4. Teton Lane Feasibility Study LI
1
CITY OF .....,--
.,, CHANHASSEN
j
1 , r � .
„ .
. .
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
{ (612) 937-1900
I l..�
MEMORANDUM
ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
!
IFROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer
.%DATE: March 10, 1988
1 SUBJ: Acceptance of Teton Lane Feasibility Study
Curry Farms Subdivision - Phase II
File No. 87-16
I
On May 4 , 1987, City Council approved the preliminary plat for
I Centex Homes Corporation for the subdivision of 53 acres into 81
single family lots located at the northwest corner of Lake Lucy
Road and County Road 17 . Phase I improvements (the southerly
portion of the site) were installed with the exception of the
1
wear course in 1987 . Adequate access is provided to the Phase I
portion of this development from Lake Lucy Road and Powers
Boulevard.
ICentex Homes is anxious to resolve the outstanding access issue
for the Phase II portion of the site as soon as possible since
I they have purchase agreements for the property which expire
apparently in April of 1988 and also a purchase agreement with
Mr. Richard Carlson for the Teton Lane property which expires in
June of 1988 . Condition 3 of the preliminary plat approval
I required that Teton Lane, which provides access to the site from
the north, shall be improved to an urban section and shall con-
nect the subdivision with Lilac Lane. The neighborhood has been
I quite vocal ( letters attached) on this matter regarding their
disagreement with the upgrade of Teton Lane and the traffic
impacts that will result from the Curry Farms subdivision. To
I address this issue properly, including those voiced by the City
of Shorewood (correspondence attached) , the Council requested that
a feasibility study be prepared to review the level of upgrade
which will be required if Teton Lane were utilized as the
I northerly access to the subdivision but also to look at other
alternatives which could provide the secondary access to the
Phase II portion of the subdivision.
1 A draft feasibility study was prepared by Engelhardt and
Associates and distributed to interested parties in August, 1987 .
IIIA neighborhood meeting was held on September 9 , 1987 to receive
11
r
Don Ashworth
March 10 , 1988
Page 2
input on the draft (meeting minutes attached) . As a result of
this input, staff revised the feasibility study and recently held
a second neighborhood meeting on March 3 , 1988 (paraphrased minu-
tes
attached) .
The attached feasibility study dated February 18 , 1988 I believe
presents an accurate summary of the access alternatives for the i
Phase II Curry Farms development. The attached minutes and let-
ters from interested parties explain in detail their concerns on
this issue. In simple form, the Teton Lane/Lilac Lane neigh-
borhood
does not want their neighborhood "violated" by the
increase in traffic from the Curry Farms subdivision. The feasi-
bility study estimates the impact to be approximately 210 trips
per day. They feel that any upgrade of this roadway is strictly
for the benefit of the Curry Farms subdivision and Centex Homes,
not the abutting properties. The developer, on the other hand,
is obviously looking for the least expensive alternative
available to him for meeting the City' s requirement for secondary
access to the Phase II portion of the subdivision.
Drawing No. 1 in the feasibility study presents the best overview
of the area. Alternative #1 presents a hypothetical alternative
which calls for upgrading of Teton Lane to a full City urban
standard with concrete curb and gutter with the cost of these
improvements to be borne by the benefitting abutting properties.
Alternative #2 is structured to recognize that an "interim" road
section could be utilized to address the 210 trips per day impact
anticipated from the Curry Farms subdivision with this interim
upgrade being totally the expense of Centex Homes. Alternative
#3 proposes a totally new access to the subdivision across a
piece of property owned by the City connecting directly to Powers
Boulevard and doing away with Teton Lane as access to the sub-
division.
From the engineering standpoint, all three alternatives are
viable. In my opinion, alternative #3 has the greatest potential
for satisfying all parties concerned i .e. the neighbors, Centex
and the City' s access requirements, however, as briefly laid out
on page 11 of the feasibility study, there are a number of tran-
sactions which need to occur to make this alternative happen. At
first I was pessimistic of the ability to realistically pursue
alternative #3 due to the number of agreements it depends on
however, discussions held with the respective parties who would
be involved in these transactions lead me to believe that there
is a worthwhile chance of the alternative being implemented. The
Teton neighborhood certainly wants to see alternative #3 pursued.
Since it would strike the best compromise for access to the site
I believe that alternative #3 should be given an opportunity to
succeed.
The alternative #3 scenario as I view it is summarized as
follows:
11
r ,
Don Ashworth
March 9 , 1988
Page 3
1 . City Council approves alternative #3 as the preferred access
to Phase II of Curry Farms and remands this item back to the
Planning Commission for their review.
' 2 . Neighbors abutting Teton Lane individually enter repurchase
agreements with the City for their respective portion of
Teton Lane.
3 . Centex executes their purchase option for Teton Lane with
Richard Carlson.
4 . Centex deeds Teton Lane property to the City.
' 5 . City has its triangular piece of property along Powers
Boulevard (parcel #25-0020500 ) appraised.
' 6 . City designates 50-foot right-of-way on City parcel for
alternative #3 road construction.
7 . City sells remnant pieces of City property to interested par-
ties, e .g. Centex, Larry Kerber, others ( ?) .
8 . City exercises repurchase agreements with property owners and
' transfers Teton Lane land back to abutting property owners .
City accepts proceeds for repurchase of Teton Lane as payment
for alternative #3 road right-of-way.
9 . Centex files final plan showing alternative #3 access and
extension of road G (feasibility study drawing #1) to the
north 200 feet to provide access to the Natole property.
10. New owners of the City property remnants abutting the new
alternative #3 roadway shall reimburse Centex for their pro-
portionate cost of constructing this roadway improvement
( NOTE: If owners are other than Centex, this may require the
City to undertake a Chapter 429 improvement project in order
to facilitate this step. ) .
As indicated earlier, this list perhaps looks overwhelming. The
developer and property owners indicate they will be in attendance
' at the City Council meeting and the Council can receive a better
impression from that discussion as to the likelihood of this
alternative being achievable.
Centex obviously could choose to not develop the Phase II portion
of this subdivison in which case the Phase I property would exist
as-is with no further access required at this time. The City
received a letter at the last minute on Friday ( 3/11/88) from
Centex (Attachment #10 ) which explains their position.
r
Don Ashworth
II
March 10 , 1988
Page 4
As pointed out in item no. 1 of the alternative #3 scenario, con-
dition #13 of the May 4 City Council approval of the preliminary
plat states that " . . . if the street configuration is changed, the
preliminary plat shall again be reviewed by the Planning
Commission. " The Council may wish to address this review in
light of their discussion Monday night and the timing involved
with Centex' s purchase agreements on the property.
I will be prepared to go into this in more graphic detail at the
Council meeting to hopefully clarify some of this discussion.
Likewise, the neighborhood and the developer have indicated that
they will be in attendance to address the Council with their
concerns .
In order for Phase II of the Curry Farms subdivision to be final ,
platted, this access issue needs to be resolved. Hopefully
there is enough specific information now available to do this .
Attachments: 1. Feasibility Study
2 . Subidivision Map
3 . May 4 , 1987 City Council minutes
4 . September 9 , 1987 Neighborhood Meeting minutes
5 . March 3 , 1988 Neighborhood Meeting summary
6 . July 21, 1987 letter from City of Shorewood
7 . Letter from Ann Ware
8 . September 12, 1987 letter from F. Natole
9 . March 4, 1988 letter from C. & D. Pickard
10 . March 10 , 1988 letter from Centex Homes
1
r
eviwim am ir?2 imm NE I= r_ NE aLfmemem Ai- r" • .. i
›t /
NI /17 rn
YOSEMI7 I IIIISLEr0 1.
c.r/ 1111.111111 III IN .1 "It
c wig, .
( \
, , Iff to
, - '
0
ii- c ..) ?
_ \(-. ic?:3 ' 7---I ) %
1
`--iii , ez -:,______< ___„,...ii
Ile
• a II c
:77/77.- g lie Di 110! cs
4.
11404 -fj. 111411 d°°1 PAM 2 ' r - •
Op so MIL fr
fril
arlivls . . - II
,: : % ira,
. .• ,appP-.Air
!---- me 00111m11
Ho 1g . . Inviii INN %iv
,V 1211111111-miaketegli 17/A ‘i - '
701 p.r.... , , ., 1.,...,;, . „ *-111 4 ) .
.,. , ..,,,,,v„,,,.., 7, . ce,.
,v,.. .. ".... .. ....... , ,
, 9, ...,s, .. ,.... ..... ., ,, ..\1411
.,,,e, ..„„, . c , . 7, .. mi :Is Ai %Agit - 91.
• 277
II
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
CENTEX HOMES CORPORATION, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD 17: '
A. SUBDIVISION OF 53 ACRES INTO 81 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER CLASS B WETLANDS. ,
Jo Ann Olsen: This is a subject made up of two parts. The first one is a
subdivision proposal and the second one is a wetland alteration permit. It's
81 single family homes in the single family district. The net density is 2.13
units per acre. The lots layout is within six lots and there are some
variances that are required. Eight of the lots didn't meet the 90 foot
minimum public street frontage requirement. Six of them are on cul-de-sacs
and three of them are flag lots. The cul-de-sac lots could be adjusted with
the lot line being adjusted and Staff did recommend that those lots meet the
90 foot street frontage requirement. The flag lots required a variance and
the Planning Commission did approve those variances. Some of the lots also
required a variance to the 150 foot lot depth requirement and those were also
approved as a part of the subdivision approval. There are also some triangular
lots and Staff recommended that those be adjusted. We have spoken to the
applicant and he has shown some preliminary designs for making those more
standard configurations. As far as the streets, the site is adjacent to CR 17
and Lake Lucy Road. It also is adjacent to Teton Lane which connects with
Lilac Lane which is partially within Chanhassen and partially within
Shorewood. The City of Shorewood has submitted two letters stating their
concern with the development using Lilac Lane and has requested that the City
include Lilac Lane on any feasibility study if Teton is moved to be improved
as a public street. Carver County has approved the access location onto CR
17. As far as utilities, sewer and water is available through an internal
watermain and also along Lake Lucy Road. Drainage, the applicant have worked
very hard to maintain the natural characteristics and have provided a ponding
system that is maintaining the existing run-off. The drainage is consistent
with the City and Watershed District and is being protected with an easement.
Vegetation, the applicant again has worked closely to preserve much of the
vegetation and the only areas that are going to be impacted is where the
street constructions will take place. Staff is recommending that a
conservation easement be granted along the 982 contour along the southern
wetland area and the 992 contour around the northerly pond where the park area
is. We are also requiring silt stablization and erosion control. As far as
the Park and Recreation Commission, they reviewed the proposal and determined
that the area was park deficient and recommended that the development provide
park area. The applicant is proposing approximately 6.38 acres of active park
area and the Park Commission has reviewed this park proposal and has approved
it. They were concerned with the wet soils but the applicant has assured them
that it will be drained adequately after every rain storm. That you will be
able to use the field within 24 hours. They are also recommending a trail
along Lake Lucy Road, an off-street trail and internal trails around Roads D,
B and G which will also connect with the park. There are several outlots with
the subdivision. Staff is positioning that these are unbuildable until they
meet the City's requirements. Finally, the street name, Staff is recommending
that Teton and Lake Lucy not be used just to reduce any confusion. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of the subdivision with the condition
23
278
II
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
that Teton Lane shall be improved p owed to an urban section and shall connect the
subdivision with Lilac Lane and that Staff will work with the City of
1r-
' Shorewood to address the concerns on the impacts of Teton and Lilac Lane and
if the street configuration is changed, that the preliminary plat shall again
be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Also, the subdivision is next to
Larry Kerber's contractors yard and we are requesting that the applicant
landscape or berm part of the property so the property owners would not be
impacted by the contractor's yard and we are also requesting that the
' developer be responsible for notifying lot owners that there is a contractor's
yard at that property that has been approved by the City and will remain there
until they decide to move or ceases to do business. So we added those two
conditions that the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing
' landscaping for the lots abutting the contractor's yard and that the applicant
shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners that a contractor's
yard exists.
Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps the developers would like to present their overview
of the project.
' Tom Boyce: I'm the president of the Minnesota division of Centex Homes.
Centex Homes is a subsidiary of Centex Corporation which is listed on the New
York Stock Exchange. We're currently building homes in 21 cities across the
' country. In Minnesota we're a relatively small builder I guess building
between 150 and 250 homes per year. We're currently building projects in Eden
Prairie and Bloomington. We hope to build one here in Chanhassen and are
planning projects in Apple Valley and Mendota Heights. In Curry Farms we will
IL_
be the builder as well as the developer. We will be building homes in
primarily two price brackets from $110,000.00 to $140,000.00 and from
$140,000.00 to $200,000.00 because of the two distinct areas we've got there
' on top of the hill and the low kind of standardized lots. For the most part
it will be primarily what we would classify as a move up neighborhood. We
started the project back in October and I met with the Staff and the neighbors
' a couple times. At least at the Planning Commission meeting one of the major
concerns was more with Teton Lane and Lilac Lane than really with the project.
I guess we've tried to deal with that as best we think we can. We looked at a
number of alternative plans to serve the upper' ppe portion of the site as well as
Teton. Saw the possibility there of us purchasing Teton and actually
dedicating it back to the City for potential future improvement later anyway.
I have a couple other people I would like to introduce and I can have them
' walk through the plan briefly with you. Dick Putnam is with Tandem
Corporation and Tandem is the planner for us on the project. Keith Nelson is
right behind him with Westwood Planning & Engineering, the engineering
' consultant on the project and Kevin Clark is next to Keith and he will be the
project manager for Centex out there on a daily basis. I guess I would like
to ask Dick to kind of briefly go through the plans and then we're here to
answer any questions that you or the neighbors would have.
Dick Putnam: I'll try to be very brief. Between the and the Staff and Planning Commission, I think we have beat most of the issues around and if you get a chance to go through your packet and look over the
Planning Commission discussion that went on for a couple hours, I think most
of those issues were pretty well discussed. If I could I would like to
24
279 •
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
highlight what some of those major concerns were. Maybe we could start with
the easiest one. There was a major concern initially about the project that
the property was being overdeveloped. We looked at probably eight to ten
different ways of developing the site ranging from 100 units of single family
under your Planned Unit Development Ordinance with 12,000 foot minimum lots to
what we'll call a larger lot concept which is reprsented here on the plan
that's before with roughly 80 to 81 lots. I guess through the process of
hearing what some of the folks around the site had to say, the Staff and then
looking at some soil borings, and I can appreciate the discussion you had
about Lake Lucy Road. When we took an extensive set of borings throughout the
property, we found the soils were very variable. From bottomless where the
auger never did hit anything that was worth a darn to 3, 4, 5 feet of bad
soils with good underlying materials so the soils really changed quite a bit
throughout the site. That provided us with some very good information. As
you might expect the poor soil areas correspond to where they were low.
That's nothing you would expect except in one area which was right up here
where there is a riding ring today which is right off of by Teton.
Evidentally, that was a marsh at one time because under about 4 or 5 feet of
reasonably good soil was about 8 feet of organic soils. You wouldn't know it
by looking at it so every once in a while you get surprised. What we looked
at was if you can put a plan together that had some densities that made sense
in the scope of what the City of Chanhassen was looking at in your Zoning
Ordinance as well as some of the concerns that the neighbors brought, we'd be
money ahead i.e. out goes the Planned Unit Development idea with smaller lots
and a little higher density and back to your more conventional zoning
approach. The other thing was that since we were on the cutting edge of the
MUSA line and the Urban Service line is on our western boundary and then again
on the southern boundary on a portion of Lake Lucy. The areas west and south
are outside of the MUSA. We had kind of the unique situation where abutting
owners, some of which would be very interested in the ability to connect to
sewer, ,others had absolutely no interest whatsoever and wanted to make sure
that our project wasn't going to force them into sewer service and urban
costs. One of the things we did do quite consciously was in the southwest
portion of the site, which is the knoll and primary wooded area, we tried to
make those lots as large as possible to reduce the grading and just basically
cut the streets in and let what amounts to custom homes go in on rather large
lots, 30,000 to 50,000 square feet. I guess that responds a bit to the
terrain as well as some of the quality and size of the neighbors adjacent to
us. Another thing that was brought up that we tried to address was the park
issue. I think that was quite well discussed at the Park and Recreation
Commission meeting. The plan that you have in your book which is a blow-up of
the park area shows some changes in the grading in that area that will allow
some development of park facilities in the future that the Staff and Park and
Rec Commission felt were important there. The plan has changed slightly.
