Loading...
7. Review Near Mtn Blvd and Pleasant View Rd Intersection CITYOF 1 CHANHAS SEX 1 1 ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612} 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM 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 ' 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 1 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 1 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 1 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. 1 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. 1 Analysis 1 From my research, it would appear that the intersection of Near Mountain Blvd. with Pleasant View Road was a second or possibly 1 I Mr. Don Ashworth May 4 , 1988 Page 2 even a third choice during the design of the Near Mountain development. Near Mountain Blvd. was orignally intended to intersect with State Highway 101, but because of MnDOT require- ments, it was changed to intersect with Pleasant View Road. Concerns were then raised about turning Pleasant View Road into an east/west collector street that in a previous study drew a considerable amount of research. The earlier study was rejected due to the configuration of Pleasant View Road and the costs necessary to upgrade it to a collector street. I Consequently, the decision was made to construct the intersection in a manner that would allow Near Mountain residents to access Highway 101, but prevent them from turning to go west on Pleasant View. From its construction in the early 1980 ' s , the intersection has i been unsigned, leaving the layout of the intersection itself to dictate the nature of vehicular movement. It is relatively easy 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 turns without going over curbs and traveling into the oncoming lane. 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- dent occur at that intersection. The placing of signs last Monday, April 24 , 1988 , restricting turns effectively limited the City' s liability. Recommendation ' It is staff' s recommendation to straignten the intersection 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 redesign: 1 . Do nothing and budget for the construction in 1989 . 2 . Complete the project in 1988 and adjust the budget ' accordingly. The cost for redesign and construction has been estimated at less than $10 ,000 . If Option 1 is chosen, then the question is - Do we put the signs back up or keep them down? If the signs are not put back up, then the liability issue comes into play. Keep in I Mr. Don Ashworth May 4 , 1988 Page 3 mind, however, that the signs have not been in place for many years and risks of a serious accident occurring at that intersec- tion are not great. ' Ancillary Note: On May 19 , 1988 , the Public Safety Commission moved to support staff' s recommendation to straighten out the intersection. They suggested further that the City explore the possibility of approaching the contractor to help defray the costs of realign- , ment. I r U I I r ' PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 19, 1988 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. 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. 1 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. 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 r)fai 7 IICity Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 Irealize you need 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 project or if the City is willing to pay that part of the cost themselves II because that's a little lake. I'd hate to see six more boats on that lake during the day. It may work out. IVISITOR PRESENTATIONS: )I--- Jim Wehrle: I am the president of the Near Mountain Homeowners Association and 1 I had given some thought to stopping into the meeting this evening in any case but after city action that was taken in my neighborhood today, I think I had 300 irrate homeowners calling me insisting that I do so. My question has to do I 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 our development and although the exit from our subdivision onto Pleasant View II 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 II 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 approving a new addition to Near Mountain that will once again develop an II 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 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 Gary? That it was u ut somebody's aware. P P• I hope IIGary Warren: Yes, I talked with Jim earlier and public safety is actually looking to get signs put up so they could enforce the conditions of the II 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. Councilman Horn: It's not a public safety issue. This body decided that Ithat's the way that access would work. Mayor Hamilton: I don't recall us ever saying that there would be no right out II 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. IIJim 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 II 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 them 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 IIif there's no reason why those signs should be up there, that should come back II 11 298 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 I 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 than so they're not active. Councilman Johnson: Didn't this came 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 than 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 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? I 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 Geving 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 1 C ITN{ F 7610 LAREDO DRIVE•P O. BOX 147•CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 474-8885 r PLANNING REPORT rDATE: 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 ublic hearing, please find the attached and incorporate P g, p p ate such into your copy of Exhibit 1, P-607, Near Mountain Planned Residential Development. r1. 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 r i( Planning Commission ( -2- October 15, 1979 II office would recommend that Outlot B remain in the location proposed. 