Loading...
1d. Vineland Forest Subdividion yj id� CITY OF ...._______ I .-.-,-0 .,C : : ANEA, SSEN 1 `\ , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612T 937-1900 MEMORANDUM ^Tt-= IITO: Planning Commission Muditied Reject FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner j�p� etebbm I . . V� Date Sbbmitted . DATE: August 10 , 1989 ..........21d115------ Date ttuamitt . ISUBJ: Vineland Forest Subdivision _--------- At the August 2 , 1989, Planning Commission meeting, action on I this item was tabled until staff could meet with the developer and residents to resolve the issue of access. The issue is whether or not the Vineland Subdivision should provide a Isoutherly access to Lake Lucy Road. Staff originally recommended that such an access to the south should be provided with the Vineland Subdivision. Staff further I researched the extent of alteration that would be required for an access to the south at the typical 7% slope for public streets. It was found that there would be a large area of fill required II for the provision of the south access and staff recommended that the property be serviced with just the access from Pleasant View and future access points to the west. At the second Planning II Commission meeting, the public living along Pleasant View Road suggested that an access to the south would be preferred to limit the amount of traffic on Pleasant View Road. II Staff has again reviewed an access to the south with a higher percentage of slope ( up to 10% ) . It appears that such an access is possible and staff is recommending that a southerly access be I provided. In his attached memo, the Sr . Engineering Technician reviews the feasibility of a south access . Should the Planning Commission feel that a southerly access with a higher percentage slope is preferred, then the Planning Commission should recommend I that the applicant provide an amended plan providing a street connection to the south. Should the Commission feel that the subdivision as proposed is adequate, then staff is recommending II the Commission approve the subdivision with the following con- ditions : I "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated "July 20 , 1989" subject I II i r Planning Commission August 10, 1989 1 Page 2 _ to the following conditions : 1 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance of a building permit. Clearcutting, except for the house pad and utilities , will not be permitted. 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the improvements . 3 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- ' main in Pleasant View Road. 4 . The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road 1 rather than Fox Chase. 5 . The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. 6. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualifed soils engineer. 7 . An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 8 . Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedi- cation. I 9 . Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector. 10. A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrants. ' PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ' The Planning Commission recommended passing the subdivision request to the City Council with staff' s recommended conditions and the understanding that there are other issues primarily con- cerning the street that doesn' t allow the Planning Commission to come to a consensus. A condition recommending a southern street connection from the subdivision to Nez Perce Drive should have been part of the recommendations for the Planning Commission. Staff feels that a street connection to the south with a higher percentage of slope is feasible and should be provided. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommmends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on I • I Planning Commission August 10 , 1989 Page 3 ' the plans dated "July 20 , 1989" subject to the following con- ditions : ' 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance of a building permit. Clearcutting, except for the house pad and utilities, will not be permitted. 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. 3 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- main in Pleasant View Road. 4 . The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather than Fox Chase. 5 . The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. 6 . The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualifed soils engineer. 7 . An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. ' 8 . Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedi- cation. ' 9 . Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector. 10 . A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrants . ' 11. A second access to Nez Perce Drive via Vineland Court shall be provided as part of the preliminary plat. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 16 , 1989 . ' 2 . Memo from Dave Hempel , Engineering dated August 11, 1989 . 3 . Letter from applicant dated August 9 , 1989 . 4 . Planning Commission minutes dated August 2 , 1989 . 5 . Staff report and attachments . 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 16 , 1989 - Page 25 Conrad : We' re not really experts in the park issue. That stuff sort of II comes in and typically we' ve never had a problem with that. That sort of passes through here real quickly because the Park and Rec reports directly to City Council and we've never stumbled on this one before. To tell you the truth , and I 'm going to speak which I can ' t do for the Commission, but more than likely if you solve some of our other issues, I think we're goin to be much more flexible on that issue. I don' t know if like Annette, she's more concerned with trees and I don't know that you've solved any of the trees problems. That way I think a couple of us are concerned with teh curb cuts and if you can solve the curb cuts and still keep some extra parking . If you solve some of these problems and they're starting to shrink. They' re fewer and fewer the more we see you. Another couple times. We keep telling you Dean to build up not out. But I can ' t say thall we' re going to approve or deny. I think just based on a general feeling that we get when you come back in and obviously if you take care of a lot of the problems, we typically become sensitive to maybe being a little bit more lenient but I think the bottom line is for Chanhassen, the Park and II Rec' s got to be comfortable that there' s enough space for people. And we don ' t really, we want to make this development basically provide for that and whether that be fees or area, you've got to do it and the Park and Rec from what we ' re hearing , is saying we need land . So I don ' t know. Someho41 you 've got to get some feedback from them. We can' t give you a blank check on that one but just generally the more you take care of some of our issue I think the more flexible they' re going to be on the others . Batzli moved , Ellson seconded to table action on the Preliminary Plat , Sit" Plan and Wetland Alteration Permit for. Cenvesco, Oakview Heights. All voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9. 5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASAN� VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION, (VINELAND FOREST) . Public Present : ' Name Address Chuck Van Eeckhout Applicant Daryl Fortier Representing Frank Beddor Todd Owens 6661 Nez Perce Pat Cunningham 865 Pheasant View Road Scott Anderson Dean Wetzel 6260 Ridge Road Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report. i II;.. 1Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 26 I Conrad : Now did we table this and it was a public hearing before? So are we continuing the public hearing? Okay. We' ll open it up for public comments . Chuck, if you 'd like to start out we would appreciate it . ' Chuck Van Eeckhout: This is the strip that__runs off to Pleasant View. It isn ' t shown contiguously on the sheet. The plat has remained the same I guess, this is probably 10 weeks since I made this initial application. II The plan is still the same as it was in the beginning . We initially examined this carefully. In fact it was my intention originally to try to get this worked out . The principle objection came from the City on the II basis of grades so I went ahead and purchased this piece so as to alleviate the grade problem which we can do now with my current proposal . The objection I have to the access to the south is one of it does remove more trees. It does involve more cutting and filling and I believe it decreases Ithe quality of life for those future Chanhassen residents who are going to be living here by having a more or less thru street going through the area. So I still believe this is a preferred plan. I have taken into account the I comments and advice from any number of people on the commission and the staff. The earth disruption is more. This is where, the red line, the solid red line is where the back of the lots will be. The back of the II houses under the proposal . Under the alternate of going to the south, it will be disrupting this dashed line here which is a little bit larger area . This right-of-way is loaded with beautiful trees which we hate to see go. They act as a nice natural buffer and something we all hate to see II disrupted. Batzli : At ou saying that your grading plans would only be the solid red 1 line there 'e weren' t to go south? Chuck Van shout : Right here they would be with the exception of the engineer ha shown a retaining area here which in going over them more IIcarefully we feel we can accomplish without digging a hole in a ground but putting a series of ponds right where the trees aren' t so much. In other words , a little more precise work on the retention area . Right now we show II this being disrupted by digging a retention basin which is foolishness. We would want to work on that to get a series of little ponds and we can accomplish the retention without taking down the whole forest. So this I solid red line is the grading area . This happens to be a fill area on this proposal because this is a lower area here. We want to fill this up to get good drainage around here and develop walkout lots here and fill this area but we'd only fill to the back of the houses. Then we have solid woods . IIn this case we could take into account that entire right-of-way as if it were ours , even though it 's wasn' t ours because they would appear to be ours and it ' s there and there' s nice woods on it . We ' ve designed the sewer II and water and it works out very nicely. The City last time represented that we make a connection , a water connection down to Nez Perce rather than this water connection here. This makes no difference to us . It' s easier . II In fact it makes good sense . This is the portion of the plat above. . . these 3 lots would be platted on Pleasant View. I guess in summary, I think we have met all the criteria of the ordinances and all the standards of the City and I believe this plat makes good sense. It gets the people I out in the most reasonable fashion. It gets away from a thru street situation which I believe is 'indesireable from a traffic point of view. 11 f Planning Commission Meeting II August 16, 1989 - Page 27 From a public safety point of view as to security. Police. Fire. I believe it' s more desireable for people to live in this kind of a thing and again, I have not seen anything telling me to nor. have I received any directives that would tell me that to change my thinking. That this is probably the desired way to develop this piece of ground . Just to the east, Fox Chase has more than twice as many lots. The Lundgren project that was here last time was I guess passed onto the Council with more than twice as many lots as I have here on the same connection only they had some kind of a barricade of the street or some deal going there. That ' s, I guess I 'm just again requesting that it be passed onto the Council with your comments , whatever they might be. i Conrad: Okay, thanks. Public hearing. Other comments? Daryl Fortier : I 'm Daryl Fortier . I ' ve been asked by Mr . Beddor and the II Pleasant View homeowners association to make a brief presentation of what we' ve studied as an alternative. We' ve had the chance to meet with Mr . VanEeckhout, other property owners and talk to them. We would like to offer for your consideration a brief presentation. Our first little board here will show the existing situation of where the property in question is. We have toned in the roads that we believe are most salient to the discussion. Pleasant View Road from about this point on is 20 feet in width. Nez Perce from this point to this point is 20 feet in width. We believe any connection that were to go all the way through this property would cause a short-cut or a back door route and that would increase traffic not only on Pleasant View but also on Nez Perce. We believe that is objectionable to both parties . To the people who live in this area as well as the people on Pleasant View. Emmings : I 'm sorry to interrupt you but just so I know who you ' re representing. The people that you are representing here live where on that map? Daryl Fortier : They live along Pleasant View Road and we are proposing an • alternative for the Planning Commission' s consideration. The people who are living along this road , and I believe Mr . VanEeckhout as well would agree that any road that goes straight through we would find objectionable not only to these residents but to the Nez Perce residents who I ' ve only talked to one and also I believe Mr . Van Eeckhout' s future residents so we seem to have a consensus that that is a poor decision because of the nature of the two roads involved. That' s the first point we'd like to make. The NI second , we'd like to comment on the existing proposed plan as shown here and to contrast that we have an alternative plan which is shown here. We are proposing that there not be a connecting link and we are proposing that access be to the south and that a secondary access in the future be provided as requested by the safety and fire inspectors . The Fire Marshall , be provided at this location where Outlot A is. I 'm not sure how many members were on the Planning Commission back many years ago when Carver Beach Estates was planned but there always was intended to be an access point here and there was a dedicated outlot here. We believe that in the future some road of some sort will come through here and pick up all this traffic and keep it on a 28 foot wide road rather than a 20 foot wide II road. If we' re to consider the alternative and any future road were I ;Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 28 ' connected through here, it would indeed be an issue or more than the 18 residences being put onto Pleasant View. It would be 18 plus whatever else happens in the future on both of these lots . Pleasant View Association ' would not be in favor of that. That is putting too much additional traffic on Pleasant View which again is a collector road only by default. Pleasant View has been there for many, many years and as your own inspectors will admit, it is not an up-to-date road . It is only 20 feet wide and it has some very tight hairpin turns in it or at least 90 degree turns. So the conclusion is that we would really like to see this overall view prevail and in the future, if I can just modify this, we believe a proposed additional road should come through in this fashion which now gives you a similiar looped fashion and a simliar circulation pattern to what else is prevailing in this immediate area . That ' s it unless there are any ' questions . Headla : I ' ve got some. Why doesn ' t that map look like this map