available and again we did this same thing on site with the construction of five ponding areas and we can really restrict the ' rate of flow in the developed condition at approximately one-third of what the flow is now in the peak rate of flow in the undeveloped condition so again for grade restrictions we are really dropping down the amount of run-off that will ' exit the site via this area in pond #4. During construction phase you want to minimize erosion. There is extensive grading around the site. Not in the wooded areas but in other portions of the plat. These wetlands that we are going to be construction are going to be constructed such to enhance a wetland type growth and vegetation. A ponding area will be constructed to clean 1 and 3 feet beneath the outlet pipes proposed that will restrict rate of flow so these areas will act as pumps as say basins or sump traps during the ' construction phase which will catch a lot of the sediment. During construction the first thing we would do is excavate out these ponds, construct the berms, trying to hold the water, contain it on-site and before ' the outlet culverts are construction, and we won't put those pipes in until all the grading is done and turf is established. We will seed and mulch everything upon completion of grading. What we will do to these berms is ' construct like a rock filter. We'll actually put in a large g pile of rock as part of the berm and what that will do is let the water trickle through and will filter out a lot of the sediment and will hold a lot of the sediment back in the ponding areas so again I think we're really going to minimize the 28 11 2831 k City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 effects downstream, mainly Christmas Lake. I have forwarded a copy of my drainage plan to the Watershed Engineers. They have reviewed it. They have , no problems with it and we will be making a formal Watershed Permit application. Mayor Hamilton: That concludes all of your presentation? Perhaps we can ' start with Clark. If you have any questions or comments you wish to make. Councilman Horn: I like the layout. I think the park worked out fine. The storm sewer system looks good. I like the protection for Christmas Lake. One question I did have though is that you only showed us four housing types. I didn't see any housing types in what you would call your other section. These obviously are the higher priced homes. Tom Boyce: The house you have right there is $120,000.00 to $140,000.00 house. We try to give you a range. Councilman Horn: Every one of these is a two story or split level. What about ramblers? Tom Boyce: We don't build any ramblers. Councilman Johnson: I would like to say I appreciate all the time you've done in the saving of the trees and a lot of the work you've done here. I think it's an outstanding project as going. On the north side it's pivotable on Teton Lane. Without Teton, the whole north side falls apart with that being an extremely long cul-de-sacs and no real way to get out without having to go into the neighbors to your west and back down somehow or another and with the wetlands and stuff in there I don't think that's feasible at all. It's an extremely difficult piece of land to develop in there and I really appreciated all the hard work you're doing on this including the lot that you're putting together on here. What is your phasing plan? Tom Boyce: We would be working from the south to the north. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so there is some time on Teton Lane to work it out. Tom Boyce: Maybe Dick would like to some them some alternate plans. We've looked at I guess 7 or 8 different plans. I Councilman Johnson: Yes, I was impressed at the Planning Commission meeting of how many different plans you had. I think you were up through F or G. Tom Boyce: There is another way to serve the area to the north and you 11 probably saw it at the Planning Commission meeting. The only way to do that is through the area right now that's proposed as park which may mean some other things would need to shift around I guess. How does the City feel about long cul-de-sacs? Councilman Johnson: I personally am very much against long cul-de-sacs from a public safety point of view. That's why to me Teton Road is very pivotable to get to the people in Block 6, Lots 1 through 6 in an emergency would be very 29 I ;284 far City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 I tough without Teton Lane and Lilac Lane and the cooperation of Shorewood so ' for a city of our size it's going to be a challenge for you and our city. Are we going to be starting a feasibility study on Teton Lane in the near future or how does that work? Mayor Hamilton: That's a possibility that we'll get to here in a few minutes. Don Ashworth: That's a recommendation of approval. Councilman Johnson: I would to see that the park entrance between Block 6 and Block 5 be a more direct route to the park. If there was some way to work it in between Lot 5, Lots 1 and 2 or 3 and 4. The more direct access, that would make even Lot 6 a more nice remote lot rather than having a trail around that lot. For somebody that really wants their privacy back on that flag lot. On the lots like Lot 5 of Block 5, I would like to see us make sure that the houses aren't built up towards the front of the lot. Is there anyway we can do that Barb or Jo Ann? Tom Boyce: I have absolutely no problem addressing that in the development agreement. Put it so the house has to be built where it's at least 90 feet wide? I have no problems with that or deed restriction. Jo Ann Olsen: You just have a minimun setback that you can't get any closer to the road frontage. Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is on a couple of these lots, to be specific Block 5, Lot 5 at the 30 foot setback he has about 70 feet and this is on a turn which is similar to on a cul-de-sac. If he goes back another 20 foot he'll hit his 90 foot width. I'm saying is there some way we can assure that he'll be back that additional 20 foot to hit that 90 foot width so the homeowner can't come in and say I want mine 30 foot up and then he builds it II that way. Jo Ann Olsen: The only thing that would stop him from being able to do that is the width of the house. The sideyard setbacks would prohibit that. ' Councilman Johnson: Unless they build the house deep and narrow. Jo Ann Olsen: You can make it a condition that it would have to be set back at however many feet. Councilman Johnson: All housing setbacks have to be at 90 foot width is what Tom suggested. That could be an easy condition on here. Mayor Hamilton: It would be in the development contract. Otherwise it can't be done. Councilman Johnson: Okay. There are several of those. I agree with the ' triangle lots. I don't like triangle lots personally. I hear you are getting rid of those. Is there something being done on Block 2, Lot 5 which has a 81 foot frontage? Just as you come in on Road B, second lot in. Is that going [E7 to be readjusted to give us the 90? We have the 90 at the housing setback on 30 r - 2851 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 1 ir- that one but there is no reason for it on a straight street. If we have a curve or a cul-de-sac, there is a reason to use the house setback. , Jo Ann Olsen: I believe the lot lines can be adjusted. Councilman Johnson: Are we requiring that adjustment to be made in here? Jo Ann Olsen: It was in the conditions. In the condition that said all lots shall meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. Councilman Johnson: Okay, that is part of condition 1 so that will be done. Councilman Geving: I have a few questions. Basically I want to make sure that the comment regarding the various lots that the Staff indicated could be adjusted will be and I'm looking at your staff report on page 3. Six of the lots which require a variance can be adjusted. Have those been adjusted? Jo Ann Olsen: They haven't yet but that's part of the conditions that they must be. Councilman Geving: Is there any imagination that could be used on the three triangular lots that they can look to some kind of a scheme? Could you show me how you might do that? Dick Putnam: What we end up doing is just expanding Lot 12. All the lots 11 have plenty of square footage in them so what we do is we but off the back yards here on 9, 8, 7 and 45 and just create a larger, deeper backyard here and then these are wider in the back. That's what I reviewed with the Staff. Councilman Geving: Okay, so Lot 12 will be extended to the south. I was a little bit concerned about Lot 6, Block 6 and it's access however you do have a substantial size lot there and I think we can build a pretty nice home on that lot. It's rather steep. Normally I would object to that but I think we can fit a house on there. Also on Lot 13, Block 2 is a very narrow corridor there but I don't have the footage here but it's a big lot and off that cul- de-sac I think we could also make that. I had some other comments regarding the Teton Lane. I don't know how that's all going to work out in response to Shorewood. You may not be doing us a great deal of a favor by dedicating that back to the City because then it becomes our problem and from there I don't know what we're going to do with it because eventually it's going to have to be, if we go through the feasibility study and build the road, somebody is going to have to pay for it. We'll have to take up that issue but I'm not so sure we're really getting a favor by picking up that roadway. Do you have any thoughts Staff on what could be done there? Barbara Dacy: Again, the preliminary plat as proposed shows a connection to Teton Lane to Lilac Lane. The Planning Commission was very specific that if the Council, as part of the plat approval does not recommend improvement of Teton or including Teton at all in it's plan, that it go back to the Planning Commission. It does result in long cul-de-sacs and if the Council chooses not to improve Teton Lane or require it's improvement then Staff is recommending that we take another look at the access issue. However, Staff is recommending ' 31 , City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 that the connection exists now and we are recommending improvement of Teton 1 Lane as well as the Council initiating the feasibility study process. Councilman Geving: Okay, we'll address that later. Is there a Park and Rec Commission member here tonight? If not, what were their comments in regards to this? Is it basically a lowland that they are going to be picking up? 6.38 acres. We talked about getting a swamp, an area that can be improved. Mayor Hamilton: If I remember right, didn't they say that it was quite lowland but you were going to do some improvements in it to try and eliminate some of the water. Tom Boyce: It's a very flat lowland. There is no drainage out of it. What we're going to do is go back in there and improve it. Build the ponds to hold the water. Councilman Geving: I guess I know that it's quite low in there. My personal feeling is we'll take the 6.38 acres but I'm not sure about park dedication ' refund of any kind. That will have to be worked out by the Council to off-set the addition of parkland that we would accept. Do you understand what we're talking about? IDick Putnam: Not exactly, no. Councilman Geving: Well, it's a point of negotiation for the Council to accept your 6.38 acres but at the same time we wouldn't necessarily have to give you 100% credit for that land. It might be a 50% credit for park dedication fees. Currently our park dedication fees run about $400.00. Better than $400.00 per unit. We might give you a 50% reduction because of the land that you're giving us for the park but not necessarily 100% so that anybody buying a home, picking up a permit would still have to pay possibley ' something towards a park dedication fee to develop that park. Do you understand now what I'm saying? Dick Putnam: I guess we do. What we talked with the Park and Rec Commission about was, rather than giving you land we were giving you a park. Councilman Geving: But now you're talking to the Council. ' Dick Putnam: I'm talking to the Council the same as I'm talking to everybody and that is we can do one of two things. We can give you a y y y park that's ' developable, seeded, ready to go, that's dry and going to meet all your conditions that the staff and your engineers will approve the grading for and will do the grading as part of our project and that will more than meet our requirement for park contribution. If what you're telling us tonight is, well gee whiz maybe... Councilman Geving: I'm not telling you gee whiz. Dick Putnam: Maybe the land isn't good enough as a park and there should be a park contribution on top of the improvements we're going to make to the land, then yes, you're right. We better talk about that right away. 32 - 2871 t .. 4 • Jr- City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 1 Councilman Geving: That's a Council decision. We make that decision. I Don Ashworth: I think we need to come back to the Council potentially. We could meet as well Councilman Geving and go through the level of grading that II is proposed on this site. I have some concerns as well as to the suitability of those soils. You are absolutely right, we've got to make sure that they will be dry and the level of improvements that they are going to do to those, to the property, could greatly off-set the necessity for additional monies. I feel confident that Lori and myself have been working with them in that area. I'm sure we're aware of your concerns and we will bring the item back to you. Councilman Geving: Okay, that's fine. I have just one other comment. I II think I had a note or two on the plat itself. I had made a comment regarding Lot 5, Block 2 and Block 2, Lot 7 and you have made those adjustments. Is that what you're telling me Jo Ann? For the lot width? , Jo Ann Olsen: Not yet but they will be. Councilman Geving: How about the road that we identify as Road I. Isn't that II a rather unusual cul-de-sac? Is that an unusual cul-de-sac for maintenance? Jo Ann Olsen: It is kind of a bubble but the reason it is designed was to II protect the wetlands and the slope area and vegetation. IL_ Councilman Geving: Do you agree with that? From the Staff's standpoint you agree with that? Jo Ann Olsen: From the Staff's standpoint we saw several different street II alternatives and this one preserved the area the best. Councilman Geving: I have no other comments. , Mayor Hamilton: You said you were going to do not only the developing but the building. Will you allow other builders in the area? If I came in and wanted to buy a lot and have somebody build there, you don't allow that? I Tom Boyce: Usually not. It's certainly not our intention at this point. If the interest rates are at 17% tomorrow and somebody wanted to buy a lot it II would be difficult for me to say no but no, that's not our intention. Mayor Hamilton: There are a lot of people here. Is anyone here that would - like to make a comment or ask a question about the development? I Marc Simcox: I live on Lilac Lane across from Teton. I think the big concern that I have and that most of the residents have is that a lot of people are , going to pay to improve the road that is going to serve only one individual who lives on that road presently but in order to really serve a development and that's the major concern. I've been done quite a bit of work to try and II discover what exactly is going to occur and I keep finding that everything is being proposed and improved prior to finding out exactly what's going to happen Teton Lane which we're really concerned about. As it presently sits, Teton Lane is abutted on two sides by one property owner who has approximately I 33 1 MIL 11 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 800 feet on one side and then three others who own about one-third a piece. Out of all the property owners only one of those actually uses Teton Lane. The others exit and go on Lilac Lane which of course in most cases would have to approved at least for drainage. The way the developments been proposed ' now, there has been no northern access but to cut down the length of the cul- de-sacs on the northern side of the project other than through the use of Teton Lane. One thing was mentioned in the Planning Commission and the plan ' was covered and turned over pretty rapidly, I didn't get a chance to see how the road layouts worked but that used and addressed the possible use of this path. The cul-de-sac here, I guess it's Road E where it goes over Road G. The cul-de-sac in the corner of your Block 3, Lot 15. That was used at one ' time when the sewer was being constructed on Lilac Lane for temporary access. I spoke with the County today about that because we were informed at the Planning Commission meeting that the Council didn't want the access there so I did speak to the County and they said they have no objection to that as long as it's a safe intersection with proper sight distances. I think the sight distances there are probably better than they are at the proposed exit on CR ' 17 and Road D. There would be some extra grading involved to do that but the costs would not come out of the Teton Lane abutting property owners to provide that access. It probably isn't a whole lot different distance wise if that was used than if Lilac Lane and Teton Lane connection was used to access those ' cul-de-sacs in an emergency. Mayor Hamilton: What's going to be proposed, so we don't go on about Teton ' Lane all night, is that we're going to suggest that a feasibility study be conducted to look at not just Teton but the alternatives to that particular it road and how that may fit into the project then we can take a closer look at that and look at just one issue and discuss that and see how that is going to be resolved. Marc Simcox: That's in a feasibility study? Mayor Hamilton: You bet. That's what the study would be about. Marc Simcox: The plat is not going to be approved as it exists until that has been taken care of? Mayor Hamilton: No, that's not true. The plat can be approved with the ' ccndition that the feasibility study needs to be completed on Teton. Marc Simcox: The one concern of course by the property owners there is that ' the City and the developer want the feasibility study to show the Teton Lane is required, that's exactly what the feasibility study will show. Right or wrong that's the way they are feeling. What we would suggest is that Teton ' Lane would be used for access onto the development and the rest of it dedicated to the City until such time that that property may be developed 20 years in the future and the City can then go in and do something. . . ' Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what our feasibility study will tell us. When it should be developed and in what manner and how the road configuration should be for the development. [:: 34 E 28/ . ; • City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 II Jr- Jim Donovan: If I might I would like to step up here and just show you something here. I'm the owner of this piece of property here. I own from 11 here up to Lilac and from Lilac down to here. This is the road that we're talking about Teton here. I'm concerned that this road here would then become a public road if was deeded to the City of Chanhassen for the benefit of the II development down in here. The taxpayers here are not the largest taxpayer in this thing here now. I would be virtually thrown out. I bought this piece of property, came from Bloomington two years ago and I dreamed about this thing for 14 years and purchased this piece of property and the adjoining piece over here and now I see this happening for the benefit down here. Not for the benefit of the people here. I can assure you I will put this in writing and anything you want, this will never, never, in my lifetime, ever be developed. II These people here are going to have to pay. I'm going to have to pay for the benefit of this thing. Mayor Hamilton: That's what the feasibility study will show. I Jim Donovan: I understand that but I just want to impress upon you that the people here feel that the feasibility study is a foregone conclusion that it's II going to say that for the benefit of this we're going to be sacrificed because of bigger tax benefits to the City of Chanhassen then what this property now gives. II Mayor Hamilton: I hope we can do a better feasibility study than that. Just I: because you have property there and you're not benefitting doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to be charged for the road at this time. II Jim Donovan: Somebody has to be charged for the road. I understand that. What we're saying is that this is not necessary to have the exit go here. It II can go out here to CR 17. Lilac Lane is a very bad exit right now. It's very bad. Come out here onto CR 17 would be much better. We don't know what a feasibility study, if we're allowed to have input into a feasibility study or II can we come to a hearing or is there a hearing. Mayor Hamilton: Absolutely. When the feasibility study is completed, it will be put on an agenda and it will be discussed at that time and all alternatives II will be looked at will be discussed and opened to the public as is any other meeting. Jim Donovan: Okay, thank you. II Barbara Dacy: Just to further clarify Mr. Donovan's comments. Before we discuss the feasibility study, the first action before the Council is the II subdivision preliminary plat approval. If you approve a plat as proposed you are in essence looking at a connection to Lilac Lane via Teton Lane and obviously the property owners are proposing instead of doing that, offering an II alternative to make a connection to CR 17 by a second access so there is a second option proposed tonight. The first option is what the developer has proposed on the preliminary plat and the second option is what you just heard II from Mr. Donovan and Mr. Simcox. Just to reiterate that subdivision approval is first and that would really dictate authorizing the feasibility study to improve Teton Lane. By approving the proposed plat, you are giving direction II 35 II IS 9,mydv _ I' • City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 to improve Teton Lane. ' Mayor Hamilton: To authorize a feasibiilty study not to improve it. Barbara Dacy: Right, I just wanted to clarify that. Jim Donovan: We're not being sacrificed, is that what you're saying? Barbara Dacy: No, I'm just saying that they are offering a second potential access plan. Mayor Hamilton: That needs to be considered in the feasibility study. Don Ashworth: I don't agree. In the feasibility study we will look to the other access. If that is the recommendation per the Planning Commission ' recommendation, they would have to look at that new access. Barbara Dacy: Then the developer would also have to indicate to use some type of phasing plan so some of the lots that could be affected by this secondary access are not affected so we're not approving final plats until the feasibility study is complete. Don Ashworth: That's fine. I don't see where it's a problem though as I would hope to have this completed within the next 6 to 8 weeks and I'm sure it will be a more difficult process but I think we faced Creekwood, Bluff ' Creek and a number of other challenges and I think we can face this one as well. Marc Simcox: Just to make sure that we have this correct because we heard this a couple different ways. We were told before that the feasibilty study does not decide whether or not it's done. The City Council approving a plat decides that it's going to be done. The feasibility only decides how it's going to be done. So if the Council approves the plat, it is going to be done. The Teton connection is going to be made. ' Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily. If we approve the plat, we are also saying that a feasibility study needs to be done to look at Teton Lane improvement and alternatives. ' Councilman Johnson: Tonight we're approving a preliminary plat, not the final plat. There is a considerable difference here. The preliminary plat says that this is a way we can do it. This is a way we see to do it. There is a ' feasibility study going on. There can be changes made between now and the final plat. Marc Simcox: We're real concerned about that. Tom Boyce: We can certainly final plat the south half of the property first ' and plat the upper half as an outlot. I guess that's what we had intended anyway. To final plat the southern portion of the property. 1 • 36 291 1 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 Larry Kerber: They are proposing I think it's their main entry from my south property line, is that correct? ' Councilman Geving: That's correct. Larry Kerber: My concern would be the amount of traffic coming by my place. I You are going to be putting in a road, I won't benefit out of that road. It will run approximately 10 to 15 feet from my property line and I would just like to see that road, their main entry road contained within, at least one lot within the perimeter. I look here at other projects in the area, I can't find too many with the main entry accesses another abutting property owner. I don't know what's going to happen with Teton but I can end up with all the traffic coming in and out of that project at my property. Mayor Hamilton: I don't know how you can figure you can get all of it. Lake Lucy Road is going to get some. There will be another entrance someplace. Councilman Horn: A proposed alternative as I see it would be on both sides of it. They have a main street road B on the south and then a proposal on the north. Councilman Geving: He could get hit with both of them. ' Mayor Hamilton: Potential yes. It depends on what the feasibility study says. Councilman Horn: Somebody is going to lose in this thing. He's either going to have a road on both sides of him or it's going to go out to Lilac. It's not going to stop. Mayor Hamilton: We'll consider that. It's something else we need to take a look at. I Larry Kerber: Yes, I would just like to see something between the road. A Lot if there is anyway they can route it just because of the special type of operation I have going on there. Councilman Geving: I was thinking in Larry's case, when I looked at this plan, I was kind of hoping we could curve that Road D between Lots 20 and 21 and leave a single family home abutting his land. That leaves a problem though with Lot 1. Could the developer work that out? The reason I'm saying . this is because when I looked at this plan, I understand what Larry's saying, 11 if we could have a buffer there of one lot, Lot 21, I think that would solve Larry's problem and get him another 100 and some feet away from that road. Dick Putnam: What our interest is quite frankly is to build the largest berm and put the most vegetation we can right there. If you recall in the Staff Report at the Planning Commission the recommendation was that we screen off the abutting lot which is Lot 1 from that property. The reason being that Larry has a contractor's yard and three stall garage for equipment and a parking area right there. The last thing I want to do is put a house there because when he starts equipment at 6:00 in the morning it's not a I 37 11 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 I/ particularly good thing but by II perspective is quite frankly a road same and large berm and plantings gs and rock that sort of thin rocks and I thing. That will go a long ways to solving any of his concerns, which isn't for his house because his house is on the other side of all that equipment. It's the concern that the people driving by objt I that particular use in the future so our interest is to build alscreenethatohe won't bothered by us and likewise by him. Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure. I haven't recently but if I looked to the south from his gbeen don't believpe lace is a whole lot of land that you can make a berm go down? Larry,' t at the area to the south of you, doesn't that when you look II g Isn't that a depression? Larry Kerber: It drops off almost from m drop off and it drops off Y property line, is the start of the quite severely. 1 , Councilman Geving: I don't know where ou're Y going to be the berm. II Dick Putnam: The first thing we have to do is we have to fill the area where the road goes because you have to have a flat grade not like Lilac so it's going to be flat. Right now it drops off but there is going to be dirt brought in there to bring it up. In the process of bringing 1 Larry what we will be doing is building a very large berm. If he wants usltto put part of it on his property and move the trees he has put in on his side up higher, we would be happy to do that do we'll do it on our property but I I think our interest, in this case, are entirely the same. We want to build a separation that's permanent and I think that's what he wants too. Councilman Geving: Dick, could we call that area to the north of the road I there, just as you come in and to the north, could we call that an outlot? Dick Putnam: Sure. Frankly it might be easier to make it part of the public I right-of-way if you would like and just come right across like that. Tht might be a posibility or we could keep it as an outlot, whichever is easiest. ICouncjjj Geving: What do you think? Don Ashworth: That sounds like a solution for both sides. I Councilman Geving: Just so we have a separation there. I think that's what we're looking for. IIDick Putnam: That's our interest 100%. Councilman Horn: Is the biggest concern going up to Lilac the assessment or I is it the actual road going through? So they are both equal? Marc Simcox: I would say that the assessment is one of the biggest issues because there are so very few people to absorb that assessment. II Lilac Lane, I don't know how the grading would be done and how theyecanct on improve the grade as you come up from Mill Street because it's a fairly steep LE-, grade and also continues steep to the south and also drops to the north. I I 38 I AN 2931 City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 don't know how that grade will be improved. It's already now, anybody who drives up that road can tell you it's a constant wheel spinning all year round on that road and as an access, I don't know how the grading can be changed. Also at the top of the hill you have to make an immediate left turn onto Teton which is also a grade and that's a real problem in the wintertime for people to get up. I live right across the street from Teton and so far I've had two vehicles in the last four years that have come over my wall and it's about a 8 foot drop or 7 foot drop. , Mayor Hamilton: Okay, I think all those concerns will be addressed in the feasibility study. Councilman Geving: I want to ask a questin of the developer. Would you be willing to pay for the improvement of Teton to Lilac? Tom Boyce: No I wouldn't. I Councilman Geving: The answer's no. Dick Putnam: We can purchase some of the property on either side of it, sure. Tom Boyce: I guess I tried that at one point. , Councilman Geving: I'm placing this question before you because you are really the major contributor to creating this problem. Tom Boyce: There are other alternatives to develop the site. This is the alternative that we felt was best and I guess Staff felt was best and was the one we presented. We did look at access to the northwest. We don't own that property and we looked at acquiring a number of other pieces in there but quite frankly it just didn't make common sense. Dick Putnam: If you just focus in on this F business, this reflects what I I think was suggested. Connection out through the city property and I guess you do have some control over what's done here because you own the chunk of property in question which is this triangle right here. This represents a connection through Lot 15 onto our site and we talked to the Staff about that. To be perfectly honest with you, the reason we proposed what we proposed was that the road that's there today is not going to be maintained by the guy who owns it anymore. That's just a fact of life. I don't know if Mr. Carlson is here tonight but he quite frankly is not going to continue it and there are people asking him for dust nuisance control and all this business and it was pretty obvious to us that something was going to happen here between the neighbors. Not us but between the neighbors. The other reason was that the Staff had indicated the City would like to see a public street connection. Not only for what happens with our project but just for the area in general and look at it from a total perspective of public street access of all the properties. Public Safety, the neighbors pointed out very eloquently that Lilac Lane and Teton are terrible in the wintertime. You can't get up. If somebody has a heart attack, you'll never get an ambulance up. They convinced me that they ought to have another way in and out so what we did is said okay, here's a way to connect it. Quite frankly, we'll plat it and over the course 39 + i 9C zi - • City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 a II of the feasibilty study and the time it takes to resolve the issue, if II I alternate F is what you want us to do, we'll revise the plat here so it won't bother anybody. The dust control problem the gentlemen has ain't going to be resolved. IJim Donovan: It's not going to be there. The dust is not going to be there. Dick Putnam: The problem is going to be that people who have access to it I today will continue to have access. We have not built one thing up there and the folks are having problems and they have called the City and they complain, whatever. IMayor Hamilton: Thanks very much for your comments. I think that's plenty. Franco Loris: I have lived up there for 19 years now. I've walked many times I by that road from Carlson...so all of a sudden this company is coming in and they are picking it up and they are going to improve it-but that's not true. II I would have bought it from him but just the road, not those old shacks. I would be willing to do that right now-but not for a public access. I would maintain it too because after all I've been up there for 19 years and I guess it's for my use as well. IMayor Hamilton: Okay, that's something else that should be included in the feasibility study is talk to Franco. I think a motion is in order. We have II two items before us. A subdivision of 53 acres into 81 single family lots with the conditions as outlined by the Planning Commission and the Park and Rec Commission and a Wetland Alteration Permit to alter a Class B wetland. ICouncilman Johnson: When does the feasibility study get approved? Mayor Hamilton: That's item 13 of the conditions. IMayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Curry Farm Subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat dated April 2, 1987 with the following conditions: I1. Lot 13, Block 2, Lot 6, Block 5 and Lot 15, Block 3 shall receive a variance to the 90 foot lot frontage requirement with all minimum 11 house setbacks at the 90 foot lot width and all other lots shall meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. II 2. The triangular lots shall be changed to reflect a more standard lot configuration. y3. Teton Lane shall be improved to an urban section and shall connect A Ithe subdivision with Lilac Lane. 4. An access permit for Road D shall be requied from Carver County. II5. A conservation easement at the 982 foot contour shall be provided around the westerly side of the pond in Block 2 and along the [:: southerly side of the park area. II 40 II z 295 Z City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987 II 6. A conservation easement at the 992 foot contour shall be provided along the northerly side of the park area. I 7. All necessary drainage and utility easements shall be provided. 