2. Realignment of Near Mtn Blvd/Pleasant View Rd II .,
..2.
I
_, CITY OF
, ..
.-:A „ CHANHASSEN
1 ,, , ,
•
AL, , .
• 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 553.1;rator,
I (612-
) 937-1900 .,��
MEMORANDUM m..44;,1,.. �
r;
II -`- •.....=_
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager g` _
I FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer f:. ,--w
�G:c ._ ui■uric;!
DATE: August 4, 1988 L
II SUBJ: Public Hearing for the Realignment of the Intersection of
Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Boulevard
File No. PW053E
IOn June 27 , 1988 , the Council directed staff to investigate the
e
feasibility of realigning the intersection of Pleasant View Road
Iand Near Mountain Boulevard (refer to attachment 1 ) .
The existing intersection was constructed such that a right-hand
I turning movement from Near Mountain Boulevard onto Pleasant View
Road and the left-hand turning movement from Pleasant View Road
onto Near Mountain Boulevard would be very difficult. Staff has
I reviewed this intersection and found that although the existing
intersection does not meet normal design practices for these
turning movements , the_ turning movements can be safely negotiated
by a passenger vehicle (refer to attachment 2) .
IIt should be noted that a "failure" to safely negotiate a turn
was defined by the incident when a design vehicle crossed the
I centerline into opposing traffic , or jumped the curb to complete
the turn. In reviewing the existing intersection, the main
constraint was not the existing or any proposed center islands,
but more importantly, the angle of intersection between Near
I Mountain Boulevard and Pleasant View Road. This angle was
measured at approximately 135 degrees. Staff considered various
designs in degrees of complexity and cost.
The first option that staff considered was to design an intersec-
tion such that all vehicles including a standard school bus could
safely negotiate each one of the turning movements necessary.
Due to the skewed angle of Near Mountain Boulevard with respect
to Pleasant View Road, the intersection would have to be totally
realigned such that it meets Pleasant View Road at a near-
_
perpendtcular angle. The cost of constructing such an intersec-
tion has been estimated at $19 ,175 (refer to attachment 3 ) .
Please keep in mind that these estimates are based upon a
Don Ashworth
August 4 , 1988
Page 2
contracted basis. During the July 27 , 1988 Council meeting , a '
figure of $10 ,000 was used assuming that the City' s Public Works
Department might defray a major portion of the work. Items such
as construction of the curbing , islands , and relandscaping would
still be contracted out in the proposed options.
Over 90% of the residential traffic through this area consists of
a standard passenger vehicle such as a car or pickup truck. In
light of the type of traffic and estimated cost to accommodate a
school bus, staff reviewed several other options which would
accommodate a design vehicle which is similar to a small bus or
truck which would not exceed 30 feet in length bumper to bumper .
These options are options 2 and 3 which will be discussed in the
following paragraphs. '
Option 2 involves the removal of the center island, reconstruc-
tion of a "shark' s tooth island" to separate left-hand turning
movements and right-hand turning movements from Near Moutain
Boulevard onto Pleasant View Road, and the widening of the
westerly curb radius ( refer to attachment 4) . This option may be
constructed at an estimated cost of $15 ,684 . 70. '
The third option considered by staff is the realignment of the
intersection, again , to accommodate a single unit bus or a large
truck not to exceed 30 feet in length. This involves realigning
the intersection such that it meets Pleasant View Road at a per-
pendicular angle, removal of the existing center island,
construction of a "shark' s tooth island" , and widening of the
westerly curb radius ( refer to attachment 5 ) . This option could
also be constructed at an estimated cost of $14, 837 . 79 .
These latter two options would require that the intersection be
signed to prohibit large trucks or school buses from attempting
to make this movement. Since the majority of traffic is compiled
of passenger vehicles and the existing intersection will accom-
modate passenger vehicles at this time, there seems to be little
gain at a great cost for the reconstruction of the intersection.
In light of the cost estimate of the first option (which does
accommodate school buses) it is the Council' s option to select.
that the intersection be signed to prohibit right-hand turning
movements from Near Mountain Boulevard onto Pleasant View Road
and similarly, left-hand turning movements from Pleasant View
Road onto Near Mountain Boulevard by large trucks and buses or to
select one of the other realignment options.
Additional Note - I have also included a copy of the cost estima-
tes for _each one of the options ( refer to attachment 6 ) . '
1
I/
II ' .
1 Don Ashworth
August 4 , 1988
Page 3
1
Attachments
II1. July 27 , 1988 Council minutes and report .
2 . Existing intersection.
3 . Reconstruction - school bus design vehicle.
1 4 . Reconstruction - small bus/large truck design vehicle.
5 . Reconstruction - small bus/large truck design vehicle.
6 . Cost estimates.
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
c.LLy Lounczl Meeting - June 27, 1988
Councilman Horn: T want to make sure we
Councilman
with the bids and at least pursued them.
I would recommend Then I have no
approval.
Resolution #00_65; Councilman Horn moved, Cilman
authorize purchasing a 1988 Chevrolet Blazer ounc
Nelson_Lenzeneinnthhe e amount of
to
$14,010.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
IIResolution #88-66r Councilman Horn moved
authorize purchasing a 1988 Chevrolet Celebritycf omnTimmermansLeasing in
amount-of $11,256.68. -All voted in favor and the motion carried.
_ _ , Leasing the
II
REVIEW NEAR MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD AND PLEASANT VIEW ROAD INTERSECTION.
Acting Mayor Geeing: This seemed II
A Near Mountain did a ver eemed rather clear to me. I thought that the
are several letters_involvedgand job
im Chaffee, Igbe ieveothat maybe you people
refer to this. Give_us a little bit of insight as to how There
I
and let's get on with it. w we can this
Jim Chaffee: I think my memo is more or less addresses the history
s
II
earched through it, it kind of made it a
authorized for the new Trapper's moot point with the access being anowe
one who brought it up Pass. I think Mr. Wehrle is here and he is the II
one
with p initially to the Council. We have looked at it.
Gary Warren on the intersection. We have no problem with it from a
I)!
staff's- standpoint, of straightening the intersection out. It's just a
of when. Whether you want to do it
put ien. until late in 1989 but the important Use State Aid funds or just
you matter
wait until _1989, do we want to question becomes then ifFwetdoo a guess from a liability stand oint wep o sign from a lithat. stand
IIP would like to do that. standpoint? I
Acting Mayor Geving: I would like to have your recommendation Jim on wh ether or
not we do it now or we wait and do it in 1989.
IIJim Chaffee: From a public safety standpoint,
right now. From a dollar standpoint, �, ' I have no problem with doing it
decide. p , that's something the Council would have to
Acting Mayor Gevin
II
Acting
started g: Thank you very much. Jim, would you comment please since
this whole issue with your Near Mountain presidency.