where you have Lake Lucy Road going right along side where the new homes are going in? Daryl Fortier : This may right here, this is taken from a direct photocopy of Mr. VanEeckhout' s plan. ' Headla : Where are the new homes along Lake Lucy g L cj Road. ' Daryl Fortier : There is a new home which sits right here. This lot is vacant and there is new homes located along these lots . ' Headla : But that ' s Nez Perce Drive? Daryl Fortier : It' s referred to as Nez Perce . Lake Lucy Road is actually what' s shown on the street sign. It does take a little bend here and comes out at Lake Lucy Road where it intersects with CR 17. The two maps should be identical . ' Headla : Well this calls Lake Lucy Road going right against the property there. ' Daryl Fortier : There is a vacated Lake Lucy Road right here where this dotted line is. Headla : That ' s blacktop right today right? Daryl Fortier: No it is not . ' Emmings : I think you ' re thinking on the other side of Powers Blvd . . I think what you ' re thinking of is not this far east but is west of here. Daryl Fortier. : If we go to this overview, you ' re thinking of Lake Lucy Road over here which on the map aligns with this line here and it does have an easement here . • i Headla : I don ' t know. I was out with Joe Trundle today looking at the property and I walked over it. We were on Lake Lucy Road and he showed me I Planning Commission Meeting I/ August 16, 1989 - Page 29 where his property was. ' Daryl Fortier : That' s where I say the actual name of the road here is Lake Lucy although it' s called on this map, for some reason, Nez Perce. Nez Perce ends at this point and Lake Lucy comes across here where it' s shown in gray so this is where you would have been walking and then you would have walked down through this vacant lot. Batzli : So the map and reality don' t match? Daryl Fortier : The name on the map does not match but that is the name that is taken off of the development plat. The road does not go straight II here. It does indeed drop down like this and then come across . The map is accurately reflecting the conditions . Julius Smith : If I may, years ago Lake Lucy Road was platted along the north line of that property and that road has been vacated so that if you look at Lake Lucy Road , it doesn ' t come straight across anymore. It comes across. As soon as it hits CR 17, it dips down onto Nez Perce. Headla : So how much land is there from the road with several names up to where that property is? Daryl Fortier : This is approximately 150 feet of land . . . Headla: So you go beyond that tree line and drop down then? Daryl Fortier : That' s correct . ' Headla : Is it roughly where that old fence line is in there? Daryl Fortier : The tree line sits right about in here . 1 Headla : Alright . I understand that better then, thanks . Conrad: Thanks Daryl. Jo Ann, why don ' t you talk about this. Chuck I 'm going to let you come up in a second . Jo Ann , could you just comment from a planning standpoint on anything you see good or bad . ' Olsen : This is the first I ' ve ever seen this plan . Conrad: Spontaneous . ' Olsen : Spontaneous but we ' ve never , well I won ' t say never but we really do not like having two cul-de-sacs. I couldn ' t really see the plan. . .We ' would want it at least be continuous . Batzli : What about the not wanting to connect both Pleasant View and Nez , Perce there with a continuous north/south road? Does it make sense not to do that Jo Ann? Olsen : Again , our original position was to have that connection . We feel that the traffic, it does have to go up onto Powers and it would be a 1 IFPlanning Commission Meeting August 16 , 1989 - Page 30 ' preferable to have another thru street to Pleasant View. Another primary reason for that would be for safety access. Looking at the slopes, it can ' t be done if we allow the variance to the 7% but this sort of plan ' would never be supported. Wildermuth : Is there a right-of-way on Park Drive or would the developer have to purchase property there to make that southerly connection? ' Olsen: There is right-of-way all the way out . Wildermuth: But he still would have to develop the road right? He'd have to clear the land and provide the fill? ' Olsen: Yes . Conrad : On the one hand , the road on the top that accesses the top 3 lots, the cul-de-sac is more sensitive to the neighbor to the east who prior to now has not had 20 some houses being serviced by his door . Ellson: Well he could come in tomorrow and have 3 there too. Conrad : Could but he doesn ' t want to . Ellson: Right but I 'm just saying, the long term. ' Conrad : If somebody came in just to subdivide the 3 lots to the north Jo Ann, you would have a problem with that? No, we'd have to allow that ' configuration basically. Olsen : We would suggest that if they came in with this plan , that they would just have a continuous street. Engineering should probably comment. ' Conrad : The concern with Pleasant View folks is traffic. Obviously this would dump only 3 folks , 3 houses out. The test would want on Nez Perce. ' Is there anything reasonable about this plan? Hempel : From an engineering standpoint, traffic circulation I guess from ' the start we would like to see the north/south connection . If something did happen along Pleasant View, this would be an alternative for an access or an exit. There' s very few or limited areas that such a connection couldn' t occur. This is the first one and one of the last places . Utilities would still remain the same. We' d loop the two subdivisions probably together so there wasn' t a deadend watermain. Conrad : Chuck, do you want to come back and talk to 'is a little bit about that? Chuck VanEeckhout : The only thing I would say is there are no real standards that would prohibit this number of lots on a cul-de-sac and it would be very, I believe, very much better from a public safety point of view to have a dead end area in their cul-de-sac area. Bad guys aren' t ' going to feel so free to come wandering through there if they don ' t have the same way to get out of there. In all my years I ' ve never seen a I Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 31 situation where you needed that second access for public safety reasons . We have in many, many areas in Chanhassen with twice this many lots. If the traffic for the Pleasant Avenue folks is their principle concern, we could always put a left turn only on that road coming out so all the traffic would have to go west . That would , except for the traffic , the people in Chanhassen, but that would eliminate a good part of the problem that the Pleasant View people can see as being a big negative of this project. We' ve had a lot of input and this was kind of the consensus that II we perceived as well as my own personal feeling that I want to continue the Fox Chase, Pleasant Avenue, Pleasant View quality of homes. I build only quality homes and I believe that it speaks more as a continuation if it flows to the rest of Fox Chase and that's my thinking. Conrad : As you' re talking , I 'm looking at this map. Are you talking about what you originally presented Chuck? When you' re saying you' re comfortable' with. . . Chuck VanEeckhout : This is Daryl ' s representation of essentially I believe' identical to what my proposal is. I 'm saying this is the difficult area of Pleasant View. If we only turn left here and made no right turns here we'd keep a certain number of cars out of this area which would be a positive thing I believe as far as Pleasant View is concerned . Again , I 'm trying to continue this level of quality on through here and then I really like the idea of these people being able to have a private area rather than a thru street. There are, as I ' ve pointed out, a number of other examples where this would work very well in Chanhassen and all over the Twin Cities . Conrad: Jo Ann, how do you see the property to the west developing? Olsen : Again , with this plan . . .we looked at a connection . Obviously you don' t want that because it will just bring it back onto Pleasant View. At , least with the original plan we did have some. . . I don' t feel that having just one connection will satisfy. Daryl Fortier : This area up here will of course develop up off of Pleasant View. There' s no thru connector . That is our first and foremost argument that there should be no thru connector . The secondary exit for this cul-de-sac should run to the south and tie in eventually to this street. This could be terminated . It would be no different than this road down here. As a matter of fact, it' s slightly less than this one is but it is a looped system that you could get in both ways . If the only cul-de-sac is 250 feet long, which is not a severe cul-de-sac that you can see from other scaled streets in the area . That would serve this area . If I can address just a moment about the left turn lane, this has failed to work over at Near Mountain and Pleasant View and it has not been successful . If the Planning Commission is to approve the present scheme, our one big concern would be Forest Street here . We would not like to see that included . We would rather see no connector there because what that is going to do is eventually connect down to this outlot in which case we again have the backdoor circulation that we' re trying to avoid. Or it will develop additional homes at least and have a larger dead end cul-de-sac situation. We'd much prefer to see a looped design to begin with or at least indicate to begin with . We do not want to see a connection. If this plan were 'Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 32 approved , we would not want to see a connector here and we would not want to see this street. ' Conrad : Okay. Other comments? Scott Anderson: I 'm Scott Anderson. I 'm the neighbor to the east . . .and northerly access. I 'd like to restate my objection as I 've stated in ' earlier meetings and that is primarily the traffic. With the amount of single family homes accessing through my back yard. That will create noise and . . . That' s my objections . Conrad: Okay. Thank you. ' Dean Wetzel : My name is Dean Wetzel . I 'm a 35 year resident of the area. I live 2 doors off of Pleasant View Road down by here on Ridge Road. There are 55 residents from CR 17 down to where Pleasant View turns to the west and that ' s what makes up this Pleasant View Homeowners Association. They get a loose group of people that are interested in what goes on in the neighborhood. Because of the configuration of Pleasant View Road from this point on and those of you who have driven it know full well , I thought it was 18 feet wide. You say it' s 20. I don' t know whatever it was but as you know there ' s hairpin curves and down along Lake Lucy there' s homes within 20 feet of that road. It' s a country road is really all it is in that area so our concern is to keep as much traffic off of Pleasant View ' Road as possible where there is a good alternative that makes sense and we think that this is certainly the case . You ' ve got a brand new road here. Whether it' s Nez Perce or Lake Lucy, I guess I don' t know but I was on it today too and both names are used but that is a new fully designed road . Full size that goes right into CR 17 here so you ' ve got the access on the new road that doesn ' t have a lot of blind entrances onto it which Pleasant ' View does. Even up in this area some of these homes were built with access from their garage right onto Pleasant View Road so like I say, it ' s a country toad and it' s been that way. Pat, you were born there what 80 years ago? Let it slip again but this of course is Cunningham' s area here. ' He has a daughter living here and one here. Their drive comes right out onto Pleasant View Road so it' s just not basically a collector road for all practical purposes. And like I say, here' s a perfect example of having a ' brand new full sized road , extension of Lake Lucy. They can pick up this area. These areas back in here as they develop because it' s already the outlot there made for that. There is an access , was allowed at this point so why start dragging it back up to Pleasant View when we don' t have to. ' Yes, these lots along here, if and when they' re developed . Bill Trundle lives here. He sells that off and they go onto Pleasant View, that makes sense and maybe these lots in here but again , why pull things to the north when there' s good access to the south. Thank you . Conrad : Okay. Other comments? Emmings moved , Erhart seconded to close the ub i hearing . p 1 c Atl voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. II Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 33 II Erhart : I guess I 'd like to have, I don' t know if it ' s fair to ask you Chuck to respond to the two cul-de-sac proposal . I don' t know, did you se that? Chuck VanEeckhout : We met earlier with evening , yes . I Erhart: Is it fair to ask you to respond to that specifically? Chuck VanEeckhout : Yes , I 'm ready to respond to that . In fact , one of my II principle considerations when I first purchased the property was to go to the south and I was discouraged by the City so then I went out and purchased the other piece so we could go the north. The negative on the II south approach are the fill amounts that have to be put on those lots which would make them less desirable and the tree removal would be more extensive. Also , I could identify more , the house would identify more, in other words, I could build a little more expensive homes in there, little nicer homes if I enter off Pleasant View then if I enter off from the south. That' s some substance of my observations . II Erhart : I 'm sensing you' re not totally opposed to the idea of the two cul-de-sac thing . II Chuck VanEeckhout : That' s less desirable to me than the proposal that I have before the Commission. If the final determination were that it' s that way or nothing , I would build it that way. What I would like to do, as i I 've said before, is to carry my proposal through until it' s ultimately approved or disapproved and react accordingly. IIErhart: Okay. I guess the concern I had two weeks ago was the problem of putting a thru street there considering that there is a lot of temptation for people to take Pleasant View all the way over to TH 101 and it really II isn ' t adequately designed to do that so I guess my general feeling is the worse of all the proposals is to have the thru street for that reason. Also , I think we talked about it the last time. It hit me that we have this new street to the south and we' re talking about land which, the II majority of the land is closer to that than Pleasant View and it seemed to me again that at that point that it made more sense to try to access the new Lake Lucy Road . It' s unfortunate that Chuck gets the run around . Well not run around. We have to consider this 10% grade. I think in consideration, my general feeling is that that is not a good plan . Having a long straight street and then having two cul-de-sacs at the end. I guess I 'd rather see it access to the south and I personally like the two cul-de-sac thing. On the other hand, one thing I don' t like about that , because I don ' t think you need to have a connection to , if you went to the two cul-de-sacs I think you could eliminate that connection to the west , called Forest Street completely because they' re not that long from Lake Lucy Drive and I don' t really see that it serves any purpose to make a U shaped street in there so that might pick up another lot to compensate for all the effort of having to go through on this thing. So regarding just the streets , those are my general feelings. I hope I made myself clear . The other issue, I think it' s a fairly straight forward development and we talked about most of them last time so I ' ll leave it go with that . 