8. The conditions as established by the Park and Recreation Commission I dated Apri 9, 1987. 9. The applicant shall provide acceptable drainage calculations for the II determination that the park area will drain properly. 10. The outlots shall not be considered buildable. I 11. The street names shall not contain the names Lake Lucy or Teton. 12. The conditions as established by the City Engineer in his report I dated April 17, 1987. 13. Staff shall work with the City of Shorewood to address their concerns 1 on the impacts on Teton and Lilac Lane and if the street ( configuration is changed, the preliminary plat shall again be reviewed by the Planning Commission. I 14. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing landscaping 1 for lots abutting the contractory's yard. II . -_ 15. The applicant shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners that a contractor's yard exists. I All voted in favor and motion carried. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Wetland II Alteration Permit #87-6 with the following conditions: 1. The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark. I 2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the ponding areas throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the areas. I All voted in favor and motion carried. II Mayor Hamilton: What will the timeframe be, Barb or Gary, you'll be doing the feasibility study? II Gary Warren: I would say 6 to 8 weeks we'll be done with this. Mayor Hamilton: Be sure to include the alternatives that we looked at and be II sure to talk to Franco so we can pursue that avenue also. II 41 II II !Y a i INEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TETON LANE/LILAC LANE/CENTEX HOMES September 9 , 1987 II Gary Warren : My name is Gary Warren, City Engineer and with me is Bill II Engelhardt of Engelhardt and Associates involved in the feasibility study and that young lady over there is Barb Dacy, our City Planner. I guess what we want to do tonight is keep this informal. Give you a chance, you've all been sent a copy of the feasibility study and I'll give just a brief IIintroduction here as far as where the process is because sometimes it can get a little bit confusing with the phasing of projects. Basically the Curry Farms subdivision which we've got the plat up here, the entire II property has preliminary plat and has received preliminary plat approval which is the first step to the Council and Planning Commission. Phase 1 has the final plat and construction plans and specifications for the utility installation, grading of the property has been approved and that's what I under construction at this time. The Phase II of the project, the north half of the site basically, will need to go through final plat approval by II the City Council and also will need to submit plans and specifications for review by City Staff and also approved by the Council. Our best estimate from the developer's , Centex Homes is that will be something that I will be undertaking next year. As a result of the platting process and the review II of the plat, the City Council and Planning Commission recognize that the northerly access was a sensitive issue from a number of standpoints and justified going ahead with a more detailed investigation of various alternatives that come to play. As a part of that, or to meet that Irequirement, a feasibility study was prepared by Bill with staff input and we are bringing here tonight to get your input on it. We had it scheduled Ifor Monday night's Council meeting and I'm pulling it off of Monday night's Council meeting because of the timing give the benefit of your input here oJI can- sit down with the developeryand Barb and take to heart the discussion we have tonight and properly address Iit so when it does go to Council for their discussion that we address all the issues the best we can. Resident : Have you set a date for it yet? Gary Warren: I have not set up a date for it no. What I'm oin to II g g do is see how the meeting goes tonight. The Council's agendas, quite honestly are Ijust packed and since in relation to Phase II work with Centex , much of that has yet to resolve. We're not holding them up for development so we do have time here to deal with this on a future agenda. You will be notified when II that is put on the agenda and I would suspect sometime in the next 4 to 6 weeks it will get back on to that. So we want to receive your input tonight. We would like to keep this on a professional level. We all have emotions involved here and I think we are here to listen to your input. To II answer the questions we can. Those issues that we can't, we will address and do research on or whatever we have to do to resolve them. With that, I would like to open for review of the report and again , pushing against the II7:00 deadline, our summary will be somewhat brief but we'll go into details as questions arise also. There is also a sign up sheet that we're passing around so if you haven ' t gotten it, please sign up. II 1 I so • Bill Engelhardt: As Gary mentioned, our task was to do the Teton Lane connection and alternates that could be generated to serve as a third access point for the Curry Farms development second phase. The report looked at three different alternatives. Alternative 1 and 2 deal with Teton Lane itself and the third alternative was created for an access onto CR 17 to bypass Teton Lane. As we went through Alternative 1, we discussed what would happen if Teton Lane was improved to a full developed pass. In other words, we take the 33 foot right-of-way over, acquire an additional 17 feet 1 of right-of-way and get a 50 foot right-of-way to meet city standards and install a bituminous street with curb and gutter and as such, we install a full depth street section you also install the utilities that go along with it. The utilities that go along with it are sanitary sewer and watermain. I Those facilities then would service the property land in the Curry Farm development. Alternative 2 addresses solving some of our concerns that Teton Lane where we would basically regrade to a minor extent, even it out a little bit, taking the highs and lows out. Even out Teton Lane. Put on a bituminous mat utilizing the 33 feet of right-of-way or acquiring the 33 feet of right-of-way and utilizing that 33 feet to put in a 24 foot street which is a typical rural section roadway. Rural section has ditches on it and bituminous mat for the driving surface. It's easier to maintain and eliminates the pot holing and the constant maintenance problems you have when you have to go out there with a -grader all the time but in looking at the ditch section or the type of roadway that goes in a rural section, we felt that in order to carry grading, maintain grading patterns it would be more appropriate to put in what we call a modified urban section. We use bituminous curb with about 4 inch bituminous lip on the end of the road that rolls up and is matched into the existing property and in this case a bituminous curb will be placed on the boulevard setting and then dropped off from there. The reason for the bituminous curb is just carrying the I drainage in the street versus carrying it in the ditch section. Resident : Where would the drainage go? I Bill Engelhardt: If I remember correctly, there is a split in the drainage right about in this area. There's a high point in this road and this drainage from that high point goes to the north from the high point to the south and we're recommending that as a part of this development , in the second phase that additional storm sewer be put in and that drainage be carried through the storm sewer to a ponding area . Resident: On the other side? Bill Engelhardt: On the north it would go up to Lilac Lane, make it across at this point and then come down to Lilac Lane. You do find that during your heavier storms, I won't even say heavy storms, during yours 2 to 1 inch rainfall, that water is going to cross at this point and then run to the north. I think what we have to do is put in vegetation at this area to take care of that drainage so we don' t have it washing down and crossing the property to the north so that would be part of that . Resident: So a catch basin will be a part of that? Bill Engelhardt: No, a catch basin is actually a structure that has what you call a cap or grate on top of it with a groove in it where the water flows in and then is taken by pipe along here and then down into this 2 1 I .. drainage area. IIResident : . . .would you make one there? I Bill Engelhardt: We would have to make one. It doesn't have to be 4 or 5 feet deep. It just has to be a swale that the water makes a path. Alternate 2 with a modified street section where we have a driveable II surface, a blacktop surface, which is easier to maintain for the city, but it does not go as far, to the extent where we have to put in curb and gutter and the gullies and this type of thing. Alternate 3, would do a section of II roadway that would connect Curry Farms development with CR 17 at approximately this location. We sent the study to Carver County Highway Department. Their engineer has reviewed it and they feel that, this is a schematic of where the actual location will go. We try to spot it as best Iwe could out in the field in getting your sight distances along CR 17 and their recommendations came back and said this may have to be pulled like 20 feet to 30 feet to the north. Well, the line weight on a map like this II could 10 feet off. We're real close to where the approximate location is but it's not exactly clear... Alternate 3 addresses the completely separate connection with no regard to Teton Lane. Have it surfaced road and that way curb and gutter , the road would be graded in to meet city standards and I Idon't believe there would be any tilling required in it but it would be a complete road section. As part of Carver County's review, they wanted a turn lane. They would require the main access is on the major county road II they now require a turn lane so this road would have a turn lane and I would suspect that it would have some sort of a passing lane on the other side too. IResident : Would Lilac Lane require that also? Bill Engelhardt: If Lilac Lane was upgraded, yes it would but as it stands II if it ' s an existing connection then it would not. Resident: Does the other one off of CR 17 require a turn lane? IIBill Engelhardt: I would imagine so. Curry Farms can speak to that. It's something that the Highway Department, Carver County has looked at. IResident : What are the speeds . . . Resident: Was Hennepin County approached on Lilac because it is in Hennepin ICounty. Bill Engelhardt: No it wasn ' t . IResident : So we don ' t know if a turn lane is required or not? Bill Engelhardt: No. Getting back to Alternate 3, as a part of this - Ialternate we felt that as Teton Lane exists now, it's a private easement area and the Smith property has direct access to Lilac Lane and I can't say that I drove in this driveway but it appeared that the driveway went this II direction? Your driveway comes off of Lilac, I was pretty certain that was the way it was. Your driveway comes off of Lilac but you do have access to your property. The Foley property, the ...and this piece of property, the IIShack and Carlsons access onto this Road G. In particular the Foley 3 II as t\ property we felt that if this alternate would go through that the driveway should be created for the Foley property so that can access out this direction also and that Lilac Lane no longer functions as a roadway. Resident: Road H there, we' ll be served by H. , Bill Engelhardt : You would have to be served by H and they would have to come out this way. ' Resident: At what point do you consider, and the City requires a northern access , they would acquire the road under. . . Gary Warren: Centex has the option to buy, p y, if I can speak for Tom here and buy the road . Resident: When do we know who the owner of this remaining piece, assuming you went number 3? Gary Warren: I would say once the City accepts the feasibility study and confirms the access . Resident: If you did confirm the access through Lilac and Teton, you i confirm number 3, then what happens? Bill Engelhardt: My opinion is that it would remain in the Carlson, under their ownership and they could use it however they like. If you had an easement over that piece of property you would still have your rights but I'm not an attorney so I can't tell you exactly how it would happen but as long as you have that legal document saying that you have the right to use that road, I don't think that can be taken away from you even it does change hands, it will still an easement on your title. It's not an easement that's directed to you personally. It's directed to that property so that property always has the right to use that area . Resident: Would that change for . . .? ' Bill Engelhardt : Probably not but I think what we would do is we would have to arrive at some kind of agreement with these people that they would use this new road and that they would block off at that point so you don't have through traffic through there. The intent would be that this would then, you would still have your right to use that but . . . Resident: We don' t have an easement there. Bill Engelhardt: You would have to block this off because we're providing that new access and that completely eliminates the use of Teton. It no longer functions as a roadway and it would not function as a roadway until such time as maybe this piece of property would be built. Resident : Mr . Carlson is the owner of that . Resident: This is the crux I think of the question is we understand the agreement with the developer and Mr. Carlson has said that he will not sellt hem a portion of the road period. Only the entire road. The question is if Road G has to be built, Road G has to be built so regardless of what happens 4 ( , . and what access is used, it doesn't make any difference. The road, the II entire length of Teton Lane is still going to come under the ownership of the developer or Curry Farms or whoever and when is that going to take place? Is that going to take place on approval of the northern half of that I plat because I think people at that time are concerned about until the improvements are made, either on Teton or the Alternate 3, who owns that road after the northern half of the plat is approved? IIBill Engelhardt: Maybe Centex can address that. Tom Boyce : Mr. Carlson owns all of the road really up to Franco's Iproperty. He also owns the property up in here. We're trying to get across here. Mr. Carlson is not interested in selling part of his road and frankly it would be quite an expense. If I were him , I wouldn't want to own a road II over here and have everyone else have an access that it would be my responsibility to attend or liability that goes along with it so if everything works right and the alternatives involve Centex and involve Mr. II Carlson and I'm sure the neighbors and City Council... We prefer basically Alternate 1 and at that time basically when the plat is approved, I don't know the exact timing before the plat's approved or after the plat's II approved...a matter of a couple days we would dedicate it back to the City so at that point it would become, can it right-of-way. Jim Donovan: Is there any chance of Carlson selling it in sections? In II other words , selling you part and selling the other owners the other part of it so he's out of it completely and doing away with Teton Lane. Making it totally a driveway out of there like you stated before to come out onto Road G and then out to Road E? I don't use it. I'm never going to use it. 1 Bill Engelhardt: The only way that would happen is for Centex to buy make their purchase agreement with purcnase with the Carlsons and then it or 1 people if they want it and then sell the balance off to whoever wanted it. Jim Donovan : Then redo the property so the road does not exist? IBill Engelhardt: That's right. Then you can extend the property lines out and the road would not exist. That's basically what we're saying under Alternate 3 that if we go with Alternate 3 , somehow we want to get rid of ITeton Lane. We don't want to have to maintain it. We don't want to have the problems associated with it. IJim Donovan: I'm saying none of us have ever been given the opportunity to say that well , if Carlson will only sell part to Centex , will he sell part to Tony or . . . IIGary Warren : He wants to get out from underneath the road . Jim Donovan: I can understand that but if he sells part to Centex and then Ihe would sell part to us , that would solve all the problems because Lilac Lane would no longer exist as long as Teton and Alternate 3 was done because then he would have the Foley' s coming out onto Road G. IGary Warren: One of the problems we have with it is , we' re looking at a considerable of cost here and effectively have a 20 lot cul-de-sac still and IIto be honest with you , the 21 lots right now have been marked on the road 5 II se then same way. Jim Donovan: But also you're saying that the people up here are h P P P the ones that are going to eventually pay the burden of the utilities of going in on that. , Gary Warren : If this road stayed as a roadway and at some point in the future these lots were divided, whatever, you would have to put utilities in. The municipality has the responsibility. . . Jim Donovan: Understood but we're saying that the present owners would now bear the burden where these people in Curry Farms would have the benefit. We would not have the benefit because we're not developing. It wouldn't matter whether we had developed or not developed. You're saying that eventually this thing is going to be made into a roadway because a 2 inch I blacktop is not going to handle the situation. You're going to have 210 to 230 cars a day coming over there to Curry Farms. Bill Engelhardt: What I'm saying is, I disagree with that. If the roadway II has been structured properly with the proper base, a 2 inch bituminous mat will carry that traffic. Jim Donovan: The purchase of the road would solve all problems. Bill Engelhardt: We would like to see that but in lieu of that happening, that's why in my recommendation in my report was going with Alternate 2, it kept the cost down for the people that are not benefitting from this road . Alternate 2 says that the cost for upgrading this with a 2 inch mat be born by the developer, Curry Farms. That goes to the full development stage and this property was split into lots and they had access onto it, this property is split and this property is split, then they have benefit for the full development. Jim Donovan: You're saying that the town will never ask us to bear the burden of storm sewers and anything else as long as we do not develop our properties here? Bill Engelhardt : That ' s basically what I 'm saying . Resident: Is it not true that all it takes to get the village to do the improvement in Alternate 2 is a petition of the taxpayers? Bill Engelhardt : That ' s true. Resident: Supposing that 21 people down in Curry Farms decide that they wanted that road upgraded and petitioned for it, where would that leave the rest of us? Gary Warren: The assessment process that you heard, can be motivated or initiated by any petition from anybody for that matter. The City Council would have to choose to accept the petition and authorize a feasibility study. This feasibility study shouldn't be confused with that process. They also addressed the same issue. This is not to determine accessibility or anything as far as the benefit. This is just to address the access question. Take your example, say 5 people from the Centex development 6 • I petitioned the City to improve Teton Lane, there would be a hard look I guess at seeing who's benefitting from it. That's always a key issue up front as to whether we accept a feasibility and quite honestly, for whatever reason the Council decides that yes, I think Teton Lane should be improved I and we have a petition of from people down at Centex , the cost of the improvement will ultimately spread across to the people in that area that are petitioning for the improvement. A broader look would be taken at Iwho really benefits and not. Resident: When you say spread, does that imply we would still assess the abutting landowners? IGary Warren: You would definitely be a benefitting property owner from the fact that it abuts your property. IResident: That's what I'm saying. No matter who does it... I don't understand why the abutting property owners . . . IBill Engelhardt: Not for the full amount though but you are responsibility for what's in front of your property and more area and more lots it spread against, the less it would be. It wouldn't go strictly against each Iproperty but you would still have benefit. Resident: Let's assume we go with Alternate 1 and all the property owners Iremain as it is right now, how many units would be on that assessment of $103 , 000. 00? Bill Engelhardt : We looked at for the road , 42 units where Centex would be Iassessed 21 lots as a part of the road cost. The sewer and water was strictly against the abutting property owners. These people in this particular development have their own sewer, would have their own sewer and Iwater. They would retain it through their lot cost so the sewer and water is strictly from say this point to the north and that would be assessed on a unit basis against the property. Again, the street itself, if we did consider 21 units within this development . . . IResident: I have a quick question about that. I was real confused when I was reading about this. We have sewer and water to our property and I don't Iunderstand why I have to be assessed for sewer and water . Bill Engelhardt: If you have one house and you have one connection, you Ihave enough frontage where you would be eligible. The way we determine the units , you have to have some basis to start and what we say is that the minimum lot size is 15 , 000 square feet with 90 feet of frontage so that' s where you develop your base on a unit level so if you have 180 feet of Ifrontage, you would be able to subdivide this property into two 15, 000 square feet. IResident: Even if I can't by city code subdivide it into two properties? My house is pretty much right in the middle of my property. There's no way I could get two houses on there . IBill Engelhardt : That ' s something that has to be looked at first . IResident: So that would take a closer look so in other words, I could 7 I MI eventually not be billed? Bill Engelhardt : That ' s possible. Mr. Cameron : What I want to know is , now you said the sewer will come up to Road H. Bill Engelhardt : Can I ask you what your name is? ' Mr. Cameron: Cameron. We don 't have a choice. Gary Warren : Not to deflect the issue here but the assessments and the actual sanitary sewer and storm sewer system as a part of Alternate 1, we asked Bill to look at that and that is the ultimate development situation for those properties there. It's something that Mr. Donovan has expressed his views of not ever developing what he owns. It's something that's maybe a point for the future. The roadway improvement really is, in a case of point right here that. . . I Jim Donovan: My land is being put into a trust, a 99 year trust so that it won ' t be developed. — Bill Engelhardt: But like Gary said, we have to include everything. I'm not speaking about the land but as far as looking at the improvements that would have to go in under that scenario. You would have to include yours in if we did do it. Resident: In planning for the future, including everything, can't you give us a rough estimate, assuming we went number 1. . . Bill Engelhardt: I'm sure if you went to Mr. Carlson and said here, we want to spend $5,000.00 and fix the roadway, he'd say fine, go ahead. ' Gary Warren: At that point we've gone over and over and over who's using the road and the condition of it. I think the key point is that it's not a public road so any maintenance that the city has done, which we have done some in the past. . . Resident : I was trying to find out because those of us who do use it are going to have to provide some minimal work done at least until that time and that's what I wanted to know. I do think those of us who use it should bear some cost. I think minimal cost if it's going to be changed in a year, we should do it but we have to plan for the winter or some of us are going to sit in our houses from November until May. Bill Engelhardt : That's why we were kind of trying to get at two different ' issues here. One was to get you people in and out in a comfortable manner and get the city to start maintaining the thing and the other issue is to get the third access for the subdivision without having to go to an extreme cost for everybody and that was the whole thrust of the thing . Resident: Let me pose a hypothetical and see if you can give me an answer to it. If the road dedication is accepted based on Alternate 2, minimal upgrading of the road , when would the road be accepted by the City and when the improvements be made? 8 I • IBill Engelhardt : I maybe can answer that and Gary correct me if I 'm wrong , but what I would think would happen on this , as soon as the development agreement was signed on the second phase, that Centex would then, if they Ihad purchased that, they would then dedicate to the City and the City would have to start taking care of it. I Tom Boyce: ...I'm proposing the same thing really up here. I guess if the cost, we're all getting...and if everything goes alright I would guess we'll be in sometime this winter and then right away in the spring, we'll probably start grading so I think the first thing we'll probably do is to go in there Iand...will be dedicated to the City. By the same token, maybe we could go in and grade Teton right away and put the rock down, put the asphalt down and basically close it off except for everybody using it as an access. Then II would leave it alone. I would assume also that the developer has a one or two year warranty period...so it's in our best interest to keep the traffic out of there. . . IResident: I'm also interested in that. I've been there 25 years and in that time that area in there, it seems like the snow comes and just hauls Iin. I've seen it as high as 4 feet of snow where they had to bring in a gravel truck with a deep plow in order to get us out of there and that's how bad it can get. I'm thinking this winter if nobody is going to plow that snow, how are we going to get in and out of there. Helicopter in and feed Ius? Somebody' s going to have to do something about it . Gary Warren: Who plows it? IResident : Carlson . Gary Warren : Do you pay him for that? IResident: No and that's why I don't have any terrible objection to this. I just want to get this established because we've got to lay some lines for Iwinter. ...I have spent 3 days trapped in our house when the plow came and took our deposit early in the year and then when the first snow fall fell did not return our calls so I said, did I forget to tell you I'm not plowing this year and at that point we were trapped probably in that house for 3 Idays. Now, I don't want to go through that again. All I wanted to do was find out where the responsibility is , what the timing is and is our resopnsibility or Carlson ' s , that ' s all I want to do . Gary Warren: I think Tom gave you a good scenario of that. As soon as it's paved and the City is provided with acceptable paving, we would take over. IResident: I think one of the big concerns I have as I read the feasibility study as I went through it line by line and I was really surprised at the way the feasibility study came out. It appeared to come out exactly the way I the City staff wanted it to come out and it appeared to come out that the developer is the least cost to the developer and the surrounding neighborhood is going to have to bear the brunt of everything. Whether it - Ibe provided by Teton Lane. As a matter of fact, Lilac Lane wasn't even addressed and the cost of...was never addressed and the big thing that really hit me was that the recommendation had Teton Lane upgraded to a rural Iroad with 200 and some trips a day, some of the problems that occurred on 9 I • Teton Lane prior to this development, because there were several trips a day through the stables, some of the things, if they were addressed they were never stated in the feasibility study. An actual direct comparison on the advantages or improvements or decreasing or however it would be affected. The general safety of the neighborhood affected by going Teton Lane, there is absolutely no address, nothing in there to the safety of pedestrians in there and kids. There is absolutely nothing addressed to side... There was nothing addressed to the vertical and horizontal sight distance problems which Teton Lane coming into Lilac Lane and just exactly what's been discussed here in the last couple minutes. The winter conditions on Lilac Lane to Teton Lane for access for emergency and just for the general population access. It's difficult enough as it is and there's going to be no improvement of that, there's going to be made slippery. I live right close to Teton and so far I've had two cars come over the embankment and down over about a 6 foot or 5 foot wall in my yard. There's nothing to address that. Nothing to address those steep approach grades. No comparison on the three different alternatives, what effect they're going to have. There was no discussion as to the impact on the quality of the neighborhood as far as the increased traffic and the speeder traffic. They've been able to go fairly slow because the condition of Teton Lane. If that's paved, that will be a 40 mph highway up there and that's a very, very abrupt and very sharp turns and -virtually no sight distance to the south and east onto Lilac Lane which is where the access road and there's been nothing addressed as to how that's going to be solved and how much of their property is going to be taken to improve those sight distances. If Teton is upgraded to a road, then some of those things are going to have to be addressed. There was nothing addressed in the feasibility study as to what the cost is going to be the non-benefitting property owners. Namely those on Lilac Lane. There was nothing addressed to the, no one came and asked anybody their opinion on what their concerns were in the neighborhood that we were able to discover. I don't know if anybody here ever spoke to anyone during the feasibility study. I know I never did and nobody I talked II to so far. The only real thing that was addressed in the feasibility study was the cost benefits to the developer and I personally feel that all the other things should have come prior to that. I think that because of that, my personal opinion is , I don't know how anybody can come to a bottom line on this feasibility study and recommend the rural improvement of Teton Lane only because it only costs the developer $16,000.00 and everybody else is going to have to bear the brunt of any repercussions of that improvement of the neighborhood when all that number 3 is going to provide is a safer , shorter and less costly access route for the people that are not benefitted by the development of Curry Farms . , Bill Engelhardt: I'm not going to say that all those things are in there. A lot of it has been given, let me put it that way and given is, let's say the assessments. Assessments for benefitting property. Your Mr. Simcox who live in Shorewood and live on the north side of the road, we can't determine that there's any benefit to him. We have no benefit so you can' t get assessed. If Lilac Lane was in the future developed and what we're saying is that's so far down the road, we can't even put a number on that, what it's going to be. As far as the safety issues, you have to keep in mind - that you're not looking at a major collector road. You're not looking at a freeway or something like that. You're looking at a typical residential street. A typical residential street by state statute has a 30 mph speed limit. If somebody drives 40 on it, the police department can tag them. 10 Im I . 