3. This office had recommended that the major streets in the proposed plat be II 36 feet wide which would be for collector purposes, and additionally provide lanes for the aforementioned pedestrian traffic. Although the design of II 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. II4. As previously mentioned, this office has no problems with the land use, density, or circulation proposed, however, at this time, I believe that for the condominium and the townhome area, the planning commission shouidrestrictaany 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 city council approval of a detailed site plan. I As shown in the attached letter from the MnDOT, they have recommended that the proposed access on Highway 101 as indicated in the proposed plans be eliminated and that Pleaant View Road be utilized for the primary access to 101. This letter outlines Itle : eni1 ssta 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 II 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 Road and MTH 101. Said design should address the relevance of any stacking problems II 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. I In regard to the attached sample covenants and restrictions, I have the following comments. The sample covenants for the single family phases of the proposed II development, indicate a provision regarding the minimum value of housing to be constructed:I 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. II I would urge that the city seek to obtain a best assurance that said covenants and restrictions are made purpetuis. Recommendation I I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the preliminary development plan, 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. I r Planning Commission C -3- 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. f 1 r C PUBLIC HEARING ON REZONING , SUBDIVISION , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , ' PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR PFLAUMWELL DEVELOPMENT, INC . OCTOBER 17 , 1979 The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. II 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 connecting with the local street, a more minor street in the plat. The I 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 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 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 11 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 II mentioned pedestrian traffice . The engineer and myself had discussions this afternoon . We decided that it would be better to have a separate 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 street itself, we would need more width in the roadway itself probably II 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 bicycl 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 11 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 !' ' to 101 . This letter outlines the special elements of the September 25 discussion between the staff and Mindot and the developers and it 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 . ' There was quite some concern as you recall about the future of Pleasant View Road and this development . 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-1 Zoning District concers 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 . 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 nd 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 . r -2- C II Bob Waibel: This particular project was the main issue as far as the I whole development. The whole Pleasant View Road discussion Pat Swenson: At that particular time, Bob, we didn ' t have any layout II because Mr . Forum you hadn ' t gone and drafted anything, had you? II Bob Waibel: We had concepts back in January. Pat Swenson: Thant 's right . I If anything has happened, the density 's gone down on the project. II Bob Waibel: That ' s what I meant. Pat Swenson: I think I ' m very much in favor of this . I don ' t remember there II 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 . II Peter Pflaum: We ' re very conscious of the neighbors and we don ' t want to cause any hard feelings . II Wasn ' t there 113 units here? Now it ' s 120 , so it ' s gone up 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 . I Option A - Discussed as leaving it as is on 101 , but limiting the turning movement so that it was a right turn in only and II 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 out of the project . So , we only have a right turn in and a right turn out . I Option B - We move the entry further south than we have indicated 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 church has indicated to him that they are not interested in selling . I Option C - Changing the Near Mountain Blvd . to also have an exit at this point and that we would put this at an angle that II * woud present physically the turning right out thru the use of medians so that the traffic flow would be a stop , no right turn 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 turn and controlled with a sign and median . II -9- II ' 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. alt Thompson: At this time I would entertain comments from the public as far as the presentation has been made tonight . We will have a 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 of permanency does it carry? IBob Waibel - I guess the only other option we would have would be Option A. Craig Mertz: There is nothing nothing that can be done to guarantee that that ' 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 . IMr . Gary I do not like the emergency exit. 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- 1 ' a/problem. ' All those in favor of the motion , signify by saying aye . Aye . Carried . Walt Thompson Next item is emergency exit situation. Tom Droegemueller I move to go along with staff 's recommendation on the emergency exits . Pat Swenson I second . Walt Thanpson All those in favor of eliminating the three access signify by saying aye . Aye . Walt Thanpson This topic was previously discussed in the minutes . Street widths or three options . 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 and C or B. Tan Droeganueller. I make motion that we adopt C and eliminate for further consideration A and B . Pat Swenson I 2nd . 1 Walt Thompson those in favor signify by saying aye . Aye . 1 f Option C is recommended . Street widths . Clark Horn I move that it be a separated trail . 1 Pat Swenson I 2nd . Clark Horn I would move that we recommend the suggestion of the Staff 1 on the trail system with the addition of the section of trail interfacing . -12- 1 1 a 4 CITY OF ,,,A - G CHANHASSEN \\„ , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 ..,,•:mot. (612) 937-19M 1 z MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director 1 DATE: May 27, 1987 SUBJ: Intersection of Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Blvd. 1 I have received two complaints about the intersection of 1 Pleasant View Road and Near Mountain Boulevard; one from a school bus driver and one from the fire department. It would appear 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 who does attempt to turn, must pull way out into the oncoming lane to complete it. 1 I have been told that the road was purposely constructed that way to prevent traffic from making the aforementioned turns. I do 1 not see the purpose in that, but in any case, there probably should be signs indciating "no right turn" . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 -i 1 .2;mgi 1 • _4. 1 111111101r Manare I