After the Park and Rec Commission meeting we provided a trail connection,
parking area and made sure that the park area was large enough to accomodate
the facilities that the Staff had outlined to us. Ballfields, tennis courts,
totlots, that sort of thing. Keith might touch a little bit on the issue of
how the ponds and that sort of thing work. Basically, this is a revised
grading plan. You can see that there are a couple ponding areas in the park.
Those are connected with storm sewer and the other portion of the property is
graded so it will work for those facilities. The other issue that we dealt
25
G8()
City Council Meeting -
May 4, 1987
with early on in the project was the question of
site in terms of wetlands and what we ought to be doing with them. e We had on were
e
' made aware early on by the Staff that the City was very concerned about
wetland protection as well as wetland enhancement so the Staff had arranged to
have a biologist from the Fish and Wildlife Service, Elizabeth Rockwell out to
the site who looked at the site and basically her recommendations and her
appraisal of it were included in a letter to the City that basically came back
and said that there is one good wetland area which is in the southwestern
corner of the site which has water on it. The balance of the site is, through
' years of agriculture draining horse operations, farming, whatever, really
didn't degrade it to the point where it isn't functioning as a wetland really
at all so what we did was look at it and said to enhance the site, first of
' all. Deal with the poor soils that we have in some of those areas. Provide
for a water detention system, ponding area that will help in clearing up the
water and that sort of thing. Holding the water on the site before it can be
discharged in the natural drainage to Christmas Lake and also take the water
' that comes from off-site. There is drainage through the site in really three
directions. East of CR 17 where the pond is there is an overflow here. There
is a wetland area that's north of Lake Lucy but flows into our site coming
' from the south and there is a culvert system going under Lake Lucy Road.
There is also a ravine on the western portion of the property by Jim Donovan's
property that comes up back and hits a little lake that's up here. Those
three areas provide drainage into our site. That drainage then goes out under
CR 17 through a wooded ravine down toward Christmas Lake. We're all very aware
of Christmas Lake. In fact, Keith Nelson, our engineer, is a skin diver in
Christmas Lake so we were well aware of the concerns about the water quality
going off the site and I think the system that Westwood has designed will work
very well in that case. It also provides some zip and pizazz frankly to the
back of the lots with ponding and some natural areas around those ponds should
' make for better lots quite frankly. The other thing and I'll just touch on it
with this map, because of the terrain that we have, where we have probably 60
to 70 feet,of grade change on that site, if you go look at it right now you
' would say you need a mountain goat to get around. That's both good and bad.
From our perspective for homesites, if you're trying to provide $150,000.00 to
$200,000.00 homesites, it good and we've been able to keep most of the trees
that you see which are located, lucky for us, along the slopes and by the same
' token it allows us to put some homesites on top of those hills. Both on the
southwestern portion and up where the riding arena is today without really
disturbing very much. It results in big lots that we think will be some
really, really nice homesites. That's the good news. The bad news is that
because those lots are in a strange shape, we call them flag lots or some
rather odd shaped things, they don't necessarily meet the requirement that
says 90 feet 30 feet back from the street. They may be 150 feet 70 feet back
from the street but they aren't 90 feet at 30 feet. I guess what we've been
asking is, in a lot such as number 5 for example, which is up here off of Road
G, at the building pad setback we're at about 110 feet or more in width.
' Unfortunately is you take a straight 30 foot setback because the street
curves, we're probaby closer to 60 feet and we've got an easement for another
flag lot as well as a trail easement coming there also. We think that's an
' awfully nice lot. The lot is very large square footage wise but doesn't
[::
really meet that standard so what we would be looking at is, wherever we
building, if we choose to build 40 or 50 feet back from the street rather than
' 26
281
II
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
a straight 30 foot, that we would have to have a 90 foot minimum setback and
we feel on all of the lots in the project that won't be a problem at all. The
flag lot like number 6 or number 5 in the same instance or down here, 13 is
probably the most vivid example, where we build going across that lot with the
minimum at the front with a 90 foot setback, we think that would meet the
requirements that your city has. Lastly, I guess I would just hit Teton Lane
and Lilac Lane. As Tom mentioned, Road G really is on the Teton Lane
alignment. I guess early on when we talked with some of the neighbors and got
a jist of what some of the issues were, where some folks would like to see 4
or 5 homes on the site instead of 50 or 80. There is also concern about
access. What we found was that Teton Lane is a private easement, 33 feet.
It's owned by Mr. Carlson who owns this chunk of property which is listed as
an exception. It provides easements to I think there are probably 13 or 14
separate people listed on that document surrounding this area. It became
evident to us that there were some very different opinions as to what the
status of Teton Lane should be and what it will be in the future. We heard a
lot of stories about somebody tried to give it to the City back 15 years ago
and the city wouldn't take it and a number of other things. The bottom line
for us was that this site has a lot of exceptions that we're building around
such as Mr. Loris' house or Reamer's house up in here or Carlson's property or
the Kerber property or the Jacques down on Lake Lucy Road. We're really kind
of fitting in, if you will, to an existing neighborhood. Granted some of the
homes are very, very high value and some of them are very not very high value
and they may be within 300 to 400 feet of one another. It's very, very
difficult to take a $300,000.00 or $400,000.00 house versus a $70,000.00 house
that are 400 feet from each other and come up with a compatible type. I think
you can appreciate the problem. As it related to Teton, we felt that the
solution was to acquire the right-of-way and provide that to the City as
public right-of-way to do with what you choose and that would mean talking to
all of the affected property owners who have access to it and finding out if
it should be closed off. If it should be improved. If it should be a mat of
asphalt applied to it. If it should be given back to the people who take
their access from it for them to maintain but one way or the other for the
City to be in a position I guess to determine what happens to it rather than
currently the situation where the fellow who owns it is not real wild about
continuing to pour gravel and oil and money and new culverts and all these
things on it because he doesn't feel it's his responsibility for everybody to
use it so our solution is, we've gone out and signed a purchase agreement
contingent on approval with Mr. Carlson to purchase the right-of-way that you
see here that cuts across this property as well as the 33 feet of right-of-way '
that he has that goes out to Lilac Lane. We would improve Lilac Lane within
the confines of our site and that little road H that provides access to
Reamer's property and we would do that at no cost to anybody else then we
would convey the right-of-way from that link, which is roughly the pillars if
you've been out there. If you are used to that area, it's close to where the
pillars would be. To provide that right-of-way to the City and they would
then make some judgments on what to do. It's going to take a while. If you
were at the Planning Commission meeting, you would have gotten the jist that
there is no simple solution at this point in time. The letter from Shorewood
which I did have occasion to talk with the City Manager today from Shorewood,
didn't really provide anything any easier to understand either because I wish
we would have known about the meeting and been allowed to attend the meeting.
27 '
1 i242
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
III mentioned to him that I think he ought to have a
g couple positions presented
rather than the one that was presented by some folks who talked to the
Ir-
I Shorewood Council so at this point the solution to Teton is at least we're
providing the right-of-way and it allows something to happen in the future.
Quite frankly there are very few units, there are about 18 units in our
II project on top of the hill, if you count Loris' house and Reamer's, that's
about 20 units that are in the general area that would conceivably use this
area as well as the existing one or two homes that access it right now so the
I number of units that would go north would be fairl y to small begin with and I
guess the traffic wouldn't really be a significant number. At this point
maybe what I'll do is ask Keith to very quickly explain the drainage system
II for you and utilities other than the sewer and water on all the streets that
you would normally expect but the drainage system Keith maybe you can touch
real quickly on.
I Keith Nelson: As Dick indicated I am a diver so I do have a special interest
here with the water quality on Christmas Lake. Just to go over the drainage
here, it's sort of complex. There is a lot of drainage from off-site that
does drain through this site. There is a large wetland basin up to the west
I that does drain through a ravine to the proposed ponding areas and out through
culverts. There is drainage from this wetland area that there is presently
storm sewer through Lake Lucy Road and empties into another wetland basin
II that's located south of Lake Lucy Road and again through other culverts. A
drain that does contain north and then it goes out the same point out through
CR 17. There is another large wetland basin on the east side of CR 17 and
II there is a controlled culvert and controlled inlet that does discharge into
he site and again flows through the site back to this ponding area and out
back under CR 17 through this 36 inch storm sewer pipe. We looked at a storm
water management plan for the entire area. We've looked at possibly
I - restricting some of the flows off-site to utilize some of that existing
ponding boundaries that are available and again we did this same thing on site
with-the construction of five ponding areas and we can really restrict the
Irate of flow in the developed condition at approximately one-third of what the
flow is now in the peak rate of flow in the undeveloped condition so again for
grade restrictions we are really dropping down the amount of run-off that will
exit the site via this area in pond #4. During construction phase you want to
Iminimize erosion. There is extensive grading around the site. Not in the
wooded areas but in other portions of the plat. These wetlands that we are
going to be construction are going to be constructed such to enhance a wetland
I type growth and vegetation. A ponding area will be constructed to clean 1 and
3 feet beneath the outlet pipes proposed that will restrict rate of flow so
these areas will act as pumps as say basins or sump traps during the
II construction phase which will catch a lot of the sediment. During
construction the first thing we would do is excavate out these ponds,
construct the berms, trying to hold the water, contain it on-site and before
the outlet culverts are construction, and we won't put those pipes in until
IIall the grading is done and turf is established. We will seed and mulch
everything upon completion of grading. What we will do to these berms is
construct like a rock filter. We'll actually put in a large pile of rock as
II part of the berm and what that will do is let the water trickle through and
will filter out a lot of the sediment and will hold a lot of the sediment back
[7
in the ponding areas so again I think we're really going to minimize the
II
28
I
283
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
effects downstream, mainly Christmas Lake. I have forwarded a copy of
PY my
drainage plan to the Watershed Engineers. They have reviewed it. They have
no problems with it and we will be making a formal Watershed Permit
application.
Mayor Hamilton: That concludes all of your presentation? Perhaps we can
start with Clark. If you have any questions or comments you wish to make.
Councilman Horn: I like the layout. I think the park worked out fine. The
storm sewer system looks good. I like the protection for Christmas Lake. One
question I did have though is that you only showed us four housing types. I
didn't see any housing types in what you would call your other section. These
obviously are the higher priced homes. '
Tom Boyce: The house you have right there is $120,000.00 to $140,000.00
house. We. try to give you a range.
, Councilman Horn: Every one of these is a two story or split level. What
about ramblers?
Tom Boyce: We don't build any ramblers.
Councilman Johnson: I would like to say I appreciate all the time you've done
in the saving of the trees and a lot of the work you've done here. I think
it's an outstanding project as going. On the north side it's pivotable on
Teton Lane. Without Teton, the whole north side falls apart with that being
an extremely long cul-de-sacs and no real way to get out without having to go
into the neighbors to your west and back down somehow or another and with the
wetlands and stuff in there I don't think that's feasible at all. It's an
extremely difficult piece of land to develop in there and I really appreciated
all the hard work you're doing on this including the lot that you're putting
together on here. What is your phasing plan?
Tom Boyce: We would be working from the south to the north.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so there is some time on Teton Lane to work it out.
Tom Boyce: Maybe Dick would like to some them some alternate plans. We've
looked at I guess 7 or 8 different plans.
Councilman Johnson: Yes, I was impressed at the Planning Commission meeting
of how many different plans you had. I think you were up through F or G.
Tom Boyce: There is another way to serve the area to the north and you 1
probably saw it at the Planning Commission meeting. The only way to do that
is through the area right now that's proposed as park which may mean some
other things would need to shift around I guess. How does the City feel about
long cul-de-sacs?
Councilman Johnson: I personally am very much against long cul-de-sacs from a
public safety point of view. That's why to me Teton Road is very pivotable to
get to the people in Block 6, Lots 1 through 6 in an emergency would be very
29 1
•
I
43
City Council Meeting -
May 4, 1987
tough without Teton Lane and Lilac Lane and the cooperation
for a city of our size it's going to be a challenge for you and Shorewood so
city.
' we going to be starting a feasibility study on Teton Lane in nt the nearty future
re
or how does that work?
' Mayor Hamilton: That's a possibility that we'll get to here in a few minutes.
Don Ashworth: That's a recommendation of approval.
Councilman Johnson: I would to see that the park entrance between Block 6 and
Block 5 be a more direct route to the park. If there was some way to work it
in between Lot 5, Lots 1 and 2 or 3 and 4. The more direct access, that would
' make even Lot 6 a more nice remote lot rather than having a trail around that
lot. For somebody that really wants their privacy back on that flag lot. On
the lots like Lot 5 of Block 5, I would like to see us make sure that the
houses aren't built up towards the front of the lot. Is there anyway we can
do that Barb or Jo Ann?
Tom Boyce: I have absolutely no problem addressing that in the development
' agreement. Put it so the house has to be built where it's at least 90 feet
wide? I have no problems with that or deed restriction.
Jo Ann Olsen: You just have a minimun setback that you can't get any closer
to the road frontage.
Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is on a couple of these lots, to be
' specific Block 5, Lot 5 at the 30 foot setback he has about 70 feet and this
is on a turn which is similar to on a cul-de-sac. If he goes back another 20
foot he'll hit his 90 foot width. I'm saying is there some way we can assure
that he'll be back that additional 20 foot to hit that 90 foot width so the
homeowner can't come in and say I want mine 30 foot up and then he builds it
that way. --
' Jo Ann Olsen: The only thing that would stop him from being able to do that
is the width of the house. The sideyard setbacks would prohibit that.
' Councilman Johnson: Unless they build the house deep and narrow.
Jo Ann Olsen: You can make it a condition that it would have to be set back
' at however many feet.
Councilman Johnson: All housing setbacks have to be at 90 foot width is what
' Tom suggested. That could be an easy condition on here.
Mayor Hamilton: It would be in the development contract. Otherwise it can't
be done.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. There are several of those. I agree with the
triangle lots. I don't like triangle lots g
rid of those. Is there something being done on Block 2,I Lot a5 which rhas eat81g
' foot frontage? Just as you come in on Road B, second lot in. Is that going
to be readjusted to give us the 90? We have the 90 at the housing setback on
30
• 285
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
that one but there is no reason for it on a straight street. If we have a
curve or a cul-de-sac, there is a reason to use the house setback.
Jo Ann Olsen: I believe the lot lines can be adjusted.
Councilman Johnson: Are we requiring that adjustment to be made in here? '
Jo Ann Olsen: It was in the conditions. In the condition that said all lots
shall meet the 90 foot frontage requirement. '
Councilman Johnson: Okay, that is part of condition 1 so that will be done.
Councilman Geving: I have a few questions. Basically I want to make sure '
that the comment regarding the various lots that the Staff indicated could be
adjusted will be and I'm looking at your staff report on page 3. Six of the
lots which require a variance can be adjusted. Have those been adjusted? '
Jo Ann Olsen: They haven't yet but that's part of the conditions that they
must be. 1
Councilman Geving: Is there any imagination that could be used on the three
triangular lots that they can look to some kind of a scheme? Could you show
me how you might do that? '
Dick Putnam: What we end up doing is just expanding Lot 12. All the lots
have plenty of square footage in them so what we do is we but off the back
yards here on 9, 8, 7 and 45 and just create a larger, deeper backyard here
and then these are wider in the back. That's what I reviewed with the Staff.