'I'm telling you we can't do anything about it other than post it and saying IIthat by State Statute that ' s the speed limit. Resident : We ' re the people who live there have the experience. IIBill Engelhardt: I know. It happens in front of my street where I live. I see people drive 4f0 mph but from a safety issue standpoint, it's the 30 mph Ispeed limit. From a pedestrian standpoint, you're not putting any sidewalks in. None of the roadways in this development have sidewalks. That's how you address the issues like building walkways, sidewalks and paths. Without that it would be no different than any other residential street that you Ihave in Chanhassen. Your question about a 50 foot road, no. These are not 50 foot roads. These are 50 foot right-of-ways. The roadway is I believe 28 feet from back of curb or back part of gutter to gutter . IResident : . . .on Teton? Bill Engelhardt: Teton right-of-way or easement is 33 feet. The proposed 11 street section to go in at this point is 24 feet which is a standard rural section for the City of Chanhassen. Where you have a rural development you have 24 feet of blacktop. When you have curb and gutter you have to widened Ithat out to 28 feet and you don't have- any sidewalks so you have, from a safety standpoint pedestrian and bicyclists and the only way you're going to address that is by requiring sidewalks and walkways and that so those are Ikind of given too. As far as the obtaining of land, there's no question that when you're constructing a new street of the nature of this one, this is going to have better sight distance on it because you're going to be filling. There's substantial grading in here that has to be filled. You Ihave to have a minimum grade of 7% coming in to the hill. There is substantial fill. This is obviously going to be cleaner, brand new street. You're not going to have the vegetation that's been growing there for the IIlast 20 years so that ' s another given . Here you ' re going to have it . Resident: Are you going to take it off up there or leave it? IBill Engelhardt: You do it to an extent. You don't go in and clear cut it. You get the appropriate sight distance. When I've parked by car at Lilac, there was some obstruction in this area and that might have to be cleaned Iout but you try in the existing area to cut it back to a minimum. You don't go in and clear cut. As far as acquiring rignt-of-way to widened this out, here at Lilac already has . . . Resident: There's nothing directed at the cost of that. In one portion of I the study it says it would be dedicated and another portion it would be acquired . IBill Engelhardt: Let me clear it up. If Teton Lane, if that proposal number 2 goes in or for that matter even Alternate 1, the property would be Iacquired be given to the City the 33 feet be given to the City as public right-of-way. In order to establish that, let's go back to Alternate 1. In order to put the full development plan in, I'm saying that yes, you have to - II go out and acquire that additional 17 feet. You must acquire that and the City must go to Mr. Donovan and acquire that piece of property. If he's not willing to sell that piece of property, then the City has to use their right Iof eminent domain to acquire that piece of property and it must have the 50 11 II k foot right-of-way. If you don't do that, if you stay with the 33 feet on Alternate 2, I'm saying that by putting the bituminous curbs on, you do not I need a 50 foot right-of-way in order to construct ditches to drain. That you can narrow that down and put a 24 foot bituminous roadway within that 33 feet of right-of-way. ' Resident: Final question. Why is it so clearly stated that Alternate 3 is the most costly of the three but when actually a large portion of the cost for Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 are not even addressed? Present and future costs aren't even addressed in the study and yet Alternate 3, which the bottom line says $72 , 400. 00. . . Bill Engelhardt: That is actually correct and it's just a statement is all it is. When you're comparing what we're comparing it to, this Alternate is the most costly. ' Resident: But the developer isn't the one that's going to benefit of that. The developer, we are not going to benefit from Teton Lane. Resident : My concern is the City Council is going to read this and assume that this is correct and make a decision based on that and the fact is, the Alternate 3 is not the most costly. -- Bill Engelhardt : That's a good comment and if we need to modify that we can do that. I Resident : Centex purchased that property, is that not a possibility? Bill Engelhardt: Well, if you look at their plat and maybe they did. I can't tell if they did or not but if you look at this and they've got their lots , they will eliminate one lot in this area and you would have to acquire right-of-way here. Let me get back to one point about comparing costs and I guess I feel that I did have the cost apples. to apples because when I'm saying that this cost right here is $72,000.00 as compared to the improvement cost up here, leaving out the right-of-way costs. In this particular cost I didn't add in the lost of this piece of property. This is II a lost. That could be added in. The City of Chanhassen owns this piece of property. They could sell that to the developer and I left that out. So I think that the cost has been compared fairly close. ' Mr. Ware: I would like Alternate 3, if you bought the damn road. Give it to Centex and they can pile up their sand and go out on CR 17 . ' Resident : Is sewer and water south from Lilac Lane on CR 17 in? Gary Warren: . . . the sewer stops at about Pleasant View Road . Resident : So we ' re dealing on all of the road on proposal number 3 . Resident: I would like to know how Centex feels about this. Theoretically at least they're going to wind up with ownership of the road because they have an option to buy. If I understand correctly, Carlson himself, through a little coaltion of people... Centex would then have it within their right to say, sorry, we're not going to sell to you. So if you just wanted to go and not build, you could just refuse to sell to us so how does the developer 12 I C feel about Alternate 3? IITom Boyce: My feelings about Alternate 3 are a couple. We looked at Alternate 3. You remember after we picked our first neighborhood meeting, I I think you were at it and we looked at purchasing enough property here to make the improvements along there so we've actually get some benefit of some lots along there because for one thing, it's fairly hilly in there. There's II some fill and there's some woods and I don't know a lot of the property to be honest with you, right in here in particular is buildable. Resident: What happens in Alternate to the people through there? Who's 1 going to own that city of Chanhassen piece? Gary Warren: The City owns it right now unless we worked out as a part of IIthe dedication easement but made no signed commitment. Resident: Even if you put the road through, the City would still maintain ownership of that property or you could give it to them? 11 Resident: At that point you've got a road on my south line, you've got a II12 foot dike on my back line and now you're got a lot on my north line. By that time, you're better figure on buying my place. I'm going to have them all around , all sides of me and that ' s too much. I Tom Boyce: We looked at this and the City Council's concern and ours as well was to adequately give this property adequate fire and safety protection so the City doesn't have to constantly maintain a long cul-de- sac, there should be a connection here. There are 20 or 22 lots up in this Iarea. One of the problems we've got with Alternate 3 is, the reason we got into this was to give us ultimate access. We still haveb't given this area ultimate access really. I don't think it's really acceptable for the City Ito build this road to get Alternate 3 . Resident: But we don't forget Alternate 3. Does the City still have rights IIto that? Is it still inbetween the lots? Tom Boyce: I think so. Now we've got, like Bill pointed out, a long cul- de-sac. IGary Warren: Just to speak my personal opinion, that what I heard earlier seemed to me to have a lot of potential and that is , to work out our sale of ITeton Lane to the north with a combination of purchasers. Not just Centex and look at Alternate 3 as the viable connection. We also, we're looked at the northern half of the plat and I guess we look at an access obviously IIfrom the whole thing and Alternate 3 does have some improvements for access to the south that can ' t be ignored also . Resident: Would the developer sell people the property of the same size I that he has . ll Tom Boyce: If I've got to put in this road , I can' t afford to sell that much. IIResident: You can't afford to maintain it either you can get access to that northwest access , though. There's no way I 13 II C 1 Tom Boyce: We've got an easement across there too and everybody else in the room has an easement, so do we. Resident: To be truthful about this, the City and Metropolitan Council, ' and ...those have to built there without sewer access and what's really going to happen is. Tom Boyce: We've got sewer . Resident: If the City is going to allow you to access across a gravel easement for that portion, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What you had said and what Carlson had said is that he wasn' t going to allow you access across there without the buying the entire road . Tom Boyce: It doesn't make sense to have too many houses in there on the cul-de-sac. That property were all subdivided, you would have the same problem. Jim Donovan: Don't even bring that into your thinking. There is thing as development of this land. g no such Resident: Do I understand that Alternate 3 does not align with Alternate 3? Just that portion, the cost that you had in the study was $72,000.00 to develop that. That does not take into account the lost of the sale of the house. So if you want to stay, you have to do that for the northern 800 feet of Teton Lane, you're going to ask a like amount to pick up your expenses down there, is that correct? Tom Boyce: Right . Resident: In other words, what you really want to do is spend $16,000.00 , instead of $72,000.00 and then the neighbors will pay is basically what it boils down to . Tom Boyce: Also, don't forget if Alternate 3 goes in, we're getting access. There's no doubt about that. There's also another row of people here who are going to have access . Resident: What would be the circumstances of the City accepting a fully dedicated Teton Lane? In other words, you build at full cost, sewer, water and a whole road , the whole ballgame down to the end of Lilac Lane. He doesn' t want to do it one way and we do it the other way so we' re caught with your holding a contract with Mr. Carlson. 10 years from now when they get the sewer. My concern is planning for the future. What's going to happen. Resident : What ' s going to happen say 10 years from today. . . Bill Engelhardt: You've got keep in mind but their primary access is through the development . Resident: That ' s a lot of baloney. Bill Engelhardt: The thing is, Mr. Donovan has sat here and told us that 14 I - he ' s got a 99 year trust. IGary Warren: As I commented earlier, the etition in deem that the Council will approve n itself does not pprove or accept the I recommendation to go into the feasibility step. Consideration of what we're kicking around right here would be very significant. Parts of the rationale if we want to go ahead and do that but the same as what you're saying here, the property owner who buys Lot 11 here out of Curry Farms 2nd Addition who buys a house in Stratford Hills is looking for any additional settlement. Resident: I guess one of my concerns is, we just bought the house right in here. ...down on a nice quiet deadend street and we really felt, I know this has nothing to do with the money, but it's a nice quaint neighborhood. I It had a rural feeling . There was no traffic . Only residential traffic . Resident: We've lived there ever since...We just like it the way it is. We've lived here for many years and we like it without 200 cars a day coming down Lilac Lane and trying to get up in this vicinity. IResident: Who is going to buy that 56 acres for the he sole purpose of keeping it rural anyway? The liklihood of that is pretty remote. The person who 1 tried to do it, as I understand it, 11-ad a tax struggle and couldn't anyway and that' s why she sold it. IGary Warren: When you're living within what we call the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and when you're living in zoned single family areas, it's a development pressure that you feel. Every plat that comes through the door here that we have to look at, it's a combination of we've lived here for so Imany years and then somebody comes in and wants to develop and everybody has their rights. IResident: I don't mind the development going in. That's not the issue. My issue is, if they're going to put the development in, why can't they just access off of the development . . . IResident : When is the City going to talk to Shorewood about that Lilac Lane? I'm concerned about what will happen there. We anticipate that Vickers will proably get their piece taken at such time as that Lilac Lane. II know it ' s 10 years down the road . . . Bill Engelhardt: I don't even want to say lU years but I think you've got I to remember that you say Vickers are going to have their land taken, that's an incorrect assumption . Resident: ...know Shorewood what they intend to do. Are they going to Irequire - Simcox's on the corner to provide us with a turn lane? I think it would be helpful for us to know that and to have those costs included in what we're looking at here. In the past, Shorewood/Hennepin County so Iyou ' re going to have a little competition up there with snowplows . Bill Engelhardt: No, it's very common to have a sharing of a street between - Imuncipalities. In other words, West 82nd Street, a street in Chaska. They plow part the west half . . . IResident : I'm well aware of that. They do all their turning down at the 15 I I. bottom of Town Line Road. Turning back and forth. That's my concern there is there going to be any cooperation. . . Bill Engelhardt: We keep going back to Alternate 1 and I prefer to stay away from Alternate 1 because I don't think that's appropriate. It's , something we had to address to give you a base but full development, modified development and alternate access. As far as I'm concerned, the Alternate 1 full development is not practical. Is not something that should be done. Resident: I think if that's not feasible, then that shouldn't even be put to a vote. I Resident: If you took this, what 5 property owners there, if you got sewer and water there, would there be a problem getting access for sewer and water? Resident: We've got it. On the east side by CR 17, you've got it on Carver County, somebody else owns that. Resident: On Alternate 3, you talk about you have to grade that road for the proper drainage and probably install a catch basin up there, now that existing catch basin, would that require taking some of Vicker's property for the swale? Bill Engelhardt: It would be on the other side. Resident: You mentioned that the point is that you get some input from this and we discuss and put it back on the agenda for final approval. I have been told that there is a process by which preliminary plat approval and it also can get final approval by just allowing a certain number of days to elapse and it doesn't even have to come back before the City Council. Some City Council's take advantage of that. Does Chanhassen take advantage of that or would this definitely come up for rediscussion before final approval? Bill Engelhardt: This is a condition of the original approval pproval of the preliminary plat to go through this process . Barbara Dacy: The only scenario that I think you could be thinking of, I think that is only in regards to if there has been no action taken by the Council on the preliminay plat. Then there is a time clock set by State Statue and I think it is 120 days but the Council has taken action as Gary said and has made it a condition. Resident: I was relieved to hear Donovan say that he and second generation , of his family aren't going to develop but I address a question in your feasibility study confuses me. On the last page under Road E it says that future development of the Donovan property will have to address access through the Ware property. What do you mean? Bill Engelhardt: What I'm saying that, and again that's Alternate 3 where this is disappeared. If you right now have your access this way and it may be all well and good that you're going to be there for the next 20 years and maybe after that 2nd generation that this gets developed, that somehow this 16 I 4 k P- i was developed, that if you ran a street up in here and cul-de-saced it, that 1 you would have to provide access . Resident : You haven ' t seen the other old road that goes down in there . IIBill Engelhardt: No. I'm just saying, you have to anticipate potential problems. I don't know if I answered all of your questions tonight but we II got a lot of good input from you people and we have about 10 minutes left I guess . Resident: There ' s something in here stating that , if Teton is . . . IIBill Engelhardt: You have to go back in and rededicate it and whoever owned it then would have to file a plat on it and open it up . IIGary Warren: As development or whatever would occur, it's likely that the Curry Farm area, those roads until a plat is approved and sketch out their lots and the land is dedicated or acquired, depending... Teton Lane could 1 very well go away completely with this scenario and that's why I'm telling . . . 1 Resident : What you ' re saying then is-Carlson can only sell to Curry Farms? Gary Warren: He has an option right now, or he has the first right of refusal on that . IIResident: What I'm saying is, if he sells in two sections, that way we don't have to buy your lot. I'm saying he can sell to the landowners there 1 plus . . . Bill Engelhardt: I was telling Gary too and Tom, that if Mr. Kerber might 1 not like this but if this piece of property was given to Curry Farms and they were able to develop lots where they ca.n offset their cost , then the cost for this would go down. What they' re trying to do is . . . 1 Resident : And losing number 15? Bill Engelhardt: 15 and 14 actually. They would have to shift this a little 1 bit so that you get one buildable site so I think they would lose one lot so you ' ve got the cost of the lot that you lose plus . . . IIResident: You ' re going to shift it and you ' re still not going to be able . . . Gary Warren: But maybe with the possibility of the other fragmented pieces of the City property. IResident : What kind of time table are we looking at for say the City Council to take action on this? y t y 1 Gary Warren: We're looking at, I've basically pulled it off Monday night's agenda because we wanted to get your input here and there wasn't enough time - 1 to take those thoughts and modify the report if appropriate and knowing the Council agendas, which are packed up here pretty heavily for the next several meetings, I would suspect we'll be getting it back on the agenda in the next 4 to 6 weeks and you will be notified of the exact time. II 17 I study. They would go out and do a study. They find out what the mean average of the speed limit is. Take for example that a majority of the cars are traveling 45 mph but it' s very difficult to get them to come down . Resident: Even with the amount of building. I guess what I would suggest ' with the amount of building happening along that road, that Chanhassen has no power to ask for the speed . . . Gary Warren: I think what you're seeing, as was commented earlier, the best the county is taking is the turn lanes. We have it on this development. We have it on Carver Beach Estates . Resident: That doesn' t reduce speed . Gary Warren: That's recognizing, I think the solution to speed is the sign enforcement and just having a patrol car out there. Resident: Does Chanhassen have any plans for the future of phasing out TH 5? I go from I-494 home one time at 4 : 00, it took me almost an hour to get home. Gary Warren: 1992 is the lastest plans for having TH 5... They're actually coming up with a busing plan. The first two phases of TH 5 expansion is out here to Wallace Lake or something and then from there, they're going to let it sit for a year while the U.S. Open happens and bus the Committee Chairman from the Los Angeles Olympic Committee. • I 1 i 1 I 1 1 I 19 11 II ., i i NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, TETON LANE FEASIBILITY STUDY THURSDAY, MARCH 3 , 1988 Gary Warren, City Engineer , called the meeting to order at 5 : 30 p.m. Staff present were: Gary Warren, City Engineer; Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Bill Engelhardt, Consultant. Homeowners present were: Tom Boyce, Centex Homes ' Mark Simcox, 21600 Lilac Lane, Shorewood, MN Donna Pickard, 1215 Lilac Lane Charlie Pickard, 1215 Lilac Lane Larry Kerber, 6420 Powers Blvd. Kathy Kerber, 6420 Powers Blvd. Frank and Florence Natoli , 6251 Teton Lane Deb and Ann Ware, 1225 Lilac Lane Jim Donovan, 1375 Lilac Lane Franco Loris, 6400 Teton Lane Gary Warren stated that the purpose of the meeting was to gain input from the neighborhood regarding the revised Teton Lane Feasibility Study. He stated that staff has not, as of yet, made ' a decision as to which alternative would be recommended since neighborhood and Centex input was desired prior to making that determination. He stated that he anticipates that the item ' would be scheduled for the City Council meeting on March 14 , 1988 . Barbara Dacy reviewed the status of the Centex development. She stated that the first phase is under construction and the second phase will begin pending the outcome of the Teton Lane Feasibility Study process. Bill Engelhardt gave an overview of the feasibility study describing each alternative and explaining the appendices included in the report. Mrs . Natole wanted clarification from Centex as to the purchase price of Teton Lane. She stated that she heard that the price was $200 ,000 and she felt that that was too much to split between four property owners . Mr. Boyce from Centex stated that the $200 , 000 figure is probably for the entire Carlson property which included the Teton Lane strip. Mr. Boyce stated that Centex prefers Alternative #2 . He stated that as another option that the City consider not allowing ' a third access at all, meaning that neither Alternative #2 nor Alternative #3 should be considered ( this would mean that the subdivision would act fully on the Phase I accesses to Powers ' Blvd. and Lake Lucy Road) . Gary Warren clarified that the City Council action in approving the preliminary plat was that the first phase development con- tained two access points ; however, the second phase was not TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MARCH 3 , 1988 PAGE 2 approved so that the feasibility study could analyze the secon- dary access issue. He stated that the Planning Commission and City Council adopted a condition that if the Teton Lane connec- tion is not part of the approved preliminary plat for the second phase, that the plat be taken back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Simcox stated that there were a number of ways to determine I the value of the Teton Lane roadway. He stated that there should be no way that property owners should be forced to pay something out of their price range. Engelhardt confirmed that it could either be done by an assessment procedure or by an appraisal method. He said that the last option would be to condemn the property and take public acquisition in that manner. He said that through the condemnation process the courts would establish the value of the property. Engelhardt stated that the best method would be to conduct an appraisal on the property to deter- mine it' s value. Gary Warren clarified that the term "assessment" may not be the best word in this case. He stated that the price of the land area for Teton Lane would be a subject of private negotiation. , Simcox stated that it should be clear from Centex as to exactly how much they pay in their purchase agreement for Teton Lane. Simcox stated that he felt that the value of the southern portion of Teton Lane would be considerably higher than the portion of Teton Lane on the north. Engelhardt cautioned that any type of valuations would be purely speculative at this point until an appraisal is conducted. Donna Pickard stated that the homeowners needed to know a price as to how much Teton Lane would cost to acquire. Tom Boyce from Centex stated that they did have a purchase I agreement executed with Mr. Carlson and that agreement also required Centex to do some other improvements for Mr. Carlson. He stated that another alternative for Centex would be not to come back and construct the final phase. Simcox stated that there was another buyer available to purchase the remaining property if the second phase was not constructed. Gary Warren asked Engelhardt about the summary of costs on page 3 , if Alternative #3 costs included Centex ' s cost for acquiring I the Teton Lane roadway. Engelhardt stated that it did not, nor did it include a cost for land acquisition for the City' s property. Gary Warren stated that if the City sold the Teton Lane property back to abutting property owners that this money could be used to help reimburse Centex for a portion of their expense to Carlson. . ' TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MARCH 3 , 1988 PAGE 3 ' Tom Boyce stated that the e purchase agreement with Carlson for ' Teton Lane was approximately $35 , 000 . Jim Donovan stated that it really comes down to two alternatives , #2 and #3 . He said that is obvious that Centex has a lot of investment in the first phase. He stated that Centex' s agreement with Carlson is to purchase the entire right-of-way portion. He said the next question becomes one of benefit. He stated that if ' Teton remains the way it is now the people that use the road can benefit from it and can maintain it as it is . Whereas, if Centex buys it and dedicates it to the city and a two inch mat is placed on the roadway, then the people from the Centex development can use it and then there is a possibility for a future assessment cost for maintenance. If Centex buys the entire Carlson property, he questioned why Centex couldn' t put the roadway in along Teton ' and instead of dedicating it to_ the city, give it to the abutting property owners . He stated, why not give Teton Lane to the homeowners before the access onto County Road 17 is built. Engelhardt clarified that the City Council as an option could determine that all three alternatives are not viable. If that is the case, then Centex would have to go back to the Planning Commission for re-evaluation of whether or not a third access is needed from the development. Donovan stated that he did not need Teton Lane to be developed. The people in Centex will benefit but the people that currently abut Teton Lane will not benefit. ' Gary Warren stated that alternative #2 , the intermediate option, was to recognize that Curry Farms did have some benefit to Teton Lane and should pay for the improvement of Teton Lane. He stated that in all fairness under alternative #1, Centex could not be required to make a full improvement because there are other prop- erties that would benefit from the full improvement, especially for sewer and water. Donna Pickard questioned why there was benefit to some of the property owners . She stated she could not understand how anybody would benefit. Engelhardt stated that the property value has to increase con- currently with the amount of the assessment. He stated that he was confident that this was the case using a 90-foot lot width and a 15 , 000 square foot lot. ' Gary Warren clarified that when the term benefit is used, it is used not only in reference to what existing conditions are but also what future conditions should be, for example, that the lot ' could be split in the future . Donna Pickard said that existing sewer and water services could • accommodate any type of future development on her property or the Donovan property. i TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MARCH 3 , 1988 PAGE 4 Engelhardt stated that the rules are that if the lot can be resub- • divided into 90-foot wide lots and 15, 000 square foot lots , that is the basis for assessment. A feasibility study would have to look at where existing sewer lines are and determine where future service would be required. He repeated that the purpose of alter- native #1 was for illustrative purposes only. , Simcox stated that none of the future costs of the alternatives are stated. i Ann Ware asked what the cost would be to challenge an assessment. Engelhardt stated that it could take as long as three years and I your costs would be based on how much your attorney would charge. Mr. Natole stated that under alternative #1 they were assessed for two units but their house is located in the middle of the lot. Engelhardt stated that he went strictly by road frontage. He stated that if the lot could not be split, the assessment would go down to one unit. Gary Warren clarified that the purpose of the study was to look at the access issues and not necessarily the feasibility study costs and assessment costs for a public improvement. Jim Donovan reiterated his request to have Centex deed the portion , of Teton Lane back to the property owners and not to the city. He felt that it would solve the city' s problem as it would not have another road to maintain. Engelhardt stated that would be up to the City Council to decide. Donovan stated that he wanted to be sure that staff understood the homeowners ' desires . Engelhardt stated that it could be included in the staff report. 1 Donovan stated that alternative #3 is his recommended option. Simcox stated that alternative #3 did not address the Cameron and Brancel properties . He stated that it did not show what future costs would be for future assessments to the Cameron, Carlson and Brancel properties. Gary Warren clarified that while there is no city policy for future road costs for 5 to 10 years in the future, he stated that the city is responsible for maintaining the road either through sealcoating or minor patchwork. He stated that if Teton Lane is improved via alternative #2 , that the city would be accepting , TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MARCH 3 , 1988 PAGE 5 maintenance responsibilities until any policy change would occur regarding upgrade of existing streets . ' Simcox stated that the Cameron/Brancel properties would appear to be attractive lots that would increase in value. Engelhardt clarified that the Cameron/Brancel property does not abut the proposed street in alternative #3 . He also stated that there were other outlots in and around that road which separated private owners from the roadway. He stated that there could be no direct benefit assessed. He also stated that the city' s property south of the proposed road in alternative #3 is proposed to be conveyed to Larry Kerber. This would depend on negotiations with the ' Kerbers . Gary Warren stated that Centex could buy the Cameron and Brancel I property and create some additional lots to reduce the cost of the road going through that area. Tom Boyce stated that Centex did evaluate that option. He stated ' that there would need to be a tremendous amount of grading to occur. He stated that the option was not financially feasible. Larry Kerber stated that he was confused about alternative #3 . He stated that in the report it said "conveyed" to Larry Kerber and "transferred" to Centex. He asked what the difference in terms were. Engelhardt stated that there was no difference in terminology. Kerber asked if he had to buy that property. ' Engelhardt responded that a value would have to be established by an appraisal. The city would have the option of conveying that property to Kerber at no direct cost. He stated that a drawback to this could be that other tax payers in the community could question the appropriateness of the city conveying city owned ' property to a private property owner at no cost. Donovan stated that it should not be an issue because the con- veyance of the properties will enable the increase in value of the propperty and allow them to be buildable lots which would generate taxes . Engelhardt agreed but stated that it is an option that the Council should be aware of and it would be up to them to determine the final value and the sale price. Mr. Natole questioned why his property was being assessed for two units under alternative #1 . He stated that there would be no way to split his property to the east. He would have to create a new road in order to split his property. TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MARCH 3 , 1988 PAGE 6 Engelhardt stated that there are options where road right-of-ways can be split along property lines. He said that it is not impossible to accomplish. I Gary Warren stated that the units in the report address frontage units . I Kathy Kerber asked where alternative #3 came from. Engelhardt stated that during the City Council meeting that the 1 Council directed staff to look at the access issue. Tom Boyce stated that Centex did look at that alternative origi- nally. He stated that when they evaluated that option, they would have to acquire the Cameron and Brancel property and to buy and develop it would not be financially feasible. Barb Dacy clarified that the recommendation for the third access was brought up at the City Council meeting on May 4 , 1987, at the request of Mr. Simcox. , Kathy Kerber asked why the third access is required. Engelhardt responded by saying that the city prefers to have a secondary access for public safety reasons and for free flow of traffic between neighborhoods. He stated that they could look at the no build alternative or no third access into the develop- ment. Larry Kerber stated that if no access is proposed, he stated that , he felt he would receive at least 50% more traffic on the road to the south. He stated that he felt that his original concerns were never addressed. Gary Warren stated that the do nothing alternative was always a consideration and would be mentioned in the staff report. Simcox asked what the staff recommendation would be. Gary Warren stated that staff had not made a decision at this , point and would evaluate the comments received at this meeting before making any recommendations . Simcox stated that the biggest concern to the homeowners was the , uncertainty of future costs in alternatives #1 and #2 . He stated that alternative #3 is more finite. Gary Warren stated that the biggest down side of alternative #3 is the amount of negoitations that have to occur in order for alternative #3 to be viable. 