11 II 11', 'Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 34 ' Emmings : I can ' t decide. I think it' s about a horse apiece. I ordinarily like to hook things together so I ' ve got that bias coming in here and I recognize at the same time that a lot of people , for reasons I think that ' Chuck has stated, like this cul-de-sac arrangement so they don' t have the thru traffic and I think that' s kind of a personal preference item but I tend to like to hook things together . It seems to me that this one, this particular one, the urgency to hook things together really doesn ' t, I don' t 1 feel like it' s there to the degree that I usually do and there is the potential for the hook up to the west later on to have a secondary access , if there is some need perceived at a later time so an option is preserved there. Frankly I can go either way on this . I just don' t care. Ellson: Let me ask Jo Ann something. The big reason that we want a thru street is safety and lack of a lot of north/south , things to Pleasant Road ' right now or what are all the key reasons that the City is pushing this? Olsen : We originally looked at the submission with the applicant and I 'm just trying to remember exactly which one. He had just the cul-de-sac from the north and that' s where we showed that there was right-of-way to the south and that we would prefer to have that secondary access onto the site since you couldn ' t provide that from Fox Chase . It was reasons for safety and also reasons for a north/south connection which we' re just really lacking in the city. Ellson : I remember going through the Comprehensive Plan saying how little we had going north and south. I distinctly remember saying that anytime we can look to try to find something we should take advantage of it. ' I remember agreeing. I 'm trying to decide, will people, I mean this isn' t very far from CR 17 and I don ' t feel that we' re going to get people taking this instead of CR 17. CR 17 has never known to be a 35W back-up traffic ' kind of street or anything like that. I 'm wondering what would cause somebody to purposely either go to this route. They'd have to either live here to know that goes through. You'd have to be one of these people. ' Olsen: They'd perceive it as being a short-cut possibly but the design. . . Ellson: I doubt it too . ' Olsen : I think to really have that answered , a traffic study would have to be done. ' Ellson: But I guess my gut feeling is that I don ' t think it' s going to bring anybody more on that street than probably lives there. I live in that area but I can ' t see myself going that way towards Excelsior . I would go up to CR 17 and it' s not more than a couple of blocks more to do it anyway. Olsen : The design of it was such that you would come right along Lake Lucy. Ellson : So I guess I 'm not as concerned that there' s going to be a lot more people on it and I 'm leaning more towards the City' s recommendation because I agree that we don ' t have a lot of north/south thru ways and it' s Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 16 , 1989 - Page 35 II not a true thru way because it' s only going a little way. I don ' t think II that it' s going to cause more. I also think the fact that there are 55 homes on a really bad , 20 foot street is more reason that they need safety accesses. If something were to happen along,-there and there' s something blocking the street , it' s a tiny little street , an emergency vehicle even II more so won' t get through there and there' s a lot of homes in there that have very little back up access so I 'd agree with the way the staff has proposed it. I Batzli : I agree with Steve, whatever he agreed with. Each has their bright sides. Both proposals I think. I agree with the developer that the way he' s got it proposed I think is probably much more attractive to him as a developer. I hate to harp back on this but one of the reasons I bought my property in Fox Hollow is that I thought it was on a cul-de-sac and when they put it through to Pleasant View, Pleasant View gained some traffic from out development going west to Excelsior and I think if you put a thru street in there, you' re going to get more traffic going east on Pleasant View. I don' t see that as even being a question. I think for sure people II down on the west side of the lake are going to use Pleasant View to get up to TH 101 for whatever reason. But on the other hand I like second accesses. I 've been convinced of that but I think this design, the current' design has a potential second access eventually when that site develops so I don' t know. I really, there' s pluses and minuses to both of them. In fact, even a thru street wouldn' t really irritate me that much , the third option, so I don' t know. ' Conrad : I can ' t wait until I get a motion. Wildermuth: I 'm trying to think of a rationale for a thru street. I guess without a traffic study, Jo Ann as you talked about , I can ' t see where it' s going to take that much pressure off of Pleasant View. The connection with the double cul-de-sacs that would connect to Nez Perce and then a dead end ' cul-de-sac off of Pleasant View certainly doesn ' t look very attractive on paper and it would result in removal of a lot of woodland between Nez Perce and the property. I guess what I favor is what the developer has proposed. 11 Conrad : Dave, you have the power to persuade us all . Headla: I like the people from Pleasant View put up some pretty good II arguments . Where nobody jumped on, we just approved Near Mountain and all those people coming on Pleasant View. That could have been quite a compelling argument . When push comes to shove, isn ' t your property line II going to go to the south? You' re going to vacate that, take over that Lake Lucy Road and go down closer to Nez Perce Drive? Realistically isn ' t that where the boundary line will end up? , Chuck VanEeckhout : I don' t know if you ' re asking me. I presume if the proposal that I have on the table is approved , there could be some action to vacate that . It would be up to someone else to initiate it . The land would be effectively attached to the adjacent properties by default because it ' s there now and it' s being used now as if it belonged so whether someone wants to go through a formal vacation process or not, that would be up to someone else . I 'Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 36 Headla : It looks like there ' s just a narrow band of trees from the right-of-way. As you got in you had your bigger basswoods and then. . . Chuck VanEeckhout : I think that right-of-way is pretty heavily wooded if I didn' t get lose up there. I believe the rear of the lot line of the house to the west of Nez Perce . . . Headla: On the north side of the road? Chuck VanEeckhout : On the south side of the road . I believe their back yard comes tight up to the woods meaning that the entire right-of-way would be nicely wooded . That was the way. . . ' Headla: I got lost in that one. Chuck VanEeckhout : Maybe I can show it here . The rear yards here seem to ' go right to the edge of the woods. My property starts here so this piece here, which is the existing right-of-way potentially which could be vacated, I believe is nicely wooded. ' Headla : Yes , I agree . I came up Pleasant View. Came up along Pleasant View. Swung around and then came back on, I thought it was Lucy Road and I got up to that curve there, I can ' t imagine why anybody would want to take ' that as a short cut if that road went all the way through the north/south. If they did , and I 'm sure some would , I can ' t imagine anybody trying to go on Nez Perce. You may say it' s about the same width but I bet if you ' measure it out on an average over a period of a few miles , you 'd find Nez Perce much narrower and more dangerous . I definitely favor a north/ south road . I think it should come up there through to the Nez Perce, I think just for safety reasons . When I was there, I was looking at maybe we should just have a break away so fire trucks could get down in there. It would have to be maintained winter and summer . I think that would be, I could take that as an alternative just strictly from a safety point of ' view. If we had to get in there with emergency vehicles and the other way was blocked , let them go that way. ' Conrad: Anything else Dave? Headla : No . Those are the only comments I had . ' Conrad : We' re not going to get any motion here. Jo Ann, the property to the east of the road coming in, if it were to be subdivided , it would be accessed off the current roadway coming down from the north or the west right? Olsen : Correct . Conrad : So more than likely we don ' t encourage, you know we ' re not talking aobut forcing it. I think this road will , development goes my based on what you said before, this is not where you want to be living which is ' unfortunate. To the west, whatever direction, would those lots be, would they go straight to Pleasant View or would they access the Redman Lane? Jo II Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 37 II Ann, any idea? I Olsen : That ' s Art Owen ' s property. Conrad : Here ' s what I 'm saying . Tell me what you think might happen to II the other lots there and where the planning department would like them to exit. Olsen : It really depends on what properties come in but we' ve been seeing II them come in in pieces like this where we would be showing again, we still have this connection. We would still have that. I Conrad: Was that outlot off of Nez Perce, was that planned there simply for access to the north? Olsen : Right . Again , if this plan was approved and we would have to count, on this as being the north/south connection. Wildermuth: What would be lost on that one in terms of wood? Is that all II wooded? Olsen : This is where the water tower is . This is Art Owen ' s property and that' s pretty heavily vegetated but along here I can' t tell you. So we do have anotner connection to these properties but we would always like to see some form of connection. Conrad : Because of a second access? Olsen: Just for flow thru traffic and yes , that connects this . II Wildermuth : How was Fox Hollow ever approved with all those dead ends? Or - not Fox Hollow but Fox Chase. Olsen : A lot of that was topography. Conrad : Yes , it was real steep topography around there. There was really II significant difficulty. So the planning department, if you had your druthers , you ' d run aJroad through Outlot A all the way up to , and I 'm not talking about the parcek in question, I 'm talking about others , so you 'd run a lot straight from there north up to Pleasant View? Olsen: Not necessarily straight but we would look again for that north/ II south connection and then we would also look for the east/west connection again so we don' t have two separate. When Art Owens came in, the way that he had it designed did not use this outlot . Did not use the southerly. . . II Wildermuth: He did not? Olsen : . . . it was considered I think at that time to vacate it. There are II times when if you just come in with a cul-de-sac and that' s the way it is approved but with that plan there was going to be a western connection. IIConrad: The lot numbered 8 there really has no access? Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 38 Olsen : Right . But he also owns 4. ' Conrad: He does own 4 and 8? Okay. Resident: He intends to live on 4 and maybe sell off 8 . As of this afternoon. ' Olsen : That ' s why I 'm saying that most of these lots , the ownership will dictate. . . It' s really hard to say. Conrad : Thanks Jo Ann . Yes . This is a little bit confusing. I have one absolute and the absolute is I don' t like the thru street. Period. I just ' think that that is , and I said it , I ' ve very consistent from last meeting . I haven' t been persuaded to go to a different. I think from a traffic standpoint , it just doesn ' t make sense . So in my mind that option is out. The option, I think the developer, Chuck, has come in and he' s asked for. ' one thing and then we kind of told him to do another and then we come back and say you really could have done the first to begin with. As more information becomes available and different ideas are generated , then ' obviously you can come up with different solutions to a problem. I feel badly that we make folks jump through hoops and then sometimes say well , we didn' t mean it. If I were to pick, and I think again the best, the most economically justifiable one is the one that has been presented tonight . I 1 think my preference however is the one that the Pleasant View folks presented for a couple reasons . One, I think it does dump or exit the new development more towards a road that can handle it but primarily because ' I 'm more sensitive to the individual living right off of Pleasant View where we' re not running a Toad that services quite a few houses past so my preference , absolute I don ' t like the thru street . I think no matter what, we probably have to provide some sort of access, well I 'm not sure what to do with Lot 8 or the parcel labeled 8 on that. I don' t know but no thru street in my mind. The two alternatives that I see, the one the developer presented , I think that ' s acceptable . I think I like the one that the ' homeowners association presented a little bit better. I 'm not sure I like the winding road going to the west or whatever direction off of that. I don't know that that' s possible or probable or whatever . I don' t find a problem with the cul-de-sac coming off of Nez Perce other than an economically we told the developer not to do it and then we said do and I don ' t know. I have some problems with how we administered that but I think no matter what we do on Pleasant View, there ' s going to be more development there and we' re going to need more , and these are things not associated with what we' re doing tonight but whether it be no right turn or stop signs or whatever , these are things that are going to flow from this . There just has to be some control some traffic on Pleasant View. Wildermtith : Or upgrading Pleasant View. IConrad: Which is almost close to impossible. If you take a look at that, the cost to do that and purchase property and what have you, I •don' t know. It would be real costly to the residents of Chanhassen. So anyway, that's ' where I 'm at so I think we ' re all over the board on this one folks and if somebody can make a motion that a majority can agree to, I 'd sure entertain ,, Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 39 II that right now. i Batzli : I have a question. Jo Ann , did we get an easement on the northerly most lot on Pleasant View there for future expansion of Pleasant View? Olsen: What Dave was just saying is what we already have that. That ther is a 66 foot right-of-way. Hempel : Pleasant View I think is currently 66 foot wide right-of-way. Wildermuth: So upgrading might not be the problem? II Olsen : We might not have to purchase land or condemn. Wildermuth: I 'd like to move that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 subject to staff recommendations 1 thru 10. I Batzli : Second . Conrad : Is there any discussion? So you ' re recommending the thru street? II Wildermuth: No. Recommending the plat as you see it right there. Olsen : I think staff ' s recommendation was to put the thru street. II Conrad: See that' s where I 'm confused . 