Councilman Geving: Okay, so Lot 12 will be extended to the south. I was a
little bit concerned about Lot 6, Block 6 and it's access however you do have
a substantial size lot there and I think we can build a pretty nice home on
that lot. It's rather steep. Normally I would object to that but I think we
can fit a house on there. Also on Lot 13, Block 2 is a very narrow corridor
there but I don't have the footage here but it's a big lot and off that cul-
de-sac I think we could also make that. I had some other comments regarding
the Teton Lane. I don't know how that's all going to work out in response to
Shorewood. You may not be doing us a great deal of a favor by dedicating that
back to the City because then it becomes our problem and from there I don't
know what we're going to do with it because eventually it's going to have to
be, if we go through the feasibility study and build the road, somebody is
going to have to pay for it. We'll have to take up that issue but I'm not so
sure we're really getting a favor by picking up that roadway. Do you have any
thoughts Staff on what could be done there?
Barbara Dacy: Again, the preliminary plat as proposed shows a connection to
Teton Lane to Lilac Lane. The Planning Commission was very specific that if
the Council, as part of the plat approval does not recommend improvement of
Teton or including Teton at all in it's plan, that it go back to the Planning
Commission. It does result in long cul-de-sacs and if the Council chooses not
to improve Teton Lane or require it's improvement then Staff is recommending
that we take another look at the access issue. However, Staff is recommending
31
286
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
[-
that the connection exists now and we are recommending improvement of Teton
' Lane as well as the Council initiating the feasibility study process.
Councilman Geving: Okay, we'll address that later. Is there a Park and Rec
Commission member here tonight? If not, what were their comments in regards
' to this? Is it basically a lowland that they are going to be picking up?
6.38 acres. We talked about getting a swamp, an area that can be improved.
' Mayor Hamilton: If I remember right, didn't they say that it was quite
lowland but you were going to do some improvements in it to try and eliminate
some of the water.
' Tom Boyce: It's a very flat lowland. There is no drainage out of it. What
we're going to do is go back in there and improve it. Build the ponds to hold
the water.
' Councilman Geving: I guess I know that it's quite low in there. My personal
feeling is we'll take the 6.38 acres but I'm not sure about park dedication
refund of any kind. That will have to be worked out by the Council to off-set
the addition of parkland that we would accept. Do you understand what we're
talking about?
Dick Putnam: Not exactly, no.
Councilman Geving: Well, it's a point of negotiation for the Council to
' accept your 6.38 acres but at the same time we wouldn't necessarily have to
give you 100% credit for that land. It might be a 50% credit for park
dedication fees. Currently our park dedication fees run about $400.00.
' Better than $400.00 per unit. We might give you a 50% reduction because of
the land that you're giving us for the park but not necessarily 100% so that
anybody buying a home, picking up a permit would still have to pay possibley
something towards a park dedication fee to develop that park. Do you
understand now what I'm saying?
Dick Putnam: I guess we do. What we talked with the Park and Rec Commission
' about was, rather than giving you land we were giving you a park.
Councilman Geving: But now you're talking to the Council.
' Dick Putnam: I'm talking to the Council the same as I'm talking to everybody
and that is we can do one of two things. We can give you a park that's
developable, seeded, ready to go, that's dry and going to meet all your
' conditions that the staff and your engineers will approve the grading for and
will do the grading as part of our project and that will more than meet our
requirement for park contribution. If what you're telling us tonight is, well
' gee whiz maybe...
Councilman Geving: I'm not telling you gee whiz.
' Dick Putnam: Maybe the land isn't good enough as a park and there should be a
park contribution on top of the improvements we're going to make to the land,
then yes, you're right. We better talk about that right away.
32
1
1184
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Ir-
Councilman Geving: That's a Council decision. We make that decision.
Don Ashworth: I think we need to come back to the Council potentially. We
could meet as well Councilman Geving and go through the level of grading that
is proposed on this site. I have some concerns as well as to the suitability
of those soils. You are absolutely right, we've got to make sure that they
will be dry and the level of improvements that they are going to do to those,
to the property, could greatly off-set the necessity for additional monies. I
feel confident that Lori and myself have been working with them in that area.
I'm sure we're aware of your concerns and we will bring the item back to you.
Councilman Geving: Okay, that's fine. I have just one other comment. I
think I had a note or two on the plat itself. I had made a comment regarding
Lot 5, Block 2 and Block 2, Lot 7 and you have made those adjustments. Is
that what you're telling me Jo Ann? For the lot width?
Jo Ann Olsen: Not yet but they will be.
Councilman Geving: How about the road that we identify as Road I. Isn't that
a rather unusual cul-de-sac? Is that an unusual cul-de-sac for maintenance?
Jo Ann Olsen: It is kind of a bubble but the reason it is designed was to
protect the wetlands and the slope area and vegetation.
Councilman Geving: Do you agree with that? From the Staff's standpoint you
agree with that? '
Jo Ann Olsen: From the Staff's standpoint we saw several different street
alternatives and this one preserved the area the best. '
Councilman Geving: I have no other comments.
Mayor Hamilton: You said you were going to do not only the developing but the
building. Will you allow other builders in the area? If I came in and wanted
to buy a lot and have somebody build there, you don't allow that?
Tom Boyce: Usually not. It's certainly not our intention at this point. If
the interest rates are at 17% tomorrow and somebody wanted to buy a lot it
would be difficult for me to say no but no, that's not our intention. '
Mayor Hamilton: There are a lot of people here. Is anyone here that would
like to make a comment or ask a question about the development?
Marc Simcox: I live on Lilac Lane across from Teton. I think the big concern
that I have and that most of the residents have is that a lot of people are
going to pay to improve the road that is going to serve only one individual
who lives on that road presently but in order to really serve a development
and that's the major concern. I've been done quite a bit of work to try and
discover what exactly is going to occur and I keep finding that everything is
being proposed and improved prior to finding out exactly what's going to
�-. happen Teton Lane which we're really concerned about. As it presently sits,
Teton Lane is abutted on two sides by one property owner who has approximately
33
_ 8
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
800 feet on one side and then three others who own about one-third a piece.
I
[-
Out of all the property owners only one of those actually uses Teton Lane.
The others exit and go on Lilac Lane which of course in most cases would have
to approved at least for drainage. The way the developments been proposed
now, there has been no northern access but to cut down the length of the cul-
t de-sacs on the northern side of the project other than through the use of
Teton Lane. One thing was mentioned in the Planning Commission and the plan
was covered and turned over pretty rapidly, I didn't get a chance to see how
' the road layouts worked but that used and addressed the possible use of this
path. The cul-de-sac here, I guess it's Road E where it goes over Road G.
The cul-de-sac in the corner of your Block 3, Lot 15. That was used at one
' time when the sewer was being constructed on Lilac Lane for temporary access.
I spoke with the County today about that because we were informed at the
Planning Commission meeting that the Council didn't want the access there so I
did speak to the County and they said they have no objection to that as long
' as it's a safe intersection with proper sight distances. I think the sight
' distances there are probably better than they are at the proposed exit on CR
17 and Road D. There would be some extra grading involved to do that but the
' costs would not come out of the Teton Lane abutting property owners to provide
that access. It probably isn't a whole lot different distance wise if that
was used than if Lilac Lane and Teton Lane connection was used to access those
' cul-de-sacs in an emergency.
Mayor Hamilton: What's going to be proposed, so we don't go on about Teton
Lane all night, is that we're going to suggest that a feasibility study be
' conducted to look at not just Teton but the alternatives to that particular
road and how that may fit into the project then we can take a closer look at
that and look at just one issue and discuss that and see how that is going to
' be resolved.
Marc Simcox: That's in a feasibility study?
tMayor Hamilton: You bet. That's what the study would be about.
Marc Simcox: The plat is not going to be approved as it exists until that has
been taken care of?
Mayor Hamilton: No, that's not true. The plat can be approved with the
' ccndition that the feasibility study needs to be completed on Teton.
Marc Simcox: The one concern of course by the property owners there is that
the City and the developer want the feasibility study to show the Teton Lane
' is required, that's exactly what the feasibility study will show. Right or
wrong that's the way they are feeling. What we would suggest is that Teton
Lane would be used for access onto the development and the rest of it
dedicated to the City until such time that that property may be developed 20
years in the future and the City can then go in and do something.. .
Mayor Hamilton: I think that's what our feasibility study will tell us. When
it should be developed and in what manner and how the road configuration
should be for the development.
34
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
1r- Jim Donovan: If I might I would II
g like to step up here and just show you
something here. I'm the owner of this piece of property here. I own from
here up to Lilac and from Lilac down to here. This is the road that we're II
talking about Teton here. I'm concerned that this road here would then become
a public road if was deeded to the City of Chanhassen for the benefit of the
development down in here. The taxpayers here are not the largest taxpayer in II this thing here now. I would be virtually thrown out. I bought this piece of
property, came from Bloomington two years ago and I dreamed about this thing
for 14 years and purchased this piece of property and the adjoining piece over
here and now I see this happening for the benefit down here. Not for the
II
benefit of the people here. I can assure you I will put this in writing and
anything you want, this will never, never, in my lifetime, ever be developed.
These people here are going to have to pay. I'm going to have to pay for the
II
benefit of this thing.
Mayor Hamilton: That's what the feasibility study will show.
Jim Donovan: I understand that but I just want to impress upon i
P p you that the
people here feel that the feasibility study is a foregone conclusion that it's
going to say that for the benefit of this we're going to be sacrificed because
II
of bigger tax benefits to the City of Chanhassen then what this property now
gives.
Mayor Hamilton: I hope we can do a better feasibility study than that. Just 1
l__. . because you have property there and you're not benefitting doesn't necessarily
mean that you're going to be charged for the road at this time.
Jim Donovan: Somebody has to be charged for the road. I understand that. I
What we're saying is that this is not necessary to have the exit go here. It
can go out here to CR 17. Lilac Lane is a very bad exit right now. It's very
II
bad. Come out here onto CR 17 would be much better. We don't know what a
feasibility study, if we're allowed to have input into a feasibility study or
can we come to a hearing or is there a hearing.
II
Mayor Hamilton: Absolutely. When the feasibility study is completed, it will
be put on an agenda and it will be discussed at that time and all alternatives
will be looked at will be discussed and opened to the public as is any other
II
meeting.
Jim Donovan: Okay, thank you.
II
Barbara Dacy: Just to further clarify Mr. Donovan's comments. Before we
discuss the feasibility study, the first action before the Council is the
subdivision preliminary plat approval. If you approve a plat as proposed you II
are in essence looking at a connection to Lilac Lane via Teton Lane and
obviously the property owners are proposing instead of doing that, offering an
alternative to make a connection to CR 17 by a second access so there is a
II
second option proposed tonight. The first option is what the developer has
proposed on the preliminary plat and the second option is what you just heard
from Mr. Donovan and Mr. Simcox. Just to reiterate that subdivision approval II is first and that would really dictate authorizing the feasibility study to
improve Teton Lane. By approving the proposed plat, you are giving direction
35 1
1
290
r
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
to improve Teton Lane.
1 Mayor Hamilton: To authorize a feasibiilty study not to improve it.
Barbara Dacy: Right, I just wanted to clarify that.
Jim Donovan: We're not being sacrificed, is that what you're saying?
Barbara Dacy: No, I'm just saying that they are offering-a second potential
access plan.
Mayor Hamilton: That needs to be considered in the feasibility study.
Don Ashworth: I don't agree. In the feasibility study we will look to the
other access. If that is the recommendation per the Planning Commission
' recommendation, they would have to look at that new access.
Barbara Dacy: Then the developer would also have to indicate to use some type
of phasing plan so some of the lots that could be affected by this secondary
' access are not affected so we're not approving final plats until the
feasibility study is complete.
' Don Ashworth: That's fine. I don't see where it's a problem though as I
would hope to have this completed within the next 6 to 8 weeks and I'm sure
it will be a more difficult process but I think we faced Creekwood, Bluff
Creek and a number of other challenges and I think we can face this one as
well.
Marc Simcox: Just to make sure that we have this correct because we heard
' this a couple different ways. We were told before that the feasibilty study
does not decide whether or not it's done. The City Council approving a plat
decides that it's going to be done. The feasibility only decides how it's
going to be done. So if the Council approves the plat, it is going to be
done. The Teton connection is going to be made.
Mayor Hamilton: Not necessarily. If we approve the plat, we are also saying
that a feasibility study needs to be done to look at Teton Lane improvement
and alternatives.
Councilman Johnson: Tonight we're approving a preliminary plat, not the final
plat. There is a considerable difference here. The preliminary plat says
that this is a way we can do it. This is a way we see to do it. There is a
feasibility study going on. There can be changes made between now and the
final plat.
Marc Simcox: We're real concerned about that.
Tom Boyce: We can certainly final plat the south half of the ro ert first
P P Y
and plat the upper half as an outlot. I guess that's what we had intended
anyway. To final plat the southern portion of the property.
36
11
291 is
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
1
Larry Kerber: They are proposing I think it's their main entry from my south
property line, is that correct?
Councilman Geving: That's correct.
Larry Kerber: My concern would be the amount of traffic coming by my place. '
You are going to be putting in a road, I won't benefit out of that road. It
will run approximately 10 to 15 feet from my property line and I would just
like to see that road, their main entry road contained within, at least one
lot within the perimeter. I look here at other projects in the area, I can't
find too many with the main entry accesses another abutting property owner. I
don't know what's going to happen with Teton but I can end up with all the
traffic coming in and out of that project at my property. 1
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know how you can figure you can get all of it. Lake
Lucy Road is going to get some. There will be another entrance someplace. '
Councilman Horn: A proposed alternative as I see it would be on both sides of
it. They have a main street road B on the south and then a proposal on the
north.
Councilman Geving: He could get hit with both of them.
Mayor Hamilton: Potential yes. It depends on what the feasibility study
says.
Councilman Horn: Somebody is going to lose in this thing. He's either going
to have a road on both sides of him or it's going to go out to Lilac. It's
not going to stop.
Mayor Hamilton: We'll consider that. It's something else we need to take a
look at.
Larry Kerber: Yes, I would just like to see something between the road. A
Lot if there is anyway they can route it just because of the special type of
operation I have going on there. I
Councilman Geving: I was thinking in Larry's case, when I looked at this
plan, I was kind of hoping we could curve that Road D between Lots 20 and 21
and leave a single family home abutting his land. That leaves a problem
though with Lot 1. Could the developer work that out? The reason I'm saying
this is because when I looked at this plan, I understand what Larry's saying,
if we could have a buffer there of one lot, Lot 21, I think that would solve
Larry's problem and get him another 100 and some feet away from that road.
Dick Putnam: What our interest is quite frankly is to build the largest berm
and put the most vegetation we can right there. If you recall in the Staff
Report at the Planning Commission the recommendation was that we screen off
the abutting lot which is Lot 1 from that property. The reason being that
Larry has a contractor's yard and three stall garage for equipment and a
_ parking area right there. The last thing I want to do is put a house there
because when he starts equipment at 6:00 in the morning it's not a
37
i
IICity Council Meeting -
May 4, 1987
Iparticularly good thing but by the same token, the best neighbor from our
perspective is quite frankly a road and large berm and plantings and rocks and
II that sort of thing. That will go a long ways to solving any of his concerns,
which isn't for his house because his house is on the other side of all that
equipment. It's the concern that the people driving by there will object to
that particular use in the future so our interest is to build a screen that he
I won't bothered by us and likewise by him.
II Councilman Geving: I'm not so sure. I haven't been out to Larry's place
recently but if I looked to the south from his garage, I don't believe there
the aarea whole
tolot
the south of you, doesn't that you berm with.
Larry, when you look at
go down? Isn't that a depression?