1 TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING MARCH 3 , 1988 PAGE 7 Simcox stated that alternative #3 should not be avoided just because there were a lot of items to be accomplished. Engelhardt stated that it was an unfair statement. He stated that staff was trying to point out that it is not a simple pro- cess and that it can be complicated. Simcox stated that those items should be specifically listed so that everyone understands what is required. Warren stated that it is difficult to get a handle on it until negotiations begin. ' Mr. Ware stated that they would recommend implementation of alternative #3 . Mrs. Ware stated that she was uncomfortable that the future costs of alternative #1 and #2 were not specifically identified. She was especially concerned about future impacts to Lilac Lane. Jim Donovan said that most of the people in the room were in favor of alternative #3 also. ' Tom Boyce from Centex asked the city to consider not conveying the southerly portion of the city' s property adjacent to the ' roadway to Larry Kerber. Larry Kerber wanted to know where the sewer lines were in County Road 17 . Warren stated that he had to check the plans for sure but there is sewer and water in the area. ' Mr. Pickard stated that the homeowners have to live with the traffic from the Centex development and the future costs are not ' defined at this point. He stated that it seemed unfair that the homeowners have no choice but to accept the traffic from this development. Warren stated that the area is zoned for 15 , 000 square foot lots and it is available to be resubdivided. Jim Donovan stated that the current property owners do not want to subdivide their lots any more. He stated that the property owners are the ones that have to live with the Centex development ' and do not benefit from the Teton Lane improvement. He stated that there is no way his property is going to be increased in value of $33 , 000 . Warren stated that that figure comes from alternative #1 and is for only an example. He also stated that if there were to be any MAYOR A Robert Rascop COUNCIL ,Vi:ttit Jan Haugen Kristi Stover y , C+{f�i'.�i ir1 ! Robert Gagne Barb Brancel , 3 CITY OF ADMINISTRATOR Daniel J. Vogt SHORE WOOD -t NNW • 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (6121474-3236 July 21, 1987 Mr. Don Ashworth City Manager City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Subject: Curry Farms Dear Don: 1 The City of Shorewood has been attempting to keep abreast of all of the development taking place in Chanhassen. By newspaper accounts, it appears as though the platting of property is taking place in very high numbers. I'm sure this is keeping you and your staff very busy. The Shorewood City Council has discussed such development especially that , which is near our common boundaries. As a general statement of concern, the City of Shorewood requests that the street systems within these developments be directed away from existing residential neighborhoods and , onto streets which are capable of increased traffic loads. This concern is immediately of importance to Shorewood regarding the Curry Farms Development. It is our desire that if a reasonable alternative exists to direct traffic to County Road 17 (Powers Bouidevard) rather than using Teton Lane to Lilac Lane, this alternative should be used. This would then direct traffic away from the existing residential neighborhood as previously mentioned. I hope that you can understand our concerns regarding the prospect of increasing traffic in existing residential neighborhoods. Rest assured that our Planning Department will consider these same concerns when we have similar Development proposals in Shorewood which abut Chanhassen. ' Please contact me if you wish to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, ' CITY OF SIiOPEWOpll Daniel J. Vogt City Administrator cc: Brad Nielsen Barb Dacy ,-:,-Gary Warren Ann Ware Marc Simcox A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore II ( �____---- -r 1t 1 C-b . IITETON LANE and LILAC LANE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION II II Chanhassen City Hall 937-1900 Shorewood City Hall 474-3236 630 Ca�_i l t er Dr. 5755 Count Country C l u.�h Rd. Chanhassen Mn. 55317 Shorewood, Mn. 55331 II Chanhassen, Shr_,rewpr� Chanhassen Shorewood TO: Mayor' Tom Harni lton Robert Rascop I Council Jay Johnson Robert Gagne Bill Boyt Jan Haugen Dale Gevirig Kristi Stever IIClark Horn Barbara Brancel Planning Commission Ladd Conrad City Attorney Roger Knutson IICity Manager Don Ashworth Dan Vogt Public Safety Jim Castleberry City Engineer Gary Warren I Independent Engineer Bill Engelhardt Public Works Don Zdraz i l City Planner Barbara Dacy Brad Nielsen IISUBJECT: THE FUTURE USE OF TETON LANE and LILAC LANE IIThe Association wishes to cooperate with the appropriate public representatives and governing bodies which provide economically, I the safety, service and general environment of their respective communities. I We wish to inform you of our position and reasoning concerning the issue of Tetor, and Lilac Lanes as discussed at the May 4, 1987 Chanhassen City Council meeting. The issue is complex but we will be brief. The alternate access across the proposed Lot 15. II Block 3, and City land to Carver County road 17 provides shorter cut de sacs safer sight dist- ances and better aoproach grades. We support this alternative proposal made at the May 4th City IICouncil meeting. II II MI 1 BACKGROUND II The developer has proposed an 81 home development on the 56 acre site, to be known as "Curry Farms", and has received preliminary approval of a portion of that plan. The developer has purchased an opt ion on a privately owned road knowr, as Teton Lane, and proposes to deed that road, unimproved, to the City of Chanhassen. The City would then improve the road to municipal street standards providing the necessary third access to Curry Farms. The developer has stated to the Planning Commission and the City Council that they will not contribute money toward the maintenance or improvement of the road beyond the purchase of the tract. , The property owners in the general area of Teton and Lilac Lanes have formed the Teton and L i lam Lane Homeowners Association and are concerned for: 1 ) the safety in the neighborhood, `) loss of property to right of way, and 3) the associated cost burden for future improvements to Teton and Lilac Lanes. It is our positior, that a safer, and less costly alternative be constructed by the developer. Safety Considerations. The construction of a northern access from County Road 17 is safer than Teton and Lilac Lanes for a number of reasons. 1. Safer sight distances in both directions on County Road 17 11 than offered by Lilac Lane. G. Better approach grades than either Lilac or Teton Lane, both of which would require major adjustments to correct the existing steep grades and 90 degree intersections that are difficult to negotiate in bad weather. 3. Shorter cul de sac routes. 1 1 1 . 1 1 t II II Under the present plat proposal,_ the developer bears absolutely no cost for any maintenance or improvements t o Teton and Lilac Lames. II. The City Planning Department Staff directed the developer to incorporate Teton Lane as one of three accesses to the Curry Farms site. The plat presented to the City Council shows that II the developer will build the Southern access from Lake Lucy Road, the Eastern access from County Road 17 directly south of the Kerber property, but shifts all responsibility to maintain and/or I improve Teton and Lilac Lanes, as the Northern access route for Curry Farms, to the abutting property owners and the Cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood. L. The developer presented the purchase of the unimproved Teton Lane and its dedication to the City, as a generous "GIFT" to help the City solve the Teton Lane nuisance problem. The developer I firmly denied any intentions to make further monetary contributions toward maintenance or fut ure improvement costs required to create a third municipal street access to Curry II Farms. In fact, the developer had tried to purchase only the southern spur of Teton Lane. Only the southerrnost portion is needed for a crossover to access the northwest acreage of the II development. The present owner refused to sell the southern portion alone and insisted that the developer purchase the entire parcel. By dedication of Teton Lane to the City of Chanhassen the developer will 1) Be exempt from any short or long-term maintenance responsibility, 2) Very effectively shift the cost II for the Curry Farms northern access route to the City and the abutting property owners. At the May 4, 1987 Council meeting, Ccuunci lmember Gev i ng II questioned whether the dedication of an unimproved private road was truly a favor to the City of Chanhassen. It is a question that should be asked again. II4. The developer can construct a northern access to Curry Farms at no cost to the Cities or abutting property owners. This access would cross the developer' s Lot 15, Block 3 and property I presently owned by the City. This access will be north of a large wooded buffer for the Kerber property and connect to o Count y Road 17. IIThis alternative would not set a precident for the City to accept below standard dedications •requir;ing Cities and existing property I owners to pay for street improvements for the sole benefit of developers. II II ma ,Y 1 The costly improvement of Teton Lane is unnecessary. 1. The historical problems associated with Teto'r! Lane have resulted from traffic generated by the operation of a comercial horse boarding and riding stable which has operated under a conditional use permit granted by the City of Chanhassen. That operation has moved from the site. Traffic over Teton Lane is now diminished by more than 95% and consists of orn].y the trips made by the seven residents having easements over the road. E. Following the completion of the Curry Farms development, ( in approximately 2 to 4 years) , G of 7 property owners with easements over Teton Lane will directly front and be able to use the t . r str^rsets a!i thin the Curry Farms development for access to Count: Road 17 and Lid e Lucy Road. Only one property owner will continue t o use a s rn a l l �_r^d o p- 'n of Teton•n Lame. IF, AFTER REVIEWING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMISSIONED BY THE CITY, the City determines that Teton Lane, (and possibly Lilac Lane) , is to be improved, it is t he position of the Teton Lane and Lilac Lane Homeowners Association that all expenses connected with the maintenance of Teton Laney, and any future improvement to Teton and Lilac Lanes to provide adeauate northern access to Curry Farms,_ should be entirely the responsibility of the developer. The development of Curry Farms is the sole reason for any improvement to Teton and Lilac Lanes. Only the developer will make financial gains from improverients through the sale of lots and homes in the Curry Farms development. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 um ' . -- � THE TETON LANE & LILAC LANE HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION Chanhassen: Representive Contacts Shorewood: Ann Ware 474_69o2 N� Marc Simcox 474-5375 PROPERTY OWNERS IN CHANHASSEN N� ACCESS TO LILAC LANE Mr. 5&LMrs. C. Pickard 474-0821 Mr. & Mrs. L. Ware 474-6902 121 Lilac Lane ^ ^ - 1225 Lilac Lan E:celsior , MN 55��1 e � E'tcelsior , MN 55:31 Mr. & Mrs. J . Donovan 474-11.70 1:75 Lilac Lane - N� E:celsior , MN 55:7:1 PROPERTY OWNERS IN CHANHASSEN N� EASEMENT HOLDERS ON TETON LANE Mr. 1 � rs^ F. Natole 474-7622 Mr. D. Shac� Pit on H: 479 2159 625 Teton Lane - N� � ior , MN 55-�1 5062 Per� insville Rd. O: 546_�� iB �� � Maple Plain , MN 55:59 - Mr. B. Cameron H: 474-6447 Mr J Brancel F'l �asant Lane W. O: 8��'/-29/x/ 25�U5^ 5unnyv le Lane | on� a Bay , MN 55:-1 Shorewood' � , MN 553�1 N� M, . F r | ur is U: 474-2:57L3 !1r . � Mrs. 3 Reamer 474 4481 P. O./ /. �o,. �6� S. - [ �z,3r MN 5 ��1 6�80 Ttn Lane E cElsior , MN 55: 1 IL_ .J 11'1,0P1 ['T\( OWNI: KS IN SHOPFWuOb ALCEL,'` TO LILAC LANE Mrs . M. A. Simc�; 474-5775 2161)( LilcA Lane Shnrewood , MN 55:71 Mr . » Mrs. J . Br �r� kPimrr 474-8�5'' Mr � Mrs E. H t 21710 iil �c Lane ^ , ^' ^ a' m�'/ 474-6911 :Ai Pw' 'od MN ��� -1 ^ 178» Lilac Lane N� , � 6hu/ ewood , MN 55:2:1 PROF'ER'TY OWNER IN SHORE WOOD WIlH PKOF'LEeTY ADJA/.[NT lO LlLAC LANE. Mr. Mrs. S. W. Si *co.' 474-9690 �18» 11 1. 11 ep( N� [ c zor , MN 55:71 I Gary Warren Chanhassen City Hall 1 Dear Mr.Warren; 3/4/88 1 Concerning the 3rd access to the Curry Farms development: Donna and , I moved into this home a year ago. We loved Chanhassen and this semi-rural neighborhood and thought we were buying a house on the corner of two quiet, dead end streets. This was to be the last home we' d ever need to buy, but now. . .? We understand it is not realistic to expect the neighborhood never to be developed. Of course it will be, eventually. Centex has come in and is developing property 1/4 mile south of us . No- one in our immediate neighborhood , is or has any plans for developing. Yet, we may all have to live with the drawbacks and burdens of someone elses development for years after the developer has made its profits and left. The people in this neighborhood did not ask for development, and certainly do not want. Teton and Lilac Lanes to become through streets. You should not consider access alternative #2. A temporary upgrade ' brings the Centex development (traffic, noise; hazard to our children, and potential costs, tax increases, etc. ) to our door, 1 with none of the benefits of development . This unfairly penalizes our neighborhood for the development of land far enough away that it shouldn' t effect us at all. Alternative #2 leaves Centex with a cheap bill, and us with a cheap road, traffic and future costs . If Teton must be used for access, Centex should pay for the full upgrade of Teton and Lilac Lanes. Although alternative #3 would cost us some money, we and others are happy to aooept at if it means putting off the effects of I development until our neighborhood chooses to develop itself . We urge you to support alternative #3, or full upgrade by Centex. , c_5-e,2,9 0 \e-kciacA Charles & Donna Pickard 1215 Lilac Lane ;,'L;R 7 1988 '.4 1' Lv CHA1'mASotN ' INS 1 , , Cmtex Hargs 1 5959 Baker Baker Road CITY OF CHANHASSEN 5959 Baker Boad Minn Soo E I U 1 tp Minnetonka.Minnesota 55345 . MAR 1 1 1988 March 10. 1988 ENGINEERING DEPT. 1 z� Honorable Mayor �^ , And Members of the City Council City of Chanhassen 1 c/o Mr. Don Ashworth City Manager 690 Coulter Drive 1 Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen. Minnesota 55317 RE: Curry Farms 1 Gentlemen: 1 Centex Homes is concerned about the recommendations as set forth in the Feasibility Study for Teton Lane dated February 18, 1988. The study sets out three alternatives for providing additional access to our Curry Farms aevelopment. '4e have the following comments ents concerning the study: 1 Alternative Number 1 1 The full development ot Tcton Lane into a standard urban street is not necessary at this time. The increased level of traffic resulting from the Curry Farms Development can be accommodated by more modest improvements to Teton Lane. The Lane could later be Improved into a full urban street if 1 additional development or adjoining lands so dictates, with the costs ot such improvement borne proportionately by the landowners benefited. i 1 i Baker Technology Plaza, 5959 Baker Road, Suite 300, Minnetonka, Minnesota 1(612)936-7833 MI `favor. City Council Mr. Don Ashworth March 10. 1988 Page 2 I Alternative Number 1 (continued) I This alternative is also not feasible because only 33 of the 50 feet necessary for full imurovement are available without eminent domain action by the City or some other form of acquisition. Alternative Number 2 Alternative 2 is the most reasonable proposal. Although we believe that the costs of the improvements proposed should be divided among the landowners benefited. Centex would agree to pay the costs of improvements required in Alternative 2. As the Contract Purchaser of Teton Lane, we believe that we have a right to provide access to our development via Teton Lane. provided we do not obstruct the adjacent owner's access easements. Alternative Number 3 Alternative Number 3 is the least acceptable alternative to Centex. No provision is made for assessing any benefited landowner other than Centex. We believe that this places an unfair burden on Centex. The costs should be fairly assessed among the oenefited landowners. Alternative Number 3 also contemplates deeding property on either side of the new street. :i.Lthouzn Alternative Number 3 "compensates' Centex for the loss of one lot, the land to be deeded by the City to Centex would be difficult to develop into a buildable lot. On the other hand, _'Ir. Kerber not only ;eta partial access to his property because of the new street. but also receives additional land, the equivalent of which is approximately two lots. To fuily access his property. `ir. Kerber would need to cross an existing' draivaLfe way on a severe slope throuzh the existing wooded area. We are not opposed to ;minting >_11.-. Kerber some reasonable access to his property t.hrou`_? i the Cul.r" Farms Development. A Fourth Alternative. not addressed in the study. would be not to require an additional access to the Curry t arms Development until such time as the properties along Teton Lane are developed to their full potential or to improve Teton Lane as in Alternative Number 2 and c_iuse the road access except as an emergency entrance at (Larry Farms. I Since Centex es contract purchaser of the real property subject to Teton Lane. Centex will no able to use Teton Lane for access purroses now and in the future. Ti Ls access capability should not be ignored in any final dc(_Ls LOOS. 11 Ns 1 J ' `favor. City Council Mr. Don Ashworth 1 March 10. 1988 Page 3 Based on the preceding concerns. Centex asks that Alternative 2 be adopted or, in the event that Alternative 3 is adopted, that it be modified so that 1 all of the City land is deeded to Centex. We certainly recognize a City's right to require a developer to dedicate land or pay certain costs for municipal improvements, but we believe that ' Alternative 3 in its current state goes beyond the reasonable requirements that should be placed on a developer. ' If Alternative 3 in its present form becomes the required solution. Centex will have to reevaluate any further development of the project. 1 Sincerely, __ CENT ( REAL ESTATE CORPORATION "'nnesota Division V� ' Thomas M. Boyce President ' TNB/clm cc: Mr. Roger Knutson City Attorney City of Chanhassen 1 1 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Johnson: I support the Mayor's motion, to tell you the truth. I think it puts out to a very vital part of our community, our seniors, which there is a very large group of. I was surprised when I went to the Senior Center the couple times I've been there and how many folks from Chanhassen were there and they actually knew they lived in Chanhassen. It's a great little center. I'm sorry to hear that you're going to have some housing problems coming up in a couple years because that's really going to be a real problem and I foresee a problem for a senior center for our seniors and we should put money that way to help solve those problems our seniors are going to have in a few years. I support the $15,000.00 at this time and I also think it's a good idea to hold back and take a broader look at the hotel and all these other projects that it can be used for. I think Tom's come up with a good fair split that will immediately start helping our seniors and hold back some for everything else. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public hearing. ' All voted in favor and motion carried. Resolution #88-21A: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to ' allocate $15,000.00 of the Community Development Block Grant Funds for the Year XIV to the South Shore Senior Center. The remaining $17,197.00 shall be allocated at a future meeting after staff has researched additional opportunities for these funds. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2, CHADDA ADDITION, BUILDING BLOCK DAYCARE, HERB MASON AND ROGER PAULY. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. S All voted in favor and motion carried. Resolution #88-22: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Vacation Request #88-2 of the existing sanitary sewer easement located on Lots 1 and 2, CHADDA Addition, Building Block Daycare, Herb Mason and Roger Pauly's property. All voted in favor and motion carried. ACCEPT TETON LANE FEASIBILITY STUDY. 1 Mayor Hamilton: I think we've all had an opportunity to read all of the information and comments that have gone on about this project. It's been to us before so we're not unfamiliar with it. . I know there are several of you here this evening who may wish to make comments but we'll have a brief staff report and then we'll entertain comments from the public. L Bill Engelhardt: I'm here tonight to present the feasibility study for Teton Lane. Just to briefly update you. This is the Centex Project Phase 1 which is under construction. Phase 2 to explain why the feasibility study was done was Ima 1 4_ 1). City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II I to try and find a third access for the 2nd phase so that would eliminate the long cul-de-sac. Three alternatives were studied. Alternative #1 was a overview of the project in upgrading Teton Lane, an existing gravel road, to a I private drive. Alternate #1 was looked at as a sole development section for illustrative purposes only. We did go through and run numbers to determine assessments for sanitary sewer and water, curb and gutter and the full depth street section. Alternate #1 then would utilize the existing right-of-way of I Teton Lane plus an additional 17 feet of right-of-way that would have to be acquired from the Donovan property and the full street section would be constructed. I won't go into a lot of detail. I've got some drawings on I sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer was in this basic alignment. Put the watermain also in connection into Road G. Alternate #2 was an interim method we felt that would provide adequate traffic patterns for the Centex II development. It was proposed that existing Teton Lane would be paved. There would be some minor regrading and reshaping and the drainage would be controlled with bituminous berms versus concrete curb and gutter. The ultimate II section or the Alternate #1 would only be constructed when the adjacent property owners determine that they would like to develop and it's been made very clear in all the homeowner meetings that, at least in the case of Mr. Donovan, that he is not desiring to do any kind of developing and he can speak I to that issue himself but it was made very clear that he was not interested in doing any development. The Alternate #2 cost was proposed to be directly assessed or put back against the Phase 2 development of Centex. We felt it was a direct benefit to the developer versus any of these people already have IIaccess to the roadway and then to CR 17. The third alternate was a completely separate alternate. A way from Teton Lane was providing a connection to CR 17 via the city property. Centex development would lose one lot in there but we I felt that there were some land exchanges that could take place and this was a viable alternative and that would completely eliminate the use of Teton Lane as a roadway except for a small portion of it where Mr. Natoli would have access I onto what we call Road G, to utilize the alternate to CR 17 as an ingress/egress. The Ware property accesses through the Pickard property through an easement to Lilac Lane and the Pickard property accesses to Lilac Lane. The Donovan property, they access onto Lilac Lane in this area. If I you'd like I could go into the costs a little bit and some of the details of the assessments or if you want we could just open it up to questioning. I Mayor Hamilton: The costs seem to speak for themselves. I don't know if the rest of the Council wants to rehash them or not. I don't think it's necessary. II Councilman Geving: I think the letter of March 10th is very important to this whole process. The letter from Centex. Maybe you could address that. Bill Engelhardt: I haven't seen that one. I didn't hear anything. IGary Warren: We got that at the last minute when the staff reports went out. Any specific part of that Dale? IICouncilman Geving: I'm not so sure that the homeowners are even aware that this letter is in existence. Are the homeowners aware of this? IDonna Pickard: Yes, we got a copy of it today. II ' 11 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Geving: The reason I ask that this be highlighted is because this is a little bit different scenario than what was presented at the homeowners meetings with them on the 9th. As I read this now, Atlernate #1, 2 and 3, particularly in Alternate #2, as I understand it, would the Centex Development Corporation agree to pick up all of these costs in Alternate #2? Gary Warren: That was a proposal that they would do the... Councilman Geving: And they agreed to that, is that correct? Gary Warren: From what I understand, yes. We don't have anything in writing. Councilman Geving: Because it seems to me the number one fear that I read throughout the Minutes of your meeting was the people and their concern for any assessments for the improvement of using Alternate #2. Gary Warren: There was a lot of discussion to explain Alternate #1 and #2. There was confusion as to what Alternate #1 was and they were looking at the assessments as they relate to Alternate #1. We explained that that was sort of a base start. That Alternate #2 was not assessable the way it was set up. Councilman Geving: Did you show all of the homeowners your summary of costs , and the feasibility on page 3 for Alternate #1, 2 and 3 so they were totally 1- aware? Gary Warren: They have a complete copy of the feasibility study. Mayor Hamilton: So we don't need any additional financial information, I don't believe. Do you have anything else Bill that you would like to say? Bill Engelhardt: No, unless you have some questions that you want me to dig into, I'll do that but like I said, everyone seems to be pretty aware of it. We've had two homeowners meetings. We've had very good participation and they were excellent meetings. We had some back and forth comments and it worked out real well. ' Mayor Hamilton: Do Centex representatives have any comments they would like to make? Tom Boyce: I would, for the most part, I think our letter more or less summarizes our position. Alternative #3, we did take a little closer look at it again this afternoon ourselves. I guess one of the other concerns we would have with Alternative #3 is that the improvements for #3 don't put in sanitary sewer or watermain thus one of the questions I would.. . Mayor Hamilton: I guess I agree with that. I'm not sure that has been clearly identified yet. I know there are some residents here that would like to make some comments. If you would, if you have something that's new that we haven't heard to this point or if there is one person who is going to speak for a group { of you, I would be more than happy to listen. To have you speak and tell us ''- what it is that your concerns are. r City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Florence Natoli: We are the most important people on this. We are the terrible Natolis. Because of us, you've got a problem. There's one question which I asked at the meeting two weeks ago and it says that the rights to ' Teton Lane, to the property owners abutting Teton Lane at cost. Now what does that mean? What is this at cost that Centex was going to give the land back to the people living on the road, at cost? Gary Warren: It's one of the steps that has to be established. I guess right now the only thing we know is that Centex has a purchase agreement for the property at $30,000.00 to $35,000.00 which includes some other work for Carlson ' out there. We don't know what the extra cost is on that. That's something that through these purchase agreements and such, will have to be arrived at. It will be somewhat less than let's say $35,000.00. ' Florence Natoli: Can you force us to buy that road if we do not want to buy the road? ' Gary Warren: If we would do a 429 Assessti nt Project for example, that was acceptable, the City could put assessments against the property. Florence Natoli: Thank you, that was what I wanted to know. Donna Pickard: I live on the corner of Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. I guess, ' were you the one I was talking about the assessments? The neighborhood understands that Centex was going to pick up the full cost from Alternative #2 and that #1 was, the way it was presented was that it was presented with the assessments. The thing that we're concerned about is that the road, if #2, if ' that was selected, we are worried that that road would not last. I guess the life of the road is estimated at 5 to 10 years and that the traffic coming from the development would then determine that the road would be made a full ' development and that the neighbors would be assessed for improvements that do not benefit the people who live on the roads at all. While we understood the clarifications between #1 and #2, we were worried that we would have to end up doing #1 anyway, even if #2 were to be selected now. I think there are the few ' of us who do live right on the road would be willing to buy the road at a reasonable cost if that were to happen but we would also like that to be determined. ' Jim Donovan: I'm on the east side of the road there, the majority part of the property. My question is, after reading the Centex letter here, first of all ' the last paragraph where they sort of try to hold a loaded gun to the whole project. I don't believe that for one minute because they've invested too much money in the project as it is right now. They're not going to pull out because of not getting their way in it. They'll do it. That's not a feasible and a reasonable statement to make in the letter. I hope that the Council realizes that. Secondly, on Alternative #3, the first paragraph states there that it's least acceptable to Centex because no provision is made for assessing any ' benefitted landowner other than Centex. Well, as been's stated before, none of the land adjacent to that property is going to benefit from a upgrading of that property into a 2 inch blacktop road anyway. We use that road, or the other E77 ' people use the road now as is. They don't need it to be blacktopped. The trips that are made per day on that road, right now the road handles very easily. With the Curry Farm Development going in there, there will be City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 jr- approximately as in your notes there, showing approximately 215 trips a day , which would be 90% of that, 90% to 95% of that would be from Curry Farms traffic itself. They would be the beneficiaries of this road. Not the people who currently have property immediately adjacent so that comment in the Centex letter is not correct. We are not the beneficiaries of that road. It is Curry Farms no matter how you want to state it. I think that the Council should take into consideration that that road itself, as it stands right now, is more than adequate for the needs of the people who use the road right now. We don't need it blacktopped. We don't need it to be used by Curry Farms people and a 5 to 10 year use, I don't believe that that road would last 5 to 10 years with trucks, moving trucks, things like that, going over that blacktop road. 5 to 10 years is not a reasonable estimate for the lifetime of that type of road. A 2 inch blacktop road. With 215 trips a day, it would never last 5 to 10 years with our thawing and freezing that we have here. I believe that that's not a reasonable estimate to make. Therefore, that would then become a public road and as such, a public road would mean that the people immediately adjacent to that road would be taxed to have it upgraded once again either by storm sewer, water, whatever it might be there. We-then, not benefitting from this road once again and Curry Farms benefitting from it, we would be the ones who would be paying for the cost of this rather than Curry Farms. Now if Curry Farms wants to pay for the entire cost of that right now to upgrade it to a full road, that's a different story, to make it last but as it stands right now, that road would not last. We would not benefit. I think this letter that Curry Farms sent that I've just seen today, I just received in my mail tonight, does not really show a true picture of what the story is. ' Larry Kerber: I'm sure Alternative #3 does satisfy the Teton Lane and Lilac Lane people. It does nothing for me. It makes my situation worse. These people, if Alternative #3 is passed, they are allowed to buy total privacy for the cost of whatever they have to pay for that road easement back. Now I had objections to the street to the south of me. No one came up with a plan like this to offer me total privacy or to buy my way out or a relocation of the street. Alternative #3 is allowing them to do that. I would like to be given the same opportunity and I'm not. Alternative #3 does not give me an access to my property unless I can buy the land that borders the road to the south of it. So the Alternative #3 is not going to help my access problem. Now if Alternative #3 is selected, there's a road to the north of me. There's already a road that goes to the south of me. In checking with Carver County, I found out I can get no further access to my property. I'm bound now by what I've got there so I'm sitting with a piece of property with no further access out. The only way I can get an access, like I said, is to buy the land to the south of Alternative #3 and then, that would only solve access for a little sliver of my land, existing land, across that creek that runs through it. It does nothing to the other 2 1/2 acres of my property. Another point I'd like to make is, I think it's point 10 on the proposal there, that if you do select Alternative ' #3, this be changed. The cost of that road, if it does go through, should not be assessed to the abutting properties. -It should be a direct developer's cost like the rest of the road costs are in the development. If we go up there we can see Road H or whatever it is, I don't think Jim Donovan is being assessed for that now nor is Stu Remer who is benefitting nor is Richard Carlson, Franco or anybody else. It's a developers costs. Likewise that road going in is a developer's cost. The property as it sits, the City property, does not need that road. It can access directly to CR 17 so I would really like to see that City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 ' changed to be a developer's cost and not assessed to the abutting properties. Mr. Natoli: What I want to know is who is responsible for filling in the ' potholes on Teton Lane and who can we force to do it? The guy that owns it or somebody else? There are holes in that road right now that my car is hitting bottom. You can't miss them there are so many of them. You can't go around ' them except unless you can go out in the fields somewhere and you can't do that so I want to know who we can force to fix that road. Mayor Hamilton: That's not the issue we're dealing with right now and I would ' ask that you would talk to our City Engineer and that he will answer that question for you. ' Mr. Natoli: It's an issue to me because I live right on Teton and I'm the guy who uses it. I have no way in and out except going over the holes. Mayor Hamilton: I realize that so Gary, if you'd give him a call tomorrow. ' Councilman Geving: It's not a city street. ' Gary Warren: It's owned by Carlson. Paul Shervold: I represent Larry Kerber. Presently his property on the north ' is low and there is a culvert under CR 17. Now the water that's immediately to the west of there, there is a dike. The water is ponded there. It now causes damage to Kerber's property. Any additional development of this area, whichever alternative you choose, will only increase the damage to the Kerber ' property. As recently as a couple of weeks ago the water froze and ponded on Mr. Kerber's area, on his land and it will continue to do so for the rest of time and I would ask that you bear that in mind when you develop this area ' because it is not a proper disposal system made at this time. This was explained as long ago as last September with a meeting with your City Engineer and a person from Centex, a couple of people from Centex, that there would be ' problems with water and there presently is. This will only be aggravated, not ameliorated by your development of this area. I'd ask you to bear that in mind. Councilman Boyt: One question I have is, we talk about Alternative #3 would mean the losing of Lot 15. What's the value of Lot 15? ' Tom Boyce: The market value? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Tom Boyce: $25,000.00 to $30,000.00. Councilman Boyt: So when we look at real costs of Alternative #3, it's ' conceivable that we would add $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 to that? Tom Boyce: Plus I think in cost factors for a watermai.n in the road which we've estimated in our office at another $30,000.00. Plus property both north ' and south would depreciate... City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 lr- Gary Warren: The watermain basically abuts the property all along CR 17. Sanitary sewer comes through the Kerber property on the south side so it's not that far away from that. Councilman Boyt: So you're thinking $30,000.00.. . , Gary Warren: I'd say that's pretty excessive. Councilman Boyt: We have a potential then of adding maybe $60,000.00 to Alternative #3 which begins to make Alternative #1 look good in terms of cost. I am interested to see how this works out Mr. Mayor. There are enough issues on both sides of the situation it seems. As I understand it, the developer agrees to pay all costs of Alternative #2. That one of the questions that seems to be raised about Alternative #2 is the life expectancy of the road. It seems to me the engineering study said 10 years. How does this compare with the typical urban section of road? Gary Warren: I guess we would hope to_get 15+ years out of a typical urban section. Councilman Boyt: Could you tell me what the difference is? What gives us 15 where you expect 10 here? Gary Warren: Basically we're not proposing to go in on Teton Lane and do any major sub-base correction work. Grade it out, compact it, put it a 2 inch bituminous lift on it versus a 3 inch, for example for a standard urban section. Councilman Boyt: If we did that, didn't put in the concrete curb but we put in a 3 inch asphalt base, what would that do to the cost of Alternative #2? Gary Warren: Increase them. ' Bill Engelhardt: I don't think the difference between a 2 inch mat and a 3 inch mat, you're probably talking in that stretch maybe $5,000.00 at the most. I Councilman Boyt: What kind of life expectancy are we talking about with the 3 inch mat? Bill Engelhardt: The key is not necessarily the thickness of the mat but it's the depth of your rock base. If you 2 inch or 3 inches, we'd still be using the standard section of 10 inches of rock base in the city standard section and that's the key to the whole thing. Getting 5 years or 10 years, if you sealcoat it every 3 years, you might stretch that life out 15 years. So the blacktop thickness is not the key, it's the depth of the rock base. If we put a sufficient rock base in it so the 2 inches or 3 inches doesn't make any difference. Councilman Boyt: Then let's start with the rock base. If we put a sufficient 1 rock base in, then are we approaching the cost of Alternative #1? Is that the heart of Atlernative #1's cost? City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II I Bill Engelhardt: The heart of Alternative #1 is also curb and gutter. That's very expensive. You're talking about a wider road. You're going out to the (-- full width of a typical urban section. 1 Councilman Boyt: Let me propose an alternative then that has a 33 foot wide road with the full gravel base that you're talking about and the 3 inch asphalt but an asphalt curb. Give me a feel for the cost of that. IIBill Engelhardt: It's going to be essentially the same as what we're proposing with the 2 inch. You're talking very few dollars extra because of that 1 inch Ithickness. Councilman Boyt: I'm not on the 1 inch of asphalt. I'm on the 10 inches of Irock underneath it. Bill Engelhardt: But what I'm saying is, in the proposal that 10 inches of rock is in there. IICouncilman Boyt: In Alternative #2? IIBill Engelhardt: In Alternative #2, yes. Councilman Boyt: So we have the full rock base we're looking at for a regular city street so the only difference we're talking about is another inch of II asphalt really and that's a $5,000.00 cost. [_ Gary Warren: And the width is less. ICouncilman Boyt: So we narrow the road and we get about the typical city life expectancy for a road for $39,000.00 to $40,000.00. IGary Warren: That's about it. Plus we're not improving anything on Lilac. Councilman Boyt: Given that and where the City of Shorewood is coming from, I they say they like Alternative #3, I would be interested in the neighborhood's reaction if one of their concerns is Teton Lane not being built to city standard, if we build it to a city life expectancy standard, does it Ithen become an acceptable alternative? Donna Pickard: I don't like you using our neighborhood as an access point to a development that's easily, I don't know how far away it is but it's just a I development in our neighborhood. It is a development down the road that is using Teton Lane only because of cost and ease. It's an existing dirt road. They don't have to do anything major but throw on an asphalt mat on. It's easy I for then to do and I just feel kind of cheated that because of our location, that's why they're using it. They're not using it for any other reason. I Councilman Boyt: Mrs. Pickard, then what you're telling me is that the key issue for you is not the life expectancy of the road but the increase in the traffic? I Donna Pickard: Not only that. I'm on the corner so now am I going to have to bear future assessments on Teton, if there are any and by your definition your I City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 U saying with this improved roadway. .. . but Lilac Lane is not a very good road at this point and they would have to possibly, Shorewood or Chanhassen would possibly have to, on that side, put an addition so we're looking at double assessments. Councilman Boyt: You're telling me it's not the road surface. It's not the assessments. It's the traffic. , Donna Pickard: It's not primarily the assessments, it's also the traffic. Sure, I've got two toddlers, I don't want to have cars zipping down. You can put 30 mph posted on that highway there but you know they're going to zip down there going 40. Councilman Boyt: I understand. I'm just trying to get straight on your issue. 1 Donna Pickard: That's my issue. The other homeowners may have other issues. Councilman Boyt: Then I would gather that even if we included some sort of upgrading to the road surface of Teton and added another $10,000.00 or $15,000.00 for that, we're still talking about $55,000.00 to $60,000.00, takes care of the road in terms of building it to an acceptable like expectancy. Councilman Horn: I support that alternative also. My major reason for that is I don't necessarily see it as the easiest access but I see it as the only reasonable access from this development. If we put in Alternative #3, we've in effect precluded any rights that the Kerber property has with access onto CR 17. Besides that I think we have to try in all cases to try to minimize our number of accesses. Whether they County dictates than to us or not, it's only prudent traffic management to do that so I would support a modification to Alternative #2 to make the road more substantial. Councilman Geving: This is a difficult situation. I've probably spent more time on this issue, as we all did on it over the weekend, than we normally do on any one single item when we have 16 or 17 items to discuss. I really had to go to the site twice over the weekend and once even this afternoon one more time to look at the potential for Alternative #3. I haven't been out to your place for a while Larry but you've got quite a few more neighbors now than you had a couple of months ago when I drove out there. The road that's on the south side of your home has certainly impacted on your development there. I was looking at where that potential alternate road #3 would come in, the Alternate #3 to the north of you, and of course that would completely landlock you with a road on the north and a road on the south. Probably prohibit you forever of getting other access to CR 17, if you ever wanted to do anything with your 2 1/2 to 3 acres there. I was looking at the trees to the north of you and I noticed that Alternate #3 happens to be a fairly heavily wooded area. We'd be taking a number of trees to put that road in and that kind of turned me against that alternative. I have a number of comments but it seems to me in looking at the neighbors concerns in the Minutes that I was able to read, they seem to be very concerned about cost, potential cost for any assessments is Alternate #1 or #2 were to be selected. The more I looked at all of our , alternatives, I too kind of came to the conclusion that I didn't like Alternate #3 for a number of reasons and just how far to take this Alternate #2 led me to City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 1 ' believe that if we did a substantial amount of roadwork, building up the base and the contractor now has agreed to pick up these costs which alleviates the (-- homeowner's concerns, I don't believe we would be adding a whole lot of new traffic onto Teton Lane. Most of the people who are going to be using an ' improved Teton Lane would be the 7 homeowners that presently live there and I suspect some of the new people from the Curry development certainly would come out that direction but Lilac Lane isn't the best road in the world either. My ' feeling is they would probably drive south and come out south of Kerber's property there and come out to CR 17 if that was the direction they were heading. I think we're looking at what I'll term to be an intermediate ' solution to a very long range problem. Nothing ever stays the same as it was 10 years ago and if we could predict that this road could go in and we could upgrade Teton and it would last 10 years, that's about all we ever get out of any street in Chanhassen and I've lived here 22 years. So 10 years is a pretty ' good lifetime cycle for any street. If we could do it at a cost that would be minimal to the homeowners and looking ahead to what may happen to Mr. Donovan's property or the Ware's, the Natoli's, we all understand that things change. ' Places where I never thought there would .be homes have homes on them today. Larry Kerber can tell you that 2 years ago he looked across his pasture and Rosilee Dodd had horses on top of the hill. It's changed a lot so in 10 years I could see some of these 7 homeowners selling and redeveloping their ' properties. I'm looking at the potential for you to have the least amount of impact and still have the kind of street that Mr. Natoli talked about earlier. Certainly one that he could drive on without hitting his car in the ditches and bumps. Now I'd have to assume, if we were to take Alternate #2, the City would take this over as a public street. Is that correct Gary? ' Gary Warren: If it was brought up to our standards. Councilman Geving: We bring it up to standards. We would take it over as a public street and then we would maintain it from that time on and it would ' still be meeting all of our rural standard for that roadbed. Gary Warren: It's actually in the urban service area so concrete curb and gutter is our standard for the urban roadway. Councilman Geving: Would that go in there? You don't have room for it. Gary Warren: The discussion we've had now is some compromise with bituminous curb. ' Councilman Geving: I can see that compromise would be a very fair one at this time because in the future if the land does develop, I suspect that would be the next thing we'd do. Thinking in terms of sewer and water and upgrading the ' entire roadbed. I am very much in favor of Alternate #2 for a number of the reasons I've stated. i still believe it alleviates the homeowner's concerns. We will get 10 years wear and tear on this road. It's the best alternative that I can see in the three that's been presented by the feasibility study. Councilman Johnson: This is probably the toughest issue for the night. I see Alternate #3 as the developer taking care of his own problem his own way. Not ' his own way but not affecting other people. He affects the city of Chanhassen property there. He has some effect on Larry Kerber. Alternate #2 though, from City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 �1 my feeling on a public safety standpoint provides for slightly shorter cul-de-sac distances on Road H there but probably about equal if not slightly longer for Road G. Actually it does provide two different ways to get into Road G better than Alternate #3 would because Alternate #3, you're dependent upon Road E to get you into Road G. Now you have Teton Lane to get to Road G and Road E which is a plus for me for Alternate #2. What's also interesting with this one is later on tonight we're going to theoretically approve a change to another ordinance that would say Alternate #2 wouldn't be allowed. That any street within the urban service area has to be to full city standards. I guess if we're going to do Alternate #2, we better do it before we change the ordinance a little later on tonight which to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. I do believe that your cost estimates don't include the $12,000.00 for 12 inches of subgrade on Alternate #2 that they do on Alternate #1 so if we do the subgrade corrections putting in 12 inches of modified Class V is about $12,800.00 more dollars. We're probably pushing up into the upper 20's to do Alternate #2. Is there a possibility of leaving a strip of outlot, very thin along the edge of the road to where the property owner on 2 is Curry Hills? You give yourself a 50 foot strip of land to put a 28 foot road in generally. Gary Warren: We only have 33 feet in Teton Lane right now. Councilman Johnson: How wide were you going to put Alternate #2? Councilman Geving: 33 feet. Councilman Johnson: No. Councilman Geving: That's all we've got. ' Councilman Johnson: Is the road going to go edge to edge? Gary Warren: No. Councilman Johnson: How wide is the road? I Bill Engelhardt: It's roughly 22 to 23 feet wide but we build within that 33 foot strip. Just center it within the 33 foot strip. Councilman Johnson: So the City would own property on either side of that 33 foot strip which is the normal boulevard? Gary Warren: It would be less than a normal boulevard. Councilman Johnson: What's a normal city street, concrete width? Gary Warren: We're 28 feet gutter line to gutter line. 31 feet ba 11 ck to back with curb. 1 Councilman Johnson: So we're going to have a 5 foot narrower road? Gary Warren: It's the same issue with Church Road where there's a 33 foot , right-of-way and we're asking for 17 additional feet so we can have more than 1 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 foot on each side of the back of the curb. (-- Councilman Johnson: But what we're planning on building here is a 25 foot road for 210 cars a day that's narrower than most other streets in the City. I don't like to throw another halfway done street in and I guess in order to do it, we have to buy 17 foot of property from Mr. Donovan to put the right street ' in there. Is that what we're looking at here? Gary Warren: We would like to obviously have a 50 foot right-of-way consistent with our standards. Councilman Johnson: What would it cost to put the normal 28 foot wide street in there? Gary Warren: Alternate #1 basically, $40,000.00 plus road cost is the total urban section with curb and gutter. ' Councilman Johnson: And the cost estimate curb was $8,400.00, curb and gutter, so we did the bituminous curb for a couple thousand than we're at $30,000.00 to $28,000.00 road cost to put a 28 foot section in this 33 foot area with ' asphalt. That gives us a road that's safe, not just durable. We need the width in the road to be safe also because people are going to be walking on that road, on the edge of the road, whatever, just as well as any other place. The long and the short of it is, there's a lot of problems with using Teton Lane. I prefer to solve their problems internally and use Alternate #3. The water comes off of CR 17 and the sewer off CR 17, he doesn't have those problems. Unfortunately that does something to Larry but it doesn't create ' another substandard road in this City. Mayor Hamilton: I just have a question on the property to the north of Road E. ' Has Centex purchased all of the Richard Carlson property that shows on our map as the exception? You have not purchased that? It seems like you could do a lot of people a big favor if you purchased that. The Shakelton, Cameron, Bransell and the Winsor property, most of which is for sale. The road alignment could be changed considerably and that whole area could be developed and cleaned up a tremendous amount. ' Tom Boyce: We looked at that at one time and basically the prices were astronomical. Mr. Carlson wanted in the neighborhood of around $200,000.00. Mayor Hamilton: What about the Bransell and Cameron and the Winsor property? I know all or parts of that are for sale right now. Tom Boyce: There's one house for sale on the lot. We looked at that at one time. If you put them all together, they ended up being $400,000.00 to tear everything down. We just couldn't make sense of it. We looked at the City property at the same time. It also gets very hilly and wooded back in there. ' I think development costs in addition to tearing things off and tearing houses down would add some value. Mayor Hamilton: That was my first thought that there couldn't be some way that land could be purchased and be made a part of the Centex development. That would certainly clean up that entire area, which needs to be cleaned up. It's 1 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 1 a mess back there. I see this very similar to the Pheasant Hills subdivision 1 where the road going through Pheasant Hills 4th Addition and out to Yosemite has not been approved by the Council. It's exactly the same situation as this, I feel. Development attempting to drive a road through a residential area that currently exists and the neighborhood doesn't want it. I'm certainly not in favor of using Teton at this time for the Centex development. I guess I haven't seen a good alternative but I'm certainly not in favor of trying to mess up Larry's property anymore than it already has been. But I'm not in favor of running the traffic down Teton, forcing Mr. Donovan to sell part of his property that he doesn't want to sell in the first place and then utilizing a substandard street on Lilac that couldn't handle 210 trips a day at any rate. So I don't know if there's another alternative. I'm not sure how to handle this because I don't like much of what I see I guess other than to not use Teton and to not use Alternate #3 which means everything is going to have to flow out to the south and to the east. I don't know if it's good or not. I guess I can't make that decision. There's two ways out. Teton is a private street at this point and I don't see that we ought to be forcing development in there just for a development. If the-Council decides that they want to use Teton, I would certainly not be in favor of anything other than the developer paying for all the expenses of it. Gary Warren: That is the overview perspective of what we're left with because there's no access here or here. Mayor Hamilton: There's one access going to the east out to CR 17 to the south of Kerber's property and then there's another one going south out to Lake Lucy so it's not as if there's only one access. There are two. It still is a long cul-de-sac, that's true. There's no question about that. 1 Councilman Boyt: We can't support that. Mayor Hamilton: Well, I won't support Teton so unless you can find me another 1 alternative, I won't support going through Teton. Councilman Horn: Would Teton, as it exists today, serve as an emergency access 1 to this if we didn't allow Alternate #3 or the upgrade of Teton? Really what we're looking for is an emergency access to a long cul-de-sac. Gary Warren: We're looking for a secondary access and an access that we can rely on to get in there as far as being properly maintained from a service condition standpoint. Councilman Horn: Apparently the Natoli's have to rely on this access. Gary Warren: And you heard the comments. 1 Councilman Horn: Yes, but they're going in there with a car. Most of the heavy equipment we would bring in there would, I assume be a little heavier duty than the average passenger car. Looking at it as a temporary situation that would still allow us access. I tend to agree with the Mayor on this. I don't see a good alternative here either. 11 11124 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II I Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can offer an alternative. We take Alternative #2 and as the developer has suggested, a fourth alternative where Road H comes in off (- Teton Lane we put a cul-de-sac of sorts and a barricade. The cul-de-sac would I be designed so that a snowplow could sweep right in front of the barricade and the barricade would be there to prevent through traffic. We would have Alternative #2, which would be an upgrade of Teton Lane with at least a paved II surface. I'm concerned that if we really need to have an emergency access, that Teton Lane really doesn't fit the bill if we leave it alone. I agree with what's been said about the difficulty of increasing traffic through a neighborhood that doesn't want it and maybe that offers a possibility. ICouncilman Geving: I'm confused by what you just said. You indicated that you would like to see a barrier on Teton Lane with a cul-de-sac for a turnaround of I our snowplowing vehicles. You also indicated though that you said that you would allow the developer to improve Teton Lane. Isn't that what you said? Why would they want to do that? I Councilman Boyt: They would want to do that because I don't think we can use the existing 17 foot wide questionable roadway as an emergency access. By the very nature of it, when we need to get in there, the conditions of travel are II generally not going to be good and to put it on a road that's already questionable, I think doesn't provide that area with any increased safety level. They can increase it with a minimum amount of $34,000.00 will provide a 1 33 foot wide roadway which will allow the plow to get in there. Put a cul-de-sac at the end of it, the plow can swing around and now all we need to [ i do is break through a simple barricade and we're onto Road H. Then if at some point that land develops, we're sitting in pretty good shape to come in there I and finish the road off. If the Donovan land develops or the Ware or Natoli or some other significant chunk of property. I'm striking for a compromise Dale between having a 17 foot wide road that really doesn't give us emergency Iaccess. Councilman Geving: If you accept the $34,000.00, you're accepting the maintenance of that road. Teton Lane. If you put that barrier there, I just IIdon't understand what you're really buying. Councilman Boyt: What we're accepting is the maintenance on a road that's II going to get very little wear. It's going to have basically three families using it unless we need to break through the barricade to access it in an emergency. ICouncilman Geving: Where, for example the snowplow, how would that happen if we tried to maintain Teton? I Gary Warren: We would access off Lilac Lane then. What Bill is addressing, I guess he's got some value in that we get the upgraded road to an interim standpoint so we can rely on it. My concern I guess is that it's travelable, I especially in emergency situations and yet we'd have a barrier at the end of it so it would not be used for normal ingress and egress. Thus addressing the neighborhood concern that it's not a thoroughfare type of arrangement. II II 3 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Geving: You didn't address this do nothing in the feasibility study. The do nothing option. What are your comments on that? Gary Warren: The do nothing concept I think goes contrary to city standpoint on other long cul-de-sacs. Lake Riley Woods. Those issues where we have said that this is too long of a cul-de-sac. That it should have a secondary access. Councilman Horn: I guess I don't see that as a do nothing alternative. I see that as a wait alternative until the rest of this area develops. It's very similar to what we had in Chanhassen Estates and many other areas. It doesn't provide an immediate secondary access but it will provide that in the future. I think what we're saying is, if we had some of these of these other properties developed we could get a more acceptable access at that time. Councilman Geving: I have no problem with the alternative. I think it's probably a good comment. Mayor Hamilton: Alternative #3, can that swing any further to the north? Bill can you move that? Bill Engelhardt: That drops off. Councilman Boyt: I think if we leave it as a 17 foot wide roadway, we run the risk that the people who live on Road G and H, there's just a few there I suppose, but those people are never going to want that road to go through. If we put that 33 foot wide strip up there on the other side we're pretty clearly saying that someday that road's going to go through. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think because you don't do it now you're not saying it's never going to go through. Councilman Boyt: I know that but I also know that people get used to living on a road that doesn't go through. I think we have a chance to have the developer pay for paving that road. We can put a barricade up and still manage to plow in front of it so we can get access. I like the alternative and I make that motion. Councilman Johnson: I suggest that instead of making that motion without any engineering being done yet, that a more viable motion would be that we do that to see if that thing is feasible. Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that. , Larry Kerber: What are you going to vote on now? Are you going to close off Teton Lane? 1 Mayor Hamilton: The motion is to make Teton Lane a 33 foot wide paved road with a barrier to be placed someplace, I'm not exactly sure where, and a cul-de-sac placed on there so emergency vehicles can get through there but there will not be through traffic. Larry Kerber: So Centex's traffic will not be using it? , • Int { 2 4 II City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II II Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. (- Larry Kerber: They will pay to upgrade? Okay, now that is going to be 1 bringing a lot of additional traffic past my place. When we originally went in here, we were looking at three accesses and I expressed a concern. Now, where's that traffic going to come out? It's going to come out, I'll have a IIlot more past my place. Mine is the quickest route. Mayor Hamilton: Either to the east or to the south. I think we're aware of that. There's only two places. IILarry Kerber: I just wish, if they're going to save any money in this, Centex, and I'm certain they are, if they're just to upgrade that road and put a II barricade there, that something should be appropriated, some type of blocking, screening, something for my place there. I just really feel with all the extra traffic now. When we went into this, I had no idea. At that point we said three. Now we're down to two accesses. Councilman Horn: You've got no more traffic this way than you would if you had Alternative #3. Then it would all move past your place on one side or the II other. Larry Kerber: Yes, but we don't have Alternate #3. Councilman Horn: That's right but if we did choose Alternate #3, which was one of our options, you'd get just as much traffic as you're getting this way only they would be buzzing around on both sides of your property. ILarry Kerber: Okay, but what I'm saying, if there's any money savings for the developer... IICouncilman Horn: There won't be. ILarry Kerber: But we've still got an unaddressed screening issue at my place. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a separate issue. IILarry Kerber: I realize it is. I just wanted to reiterate on that. Councilman Geving: I think that maybe we have to accept the feasibility study. Mayor Hamilton: What we're doing is looking for another alternative within the feasibility study. I Councilman Johnson: Let me understand the motion is to increase the feasibility study to include an option #4? I Mayor Hamilton: Which is as Bill outlined which the staff will come back to us ' with additional information to see if it's feasible. II Gary Warren: This is not a 429 feasibility study so really you can do with it as you want as far as the motion. II City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 1 Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to increase the feasibility study to include a fourth alternative which will improve Teton Lane to a 33 foot wide paved road with a barrier placed at the end to provide for emergency access only. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. Jim Donovan: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask, could you please put that up there. ' I was disturbed by something I saw there. This road here, Road H, that's a cul-de-sac on my property. , Mayor Hamilton: Well, it's not on your property. Wherever it is, it's not on your property. Councilman Johnson: When he final plats it, he can't do that. Donna Pickard: Can I ask just one quick question? The cul-de-sac they were talking about putting onto Teton Lane here. We're talking about where the barricade would be. Are we talking about being able to access by Natoli's or putting it closer down here? ' Mayor Hamilton: I think that's one of the things we're asking staff to identify for us is where that cul-de-sac should be and how it should barricade. APPROVAL OF DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CHANGE ORDER, SHAFER CONSTRUCTION. Councilman Geving: I think, first of all, when I saw that this was a change ' order for $291,000.00, it seemed to me there were a lot of things in here that were very questionable to me. Were all of these changes, and they were substantial, I see them all the way up to 47 on one part. Items on the C Schedule up to 43 and on the E Schedule up to 48. I don't know if these were consecutive or how they were arrived at but who approved all of these and authorized these changes as they were done in the field? , Gary Warren: The changes that you've seen here, some of them are quantity changes. For example it is a unit priced contract so in example, I guess the 72" RCV pipe, there we just got a bust in the quantity that was in the original bid schedule so we're making a correction from that standpoint. The contract did say that we will pay as we consume this. Councilman Geving: Could you miss on the aggregate base, for example, by 13,000 tons for a total of $79,000.00? Is it possible that someone really missed that when they bid this or the specs for the bid were really that bad? I can't imagine 13,000 tons of aggregate at a change order. Gary Warren: This addresses the sub-base that we ran into on the West 78th Street. The actual granual material that was out there was quite extensive. We did do some salvaging and we had a decision because the soils actually turned out to be worse than what our borings had showed us. We made a decision that we would use more granual material based on our soil consultant's recommendation for what he saw. CITYOF , CHANHASSEN , i1/4 1 ` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 IMEMORANDUM ✓ � TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager II f FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer •r r DATE: March 24, 1988 _._. ISUBJ: Teton Lane Feasibility Study (Alternate No. 4 ) _ 3/2?/8e ._ Curry Farms Subdivision - Phase II IIFile No. 87-16 (private)- 1 The Teton Lane feasibility study was considered by the City Council at the March 14 , 1988 meeting. A compromised solution to the access issue which addressed providing the secondary access while still mitigating the impact to the local neighborhood 1 resulted from the discussion at the Council meeting. Staff was directed to bring back an Alternate No. 4 which was to evaluate the feasibility of Teton Lane being upgraded with an intermediate 1 roadway section that would be physically separated from Phase II of the Curry Farms subdivision with some form of breakaway struc- ture that could be surmounted by emergency vehicles in time of emergency. IIBill Engelhardt has prepared the attached supplemental report which addresses Alternate No. 4 as requested by the Council. 