Loading...
3 Materials pertaining to the Nez Perce/Pleasant View Road connection I 3 I 0i 00041,. CITY C F 1 ' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager I FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning 1 DATE: July 7, 1993 I SUBJ: Materials Pertaining to the Nez Perce/Pleasant View Road Connection I As you are aware, Frank Beddor has requested an opportunity to discuss his recent opposition to the long - planned extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road. I This plan has generated an extensive paper trail over the last few years and it really does not make sense to undertake another staff report. What we have assembled instead are copies of portions of that paper trail. This includes the original analysis of the extension's alternatives I from 1989 where the City Council first approved the connection and upon which all following planning was based, copies of minutes, correspondence and the signed Troendle Addition Development Contract that clearly state Mr. Beddor's previous support of the extension, materials I that clearly state that the Troendle Plat would not have been given City Council approval unless it was in conjunction with a plan to complete the street connection, the most recent staff report and minutes at which the City Council decided to order the condemnation of the northern portion 1 of the former Owens' parcel. The Council has already been sent copies of the materials the Mr. Beddor has sent out to area residents. Since we were not given copies of the mailings directly and only received copies from residents who did receive them, we cannot state that you have a 1 complete set of these materials. We have also received copies of a form letter and two other letters in support of Mr. Beddor's position that were received from area residents as a result of his mailings and these are being forwarded to the Council as well. I While all of this a er adequately n ' p p documents past actions and the City Council's comprehensive I and long term approach to resolving access issues in this neighborhood, it may be useful to reiterate the underlying concerns. I 1. Having two means of access into this area has been advocated and required since before the first home was built in Vineland Forest of the Troendle Addition. The issues are those of safety, emergency vehicle response times, efficiency of delivering 1 public services such as snow plowing and school bus pick -up. It has also been 1 t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 1 Page 2 acknowledged as being poor planning to have what will ultimately be at least 50 homes on a long, dead -end street. The rroposed extension also will rectify an existing situation where Powers Boulevard is the only north/south through street between Lake Lucy and Lotus Lake. The street is designed to local street standards and utilizes a ' curvalinear alignment. It is specifically designed to facilitate local and not through trips. ' 2. Residents living on Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road have had input into multiple public decisions on the roadway alternatives for the past four years. A lot of private decisions on home purchases were made based upon these decisions. ' 3. The roadway alternatives were developed after lengthy study and public input. The selected alternative was designed to facilitate access without significantly impacting residents on either street. The offset alignment was specifically selected to minimize introduction of traffic onto Pleasant View Road. 1 4. Pleasant View Road is a collector street and is the only street running between Powers Boulevard and Hwy. 101, north of Lotus Lake. Traffic is likely to build due to this factor and to the pending completion of the Crosstown Highway out to Highway 101. ' The proposed connection has little to do with this situation. The widening of Pleasant View has not been raised by the City Council or staff during this entire debate. The ' sensitive nature of the street and surrounding neighborhood has always been recognized. Likewise, the widening of Nez Perce has never been advocated or discussed. 1 5. Every homeowner who has purchased a lot in Vineland Forest or Troendle Addition has been put on notice regarding the street connection. This was done through a ' notice in the chain -of -title and by signs posted on the barricade located at the temporary end of the street 1 SUMMARY In summary, staff continues to support completion of the street connection as planned. There has been no evidence that we are aware of that causes us to question the past four years of decisions of the City Council. 1 Manager's Comment - The City Council can be reasonably assured that you will have 50 or ' more residents from Lake Lucy Road expounding upon the dangers that exist on that roadway and the terrible impact that will be created if Mr. Beddor's 15 to 20 lot subdivision is reconnected to Lake Lucy Road. The City Council can also reasonably expect 50 or more Don Ashworth 1 July 7, 1993 Page 3 1 residents present from Pleasant View expounding upon the dangers of that roadway and the terrible impact that will occur if Mr. Beddor's 15 to 20 lot subdivision is allowed to connect to Pleasant View. The property owners along Lake Lucy Road will be asking the Council not to reconsider the decision that was made by the previous Council/Mr. Beddor four years ago. The property owners on Pleasant View will be asking that the Council act to reconsider the decision. I believe it is reasonable to state that property owners on both Pleasant View and Lake Lucy Road can contend that they made decisions to purchase or sell relying upon their reading of the minutes whereat Mr. Beddor received his approval, relied upon the signs that were posted showing the new connection, and relied upon the covenants which were placed on each of the lots which showed that the connection would be made to Pleasant View. I don't think that the current Council should get caught in the dilemma as to the affects of 15 or 20 lots on either of the two streets. The sole question to be answered is, "Did Mr. Beddor portray how 1 the traffic from his new subdivision could best gain access to and from their properties, and had the City Council agreed with Mr. Beddor's presentation." Unfortunately, we cannot go back and eliminate the 15 or 20 lots. Accordingly, the only issue that we can reasonably review is whether or not that decision had been made and whether or not Mr. Beddor had made those commitments as a condition of his plat approval. If there is a liability issue, it currently rests with Mr. Beddor. Staff cannot recommend that liability now be shifted to the city. Reconsideration cannot be recommended. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ CHANHASSEN RESIDENT NAMES 202 Todd Adams Sherry Aguilera uilera fatawativiNSotamm 790 Pleasant View Road Ciia a assen, :x. Ml ... ..53I _ Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Home: 474 -0770 Home: 474 -0851 Work: 944 -1099 Work: II Rick Aguilera Cheri Anderson 1 netaigiatitgatiiMattihal 500 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, 'MN .... Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474 -0851 Home: 470 -9747 'Work: Work: I Curtis Anderson Hazel Anderson 11 .•..��'• ( {. ' } asant7'Y: iS• .TiF7�:•::: • 'oad . . ..er z':'::� ;rr•{ f � y ay ..: nr •.vi %a:• ? Urrr .4 :ti' \iM1:}:ti: }:::r`••'::::•`.i _::tY:•:v: +•:::: •i n }:}w. Chanhassen, " M MN' "` } 5 31 . 7 ' Home: 470 -9747 2852 Washta Bay Rd, Excelsior 55331 Work: 470 -9747 Home: 474 -6580 1 Dawn Bailey Kelby Bailey ff - r 580 Pleasant View Way } f` - - hanhassen, MN 55317 Ch MN` ... 551 7 ome: 470 -5003 Home: 470 -003 Work: 870 -4440 Work: 545 -1550 -- , andy Bayernfeind -David Beddor m : }r> �j � j� ,;y: v.;i�;.... :rn•i..; 11 ?�':y�' +�'•, J�y�yy� .is : ?f:::'., '•.' j i�f: I Y ; }: >: 'La ;:'„'„ „ 2 : :•.: :: � L'i�ii7 -isisiiF :i% 11r:5:•f �GTFLd Ciansaeri``��N 55317 '; Chariasseri " `MN` } ' }' '553 Y7 } ` ome: 474 -1806 Home: 474 -1023 ork: 342 -3884 ,, � Work: 474 -7472 , r ",?!�! ��. Fax : 474 -0379 f i t d oll o W k • 1 ichelle Beddor `. Beddor an a ssen, MN 55317 ! ::: } , ._ Chari ` ome: 222 -5270 i Home: 474 -3030 ork: 470 -6486 - Work: 937 -3816 ax 474 -6467 Fax 474 -2769 o Marilyn Beddor / Frank Beddor 1110 Pleasant View Road Road gOIRNOWOMPSOMMA Wanhassen, MN 55317 Chan _ ' assen, r2N • • •5•5317 Home: 474 -6010 Home: 474 - 6010 Irk: Work: 474 -0231 Fax: 474 -0379 li -r Sandra K. Beddor Kevin Benson 890 Pleasant View Road ; ' s zn _ ," •. •I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen. <.: :::.::. < :::: Home: 474 -6010 Home: 474 -0528 Work: Work: 937 -0789 II Fax : 937 -9347 I Kathy Berdahl Birgitte Berntsen 0`.; _ >. ant: itltlp zt' 1050 Pleasant View Road Ctartasseri;" MN" '55'17' "'" Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: -- Home: 474 -8800 II Work: 860 -3188 Chris Bickford Andy Borash 6870 Nez Perce Drive : 0 "e .fie Chanhassen, MN 55317 C as sen, "` " 5 5317 I Home: 470 -6310 Home: 474 -6887 Work: Work: 937 -9060 Jeffrey R. Braiedy Holly R. Broden I 'e 640 Pleasant View Road \ ✓ y h Ciana ::.: Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 470 -6186 Home: 474 -3000 Work: 673 -4252 Work: 828 -3759 II II David A. Broden Alicia L. Brozovich exr�a 6609 Horseshoe Curve Cha n h assen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474 -3000 Home: 474 -7665 I Work: 949 -7202 Work: 11R .P. Brozovich Thomas Byrne :: ♦� ••::.r "S�4S � i.S•:S•T::!SS :ii:; t•:":• {: ?::S:it•:St.;:. v.:t•:'2ytiitrtt•: ^::•'�}`::� y�ky.�[Iy�,' • . ::('•�}�', •'a a?�,.ig ...t t!.�: t.... t,.,'R, 1 ,F.;. : r'i ii: 7!f:,f,. � L;T;: y'• ' .: :r :: :,-1iA :\i2 .:: ::::::;:: .. : ..::•i:0 :$ ::::..i• } :• •:.: • :6 . :n ...: •::.:.:.:::.w:p•: ir,. :... I Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cha l MN 55317• Home: 474 -7665 Home: 474 -0589 Work: Work: 938 -1638 II Patsy L. Calhoon .Barry A. Calhoon 380 Pleasant View Cove iP leasant s ' ?'s': hanhassen, MN 55317 C Chanhassen; SI -53T1:`7' Home: 474 -5126 Home: 474 -5126 I ork: Work: 623 -6787 Fax : 623 -6940 II VI 1 Kathryn A. Clark Michael G. Clark 11 695 Pleasant View Road : leasa tot . Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chari$assen MN .:.•: . } Home: 474 -5671 Home: 474 -5671 Work: 831 -2350 Work: 869 -3807 "Fax : 831 -2529 Todd Cocallas Janet Coey 000 910 Nez Perce Court I .19:; € "ri asseii - MN - " Chanhassen, , MN 55317 Home: 470 -1900 Home: 474 -3608 Work: Work: 934 -2211 Sue Connoy .. M. Cunningham .• .: :...: �::. ��ry .��r. },�: ^� :tit• }Y }�:yry } }�: ?ti .... . ! :�4� }:�Xtiv }:'... {: v,✓ } .• } .. . �� � {yy� }:•:••: :�4yiyiyx: •. }: }:xr {.. . } ::::•:• : • }: ? v im } • : y ::::•: `'t }%Iii.• '' .Casad'L..Y: iYiCi :�R:•':: d 1164 5: L :�:i�L o rs : sh oes:;:;•:, •''•!••u'„ . c:}. c.; v:.' t>':.&,` .S'viv::?a:}•Giivc: <�:':- :• } ::: • }:. .:..;; .....,} .} �••.: ..:. i}: r::'•: v::'::•. if::•.::t:::: ? }: " ":::•`.: }•:.;• ::. :,::.:'::: . r Home: Home: 474 -746 Work: Work: 533 -2551 1 W. Pat Cunningham Karie Curnow . 1110010004.0400004260 650 Pleasant View Road 1iaia MN5•5317• ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474 -8377 Home: 474 -0789 Work: Work: 934 -0333 I Sam Curnow Laurie Curnow 650 Pleasant View Road ' itWr Chanhassen, MN 55317 C arif }` t.,::::::::::::::::::::::::::0:::::::::::: .' r ome: 474 -0789 Home: 474 -0789 ork: 724 -0474 Work: t endall Curnow B.J. Jeanie DeWitt 650 Pleasant View Road ? take Io a I hanhassen, MN 55317 C'tiarihassen, MN 55317 ome: 474 -0789 Home: 470 -0345 Work: 724 -0474 Work: II aula Donna David A. Donna ...:.:.:::.....:.:::. 81 Vineland Court $a €1�: a't::: "' hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen } MN' 55317 Home: 474 -4521 Home: 474 -4521 F ork: Work: 371 -3211 II MI i II Conrad M. Eggan Michelle Eggan {r of 6500 Peaceful Lane I Chanhassen, MN 55 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 470 -0237 Home: 470 -4572 Work: 941 -9020 1 Work: 470 -4572 Gregory Engel Tami L. Falkosky a? ": 850 Western Drive Chanhassen;' MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 470 -1381 Home: 470 -6186 Work: 370 -2901 tax: 894 -8104 ■Fax: 370 -2820 l arit Farmer M.W. Farmer 850 Pleasant View Road 80 Plea nt V MN 55317 C an a 1 ? ' 'S5 17 "` ir anhassen, me: 470 -0238 Home: 470 -0238 rk: 474 -3910 Work: 474 -3910 1 Jack Fess Melinda Fitzgerald 28 .Ri `I 630 Pleasant View Road haniassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474 -0045 Home: 823 -1264 fork: 936 -8668 Work: 844 -0138 Fax : 844 -0139 Wean Fitzgerald Teresa A. Foster °`;: 's 6370 Pleasant View Cove Ch MN .. ... 5317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 If ome: 823 -1264 Home: 474 -1070 ork: 922 -9522 Work: ax : 922 -1024 II imothy D. Foster Teri L. Frederick W "# : :e: : : : 660 Pleasant View Road h MNJ " :':??., Chanhassen, MN 55317 nassen, Borne: 474 -1070 Home: 474 -0414 Work: 835 -0646 Work: 884 -3334 11 Fax : 884 -3125 Jerome P. Frederick Richard Frey 7 etaidlidiVitait arlas then ;"T . ` . . : ., 5531'x . Chanhassen, 'FIN 55317 Home: 474 -0414 Home: 470 -9691 I rk: 943 -3863 Work: 470 -9688 x : 943 -3854 Fax : 470 -9688 II • a II I , Hank Graef. Sharon Graef sampowtsmatimoia 855 Pleasant View Road I aitriti \ agg4iirldr — tnri Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 670-0719 Home: 474-5133 Work: Work: 474-5133 1 Denise L.A. Gray P p MitialAiiiMateregrartt Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN - 55117 Home: 474-0310 Home: 474-0310 F ork: 758-4484 Work: 522-3223 "Barbara J. Gullickson William D. Gullickson 830 Pleasant View Road MintegiNfigitliViiiMiiiii Chanhassen, MN 55317 ChahhaSden, MN •5•17 "Home: 474-3667 Home: 474-3667 Work: Work: 544-0341 1 Nancy A. Hajt Rich Hajt •11 820 Vineland Court naliliMilliffiritiMatittiti Chanhassen, MN 55317 thanh 14N 55317 Home: 474-9308 Home: 474-9308 m pork: Work: II k oni L. Halvarson James W. Halvarson mplatilMtleaget 881 Nez Perce Court diritt f Chanhassen, MN 55317 k ome: 474-2602 Home: 474-2602 ork: 474-2602 Work: 479-1701 Fax : 474-3107 !Lob Hansen Elva M. Hansen 640010g0WONOWN 6620 Horseshoe Curve IricahhAsdh; Chanhassen, MN 55317 • 'Rome: 474-7526 Home: 474-7526 Work: 835-5350 Work: 1 Ron Harvieux Leanne Harvieux MISONOMMOSIOR#§ 6605 Horseshoe Curve Edrihaeseri; RIT - ":5SS . 17 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474-3892 Home: 474-3892 'Fork: 339-2991 Work: Max : 349-6220 Fax : 474-0063 1 ■ II 1 - Michael P. Haydock Debbie Haydock <:Wt 6460 Fox Path I Chanhassen; 14N 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 470 -9461 Home: 470 -9461 Work: 397 -6627 Work: 397 -2038 1 Yvonne Hayes Steve Hayes z Perce Drive I 6690 Ne : .: .... .. .. Chanhassen, MN 55317 C anhass. . . . . . : . en, 'MN .. 55317 Home: 474 -0179 Home: 474 -0179 I Work: Work: 888 -8700 ,Jerry Heintz Jeneene Heintz N10401100000g 740 Lake Point r n hass n, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 e: 474 -9528 Home: 474 -9528 Work: 946 -9430 II Joyce A. Holloway J. S. Holte IINOIROWNVA Cl a Mass ii - , :: M " :`:::55 17 C`t s hassen :MN;::: >:;:: 7 :::: Home: 474 -5857 Home: 474 -8662 ,Work: Work: om Huberty Susan Huberty 45* 4: { < o P 6450 Fox Path : c a assen� h MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 tome: 470 -1657 Home: 470 -1657 ork: 830 -1912 Work: Fax : 830 -1917 C harles C. Hurd Jacie Hurd 695 OWPOPOWnegrffig 6695 Horseshoe Curve d hanhasseri, Mit - 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 . ome: 470 -9282 Home: 470 -9282 Work: Work: 332 -2446 II rank Beddor III Sherry Jaeger :.# 880 Vineland Court ianhassen; MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474 - 6010 Home: 470 -1124 'Fork: Work: II _ . = Steven Jaeger Donald W. Johnson . IMPORMOWIROM - ft Vinela 6 $054Pleasark-vWe a: ,.., .,.. .:::, ..:......--:::,::,,,, : Ildirihassen, NR 55317 dhahhasseh , NN :::? -55317 ...Home: 470-1124 Home: 474-1636 Work: Work: -- 1 Il Lynda Johnson Daniel Johnson 1140 Pleasant View Road MatinitiglattlaiiitiaZdad Chanhassen, MN 55317 diairigs n ggiii mN: en, MN Home: 474-9383 Home: 474-9383 "Work: Work: Il Emily Johnson Jon W. Joseph 335 Pleasant View Road 0.4#04.0 „ .: : •:. : alieWSdaRI4OCIa; ,;;-- Chanhassen, MN 55317 bhanhaSsen 121 ---: I 'Fame: 474-1636 Home: 4604 Moorland Avenue Work: 388-0500 Edina, MN 55424 II Irene Y. Joseph Mrs. Ernie C. Keefer Pleasant View Rd./Ridge Rd. WIROMMOMMIMO hanhassen, MN 55317 aifiliag sen, my ome: 4604 Moorland Avenue Home: 474-9321 Edina, MN 55424 Work: f ork: 925-4117 "'Eleanor Keiper James Keiper 116615 Horseshoe Curve #811,%1165tAttnti050tir• Ar e Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chdrihageeh t ome: Home: ork: Work: "avid Kelly Kim Kelly wgwwiwima Nn are er .z....., 049mooirmmus 6580 Nez Perce Drive %.,:dr i t ork: Chanhassen, MN 55317 ome: 474-1880 Home: 474-1880 Work: 11 Joseph L. Kenyon Betty 0. Kenyon glifeRNMPVIO I .;: :::::: 7 ':::i:::::' • ::::"%x y Miiliasseli, MN - 553rt- 400 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474-2467 Home: 474-2467 f ork: Work: 11 II II Thomas M. Klouda Tim Klouden 41 1q#010 1841ii'Faxitth dhinhasseri, MN 55317 ChanhaSen, MN 55317 II Home: 934-5175 Home: 474-9149 Work: Work: 557-8851 Fax : 557-1931 II Mike Korth Katherine Korth I 671 Nez 6971 Nez Perce Drive Ciii7filiaien, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474-7803 Home: 474-7803 Work: 937-8192 Work: 864-3112 1 I Judy Kramer Larry Kramer 339 Pleasant View Road 3 0 tity=oott:-.Vievi..ldad ..,....,.., .. ,.....-. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ch MN 5551i Home: 474-9365 Home: 474-9365 "Work: 474-4182 Work: II James Ledin , Kari Ledin V Court 840 Vineland Court II Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474-4334 Home: 474-4334 Work: 474-8144 Work: 1 Antoinette M. Lucas Kenneth J. Lucas 11 6735 Nez Perce Drive p: 24 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN' 55ii7 Home: 474-5676 Home: 474-5676 Work: 474-0700 Work: II "David Lundahl Linda J. Lundahl 116501 Nez Perce Drive 60:410T043Orce.ative Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhaisen, 4114 I ome: 470-0980 Home: 470-0980 Work: 330-7867 Work: 832-9638 Fax: 330-1902 1l Kevin C. Manion Gail Mathisen 425:•::ilideitO DrAv ie 850 Pleasant View Road . ."..-- __.ia sen, 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lome: 470-0112 Home: 474-3910 Work: 550-0031 Work: Fax : 550-0035 1 II Dennis Mathisen Linda McGrath 850 Pleasant View Road ?' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen,'MN 55317 Home: 474 -3910 Home: 474 -3545 Work: 338 -1807 II Thomas A. Meier Judy R. Meier 1 . .°h 6 410 Fox Path Chanhassen, M N 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474 -1095 Home: 474 -1095 , Work: 474 -9474 Work: F ax: 474 -6193 'Mary Meuwissen Michael Meuwissen 6580 Troendle Circle ••..•# r.,.• '`�. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Home: 474 -2314 Home: 474 -2314 Work: 474 -0290 Work: 474 -0290 II James J. Meyer Lyndsay Meyer 02080M4ONNOONO 6225 Ridge Road ianh sen 'NN r 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ome: 474 -2900 Home: 474 -2900 Work: 920 -7660 Work: II ir arlene M. Miller Donald J. Miller ::<:; 95 Pleasant View Road':'.:.:. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Char hassen, `M ' N 5'5'317' ome: 474 -1261 Home: 474 -1261 ork: 688 -1911 Work: 868 -3242 C arrie Murphy Kimberley Murphy 6870 Nez Perce Drive €' riv • I( hanhassen, MN 55317 Ch ome: 470 -1376 Home: 474 -7128 ork: Work: II Chris Napolitano Michael A. Narog C 00 Fox Court 1 >::?l' hanhassen, MN 55317 'Chart as seri: MN ..... . 5:5:3:`17' : .. :;: Home: 474 -0210 Home: 474 -6494 "f ork: 933 -0668 Work: 474 -6494 ax: 933 -9089 II "Rob Nash Ryan Novaczyk g Drive 6371 Pleasant View Cove Cha aiassen, MN 55 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 470 -1669 Home: 474 -4490 Work: 476 -1419 Work: II Todd Novaczyk Sherry Novaczyk 6 ' :' ,144mi o ir 6371 Pleasant View Cove �? iii >f.�.:::xv } :::: iw. �:: >': i s is : ; • ::::; ? >: .:.::: .. : . : ..:;:: .;•:::.�.�. Clianiassen, MN::... : 5 . 53 . 1: :• :•.•. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474 -4490 Home: 474 -4490 ,Work: 944 -8090 Work: 944 -8090 John Oberstar Irene Oberstar 4r;.. �• 796 Lake Point t.nan MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Home: 474 -2517 Home: 474 -2517 ork: 742 -3510 Work: 'Karen Ohman Darlene Olsen 6225 Ridge Road 901 Vineland Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Nome: 474 -2900 Home: 474 -2435 Work: 887 -5920 Work: 930 -6377 II ouglas Olsen Jerry Olson j..., • h: i.. ;.�;;: ::•. ; .•: :::::i : n. •::. ::ti .:.. n : r. . :.} �� •''} .:. ; . ..n. v : ...... :.::•:;.. • :. .:...... .. . :. }i. xi. tinaand.: Cou 4 20 1. ascent ar .:i b r iv i ? \ : ?:r? +urvhr. :.•i'rb: nR :::•: • i:•' ?r. h•:r::•Wi ... ...... anias MN 55317 Chanhassen, M2 " ''5'5317' Home: 474 -2435 Home: 470 -6673 f ork: 445 -5253 Work: 828 -4258 P. Olson Dawn Opitz I t €€z 870 Nez Perce Court Chanhassen, MN .. ` • : ' : : 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ome: 474 -9466 Home: 474 -7168 ork: 470 -4100 Work: 924 -5140 Fax : 470 -4048 II Tom Opitz Rick Peck 0 Net : ' r e court gors4shoe Lane liaii iassen, MN : 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ome: 474 -7168 Home: 474 -9030 Work: 944 -2110 ext 233 Work: 474 -9044 II Fax : 474 -9044 II P . II Kathleen Peck Guy S. Petersen 6690 Horseshoe Lane # ;`e:;►r,. } .::t. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ch anhass en , `14 `` 5 5 3 17 474 -9030 Home: 474 -3608 ‚ Home: Work: 474 -9044 Work: 934 -2211 Fax : 474 -9044 "Karen J. Peterson David A. Peterson 1180 Pleasant View Road 1180 Pleasant View Road " Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474 -8078 Home: 474 -8078 Work: Work: 448 -4400 1 Marlow E. Peterson Robert L. Post :n : ':.�:: .. . ?: } ? : : } }: : }Y.: •.: f : : ' , : �::.r. " :; •'; :•:::::. r:....' : }i:, , }::.:v } iX:: • {::} : .....ICy }::v.. .;y.�.:: ::. :.:.. }•., I . : o easant V±e ;: *§§ : : . : :Pleasa tt: ;} : �%S�•y >} : :y.y� j�� �, .n {:: •::�:ti� }::: }':: }:. }•: : iii :•�:::::::: {:: } }i } i:} +:ti: }: i.�:.::in.: }: II Chaiiiiasseii, M14:::::: :3: ndi MN "' '' 5531/ Home: 474 -8078 Home: 474 -0343 ' Work: 470 -3305 Work: , Sandra J. Post Michael F. Poston 489 Pleasant View Road 78 ;take ^: ;::::: it Chanhassen, MN 55317 h .. }. } 5 } 5317 ome: 474 -0343 Home: 470 -6135 ork: Work: 930 -6321 t icolette Randall David Ring •::: •:�. '1 { }}•v : } ^�:: }.. } ::::i:: •'' v:} �f::': y4} t:}/ s1:(•} �}} y:: ti: ��' .'. }• }�:!• }F:!:�4.� ?! }�:':y:::v if:::::::• jSx . } }:;,y�. : :.y }�:�(• }% ism' Y}::: �}? y` i�il: �.:": ��.. s�:};, i � ...i } } }�i }l:F,•Y }�e� } " } }:if • :yyiliF:? {�Y.!i� ^'• }�i }:v: A :il y�,' •. :i: :: e..f!:•�ii?:..•.•f >:J i ve 44:1:'::iS:•:I:�iial.i.:a:.ii' t::':::?a:i'::iY: <::::1ri:Y�e thanfiassen;14N- . 553 ] 7 ... :. .... }:: }:. }::•:�:• }:•: }:: .. ...... :::.::.. C a i rd a s s e ri' :` :< `r Il��� ��% �`� - g - s17 � �' ome: 474 -1755 Home: 470 -9781 Work: Work: 448 -4400 II im Roane Mary Roane ISIMOMPath 6571 Fox Path ianhAssen, - MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 470 -5286 Home: 470 -5286 f ork: 342 -5784 Work: arvey Robideau Karen Robideau :ante : >> ' : _. o; 540 Pleasant View Road Chanhassen .. 5'5117 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ome: 474 -5563 Home: 474 -5563 ork: 726 -2744 Work: 932 -5353 1 1 IC II ' "Gretchen Robideau Dave Robinson 540 Pleasant View Road ' OVPOSIgiiiitMiOteittadd ....: "' Chanhassen, MN 55317 dhiihaii,'IDT - 55117 Home: 474-5563 Home: 474-4196 Work: 933-1545 Work: II Daniel J. Rogers Sharon Peterson Rogers MiiiNommoosPrim 6500 Nez Perce Drive 0 bffifil4g g en ; "Mil Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474-7127 Home: 474-7127 Work: 474-7127 Work: Il Laurie Rogney Rory Rogney Kle gi aita evlii:ittatitit 901 Nez Perce Court • „,-:-. . , dia agsen, MN 5 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I ame: 474-4028 Home: 474-4028 Work: 474-5488 Work: 937-4227 "David R. Rossbach Valerie L. Rossbach POMP1WASORMOWS0 670 Pleasant View Road SChanh 1 55317 . Chanhassen, MN 55317 "Home: 474-4865 Home: 474-4865 Work: 726-2711 Work: II John Ryan Phil Sailor It 110.00MMIOM Witattlit ::::::.:0::::::0::::•::::::::::$:::::::$::::::::.:::::::::-:::::::::::::::::::::::m:::::::,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: litill.iiseriter Chahhasseh, NN 55317 Home: 474-5342 Home: 474-3402 Ir ork: Work: 936-8113 lk ohn T. Schevenius Ruth E. Schevenius 100MOMONVIONON4 570 Pleasant View Road drdiiha MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 t ome: 474-2617 Home: 474-2617 ork: 540-3573 Work: Fax : 540-4878 1 Terri Schultz Barbara Seck it NOIFPISM itill*Minti#0 osattiViiiwkte44644 'hitihasderi, ' Chahhassen, EN 55117 ome: 470-1567 Home: 470-0547 Work: 470-1567 Work: 474-4187 1 II II II Sue Seifert Thomas M. Seifert 600 Pleasant View Road , $00,::.::::MtaatiellAtititellead "' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cbahhassen, MN - 55311 Home: 474-6325 Home: 474-6325 Work: 473-4636 Work: 456-1555 II Randy Smith Rayma Smith I NENI Mitq amNSOie Road 429 Pleasant View Road ef „::::. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474-4414 Home: 474-4414 "Work: Work: I Kari Ann Smith III Carl A. Smith III 610 Pleasant View Road ''i Chanhassen, MN 55317 'dharihasien, MN 55311 "Home: 470-1306 Home: 470-1306 ilWork: Work: 470-3988 II . George Soukup Mary Stasson paggamom 6400 Peaceful Lane 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 biome: 474-6496 Home: 470-9085 Work: 470-3547 Work: 368-2657 II • iii:Viii.#60.3idg Lane Nt * ames B. Stasson ..:Tg317 Chan ifiSseri7-Mg.-5!!i7 Home: 470-9085 Home: Irork: 943-1951 Work: t ete Thielen Jan Thielen 30.0ifigaileAragingtad 665 Pleasant View Road :...m:x:::::::::-,x,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,:::::::„.„:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:.: 'hanhassen, MN '55117 11( ome: 474-1597 ork: 624-4469 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 474-1597 Work: 540-2501 Fax : 540-2420 II Barbara Thomas Keith Thomas 1( 380 Fox Path tgbitOMMtiath hanhassen, MN 55317 bbahliaSseri, MN 55317 ome: 470-1014 Home: 470-1014 Work: 368-2620 Work: 368-5389 1 11 II "Kim Timberg Larry Tivy > sa .:. :<: V ew:<:> bard 0 ;P1eas 4101 !: $0 - a:4 I ha assen, MN 551`'7` Chairihasseri - SSII7"' Home: 474 -1227 Home: 474 -3434 Work: 949 -4564 Work: 934 -2655 Fax : 542 -5096 Renelle Ulrich Duane Ulrich _ Nez Perce Drive omiwiZ e Chanhassen, MN 55317 diianha 55317 Home: 470 -6288 Home: 470 -6288 Work: I Work: 934 -1253 I im Vojacek Nancy Vollmer 5 Pleasant View Road tWinekabfifti Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ctiar ` 14N 55317 Home: 474 -4196 Home: 474 -0732 _ I Work : elvin Vollmer , 6440 Fox Path John von Walter Chanhassen, MN 55317 e r a ant ? 1 w 474 -0732 t arih Iome: ork: 659 -4701 Home: 474 -9486 Fax : 659 -4710 Work: 726 -5855 11 athleen von Walter Sandra Wallace 10 Pleasant View Road $ e •:`•.s fi a efl' ' ''hanhassen, MN 55317 Ciai 'MN 55317 Home: 474 -9486 Home: 474 -0210 Fork: 934 -4030 Work: 336 -9110 Fax: 336 -9100 li oAnn Wetzel Dean E. Wetzel 260 Ridge Road 040304#40§4# Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ciahhass MN 55317 I ome: 474 -6963 "Home: 474 -6963 ork: -- Work: t Patsy Whiteman Jessica Whiteman 25 Pleasant View Road 825 Pleasant View Road hanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ome: 474 -2623 Home: 474 -2623 Work: 470 -3720 Work: 1 II II Gordon Whiteman Daniel Woitalla g ` 1 asat:: >. V ex :: aid :: Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ch ai h assen, MN . 5 - 5317 Home: 474 -2623 Home: 474 -4432 Work: 484 -4811 Work: 487 -1234 1 Kurt R. Wood Gail A. Wood I 63 9 r #g oi 6390 Pleasant View Cove Chanhassen, MN 5531 " - Chanhassen, MN 55317 Home: 470 -0375 Home: 470 -0375 'Work: Work: ' Pam Woodruff Paul Woodruff 520 Pleasant View Road ': ant Views Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Cha hassen ' ` 553` 17 I Hom: 479 -3394 Home: 479 -3394 Work: 941 -4874 Work: 424 -6878 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Materials Pertaining To 1 Recent City Council Actions I Regarding Condemnation of Right -of -Way I Notice to Area Residents 1 Responding to Recent Private Mailings 1 Letters Returned from Residents in 1 Response to Mr. Beddor's Mailings 1 *At the time of writing we have received 16 letters, 14 of which were on a form printed by Mr. Beddor. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Date June 22 , 1993 1 ' Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: 1 I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: ' 1. This connection is oin to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez 9 9 ' Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. 1 Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to 1 Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely l y p g P Y ' unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. 1 As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, 1 remain yours truly, 1 DAVID DEDDC` te 1050 PLEASANT VIEW ` GAD CHANHASSEN, MN x3317 1 6581 Nez Perce Drive 1 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 June 21, 1993 1 Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane. Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: 1 We adamantly oppose the connection of Nez Perce Drive to Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road for the following reasons: 1 1. This connection is going to create a large amount of traffic on Nez Perce Drive. Traffic on this road is already going too fast. My dog was hit by a construction 1 truck last fall that was going too fast up the hill in front of my house. The driver thought he hit a child! Eventually that may be the case if the connection is made 1 because there are many children living on Nez Perce Drive. 2. When Target opens, people will come from the.101 /Dell Road area and take a more scenic way through Pleasant View and Nez Perce Drive to reach their shopping destination. This traffic should remain on 101 or Cty. Rd. 17 as it is now. ' 3. The cost of connecting the streets will be shouldered largely by the residents on Nez Perce Drive, which I completely oppose. I do not want to be charged an assessment or more taxes to pay for a road I do not want. 4. There is already a safety issue on Lake Lucy Road. Why should the city want to create two problems instead of fixing the initial problem first? It would be wise to make Lake Lucy Road safer by adding stop signs at the corner of Nez Perce Drive and Lake Lucy Road. Nez Perce Drive should either loop around or end in a cul -de -sac, thus eliminating a future safety problem. Again, we oppose any connection from Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. We hope my arguments will be heard and given support by you and the city council members. As a member of a newly organized group, we have already committed my time, effort, and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. ( Since r a y, 1 Duane and Renelle Ulrich 1 1 1 Date WPV 1 Mayor Don Chmiel I 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Dear Mayor Chmiel: 1 I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. I Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. 1 Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this I increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. 1 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. I In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will 1 severely increase safety problems. I As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. A a property o taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, 1 ` eviddifk--- ---j — II 1 Date 0/0-0- q 3 II 1 Mayor Don Chmiel I 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: 1 adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View I Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and I then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to I make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at 1 Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. 1 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce 1 which I adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the I adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and 1 financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, 1 remain yours truly, 1 41 • 1 .CL■;GUOCUt-ei-rY) 1 / Mr. & Mrs. James Halvorson 881 Nez Perce Ct , Chanhassen MN 55317.9102 lift 1 1 Date `i l 93 1 ' Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: 1 I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and 1 then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. 1 Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to 1 Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this 1 increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. 1 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. ' In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will 1 severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, 1 am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. 1 As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, fY1 r Y\ I'S Sa C Lor (050 RSICA s ai U w �►ti�asssZ , k SS 7 ? 1 Date 6, f 3 I 1 Mayor Don Chmiel I 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View 1 Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is oin to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez , 9 9 Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and 1 then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to I make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at I Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. 1 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce 1 which I adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the 1 adjoining homeowners. opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely ' In my op g unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will 111 severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and I financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, 1 /' %, deteA . 1 49 fre - C �!,h.%. fit,. 5 1 1 Date LGLte„.„. 'fj Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and ' then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to ' Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this i increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. ' 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will r severely increase safety problems. ' As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, X. * 474.4 1 1 Date -.1 0 v■,� 1 %) t qq, 5 1 Mayor Don Chmiel 1 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View 1 Road based on the following reasons: r 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and I then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to I make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at 1 Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. 1 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce 1 which 1 adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the 1 adjoining homeowners. I In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will 1 severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and 1 financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, 1 o‘ 1 1 1 1 Date 6/ 1 Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: 1 I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: ' 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and 1 then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. ' Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. 1 Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to 1 Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this 1 increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. 1 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, 1 am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. 1 As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, 1 / / 1 1 Date - Z 1- I 1 Mayor Don Chmiel I 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 I Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: I 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional o a l traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and I then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to 1 make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at I Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. 1 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce 1 which I adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the 1 adjoining homeowners. I i In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. it is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will I severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and 1 financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, 1 ( 2 0.6 * 1 r Date ' Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: i I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. ' Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to ' Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this ' increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, .et/Xe4/ Ace 12,0 J/7 1 Date Nit /f ?3 1 Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to ' make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at 1 Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. ' 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and , financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, c //le/tt-e ' /6/44ivr'cl— J demwne,itiT r m. . "/ ' 0 afrif fL * A61 L t A I " :14 h 1,144A 141 eti 1 Date (q 1 Mayor Don Chmiel RECEIVED 7100 Tecumseh Lane , ? u L 1993 Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY chH,vr►ASSEN Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: I mo nt traffic on Nez 1 . This connection is going to create a tremendous a of additional tra u o Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. 1 Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. 1 Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to 1 Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this i increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely ' unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. it will severely increase safety problems. 1 As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. 1 As a property oner, 1... ayer and voter, I remain yours truly, 1 Randy Smith 1 429 Pleasant View Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 June 18, 1993 Mayor Don Chmiel 1 City of Chanhassen 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel, I would like to address the issue of connecting Nez Perce with Pleasant View Road. I have lived on Pleasant View for over three years and enjoy it. Pleasant View Road is rightly named. I enjoy driving home along this picturesque roadway. 1 My primary objection to the proposed connection of Pleasant View with Nez Perce is the increased traffic. Traffic from Nez Perce, Lake Lucy Road and numerous other smaller roads will use Pleasant View as a thoroughfare. Please remember that this is a residential neighborhood. We have been paying taxes on lake homes and not road frontage. What problem is it the engineers are trying to solve? Is it the traffic problem for the twenty 1 residents on Lake Lucy Road? The proposed solution is at the expense of the 300 plus residents on Pleasant View. Has the option been considered of connecting Nez Perce back into a U -Shape to Lake Lucy Road near County Road 17? Isn't this a more viable alternative? Cars frequently travel on both Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road at speeds above the posted limit. The proposed connection of Pleasant View and Nez Perce is merely providing a bigger road to speed through. It is already a serious safety concern. Lowering the speed limit would surely meet the approval of the residents. I plan to attend the upcoming city meetings to voice my concerns and opinions. 1 Sincere! Randy Smith 1 1 1 1 1 1 June 20, 1993 Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr Mayor, We feel as though our voices have not been heard in the City Council meetings so we thought it best to put our thoughts in a letter to you, We hope you take the time to read it. Peaceful Lane If you prefer a neighborhood with a country flavor- -with woods, a pond large lot sizes, more elbow room- - Pleasant View Road is a quiet, winding road that winds through the wooded hills of a mature neighborhood between I Christmas Lake and Lotus Lake Peaceful Lane is a short, dead end, city - maintained street. So ifyou've been looking for privacy acy I Above is a description of the ad for the property we purchased seven years ago. Our dead -end road serves only 3 quiet families and was never intended to become a collector street. We adamantly oppose the connection of Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road for the following reasons: 1 1 This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic 2 This additional traffic will contribute to an already volatile area at the comer of Peaceful Lane and Pleasant I View Road i i tus is where our driveway comes out') Six and ahalf years ago we contacted Mr Sun C. naiiee, your Safety Commissioner at that time. He came out and accessed our dnvewa) situation and determined that it was unsafe We have been told that our corner would be straightened out, but it remains a 125 foot wide access and a I very dangerous situation for us 3. In the last 3 years we have witnessed three major accidents at this comer The first accident was a car that was speeding so fast that the car flipped completely upside -down and skidded to a halt right in front of our house. The second was a person traveling so fast that their car went completely out of control and they wiped out 5 mailboxes. The third accident happened just this last summer by a lad driving approximately 50 mph down Pleasant View Road. He came up over the hill at Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane and had a head on collision with another car coming up the hill. 4 The tremendous cost of this protect is obviously going to be taxed on all of the adjoining homeowners although we have absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to lose from this connection. i 5. This connection will cause a clear devaluation of our property because of the loss of our privacy and the increased safety problems it will create It is our opinion that connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane is completely unnecessary It is going to substantially increase traffic and cause additional safety problems in our quiet neighborhood. We want you to know that we are willing to commit whatever time, effort and financial resources are necessary to stop this through street. Sincerely, 569)0„,.. Jim and Mary Stasson p.s We were disappointed at the total lack of concern and disrespect we received at the May 24th meeting. I i 1 1 1 June 21, 1993 Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic, which in turn is going to be a major safety challenge. This could necessitate a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which is unnecessary and which I oppose. The tremendous cost of this project would obviously be taxed on the adjoining homeowners. Please consider the alternative and refrain from a short- sighted "quick fix ". Sincerely, a ?'