Jim Wehrle: I think the residents of Near Mountain
II
intersection straighten out as soon as possible obviously in the most
fiscal fashion that the Council can see it's way clear would like to have the
as possible. Y ar to doing it but prudent
II'
Councilman -Hoyt: I don't know how we made the
corner has been functioning and $10,000.00 mistake but if the II
I understand the liability that the City until we put the sign up
would suggest that liability can put a sign g corners.there.
g there that doesn'ty S it cars uns, i I
loughaveesaideshat those seem eotbe appropriate. limit car turns, since
1::::ppropriate. It's the trucks lon,ere,eh• at turn and we can do that for a totiless and
Then were not spending $10,000.00 that the Cit 't lees than
y doesn t have to
42
m
•
council Meeting - June 27, 1988
correct a problem that's been there for 4 years and really wasn't a problem
until we put the sign up. I suggest that we change the sign to read something
to the effect of no right turns for trailers, trucks or whatever. Vehicles over
30 feet or whatever from a public safety standpoint we need to do that. That
will correct the problem and we can be done with it. Then the cars can make the
right hand turn. We've stopped the dangerous vehicles from using it and we've
saved $10,000.00 that we don't have to spend.
1 Acting Mayor Geving: Let's hear from the engineer on that. Can we do it Gary?
Gary Warren: You can sign, we can make just about anything as far as signs are
U concerned to restrict the traffic there. I don't know, it will become more of
an enforcement issue I guess from that standpoint.
IIActing Mayor Geving: Is it a long term solution that Bill is suggesting?
Gary Warren: I think if I understand the concerns as far as the Near Mountain
II neighborhood is concerned, it's to be able to get bus traffic in and large
vehicles. Not just the passenger vehicles. I don't know if that necessarily
addresses the neighborhood school buses.
I Acting Mayor Geving: What I've got, this option ahead of me, it says complete
the project in 1988. What is the extent of the project? What kind of a project
would it be and how big a job? Could we do it in a couple of weeks? Let's do
it. What's wrong with doing it and be done with it once and for all? I
remember when we put that in Bill and maybe we made a big mistake when we did.
I guess maybe we were listening to a lot of neighbors at the time but remember a
lot of the residents to the west are very vocal on this issue and we didn't have
a Near Mountain. Near Mountain was a development, it was at plat stage and the
people to the west were making their points and it was pretty much decided at
this Council to do what we did. Maybe we made a mistake when we did it and it's
II time to undo it for all time and make it right. If we can do that in several
weeks and we can do it reasonably cost wise, I don't know if this $10,000.00 is
accurate. It was an estimate. The engineer says he can do it. I'd like to
Ithink that we can go ahead and clean up this project.
Councilman Boyt: Dale, this is a neighborhood that's saying that they don't
want traffic.
IActing Mayor Geving: I know that.
I Councilman Boyt: They certainly don' t want truck traffic through the
neighborhood.
IIActing Mayor Geving: I don't think they're going to get it.
Councilman Boyt: They're not going to get it the way that corner is now for
sure and if we sign it properly, the corner will continue to do what it's done
I all along. I don't think we have $10,000.00 to spend. I would support a sign
but I'm opposed to spending $10,000.00.
i
I— Acting Mayor Geving: Well, we don' t know how much it's going to cost. Go ahead
Jay and then we'll take a vote on this.
II43
- Ma.
y Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I need to know whether we have school bus traffic that is
trying to make that right hand turn out of there or the left hand turn in. Jim
says we do. That's one consideration right there. The other consideration is `
exactly what we did earlier this evening and this is, this was done through the
citizen input. To change it without citizen input from the people further down
Pleasant View would be terrible. This is another public hearing, a public
announcement to the people who got this intersection designed the way it is now.
They had a reason they wanted it to be done not just for us to switch their
reasoning backwards a few years later so I think that we owe it to our citizens
to inform the people along Pleasant View that we are reconsidering this
intersection. As far as they're concerned, four II up saying no right hand turn. That's what we promised wthemoand the mistake
was not putting the sign up 4 years ago. That's what the mistake was. The sign
II
should have been put up before the first house went into Near Mountain then the
school bus company would know they can't make that turn and they would have
found an alternate route. The trucks would know they couldn't make that t
they would have found an alternate route. turn so
II
Acting Mayor Geving: I hear you Jay. I like your suggestion. Clark?
Councilman Horn: That was going to be my point too is that we can't do anything
unless we open that up to a public hearing again. The other problem that I'd
like to make is that I think we need to evaluate Bill's recommendation from a
II
City liability standpoint not just a safety issue. Part of the point that's
come out here is the reason they put the sign up in the first place is we're
liable if we don't have a sign up in the City. I know when that question first
10
came up, it seemed like a strange consideration to put on the developer to make
that kind of an entrance and that wasn't the developer's plan to put that
entrance in like that so I totally disagree with the Public Safety Commission's
recommendation that we should get the developer to defray those costs. He put
it in that way at our request and it wasn't only our request I see as I read
back through the Minutes, it was MnDot's recommendation. I don't know how MnDot
ever got convinced that that's the way that intersection should work but somehow
it was their recommendation and when they make a recommendation like that, it's II
not really something that you can turn around.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think I'm listening to the Council here and I do believe
that we do owe it to the people west of this area to have at least a meeting II
where they can voice their opinion and I think that's the way it should be done.
In the meantime though we do have a situation that we want to make sure is taken
care of. Can you assure us of that Jim, for the present until we have this ,
public hearing? Until we make a decision? Okay.
Jim Wehrle: The status of the sign...will remain down, is that correct? As it
currently is designed? i II
Acting Mayor Geving: I believe it's down now.
Jim Wehrle: Yes. It has been since the I
and the pledge last time I brought it to the Council
P g you made at that time was it would stay down until it was
resolved so I assume it will stay down. If, before this hearing is held, from a '
study by Gary or'whoever would be done to show a plan 1 or plan 2 or plan 3 of
what could or should be done to that intersection and how much it would cost,
would be nice. I can't imagine spending a fraction of $10,000.00 to round off a
44
II
'
t
111111111111111r 89
Cy Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
sharp corner. There's perhaps some concern that we get into whether the new one
is going to stay or be altered. It's currently there... I can't imagine it
being more than a couple day project...
Councilman Horn: When we agreed that that sign should come down, it was before
II we had the input from our Attorney stating that it was a liability issue to the
City. That has put a totally different complexion on that problem and I don't
believe that we can sit up here and be responsible knowing we have a liability
situation and allow it to continue.
IIJim Wehrle: I've read that correspondence p ce and I don't know whether there's been
an exact determination that at any point anybody said that there would be a sign
II go up there. There's nothing in the Minutes of the past meetings, no
determination by Council that there would be a sign ever put up there. Perhaps
II it was people's understanding that a sign might go up there but it's my
interpretation by going over the past Minutes, that what was done in lieu of a
sign, that that angle was to discourage traffic going back through Pleasant
View. It was never determined by anyone that there should be a sign saying no
right hand turn from my reading of the Minutes of the past Minutes and
II correspondence and having been that way for 4 years, and having been down for
the last couple of months while it went to Public Safety and back here again, I
II assume this will be on the next one? I imagine the need to put the burden on
the 300 driving residents of Near Mountain of not being able to make the turn to
go to the new park, their church in Excelsior or whatever the case may be.
IICouncilman Horn: I think our Attorney has to comment on this.