1 Emmings : There ' s no condition in staff ' s recommendation that there be a thru street. That would have to be added right? Wildermuth : Right . That would have to be added if you wanted a thru ' street. I purposedly didn' t add it. Olsen : So you' re saying just with these 10? II Headla : What about the comments from the Fire Inspector? They wanted that didn' t they? Olsen : Yes , it should have been in there as a condition . Headla: Here again we come into that you don ' t include the comments from 11 the . . . Wildermuth : All we' ve got from the fire inspector is to add a hydrant put II in the conditions . Ellson : Number 9? II Wildermuth: Number 9 . II I Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 40 ' Olsen: They did want them. They did request a thru street connecting Vineland Court and Nez Perce. Headla : What ' d you say Jo Ann? - Olsen : The Fire Inspector: did request the connection but that was back with the 7% slope they couldn' t do it. Batzli : I 've got a question Jo Ann for you. We talked last week I think about moving Forest Street a little bit , more southerly didn' t we? Do you recall that? We were talking about adjusting the alignment of Forest Street. We didn' t look at that at all? Okay. Emmings : Is everybody clear that the Fire Inspector has said that the Fire Department wants a thru street connecting Vineland Court and Nez Perce? Okay. 1 Headla : Is a trail or break thru considered satisfactory here? Olsen: When we can' t get a thru street, then that' s of course . . . Ellson: He had agreed to that. Headla: Wait a minute. What'd you say? Olsen : Ideally we want the thru street . The Fire Department also but if we can' t get that, then we would want to at least have secondary emergency ' access . Wildermuth : But to put an emergency access in there is going to be tantamount to putting a street in there. You 'd have to take out all the trees and have to put the fill in. You'd have to be able to clear it in the winter time. ' Hempel : If I can make one point . The watermain connection will require some tree removal. However , it will be no more than probably 10 foot wide through to Nez Perce. ' Headla : Now, are we recommending the thru street or not? Conrad: No. That' s not what the motion says . Wildermuth : The motion proposes what you see recommended . Headla: That' s not consistent . . .whatever ' s in these reports all over . Now we ' re saying well not this isn ' t true in this case . I don' t care which way we do it. All I 'm asking is to be consistent so I know what we' re doing . ' Emmings : That takes away all the sport Dave. Batzli : We' ve got to keep you on your toes . Planning Commission Meeting I August 16, 1989 - Page 41 Conrad : Well what did you think of the subdivision with the Lundgren subdivision last week? Did we have break aways for , how many units there, 45? Did we have secondary accesses there? We did . Ellson: So you' re right Dave. This is being inconsistent. I Wildermuth moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend II approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 subject to the following conditions : 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance 1 of a building permit. Clearcutting , except for the house pad and utilities, will not be permitted. 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necesary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the improvements . , 3. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12 inch watermain in Pleasant View Road . 4. The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather than Fox Chase. 5. The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. 6. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer . 7. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer . 8 . Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication . ' 9. Add fire hydrant as requited by Fire Inspector . 10. A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrant . , Wildermuth and Batzli voted in favor and the rest voted in opposition and II the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 5 . Conrad: Is there another motion? Emmings : I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 subject to the 10 conditions and also to the condition that the applicant provide an amended plan providing a street connection to the south . Ellson : Second . I/ Planning Commission Meeting August 16 , 1989 - Page 42 1 Emmings moved , Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 subject to the following conditions : 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance of a building permit. Clearcutting , except for the house pad and utilities , will not be permitted . 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necesary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the improvements . 3. A wet tap connection will be required to the 12 inch watermain in Pleasant View Road . 4. The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather ' than Fox Chase. 5. The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. 6. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer . ' 7. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer . 8 . Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication. 9. Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector . 10. A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrant . 11. The applicant provide an amended plan showing a street connection to the south . Ellson , Emmings and Headla voted in favor and the rest opposed and the motion failed with a vote of 3 to 4 . ' Erhart : The next motion could be just to deny it . What is it that we want you know? Batzli : We don ' t have a consensus for what we want. Conrad : Is there any other motion? Ellson : If we could just pass it along and let them decide . You know, we' re split here and they' ve got the Minutes . • Erhart : You can ' t vote on the proposal from the Daryl , Mr . Fortier , because that' s not been engineered so that can ' t be. I Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 43 Conrd : You' re right. We can turn it down . Erhart: So the only thing left to do is to deny it. Conrad : Yes . Unless there' s something that could swin g a vote . Headla: What was the objection. The first 10 was agreeable to you people " that voted no right that Steve had? It ' s just the thru street wording? Emmings: I don' t know what you just said Dave. , Headla : Your 11th condition. Conrad: That' s a thru street . , Emmings : Yes , the only difference between mine and Jim' s was the thru street. ' Headla : Oh, the definition of a thru street that bothered you? Conrad: Having it there. y , Emmings : Ladd is the most adamant . Headla : What about a break thru trail? Conrad : We ' ve got developments down the line that have the same situation. Yes, we are a little bit different. In my mind I like to have a second access but I just , there ' s all sort of precedence for not . In this particular case, I think a second access, if it ' s break thru, I don ' t see the positives outweighing the negatives . The negatives being the disturbing to the property. Disturbing to the trees. I see a lot of negatives with the cost to the developer . I just wouldn' t do that . The positives of having a second access to this, I would assume we will have an access possibly as other sites to the west develop and therefore we' re going to have a solution but I don' t see forcing the cost to have a break thru, I just don ' t think that ' s fair to the developer not do I think, I think we've had too many other cases where we did require a second access. There are cases where we have humongous cul-de-sacs in town and we didn ' t have the fire department telling us don' t do it so I 'm not swayed by having a second access because I see some other factors Dave. Without those other ' factors, I would have liked to have seen a second access . Is there any motion? Emmings : What are out options here? What if there is no motion? Ellson : Well could we make a motion to deny this subdivision or whatever? II Conrad : We could. „ Headla : Or to pass it on. We' d like to pass it on I believe. , I . Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 44 Conrad: Yes, I think the City Council should. Erhart: Even if we deny it it gets passed on. Ellson: Right. Headla : We can pass it on with no recommendation. Emmings: Yes , is that an option? Batzli : We' ve made motions with passing it on. Conrad: We've done that before . ' Emmings : Because if you vote to deny it, let ' s see. Ellson: As it is right now maybe. As it 's presented right now is what you' re saying . Emmings: Jim moved to approve it and it failed 4 to 3 so a motion to deny ' it ought to pass 4 to 3. Ellson : And it would at least move it on. Erhart: I ' ll move that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to deny Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989. rEllson : I ' ll second it. Conrad: Is there any discussion? Headla : Aren ' t we going to have to give some rationale if we deny it though? deny ' Conrad : Sure . Batzli : Well let' s see if it passes to deny it. Conrad: Actually several could be made and it would be a consensus of objections coming from two groups . None of which the developer would have to totally satisfy later on but from, if it was to deny, it would be primarily because of a second , not having a secondary access . It would also be a traffic standpoint impact on Pleasant View. You could do some ' other . My concern still being with neighborhood disruption to the neighbor to the east. Very significant impact on that person. Safety impact because that road does go fairly close to his door so there are reasons . 11 Headla: Those things at least get it up there and it isn ' t a hostile denial . It ' s split on the one item. Emmings: It' s a friendly denial . I Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 45 Ellson : It ' s just a way of moving it forward . ' Chuck VanEeckhout: Is it out of line to comment at all? Conrad : No . We' ll take that? , Chuck VanEeckhout : I would rather see you pass it on with some findings of fact rather than a recommendation to approve or deny. You can find that it does meet the standards of the ordinance. That it does, the lot sizes and grades do comply with the ordinance but you do have these disturbing things that you haven' t been able to totally settle and these are your concerns. A denial is, the Council ' s not going to want to overturn your denial . Emmings : You don' t know our City Council . , Chuck VanEeckhout: If you pass it on with some findings, they can look objectively which they' re going to want to do at your findings and at your conclusions. That way at least it isn' t quite so negative and I realize your concerns and I understand them but I would hate to see it denied simply because, although I do very much want to move it along . Emmings: I think that, it feels negative to deny it and I don ' t think any I of us are against the project. The City Council reads our Minutes and they' re going to know that if we do , if there is a denial , it ' s only a formality to move the thing onto them. I think they' re going to know that II but we hay a choice . Can we do essentially what we' ve kind of said here and he' s just suggested , just say. . . Conrad : The motion is to forward it on without a recommendation. That would be the motion with any kind of recommendations tagged onto that. Emmings : We' re not opposed to the project. We think the conditions are in il order . We just can' t decide the issue of the thru street. Headla : Can we approve it and then list our concerns? I think we had about 3 concerns that we had a split vote on. That would be a much more positive thing . Erhart : I think it' s important that we pass on to Council people' s ' feelings about the thru street so when they read the Minutes it ' s clear how many people favored , were for or against the thru street because I think that' s the number one issue. The other issues are sort of secondary. Headla : So we could approve this but list that as a concern? Erhart: Whatever . Just so the Council has an accurate. . . Conrad : I don ' t think we need to approve it . I think somebody can make a II motion to . . . Emmings : There ' s a motion to deny it on the table. • Conrad : Okay. And was that seconded? 'Planning Commission Meeting August 16 , 1939 - Page 46 iEmmings : Yes . Over here. Erhart: I ' ll withdraw that if we can get something moved onto the Council with comments. That' s what I 'm trying to get accomplished here. Conrad : Do you withdraw your second? 1 Ellson: What' s going to happen here? I ' ve started to lose it? What is this going to be replaced by? Emmings: We don' t know exactly but. . . Ellson: Before I remove it I kind of want to know that. Emmings : We' re going to try and do something more positive than do a denial . It ' s going to be more wishy washy but it' s going to be. . . ' Erhart: That's fine as long as we' re clear , and we pass onto the Council our comments , it' s clear to them to read the Minutes how many people are against or for the thru street because I think that ' s the number one issue . Conrad : So we could accept a motion to just recommend that we have not come to a final conclusion on this item but have the following comments . Emmings : I think we can go further than that . Can ' t we say that our opposition is not to the . . . Headla : Not to the project . ' Emmings : And we think that the conditions that are listed by staff are appropriate but we have other concerns that don' t allow us to come to a consensus and we ' ll go down the line and state what our separate motions are. How about that? ' Conrad : Okay. Do you want to make a motion? Headla: Tim, did you withdraw yours? Erhart : Yes . Before we do, in other cases though when we have a motion 1 and it fails, do we always remove it, resubmit it as a denial? Conrad : No . Erhart : What do we normally do when it fails? Ellson: Find one that does pass . Conrad : Oh yes . Sooner or later we have to make a specific motion that passes . • ' Emmings : She ' s holding out . Planning Commission Meeting August 16 , 1989 - Page 47 Ellson: Yes , I guess I ' ll take it back. It ' s 10: 30. ' Emmings : I move that the Planning Commission pass this onto City Council with the understanding that the Planning Commission feels that the conditions in the staff report, 1 thru 10, conditions 1 thru 10, are appropriate and that there are other issues primarily concerning this street that don' t allow us to come to a consensus and we' ll simply make individual comments on our own feelings about those other issues and let the matter be decided by the City Council . Batzli : Second . Emmings moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission pass Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated July 20, 1989 with II the following conditions with the understanding that there are other issues primarily concerning the street that don' t allow the Planning Commission to come to a consensus . 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance of a building permit. Clearctitting, except for the house pad and utilities , will not be permitted . 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and!' provide the City with the necesary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the improvements . 3. A wet tap connection will be Tequired to the 12 inch watermain in Pleasant View Road . 4. The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather than Fox Chase. 5. The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. 6. The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer . , 7. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer . 8 . Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication . 9. Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector . , 10. A 10 foot clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrant . All voted in favor and the motion carried . Conrad : Now for the comments . Planning Commission Meeting August 16, 1989 - Page 48 Erhart : Comments . I 'm very much against the thru street . I can accept the proposal that Chuck has got but I favor the proposal that the Pleasant View Homeowners Association submitted . I stated the reasons previously in ' the Minutes so I ' ll just leave it at that. Earnings : I have a weak preference for a thru street . I 'm 55% for a thru street and 45% for essentially the plan that the developer has presented. Ellson: I want a thru street . Conrad : I am totally opposed to a thru street and find a lot of merit to sourcing both Pleasant View and Nez Perce as connectors for the proposal as presented by the Pleasant View Homeowners group. Batzli : I 'm against a thru street. I think we' re providing a secondary access in the future by the present proposal . Wildermuth: I 'm opposed to a thru street and I think there will be another opportunity to connect Nez Perce and Pleasant View. Headla: I support the Fire Department' s request for a thru street and I think it will help us in the future for better planning . Conrad: Good. Well thank you all for sitting through that. 11 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: tEllson moved , Emmings seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting July 19 , 1989 as presented. All voted in favor except Batzli who abstained and the motion carried . Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 2, 1989 as presented . All voted in favor and the motion carried. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Conrad : Anything Jo Ann for City Council updates? Olsen: They are going to reconsider Daryl Kirt. His wetland. They' re going to reconsider that. SuperAmerica , I don' t know if you' ve been hearing about that but they have lights around the gas canopy now which was never approved . The construction plans , which I don ' t look at the detail , it' s like 30 pages of construction plans, did show them as lit so there' s problems with that . Emmings : You remember no stuff stored outside . Ellson: And I noticed that when I went last week and I told the manager I liked it . 1 CITY OF Li CHANHASSEN 1 1 .. `" ` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �, (612) 937-1900 I MEMORANDUM I TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician ' I rt • DATE: August 11 , 1989 SUBJ: Update of 7/26/89 Memo II Preliminary Plat Review of Vineland Forest Addition File No. 89-13 Land Use Review II At the last Planning Commission meeting this preliminary plat was tabled. Staff was asked to go back and explore the possibility 1 of a second access to the Carver Beach area via Nez Perce Drive/ Lake Lucy Road. In addition, the Planning Commission thought a meeting with staff , the developer and area residents would be II helpful to clear the air on some questions. To date, no meeting has been held and it does not appear that one will be scheduled although I did meet with Daryl Fortier, the engineer hired by Mr. Beddor , in regards to a second access from Nez Perce Drive. Mr. II Fortier submitted a design revealing that a street connection to Nez Perce Drive could be accomplished with steeper street grades in the range of 8% to 10% ( see attached) . The steeper street II grades would still require filling but not the magnitude as pre- viously thought. In turn , the impact to surrounding properties would be much less . Along the south boundary of the plat a por- tion of the old Lake Lucy Road right-of-way still exists ( 33 feet) . This right-of-way can be vacated and reverted back to adjacent property owners to increase lot size along the south access road to Nez Perce Drive. II As we have seen in past developments, street grades in excess of 7% have been allowed in order to minimize disruption, conserve I wooded areas and provide accessibility to the development. Initially, the Engineering Department recommended access to the site from Nez Perce Drive. However, using typical street grades up to 7%, it did not appear to be feasible . By using a steeper II street grade up to 10%, it appears that this access would be feasible. It is therefore recommended that the second access to Nez Perce Drive via Vineland Court should be incorporated into 1 the preliminary plat. Attachment: Drawing from Daryl Fortier dated August 4, 1989 . II II NI MI — I M I NM — — — — — — — r . _ f , J. - I T.----_, ,. , �� w I .+ t; i' �� \� `� \\ \\ �_ --1020 J _ 1 1 / I 1 773 ®) \\ \I\ Z\ So 2 3 E— ? ... • I R.1 t r \� 1 I , 1 i. 'Cr 4 ti; I IP• \441■4,,,,:Qp_ ,-( '-ti SP I All i''' . 41. 1` 1 \ . it. \ \,.: tt V3. 4 I rt \ I . I \ \ I- a ,_,/),-A. . _. 1 \,. -1 7 : V _ _, • .. I \I ■ 4 000-11003111111r, '1111.111111,11,1111,!!!1, avillait /-.(is 4 : ;)--• L A. ► +� r. , a+� ." ( A v�itYtyi / .,.�`.cc•i ...,A,',rh,� Alt/ /� / y�� — :- - o O,y(m{T U , m i'.: .'',. . .1401•1r '. 0/ 6\ ---i--- -- i r-- --_,:____O 1 0 1 �a I 1 / —1 / / ; ui c �_ 1 1-a / / (\ 1. t �`� rt 10 ,, / o_ / r s R1 o I � , , 1.* ;_ , •' I / 0 - / )0)! / C - I lH/ / YJn .. — N 111 P z 1111/ L g 1 t 1. ° 1 i!..11..._ 1 i li 144 �_ < 1 �:....... . • • . . . , , iccz \ v, i ,i i I.� 1 zoo �1 I. _i • r ri i - 11 iii 1,,,)9111 EECKHOU BUILDING CORPORATION 1935 Wayzata Boulevard • Suite 165 • Long Lake, MN 55356 • (612) 473-1578 August 9 , 1989 JoAnn Olsen Senior Planner City of Chanhassen P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen; Minnesota 55317 Dear JoAnn: Thank you for your favorable recommendation of our proposal for the preliminary plat of Vineland Forest at the recent Planning Commission public hearing. While I was disappointed that the matter was not passed on to the City Council for their consideration, I also understand the Planning Commission 's desire to fully hear and consider all public comment. As I stated at both Planning Commission public hearings , this plan represents input from a number of sources including the neighbors , your city staff and my professional surveyors , engineers , and planners. We believe the current proposal represents the highest and best use of the property and is consistent with the ordinances and policies of the City of Chanhassen and therefore request that it be passed on to the City Council for their consideration with appropriate comments and recommendations. I believe the access to Nez Pierce to the south is unwise for the following reasons: ' 1) It is opposed by a substantial number of the area residents ; 2) It would cut through the most thickly wooded area of the site and result in higher than necessary tree loss; 3) It would result in a number of fill section building sites which would complicate the drainage and soil erosion as well as produce less desirable building sites; 4) It would result in street grades that are steeper then desired; 5) Insufficient right of way exists to the south; 6) It would result in undesirable traffic flow through residential areas and higher traffic. counts on Pleasant View Avenue. The number of lots served by the access to Pleasant View is far less than many other areas such as Fox Chase. While the two accesses proposed to the west are deemed to be I AV 1Q 1Oq �,�I Y OF CHANHASSEN I I JoAnn Olsen 1 August 9 , 1989 Page Two feasible for the future development of the adjacent property, we would have no objection to relocating them if specific ' information indicated a relocation is required. No one has objected to the proposed location or brought forth specific reasons as to relocation. ' In summary, I again request that the preliminary plat be recommended for approval. Your consideration is appreciated. Sincere C. E. Van Eeckhout CEV/s jc 1 . 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 46 (Steve Emmings and David Headla left at this point in the meeting and were II not present on any of the subsequent voting .) PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9. 5 ACRES INTO 18 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGEL FAMILY AND LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT' VIEW ROAD AND EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, VAN EECKHOUT BUILDING CORPORATION (VINELAND FOREST) . Public Present: 1 Name Address Jim Meyer 6225 Ridge Road 1 W. Pat Cunningham 865 Pleasant View Road Sharon Graef 855 Pleasant View Road Gordy and Patsy Whiteman 825 Pleasant View Road David and Holly Broden 640 Pleasant View Road Gary and Peg Schelitzche 680 Pleasant View Road Dean Wetzel 6260 Ridge Road Don Peterson 995 Plesant View Road Todd and Sherry Novaczyk 6371 Pleasant View Cove Pat Calhoon 6380 Pleasant View Cove David Vogel ' Arthur Owens Frank Beddor: Daryl Fortier Chuck Van Eeckhout Applicant Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public!' hearing to order . Chuch Van Eeckhout : As Jo Ann pointed out , we' re doing substantially the same as we had proposed before with the modification of platting the section by Pleasant View. I reviewed the Planning Department ' s and Engineering Department ' s recommendation and I concur . They all make sense. , If you have any comments . Conrad : Thanks , we probably will have some. Any comments from anybody else. Frank Beddor : My name is Frank Beddor and my wife and I live right across II from this area. We have four homes on lots directly across from this proposed area . I ' d like to ask the developer , going into the property, how many total homes will there be in the property when it' s complete? ' Chuck Van Eeckhout : 21 single family lots . Frank Beddor : Okay, the letter that we got said it was 18 . Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 47 ' Chuck Van Eeckhout : It was 18 until we added that other. section. Those 3 additional lots. ' Frank Beddor : And you added that to get access into the property? Chuck Van Eeckhout: That' s correct. ' Frank Beddor : You planned on coming into the property from another area before? Chuck Van Eeckhout: We were planning to come in through an easement before and leave that area undeveloped at this time and simply put a road through it. . . We found we had more flexibility on this side for future flexibility. The City' s recommendation was that we plat it now so we. . . Frank Beddor : Do you own the property on the other side or have an option on the other side? Chuck Van Eeckhout : No. Only this strip that goes , I want to say 150 feet. I don' t remember . This strip from this point to this point onto. . . Frank Beddor : That easement. . . is that on your property? Chuck Van Eeckhout: No. Frank Beddor : Well my concern is access onto Pleasant View. I walked that property and I asked Daryle Fortier to walk that property and I ' ll let Daryl address it but it appeared to us that it would not take that much cut and fill to make an access now on the Lake Lucy Road. That seemed to be a more direct way to get back out onto CR 17. As you know Pleasant View Road and I did not have, I 'm glad I did not have the opportunity of reading the report before the meeting . I had glanced at one that somebody gave me. I noticed that when I glanced at it that one of the recommendations was that Pleasant View Road is a winding twisting road and putting more traffic on it is not sufficient. Also I believe that the Fire Department recommended an access to the south. I would like to recommend that the Planning Commission look at putting an access down to Lake Lucy Road and I 'd like to have Daryl Fortier kind of, I just asked him to walk the property and to take a look at that and maybe he can address that . ' Daryl Fortier : Daryl Fortier , consulting architect working with Frank and after walking the property and looking at the preliminary grades , we would like to discuss or like more information from engineering . I believe it' s feasible to make the connection off Lake Lucy Road. It does require some additional fill and may require some altering . Of course it would require some altering of the plat but we believe it' s quite possible. . . to build those 21 lots off the cul-de-sac is setting a fairly strong precedent t within Chanhassen. Previously we' ve been advised to try to keep our cul-de-sacs down to about 400 or 500 feet in length unless the topography was really prohibited. We don' t think it' s that prohibited. We do see some difficulty but we don' t think it' s prohibited and we think it can be ' achieved so we'd like a bit more time to take a look at the actual grades and work with the engineering staff and Chanhassen so we can make a better Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 48 I report. . . Hemphill : I 'd like to comment on that. I looked at the access to the south to Nez Perce and my calculations with the 9% grade from the cul-de-sac on up to Nez Perce with a couple of flat spots for intersections, I calculated approximately 14 feet of fill at the lowest area and with 3 : 1 slopes, it would take right-of-way approximately out 130 II feet through that area. That area does consist of a lot of woods. Granted the developer is proposing to grade a portion of that area as part of his plat but the most detrimental affect I guess would be on the existing lot II in Carver Beach Estates where the street connects to Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce. A 3 way intersection. A portion of that lot would have to be filled in for the roadway. Currently there ' s no house on that lot. ' Todd Novaczyk: Todd Novaczyk. My wife Sherry and I live on Pleasant View Cove which intersects just west of here into Pleasant View Road . I would like to ask the Planning Commission to give some consideration, ask for further study be done as to the amount of traffic on Pleasant View Road . IIII think you' ll find that there are a lot of young children in the area on bikes, getting on school buses , walking in the area . As it stands now, with the addition of Fox Chase and a lot of the additional traffic that we' ve seen on the road , as the drivers going west on Pleasant View Road come over the top of the hill right before they get to CR 17, generally they are surprised many times . There are other exits onto Pleasant View Road from some homeowner on the south side of Pleasant View Road and from the homeowners on the cul-de-sac of Pleasant View Cove and as we' re coming out on Pleasant View Road from our egress , we surprise a lot of people coming over the top of that hill . It ' s unsafe and especially for. children. I think the city needs to have some further study done. And then going east on Pleasant View Road there' s a severe turn and again , you ' ve got people coming up heading west going around that severe turn on Pleasant View and they will be coming right at this exit for egress and I think again you' re going to have people who are exiting onto Pleasant View Road being surprised by the oncoming traffic . So I think you need to spend some time out there. I would at least suggest I guess that you would spend some time have somebody do some research on that winding , twisting road before approval would be given to the developer to put that many more cars at that point. Just from a safety caution we would ask you to do that. Thank you. Gordy Whiteman: Gordy Whiteman at 825 Pleasant View Road . We live on that severe turn and Sunday night we had another accident. The second in the last 12 months . At what point do you stop adding additional home site onto a road that was not built to accommodate them. The road was a two wheel wagon path, that ' s what it was built for so at some point you have to say II no more. Peg Schelitzche : I 'm Peg Schelitzche and I live at 680 Pleasant View and we live on that curve coming from that hill farther . In the winter we have cars in ours. The road also has to be, not only less cars put 'on it , or not any more cars put on it, but also monitored a little bit better by the City. There ' s many cars going much too fast on that road all the time. I Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 49 Conrad: How about speed bumps . Peg Schelitzche : We asked for that. They wouldn' t do it. Pat Calhoon: I 'm Pat Calhoon and I live at 6380 Pleasant View Cove and I also feel that the traffic . . . is heavy already and possibly another. 