• )4 \6 , ..)•Qt S. P. Olson 6691 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF CHILITHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEETING NOTICE AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE Recently you may have heard about actions taken by the City Council pertaining to the extension ' of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road at Peaceful Lane. We understand that a private individual has conducted a mass mailing and held at least one meeting, although the City was not contacted directly or asked to be involved. We have obtained copies of some of the materials and wanted to take an opportunity to correct some of the information and invite you to attend an upcoming City Council meeting to hear your concerns. MEETING SCHEDULE The issue of extending the road will not be discussed at the July 7 Planning Commission meeting. This item never was on the agenda however, a proposed subdivision named Tower Heights was scheduled to be discussed. This plat is of interest since its layout has a bearing on issues pertaining to road alignments in the area. The City Council has already agreed to hear 1 issues pertaining to the road at their July 12 meeting. This would put the Planning Commission in the position of being unable to take action on the plat pending potential City Council action which would occur a few days later. We have therefore elected to postpone action on this plat until the July 21 Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Beddor has been given the opportunity to discuss the issue at the Visitor Presentation at the July 12 City Council meeting. The meeting starts at 7:30 p.m. and is held in the Council Chambers in City Hall. At this meeting, the Council will determine if they should reconsider their action of May 24, 1993, to proceed with condemnation of land required for the Nez Perce right -of -way. It is important to note that the City Council's past action was largely based upon Mr. Beddor's agreement to connect his subdivision (Troendle Addition) to Pleasant View Road. 1 BACKGROUND ' The idea of extending Nez Perce first surfaced in 1989 with the platting of Vineland Forest. At that time, the concept of connecting the streets by running Nez Perce straight north was considered. Why was it considered? It was clear that a number of lots would be developed in the area and a safe and effective means of accessing them needed to be found. Good planning and transportation engineering requires that to the extent possible and reasonable, neighborhoods have more then one means of access. This is to limit the potential for traffic problems, improve � 41, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Nez Perce Drive Extension Page 2 response times for emergency vehicles and reduce long term costs of providing services such as snow plowing and school bus service. At that time, Mr. Beddor and others located along Pleasant View Road were concerned that running Nez Perce straight north had the potential of introducing additional traffic on Pleasant View Road. This was never the City's intent but it must be understood that Pleasant View is a collector street and the only through access in this part of the city. Due to the concerns that were raised, the City Council considered a variety of alternatives including the following: 1. Connections to Fox Chase. Fox Path was originally designed to be extended west into the Vineland Forest area. This was eliminated from consideration due to excessive grades and Vineland Forest was intentionally approved in a manner that made a future connection impossible. Copies of the mailing you may have received appear to indicate 1 two additional street connections from Carver Beach into Fox Chase. We do not know who thought of these but it does not come from the City and is not being considered. back to Lake Lucy Road. This was considered but ultimately Loop Connection y Y dismissed for several reasons including poor grades, direct impact to homes on Lake Lucy Road and due to the fact that it would result in excessive levels of traffic on Lake Lucy Road. 1 Residents on this street have been actively asking the City Council for relief from traffic impacts. For the past 31/2 years, the City Council has committed to these residents that 111 their problems would ultimately be solved by the Nez Perce connection to Pleasant View Road. The "solution" being offered in the recent mailing is not new. It was dismissed be the City Council in 1989. 1 3. Connect Nez Perce to Pleasant View at Peaceful Lane. This was the option that was selected by the City Council. It was agreed that the connection would be done on an incremental basis as development occurred. This allows most, if not all, cost of the road to be paid be developers as is normal with development throughout Chanhassen. When option 3 was selected, it was put into force over the past few years. Each lot buyer in Vineland Forest was notified of the extension and Nez Perce ended at a temporary barricade that had a sign indicating that the street was to be extended. 1 In 1990, Mr. Beddor came to the City with a proposal to develop the Troendle Addition. The street right -of -way required to extend Nez Perce was dedicated to the City by Mr. Beddor with the plat and the road was built. Again, all lot buyers were put on notice and the temporary barricade and sign were erected at the west property line. The Lake Lucy Road residents were very concerned with the addition of new lots whose only access would be from Lake Lucy Road. 1 The City Council debated not allowing Mr. Beddor to plat the lots until the road connection was completed. Ultimately, all the parties agreed to the following: 1 1 1 I Nez Perce Drive Extension Page 3 1 1. The plat could be allowed to proceed contingent on Mr. Beddor's paying $10,000 to the City. These funds were for the express use of covering a part of the cost to complete the connection. The money was paid and continues to be held by the City. Mr. Beddor's 1 architect submitted two alternative road alignments showing the Peaceful Lane connection. 2. The City Council agreed to rehear the item in 18 months. At that time it was believed that a development proposal on the adjacent Owens' parcel would be forthcoming in that period of time. This would be the last piece of the puzzle to connect the street. Mr. Beddor's attorney indicated that he would be attempting to purchase the property. I Mr. Beddor did purchase the north portion of the Owens' parcel. He was I Since that time, p P granted a grading permit by the Planning Commission and City Council to work on the site with the full understanding that the road connection was still being planned. The south portion of the Owens' property has been acquired by another developer and is currently being proposed as the 1 Tower Heights subdivision. Mr. Beddor now opposes the connection to Pleasant View Road. TRAFFIC ISSUES 1 Is Pleasant View Road being proposed for upgrading by the City? The answer is no. Safety related improvements may reasonably be required in the future, but even these have not been 1 contemplated. Is the Nez Perce connection intended to introduce more traffic onto Pleasant View Road? The I answer again is no. The curvilinear and indirect routing of the proposed extension is designed to minimize this potential. 1 Will traffic on Pleasant View continue to increase? The answer is probably yes. But this has much more to do with development elsewhere in the City and with the completion of the Crosstown Highway out to Highway 101 near the Chanhassen border than with the Nez Perce 1 connection which is intended to respond to local access issues. While it is by no means an ideal situation, we must recognize that Pleasant View is the only east/west road between the City line and Highway 5. This is true whether or not the connection is made or if the Owens' parcel is 1 ever developed. I COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH NEZ PERCE The feasibility study commissioned by the City Council has projected construction costs of under I $ 130,000. With the funding provided by Mr. Beddor and others, we have approximately $12,000 on hand. This does not cover acquisition costs and until the condemnation proceeds, we will not have an accurate figure. The $300,000 figure mentioned in the materials you may have received I is highly speculative and questionable. This works out to about $60,000 per acre for land that is partially encumbered by a pond. In any event, only a portion of the site is directly required for right -of -way. It is City policy to make new development pay its own way. It is our 1 1 1 Nez Perce Drive Extension 1 Page 4 expectation that most, if not all, of the costs would be assessed against the benefiting lots located 1 on the land to be developed. Thus, the investment of public dollars would be minimized or eliminated. FOR MORE INFORMATION We note that there appeared to be an accusation that official minutes of the May 24, 1993, City 1 Council meeting were altered and we take great exception to it. All Council meetings are public and the one in question was well attended. A video of the meetings are aired on cable TV. The video is available and can be viewed by contacting City Hall. There is not now, nor has there ever been, an attempt to mislead the public in this way. Should you desire additional information or wish to review the many files we have on this topic, please feel free to contact City Planning I or Engineering Staff. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �f a IV 49(4 i'i — 44y: / N w y \ '1 q. A w e %� E E '- : 3333 W w DEPT- g � A ' ` t ' �- —•-0 f• p. plot - y �' --- / ,-.1. � ' R , t -tiaa l .�, � , y' _ ..� l['�' 4 . � �i 1 /... -ate E .37 / � - ,-•/ s flN �. Q_ �• TTY. I it e , ... .__ .ir. 1 t 'TS?* 4 ' * i LI tt o .,�. r ` MN A N T ! ° O a N 'c , .� di. m OUgTL I 220.04r� 0 • ��. ,, , L41 E t ,,i s I .I r n I " ■ N ��\ N -I 8 X O \ ■ ~ _ � I-1 S? mm f — ° z ca) I -- -- % �i u ' Z v �l. m' s4 N 'I o. o. C E DLL. < I W � 4pR o > TROENDLE IRC A DDI T►0 � • to I s 70 59 0, O / �` - - a ' - w 332 °0l'w A _ 11) �w W I CTF. NO. o . Si��s� 50 r� = 19903 m ° CTF • - ; N 0 y • 7C A CAI N W Q�c7, N -r 325.69 -" 199 _ (^ I OCE W ,202 c _ _- - - -N- -- • 3�laa 23N1 — � ', T i o s 19. "v" K a _ ♦ v� I 33 d 23N1 C„ •00 ' FRANK BEE ° CTF. N0 11 n1 = z N _ 1YI�IE " NOOD I 4 _ i t J • , oo • N 2° 03 w r m r , v' 1011110 �'� 11 N/ of h M- r « . 1� c no NO i:1DDl . 10N a 0 2 s s. • -( W £ ,- D Y MSTNISEN ' yp OKIS4,►2SS '� W 1 4 , 40 sv • A UIyN� �Fgsq 4 N - � VaP PDX w N `I m 2.0 w a `" �`' �0_i N N t is I1j _ N 66 : 3116 44 kMI dill vF "14 °Ill' 7 .4 'A \ 5 ik s ": 1, .46 1 iiii__________— plot 0 CITYOF iiel 0- . - , 0 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 i (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Mayor and City Council I FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director DATE: June 23, 1993 1 SUBJ: Issues Pertaining to Nez Perce Road Extension Staff has been made aware that representatives of Frank Beddor are holding one and possibly two neighborhood meetings to gather support for his opposition to completing the connection of Nez III Perce to Pleasant View Road. Staff has not been invited to these meetings, but we have received copies of information from individuals that have. We have also received a large volume of phone calls pertaining to the meetings. Attached you will find two exhibits that appear to have been prepared by Mr. Beddor's representatives. He appears to be advocating alternative routings for Nez Perce that are similar to the ones which were presented by his representatives at the City Council meeting when this item was discussed. Staff wanted to make the City Council aware of these meetings since you are likely to receive phone calls from interested residents as we have. As we understand, the information is somewhat misleading. It appears as though the materials i indicate the city is contemplating three connections into Fox Chase. This is in no way true. er people are being told that the city is contemplating ' From calls we have gotten, we understand poop g tY the widening of Pleasant View Road. Again, this is not true. Lastly, the materials indicate that I the Nez Perce Road extension will cost $500,000, $200,000 for construction and $300,000 for land acquisition. Again, this is false. The city's feasibility study illustrates a maximum cost of $128,000 (see attachment) for road construction. We already have about $11,000 on hand towards this expense and much or all of the balance will be borne by new development on the former Owens' parcels. Secondly, the $300,000 land price equals approximately $60,000 per acre for a site that contains a large, unbuildable pond. This seems highly suspect since we have heard of no residential land in excess of $30,000 per acre. Additionally, if the city acquires the entire parcel, then lots would be created and sold off to offset acquisition costs. 1 1 t4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 . Lit. ®® R = '� � • x • • 1 1� � t, t ^ f; u• :i , ss • :- : _ L J i 9 s • ----. w s',.."*.. I • s ` �a9n1® v ' :_qa r y i°J �� y i'ii 'Ili \ ' `s ' t ; \, ) I 01 i D o� a5 , v O X47 ®011110 Ea it K - _ � ,� '. , l Op � j J. , - __._,,,, .--.,..: I , .... \ 0 4 _ ' O .�... . II I .t I I - � 1 , i ' -` .� 1 . 4 �''f' •• I � � , , s ..``::: ' ' , �� • I kJ, i t : ` -�:: ; 1 . 7 . ''.. 1 . 4s ' ' "'-- -°" —I= ' ''. Aellit A. I . mo o +' i t . �/ v _ - f � 4f• - t ^ II r ` #e" As,. ` /� ,' >, . ' — p a � � I-1/ :� • + 1. • A . it«r l` s - � Z - - ate' „ • 1 fir .- •_ " �_ 4. J; \` ,` }' \ 2 . ' lA�f � • 1 • •\ ( � Y a �� _ r ` 1}. o ' rt) s Y P � " ° •� , -� - - m 7: \ i �\ , _ .. „,,t/111,114 ' ' - \--.-'-- ' • !14:7'''''C::'-.C1* :I' ' 1 .'- � it • I J - '1' . ./ tll' 1.\_.,:„.. •\ - , � , - -r I ' -•-• T '`ra • I'k44.,41, I K / s s ' !S • y:. 1, i I t 1 . - '/ \ , ' - , 5 ,, , . ., :, (.; I ,.s Y \ V7 ---.C. - --\ • -)\ i \ '' ' 1 Tj ` � „ ,•/ I / 9J ` 1 f / / l I i , : \ ' ' \ . --- ,,, itosti r — - imi -, . ,„- > :-- \ ;iir‘ ', ' i / 1\ z ;:-... / [7.:- . \ 3 • '.. . A - ' ..' '.. - \'' ) I \ \ (. ■ ■ • M --- -'-' / • \ ' r .3 -1 / . ' i ' ‘ - / ,•5-.\ - 4_ 3- , : , ',. ,/4' .,„ __./ r. `1 ,, ,, < C N \\ ,.. — 0 - 0 CD ' . /, a.p3.61.1g 1,32: \ � . m !j � ', ` /� / s s \ � i s iHp - -� .,� . \ , , \ $ � � � „, 3. x - \ t ti ``� of F o f p ?��_. /1_ F / o 1 \ 1 .t 1 /. C ,--- ' ` , i 4 ,..0 1 �' ; 1 i 1 - \ '.'' . ' is ' .I. ; Ji ` '` .- 1 , u � ' - � I • - , 1 \ .I 1 - \ - ', : 4 ;.x • 12 4 tiri Rm. 4 i 1 ;!. POI 42 4, .......,„.... 4 ,, ;�- v D In��ltal- 9_-��� .1 .11, IIII11111:11W11 :u 111 — fi g+ 1 I F b ` " Vit _ �t 0�� � O For m � anniir. �it c o...;.• ��� � . ' �`' rte, ' . . '� �° '� °, -•• . - :�� °� a lilp.vrip,ilipli'l--f' 0� -�. � ° ii i . •_ s - 1 11 1 1A4:1 1 -4 . X11 `\ � � ti - j . = i ; J I • , ; _ - r ' . , . ,,, " . y L - jar , � � • ` ,. ,, , :1111 '/ : / !> \ I f _ _ - .\ . . /(� �_; � / I l '' _`- _ ' a ; - _ r- • " e :. I :, \. : I . - sN �li/ / Ul s 11 � ' - . - - .;•A _ \� 1 , s : :; �;',0'`'' - ` \. \ � ` \��` If '1 t1 H - / / / / �' : - c ,' 1 . 10t - #1g. \- ' :11L --:-1 El 5 1j 3ti . lair *''al it, - a - mri ,- •uP, gimaorm um. ,....,11111!*ilit 1 " in .. '3, • : !••fig.,....; .4 t .• . . :,), ':.,,,;< ' ... 5411, Z . i . I:1 . . 4 -.1 \' ":," 4 k '.: . L I f _ .- . ... / - . � ' : .. . -% 11 / /llllll - • - v� y •lam \� .1 � Y _. y 0 � \` • \ 0 ) 1 /) / e • O ` r ';: yoa�ic���� i :f a = ? N C <q �� �•< = �: \ in Ito, I [ r d� m S O ;„ ,„.:,„: g g f., ,,, , 't. � .m.� =p00n�m �I . 0 0.x 0 t _ Z O l =.0 - "I:5 £ 0 ' ' , d al„ 1 N . m' fl = ?O 0 11 ,) r c . /." : i D , `�' • 95111P% __ o�c m �8 °�m • °_ \ -44- 0 • I gb l i : A. I / s �_ ,f � , ' "a J ' { 1 a H .p _.��•'C.. _ ` � �: I I r 1 •1 /� Fes. .«. I J - ) - ec'�' t Sk II g()NIMA AND CO NCLUSIONS : 1/ 1. This project is feasible from an engineering point of view. II pro ect costs for 2. This project is a detailed analysis w termain, and storm street construction, sanitary sewer, I sewer construction. II 3. The total project costs are as follows: n Alterate A: Nez Per ( Throu h Street) II Street Construction - Nez Perce Drive $ 1 4 , 534 Sanitary Sewer Construction $ 12,337 II Watermain Construction $ g�697 Storm Sewer Construction $122,61 Total Alternate A Alternate B: Nez Perce ( "T" Intersection) II with Peaceful Lane II Street Construction - Nez Perce Drive 46,085 Street Construction - Peaceful Lane $ 54,394 Sanitary Sewer Construction $ 10,465 Watermain Construction Storm Sewer Construction $126,487 II Total Alternate B II s}. Traffic and emergency safety issues have been addressed to meet city standards for urban roadway construction. cost includes a 30 percent II 5, The total estimated project inspection, factor for engineering, construction staking, administration, and contingencies. 6. The estimated costs for improvements are detailed in Al Appendix A. ,I 1 T I TY T F -- CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 Action by ph MEMORANDUM °f` —`1 ' ° f lteGitied Rejected TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Dat: 5 - Date Subnitted to Commisskf0 FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Datc °d; :tied to Council DATE: May 18, 1993 - 5-2 Li 1 SUBJ: Discussion of Potential Official Mapping and Other Options Supporting the Extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road 1 BACKGROUND /SUMMARY 1 The idea of linking Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road was first discussed in 1989, along with the processing of the Vineland Forest plat. Staff has always strongly supported the concept since it provides for reasonable access in and around a growing residential neighborhood and has the potential of greatly reducing emergency vehicle response times. It was also clear that as the area developed, there would be sufficient new families residing in the neighborhood to warrant the connection. Lastly, a connection offers the ability to link neighborhoods in the city, allowing pedestrians and bicyclists free access without needing to detour around on Powers Boulevard. As originally proposed, the Vineland Forest plat would have provided a connection straight north from the present Nez Perce intersection with Lake Lucy Road to Pleasant View Road. This raised objections from several property owners on Pleasant View Road who feared the introduction of more traffic. After a lengthy period of review and refinement, staff presented a series of alternatives to the City Council, whereupon it was agreed by the Council that Nez Perce would ultimately be extended to Pleasant View Road, with an intersection occurring in the vicinity of Peaceful Lane. This agreement and understanding is outlined in detail in accompanying attachments. The plan always assumed that the road would be incrementally constructed as neighboring properties were developed. Vineland Forest was approved with this alignment and the road was appropriately terminated at the western property line for future extension. A temporary barricade was erected and a notice regarding the ultimate extension of 1 the street was placed in the chain -of -title of each lot. Following the approval of the Vineland Forest plat in December of 1989, the city reviewed plans 1 for the Troendle Addition. The Troendle parcel had been acquired by Mr. Frank Beddor, who sought to develop the property in what he believed to be a sensitive manner. The plan was to PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER i 1 Nez Perce Extension May 18, 1993 Page 2 consistent with the proposal to ultimately extend Nez Perce, the roadway was appropriately platted, and has since been constructed. As with the Vineland Forest plat, a temporary barricade has been erected and buyers placed on notice regarding the future extension. To support the ultimate extension of Nez Perce, Mr. Beddor was required to pay $10,000 as the Troendle Addition's share towards future assessments and costs related to the ultimate extension of Nez Perce. These funds were paid as outlined in the attached Development Agreement which is signed by Mr. Beddor. Staff also worked with Daryl Fortier, Mr. Beddor's representative, to refine an acceptable alignment for the street over the adjacent parcel owed by Art Owens. There appeared to be a strong possibility that the parcel would be acquired by Mr. Beddor. His representative asked that the alignment be modified to save trees on the Owens' parcel and this was done. At the time the Troendle Addition was reviewed, a number of residents living along Lake Lucy Road became involved in the process. They raised concerns regarding growing levels of traffic on their street. They noted that until the Nez Perce connection was made, the only means of ingress and egress into Vineland Forest and the Troendle Addition would be through their neighborhood. The City Council took note of their concerns and sought a means to assure the ultimate construction of Nez Perce. At that time, the last remaining piece of the puzzle was owned by Art Owens. Since his property was in bankruptcy at that period of time, it was unclear as to whether or not the city could actively condemn the property or when exactly it would be developing. Mr. Beddor's attorney indicated that they were continuing negotiations to acquire the property, and ultimately to develop all or part of it. Since the court action on the bankruptcy and potential acquisition by Mr. Beddor seemed at that time to be in the reasonably near future, the City Council took no action, allowing that staff should bring it back within the next 18 months if no action has occurred so that the matter could again be reviewed. In April of last year, events appeared to be moving forward toward the ultimate subdivision of the Owens' parcel. Staff brought the item back before the City Council and requested that a feasibility study to determine which was the appropriate road alignment be undertaken so that we would know how to proceed with development. We also recommended that the route be officially mapped in order to protect it. The Council authorized the feasibility study and it was reviewed by you in August of last year. At that time, Jules Smith, an attorney representing Mr. Beddor, stated that they were working out plans to purchase the northern portion of the Owens' parcel as soon as bankruptcy proceedings were resolved. He requested, on behalf of Mr. Beddor, that the hearing on the feasibility study and official mapping be tabled until the property was purchased by Mr. Beddor, at which time the applicant would meet with staff to work out an appropriate location. The Council voted to continue the item, directing staff and the representatives of Mr. Beddor to work together on the ultimate alignment and development of the Owens' parcel. In May of 1992, the City Council approved an earthwork permit for Mr. Beddor. The proposal called for the excavation of a pond and landscaping on the northern portion of the Owens' parcel 1 1 Nez Perce Extension 1 May 18, 1993 Page 3 i which had been acquired by Mr. Beddor. The permit was approved with care being taken to protect the ultimate Nez Perce alignment and potential home sites. It was approved with the condition that "the applicant shall incorporate any modifications to the site grading and/or storm sewer improvements as a result of the approved feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through the Owens' property to Pleasant View Road." On April 26 of this year, staff met with a developer who is interested in acquiring the southern half of the Owens' property, as well as Jules Smith and Daryl Fortier, representing Mr. Beddor, who proposed purchasing the northern portion of the property. The applicant was briefed on the history of the property and informed about the street extension. The alignment outlined in the feasibility study indicates that the entire extension of Nez Perce across the Owens' parcel would be located on the northern portion of the site which is owned by Mr. Beddor. Daryl Fortier, who said he was speaking for Mr. Beddor, said that they have determined that the most appropriate place for a home on the northern parcel is in the same spot that the road is being proposed to be I located. Therefore, they are now opposed to any extension of the road and indicated that they planned on proceeding with home plans that would forever prevent the city from constructing the connection of Nez Perce. Staff expressed some shock at this 180° turnaround in position and indicated that we would bring the item back before the City Council for consideration as soon as possible. COMMENT 1 Staff is greatly disappointed with the position that appears to have been adopted by Mr. Fortier on behalf of Mr. Beddor. We have worked diligently and cooperatively with them for the past four years on the ultimate construction of this vital street connection. The city has bent over backwards in working with them to achieve the connection with as little disruption as possible. I Throughout the process, they have indicated that they will be working with the city and, in fact have platted appropriate right -of -way across the Troendle Addition and even deposited $10,000 towards the ultimate construction of the street. We note that last year staff had recommended 1 the City Council go ahead and officially map the road to protect the right -of -way from something just like this occurring, but the Council declined to do so based upon representations made by Mr. Beddor's representatives who indicated that they would shortly be in a position to work with us on the road pending their acquisition of the Owens' parcel. We now feel that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. After all these years of effort and commitments that were made I to area residents, we find that it seems a great deal of effort was made to mislead the city. We believe that there is no other option than to immediately officially map the road so that any construction within the right -of -way can be prevented. We would also recommend that the City Council consider condemnation of the right -of -way and look to assess the cost for road construction back upon benefitting properties. We believe that city staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council have made a good faith effort to work cooperatively on this matter and that our actions are beyond reproach. We also believe we have a number of residents on Lake Lucy Road who are expecting the connection to be made in a timely manner based upon 1 1 1 Nez Perce Extension May 18, 1993 Page 4 good faith statements of the City Council at past meetings. We are not certain as to why there appears to be a change in direction by Mr. Beddor's representatives, but we believe that it is in the best interest of all to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the official mapping of the Nez Perce Drive connection. The two alternatives contained in the July 8, 1992, feasibility study should be reviewed with Alternative A being the preferred alignment of city staff. We further recommend that the City Council consider condemnation to acquire the roadway and undertake its construction to assure that this connection, that has been planned for so many years, is constructed in a timely manner. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If hearing none, I'll .call for a motion and that part of that motion be to move to direct staff to prepare findings consistent with denial for this project. I/ Councilman Mason: So moved. Councilman Wing: Second. 1 Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Ming seconded to revoke Conditional Use Permit #88 -11 for a contractors yard at 1700 Flying Cloud Drive and direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS OFFICIAL MAPPING OF EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE AND REALIGNMENT OF PEACEFUL LANE. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, this is a sore difficult one I'm afraid. We've really , ...to ask for some guidance relative to the ultimate extension of Nez Perce. Some 4 years ago when Vineland Forest plat was being reviewed, we looked at alternatives for access in the area. One of the original proposals mentioned by staff was running the road straight up Pleasant View. That raised a lot of concerns with the folks who lived on Pleasant View relative to traffic and we looked at alternatives to that that could gain access for a relatively large and growing city neighborhood. Also, keeping in mind the traffic concerns. We looked at a variety of alternatives. Other means of accessing that area, we outlined in purple. Originally Fox Path was supposed to be extended over to the east. We looked at that. Unfortunately Fox Path was platted before the city had topo maps and it runs over a 60 foot hill. Even our engineering department couldn't make that one work. We looked at, there's a 50 foot right -of -way that goes back to Lake Lucy Road inbetween what ultimately I think has now got 2 1 houses on it. There were grade problems there. It didn't resolve the access concern. It didn't, well it raised questions for the folks who lived on Lake Lucy Road. We came up with a series of alternatives, and in the interest of time I'll only show you one of them. Alternative 3 I believe was the one that the City Council approved. What it basically did is it said that Nez Perce should be extended out to Pleasant View in the manner outlined here incrementally as properties were developed. And that was, it was under that guidance, under that understanding that Vineland Forest was approved. We put a temporary barricade up and Sharmin, you can show them where the Troendle border is. We put a temporary barricade up right over there. It had a sign on it that said, this road will be extended. I'm pretty sure there was a notice in the chain of title for each lot saying that this is going to be occurring. And that's the way it sat for a period of time. Year, year and a half down the road Mr. Beddor, who was one of the primary proponents of the street, through option of Vineland Forest, acquired the Troendle property and worked with us on developing it. The Troendle Addition was also approved under that alternative 3 guidance. Basically the alignment of Nez Perce was set aside, taken in that subdivision. Was built to serve part of it. During that process a lot of the neighbors who lived on Lake Lucy Road raised concerns at the Council meeting, for those of you who were here at the time. Their concerns was that traffic, and Lake Lucy Road is a thru street. There's no question about it but that Lake Lucy Road was receiving what they believed to be an excessive amount of traffic and as more development took place with only one means of ingress and egress, 1/ 24 ' 1 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 that that would continue to build. At the time they asked the City Council, if I remember right, to not approve Troendle Addition until the road was put through. Instead we tried to find some creative sort of a solution to that. It was debated as to whether or not all the lots should be approved right now or in 1 the future. I think what we settled on basically was that Mr. Beddor was obligated to pay 510,000.00 to the ultimate construction of Nez Perce so that when the adjacent Owens property came through, that that would be the last piece 1/ of the puzzle and we'd have some of the funds sitting there to do a feasibility study and to build I think the Peaceful Lane section of that road was outlined. The reason for that being was it was always believed that whoever developed the Owens parcel would be obligated to build that section of Nez Perce so our only 1 cost would be, or the cost that needs to be shared needs to be on Peaceful Lane. And again, that's the way that sat for a while. In, I think it was last year, we came before you to do a feasibility study of where exactly this road should ' go and there were basically two alternatives that refined upon the ones that we had outlined 4 years previous. One basically, well. One basically had a 90 degree turn at Peaceful Lane. The other one had a curve at Peaceful Lane. These by the way are illustrated by a developer that is proposing to develop part of the Owens property. So that's the one with the 90 degree intersection. That's the one with the flowing curve. It's basically on the same theme. At the same time, I met out in the field with Mr. Beddor's representative, the 1 architect who laid out the Troendle Addition. We actually realigned, or re- oriented Nez Perce as it came through here so that it would miss some trees on Mr. Owens' property and basically tinkered with it in the field just to make it a little more adaptable. The City Council received a feasibility report. We at the time suggested that it may be wise to officially map the thing, just so everybody knew exactly where it was going to be. At the time though the big element of confusion was Mr. Owens property was in bankruptcy proceeding. It was unclear as to what ability we had to intercede with the Judge, if any. Mr. Beddor's attorney indicated that they were negotiating with Mr. Owens and it seemed that everything would fall into place in a period of time and the Council asked us to work on that and bring it back to you at some appropriate time. Shortly thereafter we also worked on a grading permit for the northern portion of the Owens property where that pond is, if you go up there. The proposal for regrading it was drawn up by Mr. Beddor's architect. Basically cleaning up the area. ultimately providing some landscaping. It seemed like a reasonable thing to do and it was also consistent with the future construction of the road. That brings us up to the present situation. Clearly there's been a long term effort of consistent decision making and planning to make this road happen in a coordinated manner. I don't know if you want to go into the question of why the road. I mean this is something that was debated long and hard 4 years ago but if you take a look at how the neighborhood lays out, I think you can see why we've always believed that it would be a valid thing to get a free flow of local traffic through there. We're not looking to introduce anything else into the 1 neighborhood. There are approximately 30 some, I think 30 homes on the two subdivisions now. It's a dead end cul -de -sac now is about 1,500 feet long. Emergency vehicle access and you've heard those kinds of things from us before. There's connecting neighborhood. So the why question was pretty such established 4 years ago. At our recent dealings on this, which came about because we have received inquiries from a developer for the southern portion of the Owens property. Mr. Beddor's representatives, who Mr. Beddor has since acquired the northern portion of the Owens property. Have indicated that, as they see it now, and as I understand it. I wasn't at the meeting but Sharmin 25 1 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 was, that the most appropriate location for a house on the land that they acquired is right where the road's supposed to go. And that there is some question as to whether the road should be put through at all. I mean clearly there's very limited ability, and we can look at it again but there's very limited ability for the road to go through there. Mr. Owens' house is up here. The pond's down here. The road was skewed in a particular angle so that it can transit the hill. We were frankly a little bit incredulous about that. I mean I understand what the concerns are but clearly, I mean I thought that there was some understanding of where we were going with this. That being the case and given the last guidance that we got from you, this is not a decision that we, as staff, can or should be making. This is something that I needed to bring back to you and get your guidance on. There's no action particularly before you tonight but there is a suggestion of some various actions you can look at taking. You can accept cul -de -sacs in this area. That is a possibility. There are ways of serving all the lots, one way or another. It's likely, well it will be dumping more traffic back out onto Lake Lucy Road. There's various - alternatives to do that. We don't happen to think from staff's standpoint that that's optimal. You could go ahead and officially map the road. Pick a center line and have it officially mapped. There again that's, that will hold for a while but the point of official mapping is not to have a defacto taking of property...to establish officially that this is where the city thinks the road should go. But the underlying property owner still has rights and ultimately if they wanted to put a house right where the road's supposed to go, I believe the City has 6 months then to condemn or acquire the property. But you don't have the right to just officially map it and for get it. I mean it does imply some responsibility on the city's part. There is and always has been the possibility of condemnation, which is always a difficult thing to consider. To put the road through and look toward assessing costs back. I wouldn't even hazard to guess as to how assessments might go. You've been through this process any number of times and you're all familiar with it. And one possibility that I discussed with the City Attorney briefly today, or he suggested briefly was the possibility of a moratorium. Again, you can't do that ad infinitum. A specific purpose. Look for alternatives. Whatever that might be on a specific deadline. Again, we're bringing this back to you for your guidance and we need your direction on how to pursue this, or if we should pursue this. And with that I'll return it back to you Mayor. , Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Councilman Wing: Paul, I thought that looking back on old notes that I thought , we had gone along with alternative 3. That was kind of agreed upon, but you're recommending 4? Paul Krauss: No. Councilman Wing: In my packet. I thought that's alternative 3. Isn't that the one? Paul Krauss: Right. That is Alternative 3. You know there were variations on all of these Councilman Wing because we didn't know how properties were going to develop. Alternative 4 actually put Nez Perce down further to the south and that at this point is not possible because the Troendle Addition exists inbetween. 26 ' City Council Meeting - May 24, 1593 Mayor Chmiel: I know there are at least 3 of us that sat on this particular proposal when it was made a few years ago. I know there was one of the real major concerns that we had was that the condemnation aspect was not an in thing for us to do. I think that while that property was going to be developed accordingly, the other land rights would automatically come back to the city for that proposed road. Has Mr. Beddor purchased the property from Mr. Owens yet? 11 Paul Krauss: Yes. Mayor Chmiel: That's already done. Okay. Paul Krauss: Yes. It's my understanding that that was handled through the bankruptcy proceeding. Mayor Chmiel: Well, that condemnation portion still bothers me. I don't like it. I don't think we should have to throw away dollars...I think that's a developer's responsibility basically. To put that in. I don't see why the City or anybody else should have to pick up those costs for that road. I think that was... • (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Daryl Fortier: ...we don't want to consider that alternative is the topography to the south of the water tower is prohibitive. And that grade change that you were showing earlier tonight is a reason that we view taking our cul -de -sac south out onto Lake Lucy Road is being inappropriate in addition to the neighbors and other constituents and voters in your city and taxpayers feeling pretty strongly, from our feedback, that they don't want to see that happen. What we're really here discussing tonight is one resident's wishes versus another developer's desire and some long term promises made by staff to very many Chanhassen residents. I don't feel particular strongly personally about this extension. I don't see that it directly affects our plat. We have access to Peaceful Lane. Our plat can go through without that extension. So I don't want to see the misrepresentation made that these two items need to be tied together. They don't need to be tied together. Unfortunately they seem to be before you at the same time. That's all I have. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Sherry Novachek: My name is Sherry Novachek. I'd just like to start out and say it is not just one resident who's very concerned about this. I live on Pleasant View Cove, which is right off Pleasant View Road and 2 weeks ago my daughter almost got killed getting off the school bus. I was here 4 years ago when we discussed the danger of extending more cars onto Pleasant View Road. 1 There have been several accidents since that time. One a head -on collision this last winter. It is a very narrow, busy, over used road right now and as TH 101 is developed and Crosstown comes in, if we extend Nez Perce it's going to become more and more traffic used. I think there are hardships to builders but I think the lives of children and people have to come over that. My daughter got off the bus and as Pleasant View Road dumps into Pleasant View Cove, there's an extreme, extreme blind spot. Several car accidents happen almost every year. 11 There's extreme blind spots and curves all the way around and I think, you know we talked just a little while ago about the developments that are occurring. I 27 1 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 think Lake Lucy Road and Pleasant View Road, there are no easy ways to come off either one of them. But of the two, Pleasant View Road is far, far more dangerous. And I think that Daryl's proposal seems to me to be, it's an alternative to dumping the cars back on Pleasant View Road and I think before somebody gets killed we really need to look at this very closely. 11 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Mary Stassen: Would you put alternative 3 back up there for me? My name is 1 Mary Stassen and I guess I's a little bit surprised that nobody mentioned us through this whole thing because we live at the corner of Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane and our house is located right here. Right up at that corner and our driveway almost comes out like right at that corner and it's, I measured. It's 125 feet because that used to be the main thru street that went through there. That's 125 feet across that corner and so, I mean if somebody's going to get killed, it's probably going to be us coming out of our driveway because it's very dangerous for us and we've lived there, we've owned the property for 7 years. We've lived there for 6 and 6 years ago I talked to Jim Chaffee and had him come out. He was the Safety Commissioner at that time and he agreed with me that it was a dangerous corner and that something was going to be done about it and so we've sat and we've been to every meeting. We weren't involved 4 years ago because nobody notified us that all this was going on until they started considering the connection through to Peaceful Lane and that's the time that we got involved and that was about 2 years ago I guess. So we're very concerned about this sweeping corners, as most of you know. And if anything, we want to make sure that there's 90 degree turns put in there. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Paul. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, a quick response to that. We did speak to Mrs. Stassen and her husband several times over the last few years. One of the big problems though on Peaceful Lane is that you have a wide open curve through here and it is, I mean it's big enough to serve the Mega Mall. The alternatives that we brought forth to you last year and looked at doing is squaring this off. Actually tying in something like that which would have a tendency, well. It makes a much clearer T intersection at Pleasant View. It also tended to pull the road some distance further away from the Stassen residence. I don't recall how much it was but that issue was raised and dealt with in the feasibility study. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Stuart Hoarn: I'm Stuart Hoarn. I have property adjoining, I guess you'd say. 1 The Vineland Forest Addition. I've looked at this for a long time too and particularly in acquiring the property and my understanding has always been of course that it was going to go through. The sign that's posted there on the barricade has said that for years and I find it very difficult to believe that someone could live in that area for a long time and not see the sign and then buy property unaware of that or not in comtesplation of that. But that's, so it looks to me as though, at least I remember that where that green magic marker spot is, the sign was there and now it's moved. And I had the impression that Troendle Addition, when it was put in, was in contemplation of that going through as well and that that was part of the city's sort of give and take in 1/, 28 1 1 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 putting Troendle in. I think though that we definitely should have some kind of a traffic control type of intersection. More of a T. More something that would tend to keep people just from sweeping around the corner. The point is though that if the Crosstown is coming through to TH 101, which it is and all those 11 other things are going on, that people that live in Vineland Forest and so on, are going to go south and around Lake Lucy and up CR 17, or Mill Street, whatever you want to call it, and they're going to cut onto Pleasant View 11 anyway. I mean it's not like they're not going to do that. I mean I know I'm going to do that. I don't know at what speed I'm going to do that but if I'm late, I'm probably going to be in a bigger hurry because I have to go out of my way to get around there. I'm being a little facetious in saying that but I 11 think that will happen. I think there's a tendency that if people have to drive 3/4 of a mile to get 50 feet from their front door, which essentially is what would happen with my house. Not quite 50 feet. 250 feet. To get to Pleasant View Road, people are going to be in a bigger hurry. So I think that's a factor as well. Not to mention trying to come through by the water tower is -going to have an adverse affect on the character, if you will, of Lake Lucy Road and the residents that live currently on Lake Lucy Road. There's sort of the character of two different areas and I guess one of my thoughts on that is, is that the character of an area of higher value, higher income homes and so on, may sometimes there's an air of the word character underneath it has the word elitism. It's as though property of some value, their kids may be, you know I don't know how to put it. If a kid who comes from a piece of property worth $150,000.00 gets run over it may be different than someone who comes from a piece of property worth a million and a half. But it's still a kid. So I think there's sort of a balance there that has to be struck. Some people's kids are more important than others. I understand. Mine are the most important, but we all have that attitude. I think there's a balance that would be struck and 11 people are still going to pour out of Vineland Forest and out of Troendle and try to get to the Crosstown. You're not going to ignore the Crosstown just because the road takes them another 5 minutes out of their way. They just may hurry more. Rod Johnson: My name's Rod Johnson. I live on Lake Lucy and I got up once before and we've been through this. I guess the biggest thing that strikes me as another point of this is my wife's pregnant with the 29th kid on that street from one corner to the other. And I sympathize but, hey. It's got to be shared equally. I think the corner needs to be fixed but the city needs to consider too if my kid gets run over and this street didn't go through, I guarantee you who else is going to be on the suit along with Mr. Beddor. So I mean that's the way I look at it now and I can see it and I can understand everybody's upset. Jim Duchene: I'm Jim Duchene on Lake Lucy Road, 961. I think the Mayor started it off right tonight by saying commitment. We've been in front of you probably 4 times. I think Daryl had a private meeting with us. I know the Mayor was with us that evening. Showing us plans where it would connect to Pleasant View and that has always been one of the options presented and the option that we accepted as a neighborhood. And to hear this come up again, I know Pleasant View is a poor quality road but I think Nez Perce is too. I know if you've walked up in that area and you come down Nez Perce, it's probably worst than Pleasant View. Okay. Our concern I think, and we have, I think most of our 11 neighborhood here tonight on Lake Lucy Road, is that it be safe for everyone. And perhaps there's some problems on Pleasant View and maybe speed limit 1 29 1 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1 reductions can address that. I know as our family, we very seldom take Pleasant View. We'll take Highway S or Highway 7. Pleasant View takes time and it does wind as the lady said. Has a lot of dangerous curves. We don't use that road. Will that change? I think the city can address those issues with speed reductions and perhaps discourage people from taking that route. I'd like to see Daryl and the developer hold to their promises or their commitment to our community. To our taxpayers. To our citizens in that area and that's keeping their promise where the road was sketched several times and we came out, as Paul had said, fairly close to this particular alternative 3 I guess. So I'd just ask that you hold people to their commitment. Their promise. It's been a 4 year process and it's kind of like, let's go until we wear everybody out. Until we don't show up. So I'd like to see you go with the plan as it was proposed. Thank you. Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, could I just interrupt at this point? 1 Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Councilman Wing: Are you all, are you from Lake Lucy? ' Resident: Yes. Councilman Wing: Hold on a minute. I'm not going to suggest that Mr. Smith or Mr. Fortier at any time misled staff, but I guess I am going to say, speaking for Lake Lucy and myself, having been here every night, they misled me. There was never any question in my mind that, thought we had some understanding. We simply had an understanding. I mean this was to me a done deal. That's why I'm kind of stunned that this isn't mapped and done and we've kind of got an attitude tonight of God save Pleasant View but let's dump all our traffic onto Lake Lucy. Or we take the other viewpoint tonight with all these people, maybe God save Lake Lucy and let's not worry about Pleasant View. This road isn't a big collector thoroughfare. If you look at this, it's a nuisance to wind through there and we talked about stop signs. It's not going to be a convenient way. People are still going to cut down Lake Lucy Road but to come in with a development after all this time and all these discussions and again, I'm willing to pull all these old Minutes out. To me it was an absolute clear cut deal. I don't know why this isn't done. But tell us you're going to develop property and put in homes and traffic and dump them onto Lake Lucy, it's clearly already been decided it's been a problem and a traffic issue and a dangerous road for kids. There's 29th young child being on there and I will say is a fact, one of my last trips down there some little, by the way. This is for you folks again. I said this last time. This happened again. A little kid came down the driveway on one of these little bikes, right out into the street off the driveway and that's a pretty dangerous street. 5o anyway ay point is, it's okay for Mr. Beddor to develop his property and then dump it onto Lake Lucy because he doesn't want to effect his road. Well hell that's not the way we operate in the city as I saw it. And everything that's been brought up tonight, every comment that you're going to make has been heard. I mean it was a done deal. You don't even to speak as far as I'm concerned because I've heard you loud and clear. You don't want the traffic. You don't want that dumped down on your street. I don't think it should happen. That road was already semi decided on. Whether it went a little north or a little south. Bend it a little here. Bend I/ it a little there. But I think it's Mr. Beddor's problem, not your's and as far 30 ' City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 as I'm concerned, whatever we have to do to get this done Paul. Whether it's number 3 or number 4, we've got to do it. If it's condemnation, we do it. We've discussed that pond before. We've discussed Lot 5 before. We've discussed Peaceful Lane before. Do you want to counter, or add? Just a minute. 11 Let me just hit my notes. Old news. Old news. This is all old news. Mr. Fortier has not brought up anything new. He discussed this with us hour after hour about 2 years ago. Year and a half ago. Year ago and every single comment these people have made, I thought had been heard and decided on and I'm frankly frustrated that this is even back here tonight. I don't want to hear more about it. To me I've already my decision. I've already voted. Thank you. Councilman Mason: Dog gone it Councilman Wing, that's my neighborhood and you stole my thunder. Councilman Wing: I want to know what we do to get this off dead center and move ahead. I don't want to hear anymore. Mayor Chmiel: What I'd like to do is get a motion. 11 Councilman Mason: I think Mr. Smith would like to say something. II ' Mayor Chmiel: Paul. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, you may want to get some counsel as to what your options are. There are some, well. There are some alternatives to tinker with the alignment. The concern I have, and let's assume for the moment that everybody can trust everybody to deal with this in a fair manner. There is nothing stopping Mr. Beddor from using the property as he sees fit at this point 11 in time. He's the property owner. He's entitled to do whatever he'd like to do. There may be ways of introducing some more flexibility into the alignment for Hr. Beddor's property. There is an issue there. I mean there is more of a taking the way the road is now. However, as I recall, this road, Nez Perce is skewed this way because of input that we got from Mr. Fortier as to how this would happen. At that time they didn't know how much they were going to buy from Mr. Beddor, or not. There is a hill here. It goes up to the Owens house. One of the possibilities might be coming across a little higher. There is a grading problem with that. That might be a possibility. That would result in a T intersection but it would give bigger home sites over here. The problem is that also involves a lot that I believe is still vacant in the Troendle Addition. You can see that lot down here, and maybe Mr. Fortier knows if it's still vacant or not but it kind of comes up that way. And sort of tells you which way the road has to go because it points you in one direction. You may wish to consider, and I'd defer to Council on this. Some sort of a temporary moratorium on that lot, on development there to allow the best alignment to come out. If that's your wish. I don't know. I just throw that on the table for you. You may want to bounce that off... Mayor Chmiel: Good. Good. Councilman Mason: I'd just like to quickly add that the argument about whether Nez Perce goes through or not will affect traffic on Pieasant View. If you're driving down Lake Lucy Road and you want to get to Pleasant View, you're going to do it. I mean you're either going to go through Nez Perce or you're going to 1 31 1 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 create more of a problem on Powers Boulevard by coming out there, or Kerber or Carver Beach, and go on Pleasant View anyway. So I don't quite understand Mr. Beddor's, where they're coming from saying that not putting that road through will create less traffic on Pleasant View. I use Pleasant View. I live in Carver Beach. I'm going to use Pleasant View whether Nez Perce goes through or not so I don't, that argument I don't understand. Councilman Wing: Mike, the other question I had was, if this is such an issue, why doesn't he just take all his lots and development and connect those to ' Pleasant View. This thing probably never would have come up in the first place. Why does his development have to go down to Lake Lucy? They don't deserve it. Jules Smith: Mr. Councilman, you have to understand. We're not here asking for 1 anything. We weren't brought here. We didn't initiate this. We're responding to what the city staff brought before the Council. I certainly think we have a right to put our use for it. It's our land. We're not asking for anything. The City Council has an absolute right to do whatever they want. Do you want to condemn it? Condemn it. We can't stop that. The same is true when we came for the Troendle Addition. You said you wanted 510,000.00 and an alignment or we wouldn't get the plat. Well, we still felt, if we ever, at that time we didn't own that property. There was nothing we could do. If you want to put a road through it, put it through. But don't sit here knocking us because we're here saying well, it's our land and maybe we'd like to have you take a different look at it. We're not the bad guys here. We have our view over our lot but you can do whatever you want. Mayor Chmiel: That's the position we'll take. Thank you Jules. Yeah, one more, please. Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I guess I don't agree with that comment I/ because he was at the meeting down at, was it at Victory Envelope or whatever. It was pretty clear a road was going to go through. You had said that that night. I suppose you wanted it there because then it's not official on the Minutes of the City or something. I'm not really sure what the point was. But You're here to try to present a plan to influence the city to put more traffic on Lake Lucy and keep it off of Pleasant View. Don't tell me you don't have an agenda. You defintely do. Jules Smith: Well sure we have an agenda but... Mayor Chmiel: Jules, out of order there. Please. Paul Hanson: My name is Paul Hanson. I live on Lake Lucy Road also and I would 1 like to point out two things. One, I talked to the builder who built a home in the cul -de -sac of Troendle Circle and they have informed me that they intend to begin building a home on the lot in which Paul was discussing. So they are I/ already getting ready to build a lot on that lot. On that property, as far as I've been told. That may be misinformation. The other thing is, we're discussing 504 feet of Pleasant View. I don't know how long Pleasant View is. I imagine it's a mile and a half or so, but I think Paul could probably tell us. I'm guessing that, I paced it off. We're talking about SOO feet from Peaceful Lane, on Pleasant View until you get to Powers Boulevard and Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View in those locations are not old, narrow streets. They're nice and II! 32 1 1 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 wide. There's enough room there for lots of traffic and I think if anyone were to want to look for themselves, just drive over there. I think you'll be satisfied that there's not a major problem with the road space the way they exist right now on Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View to go through. I keep hearing this issue that they have to spend money developing it and it really doesn't need it if you look at that small portion of the road. The last point I'll make is if I remember right from the Minutes of the meeting the last time, the $10,000.00 was put down for the north half of the completion of the road of Nez Perce to go to Peaceful Lane. I think that's worth looking into. I believe that's what the $10,000.00 was put in for. It wasn't put in for any improvements on Peaceful Lane. Thank you. Resident: I'd just like to say one more thing. That 500 feet is probably the most dangerous intersection of all of Pleasant View Road and including Lake Lucy Road. There's a blind spot where the cars come up and over the hill. _They come up very fastly. It's a 25 mph. Right now it doesn't make any difference. You could put 15 mph or 10 mph, it is a highly, highly dangerous intersection there where Pleasant View Cove and Pleasant View Road run into. Mayor Chmiel: Elliott, do you have any words of good wisdom? 1 Councilman Mason: As opposed to bad wisdom. Elliott Knetsch: I think Paul's recommendation in the report gives you your options...further addition, the possibility of a moratorium if there was a need to study further details as to exactly how Nez Perce would connect at that intersection. I don't know that I can add anything. It's not really so much a legal issue as one of if you want to proceed. Mayor Chmiel: Right. Okay. As Council's heard, there's two issues that can be done. One, the moratorium. As indicated to be established for a period of time until all situations are worked out. Or to proceed with what's presently before us. Michael. 1 Councilman Mason: I guess with what Paul's comments about seeing what we can do to perhaps nudge the road, either a moratorium right now as opposed to official mapping might be in order just because. ' Mayor Chmiel: I would think that it would be because it gives us the option to see whether or not it can be done. Without it having to come back just one more time. Councilman Wing: You're stating that our position is the road, there is going to be a road there? Mayor Chmiel: Right. Councilman Wing: It's just a matter of how we can work it out? 1 Mayor Chmiel: How that road can be worked out. 11 Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the reason I'm suggesting that is given the way the property's been broken out by the Judge, in the present alignment of the road, 11 33 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1 what they own, there is probably a severance issue with Mr. Beddor's property. Maybe that can be minimized. I/ Mayor Chmiel: Right. So I would entertain a motion for this particular position. Resident: Mr. Mayor, can I add one thing? You haven't closed your public hearing right? , Mayor Chmiel: You're out of order right now. We're back to Council. If you'd like to sit down, we'll come back to you. ' Councilman Mason: This hasn't been a public hearing anyway. Mayor Chmiel: No. Councilman Senn: Can I ask a couple questions? Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. 1 Councilman Senn: Under the option that you suggested on the moratorium. Are any of the affected parcels? I mean what are the status of those affected parcels? Paul Krauss: Councilman Senn, the moratorium specifically, and is it possible you can come up with a moratorium and...the same night? We didn't publish one. That's not an issue? Okay. Elliott Knetsch: We have to act on this moratorium at the next meeting. I 1 think tonight we have to authorize that though and get it ready for the next meeting. Paul Krauss: There probably are only two properties that need to be involved and I think it's been referred to as Lot 5, Jules. Is that? The northern piece of the Owens property that Mr. Beddor owns. And I don't know what lot number it is but it's the northwestern most lot in the Troendle Addition south of Nez Perce. Or at least to insure that the home is set back far enough so that that's a possibility. Otherwise there is no option. Councilman Senn: Are either of those parcels already platted or preliminary platted? Paul Krauss: Well, the Troendle Addition's all final platted. Councilman Senn: Then how can we do a moratorium? Paul Krauss: We leave that up to the City Attorney to see if that's possible. Councilman Senn: I've heard on past things is we can't do moratoriums. 1 Resident: That corner lot, they've got...it's all staked for a home. Starting construction. 1 34 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 Councilman Senn: I guess the other question I had was relating to Mr. Beddor's representative's. Were you aware at the time that you bought the property out of the bankruptcy court that this plan for the road was there? Jules Smith: Well we certainly knew it was being considered. Councilman Senn: That was the most round about answer I've heard I guess. Were you aware of the road plan when you purchased the land from the bankruptcy court? Jules Smith: Well of course. We knew that there was, I mean this study was made long before that act. Councilman Senn: Okay. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Mike, did you have something? Councilman Mason: Well, how is this moratorium going to work if someone's already starting to dig a home? I mean that. Councilman Senn: Yeah, that...jive with what we've been told in the past. Mayor Chmiel: Paul can you. Paul Krauss: Well a couple things. If a house is being built on that corner ' lot, it eliminates a lot of the possibilities for realigning the road at this point. There may still be some potential to realigning the road by twisting it around in the right -of -way. If the home is actually back far enough, we can acquire some additional right -of -way. Straighten it up. Those kind of things may be warranted to look at. The concern that I have though is, even lacking that. Even a home is built on that corner. That Mr. Beddow is the owner of the property and can come in with a building permit on his lot tomorrow and we would have to issue it. I'm not saying that they're anticipating doing that. I have no idea but we would be obligated to issue the building permit. Official mapping is a good way to go, if you had time. Official mapping requires a 1 center line survey. Then it's got to come through the Planning Commission and City Council. So you're probably looking at a couple months there. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Colleen? Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well, I think we've dispensed with one of the two issues. The first one being should the road go through and a year ago I was at 11 the podium cipherously arguing that in my neighborhood we should not join two. As you'll remember Paul. We should not join two neighborhoods and arguing to maintain a mile long cul -de -sac but that was a year ago and I'm definitely a 1 year old and hopefully a little wiser so I would agree that the road does need to go through. We just asked how and, I don't know. It's a toughy. I don't have any suggestions. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard. Councilman Wing: I've spoken. I've made my decision a year ago with the Lake Lucy folks. I thought it was a done deal so how can we best accomplish it. • ' 35 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 Mayor Chmiel: Well yeah. I'm pretty much in that same boat with you on that. I don't disagree with you. The only question that I have is to find what legally is right for us to do and approach it from that aspect. I think that's what I'm looking for. His words of wisdom as to how to best accomplish this. Either through the moratorium. Possibly tabling it or going through the official mapping portion that Paul has mentioned previously. 11[ Elliott Knetsch: Well the unknown is what the development plan is... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) ' Resident: ...the way I've seen things go, it's very likely you could have a building permit request on their desks by 8:30 in the morning tomorrow if you don't do what you need to do to stop that. Mayor Chmiel: We realize that. Thank you. Okay. We have before us one of two t things to go. Either to authorize a moratorium hearing or to proceed with, basically what staff recommendations are. Councilman Wing: I think staff ought to move ahead on the mapping but we ought ' to give them some time to get their act together and get it mapped. So I guess if a moratoriu, which I am not. I kind of agree with Councilman Senn. I'm not so sure we shouldn't just charge full steam ahead and if they want to start bringing building permits, that process can come before this Council and it could take years. Councilman Mason: Obviously there's been some disagreement and some hard feelings here. One of the nice things I've felt about being a part of this Council and working with this city is that this is the place for hard feelings and you know things get sifted out and get worked out in the way that's best for everybody and I would hope that, and up until now I think everyone's done that and I would hope that that would continue regardless of what we choose to do. Councilman Wing: If we went with Mr. Senn's comments and it didn't work out, is there any reason we couldn't then impose a moratorium on future development? At any point we can come in with a moratorium? Of some sort. 1 Councilman Senn: Well, I guess I'd really like to see, I mean if we start getting into something to me that's really highly questionable and I'm going to say given some past things I've heard in the last 6 months, it's highly questionable, again to me that presents problems that weakens our case. Okay, to me we ought to just simply pass a motion to direct staff to implement the plan that was previously approved... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I like your position but I want to make sure that legally that I have that behind me to support that position. And that's one of the questions that I throw back one more time to Elliott from what Mark has basically said. Elliott Knetsch: I hear what Mark's saying but I haven't, I don't know how we , would accomplish that tonight from what I'm seeing. I mean if we follow this to it's logical conclusion, it's right on the board. I mean everybody knows what's been talked to and as Dick mentioned, agreed to in his mind and the minds of 36 ' City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 many others. The question is how to accomplish that and lock it in tonight. I think probably the only way to do that is to, and there is a question about the legality of a moratorium. I don't have the background on how that lot...I was discussing it with Don. Apparently it's a lot of record and if it is, it may not be appropriate for a moratorium because the moratorium ordinance does say that you cannot delay a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval. If it's an existing lot of record, it's been approved. So I think what we might 1 be really looking at is authorizing condemnation of that Lot S. And I would look at the entire lot rather than just where the road would cross the lot because if the road goes through across the lot, and then it damages the lot so it's unbuildable, then you're really talking about a taking of the entire lot 1 anyway even if you just take the road so you might as well take the whole lot. Councilman Senn: But is that a direction we give to staff or can we authorize a condemnation without public hearing and everything else? Elliott Knetsch: Yes. You can authorize a condemnation tonight. 1 Councilman Wing: And I would also...begin legal mapping and then Mike's saying, just perhaps everybody might decide to get along and come to a consensus here and resolve the issue anyway. II Mayor Chmiel: Right. And that can always happen. ' Councilman Mason: I would hope that that would be looked at. Well, are we ready to go here? Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Being there wasn't a second to Mark's first one, then I would entertain another motion. Councilman Mason: Okay. I'll recommend that the City Council authorize official mapping of Nez Perce Drive. I would also further recommend that City Council consider condemnation to acquire the lot. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Lot 5. Councilman Mason: Lot 5 as opposed to the roadway. Councilman Wing: I'll second that. Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? 1 Resolution $93 - 47: Councilman Mason moved, Councilman Wing seconded to authorize the official mapping of Nez Perce Drive. The two alternatives in the ' July 8, 1992 feasibility study should be reviewed with Alternative A being the preferred alignment of city staff. Further, that the City Council proceed with condemnation of Lot 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 1 Paul Krauss: Just a clarification. Consider condemnation or direct. Councilman Wing: Do it. 1 Councilman Mason: Should I strike consider in that motion? • 1 37 1 City Council Meeting - May 24, 1993 1 Elliott Knetsch: As long as you're saying that you meant direct. ', Councilman Mason: I meant to do it. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, clarification's there. ' Councilman Wing: Second to that. ' AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TH 101 TRAIL. PROJECT 88- 22B -6. Todd Hoffman: Mr. Mayor and City Council members. As you are aware, and as ' presented in the staff report this evening, this City has embarked on the process to investigate the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along TH 101 from Pleasant View Road south to West 78th Street, or the downtown area. This segment of trail has been identified in the city's comprehensive trail plan as a phase 1, 1990 -1995 improvement. The TH 101 trail represents the last leg of improvements in this timeframe. The other trails which were completed as a part of that phase 1 include the Highway 5 trail from Eden Prairie to Powers Boulevard. The Minnewashta Parkway trail and the Market Boulevard trail system. Councilperson Senn brought this subject to the forefront of the public process upon election to the Council. His effort in doing so was inspired by the overwhelming inquiry he received into this issue during his campaign in that area. As outlined in Mr. Horn's report, the city has hosted two neighborhood meetings to discuss this issue. One on March 31st and one on April 20th. With 39 and 57 residents in attendance respectively. The second meeting resulted in the presentation of two petitions to the city containing a total of 210 signatures of residents in favor of the trail. I have those petitions here this evening. Would you like me to present them to Council to read them into the Minutes? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Just give it to us so we can take it from there. ' Todd Hoffman: The meetings that were held were very well received by the residents in attendance allowing both those opposed to and in favor of the project voice their opinions and to hear those of others. I followed up these meetings with 8 on -site visits with property owners affected by the proposed trail. AT this time, if it would please the Council, I would ask that Mr. Jon Horn of BRW provide you with the information which has been disseminated to date on this issue. During those neighborhood meetings, and then Charles will close with some comments on the proposal to move forward with the feasibility study and we're available for questions from the Council. ' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, fine. Thank you. Jon Horn: As Todd mentioned, the Trunk Highway 101 trail project would include ' the construction of an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Trunk Highway 101 from Pleasant View Road on the north side to South Shore Drive on the south side. The total length of the trail alignment is about 9,200 feet. As directed by city staff, we've completed a preliminary scoping study to investigate the constructability of this trail segment as well as to identify any specific problem areas that would need further investigation if Council decides to further proceed with the project. We prepared some preliminary • 38 ' 1 1 1 I Copy of the Troendle Addition Development Contract 1 Signed by Mr. Beddor 1 Condition L on page SP -4 1 Reads as follows: L. The plat may be filed and developed in two phases. I Phase I is to include Lot 1, Block 1, Lots 1 through 11 inclusive, Block 2 and the remaining property platted as I Out lot A. The Developer agrees, in writing, that the land in Phase I shall be assessed $10,000 for the extension of I Nez Perce Drive through the property to the west of said plat to a direct or indirect connection to Pleasant View I Road (said assessment to be divided among the total lots in Phase I). The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the I date this Contract is signed by the City. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections I to the special assessment, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment ■ exceeds the benefit to the property. The Developer waives ■ any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. 1 426.081. 1 1 1 ■ 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) 1 TROENDLE ADDITION SPECIAL PROVISIONS ' AGREEMENT dated August 12 , 1991, by and between the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City "), and FRANK BEDDOR, JR. and MARILYN A. BEDDOR, husband and wife (the "Developer "). 1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for TROENDLE ADDITION (referred to in this Contract as the "plat "). The land is legally described on the attached Exhibit "A ". 2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby approves the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract and furnish the security required by it. 3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the plans may be prepared, subject to City approval, after entering the Contract, but before commencement of any work in the plat. If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the 1 written terms shall control. The plans are: Plan A- -Final Plat prepared by Lot Surveys, Co., Inc., ' approved by the City Council on August 12, 1991. Plan B -- Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan dated September 17, 1990, revised June 24, 1991, 1 prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Inc. Plan C- -Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated June 24, 1991, prepared by Ulteig Engineers, Inc. 4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay for the following: 1 1 1 / / / SR-1 1 A. Sanitary Sewer System B. Water System C. Storm Water Drainage System D. Streets E. Concrete Curb and Gutter F. Street Signs G. Street Lights H. Site Grading I. .Underground Utilities (e.g. gas, electric, 11 telephone, CATV) J. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments K. Surveying and Staking L. Removal of Temporary Cul -de -sac on Nez Perce in Vineland Forest Addition 5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install all required improvements by November 30, 1992. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. 6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms , of this Contract, payment of special assessments, payment of the costs of all public improvements and construction of all public improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ( "Security ") for $ 164,538.00 . The amount of the security was calculated as 110% of the following: 1 Sanitary sewer $ 17,133.00 Watermain $ 20,173.00 On -site storm sewer $ 19,778.00 Streets $ 55,597.00 Street lights and signs S 500.00 Erosion Control $ 1,155.00 Engineering, surveying, and inspection $ 12,689.00 Landscaping $ 2,555.00 Site Grading (streets and pond) $ 10,000.00 Extension of Nez Perce (assessments) $ 10,000.00 ' TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $ 149,580.00 This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restric- ' tion on the use of the security. The security shall be subject to the approval of the City. The security shall be for a term ending December 31, 1992. The City may draw down the security, without notice, for any violation of the terms of the Contract. If the required public improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the draw shall be used to cure the default. With City approval, the SP -2 /r// security may be reduced from time to time as financial obliga- tions are paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a ' point less than 10% of the original amount until all improvements are complete and accepted by the City. ' 7. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand - delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by registered mail at the following address: Frank Beddor, Jr. and Marilyn A. Beddor 7951 Powers Boulevard ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 Telephone: (612) 474 -0231 ' copy to: Julius C. Smith Edina Office Center, Suite 108 • 7600 France Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55435 Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand - delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: Chanhassen City Hall 1 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 1 Telephone: (612) 937 -1900 8. Other Special Conditions. A. A tree removal plan consistent with City ordinances and policies shall be submitted for Lot 1, Block 1 prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear- cutting, except for the house pad and utilities, is prohibited. B. The Developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. C. Final street and utility plans shall be ' developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. D. The Developer shall install erosion control silt fence around the ponding area until such time that turf is ' established. Turf or sod shall be placed behind all curbing. E. Lot 1, Block 1 and future development of Outlot ' A shall share a driveway access off Pleasant View Road and a cross - access easement shall be provided. This common section of driveway shall be constructed to a seven (7) ton design paved to a width of twenty (20) feet and have a maximum grade of ten ' percent (10 %). / ' SP -3 1 F. The Developer shall provide the following easements: II 1. The drainage easement along the westerly property line of Lots 9 through 11, Block 11 2, and the ponding area on Outlot A (previously Lots 3 and 4, Block 1) as shown on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan, shall also be shown as a drainage and utility easement on the final plat accordingly. 2. Provide revised right -of -way easements ' along Nez Perce in the Vineland Forest Addition plat (Lot 1, Block 1) to eliminate the "jog" in the right -of -way between this plat and the Troendle Addition. In return, the City agrees to vacate a portion of the northerly right-of-way on Lot 3, Block 3, Vineland Forest Addition. G. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication. The fees for a lot shall be paid at the time a building permit is issued for the lot. H. A temporary 42 -foot radius cul -de -sac shall be 1 constructed at the westerly terminus of Nez Perce. A temporary easement shall be provided to the City by the Developer for construction of the cul -de -sac. A barricade equipped with a sign indicating the road will be extended in the future shall be erected by the Developer. I. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 shall only have access • 1 from Troendle. Driveway access from said lots onto Nez Perce Drive is prohibited. J. The existing building on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be removed by the owner or brought into conformance with ordinance setback requirements before a building permit will be issued for the lot. R. The gravel driveway providing access to the existing house located on Lot 1, Block 1 to Pleasant View Road shall be removed and access from said Lot shall be to Nez Perce Drive on or before a building permit is issued for any building to be located on any part of the premises now being platted as Outlot A and Lot 1, Block 1 of said TROENDLE ADDITION. L. The plat may be filed and developed in two phases. Phase I is to include Lot 1, Block 1, Lots 1 through 11 inclusive, Block 2 and the remaining property platted as Outlot A. The Developer agrees, in writing, that the land in Phase I shall be assessed $10,000 for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through the property to the west of said plat to a direct or indirect connection to Pleasant View Road (said assessment to be divided among the total lots in Phase I). The assessment shall be deemed adopted on the date this Contract is signed by SP -4 /)5 II the City. The Developer waives any and all procedural and II substantive objections to the special assessment, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The Developer II waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. $429.081. I M. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are required to have access from Troendle Circle. 9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this I Contract, approved by the City Council on February 22, 1988, are attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein. II 1 II 1 II II 1 1 II 1 II II II -/ SP -5 �( 1 S 1 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 • BY: L. < <_ r t o _ ‚ _- r Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor II (SEAL) i BY: 4 :2 ,Cji. Don Ashworth, City Manager II DEVELOPER 1 BY : / (/ F 1 a - Beddor, Jr. BY /' / /'. / J. / & - _i % //, ar yn /. Beddor 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss 1 COUNTY OF CARVER ) - tt v The fo egoi g instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 I/ day of , 19 by Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor, and by Don Ashwo h, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and p ' y granted by its City Council. 1 ' 4 = 1 VICTORIA E. CHURCHILL - NOTARY PUBLIC . MINNESOTA - * k *. '1'i�, - CARVER COUNTY - i F My OOfn1tIin1CnM WE 4 L / L ,L. _ _ �- _ _ II _ _ _ _ _ _ otary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) II ss. COUNTY OF CA-2. ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2a day of 4 u ,4 , ].e qI , by Frank Beddor, Jr. and II Marilyn A. Beddor,` and wi -. / r..,,,. MARY S. SHERBANENKO / / II NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA liti DAKOTA COUNTY Notary /•ublic ,I\ My Commission Expires May 1, 10t6 I 1 1_ , DRAFTED BY : Campbell, Knutson, Scott ` & Fuchs, P.A. II 3460 Washington Drive, Suite 202 Eagan, MN 55122 II (612)456 -9539 SP -6 j 1 Si MINI - MN MN NM MO — MO OM - - — — — OM MN — -- Lots 4 and 8, "Vineland", according to the recorded plat thereof an file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for Carver County, Minnesota. AND That part of Lot 4, "Vineland" described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of Lot 3, Block 3, VIN JND FEREST; thence South 0 degrees 06 minutes 52 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the east line of said Lot 4, "Vineland" a distance of 4.83 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be herein described; thence North 87 degrees 59 minutes 59 seconds West a distance of 79.08 feet; thence northwesterly 62.71 feet along a tangential curve concave to the northeast having a radius of 175.00 feet, an a central angle of 20 degrees 31 minutes 52 seconds; thence North 0 degrees 06 minutes 52 seconds Nest a distance of 232.40 feet; thence South 88 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 140.00 feet to the east line of said Lot 4; thence South 0 degrees 06 minutes 52 seconds East along said east line to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT "A" 1 CONSENT STATE BANK OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota corporation, which holds ' a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated: i , 1991. 1 STATE BANK OF CHANHASSEN 1 BY: - -- Its 1 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF {t���t j,(1 ) The foregoing instrument was ackno ed ed efo e e this Z C C\ day of Cc - r - ,b k C , 1991, by ¶E \;t(\ \ ,h'1f `�1Yt( \E the .,(\ of the State Bank of Chanhassen, a Minnesota corporation, on its behalf. y.._. ._.._.._.._.._...,.._.._.._.._. 1 JNNE N t NOTARY EA PUBLIC M NESOTA ^ . l LA\ \55.v-N le' HENNEPIN COUNTY I t tiOTARY PURL C ( My Comm. Expires Oct. 23, 1995 \, DRAFTED BY: Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A. 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 1 1 1 / (t( 1 1 1 CONSENT ' JOSEPH W. TROENDLE, a single person, fee owner of all or part of the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, affirms and consents to the ' provisions thereof and agrees to be bound by the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the subject property owned by him. 1 Dated: C� , 1991. JOSEP ir . TROENDLE 1 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) -( ss. COUNTY OF /-Le 4 w ?- 0 ' The foregoing instTument was acknowledged before me this 22 A,iday of 9r 7 Z t, 1991, by Joseph W. Troendle, a single ' person. V/4 C ,hni ctl P II NOTARY PUBLIC ' DRAFTED BY: Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs, P.A. ' 1380 Corporate Center Curve 4re ,. � ���, Suite 317 f JAMES N. GRATHWOL Eagan, Minnesota 55121 � e NOTARY PUBLIC — MINNESOTA ` HENNEPIN COUNTY `V ' 1... My Commiss,on Ea. ^ire, Mar 20 1993 1 1r 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) EXBIBIT "B" GENERAL CONDITIONS 1 1. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this agree- ment has been fully - executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary security and fees have been received by the City, 3) the plat has been recorded with the County Recorder's II Office of the County where the plat is located, and 4) the City Engineer has issued a written letter that the foregoing con- ditions have been satisfied and then the Developer may proceed. 2. Phased Development. If the plat is a phase of a multi - phased preliminary plat, the City may refuse to approve final plats of subsequent phases if the Developer has breached this Contract and the breach has not been remedied. Development of subsequent phases may not proceed until Development Contracts for such phases are approved by the City. 3. Effect of Subdivision Approval. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, except an amendment placing the plat in the ' current urban service area, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the approved plat unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract. Approved by the City Council on 2/22/88. REVISED 8/8/88 - 19Q, R and S Added. REVISED 9/20/88 - 19I Revised. REVISED 3/22/89 - 12 and 17 Revised. REVISED 4/20/89 - 19T and U Added. REVISED 6/12/89 - 6 Revised. REVISED 8/8/89 - 15 Revised. REVISED 4/3/90 - 11 and 19I Revised. REVISED 5/10/90 - 19T Revised. REVISED 2/26/91 - 6 Revised. REVSIED 7/17/91 - 19F and G Deleted, new paragraph 19F )-b GC -1 1 4. Improvements. The improvements specified in the . Special Provisions of this Contract shall be installed in accordance with City standards, ordinances, and plans and specifications which have been prepared and tigned by a competent ' registered professional engineer furnished to the City and approved by the City Engineer. The Developer shall obtain .all necessary permits from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and other agencies before proceeding with construction. The City ' will, at the Developer's expense, have one or more construction inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the work on a full or part -time basis. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to respond to questions from the City Inspector(s) and to make periodic site visits to satisfy that the construction is being performed to an acceptable level of quality in accordance with the engineer's design. The Developer or his engineer shall ' schedule a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within sixty (60) days after the completion of the improvements and before the security is released, the Developer shall supply the city with the following: (1) a ' complete set of reproducible Mylar as -built plans, (2) two complete sets of blue line as -built plans, (3) two complete sets of utility tie sheets, (4) location of buried fabric used for soil stabilization, (5) location stationing of all utility stubs, (6) bench mark network, and (7) a 200 scale and a 500 scale reproducible mylar copy of the plat. ' 5. License. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the plat to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with plat development. 6. Site Erosion Control. Before the site is rough graded, and before any utility construction is commenced or ' building permits are issued, the erosion control plan, Plan B, shall be implemented, inspected, and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if they ' would be beneficial. All areas disturbed by the excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded forthwith after the completion of the work in that area. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be certified seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time ' is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule of supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion at the Developer's expense. The City wig: endeavor to notify the . Developer in advance of any proposed . but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. No development will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the plat is in full compliance with the erosion control requirements. Erosion control needs to be maintained until vegetative cover has been GC-2 IV (C< 1 1 restored, even if construction has been completed and accepted. After the site has been stabilized to where, in the opinion of the City, there is no longer a need for erosion control, the Developer shall remove and dispose of the erosion control, i.e. hay bales and silt fence. , 7. Clean Up. The Developer shall maintain a neat and orderly work site and shall daily clean, on and off site, dirt and debris, including all blowables, from streets and the surrounding area that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 8. Acceptance and Ownership of Improvements. Upon completion and acceptance'by the City of the work and construc- tion required by this contract, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property. After completion of the improvements, a representative of the contractor, and a representative of the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work with the City Engineer. Before the City accepts the improvements, the City Engineer shall be satisfied that all work is satisfactorily completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and the Developer and his engineer shall submit a written statement attesting to same with appropriate contractor waivers. Final acceptance of the public improvements shall be by City Council 9. Claims. In the event that the City receives claims from labor, materialmen, or others that work required by this ., Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, materialmen, or others are seeking payment out of the financial guarantees posted with the City, and if the claims are not resolved at least ninety (90) days before the security required by this Contract will expire, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an Interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the letters of credit in an amount up to 125% of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the Developer shall release, discharge, and dismiss the City from any further pro- ceedings as it pertains to the letters of credit deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdic- tion to determine attorneys' fees. ' 10. Park and Trail Dedication. Prior to the issuance of building permits for residential construction within the plat, the Developer, its successors or assigns, shall pay to the City the park and trail dedication fees then in force pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinances and City Council resolutions. 11. Landscaping. Unless the lot already has one tree in the front yard of suitable species, the or lot purchaser shall plant a tree in the front yard of every lot in the plat. Suitable trees include: • GC -3 11 I Maples Honeylocust Ash Ginko (male only) Linden Hackberry Basswood Kentucky Coffee Tree Green Ash Oak Birch II Other species of trees may be approved by the building inspector. Trees which can cause a public nuisance, such as cotton producing trees, or can be a public hazard, such as bug infestation or weak I bark, are proh'bited. The minimum tree size shall be two and one -half (2}) inches caliper, either bare root in season, or balled and burlapped. The trees may not be planted in the I boulevard (area between curb and property line). In addition to any sod required as a part of the Erosion Control Plan (Plan B), the Developer or lot purchaser shall sod the boulevard area and all drainage ways on each lot utilizing a minimum of four inches I of topsoil as a base. Seed or sod shall also be placed on all disturbed areas of the lot. If these improvements are not in place at . the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested, a I financial guarantee in the form of cash or letter of credit shall be provided to the City. Improvements are to be completed during the first growing season after issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. After satisfactory inspection, the financial II guarantee shall be returned. The City has established the financial guarantee at $1,000; however, this may be increased annually based upon cost. These requirements supplement but do I not replace specific landscaping conditions that may have been required by the City Council for project approval. I 12. Warranty. The Developer warrants all work required to be performed by it against poor material and faulty work- manship for a period of two (2) years after its completion and acceptance by the City. All trees, grass, and sod shall be 1 warranted to be alive, of good quality, and disease free at the time of planting. All trees shall be warranted for twelve (12) months from the time of planting. The Developer or his I contractor(s) shall post maintenance bonds (Miller -Davis Company form No. 1636 or equal) or other security acceptable to the City to secure the warranties at the time of final acceptance. I 13. Lot Plans. Prior to the issuance of building per- mits an acceptable Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control, and Tree Removal Plan shall be submitted for each lot as required in the I Special Provisions, for review and approval by the City Engineer. Each plan shall assure that drainage is maintained away from buildings and that tree removal is consistent with City Ordinance. 1 14. Existing Assessments. Any existing assessments against the plat will be respread against the plat in accordance with City standards. I 15. Street Lighting. The Developer shall have installed and pay for street lights in accordance with City standards. A I plan shall be submitted for the City Engineer's approval prior to the installation. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall pay the City a fee of $200.00 for each street I light installed in the plat. The fee shall be used by the City for furnishing electricity for each light for twenty (20) months. GC -4 \3 1 1 1 16. Street Signs. All street name and traffic signs required by the City as a part of the public improvements shall be furnished and installed by the City at the sole expense of the Developer. 17. Responsibility for Costs. A. The Developer shall pay an administrative fee in conjunction with the installation of the plat improvements. This fee is to cover the cost of City staff time and overhead for items such as review of construction documents, preparation of the Development Contract, monitoring construction progress, pro- cessing pay requests, processing• security reductions and final acceptance of improvements. This fee does not cover the City's cost for resident construction inspections. The fee shall be calculated as follows: i) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is less than $500,000, three percent (3 %) of construction costs; ii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements 1 . is between $500,000 and $1,000,000, three percent (3 %) • of construction costs for the first $500,000 and two percent (2%) of construction costs over $500,000; iii) if the cost of the construction of public improvements is over $1,000,000, two and one -half percent (2i %) of construction costs for the first $1,000,000 and one and one -half percent (1} %) of construction costs over $1,000,000. Before the City signs the final plat, the Developer shall deposit 1 with the City a fee based upon construction estimates. After construction is completed, the final fee shall be determined based upon actual construction costs. The cost of public impro- vements is defined in paragraph 6 of the Special Provisions. B. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for all out -of- pocket costs incurred by the City for providing resident construction inspections. This cost will be periodically billed directly to the Developer based on the actual progress of the construction. Payment shall ' be due in accordance with Article 17E of this agreement. C. The Developer shall hold the City and its offi cers and employees harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. D. In addition to the administrative fee, the Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorney's fees. GC -5 )1-4 IUUU ' 1 E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills sub - witted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills.are not paid on time, the City may halt all plat development work and construction, including but not limited to the issuance of ' building permits for lots which the-Developer may or may not have sold, until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of 8% per year. 1 F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges and special ' assessments may be imposed such as but not limited to sewer availability charges ( "SAC "), City water connection charges, City sewer connection charges, and building permit fees. ' 18. Developer's Default: In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the ' Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default, not less than four (4) days in ' advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost 1 in whole or in part. 19. Miscellaneous. ' A. Construction Trailers. Placement of on -site construction trailers and temporary job site offices shall be approved by the City Engineer as a part of the pre- construction ' meeting for installation of public improvements. Trailers shall• be removed from the subject property within thirty (30) days following the acceptance of the public improvements unless other- 1 wise approved by the City Engineer. B. Postal Service. The Developer shall provide for the maintenance of postal service in accordance with the local Postmaster's request. C. Third Parties. Third parties shall have no 1 recourse against the City under this Contract. D. Breach of Contract. Beach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including lots sold to third parties. E. Severability. If any portion, section, subsec- tion, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Contract. 1 F. Building•Permits. Building permits will not be issued for constructing homes in the plat until sanitary sewer, watermain, and storm sewer have been installed, tested, and GC -6 ).!S a/ 1 accepted by the City, and the streets needed for access have been paved with a bituminous surface. G. Waivers /Amendments. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. H. Release. This Contract shall run with the land 1 and shall be recorded against the title to the property. After the Developer has completed the work required of it under this Contract, at the Developer's request the City Manager will issue a Certificate of Compliance. Prior to the issuance �f such a certificate, individual lot owners may make written request for a certificate applicable to an individual lot allowing a minimum of ten (10) days for processing. I. Insurance. Developer shall take out and main- tain until six (6) months after the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and claims for pro- perty damage which may arise out of Developer's work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than $500,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than $200,000 for each occurrence; or a combination single limit policy of $1,000,000 or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer shall file with the City a certificate evidencing coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days advance written notice of the can- cellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. J. Remedies. Each right,power or remedy herein 1 conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. K. Assignability. The Developer may not assign 1 this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligation hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or= more lots, the entire plat, or any part of it. L. Construction Hours. Construction equipment may only be operated in the plat between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., GC -7 ) l/ • onday through Saturday. Operation of construction equipment is also prohibited on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Eve Day, and Christmas Day. ' M. Access. All access to the plat prior to the City accepting the roadway improvements shall be the respon- sibility of the Developer regardless if the City has issued building permits or occupancy permits for lots within the plat. N. Street Maintenance. The Developer shall be ' responsible for all street maintenance until streets within the subdivision are accepted by the City. Warning signs shall be placed by the Developer when hazards develop in streets to pre- vent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If streets become impassable, the City may order that such streets shall be barricaded and closed. The Developer shall maintain a smooth roadway surface and provide proper surface drainage. The Developer may request, in writing, that the City plow snow on the streets prior to final acceptance of the streets. The City shall have complete discretion to approve or reject the request. The City shall not be responsible for ' reshaping or damage to the street base or utilities because of snow plowing operations. The provision of City snow plowing ser- vice does not constitute final acceptance of the streets by the City. ' 0. Soil Treatment Systems. If soil treatment systems are required, the Developer shall clearly identify in the ' field and protect from alteration, unless suitable alternative sites are first provided, the two soil treatment sites identified during the platting process for each lot. This shall be done prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit. Any 1 violation /disturbance of these sites shall render them as unac- ceptable and replacement sites will need to be located for each violated site in order to obtain a building permit. ' P. Variances. By approving the plat, the Developer represents that all lots in the plat are buildable ' without the need for variances from the City's ordinances. Q. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations. In the development of the plat the Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of the following authorities: 1. City of Chanhassen; I 2. State of Minnesota, its agencies, departments and commissions; 3. United States Army Corps of Engineers; ' 4. Watershed District(s); 5. Metropolitan Government, its agencies, departments and commissions. • R. Proof of Title. Upon request, the Developer shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has the authority of the fee owners and contract for deed ' purchasers to enter into this Development Contract. GC -8 1 . Soil Conditions. The Developer acknowledges that the City makes no representations or warranties as to the 1 condition of the soils on the property or its fitness for construction of the improvements or any other purpose for which the Developer may make use of such property. The Developer further agrees that it will indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its governing body members, officers, and employees from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants on the property, unless hazardous wastes or pollutants were caused to be there by the City. T. Soil Correction. The Developer shall be responsible for soil correction work on the property. The City makes no representation to the Developer concerning the nature of suitability of soils nor the cost of correcting any unsuitable soil conditions which may exist. 1 - - - END OF GENERAL CONDITIONS - - - 1 1 1 . 1 OFFICE OF COUNTY RECORDER STATE OF MINNESOT COUNTY OF CARV Filing Fee / This is to certi at this docpfnent wa I d in t is office on the 1 day 0 1 o'clock M. and was duly recorded as doc ment no. CARL .. HAN ON JR. �� aunty •er 1 b r.f ✓J���V/ ✓ M _■ G 1 1 GC -9 't'r IIII•1 MI MINII =II I= NM INIII MI Mill I= NMI MN ME Ell MN NMI MN IIMI — . I PLAT FILE No. 1 C.R. 00C.NO. TROENDLE ADDITION 11111...PJ9VEYS_CQMEAt4l. Mt.. LAND SURVEYORS • I;: / ....- • • I ::;',.. 1r2 I FORES i I V fil „ I ti 1 ' I 1..• e*.r•more.. bboiLawD c.a. . ---- -N VOWS2'W 1143.57- • • — ...., 1 • \ •• •••■•••••••••••••.emp 1• I t 1 N .t 9 7 ; ": it..... • - ...D -1 'Wit 2 _ _t!"..?•.../_ „ - - --r. - - 1 r -----,- - --• r - - - - - - - - -- - r - - - - - I i N 1 ,.. , ti. i • I I i 1 • I I 1 I .. ,„ 1•. I I I/ 1 ;i1 il i 11 I ?I I 5 1 U.? 0. 1 13 0 1 :I 0 ii 4 i 31 i 1 I 4 P 1 :1 6 I ii 2 3 • • ; • ; t t (!also 5 1 I CE - . ;; I 1..., v....... U.. i II. t 1 ilt 11 11 • o'er it, 0._.--J / •• . 1 . ft 1 I , I 1 I., "'a° t tft-_--, 1,,,, , . • 3, ,,t. 4,,, ,_, • _I L. * \•.''''',,• I 11: 1 •01. . L._______Ncrev•" i W I 2_ _ sr — _I 1.,.... -1 1-7 ---, i ....h 13 Est 4. •,,flo , 8 CIRCLE ...1, aim ist b• FOSS si . .,,jgb '.•, . o ir t• i il 4 • g TROENDLE I e - ______1 . ..... . - _ - -.... 1 ; 1 - dr:i - "1 r 1 1 I 1 t • ......... .,„ ( N. • VI s. . :- • 1 . , . . 4 / ••::' at , I O lb i i ft z i ...... 4 311 8 ;--. i o- n , A- - - - - --- - -- TA: - — 1 - - - - •'"‘ /4.. •. A I 31 . / 11 it R 10 i r 9 41 ,.., • ) 1.. lo Liii II 7 , ..N LI is i ....-.4 le. , • , , + / v •• II al I- Ns.s.4 :•■ t L , _J 1 of i L - .1 ..., . -. ,i t...,-0 • I A A • : tip. ...nal" ll fe■Sb • A we ao _ mmo A Mow t . 1 .. %OM 1 •• Slx./11.11 SO•22 1125 III - I 0: .....• I • i - . . . '1 lil li . I .11---r-lwa— ... . n • i 1 • ., . . :•■■ E. I. • t L I . I ,-.) • IX 1 •twksty 4 0•44•••31. COISSPINSSIS 1 ' *bob. 46•040 Z ----...----------1,---- .jjt L. - i — SCAMS 110 0 too 100 .1' .., •01 hos* ,..* obw.o. or. libe .o.. 10. ilsbbsSni. . bfewokation se Mims tor.% ey•••••• to Dow% cow. Mrsamea &slum" • SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS 1 1 1 1 August 12, 1991 City Council Meeting 1 For Final Plat Approval of 1 Troendle Addition 1 Staff and representatives of Mr. Beddor worked out 1 alternative arrangements regarding extensions of Nez Perce. Rather than limit Troendle to 6 lots as approved 1 with preliminary plat until Nez Perce is extended, the City Council let all the lots be built upon. Mr. Beddor was 1 required to pay $10,000 as the Troendle Addition's cost of the ultimate extension. ' Mr. Beddor page 41, Daryl Fortier states that . dor is in B d 1 agreement with the staff report that outlines the condition mentioned above. On page 41 he states, "We are in favor 1 of the extension of Nez Perce as we previously did. Mr. Beddor would like to see this proceed." 1 They also indicated that Mr. Beddor is working al o sated t o d g 1 toward acquisition of the Owens' property. This implication is that they would be cooperating on roadway 1 issues. 1 1 1 II 1 . 'CI y ;.��..�� l ��tinc Aug' Au t 12, 1991 II Councilman Wing: No sir. This has proven a lesson to me. -Don't ever complain. I don't ever want my road repaired. The only thing I'm going to _ pursue Con, just for information is the traditional assessing going to the users II and the cost of those in today's dollars. The State tax.system has an unlimited attack 2 right now. We saw what the assessments were and our valuations going up and property taxes going up. And as a City Council we can reduce them 1% but the State can come in and do anything they want. I'm still stunned at 1 this past year's taxation and then to come up with these assessments, for me personally, it's difficult to sit here and assess them. I don't want anybody assessing me because with 3 in college, I don't want the burden. So what do we I do? 1 just want to look into alternatives and options to city projects and how they're most fairly handled and perhaps all of us would prefer to have a slight increase in taxes. Overall general taxes and just have the City do these on I general funding. Mayor Chmiel: We don't know what that entails as yet. I Councilman Wing: Yeah, see I don't know what that entails and I'm sure you don't Either sc 1 don't want to take credit for any of those comments other than I'm interested to know what the options are and how we might better handle this II and i!r. Wallin with that large assessment. It's frightening. Just because I live on a corner I'm going to owe $2,000.00 more. My interest is what are our options for the future. II Councilwoman Dimler: I agree with most of the things that were said here. I do have to say a few positive comments however and maybe some of you will remember. I know memories are short but I think that most people favored the project. II Favored the upgrade as 1 recall the public hearing process before. Also, I think that the process although was very messy, I think that we have to give the _ i developer credit that they were very responsive to individual cases and when we 1 complained they were there. They took care of it. So it wasn't totally negative but I'd also like to say that I'm as surprised as anyone here at the 60/40 split. From all of the discussions before and I remember that I did a lot of that discussing, I thought that we were going to go with the 70/30 and I had I even mentioned an 80/20 because the road was substandard to begin with. I'm not sure that Council ever voted on the split. I don't know where that decision-was made and I think that we should rethink that and rethink the 70/30. II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Appreciate everyone coming this evening and we will declare about a 10 second recess. X t. wT ROENDLE- ADDITION, SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND WEST OF VINELAND FOREST SUBDIVISION, FRANK BEDDOR: • II A. AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. B. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. C. APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Paul, why don't you start this and give us some information. I'll let Council pick that up as .they are standing out in the hall. Paul Krauss: The applicants are requesting final with some revised conditions for the plat known as the Troendle Addition. City Council II 38 ' City Council Meeting - 6 -gust 12, 1991 1 approved the preliminary plat last January of this past year. The plat II originally and still ultimately is designed to create 15 single family lots. One of those will be occupied by the existing farm house, the Troendle home that is located on this parcel here. The rest would be open for new development at some point in time. Ultimately the farm house, it's a life estate situation. The II farm house would be removed and a new structure put on the property. Access was a primary concern during the review of this plat. The design ultimately calls - for extension of Nez Perce through to Pleasant View. This dates back to the ' orignal Vineland plat which occurs over in this area. Basically Alternative 3 was one of 6 or 7 alternatives that 'were reviewed by the Council and the one that was selected for making the thru road. This was viewed as the thru road connection that would take place in stages because there are at least three II properties that had to be crossed. The three properties include the Vineland Forest plat which today is building out. The Troendle property which is today up for final plat and the parcel owned by Art Owens which ultimately we believe II is going to be developed but has been in a bankruptcy proceeding for the past year or two. The residents along Lake Lucy Road raised some concerns with this plat at the time it was approved. It was their concern that Lake Lucy Road, by I building this thing in phases that as properties develop into here, that the only means of ingress and egress is Lake'Lucy Road, which is true. It's a temporary overlength cul -de -sac situation until the road's connected. They have raised a concern that the traffic levels on Lake Lucy Road, which is a collector II street. It's a low caliber collector in that area, would be burdensome, particularly I believe their concern had to do with construction traffic. There was an alternative scenario developed. It was ultimately approved with the plat II that called for-phased development. Basically what was originally anticipated was I believe 6 lots would be developed in the first phase. Four of those lots f would access off of Nez Perce. That basically included everything north of that _ ' point. What was intended at that point in time is that the second phase, the rest of the cul -de -sac would be opened up for development at the time that the Art Owens property is developed and the thru street can be connected. That was the condition that was attached to preliminary plat approval in January. We II since had a series of discussions with the applicant and I believe there's a basic equity issue that's arisen. The developer, and they're here tonight and they can represent themselves, is concerned that it's somewhat inequitable to II put development decisions for a given piece of property completely on the shoulders of an individual who has no connection to this parcel.. First of all that property is in bankruptcy. Hr. Beddor I think has expressed some interest in the property but is unable to complete any transactions until the property ' comes out of bankruptcy, even if he did proceed. And secondly, it puts the City in a curious position of deferring decisions on a private property owner's shoulders. Not in the Council Chambers but based on a private decision. II There's also the possibility that, a significant possibility that there's increased cost engendered by phasing construction. You basically have to call out the construction crews twice. Once to build the first phase street. The II second time to come out and build the cul -de -sac. The cost is not only related to street improvements but also to utility. extensions and getting crews out. Having crews set up is a significant percentage of the job and it does raise the price. However, staff and the applicants as well recognize that there was some II validity in the concerns that are being raised and we tried to come up with an alternative that would secure the City's future enabling us to have some, very f strong likelihood that the street would be completed in a reasonable period of II I time. Yet to let the development proceed for the Troendle Addition in a 39 II II City Council Meeting - ' 'ust 12, 1991 II reasonable manner. What's been proposed is this. It's that the development II that you see before you today would be developed as Phase 1 with the balance of the ultimate 3 additional lots being in the outlot. Now that would put most of the lots, all but one of the lots that would access off-of Nez Perce in at this I point in time. Now of course developments don't build out overnight. It takes 2 to 3 to 4 years sometimes to fill it up.j What else is being proposed with this is we, our engineering department did an analysis of the cost share that would occur to complete this road. Essentially we believe that whoever develops 1 the Art Owens prope.•ty will be liable for this expense. It traverses their property. It's directly a benefit to that parcel and would normally be their responsibility. At issue though is what happens when we curve this back 1 from Peaceful Lane. We need to rebuild this intersection. We know it's not very safe. We want to narrow the pavement. Hopefully free up some right -of -way on this side as the road curves back down This section of street is I something that we believe should be attributed to people that develop on these parcels here as well as people that develop on the Troendle Addition. Our engineering department has tried to estimate,_the cost of that, making that final connection,. It's approximately $20,000.00. The amount of lots that will be I developed on the Owens property is pretty close to what's being proposed on the Tro=rdle's so there was about a $10,000.00 cost split. The applicants for the Troendle Addition are willing to place in escrow that $10,000.00 so you can 1 avoid going through another, one of the hearings that you've had several of tonight where you try to go back in and assess people after the fact for something after they're already living there. You would have the money sitting I iri the bank. You'd be ready to go. In addition to that we would have our normal procedures of constructing a temporary cul- de- sac...at that point there. There would be a barricade. The barricade would have a sign on it saying that this, clearly that this street is intended to be extended. There would be 1 notices placed in the chain of title of each of the lots in there so nobody i would ,, be able to come before you in the future and object to the extension of a cul -de -sac on the basis that they had no knowledge of it hopefully because they 1 certainly would. And that we expect, we have an expectation. We can't commit for when properties develop on the Art Owens parcel but it appears that things are moving towards some sort of conclusion over there and it's not unrealistic to think that this is going to happen before the Troendle Addition is built out. 1 Again I can't commit to it but that's the way it appears. So with that we believe that the revised stipulations of approval for this are reasonable to the extent that they seem more equitable to the developers of the Troendle Addition 1 and they also achieve the goal that we have of completing that extension for the road in a reasonable period of time. Otherwise the plat is pretty simple. They responded to most of the conditions that we've laid down for the final plat. I 1 ' would add too that there was a variance that came up for some discussion relative to the existing farm house with the original plat proposal., The applicant was able to secure some additional right -of -way in Vineland Forest to take the kink out of the road so it doesn't jog as close to that home as it did I once before and the variance has been eliminated in the process. So we think it's a pretty clean proposal at this point in time and we are recommending that you approve it with conditions in the staff report. Thank you. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul. II Councilman Workman: Paul, quick question. I just have a very quick question. II 40 1 City Council Meeting -,^ just 12, 1991 II Mayor Chmiei: Okay. 1 Councilman Workman: Did the Art Owens property go into some sort of condemnation? 1 Paul Krauss: It was in bankruptcy. We've called the State Attorney General's office. It's supposed to come out of bankruptcy in the not too distant future. I believe Jules Smith, the Attorney for the applicant may have some more current II information on that than I have but we're understanding that the State wants to accelerate this process and get the cash out of it and get it back on the market. •1 Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anything that you'd like to address on this - first part of it? At least the review of the conditions that staff has also put in. I'll ask anyone else if there's anyone here who would like to address the II particular proposal as well. Daryl Fortier: Daryl Fortier here to represent Frank Beddor Jr.. Also with me II is Jules Smith, Frank's attorney. We're pleased to have had the chance to work with staff and to go over the proposal in more detail. We're in agreement with all of the staff report but we would ask for clarification of one point which we II think is an oversight. On point 8 they point out that the gravel driveway to - the Troendle residence is to be eliminated. We were asking originally that Mr. ' Troendle have a lifetime estate and we not disturb his residence. We would still ask that that gravel driveway be allowed to exist as long as there is only II one lot. If we request a building permit or if we subdivide and get another , building permit for the front lot, we completely agree to remove the driveway. But until then, as long as there's only one driveway access and Mr. Troendle is _, using it, we request that we be allowed to keep that. I think that was met with favor before. Paul Krauss: We have no objection to that your honor. In fact it goes a little II bit to responding to some of the issues of keeping more of the traffic off of Nez Perce in the interim. We just ask that that condition be written into the chain of title of that lot so that the new owner made aware of it. 1 Daryl Fortier: Secondly, if I could just take a few minutes. It's running - late. I'll try to summarize the roadway issue. The extension of Nez Perce. We II favor the extension of Nez Perce as we previously did. Mr. Beddor would like to see this proceed. He unfortunately has no means of making it happen. We have agreed to accept additional assessments to help pay for the extension of II Peaceful lane up to Pleasant View Road. We believe that the Art Owens project when it develops will be-sufficient:to pick up the remaining cost. This should prevent adjacent neighbors from having any additional tax assessments. We have contacted the State and we have contacted Mr. Owens. We've been working closely II with him. We're optimistic that something will be occurring within .2 years and that Nez Perce will develop on it's own volition ::,Both the State and Mr ..-Owens T have expressed interest in seeing the development' occur. There are still a - II number of issues to resolve so we certainly cannot step forward and purchase the land at this time and Mr. Beddor is not..a residential developer So. his interest f is of course very limited. Regarding the previous proposal and why was found F to be very much a hardship on Mr, Beddor's development. His interest here has 1 always been to give Mr. Troendle a life estate and to disturb his property as t- _ II - 1 City Council Meeting - 12, 1991 11 minimally as possible. The previous proposal assumed that there would be four developments on what is Mr. Troendle's property. In fact there'd be zero as we're proposing now. This meant that the previous proposal would have required Mr. Beddor to spend over $400,000.00 to develop 2 lots. That's very much a ' hardship. The value of the two lots would probably be $70,000.00 to $75,000.00. That's I guess enough said about the cost issue. de are optimistic however that this proposal still makes sense even though it is a long cul -de -sac. It does offer a way out. Unlike Fox Chase which is next door at 2,500 lineal feet, 72 residences. Fox Chase has no way to get a second egress. T his does. Nez Perce can be pushed across the Art Owen property even if the City must go to condemnation. That's something of course beyond our powers. I guess that ' r really summarizes it unless there are any questions. Mayor Chmiel: I have just one question in relationshp to the plat in itself ' • that we have. I noticed that. the name on that is Milton F. Highland, Land Surveyor. Minnesota License #20262. It appears as though someone else has signed a name to that under that license number which I understand is not allowable. ' Daryl Fortier: I haven't caught that myself but I do understand that Lo Surveys is the company that has t prepared owner has sold the firm recently and a there has of ownership. Mayor Chmiel: It says Raymond A. Pease. ' Daryl Fortier: Prasch? P r- a- s -c -h. Mayor Chmiel: It could very well be but the name that's there to the name ' • that's above is not legally done. Daryl Fortier: We can certainly get that correct before final plat is filed. Mayor Chmiel: Is there any other questions by Council? Richard, do you have something? Councilman Wing: This goes back to the landscape ordinance. We're on the verge of some changes and improvements. This area was a hardwood forest turned to soybean field. Now into houses. Mr. Mayor, if you would indulge me. Mayor Chmiel: Certainly. ' Councilman Wing: Mr. Workman I'm sure will have something to say after. Is there a possibility that we could just ask the developer if he wouldn't consider a little additional landscaping such as has been proposed in the landscape ordinance. Right now we require that they put in one punitive tree if you will ' and I've asked that the ordinance be changed to reflect a total of three trees. Small cost but we've got another soybean field going to homes here without much landscaping. Perhaps they're intending to put trees on these lots themselves. I ' don't know. I hate to, I wish we could either throw that landscape ordinance out or get it in a fix so as these developments are coming in we could start . catching them right now rather than drifting into the future. ' 42 11Cy council meeting - August 12, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: I think if I remember correctly what the Planning Commission suggested that they stick with the 1? II Paul Krauss: No Mr. Mayor. Actually the Planning Commission is considering I think acting favorably. They haven't done'it yet on Councilman Wing's II suggestion that they look at 3. It was scheduled for last week's meeting and because of several items on ahead of it, we just didn't get to it. It's now being scheduled for our next meeting. At this point in time though there's not an ordinance of course on the books that we can require anything but you can II certainly make an inquiry. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. There was some discussion but they didn't go into it fully II but there were some leaning to possibly going to those three but I don't know what their decision or recommendation is going to be either. • Councilman Wing: I just see another open field being developed without much II future for the City and it's a little frustrating. . Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other discussion? Is there anyone else that has II anything to say? Brad Johnson: My name is Brad Johnson. I live at 1001 Lake Lucy Road. We II first were notified thae there were some changes coming up here by a letter that we received last Thursday. Apparently there's been discussions going on with the City for quite some time and nobody had the courtesy to contact us or inform II = us that anything was going on. That there was consideration here to approve the whole thing. We left the meeting last January believing that it was the way Paul had stated and now all of a sudden everything's changed. We have heard everything discussed here tonight except our concerns about safety and traffic. II s We would think that that would be appropriate since that was the basis on which . the decision was made last January. That that would be discussed here tonight. ` Thank you. II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I think that through our new sign requirements that we have for developing properties. Was a sign put up Paul? Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I believe this started before the II signs came out. Now we did take the step, we were concerned that this was a change in condition from which you originally considered. Now we don't normally notify neighbors of , . final plat approval. In this case we took the step of doing that because we Y believed that they may want to have some comments and some input for that very reason. It's tough to notify people when you're talking to somebody about thinking about doing something until the proposal materializes and that't what II we're attempting to do tonight. is - f Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Appreciate that clarification because that was some II of our concerns before. People not knowing what's really happening so we've w instituted signs to be put up. But this goes back prior to that particular--. - time. Even though a situation occurred, still maybe the signs should have gone II I --- up somewhere indicating that this is still_ the situation. p. r Brad Johnson: We didn't realize it was a different approval coming up... II — - - - _ 43 • - s _ _ City Council Meeting - "gist 12, 1991 Councilman Wing: In regard to their property, I guess I'm missing what's changed. I know the discussion of the corner and the width of the road and your concerns. I guess I'm not, what changes have occurred here? • ' Paul Krauss: What's changed primarily is that there was, keep in mind that the applicants first proposed and we recommended approval of the entire development going at this time on the presumption that it's staged approval or construction of the street. When the residents raised the concerns that they did in January - December, there was sort of an atlernate scenario developed and that was approved by the Council and what that said was to develop the property in two phases. The first phase would only have 6 lots, 4 of which would access off of Nez Perce. The remaining development was contingent upon the road being completed. ' Councilman Wing: But the intersection and the treatment of the road to the west's= or the non- existing road, now that hasn't changed. It's still going to be straighten out and sight lines. Paul Krauss: That's still certainly the plan, yes. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there any other discussion? Ursual, did you have ' something? Councilwoman Dimler: I guess just as I was reading through this I did think I that the comment that it isn't fair to hold up a development for one resident, I guess I agree with that. I think we should go ahead and allow them to be do much as we legally can. I'm not sure right now if I would agree with the • condemnation process. I'm not quite sure the timing is right on that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that sort of remains to be seen and not to determine what's going to take place for the City as to what action should be done by the City. ' It will be at the discretion of the Council at that particular time. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, if I can expend on that too. We asked the City ' Attorney to do some investigations back when if the desire was there, if we could actually proceed with the condemnation and put the road through today. The answer we got back was no, we could not as long as the property was in bankruptcy. You could condemn it but you couldn't assess any of the costs ' relative to running the road across there which means the City would have to absorb the entire expense. That seems unrealistic and also as you point out we wouldn't recommend that you commit future Councils to taking a certain action. ' What you may wish to do though is schedule this thing to come back up in 18 months or 24 months so that you can reassess the situation at that time, if you haven't already received the development for the Art Owens parcel. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Very good. Any other? Jim Stassen: Jim Stassen. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane which is on the corner where we're talking about getting straighten out. On the, Paul? The other plot you have with the road going through, my chief concern with this is still, I . realize the road's going to go through. We weren't informed when this first thing was going to happen so we could come in and vote for our proposal to go straight through from Nez Perce straight up but we've kind of given up on that. ' 44 • City Council Meeting - August 12, 1991 II I still don't, if we're going to straighten out the corner that exists now and II make that, get that more squared off and then go back and put another rounded corner right down at the other end of our lot, that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I don't understand why that road can't come out to a T into Peaceful Lane like a normal street would. Maybe even a stop sign there. There's no I reason that the traffic's got to be flying through there. It sounds like Frontier Trail has that problem and why create any more of those. I guess that's my main concern. II Mayor Chmiel: Peaceful Lane serves probably about what, 1, 2, 3, 4 residences? 3? Councilwoman Dimler: 3. II •. Mayor Chmiel Including Art. . Okay, I thought there was 4. II Councilman Wing: Why isn't that a T? Paul Krauss: There's basically two reasons. First of all from a design II standpoint when you design a thru street, you typically design it to favor the thru movements. Thai's common practice. Unless there's traffic control situations that you want to deal with. I guess I'd have to fall back on what I II said in January in that it's premature to, we haven't designed the street yet. We haven't designed that section yet and when we do there will be public hearing opened up. We can certainly look at that alternative at that point in time. This is a concept that Dave Hempel and myself developed two years ago . for the Vineland Forest plat. We weren't specifically looking at how that intersection ! should be designed but rather how the overall system fit together. I don't think Mr. Stasson's comments are invalid by any means but we don't have the -11 mechanism to look at it in detail until we do the design, final design of that street. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, any other discussion? II Councilman Workman: How are we then addressing the traffic concerns down on the II other end of Lake Lucy? I mean I still claim they're going to come down Nez Perce. You folks are all on Lake Lucy correct and that's where you think everybody's going to. - __ Resident: ...everybody comes from Nez Perce to us now. II i Councilman Workman: I thought everyone went into town. II r i Resident: Where do most people work? Downtown Chanhassen? Councilman Workman: I do. But that's then my question but first of all right II 4 here. It's very substandard. That concerns me first and then obviously that _ _ is going to change the - nature but I- -don't know how else would we be able to - 4- - redirect that traffic. - - - — - _- 4-- Paul Krauss: There is no other. alternative at this time. As far that Nez - - i Perce /Lake Lucy corner, you're quite right. It's not optimally designed. It • II was about the best you could do without wiping out a home or an entire yard - -:: - II II City Council Meeting - 'ust 12, 1991 i there. Now from time to time there's been some consideration about opening up I that issue and taking the kink out or straightening it out. I think we'd certainly like to look at that but it does have significant impact to one and possibly two homes. So that's something that could help get traffic to go to I the south but no, you clearly in the interim, Lake Lucy Road which is designed as a local collector is going to be the main way in and out until that connection is put through. - ' Brad Johnson: I hale a question about that because we were told that previously it was not designed as a collector. That seems to change depending on what people wart to achieve. II Paul Krauss: Well, if I could comment on that. The guide plan has established two tiers of collector streets. Lake Lucy Road west of CR 17 is designated as a I ` 'Class I collector, if my terminology is correct from the Comprehensive Plan. That is a major street. It's got an 80, I believe an 80 foot right -of -way. It carries a fairly significant volume of traffic from different subdivisions. II Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce is a Class II collector. It's a thru street. It does serve inner neighborhood traffic. The plan does break out the two there but it clearly is a collector street. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion? Bennett Morgan: My name is Bennett Morgan. I live at 940 Lake Lucy Road. I II think one of the primary issues that the Lake Lucy homeowners have is when we left the meeting in January we thought the issue had been resolved and our primary concern is timing. We have a safety and a traffic concern with the Nez Perce and then the additional traffic, especially the construction. One thing I that seems to have changed since we left the meeting, and I think one of the reasons why the Council decided to make the plat amendment were that they I couldn't do anything until then. Is that the developer at the time was not in a II hurry to develop the lots for 2 years. So what was the hurry in ramrodding this through. That fact seems to have disappeared all of a sudden. I mean the key concern we have is that the road go through. I guess we prefer that it goes II through in one phase. We're concerned that if the road doesn't go through in the initial phase it may never go through and that we'll be continually, forever and ever be sharing the, be entirely responsible for all the traffic. It just seems that that issue needs to be addressed. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: I d o remember some discussion about not wanting to do anything with this for a couple of years. Can you address that? I Daryl Fortier: Certainly I can. Mr. Beddor's original proposal, when he first purchased the land had very little interest in developing the property. He I wou3.d be pleased and we originally requested and talked to staff about getting approval with an automatic one year extension attached to the one year we have to develop. Such that we wanted to get an approval that we didn't have to II develop and we'd defer development for up to 2 years. We found out we could not achieve that. We could not get it. There's no mechanism available apparently to achieve that. Since that time then Mr. Beddor has accepted the costs that are going to be involved with developing this and when he started looking at the I phased approached he realized that the costs were going to be very considerable and that the only way for him to recoup this amount of money would be to proceed II 46 • 1 City Council Meeting - August 12, 1991 1 with development. So right now it looks like there would be homes started under construction as early as next spring. That is still I might add a year and a half after he started this proposal. • Mayor Chmiel: It's getting close to the 2 years. II Daryl Fortier: It's getting close to the 2 years but it is slightly more rapid than we thought it would be. We also have a projection on buildout' scheduling that you may be interested in. It has taken one year for Vineland Forest to II sell 9 lots. Mayor Chmiel: Would you let him finish please. Thank you. 111 Daryl Fortier: It has also taken a number of times for the development in Lake Lucy, which I believe there are 20 residential lots with that subdivision . and they still have 6 vacant lots. Over the last year I believe they've added II t. four additional lots that have been sold for construction. There are only 2 open? On my last inspection it appeared to be 6 lots that were unbuilt upon. 4 new ones? Right, that agrees with what I found. 4 additional lots were being II built upon this year. That based on the correspondence from the developer last year when we started this project were still for sale. What we're finding is i.' the property seems to be, we find that there would be an inventory here. That II there are still 6 lots along Lake Lucy that could be built upon. I don't know if they are all sold. We're of the impression that three of them are for sale 1 and three of them have been sold but a developer is not building on them yet. II 1 We think that there will be three homes built next year in the Troendle Addition. The following year we think there will be four and then we think there will be an additional four the following year. That's the best projection ! we've been able to make. , 1 Y Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion? If not, I would entertain a motion for the approval. With Paul, I have a concern for the item , that you brought up. To look at this within an 18 to 24 month period with regard to the acquisition of the other properties. Now I have a question, legal question. Would this or could this be put under approval of this final plat as an additional? - Elliott Knetsch: I'm not sure I understand the question. - -- - -- -- Mayor Chmiel: Paul, rephrase what II i you said previously. Paul Krauss: Well the suggestion was that the issue of the road extension come - II back up in 18 to 24 months so the City Council can review it and see if it's - worth while going forward at that time. Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that it not ii be attached as a condition of the plat. The plat would already be filed and II there's no inference that we'd be coming back to them for anything. We already -- - have their money but that you direct staff to schedule it. Schedule the review - - -. - - independent of the plat in that timeframe and then we would bring it back - before t you. And if nothing's happened by ahead at that time. then, you can evaluate whether you want, ', _ _ _ -. __ _ - F f Mayor Chmiel: I would so move that Council at that time should review that 1 within a 24 month period." Between 18 and 24 months. - : - -- - - _ C . - . ,-. - - .. _ ._ II • City Council Meeting - A"'` st 12, 1991 ' Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I don't mean to draw this out but for the Lake Lucy neighLorhood, 1 served 10 years on the Public Safety Commission and speeding was sort of our little bag and police enforcement and safety issues a-nd I've heard you comment since we first came in on this last year. I think I agree with ' Paul. Lake Lucy is a collector. Lake Lucy's going to be supplying Nez Perce and Carve GeacF and growth is here. Progress is here. This area is going to • be developed. I don't think this area is your demise. I think you live on a ' straightaway. A street that's going to be busy and I don't think that this particularly is goinn to be your worst problem. But I am concerned about your road. I think you do have a problem but it's a separate issue. I don't think ' we can tie it to this addition and the additional homes and cars. I think we have tc tie it to the entire growth and the fact that that road is going to be serving a large area. I'm just going to suggest that you don't hesitate to get ahold of our public safety director and specifically deal with the safety ' issues, speed and traffic because I think you're going to have to irrespective of this addition,. I think you've got a problem. ' Brad Johnson: ...but let's face it. You've got one police officer in this entire city. They can't do it. That's a separate issue that the City Council... ' Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we'll volunteer one or two of the City Council people here to sit with a radar gun. ' Brad Johnson: 1 mean one night it too 25 minutes for a police officer to get there so let's face it guys, you're going to have to get people to...but that's a separate issue. ' Councilman Wing: My own comment is I think your safety concerns here are a separate issue that you're going to have to address. Resident: How about construction traffic? Could that enter through...? Mayor Chmiel: Good question. What concerns, if any, would the developers have to that? Caryl Fortier: We of course don't want to disturb Mr. Troendle's lot and we ' have a low area that's going to be used for ponding. Perhaps I can best point this out to the residents as you all have, each of you has a smaller drawing. We have a low area here that's going to be reserved for ponding which will deny us access off of Pleasant View. The only other choice we really have without ' going through his grove of trees, which we certainly don't want to do, would be to use his present driveway. At first that sounds very disruptive to Mr. Troendle. That's a gravel •driveway and there's going to be a lot of dust to get to the street and it's quite long. However there is a third alternate that may work. That is Mr. Beddor is interested in acquiring these three lots and this would allow us access the three lots in Vineland plat which currently has a utility and grading and drainage easement over it and is intended to be used as a driveway. If we could use that area we would have to check out how strong the utilities are to make sure we don't collapse them. There is a chance we could ' possibly get traffic in in that direction. We've also made a request and we've secured the grading permit to close this off and to relandscape the front • ' 48 - City Council Meeting - August 12, 1991 II portion. We would simply.have to withdraw that and not do that work but I think this is something we could seriously look at. ' Paul Krauss: It's tough to react to that just off the cuff but staff's original thinking on Vineland Forest is that the road connection should have come out II there so we're turning back the clock 2 years, even on a temporary basis. But what we have there right now is a fairly narrow driveway. I've driven it quite a bit. It was okay you know for when we had the one house back in there but I II really wouldn't be too excited to see it particularly in it's present state, carrying much traffic. It also runs, while it's on the Vineland Forest plat, it runs against the back yards of some adjoining properties to the east and I believe that they may have some concerns about having traffic introduced in II their back yard. . Mayor Chmiel: There is. That's true... II Brad Johnson: ...there's a very short distance between the end.of that driveway and where Nez Perce will begin. I would think that... There's .a lot more of us on Lake Lucy that have... II i 1 Mayor Chmiel: Maybe that's something that can be discussed between developer and staff. If that determination is there, then maybe that's the way to go but ' if not, then they would have to go the other route. Councilman Wing: And we hope the Pleasant View people don't catch onto this. II t Mayor Chmiel: That's right. f Karen Green: I'd like to make a comment that just on Lake Lucy Road. II Mayor Chmiel: Would you like to just state your name. II Karen Green: My name is Karen Green and I'm at 1021 Lake Lucy Road. Just t on Lake Lucy Road alone there are 16 children under the, oh excuse me. 17 children under the age of 8 that live just on that road alone and I know that I there are very many of us that stay home with our kids and I mean we do try to watch very carefully but when there is new development on our street and there's trucks parked along the sides of our roads, it's very tough to have one car going through and traffic going through there at all times. So for me it makes me very nervous to have my kids out at all because of all the traffic. That's II my concern right now. * Brad Johnson: This morning for example there was 8 or 9 construction trucks on II - our street when I left for work at 7:00 a.m.. We don't really need any more._ Mayor Chmiel: Well that unfortunately in a developable area, that happens and II there's really a hard way to control that kind of. . -__ _ i Daryl Fortier: Regarding the issue of using the Troendle driveway, there will - of course be some problems with it and we're really not in favor of that.. -=-In inclement weather, any vehicles using Mr. Troendle's driveway are going to = - °= ;:( ' pretty much destroy it. It is not a paved surface. It's something that's going t- -I to cause a hardship to Mr. Troendle so he has poor access. Also, his family and ' r - - = -- - - y., - -- _ . - - - _ _ _ - .�- _ t 49 - _ _ — - - — II City Council Meeting - gust 12, 1991 relatives that may want to visit. It's not a good situation for anyone person to be subjected to. However, the idea of where the old road is or was proposed to be originally, even if it is cycling back the clock, that's an issue where no one lives and counts on that for access. So even if it's slightly destroyed ' during :.onetruction we can always restore it without affecting any one person. It is close to the neighbor, I agree and that neighbor would be suffering. That's an issue we have to look at. We also have to look at utilities underneath it. Make sure they're not destroyed. But I really see that as being much more preferable to even considering Mr. Troendle's driveway. The driveway we know would be destroyed in short order and since we're looking at 3 or 4 homes. 4 homes and 3 homes, you would be looking at almost 3 years of having ' his driveway destroyed. For an 82 year old gentleman, that's close to the rest of his life. It seems very onerous for him. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Okay, the discussions that we've had. Would anyone like to make a motion? ' Councilman Workman: Are we going for all three? Mayor Chmiel: No, I think we're going to have to address the second one rather quickly. There may be some questions on the others. At least I have. ' Councilman Workman: I guess I can make a motion. I guess just to make a quick comment. It's not a situation of a private property owns a piece of vacant land ' and they want to develop it and they have every right to do that. It does create a problem. It's nice to work with the neighbors as much as we can. I thought 2 years ago that we always talked about, that's why I asked that ' original question about the idea had been thrown out about potential condemnation of that property. The Owen's property because it was in bankruptcy and everything else so we can get that accomplished and get that through. I thought we've always talked about that going through. I don't know, maybe I'm ' getting some mixed information here tonight but I don't know how, I hope we can work with construction traffic on this road or at least ask that the road, Lake Lucy Road he swept or whatever needs to be done with construction dirt. ' But I don't know how you can. Mayor Chmiel: While it's in bankruptcy you can't condemn that piece of property. If we did, even it was at all feasible or possible, the City would have to pick up those additional costs rather than the owner of that property. Councilman Workman: Right. What I'm trying to get at is it's very unpleasant ' having large trucks and vehicles hauling dirt, etc. anywhere near or around your more established neighborhood. I don't know how we can go about softening that blow. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, unfortunately if there was a way to do that we could but as I see right now it's probably an inconvenient way of doing it. ' Councilman Workman: Well I guess I would move approval. It doesn't sound like we're going to add any recommendations to staff? Recommendations, there's 12 of them there. • • Paul Krauss: There's 12 with a modification to 8. ' 50 - City Council Meeting - August 12, 1991 Mayor Chmiel-: To item number 8. 1 Councilman Workman: Okay. So with that modification I would move approval. Mayor Chmiel: Of final plat 90 -15? II Councilman Workman: Is it the final plat? Is this number A? * II Mayor Chmiel: Right. Maybe I can help you with that Tom. Plat 90 -15 for Troendle Addition without variances subject to the following conditions. Items I 1 thru 12 with modification to item 8. Councilman Workman: Thank you Don. I would move that. Mayor Chmiel Is there a second? I'll second it. II Councilman Workman moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve Final Plat 90 -15 for II Troendle Addition without variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development con't-r.act and provide the city I with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. . 2. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the Watershed District II • Department requirements. • 3. A tree removal plan consistent with city ordinances and policies shall be II , ' submitted for Lot 1, Block 1 prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear £ cutting, except for the house pad and utilities is prohibited. 4. Final street plans shall be developed for approval by the City Engineer I Department. * 5. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around the ponding II 4 area until such time as turf is established. 6. Provide the following easements and rights -of -way: II a. The drainage easement along the westerly property line of Lot 9 -11, Block 2, and the ponding area on Outlot A (previously Lots 3 -4, Block 1) x as shown on the Grading and Erosion Control Plan, shall alsolbe shown as II a drainage and utility easement on the final plat accordingly. -. - 7. Park and trail fees shall be required in lieu of parkland dedication. - 8 . Lot 1, Block 2 shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the gravel driveway - _ to Pleasant View Road be removed at such time when a building permit is - requested. - -_ _____- - .. .- _. - - _ . -- r 9 The temporary cul -de -sac should be provided with an easement to accommodate 4 the temporary pavement and be provided with a barricade equipped with a sign II - i - indicating the road will be extended. A similar notice shall be placed into i the chain of title of all lots platted in the Troendle Addition.._ - s - - II a -_ II City Council Meeting - '"o II ust 1 2, 1991 I 10. Cor� and 11, Block 2 are re u' - q fired to have access from proposed Troendle 11' ray ,. 'e „ I e $10,000.00 t0 the asses mee for ,000. 0 City that will be util tdez "�rce ;� pleas share of costs related to izied in lieu of ant View Road, the extension or IF provide revised right • 1 L Forest plat t el; Y easements along Nez Perce in the Vineland the Forest Addition ate the right-of-way II the between this plat and All voted in favor and the motion carried. M «Yor Chr:ie1: Let's III do you have just a brief to item 8(b). A th explanation of Approve development contract. development jus t ract? the special Charles, - provi for that I.. Charles Folc That's correct. The special Provisions of that contract incorporate the conditions of a n development II amendment or modification to number 8, approval of development , we shall make l that nd sngee n he he is an contract to make it consistent, chap change S on this Mayor Chs:i[:: Alright. li II 7ro��n;lc Addition pro' Is there an approval of we R'c'd` that 1 just Project # -13? Any discussion? I'll make Contract for as T jus finis, An I'll make that red saying. Is there a second? motion. Councilman Workman: I'll I'll second it. M ayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to Project No. 90 -13. II carried, approve Development Contract for Troendle Addition P All voted in favor and the motion Item 8(c). : This is for the a Mayor hmiel: s pecification s aor h eel: ' for street and utility approval of construction Any questions in regard to y improvements for Troendle p and that's going to go that's that? I just want to make sure Addition that something be going to be that the #90 -13. II put up so that the col -de -sa as we street rather than h people realize that that's menti be there ins discussions at that time such, Clearly get it marked so ever bod ' and saying the intent was there I Paul Krauss: y y s aware. not as Basically Yes sir. That is the intent, y the same barricade that We would have a sign, that says it's you see now at the end oftthehstre It the chain of title intended to be extended and we would II Troendle Addition they'd lot so if there's It does Y d be any buyer that buyspatlotninice in made aware of the fact. Mayor Chmiel: Good. I woul be taken care of so we looked at the grading plan. Erosion control ould b property and going on. Can I have a motion problems previously stated? 9 from that II e the construction plans as. ncilman Wing: 111 so move. • il 52 1 • City Council Meeting - Ay9ust 12, 1991 . i 0 ii Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second? II ' Councilman Workman: Second. • Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Construction Plans I and Specifications for Street and Utility Improvements for Troendle Addition Project No. 91 -13. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Chmiel: If everybody will leave their copies here so we can hopefully I save another tree, if they can use that. There will also be a correction to the platting with the proper signature on that as we discussed before. Would you just verify that? Thank you. ' AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF MARKET ' BOULEVARD AND WEST 78TH STREET. KRF ASSOCIATES: II A. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN 8,365 SQ. FT. BANK BUILDING. B. REPEAT A PORTION OF OUTLOT A, MARKET SQUARE INTO A 40,000 SO. FT. LOT AND A II 39,600 SO. FT. LOT. C. PUD AMENDMENT TO ADD A BANK BUILDING TO MARKET SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER. . IF Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicants are requesting approval to construct, as t you mentioned, a 8,365 square foot bank building on the corner of 78th Street and Market Blvd.. The site is on one of the outlots that we created of will II I create as soon as the Market Square plat is filed but it's on that PUD that we approve with the shopping center and our expectation is the latest word we have is that hopefully we'll be breaking ground sometime early this fall. Approval il of the bank is tied into approval of the PUD and the shopping center. The bank would access off of the internal system of driveways serving the shopping center. There's also some reliance on the existing storm sewer system or the II storm sewer system that would be constructed for the shopping center. Hopefully finally everything's falling into place and everybody will be able to break ground in very short order. The bank is looking to be open, as I understand it, before the end of the year. They have some regulatory requirements that have I been imposed upon them to do that. In fact that's one of the reasons or that's the primary reason we've taken this step of bringing this to you less than a §. week after the Planning Commission got through with it is primarily to work with II the bank so they can meet their schedule. We had a few issues related-to the site plan but the representatives of the bank are basically comfortable with the ' conditions that have been laid down. We feel that the site plan itself was fairly well developed. At the Planning Commission there were two primary issues II ;- that came up. One dealing with access which has to do with the proposed left turn curb or median cut on 78th Street. The other one with the building - architecture. I'm happy to report that on one, the building architecture, the II applicants have made great strides. They took the concerns, and they were very serious concerns that were raised with the original building and fundamentally - redesigned it They came in to talk to staff last Friday. Gave us some -: - II alternatives to look at. The Mayor had an opportunity to look at some - preliminary sketches. We gave them some comments. They took._those.and came -- -.- back with a design that I think reflects the kind of building that we can be proud of and that really fits in onto 78th Street. _The downtown street scene _ „ - - II 53 - - II -_ _ - _ . II '1 1 - Minutes of January 14„ 1991 - City Council Meeting on Troendle Plat On pages 34 and 35, Daryl Fortier is quoted as stating ."I'm sure Mr. Beddor has objections tojoining the • residents on Lake Lucy Road and filing such a petition" (to extend Nez Perce). 11 These Minutes. are :ilnportant, since they cover the City Council as to whether the Troendle Plat should be allowed to proceed without the concurrent completion of Nez Perce to Pleasant View. - The Council was 'considering proposals to limit development in Troendle until the road I was _completed. The requirement. that Mr. Beddor pay $10,000 to the road's ultimate extension in exchange for • plat - approval grew out of this discussion. See discussion on page 44. 1 1 • City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Councilwoman Dimler: Right. 1 Mayor Chmiel: Okay, is there a second? I 1 Councilman Workman: Second. So are you going with the submersible or which ! one was more expensive? ' Councilwoman Dimler: Alternate B. Jim Bullert: The vertical turban is cheaper. 1 Councilman Workman: The above ground? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. Because we have the pump house there. ' Resolution $91 -8: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded that in order to prevent further damage, to approve a resolution for emergency repair to Well No. 4 with Alternate B from Bergerson- Caswell in the total amount of $16,571.00. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 8.7 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, LOCATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND VINELAND FOREST PLAT AND EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE, TROENDLE ADDITION. B. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE FROM PROPOSED TROENDLE ADDITION TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. 1 Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, the applicants are requesting approval to divide a 8.7 acre parcel into 15 lots. You reviewed this at a meeting in November. The Planning Commission had recommended approval. There was a concern raised by the ' neighborhood regarding the potential extension of Nez Perce out to Pleasant View and when that might occur. We were asked to then research that issue further and report back to you. We met with the developer and the adjoining property ' owner and basically concluded several items. Staff outlined the City Council's goal of extending Nez Perce to Pleasant View as soon as possible and we basically got the understanding of support of both individuals. They didn't oppose the concept. Mr. Owens did indicate however that although he's not presently in a position to develop his property because of a bankruptcy proceeding, that in fact it may be some sort of a long term goal on his part. Both individuals indicated that they were at this point unwilling to undertake the cost of the feasibility study. That they did not believe that that would be their responsibility if they had an ability to pay for it. Concurrently we also said that we'd go out and get an estimate on cost of the feasibility study and ' we've done that and under a separate action item tonight, you'll see that there's a proposal to do a $3,700.00 feasibility study. There's basically two legal issues that we investigated relative to this issue. The first concerned Mr. Owens' bankruptcy. There was a question as to whether or not we could. If the City Council wanted to finish this road project at this time, you'd be in the position of needing to condemn the property. Mr. Owens has no ability to sell it to us at this point, and undertake financing of the road and basically absorb that portion of the expense that we can't assess back to the Troendle Addition and sit on that until Mr. Owens develops his property and you can then 1 31 1 City Council Meeting - Ja tary 14, 1991 1 levy assessments. The City Attorney did confirm that we could probably condemn land that was needed although we may need approval from the bankruptcy court. However, it's not clear if we could sustain assessments against that property. So again that puts you kind of behind the 8 ball. You need to finance or front end the cost of the feasibility study and the actual road construction in the ': expectation that at some point in the future you'd be reimbursed. The second legal issue that we want to investigate is whether or not the extension of Nez Perce can rightfully be tied to the Troendle Addition. In there there's kind of a mixed answer and the City Attorney can clarify this if need be but basically you can only limit or connect the two items to the extent that the Troendle Addition needs the extension to proceed. Beyond that we would have difficulty doing that. After we had an opportunity to review the issues that were raised a little bit further, we also have some concerns that we have some extraordinarily long temporary cul -de -sacs that would result as currently proposed. As currently proposed, if Nez Perce was built up to this point and a temporary dead end provided, by the time you came in off of Lake Lucy, came up Nez Perce and got down to the end of Troendle Way, you're going in approximately 1,400 feet. Nez Perce itself is approximately 1,100 feet. Now we don't have a specific standard in our ordinance, as many ordinances do, about how long a cul-de-sac should be but that's quite a bit longer than most cities would find comfortable and the reasons are several. Emergency vehicle response time gets rather lengthy. Streets like that are expensive for us to maintain and snowplow because you have to go all the way up and all the way back. You're always doubling around. They provide less than adequate or optimal access and there is a concern that when you add in the number of homes in this addition to the number of homes in Vineland Forest that would get access off this, you're up to I think it's 32 homes. What we did is we had some meetings on this late last week or some conference calls with the City Manager, myself and the City Attorney to kind of work our way through this and what we came up with is kind of a revised recommendation. If you'll recall, the applicant indicated that it was not their intention to proceed immediately with construction of homes on this plat. That their primary goal was to take title to the property and get the plat recorded so they could do that and that they were planning on developing at some point in the future. What we've worked out and honestly I have not had an opportunity to speak directly with the applicant about this. We came to this decision last Thursday and I tried to contact him since then and was unable to. What we've come up with is a recommendation that you sort of make this into a two phase proposal whereby Phase 1 would be north of this line. , Phase 2 south and Phase 2 would be under our proposal platted as an outlot. Phase 1 would be allowed to develop initially with Nez Perce constructed up to the Art Owens property. Two of those homesites access off of Pleasant View so they're not really a concern coming off of here. There will be 4 new potential homesites and that fourth homesite does not occur until Mr. Troendle vacates the life estate. What we're proposing is that outlot, as a condition of platting for that outlot int he future, that when the developer wishes to plat it, that they have to petition the City Council for the extension of Nez Perce out to Pleasant View. In that manner we'd be tying it together with the completion of that street so by the time we add in the full component of 32 homes, we'd have the street completed. Now if in the meantime the Owens property is sold or developed and the road's built, then obviously we meet our goal and the subdivision of that second phase can proceed unhindered. We think that that accomplishes a few things. It limits the amount of homes that are going to go • in there intially so I think we've addressed the concerns of the traffic 32 1 City Council Meeting - 3.' 