I Larry Kerber: It drops off almost from m
drop off and it drops off my property line, is the start of the
P quite severely.
IICouncilman Geving: I don't know where you're going to be the berm.
Dick Putnam: The first thing we have to do is we have to fill the area where
I the road goes because you have to have a flat grade not like Lilac so it's
going to be flat. Right now it drops off but there is going to be dirt
brought in there to bring it up. In the process of bringing that up, I told
II Larry what we will be doing is building a very large berm. If he wants us to
put part of it on his property and move the trees he has
rut
higher, we would be happy to do that do we'll do it on our on hbu side up
think our interest, in this case, are entirely the same. We want t obbuild a
1 separation that's permanent and I think that's what he wants too.
Councilman Geving: Dick, could we call that area to the north of the road
II there, just as you come in and to the north, could we call that an outlot?
Dick Putnam: Sure. Frankly it might be easier to make it part of the public
right-of-way if you would like and just come right across like that. That
I might be a posibility or we could keep it as an outlot, whichever is easiest.
Councilman Geving: What do you think?
IIDon Ashworth: That sounds like a solution for both sides.
II Councilman Geving: Just so we have a separation there. I think that's what
we're looking for.
Dick Putnam: That's our interest 100%.
1 Councilman Horn: Is the biggest concern
h? going up both Lilac the assessment or
is it the actual road going througII h? So they are both equal?
Marc Simcox: I would say that the assessment is one of the biggest issues
because there are so very few people to absorb that assessment. The im pact on
I Lilac Lane, I don't know how the grading would be done and how they can
improve the grade as you come up from Mill Street because it's a fairly steep
LE
grade and also continues steep to the south and also drops to the north. I
II
. 38
293
• r
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
don't know how that grade will be improved. It's already now, anybody who
drives up that road can tell you it's a constant wheel spinning all year round
on that road and as an access, I don't know how the grading can be changed.
Also at the top of the hill you have to make an immediate left turn onto Teton
which is also a grade and that's a real problem in the wintertime for people
to get up. I live right across the street from Teton and so far I've had two
vehicles in the last four years that have come over my wall and it's about a 8
foot drop or 7 foot drop.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, I think all those concerns will be addressed in the
feasibility study.
Councilman Geving: I want to ask a questin of the developer. Would you be
willing to pay for the improvement of Teton to Lilac?
Tom Boyce: No I wouldn't. 1
Councilman Geving: The answer's no.
Dick Putnam: We can purchase some of the property on either side of it, sure.
Tom Boyce: I guess I tried that at one point.
Councilman Geving: I'm placing this question before you because you are
really the major contributor to creating this problem.
Tom Boyce: There are other alternatives to develop the site. This is the ,
alternative that we felt was best and I guess Staff felt was best and was the
one we presented. We did look at access to the northwest. We don't own that
property and we looked at acquiring a number of other pieces in there but
quite frankly it just didn't make common sense.
Dick Putnam: If you just focus in on this F business, this reflects what I•• '
think was suggested. Connection out through the city property and I guess you
do have some control over what's done here because you own the chunk of
property in question which is this triangle right here. This represents a
connection through Lot 15 onto our site and we talked to the Staff about that.
To be perfectly honest with you, the reason we proposed what we proposed was
that the road that's there today is not going to be maintained by the guy who
owns it anymore. That's just a fact of life. I don't know if Mr. Carlson is
here tonight but he quite frankly is not going to continue it and there are
people asking him for dust nuisance control and all this business and it was
pretty obvious to us that something was going to happen here between the
neighbors. Not us but between the neighbors. The other reason was that the
Staff had indicated the City would like to see a public street connection.
Not only for what happens with our project but just for the area in general
and look at it from a total perspective of public street access of all the
properties. Public Safety, the neighbors pointed out very eloquently that
Lilac Lane and Teton are terrible in the wintertime. You can't get up. If
somebody has a heart attack, you'll never get an ambulance up. They convinced
me that they ought to have another way in and out so what we did is said okay,
here's a way to connect it. Quite frankly, we'll plat it and over the course
39
i
904
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
IIof the feasibilty study and the time it takes to resolve the
issue, if
alternate F is what you want us to do, we'll revise the plat here so it won't
I bother anybody. The dust control problem the gentlemen has ain't going to be
resolved.
IJim Donovan: It's not going to be there. The dust is not going to be there.
Dick Putnam: The problem is going to be that people who have access to it
today will continue to have access. We have not built one thing up there and
II the folks are having problems and they have called the City and they complain,
whatever.
IMayor Hamilton: Thanks very much for your comments. I think that's plenty.
Franco Loris: I have lived up there for 19 years now. I've walked many times
II by that road from Carlson...so all of a sudden this company is coming in and
they are picking it up and they are going to improve it-but that's not true.
I would have bought it from him but just the road, not those old shacks. I
would be willing to do that right now but not for a public access. I would
I maintain it too because after all I've been up there for 19 years and I guess
it's for my use as well.
I Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's something else that should be included in the
feasibility study is talk to Franco. I think a motion is in order. We have
two items before us. A subdivision of 53 acres into 81 single family lots
II with the conditions as outlined by the Planning Commission and the Park and
Rec Commission and a Wetland Alteration Permit to alter a Class B wetland.
Councilman Johnson: When does the feasibility study get approved?
IMayor Hamilton: That's item 13 of the conditions.
I Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Curry Farm
Subdivision as shown on the preliminary plat dated April 2, 1987 with the
following conditions:
Il. Lot 13, Block 2, Lot 6, Block 5 and Lot 15, Block 3 shall receive a
variance to the 90 foot lot frontage requirement with all minimum
house setbacks at the 90 foot lot width and all other lots shall meet
IIthe 90 foot frontage requirement.
2. The triangular lots shall be changed to reflect a more standard lot
II configuration.
* 3. Teton Lane shall be improved to an urban section and shall connect At
7� the subdivision with Lilac Lane.
II4. An access permit for Road D shall be requied from Carver County.
Y
II 5. A conservation easement at the 982 foot contour shall be provided
around the westerly side of the pond in Block 2 and along the
[E7
southerly side of the park area.
II
40
II
_ . 295
City Council Meeting - May 4, 1987
Jr- 6. A conservation easement at the 992 foot contour shall be provided
along the northerly side of the park area. II
7. All necessary drainage and utility easements shall be provided. II
8. The conditions as established by the Park and Recreation Commission II dated Apri 9, 1987.
9. The applicant shall provide acceptable drainage calculations for the
determination that the park area will drain properly.
II
10. The outlots shall not be considered buildable. II 11. The street names shall not contain the names Lake Lucy or Teton.
. 12. The conditions as established by the City Engineer in his report II dated April 17, 1987.
13. Staff shall work with the City of Shorewood to address their concerns II on the impacts on Teton and Lilac Lane and if the street
configuration is changed, the preliminary plat shall again be
reviewed by the Planning Commission.
14. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan providing landscaping
_ for lots abutting the contractory's yard.
15. The applicant shall be responsible for informing potential lot owners 1
that a contractor's yard exists.
All voted in favor and motion carried. I
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit #87-6 with the following conditions: 1
1. The Class A wetland shall be preserved by a conservation easement
established at 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark.
II
2. The applicant shall provide drainage easements over the ponding areas
throughout the site and not allow any alteration to the areas.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: What will the timeframe be, Barb or Gary, you'll be doing the I
feasibility study?
Gary Warren: I would say 6 to 8 weeks we'll be done with this. I
Mayor Hamilton: Be sure to include the alternatives that we looked at and be
sure to talk to Franco so we can pursue that avenue also.
II
II
41
1
INEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
TETON LANE/LILAC LANE/CENTEX HOMES
September 9 , 1987
Gary Warren : My name is Gary Warren, City Engineer and with me is Bill
IEngelhardt of Engelhardt and Associates involved in the feasibility study
and that young lady over there is Barb Dacy, our City Planner. I guess what
we want to do tonight is keep this informal. Give you a chance, you've all
been sent a copy of the feasibility study and I'll give just a brief
introduction here as far as where the process is because sometimes it can
get a little bit confusing with the phasing of projects. Basically the
Curry Farms subdivision which we've got the plat up here, the entire
property has preliminary plat and has received preliminary plat approval
Iwhich is the first step to the Council and Planning Commission. Phase 1 has
the final plat and construction plans and specifications for the utility
installation, grading of the property has been approved and that's what
Iunder construction at this time. The Phase II of the project, the north
half of the site basically, will need to go through final plat approval by
the City Council and also will need to submit plans and specifications for
review by City Staff and also approved by the Council. Our best estimate
Ifrom the developer's , Centex Homes is that will be something that I will be
undertaking next year. As a result of the platting process and the review
of the plat, the City Council and Planning Commission recognize that the
Inortherly access was a sensitive issue from a number of standpoints and
justified going ahead with a more detailed investigation of various
alternatives that come to play. As a part of that, or to meet that
Irequirement, a feasibility study was prepared by Bill with staff input and
we are bringing here tonight to get your input on it. We had it scheduled
for Monday night's Council meeting and I'm pulling it off of Monday night's
Il Council meeting because of the timing just is too quick. We'll certainly
I give the benefit of your input here so I can- sit down with the developer and
Barb and take to heart the discussion we have tonight and properly address
it so when it does go to Council for their discussion that we address all
I the issues the best we can.
II Resident : Have you set a date for it yet?
IGary Warren: I have not set up a date for it no. What I'm going to do is
see how the meeting goes tonight. The Council's agendas, quite honestly are
just packed and since in relation to Phase II work with Centex , much of that
Ihas yet to resolve. We're not holding them up for development so we do have
time here to deal with this on a future agenda. You will be notified when
that is put on the agenda and I would suspect sometime in the next 4 to 6
Iweeks it will get back on to that. So we want to receive your input
tonight. We would like to keep this on a professional level. We all have
emotions involved here and I think we are here to listen to your input. To -
answer the questions we can. Those issues that we can't, we will address
Iand do research on or whatever we have to do to resolve them. With that, I
would like to open for review of the report and again , pushing against the
7:00 deadline, our summary will be somewhat brief but we'll go into details
II as questions arise also. There is also a sign up sheet that we're passing
around so if you haven ' t gotten it, please sign up.
I
1
II
Bill Engelhardt: As Gary mentioned, our task was to do the Teton Lane
connection and alternates that could be generated to serve as a third access
point for the Curry Farms development second phase. The report looked at
three different alternatives. Alternative 1 and 2 deal with Teton Lane
itself and the third alternative was created for an access onto CR 17 to
bypass Teton Lane. As we went through Alternative 1, we discussed what
would happen if Teton Lane was improved to a full developed pass. In other
words, we take the 33 foot right-of-way over, acquire an additional 17 feet
of right-of-way and get a 50 foot right-of-way to meet city standards and
install a bituminous street with curb and gutter and as such, we install a
full depth street section you also install the utilities that go along with
it. The utilities that go along with it are sanitary sewer and watermain.
Those facilities then would service the property land in the Curry Farm
development. Alternative 2 addresses solving some of our concerns that
Teton Lane where we would basically regrade to a minor extent, even it out a
little bit, taking the highs and lows out. Even out Teton Lane. Put on a
bituminous mat utilizing the 33 feet of right-of-way or acquiring the 33
feet of right-of-way and utilizing that 33 feet to put in a 24 foot street
which is a typical rural section roadway. Rural section has ditches on it
and bituminous mat for the driving surface. It's easier to maintain and
eliminates the pot holing and the constant maintenance problems you have
when you have to go out there with a grader all the time but in looking at
the ditch section or the type of roadway that goes in a rural section, we
felt that in order to carry grading, maintain grading patterns it would be
more appropriate to put in what we call a modified urban section. We use
bituminous curb with about 4 inch bituminous lip on the end of the road that II
rolls up and is matched into the existing property and in this case a
bituminous curb will be placed on the boulevard setting and then dropped off
from there. The reason for the bituminous curb is just carrying the
drainage in the street versus carrying it in the ditch section.
Resident : Where would the drainage go?
Bill Engelhardt: If I remember correctly, there is a split in the drainage
right about in this area. There's a high point in this road and this
drainage from that high point goes to the north from the high point to the
south and we' re recommending that as apart of this development , in the
second phase that additional storm sewer be put in and that drainage be
carried through the storm sewer to a ponding area .
Resident: On the other side?
Bill Engelhardt: On the north it would go up to Lilac Lane, make it across
at this point and then come down to Lilac Lane. You do find that during
your heavier storms, I won't even say heavy storms, during yours 2 to 1 inch
rainfall, that water is going to cross at this point and then run to the I
north. I think what we have to do is put in vegetation at this area to take
care of that drainage so we don't have it washing down and crossing the -
property to the north so that would be part of that .
Resident: So a catch basin will be a part of that?
Bill Engelhardt: No, a catch basin is actually a structure that has what
you call a cap or grate on top of it with a groove in it where the water
flows in and then is taken by pipe along here and then down into this
2
property we felt that if this alternate would go through that the driveway
Ishould be created for the Foley property so that can access out this
direction also and that Lilac Lane no longer functions as a roadway.
IResident: Road H there, we ' ll be served by H.
Bill Engelhardt : You would have to be served by they o H and the would
come out this way.
ld have to
IResident: At what point do you consider, and the City requires a northern
access, they would acquire the road under. . .
IGary Warren: Centex has the option to buy, if I can speak for Tom here and
buy the road .
IResident: When do we know who the owner of this remaining piece, assuming
you went number 3?
IGary Warren: I would say once the City accepts the feasibility study and
confirms the access .
IResident: If you did confirm the access through Lilac and Teton, you
confirm number 3, then what happens?
Bill Engelhardt: My opinion is that it would remain in the Carlson, under
Itheir ownership and they could use it however they like. If you had an
easement over that piece of property you would still have your rights but
I'm not an attorney so I can't tell you exactly how it would happen but as
Ilong as you have that legal document saying that you have the right to use
that road, I don't think that can be taken away from you even it does change
hands, it will still an easement on your title. It's not an easement that's
directed to you personally. It's directed to that property so that property
Ialways has the right to use that area .
Resident: Would that change for . . .?
IIBill Engelhardt : Probably not but I think what we would do is we would have
to arrive at some kind of agreement with these people that they would use
Ithis new road and that they would block off at that point so you
through traffic through there. The intent would be that this don't
h then,
you would still have your right to use that but . . .
IResident: We don ' t have an easement there.
Bill Engelhardt: You would have to block this off because we're providing
Ithat new access and that completely eliminates the use of Teton. It no
longer functions as a roadway and it would not function as a roadway until
such time as maybe this piece of property would be built. _
IResident: Mr . Carlson is the owner of that .
IResident: This is the crux I think of the question is we understand the
agreement with the developer and Mr. Carlson has said that he will not sellt
hem a portion of the road period. Only the entire road. The question is if
Road G has to be built, Road G has to be built so regardless of what happens
I
4
II
and what access is used, it doesn't make any difference. The road, the
entire length of Teton Lane is still going to come under the ownership of
the developer or Curry Farms or whoever and when is that going to take
place? Is that going to take place on approval of the northern half of that
plat because I think people at that time are concerned about until the
improvements are made, either on Teton or the Alternate 3, who owns that
road after the northern half of the plat is approved?
Bill Engelhardt: Maybe Centex can address that. '
Tom Boyce: Mr. Carlson owns all of the road really up to Franco's
property. He also owns the property up in here. We're trying to get across II
here. Mr. Carlson is not interested in selling part of his road and frankly
it would be quite an expense. If I were him, I wouldn't want to own a road
over here and have everyone else have an access that it would be my
responsibility to attend or liability that goes along with it so if
everything works right and the alternatives involve Centex and involve Mr.
Carlson and I'm sure the neighbors and City Council... We prefer basically
Alternate 1 and at that time basically when the plat is approved, I don't
know the exact timing before the plat's approved or after the plat's
approved...a matter of a couple days we would dedicate it back to the City
so at that point it would become, call it right-of-way.