Acting Mayor Geving: Do you remember this situation Roger?
IIRoger Knutson: Yes. I'm not a traffic engineer. The only comment I can really
make to the situation is that if you have a dangerous situation, I'm saying if
you have a dangerous situation and you don't do something to warn motorists
IIabout it and someone is injured, they have the making of a claim against you.
Acting Mayor Geving: Is it your recommendation that that sign should be put up?
1 Roger Knutson: I don't know enough about the intersection. I don't like to do
this.
II Jim Wehrle: Can I ask a question? Has there been a determination that there is
danger here somehow because the only thing that I've ever heard alleged as being
dangerous. It's inconvenient to make that turn but it can be done. It's
II inconvenient for a school bus or a truck because they have to back in, or he
pulls in, back up and then do that a little bit but.. .
II Acting Mayor Geving: I think the fact that they have to make that kind of a
turning motion would deem it to be unsafe. I think I would, as an observer, say
. that. I don't know if it's unsafe or not but if they have to make several
gyrations to turn right and go west on Pleasant View, I would say that is an
unsafe condition.
1- Councilman Horn: Let me comment on that. I don' t have trouble making that turn
'- staying in my lane but I don't have trouble driving downtown here and not run
into any of the curbs either. What happens is, I know people are going to swing
45
over into o the other lane when
maneuver?
lane. What should eyma reasonable right hand turn so YOU tali me
Jim Wehrle: �cuse somebody
other lane? It, me Clark. I'm Y could
It's one lane. not sure i follow,
Councilman There's only Y one lane The sWZning into what
lane of Pleasant Pleasant View, going in either
View, there are When you make a direction.
Jim Wehrle: going be right turn into
g to
Going west or going east? Pimple who will swing the right hand
Councilman Horn: Going West.
easterly lane.
II
There will be People who will swing
Jim Wehrle: If you're on Pleasant over
into the I
Counci t View
and I'm going Horn: No. I'm in going west, from 191
cars are 9 n: Near Mountain. ,
car go into E.ccelsior to
I can going to church. I m corning out of
maneuver that wing over and A Certain Your development
I
going and cross the center lane Percentage of anent
ar you can
a safety issue that you didn't doesn't t atbhla tms neuver that into the eastbound
some of nd lane.
II
Acting do t address, going to come back and say, you n't.
g Mayor Geving; I
pointer this out think it's have
Manager is indicatzngsthate, aletter fr�zaPortant thin
and one from the Fire thing when I see I
hazardous he's gotten Public Safety • and Bill
hazardous situation. Department and thsy°m rcomplaints basically 11 fs mDa shoo to the City
this upoint situation, then it's Attorney out saying driver
at tli
recommendation o I guess I'm going n un�safessituathot if We tnowgthatt. this is a
give Us torsi n this Jim and where have to n for Us and it's it's a
tonight, what you'd like we should refer t Jim issues Public record
Jim Chaffee: to do with go with this issue. and your
also n new to this corner? Could you but we
gets of e: put n a sign it o
a report back gn for liability Auras the Counci
from the City En z Poses uthe 1 has indicates
Acting Mayor Levin Engineer. That's thelwaycl see time t s the Council
g• That sounds good enough for me-
Jun Wehrle_ Will there be a notice The signs will go up.
0
actin e to all the residents in the area
g Mayor Levin • about this
g• Yes.
lderstand? Can the sign go back
up concurrent with that notice so
tine Mayor Geving; I think that People will
ti run out there torsi would
�rdi.nated with the tonight at 12:30 and p it up. late. We're
s Placed public hearing. I uP• We'll make not going to
in front li the would
long a notice would citizenry like to sure that it's
� have to give; as a public hearing? how soon could
g? Barbara? Anyone?
117 6 i
46
• �. _ _..... S., N I
Po I
ty Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Barbara Dacy: A typical timeframe is 10 days.
Acting Mayor Geving: What kind of a timeframe are we talking about?
Gary Warren: Not until July 25th.
II Acting Mayor Geving: It will be July 25th is the earliest Bill and I'm open for
a motion on this.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question and then I'll be happy to make a motion.
IIJim, are you saying, as I understood it initially, one of the concerns was that
people were driving in their personal vehicles and were being inconvenienced by
not being able to take a right turn.
IIJim Wehrle: One day that was the case.
Councilman Boyt: So the problem the sign was creating was it cut down people's
II ability to go right on Pleasant View?
Jim Wehrle: And the sign also was on Pleasant View saying you couldn't turn
IIleft into Near Mountain.
Councilman Boyt: So both of those and their major complaint was from personal
automobile traffic?
Jim Wehrle: Yes. There had always been the ongoing concern that you eluded to
here. It was difficult to make that turn and it also was a great restriction on
our scheduling of the school buses and I guess potentially if a fire truck were
coming for some reason from Lotus Lake coming to on Pleasant View, he would have
difficulty turning into our intersection but...
Councilman Boyt: The intersection may very well need to be changed. What I'm
looking at is the sign itself and I think if we can post a sign there that
II allows personal vehicles to make that turn, we don't have anything in our
records that indicate that that's particularly hazardous, although it may be
inconvenient but we certainly can not allow vehicles with any length in excess
of personal vehicles to make that turn without taking on a liability risk. Is
II it possible to indicate, have a sign that would take care of that? Gary says it
would be. Alright, what does that do it us Roger?
Roger Knutson: It goes back to the same thing we discussed. Is it safe for
automobiles to make that turn?
Gary Warren: The intersection is, if the question were put to us, is not a
standard intersection. I think from that frame of reference, that in itself I
think is a liability.
Roger Knutson: So what you're saying is it's not safe for cars.
t. Councilman Horn: As far as what the intent of the signs were, there may not
have ever been any method spelled out in which this would be controlled but the
intent always was that there would not be right turns onto Pleasant View or left
turns off of Pleasant View into this development.
47
. :...�a
U4ty Council Meeting -June 27, 1988
Jim Wehrle: The reason being that they didn't want the traffic going down
Pleasant View.
Councilman Horn: That plus MnDot recommended that as an improved traffic flow
pattern.
Jim Wehrle: You still have to keep traffic from going west on Pleasant View.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think we beat this enough.
enough information now to move.go ay, you've u've a
motion. I think we've got enou
comment? Jay, you ve got one II
Councilman Johnson: Yes, one more comment. A total restriction of turning,
would our liability position only be cured by a total ban on right turns or II
would a precautionary sign provide us some liabilit
wording warning people of the turn. Right turns at your own kind of
sound real good. That doesn't
Acting Mayor Geving:
II
9• Let's move ahead on this.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Horn seconded to post a no right turn sign at II
the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Boulevard. That the
sign be posted simultaneously with notifying the residents that the City will be
considering the reshaping of the intersection and inviting them to a public II
hearing on July 25, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Acting Mayor Geving: We have directed staff then to come up with these [11
estimates of cost, Gary, for alternatives on the 25th as well as the motion.
SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE REQUEST TO SECTION 20-1260 TO CONSTRUCT II SIGN, 615 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUPERAMERICA STATION, ROMAN MUELLER. FOOT
GN
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve permitti.n I SuperAmerica to install an 80 square foot pylon sign with a maximum 20 foot
height prior to receiving a conditional use
g permit with the following condition:
II
1. The applicant must conform to any conditions made as part of the conditional
use permit.
All voted in favor and the motion carried. II
Roman Mueller: Just a quick question on the recommendation from staff about
being able to place the sign contingent on conditions being placed after this II
point in time. That puts us in a little strange situation where we can put our
sign up. ...close your store to do it.
from City Council, is this going to be too rdrastically�changed rfrom what was II
spoken about in the previous meeting?
Councilman Horn: I think there's a
the Holiday has-an 80 s the here. Obviously, we found that
quare foot sign. For than to come back and tell you that
Lii
you have to close your store for you to put up an 80 square foot sign, they'd
have a little trouble supporting that.
48
111111111r Council Meeting - June 27, 1988
Roman Mueller: I understand there would be some problems there but I'd like to
avoid any problems.
Acting Mayor Geving: I think you're on safe ground.
IIOIL RECYCLING ORDINANCE.
Councilman Horn: I'm going to move that we include waste oil recycling as part
II of our current recycling and have it done at a central facility such as public
works as Don has recommended.
II Acting Mayor Geving: I will second the motion. I think I'd rather second this
for explanation of what your problem is Bill.
Councilman Boyt: Okay. I've been working on this for a year and a half and
II that's simply not enough. This is a major problem and to say that we can cover
it by having one pick-up spot that's open 8 hours on a Saturday isn't going to
get it.
IIActing Mayor Geving: Are you saying that the recycling center because it's only
open on Saturdays would be a major obstacle to this plan?
Councilman Boyt: We have got to make this as convenient for people as we can
because what they're doing right now is damaging and very convenient. I think
that we have suggested in front of us options that are, given the damage, at a
fairly reasonable cost. I would like to see the City contract with 2 or 3 pick-
up spots which I think pretty much would limit to the facilities that now change
oil in town. Don suggested $500.00 to $1,000.00 might do it. I think that's an
II awfully good expenditure of City money if it keeps oil out of our lakes. I
think that we should require all new sites to put this in. We're talking about
a $1,000.00 expenditure. Something that can easily be, if it's built into the
new facility, it can be provided for, it would be a neat, orderly and safe spot
II to hold it. Certainly the City should provide collection at it's garage in the
recycling effort. If I had it my way, honestly, if I thought it would pass,
I would say every place that chooses to sell oil has to collect. We're talking
II about a $1,000.00 expenditure but we're talking about oil that gets collected
and doesn't get dumped. But since that won't pass, I think Don's suggestion of
contracting is excellent. I think all new sites that are going to sell oil
should provide waste collection.
IICouncilman Horn: I thought that was my recommendation to go along with Don's
recommendation. That it be at the public safety and also set up a contracting
site so we can have 18 hours and 7 days a week coverage.
Councilman Johnson: You didn't say that.
Councilman Horn: I said Don's recommendation.
1 Acting Mayor Geving: Does that sound like what you want done? Let's say Brown
says he'll take the oil as a contracter and at the same time Don's suggestion
says, we'll open up the recycling center and public works garage and we'll pick
up this used oil on Saturdays. Does that satisfy yours?
49
_ - ._..__._.._. _.... - ._
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
x-h 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 - II
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1
FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
DATE: May 4, 1988 1
SUBJ: Pleasant View Road/Near Mountain Blvd. Intersection
1
Background
During the visitor presentation section of the Council meeting on 1
April 24 , 1988 , the president of the Near Mountain
Homeowners Association , Jim Wehrle , spoke for his group about the
intersection of Near Mountain Blvd. with Pleasant View Road. His
concern was the recent placement of signs at the intersection
prohibiting unrestricted egress from the Near Mountain develop-
ment onto Pleasant View Road. The City had just that morning
posted signs prohibiting right turns from Near Mountain Blvd.
onto westbound Pleasant View Road. Mr . Wehrle went on to say
that for four years there has been unrestricted use of that
intersection and they see no need to restrict it now. He pointed
out that the new Trappers Pass addition will have an unrestricted
intersection with Pleasant View Road.
The Council then questioned staff as to the need and/or necessity
of placing the signs to prohibit right turns . Public Works
Director, Gary Warren, stated that the signs were placed due to
complaints about not being able to make the turns. He stated
that the City was just completing the project that began when the
intersection was designed to prevent westbound traffic on
Pleasant View Road from Near Mountain Blvd.
The Council could not remember the reasons for the intersection
design and asked staff to look into it. In the meantime , the
Council asked Mr. Warren to take down or bag the sign.
Analysis
From my research, it would appear that the intersection of Near
Mountain Blvd. with Pleasant View Road was a second or possibly
Ai:
Mr. Don Ashworth -`'
May 4 , 1988
I Page 2
IIeven a third choice during the design of
development. Near Mountain Blvd. was intended Mountain
intersect with State Highway 101 , but because of MnDOT require-
I ments, it was changed to intersect with Pleasant View Road.
Concerns were then raised about turning Pleasant View Road into
Ian east/west collector street that in a previous study drew a
considerable amount of research. The earlier study was rejected
II due to the configuration of Pleasant View Road and the costs
necessary to upgrade it to a collector street.
Consequently, the decision was made to construct the intersection
II in a manner that would allow Near Mountain residents to access
Highway 101, but prevent them from turning to go west on Pleasant
View.
IFrom its construction in the early 1980 ' s , the intersection has
been unsigned, leaving the layout of the intersection itself to
dictate the nature of vehicular movement. it is relatively easy
I for a car to make turns , however, it gets increasingly more dif-
ficult as the size of the vehicle gets larger . As a consequence,
large trucks , buses , and fire units have difficulty making the
I turns without going over curbs and traveling into the oncoming
lane.
II The new Trappers Pass Addition with its access to Pleasant View
Road makes this issue almost a moot point. Unfortunately, the
layout of the intersection (Near Mountain Blvd. and Pleasant View
Road) leaves the City open to liability concerns should an acci-
dII ent occur at that intersection. The placing of signs last
Monday, April 24 , 1988 , restricting turns effectively limited the
City' s liability.
IRecommendation
It is staff' s recommendation to straignten the intersection
I thereby allowing for both right and left turns from Near Mountain
Blvd. to Pleasant View Road. However, due to cost con-
siderations , there are two (2 ) options to accomplish the
Iredesign:
1 . Do nothing and budget for the construction in 1989 .
I 2 . Complete the project in 1988 and adjust the budget
accordingly.