36 to 40 ' cars coming out in the morning and going in at night. . . Sherry Novaczyk : I 'd just like to comment too that the land next to that also is probably in the future going to have more homes built on it right ' adjacent to that lot right now that is being proposed . But that land is being filled for further development down the line which poses another problem. Where will those cars come out? The other thing is the bus company, the children used to walk across the street to catch the bus but because it was so very dangerous with those cars coming over the top of the hill , we managed to route the bus to the other side of the road so even the bus companies thought that was really a hazardous situation. Holly Broden: In addition to the car traffic, there are going to be. . . joggers and stuff that use that road which also . . .sports cars that like ' that winding road . David Vogel : I had a question . . . I 'm David Vogel . I live at 905 Pleasant ' View which is part of Lot 3 and Lot 3, the west half is the portion that the proposed road . . . I haven ' t had a chance to . . .but I don' t see on this drawing up here but I 'm concerned about the setbacks that might be allowed between our property and the proposed street. When our house was built ' Outlot 3, the entire lot was one property. It was then subdivided. Mine is now, I don ' t exactly. . .about 30 feet from our house. It appears that this road goes right along the lot line and we ' ll have to remove our garden shed . . . Conrad : Exactly where are you? ' David Vogel : It' s this lot on 3. That' s us . Chuck Van Eeckhout : His house exceeds the setback from the proposed road . ' I am not aware of the setback from the building . . .but I can sure find out . David Vogel : Then the out building is actually on your lot? . . .that ' s how ' large the yard is and not only would our yard be dessimated but we might be salt spray up onto it and onto our yard . Chuck Van Eeckhout: The building he ' s talking about is on my land. The ' other building where he ' s living , his home is more than the front yard setback that would be required and I don' t know if it' s 35 or 40. It' s closer to 40 feet but I don' t know exactly. David Vogel : My concern is that it greatly alters our property and I don ' t know if there ' s allowance for moving a road from our property Tine. ' Conrad: Are you facing Pleasant View right now? I Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 50 David Vogel : Right now our home faces Pleasant View, yes . I have a lot sweeping down to that. Conrad: So basically the road would be on your side yard? ' David Vogel : Right. Batzli : It kind of turns you into a corner lot. David Vogel : Two of our out buildings are on the west half of the lot where the road is going so two of our out buildings that we are currently I using . . .on this other lot and the road. I find that that' s an extreme alteration. I don ' t know if there' s. . . for that? Batzli : We don't have in our ordinances a setback requirement for roads like the one they' re proposing to put in. How wide is the bituminous actually? They have a 50 foot easement? What' s the width of the road they' re actually putting in? Hemphill : Standard . It would be 31 feet back to back or 28 foot. Batzli : So there will be a 12 foot strip on the edge of the property until " you hit the bituminous . It will be 30 feet from his house to the edge of his lot plus 12 feet over to the bituminous surface right? Something like that? Chuck Van Eeckhout : That 'd be the minimum. Batzli : So it' d be a minimum of 42 feet . Conrad: There aren' t ordinances that protect you and we' ve gone through II this type of thing before and to tell you the truth , we' re trying to come up with a formula. There' s no way to out guess the situations which means all we do is come up with bad ordinances but we have gone through this before and .unfortunately. . . David Vogel : It' s unfortunate when you spend 8 months last year just trying to buy the house because we were essentially 5 open acres and my sister sold me the lot so now. . .because we won' t live on the street. That ' s my problem with Chanhassen. Arthur Owens : Arthur Owens , 6525 Peaceful Lane. We own the property just west of 8 on the. . . There' s a , on the plat it shows a . . .going west. That ' s going to Lot 8 which i.s . . .and staff went over that Lather_ fast . Is that street proposed to eliminate some of that traffic and when does that go through? Olsen : That street is just proposed as possible access for future development. We always try to provide at least 2 access points to a subdivision and we knew wanted one for a connection to Pleasant View and to Lake Lucy. Now they are proposing two future access points to the west. . . . looking at that as a future connection. 11 I Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 51 Arthur Owens : There was a development on Joe Trundle' s property. . .just west of the present proposed development. . .so rather than just these coming out, you could have more . I think there should be more study done on that. ' I agree with Frank when he says there probably should be some access from Lake Lucy Road back there . That is, I 've been there a few years myself. . . I also know the activity by joggers and by bikers and a few ' others out there and it is a difficult area but it has been building up there. . .consideration given to the safety of the proposal . I 'm far more interested in right-of-ways for the trails and so forth. We' re looking at a future problem there. I can' t imagine putting more. . .going to the west ' as solving the need for a second access . Frank Beddor: I 'd like to make another comment if I may. I would happy to ' work with the developer . . .and talking about , the engineer said it was what, a 9% grade . I heard Near Mountain was looking at 10% grades. I think that the Planning Commission has an opportunity here to help get some of the traffic off the Pleasant View Road rather than adding more to it. I don' t ' . . .because Joe Trundle might sell . . .which he has the right to , then today is the time to look for the second access and not a second access sometime down the road is it possibly happens and is somebody does sell the ' property. So I would like to request enough time just to work with the developer to see if we couldn ' t come up with some solutions that would be amicable. We aren ' t trying to block the development . . .we' re just looking ' at a second access to take the traffic off Pleasant View Road and we've been there 30 some odd years and as you know, people. . .and it also has lots of joggers and lots of other traffic on it along with the children and the dogs and it' s twisting and it' s turning and to deliberately put more traffic on when we have an opportunity to move that traffic off that area , I think we should do that so if we could have more time. ' Chuck Van Eeckhout : Can I comment? We have done traffic analysis and my engineer is very comfortable that making that connection would impact traffic on Lake Lucy Road . You ' ve got a great mass to the west and to the south and all of them want to go to TH 101 and they want to take that short ' cut, we' re very comfortable that . . . In fact some of the people we ' ve been talking to will add to that. That ' s why they were very much against that connection . It also spoils a nice piece of woods. As the engineer ' technician has pointed out. It requires a great deal of fill and will spoil several lots and you ' ve got like a railroad track going through. . .so these are the negatives that we considered very carefully when deciding to ' settle on this design after talking with a number of people from many persuasions. This sounded reasonable to deny this final . . .so this is how we got to where we are today. ' Frank Beddor : I only had a chance to look a little bit with Daryl today on that traffic and he brought that point up and I couldn' t really see coming off this road , that people would really want to cut through that long ' cul-de-sac and turn into Pleasant View rather than go out the other direction . I Chuck Van Eeckhout : I don ' t know how far it is but you ' ve got this whole ' mass of people from here all the way over to here all the way down to here and there ' s a lot of houses in there. The shortest way for every one of I II; Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 52 II those to get to TH 101 is that clean shot . . .whereas now this is not a plain north/south route. They got back out to the west and then down to TH 5. Frank Beddor : That' s why I think it needs a- little discussion because we II don' t have those experts available. . .but we do have the people who have been living there for a long time and they probably know the traffic better than anybody else does that' s on the road because they live there day by II day so we'd like to take a chance to look at that traffic flow. Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted II in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Wildermuth: It' s a tough issue. I guess based on what I 've heard, I would be in favor of tabling the issue and allowing the residents and the developer to work toward a resolution. Batzli : That ' s it? I seem to recall a lot of discussion the first time, backing off of the entrance/exit issue for just a minute. The 16 foot driveway up to the north, who owns that little piece? Chuck Van Eeckhout: I do. I Batzli : You own that as well? And what does that become as you develop II this whole piece? Chuck Van Eeckhout : It doesn' t change in and of itself. We tried to work with one of the adjacent owners and sold it to one of the adjacent owners. I Batzli : But it would be a separately deeded piece of property on this map here? I Chuck Van Eeckhout : Yes it is . It' s separately deeded . I purchased it along with the other property. Batzli : Would it be considered an outlot then? What would it be II considered? It' s not buildable. Olsen : Currently it ' s just an easement . II Chuck Van Eeckhout: It' s a fee title piece of property. It could be II excluded from the plat . . .or it could be an outlot on the plat . I don ' t know which technically is the most desirable way to handle it. We' re not getting involved in the functioning of the plat anyway. It ' s simply. . . that I would abandon or give to somebody to sell to somebody or work with somebody on it . It has no meaning with regard to the plat . Batzli : I guess I 'd like us to at least consider whether that should be included as part of this plat or not. I don ' t know one way or another . I think that it ' s interesting that people might use this cul-de-'sac as a vehicle to get over to TH 101. I lived in a subdivision that we lobbied long and hard to not have a second entrance for that reason that it would be used as a short cut and in fact it is . Surprisingly it' s used as a II Planning Commission Meeting I short cut by the school bus company for a long time. The school bus company does do some good things and some bad things. But on the other hand , during the super flood , the entrance was blocked off and that was ' really the only entrance into the subdivision and at the time it wasn' t built. It was just a hunk of muddy dirt. I do agree that they need it even though at times it' s very frustrating to have sport cars coming off of ' Pleasant View through our subdivision . = Once they get done racing through your curves , they come and race on our curves in Fox Hollow. I do agree that that ' s a problem and I don ' t know how to solve it . I don' t know that 30-40 cars are going to make a difference on Pleasant View. As I recall , a ' large study was done on traffic patterns of Pleasant View at the time that they were thinking of connecting Fox Hollow to Pleasant View Jo Ann. Correct me if I 'm wrong . Olsen: There was. Batzli : And as I recall , it was a very large number and I don' t know that this is really going to affect it that much. Maybe it will although I would like to see some, at least discussion with the residents because there' s a lot of residents that are concerned about potential of connecting ' it up towards the south . I think it' s a hard issue because I would like to see for instance a second access into this subdivision other than Forest Street . I don ' t know that that solves the problem of having a long cul-de-sac down along Vineland Drive into that length of your cul-de-sac. So whether we table it or not, I would still like staff and the developer and the residents potentially to get together and decide whether it is feasible . It sounds to me like a lot of fill is needed and it doesn' t ' sound like the most practical thing in the world but I think for safety concerns and traffic concerns , it' s something that has to be explored . I think I asked this question last time we looked at this. The control structure on the east side of the property, what is that again? Chuck Van Eeckhout: Are you talking about the storm water control? Batzli : I think so . Chuck Van Eeckhout : Yes . That ' s just a dam that will control the runoff ' rate so we' re not exceeding pre-development rate for a 100 year storm. Batzli : And where is that located? Chuck Van Eeckhout : It ' s on the east edge of the property. There' s a natural swale coming out. There is . . . structure there now but it' s not large enough. We would be expanding that . Hemphill : He is indicating it' s in the ravine there and there' s currently a . . .that ' s been picking up the storm runoff off of that ravine . It ' s currently just a flared end section. What the development is proposing is a detention pond on site to hold back a 100 year storm and release it at a pre-development rate through the storm sewer . ' Batzli : Since that isn ' t on an outlot , would it be appropriate to put in a covenant on the affected lot that they can' t affect the grade of that I Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 54 ' control structure? Hemphill : I believe it' s contained in the drainage and utility easement . We don' t allow filling . Batzli : It is in the easement? Hemphill : It would be. Batzli : But we don' t have easements on here? Okay. Yes , it is an easement. It looks like it is. Those are the questions I had. It' s all II yours Tim. Erhart : Go through with me again here. Your 9 : 1 slope on this proposed . I Hemphill : If they propose a urban street section through here . . . Erhart : Okay, why don' t you try the next one over . , Hemphill : This one? Erhart : Yes . ' Chuck Van Eeckhout : That street is very, very under designed . Erhart: What street? Chuck Van Eeckhout : Nez Perce into Kiowa . ' Erhart: Is Lake Lucy Road there or what? Hemphill : Lake Lucy Road comes in a little bit further down right with Carver Beach Estates. It ' s not indicated on. . . Erhart : Well that' s what I 'm having a hard time. I Olsen: That ' s just the right-of-way. Lake Lucy isn' t actually there. Erhart : It ' s not there . Has it ever been there? Olsen: It' s south of Carver Beach Estates . Batzli : Is it ever going- to be there? Erhart: Yes, I 've got that map here too but it doesn' t. ' Hemphill : Yes , it' s not indicated . Here' s Carver Beach Estates . Lake Lucy Road connects here with Nez Perce. ' Olsen : There ' s a row of lots inbetween there. Hemphill : There' s a row of lots inbetween the subdivision and Lake Lucy Road . I/ 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 55 Olsen : But the right-of-way is still up on the north. ' Batzli : Lake Lucy Road doesn' t extend past -:where? Erhart : It ' s really Nez Perce then? Hemphill : Nez Perce turns into Lake Lucy Road . Olsen: It' s a new road which has been named Lake Lucy. The original ' Lake Lucy right-of-way which a portion you still see on the plat, has been vacated except for that portion of the plat . Erhart: And then is Park Drive there at all or is that also just a right-of-way? Chuck Van Eeckhout : That ' s a 40 foot piece of right-of-way that' s unimproved . Erhart : So to bring Vineland Court through, you'd be bringing it all the way down then to the new Lake Lucy Road? Hemphill : Which is approximately I believe about 150 feet . About a lot ' depth. Erhart : And what'd you say, you ' ve got a 40 foot easement there? Chuck Van Eeckhout: The previous platting has left a 40 foot easement. South of my property there is a 40 foot strip of roadway easement that goes down and connects up with that east/west street which, what ' s the name of ' that one? Hemphill : Lake Lucy Road . ' Chuck Van Eeckhout : It goes down from the old Lake Lucy right-of-way. . .one lot depth. If you abandon the right-of-way yip against my property and move the right-of-way down so there ' s a full lot depth away from my property. ' That 40 foot easement goes along side of that right-of-way. Erhart : You went out and bought this property north of your original piece specifically so you could avoid making the connection down to the south? ' Is that what I understood? Chuck Van Eeckhout : I 'm not sure I understand what you just said . iErhart: You originally came in here some time ago and you were proposing to subdivide this with a street connection down to Nez Perce? Chuck Van Eeckhout: No, I don ' t think I ever . Erhart : Just tell me what you did . 