Jim Donovan: Is there any chance of Carlson selling it in sections? In
other words , selling you part and selling the other owners the other part of
it so he's out of it completely and doing away with Teton Lane. Making it
totally a driveway out of there like you stated before to come out onto Road
G and then out to Road E? I don't use it. I'm never going to use it.
Bill Engelhardt: The only way that would happen is for Centex to buy it or
make their purchase agreement with purchase with the Carlsons and then
people if they want it and then sell the balance off to whoever wanted it.
Jim Donovan : Then redo the property so the road does not exist?
Bill Engelhardt: That's right. Then you can extend the property lines out
and the road would not exist. That's basically what we're saying under
Alternate 3 that if we go with Alternate 3 , somehow we want to get rid of
Teton Lane. We don't want to have to maintain it. We don't want to have
the problems associated with it.
Jim Donovan: I'm saying none of us have ever been given the opportunity to
say that well , if Carlson will only sell part to Centex , will he sell part
to Tony or . . .
Gary Warren : He wants to get out from underneath the road . '
Jim Donovan: I can understand that but if he sells part to Centex and then -
he would sell part to us , that would solve all the problems because Lilac
Lane would no longer exist as long as Teton and Alternate 3 was done because
then he would have the Foley' s coming out onto Road G.
Gary Warren: One of the problems we have with it is, we're looking at a II considerable of cost here and effectively have a 20 lot cul-de-sac still and
to be honest with you, the 21 lots right now have been marked on the road
5
I
then same way.
IJim Donovan: But also you're saying that the people up here are the ones
that are going to eventually pay the burden of the utilities of going in on
that.
Gary Warren : If this road stayed as a roadway and at some point in the
I
future these lots were divided, whatever, you would have to put utilities
Iin . The municipality has the responsibility. . .
Jim Donovan: Understood but we're saying that the present owners would now
Ibear the burden where these people in Curry Farms would have the benefit.
We would not have the benefit because we're not developing. It wouldn't
matter whether we had developed or not developed. You're saying that
eventually this thing is going to be made into a roadway because a 2 inch
Iblacktop is not going to handle the situation. You're going to have 210 to
230 cars a day coming over there to Curry Farms .
Bill Engelhardt: What I'm saying is, I disagree with that. If the roadway
has been structured properly with the proper base, a 2 inch bituminous mat
will carry that traffic.
IJim Donovan : The purchase of the road would solve all problems.
Bill Engelhardt: We would like to see that but in lieu of that happening,
Ithat's why in my recommendation in my report was going with Alternate 2, it
kept the cost down for the people that are not benefitting from this road .
Alternate 2 says that the cost for upgrading this with a 2 inch mat be born
Iby the developer, Curry Farms. That goes to the full development stage and
this property was split into lots and they had access onto it, this property
is split and this property is split, then they have benefit for the full
development .
Jim Donovan: You're saying that the town will never ask us to bear the
burden of storm sewers and anything else as long as we do not develop our
Iproperties here?
Bill Engelhardt: That ' s basically what I 'm saying .
IResident: Is it not true that all it takes to get the village to do the
improvement in Alternate 2 is a petition of the taxpayers?
IBill Engelhardt: That ' s true.
Resident: Supposing that 21 people down in Curry Farms decide that they
"' wanted that road upgraded and petitioned for it, where would that leave the
rest of us?
Gary Warren: The assessment process that you heard, can be motivated or
Iinitiated by any petition from anybody for that matter. The City Council
would have to choose to accept the petition and authorize a feasibility
study. This feasibility study shouldn't be confused with that process.
IThey also addressed the same issue. This is not to determine accessibility
or anything as far as the benefit. This is just to address the access
question. Take your example, say 5 people from the Centex development
I6
petitioned the City to improve Teton Lane, there would be a hard look I
guess at seeing who's benefitting from it. That's always a key issue up
front as to whether we accept a feasibility and quite honestly, for whatever
reason the Council decides that yes, I think Teton Lane should be improved
and we have a petition of from people down at Centex , the cost of the
improvement will ultimately spread across to the people in that area that
are petitioning for the improvement. A broader look would be taken at
who really benefits and not.
Resident: When you say spread, does that imply we would still assess the ,
abutting landowners?
Gary Warren: You would definitely be a benefitting property owner from the
fact that it abuts your property.
Resident: That's what I'm saying. No matter who does it... I don't '
understand why the abutting property owners . . .
Bill Engelhardt: Not for the full amount though but you are responsibility
for what's in front of your property and more area and more lots it spread
against, the less it would be. It wouldn't go strictly against each
property but you would still have benefit.
Resident: Let's assume we go with Alternate 1 and all the property owners
remain as it is right now, how many units would be on that assessment of
$103 , 000. 00? '
Bill Engelhardt : We looked at for the road , 42 units where Centex would be
assessed 21 lots as a part of the road cost. The sewer and water was
strictly against the abutting property owners. These people in this
particular development have their own sewer, would have their own sewer and
water. They would retain it through their lot cost so the sewer and water
is strictly from say this point to the north, and that would be assessed on a I
unit basis against the property. Again, the street itself, if we did
consider 21 units within this development. . .
Resident: I have a quick question about that. I was real confused when I
was reading about this. We have sewer and water to our property and I don't
understand why I have to be assessed for sewer and water .
Bill Engelhardt: If you have one house and you have one connection, you
have enough frontage where you would be eligible. The way we determine the
units , you have to have some basis to start and what we say is that the
minimum lot size is 15, 000 square feet with 90 feet of frontage so that's
where you develop your base on a unit level so if you have 180 feet of
frontage, you would be able to subdivide this property into two 15,000
square feet.
Resident: Even if I can't by city code subdivide it into two properties?
My house is pretty much right in the middle of my property. There' s no way
I could get two houses on there.
Bill Engelhardt: That ' s something that has to be looked at first . '
Resident: So that would take a closer look so in other words, I could
7 1
eventually not be billed?
IIBill Engelhardt : That' s possible.
Mr. Cameron: What I want to know is , now you said the sewer will come up to
Road H.
Bill Engelhardt : Can I ask you what your name is?
IMr. Cameron: Cameron. We don ' t have a choice.
Gary Warren : Not to deflect the issue here but the assessments and the
I
actual sanitary sewer and storm sewer system as a part of Alternate 1, we
asked Bill to look at that and that is the ultimate development situation
for those properties there. It's something that Mr. Donovan has expressed
Ihis views of not ever developing what he owns. It's something that's maybe
a point for the future. The roadway improvement really is, in a case of
point right here that. . .
IJim Donovan: My land is being put into a trust, a 99 year trust so that it
won ' t be developed.
II II Bill Engelhardt: But like Gary said, we have to include everything. I'm
not speaking about the land but as far as looking at the improvements that
would have to go in under that scenario. You would have to include yours in
Iif we did do it.
Resident: In planning for the future, including everything, can't you give
Ius a rough estimate, assuming we went number 1. . . -
Bill Engelhardt: I'm sure if you went to Mr. Carlson and said here, we want
to spend $5,000.00 and fix the roadway, he'd say fine, go ahead.
IGary Warren: At that point we've gone over and over and over who's using
the road and the condition of it. I think the key point is that it's not a
Ipublic road so any maintenance that the city has done, which we have done
some in the past. . .
IResident : I was trying to find out because those of us who do use it are
going to have to provide some minimal work done at least until that time and
that's what I wanted to know. I do think those of us who use it should bear
some cost. I think minimal cost if it's going to be changed in a year, we
Ishould do it but we have to plan for the winter or some of us are going to
sit in our houses from November until May.
IBill Engelhardt : That's why we were kind of trying to get at two different
issues here. One was to get you people in and out in a comfortable manner
and get the city to start maintaining the thing and the other issue is to
get the third access for the subdivision without having to go to an extreme
cost for everybody and that was the whole thrust of the thing .
Resident: Let me pose a hypothetical and see if you can give me an answer
' to it. If the road dedication is accepted based on Alternate 2, minimal
upgrading of the road , when would the road be accepted by the City and when
the improvements be made?
I 8
Bill Engelhardt : I maybe can answer that and Gary correct me if I 'm wrong , II
but what I would think would happen on this , as soon as the development
agreement was signed on the second phase, that Centex would then, if they
had purchased that, they would then dedicate to the City and the City would
have to start taking care of it.
Tom Boyce: ...I'm proposing the same thing really up here. I guess if the
cost, we're all getting.—and if everything goes alright I would guess we'll II
be in sometime this winter and then right away in the spring, we'll probably
start grading so I think the first thing we'll probably do is to go in there
and.—will be dedicated to the City. By the same token, maybe we could go
in and grade Teton right away and put the rock down, put the asphalt down
and basically close it off except for everybody using it as an access. Then
I would leave it alone. I would assume also that the developer has a one or
two year warranty period.—so it's in our best interest to keep the traffic
out of there. . .
Resident: I'm also interested in that. I've been there 25 years and in
that time that area in there, it seems like the snow comes and just hauls
in. I've seen it as high as 4 feet of snow where they had to bring in a
gravel truck with a deep plow in order to get us out of there and that's how
bad it can get. I'm thinking this winter if nobody is going to plow that
snow, how are we going to get in and out of there. Helicopter in and feed
us? Somebody' s going to have to do something about it .
Gary Warren: Who plows it?
Resident : Carlson .
Gary Warren : Do you pay him for that?
Resident: No and that's why I don't have any terrible objection to this. I II
just want to get this established because we've got to lay some lines for
winter. ...I have spent 3 days trapped in our house when the plow came and
took our deposit early in the year and then when the first snow fall fell I
did not return our calls so I said, did I forget to tell you I'm not plowing
this year and at that point we were trapped probably in that house for 3
days. Now, I don't want to go through that again. All I wanted to do was
find out where the responsibility is , what the timing is and is our
resopnsibility or Carlson ' s , that ' s all I want to do .
Gary Warren: I think Tom gave you a good scenario of that. As soon as it's II
paved and the City is provided with acceptable paving, we would take over.
Resident: I think one of the big concerns I have as I read the feasibility II
study as I went through it line by line and I was really surprised at the
way the feasibility study came out. It appeared to come out exactly the way
the City staff wanted it to come out and it appeared to come out that the
developer is the least cost to the developer and the surrounding '
neighborhood is going to have to bear the brunt of everything. Whether it
be provided by Teton Lane. As a matter of fact, Lilac Lane wasn't even
addressed and the cost of—.was never addressed and the big thing that
really hit me was that the recommendation had Teton Lane upgraded to a rural
road with 200 and some trips a day, some of the problems that occurred on
9 1
Teton Lane prior to this development, because there were several trips a
Iday through the stables, some of the things, if they were addressed they
were never stated in the feasibility study. An actual direct comparison on
the advantages or improvements or decreasing or however it would be
affected. The general safety of the neighborhood affected by going Teton
ILane, there is absolutely no address, nothing in there to the safety of
pedestrians in there and kids. There is absolutely nothing addressed to
side... There was nothing addressed to the vertical and horizontal sight
Idistance problems which Teton Lane coming into Lilac Lane and just exactly
what's been discussed here in the last couple minutes. The winter
conditions on Lilac Lane to Teton Lane for access for emergency and just for
Ithe general population access. It's difficult enough as it is and there's
going to be no improvement of that, there's going to be made slippery. I
live right close to Teton and so far I've had two cars come over the
III embankment and down over about a 6 foot or 5 foot wall in my yard. There's
Inothing to address that. Nothing to address those steep approach grades.
No comparison on the three different alternatives, what effect they're going
to have. There was no discussion as to the impact on the quality of the
Ineighborhood as far as the increased traffic and the speeder traffic.
They've been able to go fairly slow because the condition of Teton Lane.
If that's paved, that will be a 40 mph highway up there and that's a very,
very abrupt and very sharp turns and virtually no sight distance to the
Isouth and east onto Lilac Lane which is where the access road and there's
been nothing addressed as to how that's going to be solved and how much of
their property is going to be taken to improve those sight distances. If
ITeton is upgraded to a road, then some of those things are going to have to
be addressed. There was nothing addressed in the feasibility study as to
what the cost is going to be the non-benefitting property owners. Namely
those on Lilac Lane. There was nothing addressed to the, no one came and
I
asked anybody their opinion on what their concerns were in the neighborhood
that we were able to discover. I don't know if anybody here ever spoke to
anyone during the feasibility study. I know I never did and nobody I talked
IIto so far. The only real thing that was addressed in the feasibility study
was the cost benefits to the developer and I personally feel that all the
other _things should have come prior to that. I think that because of that,
Imy personal opinion is , I don't know how anybody can come to a bottom line
on this feasibility study and recommend the rural improvement of Teton Lane
only because it only costs the developer $16,000.00 and everybody else is
Igoing to have to bear the brunt of any repercussions of that improvement of
the neighborhood when all that number 3 is going to provide is a safer ,
shorter and less costly access route for the people that are not benefitted
by the development of Curry Farms .
IBill Engelhardt: I'm not going to say that all those things are in there.
A lot of it has been given, let me put it that way and given is, let's say
Ithe assessments. Assessments for benefitting property. Your Mr. Simcox who
live in Shorewood and live on the north side of the road, we can't determine
that there's any benefit to him. We have no benefit so you can't get
llassessed. If Lilac Lane was in the future developed and what we're saying
is that's so far down the road, we can't even put a number on that, what
it's going to be. As far as the safety issues, you have to keep in mind
that you're not looking at a major collector road. You're not looking at a
Ifreeway or something like that. You're looking at a typical residential
street. A typical residential street by state statute has a 30 mph speed
limit. If somebody drives 40 on it, the police department can tag them.
I 10
I'm telling you we can't do anything about it other than post it and saying
that by State Statute that ' s the speed limit. '
Resident : We' re the people who live there have the experience.
Bill Engelhardt: I know. It happens in front of my street where I live. I I
see people drive 40 mph but from a safety issue standpoint, it's the 30 mph
speed limit. From a pedestrian standpoint, you're not putting any sidewalks
in. None of the roadways in this development have sidewalks. That's how I
you address the issues like building walkways, sidewalks and paths. Without
that it would be no different than any other residential street that you
have in Chanhassen. Your question about a 50 foot road, no. These are not
50 foot roads. These are 50 foot right-of-ways. The roadway is I believe
28 feet from back of curb or back part of gutter to gutter .
Resident: . . .on Teton? '
Bill Engelhardt: Teton right-of-way or easement is 33 feet. The proposed
street section to go in at this point is 24 feet which is a standard rural
section for the City of Chanhassen. Where you have a rural development you
have 24 feet of blacktop. When you have curb and gutter you have to widened
that out to 28 feet and you don't have any sidewalks so you have, from a
safety standpoint pedestrian and bicyclists and the only way you're going to I
address that is by requiring sidewalks and walkways and that so those are
kind of given too. As far as the obtaining of land, there's no question
that when you're constructing a new street of the nature of this one, this
is going to have better sight distance on it because you're going to be
filling. There's substantial grading in here that has to be filled. You
have to have a minimum grade of 7% coming in to the hill. There is
substantial fill. This is obviously going to be cleaner, brand new street.
You're not going to have the vegetation that's been growing there for the
last 20 years so that ' s another given . Here you ' re going to have it.
Resident: Are you going to take it off up there or leave it?
Bill Engelhardt: You do it to an extent. You don't go in and clear cut it. I
You get the appropriate sight distance. When I've parked by car at Lilac,
there was some obstruction in this area and that might have to be cleaned
out but you try in the existing area to cut it back to a minimum. You don't
go in and clear cut. As far as acquiring right-of-way to widened this out,
here at Lilac already has . . .
Resident: There's nothing directed at the cost of that. In one portion of
the study it says it would be dedicated and another portion it would be
acquired .