'ary 14, 1991 concerns on Lake Lucy. It gets Mr. Beddor his plat as quickly as possible in recognition of his timeframe. And finally it provides for the ultimate construction of Nez Perce and what we think is an equitable manner and avoids all those issues that we have in dealing with the bankruptcy of Mr. Owens property that makes me a little concerned and I don't know if I'd advise dealing with the front end of those costs because I couldn't guarantee you when we'd recover that. As I said, we did get an estimate on a feasibility study and there's another action tonight on that but if you proceed with the recommendation as proposed, you wouldn't need to act on that feasibility study. We wouldn't undertake that feasibility study until we had a proposal to develop in mind. There were a couple other issues that were raised at the Council meeting. The first one concerned the location of an existing barn on Mr. Troendle's life estate relative to the extension of the new street. It requires a variance to leave that in place. Staff had recommended against it and the Planning Commission had as well but there appeared to be some desire on the part of the City Council to approve it. There was no action taken on it. Now staff continues to recommend against it. We think that while it's a relatively minor ' issue, that new subdivisions do create a lot of financial benefit for individuals and that typically in the past we've recommended removal of impending structures. However as I indicated in the report, we don't view this ' as a life and death issue. We are not recommending it's approval but we did provide revised language in there should you wish to approve it, that you could adopt that would basically allow it to remain in place as long as Mr. Troendle's on the property and that that would be filed against the property so that it would be of record. It's a little clunky. I can't ask you to approve a temporary variance because there is no such animal but I believe we can work it out that way. There is an error in the report though. The language that ' I added in there, if you do wish to approve this, and it says added to condition number 11. It's actually condition number 12. There was a second issue of concern raised by the neighbors and we don't have a good response to this one. For those of you familiar with the area, there was a concern raised about the curve between Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce. It is a tight curve and it's not an optimal design but in talking with the former, I guess, City Engineer about that, he indicated to me that it was a design compromise. That when the road ' was connected, that there was a desire to minimize the impact on adjoining properties. Now we can look at fixing that curve but fixing that curve is likely to require the taking of somebody's lawn or you know, it's going to ' involve some property acquisition. Also, and our opinion is not linked to the Troendle Addition. It's quite a ways away from it. To give you a feel for it, it's about 300 feet down this way so you basically have to go all the way through Vineland Forest. It's a worthy idea to pursue I guess but I wouldn't ' tie it to the Troendle Addition and I'd exercise some caution if you will in terms of who might absorb the cost of that. The last item is we received several letters from Frank Beddor relative to the staff proposal that we take 7 ' feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road. The response is quite lengthy. I won't go into that in detail but suffice it to say, we still think the idea has merit and we think that in terms of setting a precedent and based upon what we ' know today, that the 7 feet doesn't sound like a lot but we are continuing to recommend that we do obtain it at the time we can obtain it which is during the platting process. I'd reiterate that nobody envisions a major upgrading of Pleasant View Road that would disturb that residential environment that's kind ' of unique that we have over there. All we're anticipating at this point is at best some safety related improvements that probably, in our opinion, will have 33 City Council Meeting - J - Mary 14, 1991 to be undertaken at some point as traffic continues to build there. With that 1 we are recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Anyone wishing to address that? Daryl Fortier: Good evening Your Honor, Councilmembers, I'm Daryl Fortier. I'm here to represent Mr. Frank Beddor, Jr. Also with me tonight is Jules Smith. Of the 15 items on the staff report we are in agreement with 11 of them. The first one we would like to discuss that presents a problem to Mr. Beddor is item number 1 and that is a suggestion that this be a dual part plat. If we are uncertain of the objectives. We have not been able to talk to staff but if the apparent objective is to get some petition or someone to request the city to try to proceed with Nez Perce, I'm sure Mr. Beddor has no objections to joining the residents along Lake Lucy Road and filing such a petition. We don't quite understand what is behind it but I guess on first glance we would join with the residents in filing such a petition. We see no difficulty in that. The second thing we'd like to point out is some of the issues that are being raised or justification for the splitting of the parcel into two plats if you will. We're uncertain of, it does present a difficulty to Mr. Beddor in his execution of the life estate to Mr. Troendle and that's one of his primary reasons for doing this plat. We are not in a particular hurry to develop. That's true. We would even be willing to say that we will not file the plat or the City need not sign the plat until January of next year. Therefore you could be assured we couldn't proceed and actually in January of next year we intend to come in here and ask for another year's extension. We realize you cannot grant that tonight but if you could, we would request it tonight. But in order for Mr. Beddor to proceed with his life estate he must be able to make sure that the value of the plat is there and that the plat will be approved by the City as it's being submitted. In other words, a plat with 6 lots on him cannot be accepted to the other party when they are anticipating 15 lots. The value is not the same so it does present a severe problem to Mr. Beddor. Regarding the safety issues that are being raised, we're not certain that a good case can be made or no compelling case can be made at least that this presents, this extensive cul -de -sac presents a significant problem to health, safety or welfare within the city. The issue of plowing and turning around. Whether you go the extra 300 feet you're proposing to cut off seems to be really a minor point. You would be going that extra 300 feet on any cul -de -sac which comes off a main thoroughfare. As far as the amount of traffic coming off, over at Fox Chase you have, immediately adjacent to this, you have 52 residents off a much longer cul -de -sac. Now we're not suggesting that you repeat any mistakes that may have been made in the past. 1 We are simply pointing out that at Fox Chase where there are 52 residences, there is no chance for a second outlet. In this particular plat we are proposing a maximum of 32 which would include the Vineland Estates. And any time the city sees that as a problem, the physical wherewithal to solve the problem and the political wherewithal is all within the control of the city. This is not another Fox Chase situation where you will be stuck with it. Any time the city choses, they could proceed to condemn the land across the Art Owens property and execute the concept study that was previously agreed upon and complete Nez Perce all the way through to Pleasant View Road. That's within the choice and the discretion of the city whenever they see that problem which may arise. We cannot do that of course as a private party. So I guess that really sums up the difficulty we have with 1. Again, if it is simply an issue of who's 34 f 1 City Council Meeting - • - wary 14, 1991 making a request that we proceed with a road, we would be pleased to join with the other residents and request Nez Perce. If that is not the issue and you are seeking some other solution to it, we think we don't understand it and we would simply ask that you approve the plat because we don't think there's a compelling reason to deny it based on those reasons. We think it is always within the city's realm to solve any problems that have been suggested. We agree with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. When we come to point 9 regarding right -of -ways, we agree with the 2 of the 3 points in point 9. We disagree with the right -of -way for Pleasant View Road. The additional 7 feet being requested. We have prepared a brief little graphic here. If you can see this small map, what I've done is ' shown the Vineland Estates. We are immediately next door and the areas along Pleasant View highlighted in red are those areas where 66 foot right -of -way has within the past 7 or 8 years or how long I've been representing Pleasant View Homeowners Association, been approved. Those are the only plats approved along ' this road and all of them have been approved with a 66 foot right -of -way. In the future if you decide that you need an 80 foot right -of -way, you will .gave to go back against all of these properties and all of the properties in white and ' request that you get an additional 7 feet from all of them. We are simply saying that an issue of fairness, treat Mr. Beddor the same and in the future take the additional 7 feet from Mr. Beddor if that's what you decide tc do but ' take it in the future when you address those issues with the rest of t,e property owners. Do not do it now. It is a straight away situation. This is not a curve. This is not an alignment detail that you are sure you're going to need. It is the safest part of the road and we don't see any justific tion for ' taking it now. The reason we are objecting is one of fairness as Mr. eddor has stated in his letter. We have been involved with the City on a separ, e issue where we have installed a portion of a public improvement and we have 'ound in ' the future that when the rest of the public improvement goes ahead, t .t there is no way to recoup the loss that the client puts in initially. For .ample, the value of the 7 foot that he gives up now will be lost to him. In .he future ' he will still get assessed including the value of land taken from oth people and he will have to share an equal share of that. He will be paying vice for that land. We think the way to solve that is either to adjust your a sessment policy or to defer it until the widening of the road or the improveme is of the ' road are incurred. We think it is unfair to do that at this time. T•e next point we'd like to point out is number 12. We are in agreement with 10. We are in agreement with 11. Point 12 suggests that the variance for the ga age ' setback not be approved. We would just like to make it clear that we believe there is ample grounds for granting a variance. Of all of the projects we've been in front of you with over the past 10 or 15 years, this one is the easiest ' to justify for a variance. It is a condition not of our making. It is an alignment of a road that we cannot change. We have tried. We cannot change this. We are being forced to put the road into this location. It results in a non - conforming use. We agree but there is nothing we can do about that. We ' cannot move the road. The City may have that authority. We do not. We are suggesting however instead of requesting a variance, that we would certainly be willing to set Lots 1 and 2 aside on Block 1 and we would put into their deed ' that no improvements would be made to either lot until such time as Mr. Troendle vacates his property or that the garage structure must be moved to be in conformance with the 30 foot setback. Either or. We will put that on the title of the deed of both properties. In that case Mr. Troendle's driveway will stay I where it is. He will not be permitted to connected to Nez Perce Road and we will not be permitted to sell or build Lots 1 or 2. Those are 2 lots we'll be ' 35 City Council Meeting - J; ary 14, 1991 1 tying up for Mr. Troendle's benefit. The final condition that we would have some disagreement with is, we agree with 13. We agree with 14. Point 15 is perhaps only a minor disagreement also. It is requesting that we agree today that in the future we will not argue about some future assessments or we will not contest them. We would agree that if assessments for any public improvements in this area were to be uniformily shared, equally based on square footage or lot area with all those parties participating who are benefiting, we would have no objection but the recommendation does not say that. It simply ' says that we will not object. We cannot make such a statement for future homeowners. We think that their rights to object to assessments should be kept with them. As a developer we can certainly make the agreement that we would put onto a deed a restriction that all of these lots are subject to future assessments equally based on the shared value of the improvements in that area. Specifically I have a feeling we're talking about Nez Perce as it goes to Pleasant View Road. We agree with that but we think the person on say Lot 2 off the cul -de -sac benefits equally as a person off Vineland Estates or the person off the Art Owens property and we are simply asking that for the benefit of future residents, that these assessments be uniform and equal. Therefore that one causes us some problems also. I'm sure Mr. Smith can, Jules here can address it more eloquently than I certainly can. I'll be pleased to answer any questions. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Would you repeat again what did you want for condition 12? I didn't quite catch that. Daryl Fortier: For number 12, rather than seeking a variance, we would agree that both Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 would have a deed restriction precluding their development until Mr. Troendle vacates his property or until the garage is brought into a conforming use. Conformance with the setback. Councilwoman Dimler: How do you propose to do that? Jules Smith: Because the way you've stated it, the Troendle's life estate...go ahead and do something with it even though the garage is still within. What we're really saying is, we will not do anything to those two lots for as long as Mr. Troendle has a life estate. There after we won't do anything until that garage is removed. I mean we will take down the garage after he...or after his life estate... Councilwoman Dimler: Is that what you were saying in your substituted wording? Paul Krauss: I didn't link in the second lot but it basically does the same thing. Jules Smith: All we're saying about Lot 1 is that, just the way it is now, his 1 driveway would just stay the same as long as he's using it. As soon as he doesn't use it, then that lot would have to go the other way. And there wouldn't be, as a matter of fact, an easement over Lot 1 that we would execute in his life estate is only for his life so it would be turned automatically but however we want to put it on record, we would put on record that easement would . terminate on Lot 2 as soon as he dies. It would be on record anyway but we would put it in the developer's agreement or anything you would want to put it on record. 36 ' City Council Meeting - J ary 14, 1991 11 seems to me to take the 7 when you don't know if you're ever going to need it doesn't seem very right in addition to what Frank says. But beyond all that, before the whole matter becomes moot, we really would like to proceed on this plat rather than have it either tabled again or whatever because we're running II into some time problems. Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Councilwoman Dimler: I do have one question. Since we were talking about linking this to Pleasant View and that's going to be done through Peaceful Lane. As I mentioned before, Peaceful Lane is basically a driveway and at this point I hope that we're planning to upgrade Peaceful Lane at that time. Is that what we're planning to do? Paul Krauss: Again, I can only tell you the concepts that we've developed. The concept would require, I mean you look at that street. It needs to be rebuilt all the way out to Pleasant View. Councilwoman Dimler: So are we going to change the name at that time? Paul Krauss: Presumably the entirety of the road would be called Nez Perce. Now if Peaceful Lane continues to drop down south of here, I guess Peaceful Lane would start here instead of starting there. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Thank you. Jim Duchene: I have a question. I'm Jim Duchene. I live on 961 Lake Lucy Road and a couple questions for Paul on the cul -de -sac. You said the length was quite long. What were you recommending on that? I didn't quite follow you. Paul Krauss: The cul -de -sac, Troendle Way or Lane or whatever it is runs about 1,400 feet. Now our Code basically says that we should exercise judgment and care of some such language when we have overlengthed cul -de -sacs. A lot of City Codes set an arbitrary limit of 500 feet on a cul -de -sac and there's some real reasons to set some kind of a limit. You know 1,400 feet in my professional judgment is clearly beyond what you'd prefer. Now that's on a temporary basis. At such time that Nez Perce is constructed as a thru street, the entirety of the cul -de -sac length is from here to here and that's a permissible length in the long run. Jim Duchene: Okay. My other question was, up on Lake Lucy Road and Nez Perce, the other direction, will there be stop signs up in that direction? You pointed it out on the other end, the north end, but how about the south end? On Lake Lucy and Nez Perce where it comes into the development. Paul Krauss: Lake Lucy and Nez Perce is a curve. It's not an intersection. We do have a stop sign, I mean that's something I suppose we could look at but I'm not sure where we'd put it. I guess I'd defer to Charles on that but Vineland Forest does have a stop sign where it enters onto Lake Lucy. Jim Duchene: Is there a stop sign up there? Okay. And could we not address Nez Perce coming onto Lake Lucy by putting a stop sign coming north? 41 City Council Meeting January 14, 1991 Charles Folch: Paul, that's certainly something we could look at if directed so by the Council. At this point my gut feeling is that the alignment that Lake Lucy Road has currently joining with that portion of Nez Perce, it's intended to be a thru movement and not necessarily stop but that's something we could ' certainly take a look at. Jim Duchene: That is a total blind spot if you've been up there. I think a few of you had commented you had, Dick I think you were up there. You stopped at the house. But as you come around the corner, you cannot see down so that is a blind spot and I noticed when we read the report, the initial report, I think a lot of you had walked up there and had seen that that road, I believe it was 18 feet is what that road, the width is that I measured up there so, on Nez Perce prior to Lake Lucy. Councilman Wing: Don, isn't this a completely and separate issue totally unrelated to what we're discussing tonight? That particular intersection? Jim Duchene: Well it is tied on to what I've got here. ' Mayor Chmiel: Not necessarily. It eventually is going to connect. Paul Krauss: Well, I guess in terms of conditions on the Troendle plat, my recommendation would be that you can consider it a separate issue. In terms of this being a valid issue that you want to pursue that just happens to be raised at the same time, yeah. That's fine. Jim Duchene: Thank you. • Councilman Wing: I'd just like to recommend that the last comments be referred to the Public Safety Commission and possibly addressed at that point. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, that's fine. Jim Stasson: I'd just like to make, Jim Stasson at 6400 Peaceful Lane again. Why would Peaceful Lane have to change to Nez Perce? Can't Nez Perce end at the intersection and we still be Peaceful Lane? Paul Krauss: Generally when you lay out a street that connects Point A to Point 8, you want the same name on the entirety of the street so people can. Jim Stasson: But if you made that a real intersection where it came into Peaceful Lane, then it would be just like Peaceful Lane coming into Pleasant View Road. Otherwise if you use that logic, every street would have the same name. , Paul Krauss: Every street that has continuity should have the same name. I guess, you know you're asking me to comment on your concept that has that coming into a T intersection. Right now I don't feel comfortable with that T intersection but if it did design that way, yes. Jim Stasson: What's the reason that you don't like a T intersection there? ' 42 ' City Council Meeting - nuary 14, 1991 Councilman Workman: That would still be a temporary variance of sorts. Jules Smith: Well it's not going to be a variance. II Daryl Fortier: We're requesting that you delay implementation of compliance until the life estate lapses. 1 Councilman Workman: We all butter our toast a little differently. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions? Does anyone have anything to discuss 1 regarding the additional 7 feet right -of -way? Roger Knutson: Can I ask a question? You're resisting just final platting Lots 1 thru 4 and making the rest of it an outlot because you want the City's assurance that the whole layout is acceptable? Is that my understanding? Daryl Fortier: We need some way of, Mr. Beddor is concerned about Vineland ' Estates lots off Pleasant View. The owner of Vineland Estates has indicated a willingness to swap lots. In order for that to occur, we must have some kind of platted lot that we can swap. That is one difficulty. The other difficulty is 1 he, in establishing the value of Troendle Addition, Mr. Beddor's realtors or his financial advisors and Mr. Troendle's must reach agreement as to how many lots there can be. Therefore some understanding that the City will indeed approve something is critical. 1 Roger Knutson: If the City for example were to, I don't know that they would, but approve the preliminary plat of the whole thing as you have it set out there 1 and then in terms of the development agreement that you final plat four lots now at stage 1 and you've already approved the concept of the preliminary for stage 2 if that's what happens and the rest of it, stage 2 will be developed at such 1 time as Nez Perce is constructed for example. Daryl Fortier: Unfortunately we only got the, I only got the staff report at about 6:20 this evening and I have not had a chance to contact Mr. Beddor as to 1 what other difficulties that would entail. I do know of the two difficulties I've been mentioning. As to whether or not Mr. Van Eeckhout next door has some difficulties with it, it's a very uneasy situation for me to say yes or no to ' simply because I see this being connected to some future event for which this developer has no control over. 1 Don Ashworth: Could we pose the question to Mr. Smith? I mean do you see what we're trying to get at? I think a preliminary plat for the entire parcel, a phasing plan fully protects your client and yet provides some assurances that the City is looking for as far as potentially getting that road through at a 1 future point in time. Jules Smith: If you're saying that, and as I read this, well before I answer 1 that one there's just one other little minor problem. If we were to put in Nez Perce and that little punch down of the road because this says those two lots have to go on Troendle Way or Troendle Circle or whatever it finally ends up 1 being called, and we don't do the rest for a while, that's a very, that's kind of an expensive way to do it. Obviously when we go in there to develop that eventually, you know we should do it all at once. The grading of the roads and 1 37 1 City Council Meeting - J ary 14, 1991 1 the whole thing. So you don't really, we would really think long and hard before we would develop that separately. I mean put sewer and water and roads in at two separate times. That would be really expensive. But as I read this, and correct me if I'm wrong Paul. As I read this, what you're saying to us is AI okay, we'll do that and we'll do this as an outlot. We'll approve it but we will not let you actually. We'll let you subdivide it when you petition to have that road put in. Is that what I'm reading? Well as I say, I haven't had a chance to talk to Frank. In that sense, I don't think we'd have, I don't want to categorically say this because I haven't talked to him about it because I only saw this thing at 4:00 this afternoon but I don't think we would have a problem with that just as the filing of the petition. You know, gee I'd like to see the road come in and here's a petition but if the petition is tied to the number 15 that says we have to pay for the whole road, yeah I think we'd have a real problem with that because I don't think we should pay for the whole road. The whole thing may be mute, well moot. I may be mute on it, because if Art Owens plats and the road is built, hey that's it. I mean it's going to be part of his plat. He just builds it just like we build our section of it. He builds his section of it. It never comes to assess. I mean it may be a moot point. I don't have a problem I don't think. I'd want to talk to Frank. I really...do that but all we have to do is petition and we're going to be assessed just like everybody else is assessed, I mean we're not opposed to paying our share of the costs that are involved in that and I'm sure there are some costs over and above the typical platting costs because of some other problems on, what is it Peaceful Way and some of that. You know they'd be more than say you would require from the developer platting that. Art Owens property so you might have some additional costs in there. We wouldn't be opposed to that. But if all we have to do is petition for it, I think we'll petition for it tonight. Don Ashworth: If I may. One of the reasons that staff went in the direction that we did, recognizes that if you provide a preliminary plat approval for the entire subdivision, you're guaranteeing them x number of lots. You're allowing them the right to move ahead with the first phase. They literally are guaranteed that they can do a second phase if they do it within some period of time. One year or two years. That kind of buys the time necessary that Mr. Smith was originally looking at. On the other side, if you do a final plat for the entire lots, hypothetically Mr. Beddor could sell that plat to whomever tomorrow and you have really no assurance that we're going to have an opportunity to look at that road extension at a future point in time. Before he moves ahead with Phase 2, at least he has to come in and see you and at that point in time we can look to again forcing the petition, or at least instituting that process as it may go against the Owens property. I do not agree with Mr. Fortier's position that you can literally put that remaining road section in at any time you want and assess the full cost. I really believe that they should be looked at concurrently. This recommendation allows you to do that. I think to go in, put in a road on one singular piece of property which is what you'd have left at that point in time, at least if it were me, I might question the public purpose that was being accomplished but that's neither here nor there. I personally think that the recommendation has been given. Hopefully can meet the needs of Mr. Beddor. I'd like to see that occur. I'd like to see us help Mr. Troendle sell the property. I'd like to make sure we protect the interests of the property owners in that area that would want to see that road go through and I think it can be done in a fashion that protects Mr. Beddor, Mr. Troendle, Mr. Owens and the City. 38 1 1 City Council Meeting - 'anuary 14, 1991 Mayor Chmiel: I guess I basically agree. Paul, did you want to say something? Paul Krauss: Just to clarify something briefly. Maybe Roger will jump in and this is on a different issue though. Mr. Fortier commented on the equity of II assessments that might result from a road being built in the future and it's kind of tough to second guess what you or future council might do in that regard. However, I think it's fair to state that as we see the benefit distributed from this road extension, the benefit it seems to us to be distributed across the Troendle lots and across Art Owens property. Vineland Forest has already built a rather extraordinarily lengthy street so that Troendle Addition can hook in. I mean it went further than it needed to in that ' subdivision basically to give access to the next lot in a coordinated manner. You know I fail to, I'm not certain but I don't think we could sustain assessments to show benefit in Vineland Forest. As far as the equity of ' assessments goes I guess, maybe I'm naive but I take equity for granted. I would envision some sort of an area assessment. Again, we can't bind a future Council but an area assessment that's based on lot area would probably be the most equitable way of doing that. Without having a feasibility study, nobody's ' willing to front end the cost of the feasibility study. I have a difficult time asking you to do it because I don't know when we'd be reimbursed. If we took a feasibility study, if we actually went ahead with the project, we would know ' exactly how much each lot's going to pay. Unfortunately we don't seem to have that option open to us. ' Mayor Chmiel: Yes sir. Please state your name and address. Terry Barke: Good evening. My name is Terry Barke and my address is 960 Lake Lucy Road. I'm here tonight with a number of my neighbors from Lake Lucy Road. ' I addressed the Council in November, you may remember. I'd just like to make this statement that it may not be obvious to you but my neighborhood, or just to confirm that my neighborhood, my neighbors and myself, we basically like the .taff's recommendation. If there was any question, we have no problem with that whatsoever. It seems to us to be actually a very good solution. It sounds like it does solve a lot of people's problems. What's being discussed tonight in terms of making sure the plat's get laid out so that these folks can proceed and get what they want and again if that proceeds that way closely according to the plan here that the staff is recommending, that's great with us too. It sounds like a good way to go. So I just wanted to make sure that if there are any ' questions, we like what we're hearing from the staff and it sounds like it's going in a direction that we feel good about. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Any other discussion? Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. Nothing ' shows on this tonight but the road that has been proposed to go through Art's property shows a big sweeping curve as it comes into Peaceful Lane. Now we're trying to get rid of the big sweeping curve on the other side and it doesn't seem to make sense to put a big sweeping curve coming into Peaceful Lane from that. I don't understand why that can't be a squared off corner like a normal corner would be. I just want to get that on record now before it all gets made permanent as they say. Yeah, this corner here that shows a big radius corner coming in. If we're trying to get rid of the big radius corner on the other end ' 39 City Council Meeting - ' 'uary 14, 1991 1 of us to slow the traffic down, you know this is just going to be the same thing coming the other way. Paul Krauss: We laid that out for a few reasons. The reason for constructing Nez Perce is clearly so that it becomes a connection. A thru street. Now it's a very minor collector but it's just basically made for that neighborhood but what you want to do is promote the flow of traffic through here and out. Now this is not a final design and we've indicated to the gentlemen that, this house is over here, that we try to take pains to...to shift the road as far away from his home as possible. Right now there's a wide curve right through here off of Pleasant View and the way we're showing it is that that piece of road would be knocked out and it could turn back to lawn and we could vacate that for all we care at this point. But we don't have a final design. I mean that's what the feasibility study's supposed to do. What will probably happen if Peaceful Lane needs to extend further south to the Owens property or whatever, it would probably come in at a T intersection as we've envisioned this but again this is a little hypothetical because it hasn't been designed. Jim Stasson: I realize it hasn't been designed but when you start showing curves like that at this stage, you know I live right on the corner of where the other curve is and if we're going to try to slow the traffic down that way, it makes sense to try to bring them into a regular T type corner down there. I don't understand why they can't come to a stop and make a turn rather 'Clan come around like a racetrack. Paul Krauss: I guess the point is that on Peaceful Lane there may be or 2 homes south of that intersection. We don't know at this point. If th re's considerably more homes than that depending on how the Owens property svelops, maybe it makes sense to do that. But we want to promote the thru move ent through there. Now there would have to be a stop sign. Jim Stasson: I want to unpromote the thru movement. • ' Paul Krauss: There would be a stop sign over here and if the road cam= in like that, there'd be a stop sign over there. , Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, there would. You'd have to. Councilman Wing: It doesn't solve his problem though. He's talking about just , the general speed and flow of traffic with that type of curve. I heard what you said. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Any other discussion? Jules Smith: If I may. I'd just like to make a quick other point and that is on the 7 foot matter. We're on a straight away and Paul now says we're not talking about widening the road. We're talking about some safety features and what have you. That's the straightest part of the road except maybe way, way on the other end, I'm not sure but it certainly is. It's in the center of the straightest part of the road and it just seems to be, nobody knows what they're going to do. Nobody knows whether anything's needed there other than the 66 feet you already have which is plenty wide enough to put in an extra lane for parking or anything else. A 36 foot or whatever of paving surface and it just 40 1 11 City Council Meeting - nuary 14, 1991 Paul Krauss: Because you're introducing a turning movement on the street that's going to carry more traffic and you're providing a thru movement to a street that only has two houses on it. II Jim Stasson: I didn't catch that. When you come up on Peaceful Lane to Pleasant View Road, you've got a T intersection. ' Paul Krauss: Right. Jim Stasson: What's the problem with having a T intersection two houses further back? I guess I don't see why that. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I think it's really beyond the scope of what we're doing right now and I don't think that's a discussionary thing but I agree with what ' you're saying that you don't want to change from Peaceful Lane to Nez Perce. Jim Stasson: Right. Mayor Chmiel: I guess I agree because there's a lot of given problems that you have to go through as an individual. Jim Stasson: Well yeah. I have to change. Mayor Chmiel: Everything you have. ' Jim Stasson: I have to change everything I have. ' Mayor Chmiel: And that does create a problem. I would just as soon see - hat remain as Peaceful Lane rather than call it Nez Perce. Paul Krauss: Certainly, if there's a way to work that out. Councilwoman Dimler: I don't want to make that decision right now. I Mayor Chmiel: No. Okay. I think we have discussed this substantially unless someone else wants to throw something else in. If not, Roger? 11 the Knutson: Just one last point. I think it is germane. Considering what the discussion has been about petitioning and what that significance is, maybe I could suggest. If this is the direction you want to go in. I don't want to put that in your mouth but is the wording of condition 1. I could suggest ' rewording the first two sentences, the second sentence after the first sentence is fine. The second sentence of condition 1 to read. Third sentence. There we go. Notice shall be placed in the development contract as a condition of ' platting the outlot. Then Nez Perce must be constructed thru to Pleasant View Road as a condition of platting the outlot. I'll do it again. Notice must be placed in the development contract that as a condition of platting the outlot, Nez Perce must be constructed through to Pleasant View Road. I think that's what the intent is. That doesn't answer the question of finances. Mayor Chmiel: That might also pertain to the specific one discussion we had here. If we're talking Pleasant View, the City construct Nez Perce through to 43 city Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 1 Pleasant View Road, I think it'd be from Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane to Pleasant View. Councilwoman Dimler: Is that alright? Roger Knutson: I think as Mr. Smith aptly pointed out, filing a petition doesn't really do much. Mayor Chmiel: Right. That doesn't look, I think that's reasonable. , Jules Smith: I just have a question. We have to file a plat within a year and say we get a year's extension. Two years or whatever it is. In two years not a lot is happening. What you're really saying is, we would have to, well there's no way we could control the construction of that road. What you're really saying is, well we'll give you preliminary approval of this plat for 2 years, or whatever. For how long as you extend it but if the road isn't there, you lost the second phase. You can't build it. Well that gets right back to where we were with Daryl's problem. The land isn't worth that to us. We don't have the lots, there's no way we can force it. We can't make it. We can't build a road. We can't make the city build it. We can't do anything. We just lose our plat. That's essentially what you're telling us. Is that it? All I can do as an owner of that property is ask the city to build it. If they think the road is necessary, hey they've got a petition in front of them. Let's build it. I mean you guys are in control of that, I'm not. Mayor Chmiel: I don't see where that's the responsibility of the City. Jules Smith: Well, the point is, the City doesn't have to do it because obviously if Art Owens plats or if that land is ever platted, whoever plats it is going to build it and that's probably as it should be. What I'm saying is, essentially we're getting approval for 4 lots or 6 lots tonight period because we have no guarantee we can do the rest of them ever and it's beyond our control to do anything to get that approval. We can't force a road to be built. We can't pay for the road to be built. We can't do anything. Roger Knutson: We can certainly put in there, I don't think the Council would have a problem with it, that if you want to pay for it. Jules Smith: Well, that's outrageous. ' Roger Knutson: You just said... Jules Smith: What you're really saying is we're not going to approve, we approve 6 lots this evening. That's what we'll approve. Don Ashworth: Jules, let's see if we can't work something that's reasonable. I think that having a requirement in there that they simply agree that they'll petition the City to have the feasibility study completed, etc., that does put the authority back to us. That gives us the ability at that point in time to commission the study and potentially assess. I think we should look at it though in terms that there's a possibility you may have sold those 6 lots. If that is the case, those people are not going to want to pay for any costs associated with Nez Perce. In fact, they're going to come back in front of this 44 City Council Meeting - January 14, 1991 Council and say, no. We like this cul -de -sac condition. We don't want you to 11 do that. Jules Smith: I have no problem with saying that those lots will be subject to some approval. If there is an areawide assessment for those that are benefitted I by that section, they're going to be covered. I have no problem putting that of record. ' Don Ashworth: Or something to the effect that if you've already sold those, and that's really beyond your. ' Jules Smith: ...they're still stuck with it whether we own it or they own it. Don Ashworth: Well again, it gets kind of back to like Kerber Blvd.. When we ' went to put through Kerber and you had people in the Saddlebrook area, Chan Vista. Those people surely didn't want to pay for Kerber. They bought that lot and the last thing they wanted. I've got to believe though Jules that we can come up with some reasonable language that says that those lots, excluding those lots no longer under your control, that the developer is willing to pay his fair share. So he might end up with a situation where you don't have what I'll call is a uniform assessment roll in terms of you may, those first 6 lots. 1 Jules Smith: Those that have already sold? Don Ashworth: That's correct. And I've got to believe that we can come up with language that is going to protect Mr. Beddor but still protect the city...and I would recommend that you accept the language of simply having them petition but I think that we do need to work in the section of the development contract that ' talks about their willingness to potentially accept a portion of those assessments and as that may apply to lots that are still under their control because again they could potentially have sold those lots between then and now. Roger Knutson: How about petition and pay for the cost of the feasibility report? Don Ashworth: What? Roger Knutson: Petition and pay for the cost of the feasibility report. Don Ashworth: Well, we can make a determination at that point in time that we want to include the costs of the feasibility study. 1 Jules Smith: If you're going to build a road, it's usually in the cost of the road... Don Ashworth: That's correct. I don't have a problem there either. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I think we know where we're at. I would look for a motion in regard to proposal for a staff recommendation and maybe with some minor revisions which we just discussed. Councilwoman Dimier: I'll attempt a motion here. I need some help. Okay, I move item 6(a) to approve the subdivision, the Troendle Subdivision with the 15 45 1 1 ....._ _.... City Council Meeting - inuary 14, 1991 1 conditions with condition number 1 to be worked out. Okay, it's a preliminary plat #90 -15. With the following conditions. Condition number 1 with language to be worked out with staff and legal counsel in a way that protects the City. Is that enough to go on? Roger Knutson: We have the intent of the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Yep. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Condition number 2, condition number 3 as is. Condition number 4 as is. Condition number 5 as is. Condition number 6 as is. Condition number 7 as is. Condition number 8 with the addition that this, to make sure that it does get recorded so we don't have another Peterson /Blanski situation. Condition number 9 (a) and (b) and (c) as is. Condition number 10, condition number 11 with a substitute for condition number 12 and here's where I need help. With the intent that yes, Mr. Troendle can live there as is and when that terminates, that the building, the barn garage gets removed and that something about the driveway at that time, the easement is vacated. Jules Smith: The easements go on...access onto Nez Perce. Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, do you understand the intent? ' Jules Smith: The easement would terminate upon the life estate terminating. Mayor Chmiel: Also a deed restriction in there of some type. Councilwoman Dimler: Ah yes. With a deed restriction acceptable to the City. Councilman Workman: On what, Lot 1 and 2? Councilwoman Dimler: On Lot 2. Do you want to add Lot 1 and 2? ' Mayor Chmiel: Right. Jules Smith: Yeah. It'd be 1 and 2. You want to make sure the... I/ Councilwoman Dimler: Alright. So a deed restriction acceptable to the City shall be drafted concerning the garage /barn and Lot 1 and 2. Roger Knutson: You said deed restriction. That's really, you really put those in the development contract. 1 Jules Smith: You just file what's there. You just want something on record. Mayor Chmiel: That's right. Just protection. , Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, you understand the intent of that one? Mayor Chmiel: Yes. • Councilwoman Dimler: Until the end of the life estate, yeah. Condition 13, 14 and 15 as is. 46 City Council Meeting January 14, 1991 1 Councilman Workman: First can you reiterate 9? Councilwoman Dimier: 9 as is with the (b) part there that was being discussed. I would like to see us take that because I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask for right -of -way and easements with the subdivision and preliminary plat approval plus in the future if we don't need it, we can always vacate it. ' Councilman Workman: Paul, was Daryl's map with the red ink correct? Paul Krauss: Well I didn't have a chance to review it but it looked accurate. Councilman Workman: In light of that and his comment that they'll pay twice. In other words, we won't pay him for it and then when the assessments come out he'll have to pay for those. Is that a situation that's? Paul Krauss: I guess maybe the City Manager can respond to that. ' Councilman Workman: I mean we're going to have to pay for everybody else's on that road if this map is correct just about. ' Councilman Wing: We have to look to the future because we're trying to be consistent now. I mean they can say we were inconsistent years ago and I would dispute that but we're trying to be consistent now that anything that occurs ' along that road from this day forward is going to be in that same position. It's going to be an automatic request for the easement. If we are inconsistent this time, then we might as well be inconsistent from there over to TH 101 from this point on. The only question I would have is why even go 80 feet. Why not stay with the 66 feet on this. Mayor Chmiel: I guess that makes sense too as far as I'm concerned. ' Councilman Workman: But you know what I mean. I mean the other ones are developing. They're not going to do anything else but we're going to take this here. Granted we're going to start to be consistent although it would appear from this point we're being inconsistent but we're taking it, which is our right, but we're not going to be able to get the other ones without paying for them. ' Councilwoman Dimler: Or if they come in to subdivide we can take it. ' Councilman Workman: Yeah, but that's done I think isn't it? Councilwoman Dimler: No. ' Paul Krauss: If I could. You know you pointed out you do have the right to do it. That's unquestionable. You have the right. I guess you're looking for the moral ground in doing it and I can't sit here today and tell you that with great ' certainty that we need that 7 feet because I'm not sure. While we don't anticipate any significant rebuilding of Pleasant View, one of the things you need to look at when you improve a street is sight distances and you know, the ' road starts to curve down as you're just going past that property. Now it could well be that you need to skim off a knob on the road or something else that requires grading to do that in the future. As to the moral higher ground on ' 47 city Council Meeting - lanuary 14, 1991 1 this, when somebody subdivides property, I think there's a presumption that 1 they're doing it for some financial gain and clearly when you subdivide off lots, you're going to be making a profit on that. Does that compensate for the public cost that we would entertain in the future? I don't know. I think it does. I mean we're talking about a relatively nominal amount of land here. I guess for the same reason though I'd be relunctant to set a precedent whereby we burden the public in the future with a higher cost of doing the improvements that are needed when we could have gotten it basically for free at some point in the past. Councilman Workman: I guess in relationship to that I just don't see this road ever having the ability to widen the way we want it to widen and so in that case we might take it but it seems moot. Councilwoman Dimler: We can always vacate it. Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, if that need's not there. Councilman Workman: I just, in driving that road, I don't drive it. I think Frank is probably the biggest flag waver on that road and nobody should drive on the road and he's probably correct. I don't drive on that road if my life depends on it. Councilwoman Dimler: But see to me Tom it's inconsistent. Mayor Chmiel: I drive on it all the time Tom. Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, and it's inconsistent to say that we're going to add population here and at the same time keep the road the same way it is. Plus you're going to have Crosstown. Councilman Workman: But I'm just saying the development in those corners is so tight and maybe we're going to be removing houses. Mayor Chmiel: I doubt that. ' Councilwoman Dimler: But TH 101 might go to 4 lane. CR 17 might go to 4 lane. I think you're going to see a lot of traffic in there in the future. , Mayor Chmiel: Well you may see an increase. I don't think you're going to see an... Councilwoman Dimler: Well no, I'm saying it's , Y 9 s going to increase. It's not going to decrease. And safety concerns on that road as well. Councilman Workman: But there's going to be places where we can't widen it so. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We have that motion on the floor and we have a second. Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Preliminary Plat #90 -15 for Troendle Addition without variances subject to the following owng 48 1 City Council Meeting January 14, 1991 1. Final plat shall be limited to Lots 1 -4, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 of the Preliminary Plat. The remaining area is to be platted as an outlot. Notice must be placed in the development contract that as a condition of ' platting the outlot, Nez Perce must be constructed through to Pleasant View Road. 2. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear cutting, except for the house pad and utilities will not be permitted. ' 3. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the City with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. ' 4. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit. 5. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right -of -way for permanent ownership. t 6. The cul -de -sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 60 feet and the street name shall be modified to either Troendle Circle or Troendle Court to eliminate any confusion in applying it as a through street. Final street ' plans shall be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. 7. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around the ponding ' area until such time that turf is established. Turf or sod shall be placed behind all curbing. B. Shared driveway access off of Pleasant View Road for Lots 1 and 4, Block 2 ' is required and a cross access easement shall be provided and recoreded with the County. This common section of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet and have a maximum grade of 10:. ' 9. Provide the following easements and rights -of -way: a. The drainage and utility easements along the westerly property line of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 2 and the ponding area on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 that are shown on the grading and erosion control plan shall also be shown on the preliminary plat accordingly. ' b. Additional 7 feet of right - of - way along Pleasant View Road. ' c. Standard drainage and utility easements. 10. The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying size and capacity of the storm sewer system and ponding basin. Eight inch sanitary ' sewer at a minimum rate of 0.4% shall be constructed on this subdivision and service locations for all of the lots on this plat shall be shown for final submittal review. The final plans and specifications shall be submitted to ' the City Engineer for review and approval. 11. Park and trail fees shall be required in lieu of parkland dedication. II 49 City Council Meeting - nuary 14, 1991 1 12. So that no variance is required, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 will have a deed 1 restriction precluding development until Mr. Troendle vacates his property or until the garage/barn is brought into a conforming use. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be removed. 13. The temporary cul -de -sac should be provided with an easement to accommodate the temporary pavement and be provided with a barricade equipped with a sign indicating the road will be extended in the future. 14. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are required to have access from Troendle Way. 15. The developer waives the right to contest area assessments that may be placed upon all lots platted in the Troendle Addition relative to the completion of Nez Perce through adjoining parcels to link with Plesant View • Road. This condition shall be placed in the chain -of -title of all lots in the plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR EXTENSION OF NEZ PERCE DRIVE FROM PROPOSED TROENDLE ADDITION TO PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. Don Ashworth: In light of your last action, this is moot on this. Mayor Chmiel: I think it is. Won't need to go. ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT FEE SCHEDULE. Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor, I'll try to be brief with this. Mayor Chmiel: I certainly hope so Paul. Paul Krauss: I often try, I don't always succeed. Basically upon my arrival at th City I operated under the existing fee schedule for quite some time and it gradually dawned on me that our fees haven't kept pace at all with general infla'ionary costs and also they haven't kept pace with a new trend that appears to be developing whereby communities try to put some of the cost of the City rek)iew of development proposals back on those development proposals. Near as I can tell, the last time our fee schedule was reviewed was 5 or 6 years ago but nobody's quite certain. Now I've talked to you on several occasions about trying to update that but what I did is I surveyed a number of communities to find out which of these communities are actually trying to defray city expenses and review of new development back on those developers. Right now we basically charge very nominal permit fees which is fine and it encourages growth and all that but what it basically does is my time and the engineer's time and everybody else is paid out of the general fund to review new developments and there's an equity issue with that. I found a number of communities, the one's I surveyed are in fact trying to recoup some, not all because you can't, it's very tough to do some of the costs of staff time and reviews that are associated with those permits. Some of the cities, a lot of the cities required the escrowing of funds. Basically you draw down that escrow but every community I talked to that did that had problems with it and there were problems with accounting. Eagan in 50 FORTIER & ASSOCIATES, INC. November 12, 1990 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN ' Ms. Scharmin Al -Jaffe RECENT! Planning Dept. NOV 14 1990 City of Chanhassen CITY Ur 690 Coulter Drive ch "'h�iSSEN P. O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: TROENDLE PLAT Comm: 89 -20 1 Dear Ms. A1- Jaffe: As requested, we are herein submitting an alternate alignment for Nez Pierce as it connects to Peacful Lane and then on to Pleasant View Road. The revised road alignment does not affect the proposed Troendle Plat and is merely one alternative of numerous alignments 1 possible for the connection to Pleasant View Road. As we have previously stated, we can make no representations on ' behalf of adjacent property owners, Mr. Troendle, nor Mr. Beddor, as to the desirability of the attached sketch. ' As previously stated, any design considerations for the road interchange must address the apparant wetland off Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road. It was my understanding that you were to forward to me copies of the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting to ' confirm their interest in the road alignment and also copies of any information that your engineering staff may have establishing the dimensions and elevations of this pond. We have not received that information as of this date. I have spoken to Mr. Owens regarding the pond on his property. He has advised me that this pond was created due to the collapse of a ' drain tile and that this area is not intended to hold water. Thus, the resulting growth of vegetation which suggests that it is a wetland is artificial and is not in conformance with the intended use ' of this land. It is my further understanding that the area now ponding water was intended to be fully developed as residential and that the City of Chanhassen was aware of the collasped drain tile and ' agreed that this was not a wetland, but rather a buildable parcel of land. It is very important for all parties to clarify this issue and I believe it would be appropriate for us to have a meeting with City Engineering. Mr. Art Owens has indicated that he would attend such a 1 meeting. Please advise as to when your schedule and that of your engineering department will allow for this meeting. 1 ATTACH. *6 ' 408 Turnpike Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55416 (612) 593 -1255 II Page 2 Ms. Al -Jaffe II November 12, 1990 Comm: 89 -20 1 Regardless of the disposition of the ponded water on the Art Owens I property, we believe that the Troendle Plat should proceed as requested. Should you have any difficulty with this request, please I contact me. You truly, 4; • i Iii Daryl P. Fortier 1 DPF /sf encl: Sketch of Nez Pierce - Pleasant View Road I cc: Frank Beddor, Jr. I Jules Smith Art Owens 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I • o o o . ; •••••• . . • • • . . .., I - . .... . , . . • . .. . •- -.. -; . - • . , . ..-- . • _ • - . . - _._...._..•.___ . - • 1 -- i . • . . - - --.'-• ,.../ ---- ---- -----,,,.. • , -•• - •-• ..---- /- „.-- „,...--- ---- / ...-- --- — --- ---- . •• '-- ......, - \--. ...-"" ....". -...--* ....-- ----- ..--. ---....... I 1 : •-■ , ...- • i .-- , I . •-•_1 / L- / / / / / / . • . / / / / / / / (.... ....__ • / \ - •:, , / / / ) :._ ,-..; / 1 , __ / / 1 ..._- / .--- _.. / ,— /- 1 • ..1 i i - ) / / / , • ,. z - / : .•,/ / / ;.. / .' , /v ■._ c • ---)/ '- f' / / / ..,_ o ,..... A ) \ _,- . / / r ( / ‘.., vr- p- 1 I ..•. \ • / , , : At, • ,..., ........ ' - j" - 41 1 •' ''' ''' : .....'• \ . j•'I ! ' ' if 114: . r , \ •••• • 1 Of I /......- •-■. .....) ....., .._.... ( —7- ■'; ,•_ .-; \...:. :_er. . ',..‘ _ ! • \,•:4 , -; 1.. \ k......_ ....--- ( ■.,, --..... ..-- ...--- . • I : ,." A\ \ ___ ---._ — ..---- ---- ' 1 ■,' '• :-^:!.' ---- ---- -- _ --- — — — -- -___ --- ____ .....-- — _ — . - . _ .... -- — _.-- 4 .......... ‘ ''....:,...;;, ' ::.:7.:;:f ....... 7 .."'....' irql...... : -..‘.-,.' 11111111@ftlinl"..11.1111.1.11.111111.11111101. ......... liA - /..". ..."..* . ..... ., . I - r .... • , - .. - .'. .., -, , . .. , 4.11L111.111 I . : • /P ..../ ..,' ' •.' • ' 71' 1 P -- 7 „....---••• ., - .11 •--.. ...- ....''' 1 .. ' ,.... --,,. .,,,,.... .--- ''...• ...".' - ' - - -'----'•• - --7---, ..:L.,/_,1 7 , • ' ..•• .. . / ....---'" ........... ..■-• ■-•,' . - • - ' ---- ...---• -.-- ".-- ........ iy , .. , i 7 ..■ 7 / --....,--.. ."....... ____ 1 ..----" ./. ...._, ......... ...-• •■.-..- ---- .... ....._ :".....-- .......... ■://■. -..".. . / ..."".. ...."• ......' .../ ..." .......- ......... -**--:--....---------- / ._...-. .....- ■ - i / ..---' / / .....___ ..-- ,-- , — — •.‘„ ----- I ,_<':+.;, , / / / / ..--- _,- -- ', . ,4 ''.. / / r ...---* _.- ----* .----`-- `•,,.. s ,, ,- __- 1 / ,` ." / / / / / - ---- — ........„, — -......„ ) 1 kj . :-::'' f - . • / i 1 / ( \ , I I , I yA.,?,;-): - A 1 I C \ 7 / ili.- \ ‘,....,, . Ilk .. -;,, .• .,, \ * I j ) 1 \ .'. ---i4 / , , ) 1 1 6.b I « � ..:_i_4.../) -' .� 1-11...= TT : R AJ I� �� _ / �� - _ I N 6 ,'� ' � i'ft Li-, p w T _ ' i N N ! li Q %■ . s., t•in, ..., %Ili (� / 'n e ( , .� Ate' o �' L) z - - % Ny 1 I , - _ s _ _, i Z ....." :. , --.„ F --'1.4 I C ei ! 0 ' s f i ff- 7 I ... c . P?)4 \ ■ q L i ? 1 \N __.4 . `', � \, 1 3 , % / r / � ` - , .. - ( ' , • „,,, ) , / /, :7 , ,?,,, , (04- (- V / j/ 1 / / A --,'',-• - i - - - 1 IL / . i� �, 1 \� � � % 7... , -4 d It 1 i /1/- ,V ; ( - 8 j 0 — r�► 1 / y /,/ %) �� - - i A W 1 ,.: ,./ ,/ ✓/ - J / v N / = _ ” I. .., ti. te a: �,/ E J t ' I ( / I - ? 11 ), 1 9 7 I Yv• r-P- I- ( 1 _L3 u 1 4... A ' ' : t 1 I I k 1 IN' I . , J , , ,, . s ,,,3 4, ■ rimujec . ., 4 ... ) 1 , . I I i \ , i ... lie• ".%''. 2_ - i ,,,,,,v. x _ s. , 7`7 i; \--. — , , , , . ; •.•. . \ i , 1 1 ..1 ik ja ,.. I , lell %N 411 " 1 : '' A Z' .' 4 i !le j / ( : 9 • MN v.. - • ° A - vitvi- • ..--- -. 1 = -i ..7ra 1 1 ' Minutes of October 10, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting on Troendle Addition ■ Staff report clearly required right -of -way for extension of Nez Perce. Mr. Fortier's comments indicate that Mr. Beddor's only concerns are with park dedication fees and conditions requiring 7' of additional right -of -way on Pleasant View Road. No concerns raised regarding I roadway extension. :1 1 1 1 1 1 t ' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1990 ' Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Emmings, Ladd Conrad, Brian Batzli and Joan Ahrens ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Tim Erhart, Jim Wildermuth and Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner 1; Charles Folch, Asst. City Engineer and Todd Gerhardt, Asst. City Manager PUBLIC HEARING: ' PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 8.7 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF'AND LCOATED SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND VINELAND FOREST PLAT AND EAST OF PEACEFUL LANE, TROENDLE ADDITION. Public Present: I Name Address yl Fortier Fortier and Associates, Applicant Jules Smith Attorney for Applicant I Jirn & Mary Stasson 6400 Peaceful Lane Brad Johnson 1001 Lake Lucy Road Jim Duchene 961 Lake Lucy Road ' Craig Weinstock 1101 Lake Lucy Road Rodd Johnson 1061 Lake Lucy Road Linda Barrk 960 Lake Lucy Road II Sharon Morgan 940 Lake Lucy Road Rob Drake 980 Lake Lucy Road Richard Wing 3481 Shore Drive II Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. I Conrad: We'll open it up for public comments and we'll give the applicant who is Fortier and Associates and Frank Beddor Jr., if Daryl you have anything to say. A presentation or any comments on the staff report. We'll start it with you. ' Daryl Fortier: My name is Daryl Fortier. I represent Mr. Beddor. We are purchasing this property from Mr. Joseph Troendle. I have a larger drawing II here and I believe each member of the commission has received an 8 x 10 copy of this so perhaps it'd be easier if I just show it to the audience off to the side here so they can see it a bit easier. For the most part we ' are in agreement with the staff report. We do have two items that we'd like to bring to the Planning Commission's attention. The first addresses the additional right -of -way off of Pleasant View Road. We understand that staff is of the opinion that eventually Pleasant View Road will be widened. II We also understand that the Pleasant View Homeowner Association as well as other people along the Pleasant View Road have fought this issue before and it is a highly charged politically. Previously, I believe it was 1981 there was a proposal to widened the road and that proposal was rejected by the City Council after lengthy debates. We don't believe that there is any policy or program in place that would suggest that the widening of the road ATTACH. #a Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 2 , is indeed going to happen. Therefore, Mr. Beddor is not of, he is also one of the people, one of the many who are opposed to the widening of the road. II Therefore he would not like to take any actions which would favor widening the road and that would include the giving of additional right -of -way for that purpose. He is therefore requesting that that be striken from the staff report or not be accepted. Be rejected. Whichever word we would choose. He is not in favor of giving up the extra 7 feet and he would like to see his property treated the same way any other piece of property along Pleasant View Road would be treated. Should the City decide that they will widened Pleasant View Road let's say 3 years from now or 5 years from now, this piece of property should be treated no differently than any other piece of property including Mr. Beddor's residence across the street. You I would use whatever political consensus and finances are necessary to achieve to take the land by condemnation or to purchase it and widened the road. It will be part of the same battle as the remaining 2 miles I of Pleasant View Road would be. So with that background Mr.. Beddor is not in agreement to granting the 7 foot easement. The other issue we have to discuss is the Troendle garage which staff correctly points out is 21 1/2 feet from the right -of -way and this would put it in violation of the 30 foot setback requirement. We have been unable to reach Mr. VanEeckhout who is the adjacent property owner but we believe, we have reason to believe that we may be successful in altering the alignment of the road such that II the 30 foot setback can be required. If I can direct your attention to the overhead projection, under Block 1, Lot 2, which is the Troendle property where the garage sits, if you will look at where the road comes in from the' east which is the Vineland Estates, you'll notice that the road does not come in at a right angle. It comes in at about a 97 degree angle. We would like to see that changed to 93 1/2 degrees. If we change it to 93 1/2 degrees, it only affects 7 feet of property, less than 7 feet of property on Vineland Estates. Mr. Beddor is willing to buy one of those lots to help achieve this. We believe Mr. VanEeckhout will cooperate. This will allow us to make a subtle adjustment to the road such that the I road will not angle but the road will be closer to a true east /west. This will put Mr. Troendle's garage 30 feet back from the right -of -way in which case the issue will disappear. However, we haven't reached such an agreement yet and so as a result we are asking that consideration be given to a variance, a temporary variance. The reason we are doing this request and we are going through these extraordinary measures in trying to accommodate Mr. Troendle is that his folks originally purchased this land. He was born on this land and he is now 80 years old and has always lived on this land. We, Mr. Beddor is granting him a lifetime estate and has agreed that there will be no development in the four lots off Pleasant View Road II as long as Mr. Troendle resides in his residence. He would like to make it as comfortable for Mr. Troendle as possible to see the ultimate development of his property without impacting his lifestyle or causing him any distress. Mr. Troendle does use that barn. I'm not sure for the exact purposes. He does park a car in there. he does do a number of hobbies in there. He is constantly in the yard so we are requesting that a temporary is variance for a non - conforming use of that garage in terms of setbacks be granted only so long as Mr. Troendle personally resides in the residence. II If he should become ill and require long term care which would not enable him to return, we would agree to immediately dismantle that garage or remove it. Similarly, if for some reason he were to decide to sell his piece of property we would similarly agree that it would be immediately removed. We are asking this only as a consideration for Mr. Troendle's r Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 5 Daryl Fortier: If I can just address some of the concerns of Mr. Brad r Johnson has raised. The extension of the road through Mr. Owens' property is not as presumptious as it may seem. We have already studies grades. We've already studied roadways. We've already studied utilities and we ' have submitted much of that material to staff. We've also more importantly talked to Mr. Art Owens, the owner of the land who would favor this and he is on public record of favoring it. Resident: When? Daryl Fortier: We talked to Mr. Art Owens within. r Resident: When would this happen? Daryl Fortier: We don't know. Mr. Owens is right now tied up. It is similar to the issue of when does Pleasant View get widened. We don't know. Resident: We live there now. Daryl Fortier: Yes. And people are driving down Pleasant View right now ' and people are driving down Nez Perce. Nez Perce at points only measures 22 feet wide and people are flying through there. We believe, now I don't want to expand this whole argument on one parcel of development to a whole ' city wide issue but we know there are apparent limitations in every city and some of the limitations are particular bottlenecks and I'm sure the city will do it's best to correct them. That's beyond the scope of this proposal. The proposal will really reduce density as proposed to other ' proposals. Not to you and not to other people but the overall development, it is following in a fairly good comprehensive plan that has been directed. My whole point of being up here is not to defend all of those issues but simply to point out to you that Mr. Art Owens is aware of this. Mr. Art Owens has been cooperative and he would favor this proposal. ' Resident: I noticed you said bottleneck, making sure that there isn't one. Wouldn't it be more of a bottleneck going that route than it would be to go straight through to Pleasant View? ' Krauss: Mr. Chairman, could I address this because there's some misleading information in Daryl's plan and I'd like to give some background on it. ' Conrad: Why don't you address the Peaceful Lane issue too if you can. Krauss: Yeah, I will. We first became involved with this with the Vineland Forest plat which is the chunk of land that's immediately east of the subject site. There were a number of alternative access concepts looked at for that including cul -de -sacs from Pleasant View. Cul -de -sacs from Nez Perce. Throughout it all staff advocated a thru street. We ' thought from a public safety standpoint, emergency vehicle access and the need to provide proper service, since there really is no north /south route between Powers and the lake, that a thru connection should be made through ' there. And we looked at a number of alternatives to do that. Ultimately and correct me if I'm wrong Ladd, but the Planning Commission wound up approving that without a recommendation on the street as I recall because it was such a complex issue. It went up before the City Council and the Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 6 r Planning Department with the Engineering Department looked at a variety of alternatives to provide access into that area. There is no particular II order. In this one you can see the dashed line was one of the originally proposed plats of Vineland Forest...cul -de -sac from Pleasant View. Staff had a problem with this one as did some of the property owners. But this alternative had the thru street coming through down to Peaceful Lane. It was hooked into basically I think what was Art Owens' plat. Art Owens had approval to subdivide his property and that plat has since lapsed. But he apparently did intend to develop at some point in time. Another II alternative here was a loop back basically from Pleasant View to Peaceful Lane. We didn't think it accomplished what the City needed to obtain through here which was a thru movement. Alternative 4. Here was the thru II movement directed...by Vineland Forest but there was also a link through here so we didn't have an inordinate number of dead end streets. They weren't cul -de -sacs to provide the residential atmosphere. Ultimately the I one that the City Council went with was Alternative 3 and this is what the Vineland Forest was built to. There's a temporary cul -de -sac which I'm sure you're all aware of that sits sort of right over here right now and there's a sign on the end of it that says this street is intended to be extended in the future. What we did is lay out a route that made grades and made some sense from a design standpoint that really is...cul -de -sacs, we were most concerned with the thru movement, that obtained a reasonable connection to Pleasant View Road. One difference with the plan that Daryl showed tonight is the thru movement comes through here. Now it was never intended to go straight into Peaceful Lane and it was always assumed that when and if this is done, that this whole intersection needs to be rebuilt and that question of the 127 foot wide road would be resolved at that point in time. There is no replat on Art Owens' property right as I understand and this is kind of hearsay, that the property is tied up with a tax issue II or something like that or an estate issue. But basically the City Council adopted a concept that was supposed to guide these decisions as properties are developed in the future. Is that the only way to serve it? No. II Clearly there were other alternatives but this was talked about for a good 3 months or so and this was the compromise that came out of it. As to traffic on Pleasant View which was one of the comments that Mr. Fortier raised, nobody denies the fact that improvements to Pleasant View would be II a long and arduous process and nobody envisions a 4 lane street going through there necessarily at some point in the future. I believe at one point in time the extension for the crosstown highway was supposed to come through there. Around through there but there's no denying that Pleasant View Road is a highly inadequate and often unsafe road. It's underwidth. The turn radaii are too tight. We've got over 1,000 cars a day using it today. We've just gotten the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study and in a weighted model that basically says that people will realize how bad a street this is and try to avoid it, even in the weighted model it's anticipating that in the next 10 to 15 years, traffic on that street will II grow up to about 2,500 trips a day. Now at that point in time, while you're not seeking to widened it to 4 lanes, you certainly will be seeking to widened it so that there's sufficient pavement width for people to pass , one another in opposite directions and that you can safely take curves. Nobody's looking forward to dealing with those issues. We realize it's going to be tough but it's something that somebody sitting in this chair at some point in the future's going to have to deal with. That gives an overview of the process. r Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 7 1 Conrad: Other comments? ' Mary Stasson: I have a comment. Alternative #4. This one. I live on the corner of Pleasant View Road and Peaceful Lane and this proposal shares the access by everybody. Pleasant View Road which I'm a part of, Peaceful Lane ' which I'm also a part of and Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road. Here I see this is the perfect way to go because the burden is shared by everybody in this proposal. Conrad: I think the concern at that time, and there were a lot of concerns. A lot of different opinions. What a lot of residents along Pleasant View were concerned with was to get the access as close to CR 17 as possible. Mary Stasson: But see the thing is, if they want to go down Pleasant View ' Road, they're still going to go up Peaceful Lane and then they're going to turn and go down Pleasant View Road. You're talking just a minimal amount of space. ' Conrad: That was their opinion. To get the access as close to CR 17. ' Mary Stasson: They're still going to go down Pleasant View Road... Brad Johnson: ...that stretch can be what, a quarter mile if not a half mile at the most? 1 Conrad: But the other end of Pleasant View as it dumps out on TH 101 had the same. The residents had the same concern. Same exact concern and I ' heard both those. Resident: The traffic I don't believe would be going that direction. They're going to go out to CR 17. Krauss: No, that's not true really. You've got to realize that Crosstown Highway is going to be extended to TH 101 in the next two years ' and that's going to introduce a lot of movement to the east through there. How they're going to get there we frankly don't know. Pleasant View Road's the only road that goes there. Brad Johnson: I acknowledge that you did the Vineland Forest. Those of us on Lake Lucy, we are naive. We saw the way they were doing things and we thought that street was going through there. It was at one time. We ' didn't know anything about these processes so we weren't here. We were quite upset when we found out it wasn't and we realized it was a little late then. We don't really... Jim Stasson: Also at that time the way this is shown on Art's property, that was already done. We knew about that and okay we're going to have 15 ' more houses on there. We can live with that but now when you connect it all up and you get rid of the other access to Pleasant View Road, we've got 50 -100 houses coming by now. Or after that. II Mary Stasson: Our driveway, it comes out right here. r Planning Commission Meeting II October 17, 1990 - Page 8 II Jim Stasson: You're looking at the wrong side. We're right here. Our driveway comes out right there and the people that come around this corner, like I said before. They'll come around it at 30 -40 mph. Mary Stasson: This is 130 feet across here. II Jim Stasson: Right now there's 3 houses accessing that. With 50 or 60 houses accessing that, my dog won't be safe more than 2 steps off the driveway. 1 Mary Stasson: We have a 30 foot driveway that empties out on that road. Conrad: As Mr. Krauss said, if development goes through that road has to I change. Period. In terms of access to Pleasant View. It just has to and the City's committed to doing that. It can't stay the way it is. I Mary Stasson: We're not going to be able to get out of our••driveway. That's what's going to happen to us and that's why we've already been trying to get ahold of Jim Chaffee to have him come out there and look at I the situation for us. Even the way it sits right now. Jim Stasson: You mentioned that this, Nez Perce is 22 feet on the corner? II Krauss: No, I never. Jim Stasson: Where it ties into Lake Lucy? Right down here. I Krauss: Oh! • Jim Stasson: Is that 22 feet? II Krauss: Yes. Nez Perce is an undersized street. Lake Lucy Road was built to a better standard. Nez Perce road and that whole neighborhood to the southeast of there, I think we're all painfully aware of the fact that it was built with inadequate roads. It was buit without storm sewer and the utility systems are old and beginning to fail and something's going to have' to give in there but that is the only thru street in that neighborhood. Brad Johnson: Have you done a study on how many cars are going on it now? II Jim Stasson: That street wasn't there until what, 3 years ago. Jim Duchene: 2 1/2 years ago when they put Lake Lucy thru. There's I another street down, Carver Beach Road which is down. I'm Jim Duchene on 961 Lake Lucy Road and what I guess I'm opposed to is the traffic that we're getting back from the other side of Nez Perce. We're getting a great II deal of traffic feeding out onto our road our front. It is a bad corner. If you haven't been down there, 22 feet. They come around on probably a 90 degree corner. It's a problem. I don't know. I think the City ought to II look at that. I think it should be closed off. I think they should take that road out and still leave a fire lane through there. It wasn't there before. We're feeding now these other homes. We have a new development and I'm not sure how many lots are back there. II Krauss: 15. In this plat? II Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 3 1 comfort and care and it really does not affect the development. We will ' try our best to get the road moved but failing to do that, we would ask that the variance be granted. The other items we have are really no longer issues. I've not had a chance to review the issue of a shared access off Pleasant View for Lots 1 and 4 and I've had a brief chance to review with Mr. Beddor the idea of park dedication fees in lieu of parkland. I've also talked to staff and they've indicated that they have some concern with Lot 4 of Block 1 which is immediately off Pleasant View. There was concern as ' to whether or not this area was filled or whether it was a wetland. We would like the opportunity to talk to Park and Recreation and consider giving that lot to Park and Recreation for a vest pocket sort of park. And depending upon how the wetlands adjacent to it on the Art Owen's property is defined, it may turn out to be a very fine addition as a park. We are not in favor or opposed to that. We are simply saying that option should be left. open. Park and Recreation may not have a chance to realize that we 1 would be willing to donate that land. Any questions I'll be pleased to answer? I Conrad: Okay. We'll probably have some later on. We'll open it up for other comments. Are there any? I Jim Stasson: My name is Jim Stasson. I live at 6400 Peaceful Lane. My house is this house right here with the brown roof on the corner. Back when the Vineland Forest thing was developed, we were never notified through mail by the City that anything was going on there and as I I understand when it was first developed it really didn't affect us because the access to that was going to go right out to Pleasant View Road. Right now if you could see, they plan on running this right over here to Peaceful I Lane and we're going to have, instead of 3 houses connecting to Peaceful Lane, an infinite amount of houses. That Peaceful Lane also has a very wide radius corner which people do not slow down to go around at all. With 3 houses there it's not too bad, although Art Owens has a big family I and Sunday afternoons it can be quite a traffic jam in there. Mr. Beddor seems to be going to gain out of this and we're going to pay the bill by having all the traffic go by our house. We don't really think that's fair. ' He's so far off of Pleasant View Road, you can see his tennis court between the road and his house. He moved his driveway and took a good half a dozen trees off of Mr. Troendle's lot. We're talking big trees and planted them I all on so he doesn't see any of the traffic. I guess I'd do the same thing if I was in the position to be able to do that. Peaceful Lane is a 27 foot road. The mouth of Peaceful Lane is 130 feet. If nothing else, we've talked to Jim Chaffee when he was the safety guy. We talked to him 2 years I ago the last year. I realize he's no longer here. He said he would report back to us on you know, whether they could square that corner off and we've never heard anything from him, or from anybody. So thank you. 1 Conrad: Good comments. Thank you. Other comments. Rodd Johnson: I'm Rodd Johnson from 1061 Lake Lucy Road. The issue I see at hand for myself and the homeowners along the street that we're on is number one, it's open already back to Nez Perce and we get a lot of traffic that way. Sure I'd like to see that closed off at the end but I know that I won't happen necessarily from what I can see. And I'm not necessarily opposed to developing the land in here in that I also built a house and the land was developed but what I have a problem with is that if the, and this 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 4 ' is corrected to what I see, is that they're going to put it through but I don't like the way that it's going to go through number one. I think it II should go straight across. Due to the fact that if it doesn't go straight across to Pleasant View, people are going to be more apt to come down the road that I'm on now anyway because it's straight. I mean they're already going down it at 40 or 45 which has been witnessed by everybody that's on the road. And the second we have emergency vehicle access. I look at that and think the route in and out of there would be better facilitated to go I straight through. I have to kind of chuckle the way that it's been all of a sudden altered around the guy that's developing his property. It's not, it seems a little like he doesn't want to bear his part of the burden yet he's going to make the money on all this and that is kind of outrageous. Conrad: Thanks. Maybe I should just interject and maybe you weren't involved in previous hearings but we have been and maybe you weren't notified simply because you may not have been within the notification distance and we have some standards of who gets notified. I'm not sure but that's a quick guess. In the past when we've looked at this parcel, other homeowners in the area have been real concerned where the road's go and it I wasn't Mr. Beddor as much as it was other homeowners along Pleasant View. They weren't, although it does look like it benefits Mr. Beddor and it probably does, I think the other homeowners were pretty consistent in terms" of what they wanted. Especially the neighbor that that road would have gone right next to, within a few feet of his door and I recall that very clearly feeling rather concerned for a roadway given what he's lived in for a while. You probably have the same concerns understandably. Mary Stasson: But that neighbor was also a renter. Conrad: I wasn't aware of that. Yes sir. Brad Johnson: I'm Brad Johnson. I live at 1001 Lake Lucy Road. We're , just concerned about additional lots here. It looks like there'll be what, 13 additional lots that would have their only access to the trunk highway through Lake Lucy Road. I don't believe Lake Lucy Road east of CR 17 was I intended as a major thoroughfare from it's construction, design and width. As Rodd already said, we've got an awful lot of traffic there as it is. I think it's unfair that we bear the full burden of the traffic out of both the current development and this proposed one. I know that they're showing' this road supposedly going through to Peaceful Lane. That's kind of presumptious. They don't own the land. They don't know that they can acquire the land. They don't know that they can develop there even when it ' would be available for acquisition. I'm sure people on Pleasant View have some concerns. So do we. The burden should be shared fairly. Conrad: It's a funny thing how everybody does sell their land and we wish they didn't, some of us who've been around a while but you're right. There's no guarantee that that property will be subdivided but it's, land in Chanhassen is extremely valuable. 