1 This has been reviewed with personnel from Centex Homes and it is my understanding from Bill that they are supportive of this alternate. 1 The report is relatively self-explanatory. The actual design of the upgrade for Teton Lane and the barricade would be incor- porated in the plans and specifications for the second addition, 1 which would be prepared by Centex Homes ' engineers . City Council and staff will specifically review the details of the design at that time. The design of the breakaway barricade, the 1 cul-de-sac/Tee turna-round and the steep grade at the north side of Teton Lane where it intersects with Lilac Lane would be the details to be straightened out with the submittal of the plans I and specifications . In the worst case scenario, emergency vehicles and maintenance vehicles may need to utilize the Natole driveway as a turnaround. If this is the case, the City will require the apron portion of the driveway to be improved as a Ipart of the Teton Lane improvements . 1 Don Ashworth March 24 , 1988 Page 2 The $18 , 000 cost estimate for Alternate No. 4 compares to the $16 , 074 . 50 cost estimate for the upgraded roadway for Alternate No. 2 in the original feasibility report. As stated in the ori- ginal feasibility, the storm drainage improvement costs for this area are associated with the plat of Curry Farms Second Addition and therefore the developer' s responsibility also. , Due to the complexity of this issue and the extra meetings required, the City has incurred additional consultant expenses than what was originally anticipated for preparation of this feasibility study. Centex Homes was responsible for paying for the costs of the study which originally was estimated at $2,500. We now estimate the consultant fees to be approximately $3 ,700 and believe that these additional costs should also be reimbursed by the developer. It is therefore recommended that the City Council accept ' Alternate No. 4 as the preferred alternate for the Teton Lane feasibility study and that the expense for implementation of this alternate shall be borne solely by Centex Homes. It is further recommended that the developer be responsible for reimbursing the City for its consultant' s expenses in preparation of this study, namely $3, 700 . Further, that design details for the upgrade of Teton Lane in accordance with the criteria laid out in Alternate No. 4 shall be submitted for approval to the City Engineer and the City Council as a part of the plans and specification appro- val process for Curry Farms Second Addition. Attachments: 1 . Alternate No. 4 dated March 24 , 1988 2 . Map 3 . March 14, 1988 City Council minutes 4 . Feasibility Study dated February 18, 1988 J 1 it WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES, INC. ' rot's rti/irr7 (•`##din is 1107 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 ' (612) 448-8838 March 24 , 1988 City of Chanhassen ' c/o Mr . Gary Warren, P.E. 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen , MN . 55317 RE: Teton Lane Supplemental Feasibility -Study Alternate No. 4 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members : Pursuant to your request we have prepared a supplemental report for the above named project . This report outlines Alternate No . 4 which consists of improving Teton Lane with a bituminous surface , a turn around , and a barrier to prevent Ithrough traffic to Lilac Lane . The existing right -of-way for Teton Lane is 33 feet . The recommended bituminous surface width for Teton Lane is 22 feet . The proposed section utilizes a minimum of 6 inches of Class 5 rock to a maximum of 10 inches . Test rolling and field condition will dictate the rock thickness used . The bituminous mat ' thickness considered is 2 inches . This recommendation is based on the fact that only one property owner , Natole , will be utilizing Teton Lane for access . We also feel the 22 foot width ' will provide a more than adequate width for emergency vehicles . We also believe the benefits achieved by a wider section do not justify the cost . The installation of future improvements , sanitary sewer and watermain , will- completely remove road materials installed now. Construction of a full cul -de-sac to City standards ( 40 foot ' diameter ) can not be completed due to the limited right -of -way width and trees . We recommend a tee type turn around to allow for snowplow turning . Teton Lane should also be posted as a dead ' end street . A barrier to prevent through traffic from the Centex Homes development is proposed at the south end of Teton Lane . The ' barrier proposed could be constructed of break-off wood posts to ' MAR 2 -1 1988 eITY OF CHANI-,ASSI_P• (March 24 , 1988 City of Chanhassen Page 2) I allow emergency vehicles access to the Curry Farms development but prevent through traffic movements . The barrier in this particular case is a good compromise which addresses the adjoining neighborhood concerns . Road barriers should not be considered a standard policy. Similar situations of this nature 111 which come up in the future will need to be addressed on their own merits . The estimated cost for a 22 foot bituminous section utilizing 10 inches of Class 5 rock , maximum section , and 2 inches of bituminous is $ 18 , 000 . 00 . This cost includes restoration of adjacent areas and wood post barriers Very truly yours , WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES , INC. ,(? i William R. Engelhardt ' WRE/ 1as 1 1 1 1 MI I OM MIll 111111 E OM E OM E • MN • INII MN IIIIII MN = • SIMCOX CHANHASSEN, hINNLSbTA CI HOREWOOD j M LILAC LANE • I _� FEASIBILITY STUDY �FO'R se CITY OF, CHANHA5SEN -r- I . , TETON LANE AND LILAC LA'N'E ol N� 1 PICKARD \ \ ERNATEN03A4 JULY, I'987 I ALTERNATE STREET -IMPROVEMENTS 44fP N0. 18+ 2 4 4 z I _• ALTERNATE B� o J ; NO. I �WI �WILLIAM R.ENGELHARDT ASSOCIATES INC. JAMES DONOVAN 1107 HAZELTINE BLVD. SUITE 480 SCALE: w CHASKA, MN. 55318 111CALE ~ LEONARD WARE -JIM° _ 13:5 \ I I F.J. NATOLE I CO & 00 ROAD H —. II CAMERON 0 Z'0 OUTLOT (EXCEPTION) I 0 S.R. REAMER 12 SHAKELTON Bf3ANCEL G\�� 0 10 I gUTLOT A e' r.4 3 4 (EXCEPTION) �. g ROAD RICHARD CARL.SON 15 O , 5 NPR"!" CITY 2 8 � . B �� O F 7 CHANHASSEN 6 II 10 ■ 1 \ 14 ROAD G ----- (EXCEPTION) 9 13 LARRY KERBER FRANCO 6 5 4 3 2 1 LORIS 8 121 II /IT DRAWING NO. 1 City Council Meeting - march 14, 1988 1 Councilman Johnson: I support the Mayor's motion, to tell you the truth. I think it puts out to a very vital part of our community, our seniors, which there is a very large group of. I was surprised when I went to the Senior Center the couple times I've been there and how many folks from Chanhassen were there and they actually knew they lived in Chanhassen. It's a great little center. I'm sorry to hear that you're going to have some housing problems coming up in a couple years because that's really going to be a real problem and I foresee a problem for a senior center for our seniors and we should put money that way to help solve those problems our seniors are going to have in a few years. I support the $15,000.00 at this time and I also think it's a good idea to hold back and take a broader look at the hotel and all these other projects that it can be used for. I think Tom's come up with a good fair split that will immediately start helping our seniors and hold back some for everything else. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Resolution #88-21A: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to 1 allocate $15,000.00 of the Community Development Block Grant Funds for the Year XIV to the South Shore Senior Center. The remaining $17,197.00 shall be allocated at a future meeting after staff has researched additional opportunities for these funds. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Horn who opposed and motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT LOCATED ON LOTS 1 AND 2, CHADDA ADDITION, BUILDING BLOCK DAYCARE, HERB MASON AND ROGER PAULY. Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. Resolution #88-22: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to a pprove 11 Vacation Request #88-2 of the existing sanitary sewer easement located on Lots 1 and 2, CHADDA Addition, Building Block Daycare, Herb Mason and Roger Pauly's property. All voted in favor and motion carried. ACCEPT TETON LANE FEASIBILITY STUDY. I Mayor Hamilton: I think we've all had an opportunity to read all of the information and comments that have gone on about this project. It's been to us before so we're not unfamiliar with it. I know there are several of you here this evening who may wish to make comments but we'll have a brief staff report Vand then we' ll entertain comments from the public. ' Bill Engelhardt: I'm here tonight to present the feasibility study for Teton Lane. Just to briefly update you. This is the Centex Project Phase 1 which is under construction. Phase 2 to explain why the feasibility study was done was II 110 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 ' to try and find a third access for the 2nd phase so that would eliminate the long cul-de-sac. Three alternatives were studied. Alternative #1 was a [-- overview of the project in upgrading Teton Lane, an existing gravel road, to a ' private drive. Alternate #1 was looked at as a sole development section for illustrative purposes only. We did go through and run numbers to determine assessments for sanitary sewer and water, curb and gutter and the full depth street section. Alternate #1 then would utilize the existing right-of-way of ' Teton Lane plus an additional 17 feet of right-of-way that would have to be acquired from the Donovan property and the full street section would be constructed. I won't go into a lot of detail. I've got some drawings on ' sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer was in this basic alignment. Put the watermain also in connection into Road G. Alternate #2 was an interim method we felt that would provide adequate traffic patterns for the Centex ' development. It was proposed that existing Teton Lane would be paved. There would be some minor regrading and reshaping and the drainage would be controlled with bituminous berms versus concrete curb and gutter. The ultimate section or the Alternate #1 would only be constructed when the adjacent ' property owners determine that they would like to develop and it's been made very clear in all the homeowner meetings that, at least in the case of Mr. Donovan, that he is not desiring to do any kind of developing and he can speak to that issue himself but it was made very clear that he was not interested in doing any development. The Alternate #2 cost was proposed to be directly assessed or put back against the Phase 2 development of Centex. We felt it was a direct benefit to the developer versus any of these people already have [_ ' access to the roadway and then to CR 17. The third alternate was a completely separate alternate. A way from Teton Lane was providing a connection to CR 17 via the city property. Centex development would lose one lot in there but we ' felt that there were some land exchanges that could take place and this was a viable alternative and that would completely eliminate the use of Teton Lane as a roadway except for a small portion of it where Mr. Natoli would have access ' onto what we call Road G, to utilize the alternate to CR 17 as an ingress/egress. The Ware property accesses through the Pickard property through an easement to Lilac Lane and the Pickard property accesses to Lilac Lane. The Donovan property, they access onto Lilac Lane in this area. If you'd like I could go into the costs a little bit and some of the details of the assessments or if you want we could just open it up to questioning. ' Mayor Hamilton: The costs seem to speak for themselves. I don't know if the rest of the Council wants to rehash them or not. I don't think it's necessary. ' Councilman Geving: I think the letter of March 10th is very important to this whole-process. The letter from Centex. Maybe you could address that. Bill Engelhardt: I haven't seen that one. I didn't hear anything. Gary Warren: We got that at the last minute when the staff reports went out. Any specific part of that Dale? ' Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure that the homeowners are even aware that this letter is in existence. Are the homeowners aware of this? Donna Pickard: Yes, we got a copy of it today. 4 II City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 Councilman Geving: The reason I ask that this be highlighted is because this is a little bit different scenario than what was presented at the homeowners meetings with them on the 9th. As I read this now, Atlernate #1, 2 and 3, particularly in Alternate #2, as I understand it, would the Centex Development Corporation agree to pick up all of these costs in Alternate #2? Gary Warren: That was a proposal that they would do the... Councilman Geving: And they agreed to that, is that correct? Gary Warren: From what I understand, yes. We don't have anything in writing. 1 Councilman Geving: Because it seems to me the number one fear that I read throughout the Minutes of your meeting was the people and their concern for any assessments for the improvement of using Alternate #2. Gary Warren: There was a lot of discussion to explain Alternate #1 and #2. There was confusion as to what Alternate #1 was and they were looking at the assessments as they relate to Alternate #1. We explained that that was sort of a base start. That Alternate #2 was not assessable the way it was set up. Councilman Geving: Did you show all of the homeowners your summary of costs , and the feasibility on page 3 for Alternate #1, 2 and 3 so they were totally aware? ' Gary Warren: They have a complete copy of the feasibility study. Mayor Hamilton: So we don't need any additional financial information, I don't believe. Do you have anything else Bill that you would like to say? Bill Engelhardt: No, unless you have some questions that you want me to dig into, I'll do that but like I said, everyone seems to be pretty aware of it. We've had two homeowners meetings. We've had very good participation and they were excellent meetings. We had some back and forth comments and it worked out real well. Mayor Hamilton: Co Centex representatives have any comments they would like to make? , Tom Boyce: I would, for the most part, I think our letter more or less summarizes our position. Alternative #3, we did take a little closer look at it again this afternoon ourselves. I guess one of the other concerns we would have with Alternative #3 is that the improvements for #3 don't put in sanitary sewer or watermain thus one of the questions I would.. . Mayor Hamilton: I guess I agree with that. I'm not sure that has been clearly identified yet. I know there are some residents here that would like to make 2 some comments. If you would, if you have something that's new that we haven't heard to this point or if there is one person who is going to speak for a group ' of you, I would be more than happy to listen. To have you speak and tell us what it is that your concerns are. k i City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 1 I Florence Natoli: We are the most important people on this. We are the terrible Natolis. Because of us, you've got a problem. There's one question (- which I asked at the meeting two weeks ago and it says that the rights to II Teton Lane, to the property owners abutting Teton Lane at cost. Now what does that mean? What is this at cost that Centex was going to give the land back to the people living on the road, at cost? IGary Warren: It's one of the steps that has to be established. I guess right now the only thing we know is that Centex has a purchase agreement for the property at $30,000.00 to $35,000.00 which includes some other work for Carlson I out there. We don't know what the extra cost is on that. That's something that through these purchase agreements and such, will have to be arrived at. It will be somewhat less than let's say $35,000.00. 1 Florence Natoli: Can you force us to buy that road if we do not want to buy the road? II Gary Warren: If we would do a 429 Assessment Project for example, that was acceptable, the City could put assessments against the property. IFlorence Natoli: Thank you, that was what I wanted to know. Donna Pickard: I live on the corner of Teton Lane and Lilac Lane. I guess, were you the one I was talking about the assessments? The neighborhood I understands that Centex was going to pick up the full cost from Alternative #2 and that #1 was, the way it was presented was that it was presented with the _ assessments. The thing that we're concerned about is that the road, if #2, if 1 that was selected, we are worried that that road would not last. I guess the life of the road is estimated at 5 to 10 years and that the traffic coming from the development would then determine that the road would be made a full development and that the neighbors would be assessed for improvements that do II not benefit the people who live on the roads at all. While we understood the clarifications between #1 and #2, we were worried that we would have to end up doing #1 anyway, even if #2 were to be selected now. I think there are the few I of us who do live right on the road would be willing to buy the road at a reasonable cost if that were to happen but we would also like that to be determined. IIJim Donovan: I'm on the east side of the road there, the majority part of the property. My question is, after reading the Centex letter here, first of all the last paragraph where they sort of try to hold a loaded gun to the whole 1 project. I don't believe that for one minute because they've invested too much money in the project as it is right now. They're not going to pull out because II of not getting their way in it. They'll do it. That's not a feasible and a reasonable statement to make in the letter. I hope that the Council realizes that. Secondly, on Alternative #3, the first paragraph states there that it's least acceptable to Centex because no provision is made for assessing any benefitted landowner other than Centex. Well, as been's stated before, none of II the land adjacent to that property is going to benefit from a upgrading of that property into a 2 inch blacktop road anyway. We use that road, or the other People use the road now as is. They don't need it to be blacktopped. The II trips that are made per day on that road, right now the road handles very easily. With the Curry Farm Development going in there, there will be II am ` j City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 approximately as in your notes there, showing approximately 215 trips a day 1 which would be 90% of that, 90% to 95% of that would be from Curry Farms traffic itself. They would be the beneficiaries of this road. Not the people who currently have property immediately adjacent so that comment in the Centex letter is not correct. We are not the beneficiaries of that road. It is Curry Farms no matter how you want to state it. I think that the Council should take into consideration that that road itself, as it stands right now, is more than adequate for the needs of the people who use the road right now. We don't need it blacktopped. We don't need it to be used by Curry Farms people and a 5 to 10 year use, I don't believe that that road would last 5 to 10 years with trucks, moving trucks, things like that, going over that blacktop road. 5 to 10 years is not a reasonable estimate for the lifetime of that type of road. A 2 inch blacktop road. With 215 trips a day, it would never last 5 to 10 years with our thawing and freezing that we have here. I believe that that's not a reasonable estimate to make. Therefore, that would then become a public road and as such, a public road would mean that the people immediately adjacent to that road would be taxed to have it upgraded once again either by storm sewer, water, whatever it might be there. W6 then, not benefitting from this road once again and Curry Farms benefitting from it, we would be the ones who would be paying for the cost of this rather than Curry Farms. Now if Curry Farms wants to pay for the entire cost of that right now to upgrade it to a full road, that's a different story, to make it last but as it stands right now, that road would not last. We would not benefit. I think this letter that Curry Farms sent that I've just seen today, I just received in my mail tonight, does not really show a true picture of what the story is. Larry Kerber: I'm sure Alternative #3 does satisfy the Teton Lane and Lilac Lane people. It does nothing for me. It makes my situation worse. These 1 people, if Alternative #3 is passed, they are allowed to buy total privacy for the cost of whatever they have to pay for that road easement back. Now I had objections to the street to the south of me. No one came up with a plan like this to offer me total privacy or to buy my way out or a relocation of the street. Alternative #3 is allowing them to do that. I would like to be given the same opportunity and I'm not. Alternative #3 does not give me an access to my property unless I can buy the land that borders the road to the south of it. So the Alternative #3 is not going to help my access problem. Now if Alternative #3 is selected, there's a road to the north of me. There's already a road that goes to the south of me. In checking with Carver County, I found out I can get no further access to my property. I'm bound now by what I've got there so I'm sitting with a piece of property with no further access out. The only way I can get an access, like I said, is to buy the land to the south of Alternative #3 and then, that would only solve access for a little sliver of my land, existing land, across that creek that runs through it. It does nothing to the other 2 1/2 acres of my property. Another point I'd like to make is, I think it's point 10 on the proposal there, that if you do select Alternative #3, this be changed. The cost of that road, if it does go through, should not be assessed to the abutting properties. It should be a direct developer's cost ? like the rest of the road costs are in the development. If we go up there we can see Road H or whatever it is, I don't think Jim Donovan is being assessed • for that now nor is Stu Reiner who is benefitting nor is Richard Carlson, Franco or anybody else. It's a developers costs. Likewise that road going in is a developer's cost. The property as it sits, the City property, does not need that road. It can access directly to CR 17 so I would really like to see that 1 114 City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 I changed to be a developer's cost and not assessed to the abutting properties. Mr. Natoli: What I want to know is who is responsible for filling in the ' potholes on Teton Lane and who can we force to do it? The guy that owns it or somebody else? There are holes in that road right now that my car is hitting bottom. You can't miss them there are so many of them. You can't go around ' them except unless you can go out in the fields somewhere and you can't do that so I want to know who we can force to fix that road. Mayor Hamilton: That's not the issue we're dealing with right now and I would ' ask that you would talk to our City Engineer and that he will answer that question for you. Mr. Natoli: It's an issue to me because I live right on Teton and I'm the guy who uses it. I have no way in and out except going over the holes. Mayor Hamilton: I realize that so Gary, if you'd give him a call tomorrow. Councilman Geving: It's not a city street. ' Gary Warren: It's owned by Carlson. Paul Shervold: I represent Larry Kerber. Presently his property on the north ' is low and there is a culvert under CR 17. Now the water that's immediately to [_ the west of there, there is a dike. The water is ponded there. It now causes damage to Kerber's property. Any additional development of this area, whichever alternative you choose, will only increase the damage to the Kerber ' property. As recently as a couple of weeks ago the water froze and ponded on Mr. Kerber's area, on his land and it will continue to do so for the rest of time and I would ask that you bear that in mind when you develop this area ' because it is not a proper disposal system made at this time. This was explained as long ago as last September with a meeting with your City Engineer and a person from Centex, a couple of people from Centex, that there would be problems with water and there presently is. This will only be aggravated, not ' ameliorated by your development of this area. I'd ask you to bear that in mind. ' Councilman Boyt: One question I have is, we talk about Alternative #3 would mean the losing of Lot 15. What's the value of Lot 15? ' Tom Boyce: The market value? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Tom Boyce: $25,000.00 to $30,000.00. Councilman Boyt: So when we look at real costs of Alternative #3, it's ' conceivable that we would add $25,000.00 to $30,000.00 to that? Tom Boyce: Plus I think in cost factors for a watermain in the road which we've estimated in our office at another $30,000.00. Plus property both north . and south would depreciate. .. City Council Meeting -March 14, 1988 Gary Warren: The watermain basically abuts the property all along CR 17. Sanitary sewer comes through the Kerber property on the south side so it's not that far away from that. Councilman Boyt: So you're thinking $30,000.00. .. ' Gary Warren: I'd say that's pretty excessive. Councilman Boyt: We have a potential then of adding maybe $60,000.00 to ' Alternative #3 which begins to make Alternative #1 look good in terms of cost. I'm real interested to see how this works out Mr. Mayor. There are enough .. issues on both sides of the situation it seems. As I understand it, the developer agrees to pay all costs of Alternative #2. That one of the questions that seems to be raised about Alternative #2 is the life expectancy of the road. It seems to me the engineering study said 10 years. How does this II compare with the typical urban section of road? Gary Warren: I guess we would hope to get 15+ years out of a typical urban II section. Councilman Boyt: Could you tell me what the difference is? What gives us 15 where you expect 10 here? 1 1 Gary Warren: Basically we're not proposing to go in on Teton Lane and do any major sub-base correction work. Grade it out, compact it, put it a 2 inch II bituminous lift on it versus a 3 inch, for example for a standard urban section. Councilman Boyt: If we did that, didn't put in the concrete curb but we put in II a 3 inch asphalt base, what would that do to the cost of Alternative #2? Gary Warren: Increase them. I Bill Engelhardt: I don't think the difference between a 2 inch mat and a 3 inch mat, you're probably talking in that stretch maybe $5,000.00 at the most. Councilman Boyt: What kind of life expectancy are we talking about with the 3 inch mat? Bill Engelhardt: The key is not necessarily the thickness of the mat but it's the depth of your rock base. If you 2 inch or 3 inches, we'd still be using the standard section of 10 inches of rock base in the city standard section and II that's the key to the whole thing. Getting 5 years or 10 years, if you sealcoat it every 3 years, you might stretch that life out 15 years. So the blacktop thickness is not the key, it's the depth of the rock base. If we put a sufficient rock base in it so the 2 inches or 3 inches doesn't make any difference. Councilman Boyt: Then let's start with the rock base. If we put a sufficient , rock base in, then are we approaching the cost of Alternative #1? Is that the heart of Atlernative #1's cost? i 1 I- _, City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 1 I Bill Engelhardt: The heart of Alternative #1 is also curb and gutter. That's very expensive. You're talking about a wider road. You're going out to the [- full width of a typical urban section. ICouncilman Boyt: Let me propose an alternative then that has a 33 foot wide road with the full gravel base that you're talking about and the 3 inch asphalt but an asphalt curb. Give me a feel for the cost of that. IBill Engelhardt: It's going to be essentially the same as what we're proposing with the 2 inch. You're talking very few dollars extra because of that 1 inch Ithickness. Councilman Boyt: I'm not on the 1 inch of asphalt. I'm on the 10 inches of Irock underneath it. Bill Engelhardt: But what I'm saying is, in the proposal that 10 inches of rock is in there. IICouncilman Boyt: In Alternative #2? IBill Engelhardt: In Alternative #2, yes. Councilman Boyt: So we have the full rock base we're looking at for a regular I city street so the only difference we're talking about is another inch of asphalt really and that's a $5,000.00 cost. [_ Gary Warren: And the width is less. ICouncilman Boyt: So we narrow the road and we get about the typical city life expectancy for a road for $39,000.00 to $40,000.00. IIGary Warren: That's about it. Plus we're not improving anything on Lilac. Councilman Boyt: Given that and where the City of Shorewood is coming from, I which they say they like Alternative #3, I would be interested in the neighborhood's reaction if one of their concerns is Teton Lane not being built to city standard, if we build it to a city life expectancy standard, does it Ithen become an acceptable alternative? Donna Pickard: I don't like you using our neighborhood as an access point to a II development that's easily, I don't know how far away it is but it's just a development in our neighborhood. It is a development down the road that is using Teton Lane only because of cost and ease. It's an existing dirt road. They don't have to do anything major but throw on an asphalt mat on. It's easy I for than to do and I just feel kind of cheated that because of our location, that's why they're using it. They're not using it for any other reason. I Councilman Boyt: Mrs. Pickard, then what you're telling me is that the key issue for you is not the life expectancy of the road but the increase in the L7 traffic? 