Bill Engelhardt: Let me clear it up. If Teton Lane, if that proposal '
number 2 goes in or for that matter even Alternate 1, the property would be
acquired be given to the City the 33 feet be given to the City as public
right-of-way. In order to establish that, let's go back to Alternate 1. In I
order to put the full development plan in, I'm saying that yes, you have to -
go out and acquire that additional 17 feet. You must acquire that and the
City must go to Mr. Donovan and acquire that piece of property. If he's not I
willing to sell that piece of property, then the City has to use their right
of eminent domain to acquire that piece. of property and it must have the 50
11 '
foot right-of-way. If you don't do that, if you stay with the 33 feet on
IAlternate 2, I'm saying that by putting the bituminous curbs on, you do not
need a 50 foot right-of-way in order to construct ditches to drain. That
you can narrow that down and put a 24 foot bituminous roadway within that 33
feet of right-of-way.
IResident: Final question. Why is it so clearly stated that Alternate 3 is
the most costly of the three but when actually a large portion of the cost
Ifor Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 are not even addressed? Present and future
costs aren't even addressed in the study and yet Alternate 3, which the
bottom line says $72, 400. 00. . .
IIBill Engelhardt: That is actually correct and it's just a statement is all
it is. When you're comparing what we're comparing it to, this Alternate is
the most costly.
IResident: But the developer isn't the one that's going to benefit of that.
The developer, we are not going to benefit from Teton Lane.
IResident: My concern is the City Council is going to read this and assume
that this is correct and make a decision based on that and the fact is, the
IIAlternate 3 is not the most costly.
Bill Engelhardt : That's a good comment and if we need to modify that we can
do that.
IIResident : Centex purchased that property, is that not a possibility?
I/ Bill Engelhardt: Well, if you look at their plat and maybe they did. I
can't tell if they did or not but if you look at this and they've got their
lots , they will eliminate one lot in this area and you would have to acquire
right-of-way here. Let me get back to one point about comparing costs and I
Iguess I feel that I did have the cost apples- to apples because when I'm
saying that this cost right here is $72,000.00 as compared to the
improvement cost up here, leaving out the right-of-way costs. In this
Iparticular cost I didn't add in the lost of this piece of property. This is
a lost. That could be added in. The City of Chanhassen owns this piece of
property. They could sell that to the developer and I left that out. So I
think that the cost has been compared fairly close.
IMr. Ware: I would like Alternate 3, if you bought the damn road. Give it
to Centex and they can pile up their sand and go out on CR 17 .
Resident : Is sewer and water south from Lilac Lane on CR 17 in?
I
Gary Warren: . . . the sewer stops at about Pleasant View Road .
I
Resident : So we ' re dealing on all of the road on proposal number 3 . _
IResident: I would like to know how Centex feels about this. Theoretically
at least they're going to wind up with ownership of the road because they have
an option to buy. If I understand correctly, Carlson himself, through a
Ilittle coaltion of people... Centex would then have it within their right
to say, sorry, we're not going to sell to you. So if you just wanted to go
and not build, you could just refuse to sell to us so how does the developer
II 12
II
feel about Alternate 3?
Tom Boyce: My feelings about Alternate 3 are a couple. We looked at 1
Alternate 3. You remember after we picked our first neighborhood meeting, I
think you were at it and we looked at purchasing enough property here to
make the improvements along there so we've actually get some benefit of some
lots along there because for one thing, it's fairly hilly in there. There's
some fill and there's some woods and I don't know a lot of the property to
be honest with you, right in here in particular is buildable.
Resident: What happens in Alternate to the people through there? Who's
going to own that city of Chanhassen piece?
Gary Warren: The City owns it right now unless we worked out as a part of
the dedication easement but made no signed commitment.
Resident: Even if you put the road through, the City would still maintain
ownership of that property or you could give it to them?
Resident: At that point you've got a road on my south line, you've got a
12 foot dike on my back line and now you're got a lot on my north line. By
that time, you're better figure on buying my place. I'm going to have them
all around , all sides of me and that ' s too much .
Tom Boyce: We looked at this and the City Council's concern and ours as
well was to adequately give this property adequate fire and safety
protection so the City doesn't have to constantly maintain a long cul-de-
sac, there should be a connection here. There are 20 or 22 lots up in this
area. One of the problems we've got with Alternate 3 is, the reason we got
into this was to give us ultimate access. We still haveb't given this area
ultimate access really. I don't think it's really acceptable for the City
to build this road to get Alternate 3 .
Resident: But we don't forget Alternate 3. Does the City still have rights
to that? Is it still inbetween the lots?
Tom Boyce: I think so. Now we've got, like Bill pointed out, a long cul-
de-sac.
Gary Warren: Just to speak my personal opinion, that what I heard earlier
seemed to me to have a lot of potential and that is , to work out our sale of
Teton Lane to the north with a combination of purchasers. Not just Centex
and look at Alternate 3 as the viable connection. We also, we're looked at
the northern half of the plat and I guess we look at an access obviously
from the whole thing and Alternate 3 does have some improvements for access
to the south that can ' t be ignored also . I
Resident: Would the developer sell people the property of the same size
that he has .
Tom Boyce: If I've got to put in this road, I can't afford to sell that -
much.
Resident: You can't afford to maintain it either though. There's no way
you can get access to that northwest access .
13 '
I
IITom Boyce: We've got an easement across there too and everybody else in the
room has an easement, so do we.
Resident: To be truthful about this, the City and Metropolitan Council,
Iand ...those have to built there without sewer access and what's really
going to happen is.
ITom Boyce: We 've got sewer.
Resident: If the City is going to allow you to access across a gravel
Ieasement for that portion, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What you
had said and what Carlson had said is that he wasn' t going to allow you
access across there without the buying the entire road.
ITom Boyce: It doesn't make sense to have too many houses in there on the
cul-de-sac. That property were all subdivided, you would have the same
problem.
Jim Donovan: Don't even bring that into your thinking. There is no such
I
thing as development of this land.
IResident: Do I understand that Alternate 3 does not align with Alternate
3? Just that portion, the cost that you had in the study was $72,000.00 to
Idevelop that. That does not take into account the lost of the sale of the
house. So if you want to stay, you have to do that for the northern 800
feet of Teton Lane, you're going to ask a like amount to pick up your
expenses down there, is that correct?
ITom Boyce: Right .
Resident: In other words, what you really want to do is spend $16,000.00
instead of $72,000.00 and then the neighbors will pay is basically what it
boils down to .
ITom Boyce: Also, don't forget if Alternate 3 goes in, we're getting access.
There's no doubt about that. There's also another row of people here who
are going to have access .
IResident: What would be the circumstances of the City accepting a fully
dedicated Teton Lane? In other words, you build at full cost, sewer, water
and a whole road , the whole ballgame down to the end of Lilac Lane. He
Idoesn't want to do it one way and we do it the other way so we're caught
with your holding a contract with Mr. Carlson. 10 years from now when they
get the sewer. My concern is planning for the future. What's going to
happen .
Resident :.
What ' s going to happen say 10 years from today. . .
11Bill Engelhardt: You've got keep in mind but their primary access is
through the development.
Resident: That ' s a lot of baloney.
Bill Engelhardt: The thing is, Mr. Donovan has sat here and told us that
I 14
r
he ' s got a 99 year trust.
Gary Warren: As I commented earlier, the petition in itself does not
automatically deem that the Council will approve or accept the
recommendation to go into the feasibility step. Consideration of what we're
kicking around right here would be very significant. Parts of the rationale
if we want to go ahead and do that but the same as what you're saying here,
the property owner who buys Lot 11 here out of Curry Farms 2nd Addition who
buys a house in Stratford Hills is looking for any additional settlement . '
Resident: I guess one of my concerns is, we just bought the house right in
here. ...down on a nice quiet deadend street and we really felt, I know
this has nothing to do with the money, but it's a nice quaint neighborhood.
It had a rural feeling . There was no traffic . Only residential traffic .
Resident: We've lived there ever since—.We just like it the way it is.
We've lived here for many years and we like it without 200 cars a day coming
down Lilac Lane and trying to get up in this vicinity.
Resident: Who is going to buy that 56 acres for the sole purpose of keeping I
it rural anyway? The liklihood Cif that is pretty remote. The person who
tried to do it, as I understand it, had a tax struggle and couldn't anyway
and that' s why she sold it.
Gary Warren: When you're living within what we call the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area and when you're living in zoned single family areas, it's a
development pressure that you feel. Every plat that comes through the door II
here that we have to look at, it's a combination of we've lived here for so
many years and then somebody comes in and wants to develop and everybody has
their rights.
Resident: I don't mind the development going in. That's not the issue. My
issue is, if they're going to put the development in, why can't they just
access off of the development. . .
Resident: When is the City going to talk to Shorewood about that Lilac
Lane? I'm concerned about what will happen there. We anticipate that
Vickers will proably get their piece taken at such time as that Lilac Lane.
I know it ' s 10 years down the road . . . '
Bill Engelhardt: I don't even want to say 10 years but I think you've got
to remember that you say Vickers are going to have their land taken, that's
an incorrect assumption .
Resident: ...know Shorewood what they intend to do. Are they going to
require Simcox's on the corner to provide us with a turn lane? I think it 11 would be helpful for us to know that and to have those costs included in
what we're looking at here. In the past, Shorewood/Hennepin County so
you' re going to have a little competition up there with snowplows .
Bill Engelhardt: No, it's very common to have a sharing of a street between -
muncipalities. In other words, West 82nd Street, a street in Chaska. They
plow part the west half . . .
Resident: I'm well aware of that. They do all their turning down at the
15
11
bottom of Town Line Road. Turning back and forth. That's my concern there
• is there going to be any cooperation. . .
II Bill Engelhardt: We keep going back to Alternate 1 and I prefer to stay
away from Alternate 1 because I don't think that's appropriate. It's
Isomething we had to address to give you a base but full development,
modified development and alternate access. As far as I'm concerned, the
Alternate 1 full development is not practical. Is not something that should
I be done.
Resident: I think if that's not feasible, then that shouldn't even be put
to a vote.
IResident: If you took this, what 5 property owners there, if you got sewer
and water there, would there be a problem getting access for sewer and
Iwater?
Resident: We've got it. On the east side by CR 17, you've got it on Carver
• County, somebody else owns that.
▪ Resident: On Alternate 3, you talk about you have to grade that road for
Ithe proper drainage and probably install a catch basin up there, now that
existing catch basin, would that require taking some of Vicker's property
for the swale?
IBill Engelhardt: It would be on the other side.
Resident: You mentioned that the point is that you get some input from this
Iand we discuss and put it back on the agenda for final approval.pproval. I have
been told that there is a process by which preliminary plat approval and it
also can get final approval by just allowing a certain number of days to
elapse and it doesn't even have to come back before the City Council. Some
ICity Council's take advantage of that. Does. Chanhassen take advantage of
that or would this definitely come up for rediscussion before final
approval?
IBill Engelhardt: This is a condition of the original approval of the
preliminary plat to go through this process .
IBarbara Dacy: The only scenario that I think you could be thinking of, I
think that is only in regards to if there has been no action taken by the
Council on the preliminay plat. Then there is a time clock set by State
IStatue and I think it is 120 days but the Council has taken action as Gary
said and has made it a condition .
IResident: I was relieved to hear Donovan say that he and second generation
of his family aren't going to develop but I address a question in your
feasibility study confuses me. On the last page under Road E it says that _
Ifuture development of the Donovan property will have to address access
through the Ware property. What do you mean?
Bill Engelhardt: What I'm saying that, and again that's Alternate 3 where
Ithis is disappeared. If you right now have your access this way and it may
be all well and good that you're going to be there for the next 20 years and
maybe after that 2nd generation that this gets developed, that somehow this
I 16
II
was developed, that if you ran a street up in here and cul-de-saced it, that
you would have to provide access . '
Resident : You haven' t seen the other old road that goes down in there.
Bill Engelhardt: No. I'm just saying, you have to anticipate potential I
problems. I don't know if I answered all of your questions tonight but we
got a lot of good input from you people and we have about 10 minutes left I
guess . 1
Resident : There' s something in here stating that, if Teton is. . .
Bill Engelhardt: You have to go back in and rededicate it and whoever owned II
it then would have to file a plat on it and open it up.
Gary Warren: As development or whatever would occur, it's likely that the
Curry Farm area, those roads until a plat is approved and sketch out their
lots and the land is dedicated or acquired, depending... Teton Lane could
very well go away completely with this scenario and that's why I'm
telling . . .
Resident : What you' re saying then is Carlson can only sell to Curry Farms?
Gary Warren: He has an option right now, or he has the first right of
refusal on that.
Resident: What I'm saying is, if he sells in two sections, that way we
don't have to buy your lot. I'm saying he can sell to the landowners there
plus . . .
Bill Engelhardt: I was telling Gary too and Tom, that if Mr. Kerber might
not like this but if this piece of property was given to Curry Farms and
they were able to develop lots where they ca.n offset their cost , then the
cost for this would go down. What they' re trying to do is . . .
Resident : And losing number 15? '
Bill Engelhardt: 15 and 14 actually. They would have to shift this a little
bit so that you get one buildable site so I think they would lose one lot so
you ' ve got the cost of the lot that you lose plus . . .
Resident: You' re going to shift it and you ' re still not going to be able. . .
Gary Warren: But maybe with the possibility of the other fragmented pieces
of the City property.
Resident : What kind of time table are we looking at for say the City '
Council to take action on this?
Gary Warren: We're looking at, I've basically pulled it off Monday night's I
agenda because we wanted to get your input here and there wasn't enough time -
to take those thoughts and modify the report if appropriate and knowing the
Council agendas, which are packed up here pretty heavily for the next
several meetings, I would suspect we'll be getting it back on the agenda in
the next 4 to 6 weeks and you will be notified of the exact time.
17 I
1
IResident : If the City wanted to explore the idea of going with number 3 ,
I one of the key questions is, would the City be willing to give that lot, in
dedication or whatever, to the developer at no cost? Is it buildable? How
do we go about finding that out?
IGary Warren: We would have to check that out. I guess that's one of those
things that we'll integrate into that Alternative. We can't speak for the
II Council but we can make a staff recommendation on the alternatives. Say
this is the one we would make happen.
IResident: But would Centex be willing to provide some figures for just
recuperating your cost on the assumption that the City would do that and
could a fair amount of what the cost would be versus utilizing some of that
and how much he would have to buy back. Would you be willing to do that?
ITom Boyce: Sure. I 'm not in to make money off the neighbors .
IResident:, Does the City have any long range plans for that property there?
It ' s been sitting there forever .
Gary Warren : I think it came from the realignment of the road when the
county road when in there. It' s really challenging from a land use.
Larry Kerber : I don' t know how I could possible operate with him on three
II sides of me. At that time I would be at every councilman's door. If you're
going to give him that lot, put them on three sides of me, they're going to
have to buy me. This is ridiculous. They're on three sides of me at this
IIpoint or is this the plan you're trying to work out of it?
Resident: Are you concerned about the northern route for your business
Larry or?
ILarry Kerber: I'm concerned about what they're leaving me with. Right now
I've got a 12 foot bank on one side, I 've got a road and I 've got a 300 foot
bank, 12 foot high in the back and who knows what I'll get on the north
side. What is my land going to look like what ' s left.
Gary Warren : That ' s a wooded piece of property isn ' t it?
ILarry Kerber : Yes. Certain portions of it.
IBill Engelhardt: You can do things like the City can give it to them on the
condition that there be 25 or 35 foot buffer between the Kerber's property.
That that would always remain and there are things that we've done. I've
seen that happen all the time.
Resident : Would that be a part of Larry' s . . .
Resident: Regardless of what you do on this, how do we get them to lower the
speed limit on CR 17? _
IGary Warren : Roger Gustafson . The County Engineer .