I The cost _for redesign and construction has been estimated at less
than $10,000 . If Option 1 is chosen, then the
quest
we put the signs back up or keep them down? thesig is - Do
p
IIput back up, then the liability issue comes into play. Keepeinot
1 ._. __ ._...,.� ,_
' 1
' PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 19, 1988 1
PAGE 3
COMMUNITY SURVEY: A survey of the community to determine public
safety needs and desired service levels was discussed. Types of
surveys (phone/mail) were reviewed. The validity of such infor-
mation was considered. Blechta felt a survey could be a useful
tool and shows our interest. Bernhjelm noted Jim Chaffee' s
packet and Item 1 which suggests a survey of the community prior
to future planning. Hamilton suggested that the present com-
mission represents the community quite well and these decisions
are the responsibility of the commission. Wing suggested this
item be tabled until the next meeting when Chaffee can discuss his
goals for such a survey. 1
' STAFF PRIORITIES: Wing discussed the recent staff retreat and
the priority list which was a result of this weekend. Wing will
' include the necessary information in the next packet and will
place this item on the next agenda.
'!! NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD/PLEASANT VIEW ROAD: At Chaffee' s request, the
" commission reviewed the intersection and resultant problem at the
named intersection. The commission found itself in agreement and
supporting the local residents and, as such, in support of the
staff' s position suggesting the corner be realigned. Wing
offered the following motion.
Motion by Wing that the Public Safety Commission, after review of
the problems associated with the intersection of Near Mountain
Blvd. and Pleasant View Road, feels that a design problem exists
and was overlooked during construction. The commission thereby
supports the local residents and staff in their contention that
this intersection be realigned to allow right turns . The
rebuilding of this intersection is supported by this commission.
The commission would further recommend the city approach the
contractor(s) involved to assist the city in defraying costs .
Motion seconded by Takkunen and passed unanimously.
WARNING SIREN AT MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK: Takkunen inquired if
Chaffee had contacted the county regarding inclusion of a warning
_ siren in their' new construction at Minnewashta Regional Park.
-''-r ` _
vonLorenz will follow up on this item and report back to the com-
mission. City sirens were discussed and the new members brought
up to date on the history and the actions of the commission.
Wing asked Bernhjelm his opinion of these sirens and their use in
Edina. Bill noted that warning sirens are expensive and subject
to failure and never provide 100% coverage. Wenzlaff suggested
that sirens be on any survey the commission might use. ,
WORKSHOP: A large portion of the evening was spent reviewing the
history and present status of public safety issues in the City.
The police contract, local issues, ambulance service, fire
department, costs , etc. , were discussed and reviewed. The
history of the contract system, the commission, etc. were
reviewed. Hamilton, Wing, Takkunen and vonLorenz all presented 1
City Council Meeting
g - April 25, 1988 ..-w•✓
IIrealize ou need
Y every dollar the DNR spends there, the EPA spends a dollar on
non-point sources or whatever, if it's significant to remove it from the
I project or if the City is willing to pay that
part
because that's a little lake. I'd hate to see ix more boatston them
because
during the day. It may work out.
II
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
I '/ Jim Wehrle: I am the president of the Near Mountain Homeowners Association
� I had given some thought to stopping and
but after city action that was taken in m tnei neighborhood today,evening in any case
I 300 irrate homeowners calling 5 t Y. I think I had
ng me insisting that I do so. My question has to do
with the construction of or erection today of no turn signs in and out of our
subdivision. For the last several years we have had free access in and out of
II our development and although the exit from our subdivision onto Pleasant View
is on something of an angle, it's been relatively easily negoiated and
presented no great difficulty in making a right turn. There's been some
difficulty perhaps on the part of school buses turning off Pleasant View into
I our development because of the angle that was put there but nevertheless we all
bought our homes with the understanding that we had this egress from our
development. Even on your agenda this evening, presumably you will be
I approving a new addition to Near Mountain that will once again develop an
additional point of exit or entrance into Near Mountain that will presumably be
unrestricted so we don't see the justification. I'd like to ask if you could
II have your public safety or engineering or whatever department possibly address
this and get these things taken down as soon as possible.
1_ Mayor Hamilton: Are you aware of that Gar
Isomebody's aware. Y• That it was put up? I hope
Gary Warren: Yes, I talked with Jim earlier and public safety is actually
II looking to get signs put up so they could enforce the conditions of the
approval of the original development which goes back 4 or 5 years ago. I don't
know if Jim wants to comment about the public safety.
IICouncilman Horn: It's not a public safety issue. This body decided that
IN that's the way that access would work.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't recall us ever saying that there would be no right out
onto Pleasant View however and I can't imagine that we're going to try to cut
off another neighborhood from having egress and ingress some one neighborhood
to another. It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me.
Jim Wehrle: I guess that's a lot of our concern is the confusion over the
issue and we've been in there for several years now and if this body, when they
approved the PUD or whenever, wanted that done, why weren't those signs put up
4 years ago. Who at this point in time suddenly authorized that these signs go
up today after we've been in there for years and this has presented no safety
problem and the representative of the City that erected then today told all the
irrate citizens that stopped and inquired, that it was not a safety issue.
Mayor Hamilton: I think what we need to do is have Gary look at it and Jim and
if there's no reason why those signs should be up there, that should come back
11
298 II
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
here for our review and approval with the public safety recommendation. I
would think it should go to that body first.
Jim Wehrle: In the meantime I'm afraid we've got a lot of citizens that are
going to be running illegally through these signs. Can they be taken down
until this is resolved?
Mayor Hamilton: I think they should be taken down.
Gary Warren: We'll put some covers on them so they're not active.
1
Councilman Johnson: Didn't this come out of the people further down Pleasant
View that didn't want the traffic?
Mayor Hamilton: That's always the case.
Councilman Johnson: So it was a decision and it was an error on the City's or
the developer's part not putting them up 5 years ago. In order to make the
change I think we ought to talk to the Pleasant View people. ,
Mayor Hamilton: I was here 5 years ago and I don't remember that we were going
to do that and you weren't here so I don't know how...
Councilman Johnson: I actually remember it because it made some newspapers or
something.
Jim Wehrle: I guess I d just
g ' j point out what the apparent inconsistency or
possibly even the irrational logic behind making that no right turn and yet
we've got a new exit coming out of the development being approved here tonight
that's not going to put that restraint on it. Will there be some sort of
opportunity for public comment when this is discussed?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes. ,
Jim Wehrle: Is is safe to assume that will be at the next meeting of the City
Council? '
Don Ashworth: Probably not if it does go to public safety first. It may go to
one of our committees but I'll get a hold of you Jim.
Mayor Hamilton: If it goes to public safety, you'll be notified of that
meeting also and you can come there and make comment.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REALLOCATION OF YEAR XIII COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS. ,
Mayor Hamilton called the public hearing to order.
Councilman Geying moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public ,
hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Hamilton: This is last year's funds?
12
I , i
C
t.
• ar
7610 LAREDO DRIVE•P.O. BOX 147•CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 474-8885
1
' PLANNING REPORT
DATE: October 15, 1979
TO: Planning Commission and Staff •
' FROM: Asst. Manager/LUC, Bob Waibel
SUBJ: Planned Residential Development, Subdivision, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit
Review, Near Mountain Property, Public Hearing
APPLICANT: Pflaumwell Development
' PLANNING CASE: P-607
' , For the purposes of this public hearing, please find the attached and incorporate
such into your copy of Exhibit 1, P-607, Near Mountain Planned Residential Development.