1 Donna Pickard: Not only that. I'm on the corner so now am I going to have to bear future assessments on Teton, if there are any and by your definition your II S t City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 saying with this improved roadway. ... but Lilac Lane is not a very good road at this point and they would have to possibly, Shorewood or Chanhassen would possibly have to, on that side, put an addition so we're looking at double assessments. Councilman Boyt: You're telling me it's not the road surface. It's not the assessments. It's the traffic. Donna Pickard: It's not primarily the assessments, it's also the traffic. Sure, I've got two toddlers, I don't want to have cars zipping down. You can put 30 mph posted on that highway there but you know they're going to zip down there going 40. Councilman Boyt: I understand. I'm just trying to get straight on your issue. Donna Pickard: That's my issue. The other homeowners may have other issues. Councilman Boyt: Then I would gather that even if we included some sort of upgrading to the road surface of Teton and added another $10,000.00 or $15,000.00 for that, we're still talking about $55,000.00 to $60,000.00 takes care of the road in terms of building it up to an acceptable like expectancy. That's all the questions I had Tom. Councilman Horn: I support that alternative also. My major reason for that is I don't necessarily see it as the easiest access but I see it as the only reasonable access from this development. If we put in Alternative #3, we've in effect precluded any rights that the Kerber property has with access onto CR 17. Besides that I think we have to try in all cases to try to minimize our number of accesses. Whether they County dictates them to us or not, it's only prudent traffic management to do that so I would support a modification to Alternative #2 to make the road more substantial. Councilman Geving: This is a difficult situation. I've probably -spent more time on this issue, as we all did on it over the weekend, than we normally do on any one single item when we have 16 or 17 items to discuss. I really had to go to the site twice over the weekend and once even this afternoon one more time to look at the potential for Alternative #3. I haven't been out to your place for a while Larry but you've got quite a few more neighbors now than you had a couple of months ago when I drove out there. The road that's on the south side of your home has certainly impacted on your development there. I was looking at where that potential alternate road #3 would come in, the Alternate #3 to the north of you, and of course that would completely landlock you with a road on the north and a road on the south. Probably prohibit you forever of getting other access to CR 17, if you ever wanted to do anything with your 2 1/2 to 3 acres there. I was looking at the trees to the north of you and I noticed that Alternate #3 happens to be a fairly heavily wooded area. We'd be taking a number of trees to put that road in and that kind of turned me against that alternative. I have a number of comments but it seems to me in looking at the neighbors concerns in the Minutes that I was able to read, they seem to be very concerned about cost, potential cost for any assessments is Alternate #1 or #2 were to be selected. The more I looked at all of our alternatives, I too kind of came to the conclusion that I didn't like Alternate #3 for a number of reasons and just how far to take this Alternate #2 led me to • I City Council Meeting - Match 14, 1988 ' II I believe that if we did a substantial amount of roadwork, building up the base and the contractor now has agreed to pick up these costs which alleviates the homeowner's concerns, I don't believe we would be adding a whole lot of new traffic onto Teton Lane. Most of the people who are going to be using an I improved Teton Lane would be the 7 homeowners that presently live there and I suspect some of the new people from the Curry development certainly would come out that direction but Lilac Lane isn't the best road in the world either. My I feeling is they would probably drive south and come out south of Kerber's property there and come out to CR 17 if that was the direction they were heading. I think we're looking at what I'll term to be an intermediate I solution to a very long range problem. Nothing ever stays the same as it was 10 years ago and if we could predict that this road could go in and we could upgrade Teton and it would last 10 years, that's about all we ever get out of any street in Chanhassen and I've lived here 22 years. So 10 years is a pretty I good lifetime cycle for any street. If we could do it at a cost that would be minimal to the homeowners and looking ahead to what may happen to Mr. Donovan's property or the Ware's, the Natoli's, we all understand that things change. I Places where I never thought there would_.be homes have homes on them today. Larry Kerber can tell you that 2 years ago he looked across his pasture and Rosilee Dodd had horses on top of the hill. It's changed a lot so in 10 years I could see some of these 7 homeowners selling and redeveloping their 1 properties. I'm looking at the potential for you to have the least amount of impact and still have the kind of street that Mr. Natoli talked about earlier. Certainly one that he could drive on without hitting his car in the ditches and I bumps. Now I'd have to assume, if we were to take Alternate #2, the City would take this over as a public street. Is that correct Gary? [_ IGary Warren: If it was brought up to our standards. Councilman Geving: We bring it up to standards. We would take it over as a public street and then we would maintain it from that time on and it would Istill be meeting all of our rural standard for that roadbed. Gary Warren: It's actually in the urban service area so concrete curb and Igutter is our standard for the urban roadway. Councilman Geving: Would that go in there? You don't have room for it. I Gary Warren: The discussion we've had now is some compromise with bituminous curb. I Councilman Geving: I can see that compromise would be a very fair one at this time because in the future if the land does develop, I suspect that would be the next thing we'd do. Thinking in terms of sewer and water and upgrading the I entire roadbed. I am very much in favor of Alternate #2 for a number of the reasons I've stated. I still believe it alleviates the homeowner's concerns. We will get 10 years wear and tear on this road. It's the best alternative II that I can see in the three that's been presented by the feasibility study. Councilman Johnson: This is probably the toughest issue for the night. I see I Alternate #3 as the developer taking care of his own problem his own way. Not — ' his own way but not affecting other people. He affects the city of Chanhassen property there. He has some effect on Larry Kerber. Alternate #2 though, from II No City Council Meeting -k-,,arch 14, 1988 my feeling on a public safety standpoint provides for slightly shorter cul-de-sac distances on Road H there but probably about equal if not slightly longer for Road G. Actually it does provide two different ways to get into Road G better than Alternate #3 would because Alternate #3, you're dependent upon Road E to get you into Road G. Now you have Teton Lane to get to Road G and Road E which is a plus for me for Alternate #2. What's also interesting with this one is later on tonight we're going to theoretically approve a change to another ordinance that would say Alternate #2 wouldn't be allowed. That any street within the urban service area has to be to full city standards. I guess if we're going to do Alternate #2, we better do it before we change the ordinance a little later on tonight which to me doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. I do believe that your cost estimates don't include the $12,000.00 for 12 inches of subgrade on Alternate #2 that they do on Alternate #1 so if we do the subgrade corrections putting in 12 inches of modified Class V is about $12,800.00 more dollars. We're probably pushing up into the upper 20's to do Alternate #2. Is there a possibility of leaving a strip of outlot, very thin along the edge of the road to where the property owner on 2 is Curry Hills? You give yourself a 50 foot strip of land to put a 28 foot generally. oo road in Gary Warren: We only have 33 feet in Teton Lane right now. Councilman Johnson: How wide were you going to put Alternate #2? Councilman Geving: 33 feet. Councilman Johnson: No. Councilman Geving: That's all we've got. , Councilman Johnson: Is the road going to go edge to edge? Gary Warren: No. Councilman Johnson: How wide is the road? ' Bill Engelhardt: It's roughly 22 to 23 feet wide but we build within that 33 foot strip. Just center it within the 33 foot strip. Councilman Johnson: So the City would own property on either side of that 33 foot strip which is the normal boulevard? Gary Warren: It would be less than a normal boulevard. Councilman Johnson: What's a normal city street, concrete width? Gary Warren: We're 28 feet gutter line to gutter line. 31 feet with curb. et back to back Councilman Johnson: So we're going to have a 5 foot narrower road? Gary Warren: It's the same issue with Church Road where there's a 33 foot right-of-way and we're asking for 17 additional feet so we can have more than 1 I City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 foot on each side of the back of the curb. (— Councilman Johnson: But what we're planning on building here is a 25 foot road ' for 210 cars a day that's narrower than most other streets in the City. I don't like to throw another halfway done street in and I guess in order to do it, we have to buy 17 foot of property from Mr. Donovan to put the right street in there. Is that what we're looking at here? ' Gary Warren: We would like to obviously have a 50 foot right-of-way consistent with our standards. g Y ' Councilman Johnson: What would it cost to put the normal 28 foot wide street in there? Gary Warren: Alternate #1 basically, $40,000.00 plus road cost is the total urban section with curb and gutter. ' Councilman Johnson: And the cost estimate curb was $8,400.00, curb and gutter, so we did the bituminous curb for a couple thousand than we're at $30,000.00 to $28,000.00 road cost to put a 28 foot section in this 33 foot area with ' asphalt. That gives us a road that's safe, not just durable. We need the width in the road to be safe also because people are going to be walking on that road, on the edge of the road, whatever, just as well as any other place. The long and the short of it is, there's a lot of problems with using Teton Lane. I prefer to solve their problems internally and use Alternate #3. The water comes off of CR 17 and the sewer off CR 17, he doesn't have those (_ problems. Unfortunately that does something to Larry but it doesn't create ' another substandard road in this City. Mayor Hamilton: I just have a question on the property to the north of Road E. ' Has Centex purchased all of the Richard Carlson property that shows on our map as the exception? You have not purchased that? It seems like you could do a lot of people a big favor if you purchased that. The Shakelton, Cameron, Bransell and the Winsor property, most of which is for sale. The road ' alignment could be changed considerably and that whole area could be developed and cleaned up a tremendous amount. ' Tom Boyce: We looked at that at one time and basically the prices were astronomical. Mr. Carlson wanted in the neighborhood of around $200,000.00. ' Mayor Hamilton: What about the Bransell and Cameron and the Winsor property? I know all or parts of that are for sale right now. Tom Boyce: There's one house for sale on the lot. We looked at that at one time. If you put them all together, they ended up being $400,000.00 to tear everything down. We just couldn't make sense of it. We looked at the City property at the same time. It also gets very hilly and wooded back in there. ' I think development costs in addition to tearing things off and tearing houses down would add some value. Mayor Hamilton: That was my first thought that there couldn't be some way that ' land could be purchased and be made a part of the Centex development. That would certainly clean up that entire area, which needs to be cleaned up. It's City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II [--I 1 a mess back there. I see this very similar to the Pheasant Hills subdivision I where the road going through Pheasant Hills 4th Addition and out to Yosemite has not been approved by the Council. It's exactly the same situation as this, I feel. Development attempting to drive a road through a residential area that currently exists and the neighborhood doesn't want it. I'm certainly not in favor of using Teton at this time for the Centex development. I guess I haven't seen a good alternative but I'm certainly not in favor of trying to mess up Larry's property anymore than it already has been. But I'm not in favor of running the traffic down Teton, forcing Mr. Donovan to sell part of his property that he doesn't want to sell in the first place and then utilizing a substandard street on Lilac that couldn't handle 210 trips a day at any rate. So I don't know if there's another alternative. I'm not sure how to handle this because I don't like much of what I see I guess other than to not use Teton and to not use Alternate #3 which means everything is going to have to flow out to the south and to the east. I don't know if it's good or not. I guess I can't make that decision. There's two ways out. Teton is a private street at this point and I don't see that we ought to be forcing development in there just for a development. If the-Council decides that they want to use Teton, I would certainly not be in favor of anything other than the developer paying for all the expenses of it. Gary Warren: That is the overview perspective of what we're left with because there's no access here or here. A Mayor Hamilton: There's one access going to the east out to CR 17 to the south I of Kerber's property and then there's another one going south out to Lake Lucy so it's not as if there's only one access. There are two. It still is a long cul-de-sac, that's true. There's no question about that. ' Councilman Boyt: We can't support that. Mayor Hamilton: Well, I won't support Teton so unless you can find me another , alternative, I won't support going through Teton. Councilman Horn: Would Teton, as it exists today, serve as an emergency access , to this if we didn't allow Alternate #3 or the upgrade of Teton? Really what we're looking for is an emergency access to a long cul-de-sac. Gary Warren: We're looking for a secondary access and an access that we can rely on to get in there as far as being properly maintained from a service condition standpoint. Councilman Horn: Apparently the Natoli's have to rely on this access. Gary Warren: And you heard the comments. ' Councilman Horn: Yes, but they're going in there with a car. Most of the heavy equipment we would bring in there would, I assume be a little heavier duty than the average passenger car. Looking at it as a temporary situation that would still allow us access. I tend to agree with the Mayor on this. I don't see a good alternative here either. II 1 rJ i i City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II ICouncilman Boyt: Maybe I can offer an alternative. We take Alternative #2 and the as the developer has suggested, a fourth alternative where Road H comes in (- II we put in, off Teton Lane we put a cul-de-sac of sorts and a barricade. The cul-de-sac would be designed so that a snowplow could sweep right in front of the barricade and the barricade would be there to prevent through traffic. We would have Alternative #2, which would be an upgrade of Teton Lane with at I least a paved surface. I'm concerned that if we really need to have an emergency access, that Teton Lane really doesn't fit the bill if we leave it alone. I agree with what's been said about the difficulty of increasing traffic through a neighborhood that doesn't want it and maybe that offers a I possibility. Councilman Geving: I'm confused by what you just said. You indicated that you I would like to see a barrier on Teton Lane with a cul-de-sac for a turnaround of our snowplowing vehicles. You also indicated though that you said that you would allow the developer to improve Teton Lane. Isn't that what you said? IIWhy would they want to do that? _f Councilman Boyt: They would want to do that because we can't use, I don't think we can use the existing 17 foot wide questionable roadway as an emergency I access. By the very nature of it, when we need to get in there, the conditions of travel are generally not going to be good and to put it on a road that's already questionable, I think doesn't provide that area with any increased I safety level. They can increase it with a minimum amount of $34,000.00 will get us a 33 foot wide roadway which will allow the plow to get in there. Put a (._ cul-de-sac at the end of it, the plow can swing around and now we've got, all II we need to do is break through a simple barricade and we're onto Road H. Then if at some point that land develops, we're sitting in pretty good shape to come in there and finish the road off. If the Donovan land develops or the Ware or Natoli or some other significant chunk of property. I'm striking for a I compromise Dale between having a 17 foot wide road that really doesn't give us emergency access. I Councilman Geving: If you accept the $34,000.00, you're accepting the maintenance of that road. Teton Lane. If you put that barrier there, I just don' t understand what you're really buying. I Councilman Boyt: What we're accepting is the maintenance on a road that's going to get very little wear. It's going to have basically three families using it unless we need to break through the barricade to access it in an II emergency. Councilman Geving: Where, for example the snowplow, how would that happen if we tried to maintain Teton? IGary Warren: We would access off Lilac Lane then. What Bill is addressing, I guess he's got some value in that we get the upgraded road to an interim I standpoint so we can rely on it. My concern I guess is that it's travelable, especially in emergency situations and yet we'd have a barrier at the end of it 6 so it would not be used for normal ingress and egress. Thus addressing the IIneighborhood concern that it's not a thoroughfare type of arrangement. II City Council Meeting -Search 14, 1988 Councilman Geving: You didn't address this do nothing in the feasibility study. The do nothing option. What are your comments on that? Gary Warren: The do nothing concept I think goes contrary to city standpoint on other long cul-de-sacs. Lake Riley Woods. Those issues where we have said that this is too long of a cul-de-sac. That it should have a secondary access. Councilman Horn: I guess I don't see that as a do nothing alternative. I see that as a wait alternative until the rest of this area develops. It's very similar to what we had in Chanhassen Estates and many other areas. It doesn't provide an immediate secondary access but it will provide that in the future. I think what we're saying is, if we had some of these of these other properties developed we could get a more acceptable access at that time. Councilman Geving: I have no problem with the alternative. I think it's , probably a good comment. Mayor Hamilton: Alternative #3, can that swing any further to the north? Bill can you move that? Bill Engelhardt: That drops off. Councilman Boyt: I think if we leave it as a 17 foot wide roadway, we run the risk that the people who live on Road G and H, there's just a few there I suppose, but those people are never going to want that road to go through. If we put that 33 foot wide strip up there on the other side we're pretty clearly saying that someday that road's going to go through. Mayor Hamilton: I don't think because you don't do it now you're not saying ' it's never going to go through. Councilman Boyt: I know that but I also know that people get used to living on a road that doesn't go through. I think we have a chance to have the developer pay for paving that road. We can put a barricade up and still manage to plow in front of it so we can get access. I like the alternative and I make that motion. Councilman Johnson: I suggest that instead of making that motion without any engineering being done yet, that a more viable motion would be that we do that to see if that thing is feasible. Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that. ' Larry Kerber: What are you going to vote on now? Are you going to close off Teton Lane? ' Mayor Hamilton: The motion is to make Teton Lane a 33 foot wide paved road with a barrier to be placed someplace, I'm not exactly sure where, and a cul-de-sac placed on there so emergency vehicles can get through there but there will not be through traffic. Larry Kerber: So Centex's traffic will not be using it? , .r P f City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 II I Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. (- Larry Kerber: They will pay to upgrade? Okay, now that is going to be 1 bringing a lot of additional traffic past my place. When we originally went in here, we were looking at three accesses and I expressed a concern. Now, where's that traffic going to come out? It's going to come out, I'll have a IIlot more past my place. Mine is the quickest route. Mayor Hamilton: Either to the east or to the south. I think we're aware of that. There's only two places. ILarry Kerber: I just wish, if they're going to save any money in this, Centex, and I'm certain they are, if they're just to upgrade that road and put a I barricade there, that something should be appropriated, some type of blocking, screening, something for my place there. I just really feel with all the extra traffic now. When we went into this, I had no idea. At that point we said three. Now we're down to two accesses. Councilman Horn: You've got no more traffic this way than you would if Y ou had Alternative #3. Then it would all move past your place on one side or the Iother. Larry Kerber: Yes, but we don't have Alternate #3. ICouncilman Horn: That's right but if we did choose Alternate #3, which was one of our options, you'd get just as much traffic as you're getting this way only [..._ II they would be buzzing around on both sides of your property. Larry Kerber: Okay, but what I'm saying, if there's any money savings for the developer... ICouncilman Horn: There won't be. II Larry Kerber: But we've still got an unaddressed screening issue at my place. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a separate issue. ILarry Kerber: I realize it is. I just wanted to reiterate on that. Councilman Geving: I think that maybe we have to accept the feasibility study. IIMayor Hamilton: What we're doing is looking for another alternative within the feasibility study. I Councilman Johnson: Let me understand the motion is to increase the feasibility study to include an option #4? I Mayor Hamilton: Which is as Bill outlined which the staff will come back to us with additional information to see if it's feasible. , II Gary Warren: This is not a 429 feasibility study so really you can do with it as you want as far as the motion. . City Council Meeting - March 14, 1988 i ICouncilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to increase the feasibility study to include a fourth alternative which will improve Teton Lane to a 33 foot wide paved road with a barrier placed at the end to provide for emergency access only. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. Jim Donovan: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask, could you please y p put that up there. I was disturbed by something I saw there. This road here, Road H, that's a cul-de-sac on my property. , Mayor Hamilton: Well, it's not on your property. Wherever it is, it's not on your property. i Councilman Johnson: When he final plats it, he can't do that. Donna Pickard: Can I ask just one gtii.ck question? The cul-de-sac they were , talking about putting onto Teton Lane here. We're talking about where the barricade would be. Are we talking about being able to access by Natoli's or putting it closer down here? II � Mayor Hamilton: I think that's one of the things we're asking staff to _f /'A identify for us is where that cul-de-sac should be and how it should barricade. APPROVAL OF DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CHANGE ORDER, SHAFER CONSTRUCTION. Councilman Geving: I think, first of all, when I saw that this was a change order for $291,000.00, it seemed to me there were a lot of things in here that were very questionable to me. Were all of these changes, and they were substantial, I see them all the way up to 47 on one part. Items on the C Schedule up to 43 and on the E Schedule up to 48. I don't know if these were consecutive or how they were arrived at but who approved all of these and authorized these changes as they were done in the field? , Gary Warren: The changes that you've seen here, some of them are quantity changes. For example it is a unit priced contract so in example, I guess the 72" RCV pipe, there we just got a bust in the quantity that was in the original bid schedule so we're making a correction from that standpoint. The contract did say that we will pay as we consume this. Councilman Geving: Could you miss on the aggregate base, for example, by P � 13,000 tons for a total of $79,000.00? Is it possible that someone really missed that when they bid this or the specs for the bid were really that bad? I can't imagine 13,000 tons of aggregate at a change order. Gary Warren: This addresses the sub-base that we ran into on the West 78th Street. The actual granual material that was out there was quite extensive. We did do some salvaging and we had a decision because the soils actually turned out to be worse than what our borings had showed us. We made a decision that we would use more granual material based on our soil consultant's recommendation for what he saw. unci.l Meeting - March 28, 1988 IISewer Plan Update. How's that. That will accomplish what you need, right? it will leave it a little bit short but that's pretty close. I 1 Resolution #88-21(b) : Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to I allocate $7,500.00 to conduct a study for the senior citizens of Chanhassen and allocating $9,697.00 for the Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. All voted in favor and motion carried. 1 ACCEPT TETON LANE FEASIBILITY STUDY, ALTERNATE 4. II Mayor Hamilton: We got a lot of information here. I don't know that I ever saw Alternate 4. I'd like to have seen something that would indicate to me what the heck it is. ICouncilman Horn: That's the one we proposed last time. Mayor Hamilton: I know but I don't see anything here. I know we talked about II it. Bill Engelhardt: The reason there wasn't a map included along with the report I is that Centex was still working on their alignment for the cul-de-sac in this area. If you recall, in their initial proposal for Phase 2, they had a cul-de-sac included up in the Donovan property and we just received this map today where they had finally worked out the details for the lot sizes in the [.._. I Phase 2. The change would be, and the way that Phase 2 will come in, Road G will stay all up on their property. These lots will all, I believe will meet the city standards. Concerning Teton Lane, we'll have a 33 foot easement in I the rear of the right-of-way and construct a 22 foot bituminous roadway from Lilac Lane up to their property line, the Centex property line. At that point we're proposing that a barrier be installed and neck the driveway down to a 10 II foot bituminous lane and then landscape it with shurbs and bushes in this corner. The reason for that is we wanted to not give the appearance that this roadway would be a through road at some point in time and we felt that by going down to a 10 foot bituminous in this area, that would accomplish that. We also I felt that the 22 foot wide bituminous roadway that would be constructed would accomodate the traffic from the area. In effect we have one property owner, the Natoli property that would be using that as an ingress/egress point. The 1 Ware's could eventually use it. They do cross the Pickard property to get onto Lilac. They could eventually use it so really our number of property owners that will be using this 22 foot lane is very minimal and it would provide the surface area that would be capable of carrying the emergency vehicles in and I out. The sections for the proposed roadway as we said in the report, would go from 6 inches of Class V rock to 2 inches of bituminous mat to 10 inches depending on what the soil conditions would dictate out there. We're I estimating the cost to use the 10 inches and the 2 inches to give a maximum number so we know what we should have to work for. Any plan for Teton Lane to be prepared in conjunction with the Phase 2 of Curry Farms, it would go through I the process of approval and review by the City Engineer prior to construction. I think you did receive a letter from Centex stating they were agreeable and it was feasible and they would be agreeable to carrying the cost. I [:: 16 E C II y Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 II Mayor Hamilton: Bill, will the Shakelton, Cameron, Brancel property then, they'll just have to use Road G, is that correct? I Bill Engelhardt: They'll just have to use Road G. I think that's probably the best alternate for those parcels because they are big enough where they could II be subdivided and they might have to have additional roads or somebody might come in and put this whole parcel together as one development. Jack Brancel: I'm the owner of the property back there. Would there be any I costs associated with that if we're going to be taken off of this Teton Lane and brought back onto this Road G around Road E and back out again? Mayor Hamilton: I don't believe so. There wouldn't be any assessments. II Councilman Geving: Costs to you? Jack Brancel: Yes. 11 Mayor Hamilton: No. Nothing. I Jack Brancel: Okay, that's the only question I had. Councilman Boyt: Tell me where you're going to put the snow. I I Bill Engelhardt: It's a very difficult question. In fact, the directive from the Council was to look at a cul-de-sac in this area. That's not feasible , because of the limited right-of-way. By going with the 22 foot wide surface, we then have about 5 1/2 to 6 feet on each side of the roadway for snow storage. It's not like a typical right-of-way. You should usually have about II 7 to 8 feet but in this case, it's like putting it off to the side. I think the "T" turnaround right at this end, we're probably going to have to push it into this area and maybe leave the pole just across the drivingway and leave some kind of an area open on the end and try to move that out onto the field II and try to get the snow in this area. That's about the only think you can do with it. Councilman Boyt: I can give you another possibility. Not one I particularly II like. I'm concerned that if we have a barrier there, we need to have some way so the snow isn't piled up in front of it or it becomes useless. I'd like you II to take your cul-de-sac that services Lots 12 and 11 and take your temporary barricade and put it down there right across from the corner of Lot 11. Now we've got a cul-de-sac basically. ' Bill Engelhardt: Then you would use this cul-de-sac, you'd come in Lilac, come down Teton and into this cul-de-sac? Adding another cul-de-sac. Councilman Boyt: I guess we would yes. That has a drawback to it too. II Bill Engelhardt: The key to that, I guess one of the reasons for not doing it II was to avoid the traffic on Teton. Councilman Boyt: I agree that we don't want to put traffic on Teton Lane. I also think that to make this workable, we have to have a place that we can put II snow relatively easily so it doesn't get stacked up against the barricade. I'm 17 II E. uncil Meeting - March 28, 1988 somewhat skeptical that that plan is going to do it. c Gary Warren: It's going to come down to our city forces and the Pa rticular individual who plows this area to have the marching orders that that's not done. I guess we feel, it's not whether we have the right-of-way or not, they [— plow the road and the snow builds up on the sides. We'll get it open and use whatever area we need to do that and specific direction will be given to keep ' the barricade area, don't use the snow as the barricade but keep that area clean and I see that as a workable situation. Councilman Boyt: How can they take that truck and turn it around in there so ' they can clean in front of that barricade? I don't understand how they can do that. Bill Engelhardt: I think the 33 feet, if we use a "T" in here, we should be able to get enough so they can come in and probably push it ahead and "T" it on both sides. Wing it on both sides and take it away from the front and put it on this side and this side. It will happen. We'll have to work with it. It's such a limited area up there. Mayor Hamilton: Except that Mr. Donovan has been very cooperative and I would ' suspect that if we asked him, he would allow us to put a "T" in at the end of the street there. There's nothing there. It's just a field. Were not going to be hurting anything if we did it at our expense and returned the property to the way it is now when we're finished with it. I can't imagine he's going to have a problem with that. Councilman Horn: If you're going to put that shrubery in there, you can blade up to the barricade from one side and you can blade up to the shrubery from the other side but the rest of it's going to be filled with snow. How is that going to be an access in the winter? Bill Engelhardt: We're talking about a 10 foot walkway in here. You'll have to come in and take that 10 feet out. Clean that out. ' Councilman Horn: Before you could get a firetruck through you'd have to come and plow it. ' Bill Engelhardt: No, when he plows snow, when he gets done plowing your cul-de-sac out, then come in and take that out with a front end loader or something. Gary Warren: We go around on our second pass so to speak and we dress up areas that we know are problem areas such as cul-de-sacs and this would be just another one put on the list. Clean out, as Bill said, with a front end loader ' or bobcat for example would be very useful in that type of a situation. Bill Engelhardt: I think Gary, you do that with hydrants too. Don't you go out and clean around hydrants so it would be the same piece of equipment that you'd be cleaning around hydrants. Councilman Horn: Explain to me again what you're going to put in that area. I ' thought you were going to put something in there so it wouldn't like a through section. ' 18 f uncil Meeting - March 28, 1988 Bill Engelhardt: The Centex proposal was to, you can leave this blank too. You wouldn't have to put any landscaping in there but it would seem to me I guess, a good idea too that if we would dress that corner up a little bit so it wasn't all weeds and who's going to take care of it? We don't want to go out there and have to cut that little piece of grass. I suppose you could pave it. That's one option to pave the whole thing but it would appear that it would be more attractive as you came into this cul-de-sac area, to that it wasn't a through road. If you pave it and you put all the blacktop in there and the barriers, somebody down the line is going to say, that's a right-of-way and you're going to start getting petitions to utilize it as a right-of-way. Councilman Horn: How are you going to have something that you can landscape that you can plow through? ' Bill Engelhardt: You aren't going to plow through the sides. You're just going to scoop the snow off to get a 10 foot strip just like you would clean around the hydrants. Go in with a front end loader and pull your snow back to make the 10 foot strip. Councilman Horn: Is that a city street then? City maintained street? I Gary Warren: Yes. I ' 3 Councilman Horn: It isn't now? s Gary Warren: No. Councilman Boyt: I want this barricade to work. To me, for it to work, one of the things we have to do is we're not building a permanent barricade here but at some point, maybe it's 20 years from now, land is going to develop on the other side of these big parcels and when it does, the conception is that that road is going to go through. I think we need to make it pretty clear that someday that road is going to go through because if we hide it, then I can assure you that we're going to get a tremendous petition the day that we decide to open it up. So I'd like to see the area that you've got shaded there, paved. I would even support a sign there that said this is a temporary barricade. I want the barricade there because I don't want the traffic but I don't want to mislead anybody into thinking that it's going to be closed forever. John Speakes: I'm with Centex Homes. If we take that barricade, if you of the barricade on the diagonal across that road instead of perpendicular, snowplows are going to go by one side. Gary Warren: We can work out the details during the plans and specs phase s o , you'll have another chance to look at it then. Obviously it needs some more thought here to get it to that point. Kevin Clark: I also am with Centex Hanes. In anticipating questions that would come up tonight, I spoke with the Na oli'seand mentioned to then that basically what we have is a situation of a deadend and there would be some backing up of city vehicles and such. I proposed to them that Centex 19 cil Meeting - March 28, 1988 ld improve a 10 foot apron so that in essence, we would deed it over to the ity to have an area to back up into and you're not backing up into a rutted area. What we wanted to do was put in an improved apron on the Natoli property. I had talked to than before the meeting so there's a place to properly back up in. Councilman Geving: I think it's important though, if we do this with the driveway at the Natoli's, the Natoli's may not always live on that property ' over the next few years until that is developed. I would hope that we would have some kind of an agreement with the Natoli's that is binding on the future homeowners as well. Mayor Hamilton: We'll get an easement. Councilman Geving: Okay, we'll get the easement necessary to do that because I ' can see that as a potential future problem. I did talk to the Natoli's and they are more than willing to use their land. Bill Engelhardt: After listening to discussion, if we took that 10 foot strip and made it 22 and just carried it all the way through, that would solve it. Mayor Hamilton: Seeing how Mr. Natoli is here, I'll ask him. Everybody has been telling us that you agreed that we may be able to back our trucks up during plowing to use a part of your property so they can turn around. Would you be agreeable to an easement so we could do that? Mr. Natoli: Perfectly alright. Bruce Cameron: I just had a question about Teton Lane. There has been talk at one time that Centex was going to purchase that and deed it over to the city. Is that the case? Mayor Hamilton: That's what is being accomplished here, right. Bruce Cameron: So at some point in time the property owners could be assessed ' if that street was put through there and brought up to the city standards? Gary Warren: If it was brought up to full city standards. ' Councilman Geving: Potentially. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, full city standards. Someday. Councilman Boyt: I think we should follow up on this gentleman's comment that, were you here two weeks ago when we discussed this? Bruce Cameron: No I wasn't. Councilman Boyt: The plan is to not upgrade this road until that property is ' developed over there at which time there would be a much larger group of people that would be assessed for it. Bruce Cameron: Thank you. I was in the hospital. ' 20 ma City Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 II Jim Donovan: I'm just wondering, , � g, were you saying that you're not going to assess it until the property develops? Like my property would be developed. You wouldn't be doing any assessing until that time? • Mayor Hamilton: That's correct. Could I ask you a question too Jim? I'm sorry, I didn't see you come in. We had talked again about the availability of having our trucks when they're plowing, turn around at the end of that street. I was wondering if you would be amendable also to just a "T" at the end of the street so the truck could pull in there and back up and turn around. If we could get an easement from you and develop it at our own expense? Jim Donovan: Yes. Councilman Horn: I'd like to finish my question. You were saying we would have a 2 inch bituminous coating on this? Bill Engelhardt: That's right. ' Councilman Horn: Similar to a driveway? Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Councilman Horn: Do you know what garbage trucks can do to a driveway? How long do you expect that to last? Bill Engelhardt: I really don't have a problem with it. With a 2 inch mat f with a base that's constructed properly. We talked about that last week. It's the base that creates or doesn't create a problem and if that's constructed properly, I don't think the 2 inches will have a problem. You find in the city streets that 2 inches is almost the standard section. Councilman Horn: The other thing I read in here is that everything we put in now will come out when it's brought up to city standard so there will be no ' benefit in what we're doing now to a final street? Bill Engelhardt: That's correct. Councilman Horn: It seems kind of a waste. Is there anyway we could do something that would be more permanent at a later date? Gary Warren: The reason that that statement is true is because of the work • that would be done with the utilities and normally we run the utilities down the center of the road in that easement area so by the time you get done excavating the trenches for the utilities, you've basically destroyed the subbase and you have to come back and rebuild that. That's the reason why we couldn't take advantage of what we're putting in now. Councilman Horn: And you couldn't go besides it or make some provision for that now? Gary Warren: The utilities? ' Councilman Horn: Yes. 21 1 se II A. .ty Council Meeting - March 28, 1988 II Gary Warren: We try to be creative and if we've got some existing condition I that is worth salvaging, Church Road for example where we're looking at the south end of Church Road, even though we've got the Metropolitan Commission is going to be installing our full road section out there, the Carison property is going to be putting in the sanitary sewer on the west side outside of our road II section so we don't have to bust up that road section. So we do, if the situation dictates it, we will try to be creative and put our utilities in other areas. I think in this case, it all depends on how the development goes IIand we'll certainly keep that in mind. Councilman Horn: I really have trouble with this. What it all boils down to is we're doing all this just for a potential secondary access requirement at IIsome point. The City is going to have to plow a section of street now that it didn't have to plow. We're going to have to put in a chunk of pavement that is totally temporary. I really question the benefit of this whole thing based on I this. Now if there could be something of a permanent nature for a future plan I could see it but I really have to question this. IMayor Hamilton: Wouldn't you be able to salvage the Class V out of there? Gary Warren: Yes, you're not going to totally lose it but it gets contaminated as a result. We did, in the downtown here for example, we salvaged a lot of I material there so those things are feasible. It's just a matter of what the proposed improvements would be and how you could justify the salvaging of them. Councilman Geving: Centex Homes are here tonight. Is there someone here who can speak for the corporation? Do you agree with the recommendation in the Council's packet tonight that you would pay for not only the street but the IIexpanded scope of the Alternate #4 study? Kevin Clark: I can't say I agree totally but I'd like to get beyond this. IICouncilman Geving: That's good enough for me. I Resolution #88-25: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Teton Lane Feasibility Study Alternate #4, Curry Farm Subdivision Phase 2, File #87-16 with the recommendation that the expense for implementation of this II alternate study be borne solely by Centex Homes. It is further recommended that the developer be responsible for reimbursing the City for it's consultant's expenses in preparation of this study, namely $3,700.00. Further, that design details for the upgrade of Teton Lane in accordance with the I criteria laid out in Alternate #4 shall be submitted for approval to the City Engineer and the City Council as a part of the plans and specifications approval process for Curry Farms Second Addition. All voted in favor except IICouncilman Horn who opposed and motion carried. APPROVAL OF PLUMBING/HEATING INSPECTOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH HEATING PERMIT AND IVFEE SCHEDULE. T''\.-1) Mayor Hamilton: This was an item we looked at last week and I had asked the C-ouncil to table it until such time as we had an opportunity to review the ,\.4, I1�' total staffing needs within the City. I think I've asked for that about a (E: 1 22 se C 1 CE , SSEN sse.. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 January 10 , 1989 1 Centex Real Estate Corporation , Attn: Mr. John Spiess Vice President - Production Baker Technology Plaza 1 5959 Baker Road Suite 300 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Y Re: Curry Farms Second Addition File No. 88-5 (pvt) Dear Mr. Spiess : On December 27 , 1988 , the City received your letter concerning requests for reductions of your outstanding letters of credit for Curry Farms First and Second Additions . As you are aware, the letter of credit for the First Addition was allowed to expire and was picked up by you on January 6 , 1989 . Concerning the Second Addition, contrary to indications from your consultant and yourselves, the improvements have not been completed. I acknowledge the fact the second barricade installa- tion was postponed at my direction; however, other items such as installation of the wear course and final restoration work remains to be completed in the spring. Concerning the installation of the second barricade, the City transmitted to you title information in December which verified that access easements remained in force for the existing property owners who had utilized Teton Lane for access. It was because these easements had not been released that the installation of the final barricade on Teton Lane was postponed . As you are aware, a condition of approval for the Curry Farms Second Addition required the barricading of Teton Lane to prohibit traf- fic from utilizing this as a through street. It is therefore my position that until the access easements from the existing property owners have been released and the second barricade installed on Teton Lane that no reduction of the letter of credit will be considered for the Second Addition . I trust you can appreciate the importance of resolving this in a timely fashion and I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Mr. John Spiess January 10 , 1989 Page 2 If you have any uestions please 4 p call . ' Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN i G. . . Warren, P.E. C : gineer GGW:ktm ■ ' cc: Roger Knutson , City Attorney Allan Larson, Sr. Engineering Technician ' Larry Brown, Staff Engineer Development Contract File City Council Administrative Packet (1/23/89 ) III 1 1 \ 3 iJ LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON I DAVID L. GRANNIS-1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTt B. KNETSCH ' VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.• 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J. MAYER TIMOTHY J.BERG PATRICK A. FARRELL J DAVID L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER February 17, 1989 .ALSO ADMITTED To PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN Mr. Franco C. Loris P.O. Box 263 II Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Teton Lane, City of Chanhassen II Dear Mr. Loris: Please be advised that the City of Chanhassen has been II conveyed title to Teton Lane which is legally described as Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 , as shown in yellow on the enclosed map. Your property is outlined in green. II The City has been requested by neighbors to place a barricade on Teton Lane at the location shown on the map to restrict traffic to Lilac Lane. In accordance with the II conditions of the plat approval for Curry Farms Second Addition you or your predecessors in title may have been granted the right to use Tract C for ingress and egress purposes. I The City seeks your cooperation in relinquishing any rights you may have to use Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 (Teton Lane ) since you will have access to the public roads which have II been platted in Curry Farms, Second Addition. If you are willing to relinquish your easement over Tract C, II please have the enclosed quit claim deed executed before a notary public, have your signature notarized and return the deed to me at your earliest convenience in the envelope provided. II On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I would like to thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this request, please do not II hesitate to call me. Very truly yours , II R NNIS, GR',NNIS, FARRELL, KNU :•N, P.A. BY- Po--r N. Knutson II RNK/rh Enclosures II cc: ‘. Mr. Gary Warren mil a I LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS-1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 PosT OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 IVANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH VANCE B GRANNIS,JR.' 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J. MAYER PATRICK A. FARRELL TIMOTHY J. BERG DAVID L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 ROGER N KNUTSON DAVID L. HARMEYER TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 February 17, 1989 I •AISO ADMITTED To PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN Mr. Richard J. Oerter 6311 Teton Lane 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Teton Lane, City of Chanhassen 1 Dear Mr. Oerter: II Please be advised that the City of Chanhassen has been conveyed title to Teton Lane which is legally described as Tract C, Registered. Land Survey No. 11 , as shown in yellow on the enclosed map. Your property is outlined in green. 1 The City has been requested by neighbors to place a barricade on Teton Lane at the location shown on the map to II restrict traffic to Lilac Lane. In accordance with the conditions of the plat approval for Curry Farms Second Addition you or your predecessors in title may have been granted the right use Tract C for ingress and egress purposes. Ito The City seeks your cooperation in relinquishing any rights you may have to use Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 (Teton II Lane ) since you will have access to the public roads which have been platted in Curry Farms , Second Addition. If you are willing to relinquish your easement over Tract C, I please have the enclosed quit claim deed executed before a notary public, have your signature notarized and return the deed to me at your earliest convenience in the envelope provided. IOn behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I would like to thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. If you have I any questions or concerns regarding this request, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours , IGR , - , GRANNIS, FARRELL, KNU. SON, P.A. II BY: 1`� Rags N. Knutson IRNK/rh Enclosures IIcc:, - Mr. Gary Warren as `` y _J I LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON I DAVID L. GRANNIS-1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 403 NORWFST BANE: BUILDING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH VANCE B. GRANNIS MICHAEL J. MAYER VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.• 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TIMOTHY . BERG PATRICK A. FARRELL I DAVID L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER 'ALSO ADMITTED To February 17 , 1989 PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN I Mr. and Mrs. Henry L. Wong 6305 Teton Lane I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re : Teton Lane, City of Chanhassen II Dear Mr. and Mrs. Wong: Please be advised that the City of Chanhassen has been II conveyed title to Teton Lane which is legally described as Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 , as shown in yellow on the enclosed map. Your property is outlined in green. The City has been requested by neighbors to place a barricade on Teton Lane at the location shown on the map to restrict traffic to Lilac Lane. In accordance with the conditions of the plat approval for Curry Farms Second Addition you or your predecessors in title may have been granted the right to use Tract C for ingress and egress purposes. I The City seeks your cooperation in relinquishing any rights you may have to use Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 (Teton II Lane) since you will have access to the public roads which have been platted in Curry Farms, Second Addition. If you are willing to relinquish your easement over Tract C, II please have the enclosed quit claim deed executed before a notary public, have your signatures notarized and return the deed to me at your earliest convenience in the envelope provided. I On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I would like to thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this request, please do not II hesitate to call me. Very truly yours , II GRAN IS, GP1ANNIS, FARRELL, & KNUT CN, P.A. II BY: _ Roger N. Knutson II RNK/rh Enclosures II cc: ,Mr. Gary Warren am I 'y < J / I- I i I LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS-1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH VANCE B GRANNIS,JR.• 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J, MAYER PATRICK A. FARRELL TIMOTHY J. BERG ' DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N. KNUTSON SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER February 17 , 1989 I •ALSO ADMITTED To PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN Mr. and Mrs. Richard D. Carlson 1 5515 Timber Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 II Re : Teton Lane, City of Chanhassen Dear Mr. and Mrs. Carlson: I Please be advised that—the City of Chanhassen has been conveyed title to Teton Lane which is legally described as Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 , as shown in yellow on the Ienclosed map. Your property is outlined in green. The City has been requested by neighbors to place a barricade on Teton Lane at the location shown on the map to 1 restrict traffic to Lilac Lane. In accordance with the conditions of the plat approval for Curry Farms Second Addition you or your predecessors in title may have been granted the right IIto use Tract C for ingress and egress purposes. The City seeks your cooperation in relinquishing any rights you may have to use Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 (Teton 1 Lane ) since you will have access to the public roads which have been platted in Curry Farms, Second Addition. I If you are willing to relinquish your easement over Tract C, please have the enclosed quit claim deed executed before a notary public, have your signatures notarized and return the deed to me at your earliest convenience in the envelope provided. I On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I would like to thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. If you have I any questions or concerns regarding this request, please do not hesitate to call me. IVery truly yours , GRANNIS, •ANNIS, FARRELL, & ' SON, P.A. II - " -: -, _ --_- BY: 1 IRoge Knutson RNK/rh I Enclosures cd:' Mr. Gary Warren Mt is LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS-1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-198(1 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING Eworr B. KNETSCH VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.• 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J. MAYER TIMOTHY . BERG PATRICK A. FARRELL SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 J DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER February 17, 1989 •ALSO ADMRTED To PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN Mr. and Mrs. Robert B. Cameron 70 Pleasant Lane ' Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Re: Teton Lane, City of Chanhassen Dear Mr. and Mrs. Cameron: Please be advised that the City of Chanhassen has been conveyed title to Teton Lane which is legally described as Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 , as shown in yellow on the enclosed map. Your property is outlined in green. ' The City has been requested by neighbors to place a barricade on Teton Lane at the location shown on the map to restrict traffic to Lilac Lane. In accordance with the conditions of the plat approval for Curry Farms Second Addition you or your predecessors in title may have been granted the right to use Tract C for ingress and egress purposes. ' The City seeks your cooperation in relinquishing any rights you may have to use Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 (Teton Lane ) since you will have access to the public roads which have been platted in Curry Farms, Second Addition. If you are willing to relinquish your easement over Tract C, please have the enclosed quit claim deed executed before a notary public , have your signatures notarized and return the deed to me at your earliest convenience in the envelope provided. 1 On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I would like to thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this request, please do not hesitate to call me. Very truly yours, ' RANNIS, RANNIS, FARRELL, KN . ' SON, P.A. ' BY: riTrr N. Knutson I RNK/rh Enclosures cc:v Mr. Gary Warren s I I LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS-1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 ' VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELUorr B. KNETscH VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.• 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J. MAYER PATRICK A. FARRELL TIMOTHY J. BERG I DAVID L.GRANNIS, I1I ROGER N. KNUTSON SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TELEPHONE(612) 455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER February 17, 1989 I .ALSO AoMIrrEo To PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN Mr. and Mrs. Stewart Reamer I 6280 Teton Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Re: Teton Lane, City of Chanhassen Dear Mr. and Mrs. Reamer:. I Please be advised that the City of Chanhassen has been conveyed title to Teton Lane which is legally described as Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 , as shown in yellow on the Ienclosed map. Your property is outlined in green. The City has been requested by neighbors to place a barricade on Teton Lane at the location shown on the map to I restrict traffic to Lilac Lane. In accordance with the conditions of the plat approval for Curry Farms Second Addition you or your predecessors in title may have been granted the right Ito use Tract C for ingress and egress purposes. The City seeks your cooperation in relinquishing any rights you may have to use Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 11 (Teton I Lane ) since you will have access to the public roads which have been platted in Curry Farms , Second Addition. I If you are willing to relinquish your easement over Tract C, please have the enclosed quit claim deed executed before a notary public, have your signatures notarized and return the deed to me Iat your earliest convenience in the envelope provided. On behalf of the City of Chanhassen, I would like to thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. If you have I . any questions or concerns regarding this request, please do not hesitate to call me. IVery truly yours , GRAN IS, - •NNIS, FARRELL, & KNUTSO , P.A. Y: �, IRoger N Knutson RNK/rh . Enclosures I cc:, ' Mr. Gary Warren I= __37/ e 41,)/7?//.__I QQ , LAW OFFICES ��,- Ue)--� GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS-1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TF.LECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 403 NOR WEST BANK BIII1.DING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH VANCE B. GRANNIS MICHAEL J. MAYER VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.• 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE TIMOTHY J BERG PATRICK A. FARRELL ' DAVID L. GRANNIS, [II SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER February 20 , 1989 ' •AISO ADMITTED To PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN Centex Real Estate Corporation CITY OF Attention: Mr. John Spiess CNA�1NaSS ' Vice President - Production n�� �,�,�1�1I�M11 Baker Technology Plaza [� 5959 Baker Road Suite 300 FEB 22 19$9 Minnetonka, MN 55345 RINGRe: Curry Farms Second Addition iC I Chanhassen, Minnesota Dear Mr. Spiess: Please be advised that the City is attempting to obtain releases from the landowners who are entitled to use Teton Lane for ingress and egress purposes to Lilac Lane. It is the City ' s position that all costs incurred in connection with attempting to obtain these releases will be the responsibility of Centex Real 1 Estate Corporation. If you have any questions, please call me. , Very truly yours , GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL, ' & KNUTSON, P.A, 1 BY: Royer N. Knutson RNK/rte/ cc: r. Gary Warren Mr. Don Ashworth t LAW OFFICES BRIGGS AND MORGAN 3IZ1 I PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION rte._ 22OO VI12ST NATIONAL 13A?31C 1313XLA1N'O Is.&INT PAIR.,MINNESOTA bb1O1 TELEPHONE Ole) OM-1L'l ITELECOPIER (O18) 288-40>l YNCLU'Y7Ia0 Tl FORUEN FIRM OF ILEVITT, PALMER, IJOWEN, ROTMdN & SHARE February 24 , 1989 IVIA TELECOPIER I Mr. Roger N. Knutson Grannis , Grannis , Farrell & Knutson P. 0. Box 57 403 Norwest Bank Building I 161 N . Concord Exchange _ South St. Paul, Minnesota 55075 I Re : Curry Farms Second Addition - Chanhassen, Minnesota Our File No. 11877, 34 Dear Roger: IThis is a follow up to our telephone conversation of Wednes- day, February 22nd . We represent Centex Real Estate Corporation. I Centex has delivered to us a copy of your letter to John Spiess dated February 20th in which you informed Centex that the City was going to try to get releases from landowners who have easement I rights in connection with Teton Lane and hold Centex responsible for any of the costs incurred in connection with obtaining re- leases . I It is my understanding that all the City has done to date is send letters to the landowners who hold easement rights in Teton Lane asking such landowners to release those rights for I no compensation and that you are expecting answers to those letter requests within the next week. I Once you have received those responses , we would like to get together with you, representatives of the City and representa- tives of Centex to discuss this situation and how to proceed. If I all of the landowners give a release there will not be a problem. Centex, however, is aware of one land owner who might not agree and that could create a problem. when Centex and the City agreed to barricade Teton Lane, both the City and Centex realized that I that action required the cooperation of the landowners holding rights in Teton Lane. If those landowners do not cooperate then I 2270 MN WORLD TRADE CENTER eenO PI1ttsT NATIONAL 9ANEI 15 CILDINO 8300 IDS CENTER SAINT PAUL,NINNE OtA 00101 SAINT PALL,MINNESU'ie 0101 1(INN L'APOL]S,VINN P.CVTA 0!IJO'! Iji L'dl'ICIA IOIY;YUI 1210 IN112)O;IO 00.1 0:. _4 : _ _ 1 F:: : 11_ IM 3RIGGS AND MORGAN Mr. Roger N. Knutson February 24 , 1989 Page Two, the City and Centex should come up with another practical solution to the problem. In any event, it is our position that at this time, the City does not have the unilateral right to make Centex responsible for any costs incurred in obtaining any easement re- leases . It is my recollection that you said you would be out of the office for a few days so as soon as you get back let ' s get to- gether by phone and set up a meeting. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, Daniel J.Cole, Jr. DJC: sks-12 : 13 cc: Centex Real Estate Corporation Attn: Tom Boyce John Spiess ' LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER. ' DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.* 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J. MAYER PATRICK A. FARRELL TIMOTHY J.BERG ' DAVID L. GRANNIS, III ROGER N. KNUTSON SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TELEPHONE(612) 455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER *ALSO ADMrITED TO April 4, 1989 PRACTICE IN WISCONSIN Mr. Gary Warren ' Chanhassen City Hall 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ' RE: Curry Farms Second Addition Dear Gary: We have had only one response to our February 17th letter requesting release of the easements on Teton Lane. Mr. Loris gave us an emphatic no. We have attempted to contact everyone else by ' phone without success. The City will either have to drop the closure plan or commence condemnation. Please let me know what you decide. ' Very truly yours, ' GRAN ;GI�NN I S, FARRELL & K TSON P.A. BY: ' RNK: srn 4 .ger N. Knutson CHANIM BBL GIN a ��D APB 05, '4989 EiGIHEER DEPT. I I LAW OFFICES I GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER. DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612)455-2359 VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING ELLIOTT B KNETSCH VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR.* 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE MICHAEL J MAYER PATRICK A. FARRELL TIMOTHY J BERG DAVID L.GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 I ROGER N. KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612)455-1661 DAVID L. HARMEYER •ALSOI? WISTS To CONSIN PRACTICE CE 1N April 7, 1989 I I Mr. Gary Warren Chanhassen City Hall I 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Curry Farms Second Addition I (Teton Lane) Dear Gary: I Enclosed for your information please find copy of corre- spondence received from Stewart R. Reamer in response to our I letter of February 17th requesting release of easements on Teton Lane. Very truly yours, I GRA IS, GRA NIS, FARRELL I • NUTS° , P.A. BY: Roger N. Knutson I RNK: srn Enclosure 1 1 CITY OF VIANHASSEN I APR 10 it)a9 I ENGINEERING DEPT. I 1a 1 I 6280 Teton Lane ' Excelsior , MN 55331 April 4 , 1989 p , GRANNIS , GRANNIS , FARRELL & KNUTSON Box 57 South St . Paul , MN 55075 Attn : Valerie J. Linaman ' Gentlemen : This is in reply to your recent letter regarding ' the proposed barricade ofi Teton Lane at Ashton Court , at the entry to Curry Farms second addition . The Certificate of Title of the property of the undersigned includes an easement over tract C of Registered Land Survey #11 ( Teton Lane ) . ' We are opposed to the placement of a barricade on Teton Lane , and do not wish to relinquish our rights to use Teton Lane . ' Very truly yours, Stewart R . Reamer ' SRR/tf ('F �H...HARMSEN njlcl.,r Ir rr.ii ' APR 1Oi? :3 ME NM iii ME NM iii iii MN MN iiii iiii NM NM ME iiii ER ME iiii iii _ r SIMCOX CITY OF GI f T C F SH�P,EWOO) r� I it n, I ANF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA •--- FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CITY OF CHANHASSEN -t, TETON LANE AND LILAC LANE I Ki II \ JULY 1907 PICKARD ♦ JULY, 4i' . JAMES DONOVAN 1 SCALE= 1 -2001 LEONARD WARE — Z \\ I Q 1 \ J 1 ASHTON COURT z F J. NATOLE cp¢ 1 O uUTLOT 1 ri-i. C/0.7C.R itJ y ::,-IA;{LLl-UPN1 G\--ck U 1 D Si=t FEAME:i LT[ J AI\El 43 --I :I.. \ 4 ,///\ —t7—1 r \ c� filC t IARD Ci�fil.` ��J I`� 5 — �� CITY ` �j \ .r-� Ij off-- .E3.' OF ------ 7 /l �� 1 FT '1 CFi�1NF2A5SLPJ \ / i TQ /J^�"'� ?_____________ Ii1 yVqk 1,1 �, ��� "" I3 LARRY KER BER ‘ \ C LiiH : i 2 t FRANIS O 1 I2 II 10 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT ' ( Developer Installed Improvements) CURRY FARMS SECOND ADDITION SPECIAL PROVISIONS AGREEMENT dated ]-e -Eembe r ( , 19 60 , by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ( the ' "City" ) , and CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION, ( the "Developer" ) . 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for Curry Farms Second Addition ' ( referred to in this Contract as the "plat" ) . The land is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" . ' 2 . Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract and furnish the security required by it. ' 3 . Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans . The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the ' plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A--Plat dated "Received April 18 , 1988" , prepared by Westwood Surveying Company. ' Plan B--Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan dated May 18 , 1988 , with revisions dated July 14 , 1988 , ' and also dated "Received July 22 , 1988" , prepared by Westwood Planning and Engineering Company. Plan C--Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated ' May 31, 1988 , and also dated "Received June 22 , 1988" , prepared by Westwood Planning and Engineering Company. ' Plan D--Landscaping Plan for Kerber Property dated July 21, 1988 , prepared by the Chanhassen Planning Department. Plan E--Registered Land Survey for Tracts A, B and C dated July 25 , 1988 , prepared by Westwood ' Surveying Company. Plan F--Kerber Property Grading and Drainage Improvement • Plan ( included in Plan B above) . 8/22/88 SP-1 • D. Grading along the Reamer property ( 6280 Teton I Lane) shall be done to properly convey any drainage from the Reamer property away from adjoining property structures and homes. ' E. A conservation easement shall be provided at the 992-foot contour along the northerly side of the park area before the City signs the final plat. F. All outlots shall be considered unbuildable. G. The Developer shall arrange for the testing of surface runoff from the site with the Watershed District to docu- ment the water quality impacts to Christmas Lake. I H. Sanitary sewer and watermain stubs shall be provided for the Reamer and Loris residences stubbed to the pro- perty line at the locations designated by the City Engineer. I. The Developer agrees to upgrade Teton Lane in accordance with the approved feasibility study and plans and spe- , cifications at the Developer ' s expense. It is further agreed that the Developer shall reimburse the City for its consultant' s expenses in preparation of the Teton Lane feasibility study in the amount of $3 ,700 . This fee shall be paid prior to the signing of the final plat. J. The Developer agrees to provide fill , , landscaping, grading and drainage improvements on the Kerber pro- perty in accordance with Plan F providing the City receives a satisfactory drainage-way maintenance easement from the Kerbers prior to August 26 , 1988 . K. The Developer shall obtain, on behalf of the City, a 12 ' x 15 ' roadway easement to accommodate the Teton Lane turnaround on the Donovan property as shown on Plan C or a dri- veway turnaround easement from the Natole property prior to the City signing the final plat. 1 L. Conveyance of the easterly 222 feet along Devonshire Drive of Lot 1 , Block 3 , Curry Farms to the City with a roadway, drainage, and utility easement dedicated over its entirety. M. The Developer has been issued a grading permit i dated July 15 , 1988 authorizing proceeding with grading work as of that date. N. The City ' s inspector shall supply the Developer with utility tie sheets, location of buried fabric and utility stub locations for use in meeting General Condition No. 4 of this agreement. 0. Park and trail fee requirements were fulfilled in Curry Farms 1st Addition, therefore the City agrees to waive the park land and trail fees for Curry Farms 2nd Addition . SP-4 , — - — REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT BY illi\ T.F. JAMES COMPANY \\\ . ? '` 6640 SHADY C,AK ROAD—SUITE 500 / .. EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA 55'4 1 (612) 828-9000 .. . 199'% I / 25'R\\ :\ - LI 26' s� ?25 //1:25, /F F i R- � /� I 25' R x-25'R i" mJ 25' R \\ / �cr co / � \ -50'R ) i < �• - 0 i < 5 0' fit--- )3_,7 q —7r7 �/ - 199.00' ' , o to o to�1�VI\��!�;mil \ ' 0 ti I IOd R G 230 0©' c36',11114.W1 240 — I — i o 10aj 6'- ._-�j —50 R � 25 R 235.00' A 0 u ,� - 2 6 ' 25'R � � �. 1Cg HA1 F F � F F 1 HA 1 M �' LOT I ► . � LOT 2 LOT 3 I I Dear Gary: • I have a schedule conflict that requires me to attend a City Council meeting in New Richmond, Wisconsin on May 8. Brian Burdick called and asked that.'I_ reiterate to-you_my support for a right-in/right-out connection from Highway 17 to old West 78th as a private driveway. I have spoken to the City Council on this issue in the past and I believe my position is part of public record. 3 Should the Council and/or Carver-County Hwy Dept. continue to believe that such a turn movement is not safe or other- wise practical , then I Want to indicate my support, in the alternative, for the plan submitted to me, a copy upon which I am writing this letter. . Thank you for this opportunity;: to• comment. /7 , I'�'(fi . I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I