Bill Engelhardt: The County would have the ask the State to do a speed zone
I
•
18 ~
II
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, TETON LANE FEASIBILITY STUDY
THURSDAY, MARCH 3 , 1988
Gary Warren, City Engineer, called the meeting to order at 5 : 30
p.m. Staff present were: Gary Warren, City Engineer; Barbara
Dacy, City Planner; Bill Engelhardt, Consultant.
Homeowners present were: '
Tom Boyce, Centex Homes
Mark Simcox, 21600 Lilac Lane, Shorewood, MN
Donna Pickard, 1215 Lilac Lane
Charlie Pickard, 1215 Lilac Lane
Larry Kerber, 6420 Powers Blvd.
Kathy Kerber, 6420 Powers Blvd.
Frank and Florence Natoli , 6251 Teton Lane
Deb and Ann Ware, 1225 Lilac Lane
Jim Donovan, 1375 Lilac Lane
Franco Loris, 6400 Teton Lane
Gary Warren stated that the purpose of the meeting was to gain
input from the neighborhood regarding the revised Teton Lane '
Feasibility Study. He stated that staff has not, as of yet, made
a decision as to which alternative would be recommended since
neighborhood and Centex input was desired prior to making that
determination. He stated that he anticipates that the item
would be scheduled for the City Council meeting on March 14,
1988.
Barbara Dacy reviewed the status of the Centex development. She
stated that the first phase is under construction and the second
phase will begin pending the outcome of the Teton Lane
Feasibility Study process.
Bill Engelhardt gave an overview of the feasibility study
describing each alternative and explaining the appendices
included in the report.
Mrs. Natole wanted clarification from Centex as to the purchase '
price of Teton Lane. She stated that she heard that the price
was $200,000 and she felt that that was too much to split between
four property owners . '
Mr. Boyce from Centex stated that the $200, 000 figure is probably
for the entire Carlson property which included the Teton Lane
strip. Mr. Boyce stated that Centex prefers Alternative #2 . He
stated that as another option that the City consider not allowing
a third access at all, meaning that neither Alternative #2 nor
Alternative #3 should be considered ( this would mean that the '
subdivision would act fully on the Phase I accesses to Powers
Blvd. and Lake Lucy Road) .
Gary Warren clarified that the City Council action in approving ,
the preliminary plat was that the first phase development con-
tained two access points ; however, the second phase was not
I
TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
' MARCH 3 , 1988
PAGE 2
' approved so that the feasibility study could analyze the secon-
dary access issue. He stated that the Planning Commission and
City Council adopted a condition that if the Teton Lane connec-
tion is not part of the approved preliminary plat for the second
phase, that the plat be taken back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Simcox stated that there were a number of ways to determine
the value of the Teton Lane roadway. He stated that there should
be no way that property owners should be forced to pay something
out of their price range. Engelhardt confirmed that it could
' either be done by an assessment procedure or by an appraisal
method. He said that the last option would be to condemn the
property and take public acquisition in that manner. He said
' that through the condemnation process the courts would establish
the value of the property. Engelhardt stated that the best
method would be to conduct an appraisal on the property to deter-
, mine it' s value. Gary Warren clarified that the term
"assessment" may not be the best word in this case. He stated
that the price of the land area for Teton Lane would be a subject
of private negotiation.
' Simcox stated that it should be clear from Centex as to exactly
how much they pay in their purchase agreement for Teton Lane.
Simcox stated that he felt that the value of the southern portion
of Teton Lane would be considerably higher than the portion of
Teton Lane on the north.
' Engelhardt cautioned that any type of valuations would be purely
speculative at this point until an appraisal is conducted.
' Donna Pickard stated that the homeowners needed to know a price
as to how much Teton Lane would cost to acquire.
' Tom Boyce from Centex stated that they did have a purchase
agreement executed with Mr. Carlson and that agreement also
required Centex to do some other improvements for Mr. Carlson.
He stated that another alternative for Centex would be not to
' come back and construct the final phase.
Simcox stated that there was another buyer available to purchase
' the remaining property if the second phase was not constructed.
Gary Warren asked Engelhardt about the summary of costs on page
' 3 , if Alternative #3 costs included Centex ' s cost for acquiring
the Teton Lane roadway.
Engelhardt stated that it did not, nor did it include a cost for
' land acquisition for the City' s property.
Gary Warren stated that if the City sold the Teton Lane property
' back to abutting property owners that this money could be used to
help reimburse Centex for a portion of their expense to Carlson.
1
TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
MARCH 3 , 1988 ,
PAGE 3
Tom Boyce stated that the purchase agreement with Carlson for
Teton Lane was approximately $35, 000.
Jim Donovan stated that it really comes down to two alternatives, ,
#2 and #3. He said that is obvious that Centex has a lot of
investment in the first phase. He stated that Centex' s agreement
with Carlson is to purchase the entire right-of-way portion. He
said the next question becomes one of benefit. He stated that if
Teton remains the way it is now the people that use the road can
benefit from it and can maintain it as it is. Whereas, if Centex
buys it and dedicates it to the city and a two inch mat is placed
on the roadway, then the people from the Centex development can
use it and then there is a possibility for a future assessment
cost for maintenance. If Centex buys the entire Carlson property,
he questioned why Centex couldn't put the roadway in along Teton
and instead of dedicating it to the city, give it to the abutting
property owners . He stated, why not give Teton Lane to the
homeowners before the access onto County Road 17 is built.
Engelhardt clarified that the City Council as an option could
determine that all three alternatives are not viable. If that is
the case, then Centex would have to go back to the Planning
Commission for re-evaluation of whether or not a third access is
needed from the development. '
Donovan stated that he did not need Teton Lane to be developed.
The people in Centex will benefit but the people that currently
abut Teton Lane will not benefit.
Gary Warren stated that alternative #2, the intermediate option,
was to recognize that Curry Farms did have some benefit to Teton -
Lane and should pay for the improvement of Teton Lane. He stated
that in all fairness under alternative #1, Centex could not be
required to make a full improvement because there are other prop-
erties that would benefit from the full improvement, especially
for sewer and water.
Donna Pickard questioned why there was benefit to some of the ,
property owners . She stated she could not understand how anybody
would benefit.
Engelhardt stated that the property value has to increase con-
currently with the amount of the assessment. He stated that he
was confident that this was the case using a 90-foot lot width
and a 15 , 000 square foot lot.
Gary Warren clarified that when the term benefit is used, it is
used not only in reference to what existing conditions are but
also what future conditions should be, for example, that the lot
could be split in the future.
Donna Pickard said that existing sewer and water services could
accommodate any type of future development on her property or the
Donovan property. I
TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
MARCH 3 , 1988
PAGE 4
' Engelhardt stated that the rules are that if the lot can be resub- •
divided into 90-foot wide lots and 15, 000 square foot lots , that
is the basis for assessment. A feasibility study would have to
look at where existing sewer lines are and determine where future
service would be required. He repeated that the purpose of alter-
native #1 was for illustrative purposes only.
Simcox stated that none of the future costs of the alternatives
are stated.
' Ann Ware asked what the cost would be to challenge an assessment.
Engelhardt stated that it could take as long as three years and
your costs would be based on how much your attorney would charge.
Mr. Natole stated that under alternative #1 they were assessed for
two units but their house is located in the middle of the lot.
Engelhardt stated that he went strictly by road frontage. He
' stated that if the lot could not be split, the assessment would go
down to one unit.
Gary Warren clarified that the purpose of the study was to look at
the access issues and not necessarily the feasibility study costs
and assessment costs for a public improvement.
Jim Donovan reiterated his request to have Centex deed the portion
of Teton Lane back to the property owners and not to the city. He
felt that it would solve the city' s problem as it would not have
' another road to maintain.
Engelhardt stated that would be up to the City Council to decide.
' Donovan stated that he wanted to be sure that staff understood the
homeowners ' desires.
' Engelhardt stated that it could be included in the staff report.
Donovan stated that alternative #3 is his recommended option.
Simcox stated that alternative #3 did not address the Cameron and
Brancel properties. He stated that it did not show what future
costs would be for future assessments to the Cameron, Carlson and
Brancel properties.
Gary Warren clarified that while there is no city policy for
future road costs for 5 to 10 years in the future, he stated that
the city is responsible for maintaining the road either through
sealcoating or minor patchwork. He stated that if Teton Lane is
improved via alternative #2 , that the city would be accepting
TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
MARCH 3 , 1988
PAGE 5
maintenance responsibilities until any policy change would occur
regarding upgrade of existing streets .
Simcox stated that the Cameron/Brancel properties would appear to
be attractive lots that would increase in value.
Engelhardt clarified that the Cameron/Brancel property does not abut
the proposed street in alternative #3 . He also stated that there
were other outlots in and around that road which separated private
owners from the roadway. He stated that there could be no direct
benefit assessed. He also stated that the city' s property south of
the proposed road in alternative #3 is proposed to be conveyed to
Larry Kerber. This would depend on negotiations with the
Kerbers .
Gary Warren stated that Centex could buy the Cameron and Brancel
property and create some additional lots to reduce the cost of the
road going through that area. '
Tom Boyce stated that Centex did evaluate that option. He stated
that there would need to be a tremendous amount of grading to
occur. He stated that the option was not financially feasible.
Larry Kerber stated that he was confused about alternative #3 . He
stated that in the report it said "conveyed" to Larry Kerber and I
"transferred" to Centex. He asked what the difference in terms were.
Engelhardt stated that there was no difference in terminology. '
Kerber asked if he had to buy that property.
Engelhardt responded that a value would have to be established by-
an appraisal. The city would have the option of conveying that
property to Kerber at no direct cost. He stated that a drawback to
this could be that other tax payers in the community could
question the appropriateness of the city conveying city owned
property to a private property owner at no cost.
Donovan stated that it should not be an issue because the con-
veyance
of the properties will enable the increase in value of
the propperty and allow them to be buildable lots which would
generate taxes .
Engelhardt agreed but stated that it is an option that the Council
should be aware of and it would be up to them to determine the
final value and the sale price.
Mr. Natole questioned why his property was being assessed for two
units under alternative #1. He stated that there would be no way
to split his property to the east. He would have to create a new
road in order to split his property.
TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
I MARCH 3 , 1988
PAGE 6
IEngelhardt stated that there are options where road right-of-ways
can be split along property lines. He said that it is not
Iimpossible to accomplish.
Gary Warren stated that the units in the report address frontage
units.
IKathy Kerber asked where alternative #3 came from.
I Engelhardt stated that during the City Council meeting that the
Council directed staff to look at the access issue.
' Tom Boyce stated that Centex did look at that alternative origi-
nally. He stated that when they evaluated that option, they
would have to acquire the Cameron and Brancel property and to
buy and develop it would not be financially feasible.
IBarb Dacy clarified that the recommendation for the third access
was brought up at the City Council meeting on May 4 , 1987, at the
Irequest of Mr. Simcox.
Kathy Kerber asked why the third access is required.
I Engelhardt responded by saying that the city prefers to have a
secondary access for public safety reasons and for free flow of
traffic between neighborhoods. He stated that they could look at
I the no build alternative or no third access into the develop-
ment.
l Larry Kerber stated that if no access is proposed, he stated that
he felt he would receive at least 50% more traffic on the road tG
the south. He stated that he felt that his original concerns
were never addressed.
IGary Warren stated that the do nothing alternative was always a
consideration and would be mentioned in the staff report.
ISimcox asked what the staff recommendation would be.
Gary Warren stated that staff had not made a decision at this
I point and would evaluate the comments received at this meeting
before making any recommendations .
I Simcox stated that the biggest concern to the homeowners was the
uncertainty of future costs in alternatives #1 and #2 . He stated
that alternative #3 is more finite.
IGary Warren stated that the biggest down side of alternative #3
is the amount of negoitations that have to occur in order for
alternative #3 to be viable.
I
I
TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
MARCH 3 , 1988 ,
PAGE 7
Simcox stated that alternative #3 should not be avoided just
because there were a lot of items to be accomplished.
Engelhardt stated that it was an unfair statement. He stated 1
that staff was trying to point out that it is not a simple pro-
cess and that it can be complicated.
Simcox stated that those items should be specifically listed so
that everyone understands what is required.
Warren stated that it is difficult to get a handle on it until '
negotiations begin.
Mr. Ware stated that they would recommend implementation of '
alternative #3.
Mrs . Ware stated that she was uncomfortable that the future costs
of alternative #1 and #2 were not specifically identified. She
was especially concerned about future impacts to Lilac Lane.
Jim Donovan said that most of the people in the room were in '
favor of alternative #3 also.
Tom Boyce from Centex asked the city to consider not conveying '
the southerly portion of the city' s property adjacent to the
roadway to Larry Kerber.
Larry Kerber wanted to know where the sewer lines were in County ,
Road 17 .
Warren stated that he had to check the plans for sure but there '
is sewer and water in the area.
Mr. Pickard stated that the homeowners have to live with the
traffic from the Centex development and the future costs are not
defined at this point. He stated that it seemed unfair that the
homeowners have no choice but to accept the traffic from this
development.
Warren stated that the area is zoned for 15 ,000 square foot lots
and it is available to be resubdivided.
Jim Donovan stated that the current property owners do not want
to subdivide their lots any more. He stated that the property
owners are the ones that have to live with the Centex development
and do not benefit from the Teton Lane improvement. He stated
that there is no way his property is going to be increased in
value of $33, 000.
Warren stated that that figure comes from alternative #1 and is
for only an example. He also stated that if there were to be any
1
TETON LANE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
I MARCH 3 , 1988
PAGE 8
Iother improvements to the area then it would have to go through
another public hearing process.
IDonna Pickard stated that she feels her property values will go
down with the additional traffic that will be experienced from
the development. She stated that she is going to be a little
I more reluctant to see her kids playing outside because the danger
that the additional traffic will pose. She stated that she moved
from Minneapolis to live in a place where there was no traffic
Icongestion.
Larry Kerber asked why there was a difference in road surfaces
between #1 and #2 .
IEngelhardt stated that alternative #1 proposes a road surface which
has approximately a ten year life. Alternative #2 is proposed as
I a rural section where there is less blacktop. He stated that
there is a potential for future development of the road and
improvement to an urban section.
Warren said that staff' s evaluation resulted in trying to accom-
modate 210 trips per day. Alternative #2 can accommodate that
type of traffic. He stated that until the day that ultimate
I development does occur for abutting properties, that alternative
#2 provides an adequate interim solution.
I Larry Kerber stated that he did not understand the homeowners
concern for future costs if the road on alternative #2 can accom-
modate existing and proposed traffic.
IWarren stated that he did not anticipate any future upgrade of -
alternative #2 until an urban section would be required by future
development.
IThe meeting was adjourned at 6 : 15 p.m. Gary Warren thanked
everyone for attending.
II
I
I
I
I
r.'"�"^—• - •■•-) MAYOR
Robert Rascop
d I 1 ;'87 COUNCIL
v I_ Jan Haugen
Kristi Stover
L" Y r_ Robert Gagne
�' CHAP1i1r���=,'') Barb Brancel
CITY OF ADMINISTRATOR Vogt
Daniel J Vogt
SHOREWOOD
- 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-3236
July 21, 1987
Mr. Don Ashworth '
City Manager
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Subject: Curry Farms
Dear Don:
The City of Shorewood has been attempting to keep abreast of all of the
development taking place in Chanhassen. By newspaper accounts, it appears
as though the platting of property is taking place in very high numbers.
I'm sure this is keeping you and your staff very busy.
The Shorewood City Council has discussed such development especially that
which is near our common boundaries. As a general statement of concern,
the City of Shorewood requests that the street systems within these
developments be directed away from existing residential neighborhoods and
onto streets which are capable of increased traffic loads. '
This concern is immediately of importance to Shorewood regarding the Curry
Farms Development. It is our desire that if a reasonable alternative
exists to direct traffic to County Road 17 (Powers Bouldevard) rather than
using Teton Lane to Lilac Lane, this alternative should be used. This
would then direct traffic away from the existing residential neighborhood
as previously mentioned.