1. Letter dated October 2, 1979 from MnDOT.
2. Letter dated October 11, 1979, from Planning Dept. City of Minnetonka
3. Developer's description of the proposed development.
4. Preservation Plan for open space.
' 5. Anticipated sequence and schedule of development.
6. Preliminary Elevation drawings.
7. Prospective drawings.
8. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations.
9. Density breakdown by lot.
10. Phase plan and preliminary development plan
' In reviewing the information on the subject proposal submitted to date, this office
has no problem with the proposed land use, density, and circulation with the exception
of the following points: •
1. That the emergency and street accesses on the southern boundary of the plats
be eliminated.
2. That outlot B in the Near Mountain preliminary plat dated August 24, 1979,
be dedicated easement for pedestrian way purposes. Keeping in mind that this
easement is to be one of the links in the proposed linear pedestrian system, the
planning commission should at this time make their comments as to the appropriate
location of said outlot B. This office finds that the presently proposed location
from outlot B has the advantage that it will connect to a collector street in the
_ Near Mountain plat thus channelizing the pedestrian traffic in a preferred manner,
however, it does have the disadvantage in that its access from Pleasant View Road
Is such that there will in all likelihood be a residential development between
this access and Lotus Lake Community Park, thus requiring pedestrian movement to
occur on a portion of Pleasant View Road. Despite the difficulties involved, this
Planning Commission i -2- October 15, 1979
office would recommend that Outlot B remain in the location proposed. II
3. This office had recommended that the major streets in the proposed plat be
36 feet wide which would be for collector purposes, and additionally
provide lanes for the aforementioned pedestrian traffic. Although the design of
said pedestrian way is still undecided, it is the recommendation of this office
that pedestrian lanes be provided for in 36 foot street areas with appropriate parking
restrictions.
4. As previously mentioned, this office has no problems with the land use,
II
density, or circulation proposed, however, at this time, I believe that for the
condominium and the townhome area, the planning commission shouldrestrictnany approval
of the concept to adoption into the Comprehensive Plan and stating clearly into
the record, that final approval would be contingent upon planning commission and
II
city council approval of a detailed site plan.
As shown in the attached letter from the MnDOT, they have recommended that the propose
access on Highway 101 as indicated in the proposed plans be eliminated and that
:* Pleasant View Road be utilized for the primary access to 101. This letter outlines
the essential elements of the September 25th discussion, and it cites the specific
method whereby an intersection would be designed that would eliminate westward movement
from the development on Pleasant View Road. A plan showing said intersection will
be available for your review at the meeting Wednesday evening. This office concurs
that with adequate design, this method would be less detrimental to Pleasant View
II
Road and MTH 101. Said design should address the relevance of any stacking problems
to the existing homes along Pleasant View Road near the intersection of Highway 101.
This type of access to MTH 101 is additionally in conformance with the recommendations
submitted by the City of Minnetonka planning department in their letter of October 11,
1979, attached hereto.
In regard to the attached sample covenants and restrictions, I have the following I
comments. The sample covenants for the single family phases of the proposed
development, indicate a provision regarding the minimum value of housing to be
constructed. Despite the apparent restrictiveness of such a clause, this office
feels that the applicant has addressed the spirit and intent as found in the preamble
of the P-1 zoning district concerning the low and moderate income provision by the
inclusion of the townhome portion as part of the overall development. In the attached
sample covenants and restrictions for the multiple dwelling areas, you will note that
the covenants have an expiration clause followed with an automatic renewal clause.
I would urge that the city seek to obtain a best assurance that said covenants and
restrictions are made purpetuis.
II
Recommendation
I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary development plan, II
rezoning, subdivision, and conditional use permit for the subject proposal conditioned
upon the following:
1. That the applicant receive environmental assessment worksheet review and II
approval from the environmental quality council.
2. That the applicant receive all necessary approvals of the Riley Purgatory II
Creek Watershed District for land alteration permit.
3. That the streets outlined in the August 28, 1979, Planning report recommended •_
to be 36 feet wide are so in fact constructed.
II Planning Commission C -3- r October 15, 1979•
4. That the proposed covenants and restrictions are found to be acceptable
by the Planning Commission, city council and city attorney's office.
5. That the applicant consider construction of the local streets to a 30 foot
wide standard.
' 6. That the city engineer finds the later phased construction of the condominium
and townhome area not to be detrimental to the earlier phased construction and the
surrounding property with regard to utilities, grading, and drainage.
' 7. That the applicant dedicate outlot B, and satisfactory portions of outlot A
for purposes of linear pedestrian easement.
' 8. That the approval be conditioned upon the inclusion of the first four
points brought out in the comments section of this report.
I additionally recommend that the Planning Commission encourage the applicant to
proceed with final development plans in concurrence with section 14.05 subsection 5
of zoning ordinance 47.
1
I
. .
.. . . ..`.z.rt•._
• 1
I
PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING, SUBDIVISION , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 11 REVIEW FOR PFLAUMWELL DEVELOPMENT , INC.
OCTOBER 17 , 1979
The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m.
Bob In other words , sharing vehicles and pedestrians . Moving the accesss
Waibel over this way you use less distance at Pleasant View Road and end up II
connecting with the local street, a more minor street in the plat. The
idea is to maintain the pedestrian way along the major route thru the
plat and along this major route connected to what will probably become II
a primitive multi-use trail , or a pedestrian way portion making the
remainder of the link.
Right at this time , I feel that the out lot at this point should remain II
in that position . I feel there is greater benefit from linking it to
the major road throughout the development .
Pat Swenson: Excuse me . You confuse me . Are you in favor with the
way sits now? This is what you .
Bob This office had recommended that the proposed plats be 36 feet wide
Waibel for collective purposes . It additionaly provides lanes for the afore
mentioned pedestrian traffice . The engineer and myself had discussions
this afternoon . We decided that it would be better to have a separate 11
pedestrian way use off of the collective street to this area here .
This would probably necessitate that the right of way be widened over
probably up to sixty feet. The city ordinance requires fifty feet in
order to accommodate separated uses we would require probably sixty foot
right of way . It ' s sort of design in a design area.
If the use is to be combined with the vehicular roadway there or in the II
street itself, we would need more width in the roadway itself probably
an additional four feet or so . Maybe make it forty feet in that case .
At this point in time , the staff feels that a separated use is in order
and that the developer should be prepared to consider placement of a five
foot sidewalk . Admittedly , such a use because it abuts residential
property in this area would be only limited use . It would be for bicycle
or pedestrian way . It would be difficult to accommodate any other type
of pedestrian traffic , such as cross country skiing , etc.
It was previously mentioned that this office has no problems with the
land use , density or circulation proposed , however at this time I
believe that for condiminium and town home area the Planning Commission
should restrict any of the approvals of the concept to adoption of the
comprehensive plan only . And stating clearly for the record final
approval would be contingent upon the Planning Commission and City
Council _approval of the detailed site plan .