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 56 Chuck Van Eeckhout : What I proposed is essentially what' s on the table right now with the one exception and that was , I was asking really to bull the road through the piece to the north and not plat it but . . . Olsen : Staff recommended . Chuck Van Eeckhout : That was the only change I made. Erhart: Is there any problem with the easements that we have to g ive this southern route? Just forget the 9 : 1 slope at this time. Are there any additional problems to do it? Hemphill : Right now there ' s a 40 foot right-of-way in order to put a street. We'd probably need a slope easement outside of it for the road . Erhart : 40 feet. And your 10: 1 is that? Hemphill : 3: 1 slope. I Erhart: The 9 : 1 that you have, is that in that area south of the applicant' s property? ' Hemphill : Yes . Chuck Van Eeckhout : Also across my property would create a grade from. . . This is lower ground here so from this point here we'd have to fill something like 14 feet in there which is a very wide grade into a very nice wooded area. So we 'd spoil a lot of land in there. . . from this point to ' this point . If you start at this point with your up slope and grade , when you get up here your added slope. . .would be in excess of 10% . Erhart : That' s assuming that this cul-de-sac would remain. . . Chuck Van Eeckhout : . . .but again we' re trying to get this low enough so we can grade properly. ' Erhart : The issue and thru traffic is a problem because with Town Line Road being finished off, there' s going to be some pressure for people to swing over that way to get onto Crosstown . Yet it' s a little hard to imagine that we would invest in this new street to the south and not take advantage of it for access to areas adjacent to it or close to adjacent to it. I just wonder if the solution Dave, maybe the compromise is moving Forest Street further south? Chuck Van Eeckhout: I don' t have a problem with that . ' Erhart : So when that property to the west develops , it provides more inducement. Before we spend any more time on it tonight, I agree with, I 'm not s'n.e if Brian also concurred with Ji.m but I do agree that we ought to spend some more time on this before we pass it along to Council unreviewing the issues that were brought up tonight without spending a whole lot of time. The other last thing again, from the report the public safety fire inspector indicated his request for a thru street connection. Did you I Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 57 ' agree with that Jo Ann? Olsen : That was part of when we first brought this proposal in front of the Planning Commission, we were highly recommending that they do provide that secondary access . Planning Commission wasn ' t very supportive of that. We went back and really looked at what actually would happen with the ' topography and the filling . I guess we came back thinking that it might be significant alteration to the site and that we could live with the other proposals to the west . He' s providing an emergency access as one compromise but as we've seen in the past, those work as streets anyway or Ipeople still use them as streets and they' re just problems. Erhart: So anyway, I 'd support tabling it with those ideas. Chuck Van Eeckhout : Can I comment? Time is very important and I have waited 6 weeks. I would like to have it considered and passed on with your comments and we ' ll take into account all of your comments and we ' ll work ' with the residents in the interim to see if there are some things we can do but we have studied it to the point where we ' re satisfied and staff is substantially. . .well satisfied. That' s not to say that your comments aren ' t valuable . . .but we would like to move it along if at all possible. Erhart: My feeling is that the Council will want to give the opportunity ' to the citizens to have 2 weeks to participate in the discussions myself and if we passed it along, they' ll kick it back. Conrad : Tough issue . I think any kind of connections to the south, we ' looked at them not too long ago. There' s some damaging impact to trees and surroundings and I think at that point in time, and I don ' t know how they were informed but a lot of the neighbors , I 'm surprised that the neighbors ' to the south aren ' t here tonight but they were here a while back to my recollection and there was concern with connections to the south. You've got, the folks that I ' ve heard tonight are concerned with connections to the north and not too long ago we heard about concerns to connections to ' the south which is pretty typical every time you put in a new street . We hear that every 2 weeks. At the time the logic seemed pretty compelling not to do any kind of access to the south . Grades . I also think that if ' it was a secondary access , and I think most people here probably don ' t want any access on Pleasant View, but if there was a Pleasant View access and an access to the south , you' re going to get more traffic on Pleasant View. ' Guaranteed. In my belief we' re not talking about just dumping the units , the lots that we' re looking at here. You' re going to get more traffic . They will cut through. I think there are some negatives going to the south. They' re environmental and they' re traffic and I can ' t say that they' re a primary entrance for this property either . On the other hand , I don ' t like where Forest Street is . I think that doesn ' t serve any purpose as a secondary access here. It just doesn' t look right to me . It just keeps seeming like there ' s got to be a better way to have a sedondary access into this site. I 'm really concerned about neighbors who move in and we put roads right next to them and I honestly don ' t have a clue how to ' solve that problem. We can' t move the road 10 feet more. That ' s not going to help you . To be honest , I really don ' t know how to solve that problem. We can solve it certain ways with berming and certain ways with some stuff . Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 58 I don' t know that, those things we have done previously but there ' s going II to be a road access to this site and a very good outlet is Pleasant View because it makes sense in terms of some street planning even though Pleasant View doesn' t need anymore traffic so we' ve got some real inconsistencies here . My preference right now, because there is interest in this issue and I do believe what Tim just said is right. I think City Council is going to want to kick this around . They' re going to want to listen to the public and they' re going to want to get people a little bit II involved in terms of access . I don' t know if this isn ' t going to be the final one but I would like to spend a little bit of time and get the neighbors involved just a tad and I think Frank, if you could take the II initiative on that. You volunteered some things. I guess I wouldn' t mind that for 2 weeks . I think it's going to save you time in the long run based on how we typically work with City Council . Not that we allow neighbors to design street plans because in the final analysis it' s planning staff and Planning Commission and City Council but I think there are some neighborhood issues here that might be able to be straightened out or at least clarified and my preference right now is to table it for a 2 , week time and pack the next Planning Commission agenda Jo Ann. Table it for tonight and bring her back. Thinking that maybe there' s some solution. For a secondary access or some other access , Jo Ann , even as Tim just sketched out, an access coming out of the Court to the southwest going into the property to the west . Even that makes some sense to me. Additional sense to me but my preference is to table it also as some other people have said and to get a little bit of Mr . Beddor ' s time and engineering time. Obviously their time would be to persuade you that there' s something else that could be done but I ' d sure like them and the residents involved just a little bit more . Chuck Van Eeckhout : The only problem is of course when you push in one place, something comes out somewhere else. I have no problem with any of the accesses that could be collectively decided on to the west . In other words, if the Commission wants an access south of where the present Forest Street is , we generally have no problem that . If the residents would prefer to have access south of some other point, we have no problem with it. The only thing is trying to figure out who ' s supposed to strike the magic perfect solution. I guess the only way I know of how to proceed would be to have the folks who are interested meet with staff and then collectively they can decide on something . In all likelihood I ' ll be willing to meet with them at any time. In all likelihood , if staff and the neighbors decide on something, I ' ll probably concur with it unless it' s entirely off the wall . Conrad : I appreciate your comments and I hear what you' re saying . I think just because of the interest we see hare tonight and they' re bringing up ' real valid points . It ' s not that they' re not concerned . They all know that this property is going to be developed and they didn' t talk about lot size. They didn' t talk about a lot of things. Many times we forget about II what they didn ' t talk about. People know there ' s going to be development here and it ' s just a question of where it goes and how we dire6t it. I prefer to spend another 2 weeks and maybe if Mr . Beddor can work with staff and staff can work with the neighbors and bring you in, it seems like the appropriate thing to do right now and as I said before, the plan may not 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1989 - Page 59 change other than I just don' t know that Forest Street ' s the right place but I think 2 more weeks might make it go through City Council with a little bit more support than the neighbors and less time overall . Is there ' a motion? Wildermuth moved, Erhart seconded to table Subdivision Request #89-8 as ' shown on plans dated July 20, 1989. All voted in favor and the motion carried . ' NEW BUSINESS: ' PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - COMMERCIAL - CONCEPT PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 1.2 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BG, GENERAL BUSINESS AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST 78TH STREET AND MARKET BOULEVARD, MARKET SQUARE PARTNERSHIP. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: Okay, thanks Jo Ann. Here it is five to twelve. We' ve been here for 6 hours and it' s not fair for us or for you but why don' t you make a presentation at this late hour. We want to treat it fairly at this point ' in time but unfortunatley we' ve kept you up until midnight . It ' s not our choice. Jim Winkles : Thank you. My name is Jim Winkles . I 'm with MarCor ' properties and I 'm part of the team that' s going to be, put together to do this project . I think tonight in fact what we 'd like to accomplish is just a couple things very quickly recognizing the hour here too is one, to begin ' with , we want to just talk very briefly about the PUD process . Secondly, we want to talk to you very briefly about the plan which are two parts . One' s a site plan and one' s the building plans . Really what we want to try and do is just get your ideas on the plans. We' re on a very fast track 1 schedule that we ' ve put together with Fred Hoisington and Jim Lasher and with Jo Ann. It ' s a schedule that' s ambitious but at the same time is one that we feel that I think, I don' t know if you ' ve received a copy of that ' yet or not but if not, we'd certainly like to get one of those in your hands also. What we ' re trying to accomplish is to create a shopping center that has been talked about for quite a while in the town. The property ' being just south of where we are right now. It would in fact include a grocery anchored center which we have heard for some time now is probably the number one shopping experience that people seem to want around this general area. In fact, Cooper ' s SuperValu would be the lead tenant or ' anchor tenant in that project . It ' s a project that ' s been talked about for a long time. It ' s a project that we recently, in the last several weeks have been spending a lot of time with Jo Ann and Fred and Jim Lasher ' talking about the ultimate design. I guess I would agree with Jo Ann, I think we ' ve made a lot of progress in a relatively short period of time. We have been to the HRA and showed them just a concept basis also. We' ve ' got a whole series of steps to go here through so we ' re trying to get to everybody that' s going to have some type of review over this project. PUD wise , when we started talking to staff , it became very clear that there' s 1 C I TY O F P.C. DATE: Aug. 2, 1989 JI \ ��� C.C. DATE; Aug. 28, 1989 CHANHASSEN r CASE N0: 89-8 SUB Prepared by: Olsen/v I STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 11. 2 Acres into 21 Single Family Lots Z I 4 LOCATION: Lots 9 , 10 and E. 16 Ft. of Lot B, Vineland - V Directly West of Fox Chase, North of Carver Beach II Estates and South of Pleasant View Road APPLICANT: Chuck VanEeckhout Merila Associates II 4 Suite 165 Suite 63 1935 Wayzata Blvd. 8401 73rd Ave. N. Long Lake, MN 55316 Brooklyn Park, MN 55428-1293 I 1 II PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family I ACREAGE: 11. 2 acres-gross 9 . 5 acres-net DENSITY: 2 . 21 units per acre - net II ADJACENT ZONING II AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family E:17 S- PUD-R; single family E- . RSF; single famil II y L W W- RSF; single family 1 V- WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water is available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The property has steep slopes and is II heavily vegetated. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density I' I -- �I I � �f I I � JCASC C', CNR/ TMA I NEPIN COUNTY CO` o LAKE • - 1 i 1 PIEDMONT r ,a, /111 ,2 11111Wmpofro - .PUD-R HP'�'• - . :-. TRAPLINE I CIRCLE • • od' ■ .� . 61 MOUNTATR'VIEV]L� ' 'x�` - COURT 11 i F �� ., AI - vio•Pr,,?, co y t ' .� BLUFF"; N, E . ., Ste i■- 2.4'4.- - R.A. IMO X R , ,, �, �. AhS lb; kit 14-47't: `' ` fOXTA1L QP IN ■ i v�.�. �� ` i �► g I COURT � el . u ofilleMILLEL .4.* ** 4 //' ) , ';'-'-' . ' 1 1111111111111% ‘ tar. /1/ ,\-- 3 r _,_______ _.:_-_,\, 6 ? .y , r� ► `/` q= � iii R D it.. -',� l f :��SIie \\� � 1la Lc :nee a !1 • -w-111. • kts`vw e " Stittew al ilikrwi%43■> .. , , , 1,?.41,4$1111,0r: LB ,. 44%. .....tia. .; r-ts- - ‘y..s.--is*, ,, - .. ....._ . . E. t.,-,,t.1� .��� `Vt 1 ` LOTUS j4at ar 111" ors Mt-t VA cz_0 0 —4 E. W m \�-/ ..r ' WE; e ; '�,_ =r..... N1111111N . ' Ili EL 111,_ __El INIA flat L'711 LA 1116$ aiiiialilliVAVA*7 rel "6 IV\ t-- 0. .__________, EN1411011 ii! : i 1,i .. :I f. RAP i `.�'�',��%�� ,\ / ,, _ ___r -::::::77. 4 1:017 , ,(( o : 1.:ZUMIN 1111111410% ∎ ■ ¢R w 1- x/11 Z_- . i - Vi=a,•• ,����1�• R4 R 1 `� .k Ay" • \ ..... I 1 ...ri.tailiwpiktor rre - 4, R 1 2 - • e . . M-LoI ►4 11.03 WIMP mr •- 10 W�a - 21 R '�I ,.� 1II1/11 !"_:i• ::111 wrio . k. 11 Vineland Subdivision August 2, 1989 Page 2 - APPLICABLE REGULATIONS I The RSF district permits a minimum lot area of 15 , 000 square feet with 90 feet of public street frontage and-125-foot lot depth. ' The land use designation permits up to 3 . 4 dwelling units per acre. REFERRAL AGENCIES City Engineer Attachment #1 ' Building Department No comment. Public Safety Attachment #2 ANALYSIS ' The applicant is proposing to subdivide 11. 2 acres into 21 single family lots. The property is zoned RSF and the average lot size is 19, 703 square feet. The net density is 2 . 21 units per acre. The site is located north of Carver Beach Estates and west of Fox Chase. The applicant has added property to the proposed plat which provides connection to Pleasant View Road ( see Sheet 4) . The new property added to the plat is 146 feet wide and 517 long. The strip of land is being platted into three single family lots with a proposed street connection to the west and Vineland Drive which will service the remaining 19 lots to the south from Pleasant View Road. The initial proposal by the applicant did , not plat the land between the proposed subdivision and Pleasant View Road and was proposing to provide a temporary street through the property until future land could be acquired and a public street could be dedicated. After meeting with staff, the appli- cant has submitted amended plans which provides for a full street section and a 50 foot right-of-way to be dedicated to the city. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. The lots are located along Vineland Drive from Pleasant View with two cul-de-sacs located on the southern portion of the site. Two future accesses are being provided with Forest Street and Ivy Lane to the property to the west. The site is heavily vegetated and staff is recommending that a tree removal plan be provided along with each building permit application and that clear cutting of any vegetation with 4" or over caliper at 4 feet in height shall not be permitted to be clearcut except for what is necessary for the streets, utilities and house pad. A major issue which was brought up with the first review was that a secondary street access should be provided at this time. The I I Vineland Subdivision August 2 , 1989 Page 3 ' applicant is providing two future accesses to the west and after careful study of the topography, staff agrees that a road connec- tion to Carver Beach should not be pursued with this subdivision. Grading, Drainage, Utilities and Streets The City Engineer addresses these issues in the attached memo. ' RECOMMENDATION ' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #89-8 as shown on the plans dated "July 20, 1989" subject to the following conditions : ' 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for each lot prior to issuance of a building permit. Clearcutting, except for the house pad and utilities, will not be permitted. 2 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. 3 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of ' the Watershed District permit. 4. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- of-way to the City for permanent ownership. 5 . Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer . As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of construction. 6 . Appropriate utility and drainage easements shall be provided over all lots. ' 7 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- main in Pleasant View Road. 8 . The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road ' rather than Fox Chase. 9 . The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. 10 . The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualifed soils engineer. I 1 Vineland Subdivision August 2 , 1989 Page 4 11. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 12. Park and trail fees will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedi- cation. 13 . Add fire hydrant as required by Fire Inspector. ' 14. A 10 foot clearnance shall be maintained around fire hydrants. 11 ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician dated July 26 , 1989 . 1 2 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated June 13, 1989 . 3 . Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated June 15 , 1989 . 4 . Preliminary plat dated July 20 , 1989. ' 1 I 11 II . ',. CITY OF II 1 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ,,,. '� (612j 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM ITO: Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner I FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician , / DATE: July 26 , 1989 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Vineland Forest Addition File No. 89-13 Land Use Review IIThe site is located south of Pleasant View Road west of Fox Chase and north of Carver Beach Estates . The 11 . 3 acre site is I comprised of a generally rolling terrain with very steep slopes along the east boundary of the plat which is also heavily wooded. SANITARY SEWER IIMunicipal sanitary sewer service is available to the site from Pleasant View Road to the north and Fox Path to the east. The I plans propose connection from Fox Path. Due to the extraordinary steep slopes and sewer depth , the proposed alignment from Fox Path would cause extensive tree removal and leave potential ero- ' sion problems in the future . It is suggested that the sanitary sewer be extended from Pleasant View Road along proposed Vineland Drive to serve the site. This alignment will not require addi- tional tree removal outside the street right-of-way. IIWATERMAIN II The plans propose a looped system to be constructed from the existing 8-inch line in Fox Path to Vineland Drive and on to the existing 12-inch line in Pleasant View Road. Although, again , due to the steep slopes along the east boundary of the plat, I extensive trees will have to be removed and leave behind the potential erosion problems as in the sanitary sewer scenario. The watermain should be rerouted and looped with the existing I 6-inch line in Nez Perce directly south of the plat. Some trees will still need to be removed but will have much less of an evironmental impact on the neighborhood. IThe appropriate utility easements shall be provided over the plat to accommodate the utilities outside the street right-of-way. The exact hydrant and gate valve placement will be resolved with Ithe plans and specifications submittal stage. Jo Ann Olsen , July 26 , 1989 - Page 2 I STREETS The plans propose a standard 31-foot wide urban City street within a 50-foot right-of-way commencing from Pleasant View Road along Vineland Drive approximately 1, 250 feet into dead-end cul- de-sacs. All streets will be deaicated to the City . Pleasant View Road serves as the only east/west connection bet- ween County Road 17 and Trunk Highway 101. The existing roadway design is unsafe in several areas for local residential traffic. Steep hills , sharp curves , hidden driveways and overgrown vegeta- tion all combine to create hazardous conditions . As the area continues to develop, traffic volumes will increase and hazardous conditions along Pleasant View Road will only intensify. It is desirable to have a secondary access to the site for ' emergency services and effective traffic circulation . However , it appears that due to the steep slope along the south boundary of the plat, the secondary access is not feasible. ' As future development proposals are reviewed for the area , the outlot provided in Carver Beach Estates should be utilized as a secondary access . These future developments will eventually tie back into this subdivision at Forest Street and Ivy Lane . GRADING AND DRAINAGE 1 A majority of the site grading will be contained within the pro- posed street right-of-way with the exception of Lots 12 , 13 and 14 of Block 3 . In this area, it appears that the lots will require grading to create building pads and a aetention pond which in turn will require removal of some trees . The applicant 11 is also providing another detention pond to be constructed on the east side of the property between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 3 . This detention pond includes a control structure to maintain the pre- developed runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a 100 year storm event. The control structure appears to be constructed in a large fill area. Soil compaction in this area should be clo- sely supervised and tested to meet accepted engineering stan- dards. The design itself should be reviewed and approved by a qualified soils engineer. Most of the runoff from the site will be conveyed through the storm sewers to this storage pond. EROSION CONTROL The plans do not indicate provisions for erosion control ' measures . An erosion control plan should be submitted and include erosion control fencing in accordance with the City ' s Type III standard ( see detail ) . All side slopes greater than 3:1 shall be stabilized using erosion control blankets . The site ' Jo Ann Olsen July 26 , 1989 Page 3 I should be seeded and mulched immediately after rough grading to minimize sediment runoff over the site. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee proper installation of the ' improvements. 2 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 3 . The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right- of-way to the City for permanent ownership. 4. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub- mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As-built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of construction. 5 . Appropriate utility and drainage easements shall be provided over all lots . 6 . A wet tap connection will be required to the 12-inch water- main in Pleasant View Road.- 7 . The sanitary sewer shall be extended from Pleasant View Road rather than Fox Chase . 8 . The watermain shall be looped from Pleasant View Road to Nez Perce versus Fox Chase. 9 . The control structure on the east side of the property shall be reviewed and approved by a qualifed soils engineer. 10 . An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Type III Erosion Control Detail . II CITY of 1 I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM I TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector I DATE: June 13, 1989 SUBJ: 89-8 Subdivision II I Comments and recommendations per Fire Inspector: 1. Fire Department is requesting a through street connecting II g Vineland Court and Nez Perce. 2 . Add fire hydrant as indicated on site plan. II 3 . A 10 ' clearance shall be maintained around fire hydrants. II II II II II II II I CITY OF CHANHASSEN' • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (6121,j937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner ' FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: June 15 , 1989 ' SUBJ: Vineland Forest Proposal The Park and Recreation Commission, at their last meeting, reviewed the Vineland Forest site plan. As this site is currently served by existing parkland, it is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to accept park and trail fees in lieu of park land dedication of trail construction. 1 .4. 1 -ET POSTS FIRMLY (POST SNALL BE OAK ON STEEL) x ANO MOUNT HOG wolf TO POSTS Rf E-IN MOEO _ ' I TO=-IN ME TNOO • I( MIR•FI ISO% EASTER e:/NOS RII:GS, A-O =NAILS OR STAPIEr. r~UJ4 T -y Y,.; c`~ -'7.--:-.--..." �l'` // /�����//� r i•7/// `S-MIN.OEPTH • 1 // J 1 A,OIG TRENCH B.LAY IN FABRIC a EACKFILL a t W CC t EROSION CONTROL ►- ' FENCE-TYPE I a x M w J CO STEEL FENCE POSTS a SNALL BE USES TO Q I SYPPoRT SNOW FENCE i(1(1Qf1 III 11(illfl CC Ill.., L I 4 IIIII . W 0 Z a FNAT OR Srnew PALES = TWO RE•B•AS DRIVEN THROUGH E•CH BALE I. I 11/2-2 INTO GROUND BALES TO BE RECESSED K"BELOW GRADE AND woREO TO SNOW FENCE 0 EROSION CONTROL w III FENCE-TYPE 2 ~ w m • STEEL FENCE POSTS 0 I STALL SE USED 70 0 SUPPORT SNOW FENCE W CC TT11 TnT a �I'I' I Ilim I IiOIIIIINIIIUII iIII!II��IIIII!I1I co i. z �h W J 3 SIl7 (ENCE—+.���� a m ft �`� W 0 a • NAT OR STRAW PALES Z S TWO RE-BARS 0R1VEN THROUGH EACH SALE . 11/2-2'INTO GROUND BALES TO RE RECESSED I A'BELOW GRADE ANO WIRED TO SNOW FENCE I EROSION CONTRO e FENCE-TYPE 3 111 OI'L'Y OF I , A • I • _\ ''. :/r. . CHANHASSEN SILT FENCE • SCALE 1.- DATE PLATE NO. 5-89 5212 1 I. ,r I LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CITY OF CHANHASSEN - 690 Coulter Drive IChanhassen, MN 55317 • (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT: Van Eeckhout Building Corp. OWNER: Same IADDRESS 1935 Wayzata Blvd. , Suite 165 . ADDRESS Sama I Long Lake, MN 55356 TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 612/473-15Zi7p Code 8 TELEPHONE Same Zip Code IREQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development IZoning Appeal Sketch Plan Zoning Variance Preliminary Plan I _ Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision ILand Use Plan Amendment X Platting Metes and Bounds Conditional Use Permit • ISite Plan Review Street/Easement Vacation Wetlands Permit IPROJECT NAME Vineland Forest PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION id n ial IREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION Residential PRESENT ZONING RSF IREQUESTED ZONING RSF IUSES PROPOSED Sin•le Family Residential SIZE OF PROPERTY 9.5 Acres ILOCATION South of Pleasant View Road and East of Pavers Blvd. REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Prel' • - Plat I LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Lot 9, 10 and east 16 feet Iof Lot 3, Vineland, Carver County, Minnesota. City of .:::anhassen ► II Land Development Application Pace 2 1 FILING STR jCTT_QNS : This application must be completed I clearly printed and must be accompanied uby all 1n typewritten or plans required by applicable City by all information for I filing this application , Y Orainance provisions . Before to determine the specific ordinance and confer with the p_ licable to your a procedural requirementsr applicable application. - I FILI,�G CERTI^IC;TIO,T: The undersigned representative of the I that he is familiar with the procedural re uire hereby certifies applicable City Ordinances . requirements of all I Signed By 'A 4L, .- , / I Applicant _ Date I The undersigned hereby certifies that the appiica authorized to make this application nt has been I author4ed , pp-ic�tion for the property herein Signed Sy + Fe w Qner Date II I Date Application Received .Tt 1- el I Application Fee Paid $332.50 City Receipt No. 1(� . ' • • I n will be Application considered by the Planning App * Thi; po Board o Adjustments I meeting , and Appeals at their 9 Corrnission/ • 1 I