I hope that you can understand our concerns regarding the prospect of
increasing traffic in existing residential neighborhoods. Rest assured
that our Planning Department will consider these same concerns when we
have similar Development proposals in Shorewood which abut Chanhassen.
Please contact me if you wish to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
CITY OF Sk1OPEWO D
I P
i ��c, '
Daniel J. -Vogt
City Administrator
cc: Brad Nielsen Barb Dacy
Gary Warren Ann Ware
Marc Simcox
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
IL
our— OF FOWL
Le: 1—r62.5 i C-
•
TETON LANE and LILAC LANE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Chanhassen City Hall 937-1900 Shorewood City Hall 474-3236
' 690 Coulter Dr. Z7J5 Country Club Rd.
Chanhassen Mn. 55317 Mn.Shorewood, 55_"
d ,,..,�,,,1
'
Chanhassen
rn Shorewood
TO: Mayor
Tom Harni lton Robert Rascop
Council Jay Johnson Robert Gagne
Bill Boyt Jan Ha
�_�ger�
Dale GEVing Kristi Stever
Clark Horn Barbara Brancel
Planning Commission Ladd Conrad
City Attorney Roger Knutson
' City Manager Don Ashworth Dan Vogt
Public Safety Jim Castleberry
City Engineer Gary Warren
Independent Engineer Bill Engelhardt
Public Works Don Zdr^a�i 1
City Planner Barbara Dacy Brad Nielsen
SUBJECT: THE FUTURE USE OF TETON LANE and LILAC LANE
' The Association wishes to cooperate with the appropriate public
representatives and governing bodies which provide economically,
the safety, service and general environment of their respective
communities.
We wish to inform you of our posit ion and reasoning concerning
1 the issue of Teton and Lilac Lanes as discussed at the May 4,
1987 Chanhassen, City Council meeting. The issue is complex but we
will be brief.
The alternate access across the proposed Lot 15,
Block 3, and City land to Carver County road 17
provides shorter cul de sacs, safer sight dist-
ances and better approach grades. We support this
alternative proposal made at the May 4th City
Council meeting.
BACKGROUND
The developer has proposed an 81 home development on the 56 acre
site, to be knowr, as "Curry Farms", and has received preliminary
approval of a portion of that plan. The developer has purchased
an option on a privately owned road known as Teton Lane, and
proposes to deed that road, unimproved, to the City of
Chanhassen. The City would then improve the road to municipal
street standards providing the necessary third access to Curry
Farms.
The developer has stated to the Planning Commission and the City
Council that they will not contribute money toward the
maintenance or improvement of the road beyond the pur chase of the
tract.
The property owners in the general area of Tetor, and Lilac Lanes
have formed the Teton and Lilac Lane Homeowners Association and
are concerned for: 1 ) the safety in the neighborhood, 2) loss of
property to right of way, and 3) the associated cost burden for
future improvements t o Teton and Lilac Lanes. It is our position
that a safer, and less costly alternative be constructed by the
developer.
Safety Considerations. The construct ion of a northern access from
County Road 17 is safer than Teton and Lilac Lanes for a number
of reasons.
1. Safer sight distances in both directions on County Road 17
than offered by Lilac Lane.
2. Better approach grades than either Lilac or Teton Lane, both
of which would require major adjustments to correct the existing
steep grades and 90 degree intersections that are difficult to
negotiate in bad weather.
3. Shorter cut de sac routes.
1
4
11
I
I Under the present plat proposal, the developer bears
absolutely no cost for any maintenance or i mprovement s to Teton
and Lilac Lames.
I 1. The City Planning Department Staff directed the developer to
incorporate Teton Lane as one of three accesses to the Curry
Farms site. The plat presented to the City Council shows that
I the developer will build the Southern access from Lake Lucy Road,
the Eastern access from County Road 17 directly south of the
Kerber property, but shifts all responsibility to maintain and/or
improve Teton and Lilac Lanes, as the Northern access route for
I Curry Farms, to the abutting property owners and the Cities of
Chanhassen and Shorewood.
I G. The developer presented the purchase of the unimproved Teton
Lane and its dedication to the City, as a generous "GIFT" to help
the City solve the Teton Lane nuisance problem. The developer
If i rrn ly denied any intentions to make further monetary
contributions toward maintenance or future i m provernent costs
required to create a third municipal street access to Curry
Farms. In fact, the developer had tried to purchase only the
I southern spur of Teton Lane. Only the southermost portion is
needed for a crossover to access the northwest acreage of the
development. The present owner refused to sell the southern
I portion alone and insisted that the developer purchase the entire
parcel.
I By dedication of Teton Lane to 'the City of Chanhassen the
developer will : 1) Be exempt from any short or long-term
maintenance responsibility, 2) Very effectively shift the cost
for the Curry Farms northern access route to the City and the
1 abutt ing property owners.
At the May 4, 1987 Council meeting, Counci Imember Geving
questioned whether the dedication of an unimproved private road
Iwas truly a favor to the City of Chanhassen. It is a question should be asked again.
I 4. The developer can construct a northern access to Curry Farms
at no cost to the Cit ies or abutting property owners. This
access would cross the developer' s Lot 15, Block 3 and property
I • presently awned by the City. This access will be north of a
large wooded buffer for the Kerber property and connect to County
Road 17.
IThis alternative would not set a precident for the City to accept
below standard dedications requiring Cities and existing property
owners to pay for street improvements for the sole benefit of
Idevelopers.
I
I
11
1
The costly improvement of Teton Lane is unnecessary. 1
1. The historical problems associated with Teton Lane have
resulted from traffic generated by the operat ion of a comercial
horse boarding and riding stable which has operated under a
conditional use permit granted by the City of Chanhassen. That
operation has moved from the site. Traffic over Teton Lane is
now diminished by more than 35% and consists of only the trips
made by the seven residents having easements over the road.
2. Fol lowing the completion of the Curry Farms development, (in
approximately 2 to 4 years) , S of 7 property owners with
easements over Teton Lane will directly front and be able to use
the streets within the Curry Farms development for access to
County Road 17 and Lake Lucy Road. Only one property owner will
continue to use a smal 1 port ion of Teton Lane.
IF, AFTER REVIEWING THE FEASIBILITY STUDY COMMISSIONED BY THE
CITY, the City determines that Teton Lane, (and possibly Lilac
Lane) , is to be :improved, it is the position of the Teton Lane
and Lilac Lane Homeowners Association that all expenses connected
with the maintenance of Teton Lane,_ and any future improvement to
Teton and Lilac Lanes to provide adeguat e northern access to
Curry Farms,_ should be entirely the responsibility of the
developer. The development of Curry Farms is the sole reason for
any improvement to Teton and Lilac Lanes. Only the developer
will make financial gains from improvements through the sale of
lots and homes in the Curry Farms development.
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
- r I ■ J , . ••=1111111 , 11=••■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■■ ■■■nommumMu 111111•••••••111 ■ • ■■■N■■■■■ ■■NNU■ ■■■■ ■ ■ ■
..m.• ■•m -.all NB•B ■ ■■■u■NNN■■■■■■■■■ ■■■N■■■■■■■■■
I N■■■ ■•■■■Uu ■ NN••BBN•■••••N•••••••■•■••••• 1
BN NN■■■■■■■■N■■NN■NNN■■■■■N■N■■■■■N■
N■■■ " ■■■■■■NN■■•■■■■■■■■■■IM■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
•
INNNN•N•N ' ■N■■NN■■N■■N■■!•■■■N■■■■■NN■■■■■•NN■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ I
IIN■p■ ■N■■ ■■■N■N■■■NN■N■■ u■■■■■N■N■■■■■■■■N■■■■!�::�iiii -:
■■■■■ ■■■N N■■■NN■ NN■■■■N■■■■■■■■■■■■∎:ii/■■■■■NN
1►1NN•■■■NN■N■B•• •■■N■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■N�MA■■■■■■■■N■■ '
11•11111111111•1111•1111 ■NN■■■■■ ■N■■■■■NN■N■NN■■■■■■N■■■■■■N•2r•■■u■■■■■■■■■■
11N■■NN►U ■■N■■■N■■■■N■■NN■NNN■■■N■■■NN■■••••••luN■N■■■■■■N■■ '
�v 8•■•■NNN■■N■■■N•iNa■•■■■ ■Hi
' '
THE TETON LANE & LILAC LANE
HOMEOWNERS ' ASSOCIATION
Representive Contacts m�
Chanhassen: Shorewood:
Ann Ware 474-69o2 Marc Simcox 474-5375
PROPERTY OWNERS IN CHANHASSEN
ACCESS TO LILAC LANE
Mr. & Mrs. C. PicJard 474-0821 Mr. & Mrs. L. Ware 474-6902 ~~
1215 Lilac Lane 1225 Lilac Lane
Excelsior , MN 55331 E:celsior , MN 55331 N�
'
Mr. & Mrs. J. Donovan 474-1170
1375 Lilac Lane
Excelsior , MN 55331 N�
PROPERTY OWNERS IN CHANHASSEN
EASEMENT HOLDERS ON TETON LANE N�
Mr. & Mrs. F. Natole 474-7622 Mr. D. Shackelton H: 479-2159
6251 Teton Lane 5062 PerTinsville Rd. O: 546-3018
Excelsior , MN 55331 Maple Plain , MN 55359 I
Mr. B. Cameron H: 474-6447 Mr. J. Brancel
70 Pleasant Lane W. On 829-2900 25785 Sunnyvale Lane N�
Ton[ a Bay, MN 55331 Shorewood , MN 55331 --
Mr. Franco iuris On 474-3578 Mr . � Mrs S Reamer 474-4481 N�
. G.
P. O. Bo: 263 6280 Teton Lane
ELelsiur , MN 55731 E celsior , MN 55371
PHOPERT'y OWNERS IN SHOREWOOD
ACCES9 TO LILAC LANE
Mr. & Mrs. M. A. Simco/ 474-5375 N�
21600 Lilac Lane
Shorewood , MN 55331
Mr. & Mrs. J. BrecE.heimer 474-8752 Mr. & Mrs E. Hartman 474-6911 N�
21710 Lilac Lane 21780 Lilac Lane
Shorewood , MN 55371 Shorewood , MN 55331
PROPERTY OWNER IN SHORFWOOD
WITH PROPERTY ADJACENT TO LILAC LANE
Mr. & Mrs. S. W. Simcox 474-9690 m�
6180 Mi ] l Street
Excelsior , MN 55331
' Gary Warren
Chanhassen City Hall
Dear Mr.Warren; 3/4/88
Concerning the 3rd access to the Curry Farms development: Donna and
I moved into this home a year ago. We loved Chanhassen and this
semi-rural neighborhood and thought we were buying a house on the
' corner of two quiet, dead end streets. This was to be the last home
we'd ever need to buy, but now. . .? We understand it is not
' realistic to expect the neighborhood never to be developed. Of
course it will be, eventually. Centex has come in and is developing
' property 1/4 mile south of us . No one in our immediate neighborhood
is or has any plans for developing. Yet, we may all have to live
with the drawbacks and burdens of someone elses development for
years after the developer has made its profits and left . The people
in this neighborhood did not ask for development, and certainly do
' not want Teton and Lilac Lanes to become through streets.
' You should not consider access alternative #2 . A temporary upgrade
brings the Centex development (traffic, noise; hazard to our
children, and potential costs, tax increases, etc. ) to our door,
with none of the benefits of development. This unfairly penalizes
our neighborhood for the development of land far enough away that
' it shouldn' t effect us at all. Alternative #2 leaves Centex with a
cheap bill, and us with a cheap road, traffic and future costs. If
Teton must be used for access, Centex should pay for the full
upgrade of Teton and Lilac Lanes.
' Although alternative #3 would cost us some money, we and others are
happy to aaaept it if it means putting off the effects of
' development until our neighborhood chooses to develop itself. We
urge you to support alternative #3, or full upgrade by Centex.
Og
1 Charles & Donna Pickard
1215 Lilac Lane .
MAR 7 1988
Y OF CHANHAsSEN
1
Centigmes1
Baker Technology Plaza CITY OF CHANHASSEN
5959 Baker Road n(7 nfl(j
Suite 300 JUL31lam,tall iri
Minnetonka,Minnesota 55345 LLL��SLLLJJJL�IUJ t
MAR 11 1988 1
March 10, 1988 ENGINEERING DEPT.
z *'
Honorable Mayor
And Members of the City Council
City of Chanhassen
c/o Mr. Don Ashworth
City Manager
690 Coulter Drive
Post Office Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Curry Farms
Gentlemen: 1
Centex Homes is concerned about the recommendations as set forth in the
Feasibility Study for Teton Lane dated February 18, 1988.
The study sets out three alternatives for providing additional access to
our Curry Farms development.
We have the following comments concerning the study:
Alternative Number 1 •
The full development of Teton Lane into a standard urban street is not
necessary at this time. The increased level of traffic resulting from the
Curry Farms Development can be accommodated by more modest improvements to
Teton Lane. The Lane could later be improved into a full urban street if
additional development of adjoining lands so dictates, with the costs of
such improvement borne proportionately by the landowners benefited.
1
1
1
Baker Technology Plaza,5959 Baker Road,Suite 300, Minnetonka, Minnesota/(612)936-7833
1
II
Mayor, City Council
' Mr. Don Ashworth
March 10, 1988
Page 2
' Alternative Number 1 (continued)
This alternative is also not feasible because only 33 of the 50 feet
necessary for full improvement are available without eminent domain action
by the City or some other form of acquisition.
Alternative Number 2
' Alternative 2 is the most reasonable proposal. Although we believe that
the costs of the improvements proposed should be divided among the
landowners benefited, Centex would agree to pay the costs of improvements
required in Alternative 2. As the Contract Purchaser of Teton Lane, we
believe that we have a right to provide access to our development via Teton
Lane, provided we do not obstruct the adjacent owner's access easements.
' Alternative Number 3
Alternative Number 3 is the least acceptable alternative to Centex. No
provision is made for assessing any benefited landowner other than Centex.
We believe that this places an unfair burden on Centex. The costs should
be fairly assessed among the benefited landowners.
Alternative Number 3 also contemplates deeding property on either side of
the new street. eAthough Alternative Number 3 "compensates" Centex for the
1 loss of one lot, the land to be deeded by the City to Centex would be
difficult to develop into a buildable lot. On the other hand, Mr. Kerber
not only gets partial access to his property because of the new street, but
also receives additional land, the equivalent of which is approximately two
lots. To fully access his property, Mr. Kerber would need to cross an
existing drainage way on a severe slope through the existing wooded area.
We are not opposed to granting Mr. Kerber some reasonable access to his
' property through the Curry Farms Development.
A Fourth Alternative, not addressed in the study, would be not to require
an additional access to the Curry Farms Development until such time as the
properties along Teton Lane are developed to their full potential or to
improve Teton Lane as in Alternative Number 2 and close the road access
except as an emergency entrance at Curry Farms.
Since Centex is contract purchaser of the real property subject to Teton
Lane, Centex will be able to use Teton Lane for access purposes now and in
' the future. This access capability should not be ignored in any final
decisions.
1
II
Mayor, City Council I
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 10, 1988
Page 3 '
Based on the preceding concerns, Centex asks that Alternative 2 be adopted
or, in the event that Alternative 3 is adopted, that it be modified so that
all of the City land is deeded to Centex.
We certainly recognize a City's right to require a developer to dedicate
land or pay certain costs for municipal improvements, but we believe that
Alternative 3 in its current state goes beyond the reasonable requirements
that should be placed on a developer.
If Alternative 3 in its present form becomes the required solution, Centex
will have to reevaluate any further development of the project. '
Sincerely,
CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION '
• esota Division
Thomas M. Boyce
President ,
TMB/clm
cc: Mr. Roger Knutson
City Attorney
City of Chanhassen