As shown from the attached letter from Mindot , they have recommended
that the proposed access off Highway 101 , as indicated on the proposed
plans be eliminated and that Pleasant View be utilized as primary access m
•
L7
to 101 . This letter outlines the
25 discussion between the staff and pMindote and ethe developers tand eit
4 sites a specific method whereby an intersection would be designed that
would eleminate westward movement from the development of Near Mountain
on Pleasant View.
Mr . Baldwin has a more detailed sketch of that plan and he will be
presenting that to you later . Essentially what it has is a very soft
hand in coming out here to Pleasant View which would probably result in
' a 120 degree turn back, with slip lanes and islands of sorts that could
be managed so that the traffic , would not be able to turn westward using
Pleasant View going west . It also could have legal posting saying
' No right turn this case . The Department of Transportation traffic
engineers felt that the westward movement of Pleasant View Road would
be lessened or the propensity of westward movement on Pleasant View
Road through this method here which has the and that the traffic would
come out here and of course travel to come back to Pleasant View Road
this way. They 'd just be making a circular route around again this
way.
I/ There was quite some concern as you recall about the futu
View Road and this development. re of Pleasant
In regard to the attached sample covenance restrictions I have the
following comments :
' Sample covenance for the single family phases of most of the
development indicated revision of minimum value housing to be
constructed despite the apparent restrictiveness of such a closet
' office feels that the applicant has addressed the spirit of chance
as found in the preamble of the T-i Zoning District cancers the low
and moderate income provisions by the inclusion of town home portion
as part of the over all development.
' The attached sample covenance
restrictions for the multiple dwelling
area, you will note that the covenance have expiration clause of an
automatic renewal clause . I would urge that the city seek to obtain a
best assurance that these covenance restrictions are made more
professional .
1 I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary
development plan , rezoning and sub-division conditional use permit
for the subject proposal conditional on the following ;
That the applicant received environmental steps from a worksheet
reviewing approval from the Environmental Quality Control Council .
That the applicant receive all necessary approvals from the Purgatory
Creek Watershed District for land alteration permits .
That streets outlined in the August 28 , 1979 plan report recommend that
it be 36_ feet wide or so constructed .
That the proposed covenance restrictions are found to be acceptable
by the Planning Commission and City Council and City Attorney ' s office .
-2-
' li
li
Bob Waibel: This particular project was the main issue as far as the
whole development. The whole Pleasant View Road discussion I
Pat Swenson: At that particular time , Bob , we didn ' t have any layout
because Mr. Forum you hadn ' t gone and drafted anything, II
had you?
Bob Waibel: We had concepts back in January .
I
Pat Swenson: Thant 's right .
If anything has happened, the density ' s gone down on the II
project.
Bob Waibel: That 's what I meant. I
Pat Swenson: I think I 'm very much in favor of this . I don ' t remember there
being any discussion about this . I remember exits farther down"
where the road is straight and where we don ' t run into this
snakepit back there , but I don ' t remember one down on Iroquois.
PeterPflaum: We 're very conscious of the neighbors and we don ' t want to
II
cause any hard feelings .
Wasn ' t there 113 units here? Now it ' s 120 , so it ' s gone up
II
7 units .
Herb Baldwin: I think we should go over the alternates on the street and
II
then spend a little time reviewing thru this area in more
detail .
Option A - Discussed as leaving it as is on 101 , but limiting I
the turning movement so that it was a right turn in only and
a right turn out only . With a median in 101 that would deter
any movement northbound on 101 turning left in or a left turn II
out of the project. So , we only have a right turn in and a
right turn out .
Option 8 - We move the entry further south than we have indicati
by changing the alignment here down 70 feet , we would have right
-*--- turn in and out and left turn in and out . No problem . The
problem Peter has is that he does not own the property and the I
church has indicated to him that they are not interested in
selling .
Option C - Changing the Near Mountain Blvd . to also have an II
exit at this point and that we would put this at an angle that
*1 woud present physically the turning right out thru the use of
medians so that the traffic flow would be a stop, no right turn I
and only obliged to go ahead and out to 101 . The westbound on
Pleasant View would be a right turn in . The eastbound on
Pleasant View would also probably have a yield sign , no left
II
turn and controlled with a sign and median.
II
I
We have proposed as a part of our preliminary plots that there
would be berming along this area. We have some single family
lots backing along Pleasant View and essentially what we would
do is part that and bring the alignment of the proposed Near
' Mountain Blvd . into Pleasant View as indicated.
Those were the three options presented to you .
' In talking with the neighbors , there was discussion that we
should do some kind of fencing.
' We ' ve gone into far more detail in this for the simple reason
that we are concerned with it. We are just trying to show that
we can develop and not have a severe hardship on the people
around it.
•
Walt Thanpson: At this time I would entertain comments from the
public
as the presentation has been made tonight. We will have aa far
' discussion after we ' ve heard from you and before we come to
any conclusion.
Dean Wetzel One general feeling for the Planning Commission is that we feel
they ' ve really gone all out to submit their ideas to the
people for their consideration before they take them any
further and we appreciate it. We 'd rather have the whole
' area go into a park , but that isn ' t going to happen, so we
do appreciate they way they ' ve handled it .
The thing we are concerned about is that the Option C, having
a Pleasant View entrance onto that property with all limitations
apparently satisfies most of our concerns about funneling traffic
down the windy road , etc . , etc . The main concern is how
' permanent is that? Can another Council five years from now ,
petition and have the bumpers torn out? Is there some covenant
that can be written in so that it cannot be changed or what kind
Iof permanency does it carry?
Bob Waibel 4" I guess the only other option we would have would be Option A.
ICraig Mertz: There is nothing nothing that can be done to guarantee that that
t exact intersection would remain that way . The City Council has
the property rights to rearrange the intersection .
' Tom Seifert: I just wanted to show up here tonight to have it put on the
record to thank Herb and Peter for making a few compromises .
Mr . Gary I do not like the emergency exit .
9 Y
' Linda Kramer I also agree with Mr . Gary . I feel that there should not be
an emergency exit just because of the physical characteristics
of the road .
-10-
a/problem.
All those in favor of the motion , signify by saying aye . '
Aye .
Carried .
Walt Thompson Next item is emergency exit situation.
Tan Droegemueller I move to go along with, staff ' s recommendation on the emergency
exits . '
Pat Swenson I second .
Walt That son All those in favor of eliminating the three access signify by II
saying aye .
1 Aye .
Walt Thompson This topic was previously discussed in the minutes .
Street widths or three options. 1
Tan Droegemueller I move that we ammend the preliminary plan to include Option C.
Pat Swenson I second .
Discussion followed .
Tom Droegemueller I think my motion is going to have to be withdrawn because I
asked for either Option A, B or C .As I see it, it ' s Option A ands
1
Tan Droeganueller I make motion that we adopt C and eliminate for further
t consideration A and B .
Pat Swenson ` I 2nd .
Walt Thompson those in favor signify by saying aye . '
Aye .
Option C is recommended . '
Street widths .
Clark Horn I move that it be a separated trail .
Pat Swenson I 2nd . '
`
Clark Horn
I would move that we recommend the suggestion of the Staff
on the trail system with the addition of the section of trail
interfacing .
-12-
i
I . .
1 �, 1� . CITY OF
j r., 1 AssEN
I 4.. ,! 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
-,., (612) 937-1900
I
MEMORANDUM
I
? TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
IFROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director
DATE: May 27, 1987
1 SUBJ: Intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Blvd.
II have received two complaints about the intersection of
! Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Boulevard; one from a school
bus driver and one from the fire department. It would appear
I that the configuration of that intersection makes it very hazar-
dous for a driver to turn westbound on Pleasant View Road from
southbound Near Mountain Boulevard (a right hand turn) . A driver
II who does attempt to turn, must pull way out into the oncoming lane
to complete it.
I have been told that the road was purposely constructed that way
1 to prevent traffic from making the aforementioned turns . I do
not see the purpose in that, but in any case, there probably
should be signs indciating "no right turn" .
I
I
I
1
ALTERNATE NO. 1 t '
BUS
UNIT II ITEM PRICE UNITS SUM
Remove Curb & Gutter $ 2. 00/LF 210 ft . $ 420 . 00
#2104 .501 I
Remove Concrete Median $ 5. 80/LF 125 ft. $ 725 .00
#2104 .501
II
Remove Bit. Pavement $ 1. 30/SY 303. 11 SY $ 394 .04
#2104 .501
Saw Bit . Pavement $ 2 .10/LF 310 ft . $ 651 . 00 II
#2104.513
Salvage Castings $180 .00 each 2 $ 360 . 00 I
#2104.523
2 ' Sub. Excavation $ 2. 90/CY 204.15 CY $ 592. 04 I
#2105 .507
2 ' Granular Borrow $ 3. 50/CY 204. 15 CY $ 714. 53
#2105 .521
Subgrade Preparation $ 1.50/SY 386. 22 SY $ 579 . 33 II#2112.501
12" Agg. Base CL-5 $ 5 . 00/ton 448. 80 tons $ 2,244 . 00
#2211. 501 I
6% Bituminous Mat $130 . 00/ton 7 tons $ 910 . 00
#2331 .504
I
3" Wear Mix $ 20 . 00/ton 112. 20 tons $ 2 ,244 . 00
#2341
II
Recon. Catch Basin $800 . 00 each 2 $ 1 ,600 . 00
#2506. 512
Connect Storm $500 . 00 each 2 $ 1 ,000 .00 II
#2506. 602
Curb & Gutter $ 6. 30/LF 130 LF $ 819. 00 I
#2531. 501
Concrete median $ 21 .00/SY 123 SY $ 2 ,583 . 00 I
#2531.503
Signing $600 . 00 1 $ 600 . 00 I
Sodding $ 1. 30/SY 260 SY $ 338 . 00
Striping $500 . 00 1 $ 500 . 00 I
Erosion Control $500 . 00 1 $ 500 . 00 II Irrig. Water Service $1 ,400 . 00 Lump Sum $ 1 , 400 . 00
TOTAL $19 ,175 . 00 A
ALTERNATE NO. 2
I , ,'' RECONSTRUCTION
UNIT
IITEM PRICE UNITS SUM
Remove Curb & Gutter $ 2 . 00/LF 150 ft . $ 300 . 00
I #2104 .501
Remove Concrete Median $ 5 . 80/LF 125 ft . $ 725 . 00
I #2104.501
Remove Bit. Pavement $ 1 . 30/SY 523. 2 SY $ 680. 16
#2104.501
ISaw Bit . Pavement $ 2 .10/LF 215 ft. $ 451 .50
#2104.513
IISalvage Cast . $180. 00 each 2 $ 360. 00
#2104 .523
I 2 ' Sub. Excavation
#2105 .507 $ 2 . 90/CY 115 .6 CY $ 335 . 24
I 2 ' Granular Borrow
#2105.521 $ 3. 50/CY 115 . 6 CY $ 404 . 60
I Subgrade Preparation $ 1.50/SY
#2112. 501 547 .6 SY 821 . 40
12" Agg. Base CL-5 $ 5 . 00/ton 412 . 28 tons $ 2 ,061. 40
1 #2211 .501
6% Bituminous Mat $130. 00/ton 6 tons $ 780. 00
I #2331.504
3" Wear Mix $ 20 . 00/ton 103 tons $ 2 ,060 . 00
#2341
I
Recon. Catch Basin $800 . 00 each 2 $ 1 ,600 . 00
#2506.512
IConnect Storm $500 . 00 each 2 $ 1,000 . 00
#2506. 602
ICurb & Gutter $ 6 . 30/LF 90 LF $ 567 . 00
#2531 .501
I Concrete median
#2531. 503 $ 21 . 00/SY 24 . 4 SY $ 512 . 40
ISigning $600 . 00 1 $ 600 . 00
Sodding $ 1. 30/SY 20 . 0 SY $ 26 .00
Striping $500 . 00 1 $ 500 . 00
Erosion Control $500 . 00 1 $ 500 . 00
Irrig. Water Service $1 , 400. 00 Lump Sum $ 1 , 400 . 00
TOTAL $15 , 684 . 70
ALTERNATE NO. 3
REALIGNMENT
UNIT
IITEM PRICE UNITS SUM
Remove Curb & Gutter $ 2. 00/LF 210 ft . $ 420. 00
#2104 .501 I
Remove Concrete Median $ 5 .80/LF 125 ft . $ 725 . 00
#2104 .501
I
Remove Bit. Pavement $ 1. 30/SY 523 . 2 SY $ 680. 16
#2104.501
Saw Bit . Pavement $ 2.10/LF 197 ft . $ 413. 70 I
#2104.513
Salvage Castings $180 .00 each 2 $ 360 . 00 I
#2104.523
2 ' Sub. Excavation $ 2. 90/CY 80. 59 CY $ 233 . 71
I
#2105 .507
2 ' Granular Borrow $ 3. 50/CY 80. 59 CY $ 282. 07 I
#2105.521
Subgrade Preparation $ 1. 50/SY 547 .6 SY $ 821 . 40 I
#2112. 501
12" Agg. Base CL-5 $ 5 .00/ton 349. 07 tons $ 1 , 745 . 35
#2211 .501
I
6% Bituminous Mat $130 . 00/ton 5 tons $ 650 . 00
#2331.504 i
3" Wear Mix $ 20 . 00/ton 88 tons $ 1 ,760 . 00
#2341
II
Recon. Catch Basin $800 . 00 each 2 $ 1 ,600 . 00
#2506 . 512
Connect Storm $500 . 00 each 2 $ 1 ,000 . 00 I
#2506. 602
Curb & Gutter $ 6. 30/LF 80 LF $ 504 . 00 II
#2531. 501
Concrete median $ 21 . 00/SY 24 . 4 SY $ 512 . 40 I
#2531 .503
Signing $600 .00 1 $ 600 . 00 I
Sodding $ 1. 30/SY 100 SY $ 130. 00
Striping $500 . 00 1 $ 500 . 00 1
Erosion Control $500 . 00 1 $ 500 . 00
Irrig. Water Service $1 , 400 . 00 Lump Sum $ 1 , 400 . 00 I
TOTAL $14, 837. 79
I