1 Resident: Someday. 20 years from now when my kids have maybe been run over by one of the fast cars on there. We get a police car through there once every 3 months. Conrad: Other comments. r IF Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 11 wetland. 1 Ahrens: The City's asking for a 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road and the developer has said that they're not going to go along with ' that at all. I imagine that, I mean I don't know how, if Pleasant View Road is going to in the future be improved, I don't know how we can approve a plat without an allowance for the additional right -of -way along Pleasant 1 View Road. Do you see how that can happen? Krauss: Well it's obviously our recommendation that we do take the 7 foot right -of -way. As I said earlier, we believe that there is a significant 1 traffic volume on that street now. We expect that to grow regardless of everybody's efforts to keep it low. ' Ahrens: Didn't we require that further up on Pleasant View? Krauss: There was right -of -way that was taken off a subdivision across the ' street that was for Mr. Beddor's son. I don't recall exactly how much it was. Christmas Acres. Ahrens: And also further east. ' Batzli: Did we take it for Vineland? ' Krauss: I don't believe, no. We did not take it for Vineland. Ahrens: Not for Vineland but for the one that's on the other end. The three lots that was, what was that? It starts where Pleasant View curves and goes down the hill. There's some lots being developed right in there where it's going to be divided into 3 lots. ' Krauss: I think that's the Christmas Acres. That's across the street. Ahrens: No, no. It's way down at the other end. Anyway. 1 Gerhardt: The east end. Jay Johnson: She's on the other side of the lake. All the way on the other side. Ahrens: Right. Where we just divided those 3 lots. Gerhardt: Fox Chase? That one? 1 Krauss: That's next door to this. Jay Johnson: North Lotus Lake Park. 1 Batzli: Right. Yeah. The one across from the North Lotus Lake Park which is what Jay just said. Right across the street there where they subdivided those. The guy that had the water in his basement continuously. Krauss: Oh, oh, oh. By the street that. Batzli: Well those right there and then across the street again. 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 12 Krauss: Yes. We did take extra right -of -way off of that, yes. The one where we had the city lift station down by the lake? Batzli: Yeah. Those and directly west. Krauss: Baldur Avenue? Batzli: Yes. ' Krauss: Sathre Addition. Ahrens: I mean that's a nothing isn't it? That's what I thought. You know it seems to me that Mr. Troendle's also making a lot of money off this development. I kind of feel like with all the new proposals that the developer has brought in tonight, I feel like it's real difficult to discuss this. There's a road change that's being proposed and a slight road alteration and he wants a variance. And the 7 foot right -of- way... Conrad: But that road alteration would eliminate the variance. 1 Ahrens: The what? Conrad: The road alteration would eliminate the variance. Ahrens: I have more comments but I agree that the sight lines on Peaceful I Lane are terrible and I realize that the City does intend to fix that road but boy, it's bad now. Batzli: Why didn't we take 7 feet or additional at Vineland there right next door to the east? Krauss: Commissioner, we're really not certain. I think it falls into the category of being an oversight. I mean things were so focused on which end you're coming in on and it was running in a different direction from there. I don't offer that as an excuse but just I think it was overlooked. I'd also have to say too that the data that we're using now for the traffic forcast and it comes out of the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study and that's only been completed and delivered to the City in the last 3 weeks. Ahrens: When was that approved? Krauss: The Carver County Transportation Study? Ahrens: No, no. Vineland. Krauss: It was approved in something like November of last year. Batzli: On the plat it shows a portion of Pleasant View Road to be vacated I on one of the maps here of the plans. Is that assuming I would suppose that they don't have to give up the additional 7 feet? What is that for? That's Lot 4, Block 1. 1 Krauss: Oh, I see what you're saying. I don't know. That's probably a presumption by the applicant that they were going to maintain existing IF Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 13 right -of -way Daryl? We're looking to maintain 80 feet throughout. Now that's 40 foot on either side of the center line and I believe we have a 66 footer there so it's traditional that you take 7 foot on either side. We would seek to, assuming the condition is upheld, we would seek to rectify that. Batzli: How long is this Troendle Way cul -de -sac? 1 Krauss: It's approximately 400 feet. Well from Nez Perce it's approximately 400 feet. 1 Batzli: What's our normal guideline on that just out of curiousity? Krauss: We've traditionally used 500 feet. There's been a lot of them ' approved between 500 and 1,000. Until the connection's put through to Peaceful Lane or to Pleasant View, this is quite a lengthy cul -de -sac because you've got to add in all the distance back to Lake Lucy Road. The ' only reason we're somewhat comfortable with that is that so much effort's been put into the concept of how this is ultimately going to be connected that we view this as a temporary situation. Batzli: Is there any problem from staff's point of view in any of the realignments of the roads regarding lot sizes after it's either widened and/or adjusted? Krauss: The proposal that Mr. Fortier brought to you tonight? Batzli: That as well as the proposal, I think the cul -de -sac road isn't wide enough as I understand it. Krauss: Oh, no. Those lots are all oversized. There's plenty of give ' with that. The lot in Vineland Forest where they would propose to swap land if they swung that road a little further south, that's an 18,000 square foot lot so there's probably room for that too. We'd want to see ' how this layout occurs that Mr. Fortier's proposing. It looks reasonable. We don't want to introduce too many curves into this street though because it's already somewhat curvalinear and this is supposed to be a connecting ' street. The more curves you introduce, the less utility it will have. Batzli: I would be much more in favor if it's possible to realign the street a little bit than provide a variance even if it's just for lifetime ' estate on that particular structure. If I had my druthers. Folch: .lust a correction on that Troendle Way. The actual right -of -way ' width on the street portion at 50 feet is currently adequate. It's just the cul -de -sac, the radius of the cul -de -sac that's being increased to 60 feet. ' Batzli: Okay. My other questions had to do with whether Lot 4 is a wetland or not. I guess we've already discussed that a little bit and having been through staff's study of the various ways to have traffic flow ' through these potential developments, I guess I didn't expect the problem tonight. It sounds like until the road goes through to Pleasant View and until they improve that particular corner, there may be some problems and I don't know what we do about that in the meantime. Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 14 ' Conrad: Problems where? Batzli: Regarding traffic both loading up south and as far as eventually coming out onto Pleasant View from, this small route here. Conrad: Is that a concern with Nez Perce traffic? Batzli: Yeah. Conrad: Okay. Steve? Emmings: I support the recommendation that's been made by staff. Just a t comment on the issues that we've got that have been brought up tonight. At least the ones on that proposal. There's no doubt in my mind that we should require the additional right -of -way. We have the right to do that I as a condition of the plat and it should be done. As far as treating Mr. Beddor the same as everybody else. Everybody else isn't subdividing or we'd be requiring it of them too I'm sure. And with regard to the, the only' other one that kind of caught my attention is the garage that's located on Lot 2 on Block 1. I guess I'd make a proposal or there shouldn't be any variance granted. That's clear to me but I think maybe, it's my understanding Mr. Troendle is what, 80 years old? I think that we could make an accommodation here that would be reasonable and I what I'd propose is that we simply say that either that the garage be removed or relocated or the road will be adjusted to create the necessary setback. And that the' timing of that that will be done prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 or when Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property, whichever occurs first. I think I could live with that, to not change his property until he's no longer living there. Otherwise I don't have anything else. Batzli: But I mean the road, if it's adjusted will happen before anything develops so it's an either or really. Either the road is adjusted or then you don't issue a building permit for Lot 2. Is that what you said? Emmings: Right. That's essentially right. I guess I just said that ' either you move the building or you move the road. If you have to move the building, you do it before there's a building permit or when he's no longer' living there full time. I don't know how we'd ever know but that's a separate issue. Conrad: That's staff's problem. Anything else? 1 Emmings: No. I guess as far as the location of the road, that's done. Resident: There's always alternatives. 1 Emmings: As far as the road goes, that's done as far as what we're doing tonight. It's a non -issue and what I was going to say was I think you have some valid concerns but I think they ought to be addressed to the City Council. Jim Stasson: You mean the existing roads or are you talking about the ' proposed roads? 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 9 Jim Duchene: No. In the previous one? Krauss: Oh, in Vineland was about 21 but 2 of those accessed out to Pleasant View. Jim Duchene: 21. We're talking another 15 plus we're feeding everyone else off Nez Perce now off of Lake Lucy Road. I have not seen any traffic 1 studies. I don't know if you have as far as cars on Lake Lucy Road but being out there I do know and the homeowners that are here, we're all here tonight. Every home that's on that street is represented here. We have one missing? And it's a problem and that's why we're here in front of the Planning Commission. Conrad: Okay, thanks. Jim Stasson: Lake Lucy tends to become a dragstrip. You've got a 30 mph speed limit. You're got lower speed limits on roads that are wider around here. They come off Nez Perce and they, especially the younger people, and they are really flying. Brad Johnson: Because it goes downhill. They have a good time on there. ' Then they go up...S curve before it gets to CR 17 and they're all over the place there. Then last spring when Vineland Forest was in, all the heavy trucks were coming through before the road restrictions were off fully ' loaded. Our street's going to be torn up. You put development... Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? 1 Emmings moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1 Conrad: Joan. Questions? Comments? Ahrens: Isn't the option of having Nez Perce Road run down to Pleasant 1 View Road a dead issue anyway because of the plan? Krauss: It's certainly a dead issue through the Vineland Forest plat. That plat is over and done. We have no capacity to get that right -of -way save buying 2 lots I suppose. Ahrens: So the only access to Pleasant View Road is in this fashion that's 1 shown on this photograph that we have in our plans? Is that what you're saying? 1 Krauss: Yes. Ahrens: Unless they purchase these Lots 1 and 2 and run the... I Krauss: At this point in time running the street north through Vineland Forest is not possible from the standpoint of the City being able to get the right -of -way through the platting process. That's all platted I property. I suppose theoretically you could run that connection over on the Troendle property but I haven't looked at the grades over there. If memory serves they're not that bad. But if you move at all to the west of 1 II Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 10 Troendle's house, you start falling off into that low wet area which makes it impossible to make the road connection. Ahrens: What about this low wet area on Lot 4 of Block 1? What do you think about his proposal to turn that over to the City for parkland? Krauss: The Park Board's already reviewed this proposal and does not want the property. I don't know that they were asked specifically about that lot but traditionally taking individual lots that happen to be conveniently' located for a developer is not, that does not fit the bill for the Park Board. That's pocket parks. Are interesting design features in urban areas but what they become in communities like ours is a very difficult maintenance problem and they don't serve enough people to make them worthwhile. Consequently there's a policy that the City's funds and efforts should be devoted to more significant facilities. Ahrens: I have a lot of questions about that wetland in there as I mentioned to you earlier. There seems to be a question about whether or not it's even a wetland, from what you said. And I've noticed over the last few years trucks bringing fill in there and it was a low area. I mean it looked like a wetland to me before they started filling it in. Can you shine some light on that? What is going on with that wetland? Krauss: A little bit. For more extensive report I'll really have to get Jo Ann Olsen to give it to you because she's been involved with that property for some time. But Mr. Owens' has been filling that property. The City's been going out there and having it stopped for at least the last year and a half to 2 years. That area was never pristine wetland. As I understand it, it took on wetland characteristics when drainage out of the area was altered and there's been some indication that the City may have altered it somehow during a construction project, whatever. But since the water's impounded now, it's causing wetland vegetation to spring up. The wetland proper or the more significant part of the wetland does not truly fall on the Troendle property but to the extent that it does, it's being preserved or improved if you will into a retention pond that will have some water in it. We still have an issue with the fill on Owens' 1 property. There was a hope that it would have been rectified. I believe Mr. Owens wanted to have some lots there with his plat and staff always said that that's where your drainage goes and even if it wasn't a wetland, II it's a retention pond so there was always an issue there and it was one that was supposed to have been resolved as I understood it when he came in for his final plat but in the event he never did. Ahrens: How was he going to resolve that? Krauss: At this point I'm honestly not sure. I'd need to get updated by II my staff. Conrad: Joan, it was not an officially mapped wetland but it sure was one. I Ahrens: Well that's what I thought. I've driven by it and before he started filling it it sure looked like a wetland. Conrad: It always was what was mapped Paul? Things over an acre and a half I think. This might have been under so it wasn't mapped. It was a II Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 15 II Emmings: I'm talking about Nez Perce the way it's lined up to go. If 1 you're interested in... Jim Stasson: You mean outside of the development? Where are you talking II about? Emmings: The road, as Nez Perce is designed to go through to Peaceful Lane, that has been determined by the City Council and if you've got issues II on that, address it to the City Council. Brad Johnson: Are you saying that that part over Art Owens' property is a u done deal? Emmings: This path, as I understand it, this path for Nez Perce. J Batzli: It's not. platted. Krauss: There's a conceptual alingment. It only becomes effective when II their property is platted. Jim Stasson: 5o it's not done. II Emmings: Okay, it's not done. Then don't address your concerns to the City Council. I mean I'm telling you that if you have concerns, this isn't the forum for them. This is not an issue in this plat. This fits with the II conceptual plan of the road. Brad Johnson: We don't think the plat should be approved unless that issue II is taken care of. Rodd Johnston: This plat is still open. He can still access the Pleasant II View Road right through. Mary Stasson: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4. 1 Batzli: What I think, we get our guidance from the City Council and they have looked at this and reviewed it and basically given the guidance to us that conceptually this is what they want to see and for us to tell the City II Council now that no, we don't like that. Do something else. We probably won't take that step because they told us what they think they want to see. I Mary Stasson: But when do we get a chance to speak? Batzli: You'll get a chance to go to the City Council when this goes up to the City Council and that's really, I think you have to get your group back II together and address your concerns to them because they're the ones that told us this is what they want to see. I Brad Johnson: So what is the purpose for tonight then? Rodd Johnson: Why are we all here for an hour and a half? 11 Jim Stasson: If you guys don't have anything to say about it. 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 16 II Batzli: Well we have a lot to say about a lot of issues but on this particular issue, I don't think we're going to change what the City Council" has told us they want to see. Conrad: I'm interested. I think we have our input so I guess I'll reflect" a different opinion. I feel comfortable with the alignment that was proposed and only because we struggled with it for so long. I think it's unfortunate, and there weren't any good solutions. I think most people II that live in the area don't want that area developed at all, as I would guess you wouldn't but on the other hand it is. Flat out it is and I think we struggled with that. I think the alternatives that I heard mentioned ^ , tonight were not acceptable to me before and they still aren't. That doesn't mean we explored other alternatives. I guess I'm interested from a Planning Commission standpoint. Not that the City Council decree that this is the road alignment. They did to a degree do that. I'm curious if I anybody feels that you'd like to reopen that issue and suggest to the City Council that they reopen the issue. Emmings: I can tel:. you for me I think that this is the plan they adopted II is a good one because it doesn't put another entrance out onto a road that, out onto Pleasant View. So I preferred this one. Conrad: And that was my opinion when we looked at that. I think two roads I and especially the straight that would have connected the Carver Beach area and the strip straight across to Pleasant View I thought was a negative I alternative. This is a better alternative as I see it. This is just me speaking. Brian. Joan. Do you have a feeling to want to open up or to recommend that the City Council looks at road alignment or are you I comfortable or do you not know enough at this point in time to even, you may not have been around. I don't know. Brian, you were around. Joan, I don't think you were. Batzli: Of the options that we have remaining since Vineland went in and I the road is where it's at, I think that this is the best alternative that I've seen. I mean sure there's probably other alternatives and I thought we addressed a fair number of them and this was a reasonable alternative at 11 that time. Ahrens: I agree. I think that we should be directing as much traffic as we I can as quickly as possible onto CR 17. Conrad: Just a comment. Paul, this neighborhood obviously was not I involved when the other neighborhoods along Pleasant View were and they're thinking they got the short straw in this one. Brad Johnson: How about know? 1 Conrad: Don't be so negative. We're trying. Brad Johnson: I'm sorry. It's our street. I Conrad: I know it is. I empathize. I know what you're feeling. What was I the reason they weren't involved? II Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 17 Krauss: I honestly don't recall who was notified. I know that we had some ' comments from people on Peaceful Lane because... I certainly got phone calls from someone. ' Conrad: I thought we did too. Brad Johnson: I called after I found out what was going on but that was after it was already going to City Council. Before we even had a shot at coming in here and saying. This was done in November. Krauss: The final plat was approved in November. Conrad: Okay, it might have been. Mr. Emmings gave you some input and probably nothing that you're really thrilled with. I guess I'm telling you from my position I'm pretty comfortable given all the negatives and positives and some of the things, requirements we were trying to do and really it's hard to reflect back months ago. But I'm not uncomfortable with this road alignment. I think you really should be at the City Council ' meeting to express your concern. They did say that this is what they'd like. I don't say that we'll just dump it off on them. I'm telling you that I feel comfortable with this road alignment as I looked at the ' alternatives many months ago but I think you've got to stay, as I prefaced before, if you all go in with the numbers you had tonight, they may pay some attention to you to reopen the issue. Okay? Some other questions. Block 1, Lot 4. That's a buildable lot? ' Krauss: Frankly Mr. Chairman I don't believe it is. It's very tight which is why we've recommended a shift of lot lines to increase the building pad. ' And some of that pond is being excavated out and it's also possible to shift that excavation somewhat further to the south. Conrad: So, okay. I missed that. Ahrens: How could you adjust the lot line of 3 and 4...buildable. It looks like the only corner that's buildable. Krauss: No, not between 3 and 4. Between 1 and 4. We require 90 foot of width and that lot 1 is 140. Basically you skew the property line so that it runs to the northeast. Conrad: Help me Paul. Where's the recommendation that we do what you just said? I'm scanning real fast and maybe I just can't pick it up. Ahrens: You talk about it in the report. Krauss: I'm sorry, it should be in there. I know we talked about it in the text. Conrad: Yeah, it's not there so I don't know that I can approve that unless there's a motion to claim it an unbuildable lot right now until it's proved that a building pad could meet setback. I too, I don't have any problem with the 7 foot requirement in the staff report. That's the way it's got to be. It's an absolute. We'll take it. Now's the time to do it. Not that I'm really wild about expanding Pleasant View to tell you the truth but I think now' the time to do it and that's not even a debate in r Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 18 my mind. I agree with Steve in terms of his motion. I think that road should be realigned to try to meet the setbacks. I don't know, I could never say what you said but I hope you can reconstruct what you said Steve. And from the neighborhood standpoint, we'll look into finding and Paul, can you get back to me next, 2 weeks from now. Is that a public hearing for II the Comprehensive Plan? What's 2 weeks from now, anything? Krauss: It should be a regular meeting. Conrad: Okay. I'd like to know why this group was not involved. Every 2 weeks we come here and we talk to our neighbors like yourselves and there's always somebody saying he wasn't informed. As Paul says, the first thing I he learned in planning school is the neighborhoods come in and say why wasn't I informed of this so it's pretty standard but it appears to me that they're are a lot of you here that were not informed so I'd kind of like to look and find that out. It may not help you, you know right now and you're' sort of at the end of a process which is unfortunate. I think if the Plesant View owners that were here in the other time periods, they're probably double your numbers that were here talking about they don't want I this at all. Maybe very similar to what you're saying and then okay, if we've got to have it, how do we minimize the traffic coming from Carver Beach? How do we minimize the traffic going down Pleasant View? How are we safe? How are we this? How are we that? Here's what we came up with. I know you don't like it but that's what we tried to, we tried to satisfy some of those needs and now you have another one. I think the only other thing I can say is that the road access out to Peaceful Lane will be improved to be acceptable when that link is made. It would be acceptable to according to standards. There couldn't be any other way. That may not fee_). comfortable either but it would have to be. • Resident: ...would that be south where it used to run down CR 17? Krauss: Yes. 1 Resident: That was looked at? Krauss: There's actually a stub right -of - way that comes up from Lake Lucy inbetween two homes. Resident: They did look at that? Krauss: Yeah. As I recall the grade was too significant coming through there. Brad Johnson: That's our big problem...Art Owens property. The access to Pleasant View. And to approve this thing now when that is, people can II say what they want but nobody here knows when that's going to happen. Conrad: That's true. Yeah. We have situations like that all the time. Is that good or bad? It's probably bad but there's no perfect way to solve that problem. You can't hold up somebody's right to develop unless you can prove that it's unsafe. Rodd Johnson; When you talk about being unsafe...Nez Perce and Lake Lucy corner that we're talking about that was 22 feet and I believe... 11 It Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 19 1 Krauss: No. A normal right -of -way which is the land we own is 50 feet. Charles, normal pavement width is what curb to curb now? Folch: It is 28 feet face of curb to face of curb on a minor residential street. Rodd Johnson: Is Lake Lucy a minor residential street? Jim Stasson: Lake Lucy it would be okay but it's that Nez Perce corner... (There was a tape change at this point in the meeting.) ' Conrad: I think the comments from Mr. Fortier, I understand them but I don't agree with them. I do agree with Steve, your comments and I don't want Lot 4, Block 1 to be a buildable lot at this time until it's proven to ' be buildable. So how do we handle that one Paul? Krauss: Well I'd add a condition. It was an omission on our part because under the grading /drainage section we do discuss the fact that that lot is marginally buildable and there's no rear yard for the homes should they build one there. Put in a condition to the effect that the lot lines and grading shall either be reconfigured to enlarge the buildable area on that lot or it should be combined with Lot 1 to make a single larger lot. Conrad: Oka;:. Any other comments? Is there a motion? r Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #90 -15 of the Troendle Addition as shown on the plans dated ' "Received September 17, 1990" subject to the conditions in the staff report. 1 thru 13 as presented in the staff report and then an alteration to 11 as follows. That one will read that the garage barn on Lot 2, Block 1 will be removed or relocated or the road shall be adjusted so that no ' variances are required. If it is necessary to remove or relocate the garage or barn, that shall be done prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 or when Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property, whichever should occur first. The balance of that 11th condition will stay the way it is. Then add a condition 14 that would state the following. That Lot 4, Block 1 appears to be an ' unbuildable lot. That the applicant must either adjust the lot lines or otherwise combine the lot with the other 3 lots in Block 1 or in some other way insure it's buildability to the satisfaction of the City staff. ' Conrad: Okay, thanks Steve. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any discussion. ' Batzli: Yeah. I'd like to make two minor amendments to the plan and the third point of the 8th condition I'd like to add the following sentence. This is after the additional 7 feet of right -of -way. No vacation of Pleasant View Road shall occur notwithstanding the plans submitted by applicant. And then the 10th condition I'd cross off, will be accepted and insert the words, shall be required from the applicant. Conrad: Would you modify your motion? Emmings: Sure. 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 20 Conrad: Any other discussion? Batzli: Yeah. I think that that's the first motion I've ever heard you II second and I was really impressed. Emmings: I'll second that. Emmings moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #90 -15 for Troendle Addition as shown on the plans dated September 17, 1990, subject to the following conditions: in 1. A tree removal plan shall be submitted for Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 prior to issuance of a building permit. Clear cutting, except for the ' house pad and utilities will not be permitted 2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city an provide the city with the necessary financial securities to guarantee proper installation of the improvements. 3. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District. permit. 4. The developer shall dedicate the utilities within the right -of -way for I permanent ownership. S. The cul -de -sac on Troendle Way shall have a radius of 60 feet and the ' street name shall be modified to either Troendle Circle or Troendle Court to eliminate any confusion in applying it as a through street. Final street plans shall be developed for approval by the City . Engineering Department. 6. The applicant shall install erosion control silt fence around the ponding area until such time that turf is established. Turf or sod shall be placed behind all curbing. 7. Shared driveway access off of Pleasant View Road for Lots 1 and 4, Block 1 is required and a cross access easement shall be provided. This common section of the driveway shall be constructed to a 7 ton design paved to a width of 20 feet and have a maximum grade of 10%. 8. Provide the following easements and rights -of -way: a. The drainage and utility easements along the westerly property line' of Lots 9, 10 and 11, Block 2 and the ponding area on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 that are shown on the grading and erosion control plan shall also be shown on the preliminary plat accordingly. b. The acquisition of a drainage easement through the property immediately west of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 will be required for the discharge of the detention pond. c. Additional 7 feet of right -of -way along Pleasant View Road. No vacation of Pleasant View Road shall occur notwithstanding the 11 plans submitted by applicant. 1 1 I Q o o O Q m 0 so �t M pp O Q O . . 0 0 1 l l►L AC L A 1 I %( ( 1 ,.. . 8 • .. — CHRISTMAS _ _ I HENNEPth L MI - %CE 1 �r 1 LAKE E_ . •SH10N CT / / /J� " `� be* . T , LINE ' J4 j'. RI . . CIRCLE i_i wriogilLv & 8Tu0 ' AREA _- A r' •�� W — C�. �' {�.=e4 • ��, �t vim,:. Mr- ` \� ‘ V Lu r Li, A:..? I ,A y' 114101011: �, \ # e { (( ,... 9? !I _ .... otrojp i \■ '' (..). PROJECT LOCATION 2 " 1 " 1 """ 11 = -:.f ) 1 -,- 44% 1 p __ i ,_ : :, ni 'MUNI Illa IA II lit We milk7 oft ma, _ ; \,,,.--,,,, ... . Aimpi a. -v. v--w _ ; rlan - -.1.7.-A. v) \; - • - „ Er 4 011111111 / �' �� �I p is _e ' � a )j I\ ' N _ ___ _ _,,,, arior■o ILLI MO- ilm 1 I Imi'• .. 17 . 1v ' t-' 1 \\,,, *Am= - • -.- s spit, � 141 °a. ` L 0 LA LUC Y & - J "`� . 4, *. , ',. , i Pa6 : a - � t Nt LIE S �, ::..s /fi� ii � g Q R j NG EL mil — ;1 1 :11;i iin g it3 ,7 LA 11 1% . ‘. . „, , nr , ‘..._ lilinsul ra ',,,, „sai 1 � 1 k2 E d : + v- . A .? 0• *t* 111'• ' ` ' 1 • ... il«e 11���i►� 11 0 � ■1 • #'��' [, 1 mac` b / r LOCATION MAP riyar , � �•� � c wA 'q 1 KE A NN , ��� L_u - i`� '�a ∎ ∎∎ mo co 0 ∎011 Pa % g' Prrllr il a ir- .111)11111Vidili i ant / d ' rifts NIi 1r -1% - --- - ;— v 4 1111111 0 11.1 I ■ �i© n 'ISM ,., . 1,,, - �.rrr . -14 I _ I 1 •‘....,,, , ......../ o de vo 1 fL AtA/r 06w 1 n , I,. 1 ,. ..... 1 ,y . 1 � k - - r -i 1 , 4 i f \ \ = i " 1 • • 1 1 • EACE LI'L , _...t I Il __ 1 ° VIN 1 . 1 PbA*F----- ` ` "" I / ELAND - T • i : 1 . . - 4 - P1 1 : - /CI , ...._______; i 1 \ 1 I ..... tmen tie .- . .,. e / r"----....„........... . / 1 0 1 . _ .,\\ 1 ‘ . 1.. % I • • ........ i i ...... • oh .I, I Z AVCE t acy . Ce.4,0 1 e ? PROPOSED PLATS /EXISTING HOMES .%1 1 I Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 21 II 9. The applicant shall submit storm sewer calculations verifying size and capacity of the storm sewer system and ponding basin. Eight inch I sanitary sewer at a minimum rate of 0.4% shall be constructed on this subdivision and service locations for all of the lots on this plat shall be shown for final submittal review. The final plans and I specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 10. Park and trail fees will be required from the applicant in lieu of 1 parkland dedication. 11. The garage barn on Lot 2, Block 1 will be removed or relocated or the I road shall be adjusted so that no variances are required. If it is necessary to remove or relocate the garage or barn, that shall be done prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 2, Block 1 or when II Mr. Troendle is no longer a full time resident of that property, whichever should occur first. Lot 2, Block 1 shall be serviced by Nez Perce Drive and the gravel driveway to Pleasant View Road shall be removed. I 12. The temporary cul -de -sac should be provided with an easement to accommodate the temporary pavement and be provided with a barricade II equipped with a sign indicating the road will be extended in the future. II 13. Lots 1 and 11, Block 2 are required to have access from Troendle Way. 14. Lot 4, Block 1 appears to be an unbuildable lot. The applicant must either adjust the lot lines or otherwise combine the lot with the other I three lots in Block 1 or in some other way insure it's buildability to the satisfaction of the City staff. I All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Conrad: This goes to the City Council on the 5th. Are you telling them II that? Okay. I think you've got to go into them with some specifics. It's pretty characteristic. What you said tonight is pretty standard for what we hear from neighbors on a lot of things. If you want a particular road alingment, if you don't like that one you know, you should have a II recommendation that says City Council we would like you to do this. We would like you to study the traffic patterns from Nez Perce. It's dangerous now and we can prove it. You've got to go in with some solid I stuff because we hear this all the time. They really were the ones that did set this alignment in terms of the general direction and I think they're the ones that can take another look into it. So thank you and don't stop your interest. I Mary Stasson: Will they again look at the safety? II Conrad: I'm not sure. It was a major issue of all other homeowners who came in at previous times and safety is an issue with the Planning staff. We just don't like to do things that don't make sense. This is not a high II intensive use of that land. It's a pretty low intensive use. You know if we were talking about 12,000 square foot things and high rises and what have you, we're not talking a whole lot of intensity here. Even though II Planning Commission Meeting October 17, 1990 - Page 22 it's far more than what's acceptable to you because you're dealing with, it. is. It's not out of character with what Chanhassen is becoming. And so it's, the safety issue was a concern before as we made that link between the Carver Beach area and Pleasant View because it was simply a straight shot across and that was the concer. It was going to be a dumping ground for, you know it's just going to be the quick route to the Crosstown. Paul' is telling us tonight, it's still going to be a quick route to the Crosstown no matter what so you know, we dealt with that information before. Well, I just wanted to talk to you a little bit. , Brad Johnson: Lake Lucy now is a dumping ground and a quick shot for everyone down on Nez Perce so, talking about safety, that corner is bad. I think that's what our homeowners are concerned about. Conrad: I appreciate you coming in. Brad Johnson: Is there a record that goes to City Council? Conrad: They get this. We have a City Council member here tonight so. Emmings: They get verbatim Minutes also. Batzli: Tune in every Saturday and watch the video broadcast of this thing. PUBLIC HEARING: MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 2 -1. THE PURPOSE OF THE MODIFICATION IS TO AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENT TO AUDUBON ROAD. Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. 1 Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Steve? Emmings: I don't have any comments. ' Conrad: Brian? Batzli: I don't have any questions. I think it's a wonderful resolution. II Perfectly consistent with the development of the city of Chanhassen. Conrad: You go along with anything the government wants right? , Batzli: Right. Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion? Resolution #90 -2: Batzli moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning 11 Commission adopt the attached resolution finding the Modified Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 2 -1 consistent with the City's IF Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 Page 3 ' Disadvantages - Street is built to substandard design and carries high traffic volumes. Neighborhood impact and traffic safety considerations. 1 2. Fox Path Advantages - Ability to use an undeveloped, dedicated right- of-way, north /south alignment that could serve to create street connection, while eliminating an existing over - length cul -de -sac. 1 Disadvantages - Connection is extremely difficult to make, due to severe grades and environmental impacts. Also, potential neighborhood opposition in 11 ,Fox Chase if through street considered. It is not considered to be feasible. ' 3. Park Drive (Nez Perce) Advantages - Provides good access to the south via undeveloped dedicated right -of -way (40 foot) and has access to Powers Boulevard via Lake Lucy Road. Disadvantages - Grade on Park Drive is a concern. However, upon further investigation it was concluded that a maximum 10% grade with a 40 foot long ' landing area at 2% grade at the street inter- section could be provided and that grading limits are acceptable. Staff believes this is P reasonable alternative from a design stand- point. Sketches showing street profile options and grading limits are attached. ' 4. Kiowa Drive (Hopi Road) Advantages - Undeveloped dedicated right -of -way following ' similar alignment to but east of Park Drive. - Disadvantages Very difficult grades are present. Street construction would result in extensive tree loss. Staff questions if construction is feasible. Access to Powers Boulevard is not direct. The street is presently constructed as a dead end serving several homes. Although right -of -way is dedicated to make a connection to Powers Boulevard it is,unlikely that such a connection is feasible due to ' wetland and ponding areas. \ , / .., \57p 1� t r j \ ` / ■ J ' r \ '! Q I / C ww - ■ ■ ■f MIN 1 01 7 it ._, / / •iwNY / ' MMMMM // /1 - =_- :_ - -..- ,_.... 11; = N _" / ■ m■MJV �rC� / MM w .: / /1 i ` 1 ■•M••Mf11O ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■Or ■ ■■ ■ � t/ ■ / f IA / i 1 f ). _ / / - - - - - . 1 IlvG H = S FE"- SOON MMMMM / 1110004, f..r. ...�. -rw.rJ uu■u m iii cc. r■f►f■M i / /// \ . s; i•M / ■uf •• ■..•■.U. / ••■■OA■ -- !O 11.11111 ■■■m lS O• •f■f ■ff. ■•:.Off■ 1.1\ MINIMUMS ■•■ ffu fHf1■ / ■ MOW • _ ■ � ■■.■M■ ■■ OMNI ' ■■■■.m O wu.■ U frf. ff•Of.••Or ■ ■r Mr■ MOM I 1 ‘ saaaaaanusar ■■H ► ■■SO -- : ■r•M■ ■OfIfH SEMI MIMI! ■M..00M UMW 1 \ uM ■■i. ■ ■•OM• ■OMO ■i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■y1■ ■SOH ■ ■ ■•• �O■n.M'1u■■ 120 \ ■■ wM.. M■u�•�■■■Mw- • --.rMY�i a7 50 1 tn LAKE _: :::. :::�. = i„. , LI- —1-- ......./ LEGEND .. ° / N �"" r' s Grading Limits • ` .-`. 4 : : :: � <,• Develope g / : :::`• 10% Grading Limits : :::< : > : :: Limits {; s ': .` d1 i • / OF p 7% Grading L / 4 g -i.,..( If f 7 ... 7... , loin. S L'..A M °D R E 0400 ,037.`8 ,........,. R1., 42 �O \'6 17 tr■ 6 M 44. ` RILw S IO31Q.•� I I.IN. 1 /0 28. -- GRADING LIMITS 0 me 1 040., 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Copy of Original 1 September 8, 1989 staff report to City Council where alternative road alignments were examined. The Vineland I Forest Plat appraised delayed until road issues were resolved. Alternative 3 with the Nez Perce connection to 1 Pleasant View/Peaceful Lane was adopted. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , II .,s CITY OF . . ._ .__ , 11.- .1:- lk,:',. II 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II (612) 937 -1900 II MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager II FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning II Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: September 8, 1989 II SUBJ: Alternative Access Concepts for the Vineland Forest Subdivision #89 -8 BACKGROUND II On August 28, 1989, the City Council reviewed the preliminary II plat request for the Vineland Forest subdivision (see location map). The plat as proposed illustrates the creation of 21 single family lots accessed by a cul -de -sac from Pleasant View Road that is approximately 1250 feet long. The proposed plats and existing II homes are shown on an attachment. Access into the plat is the primary issue. Area residents raised II concerns over traffic on Pleasant View Road at the Planning Commission meeting with the result that the Commission was unable to reach a consensus on the plat. Staff recommended approval of II the plat conditioned on the addition of a southern outlet from the plat, using Nez Perce right -of -way to intersect with Lake Lucy Road. The inclusion of the southern outlet would result in the creation of a north /south connection between Lake Lucy Road II and Pleasant View Road and also provide a second access as requested by Public Safety. At the City Council meeting further discussion on access issues II _ was heard. A series of revised access concepts were introduced by an architect representing homeowners located on Pleasant View II Road. The City Council ultimately voted to continue the item to give staff an opportunity to review access alternatives. Development of Alternative Access Plans II Prior to preparing alternative access plans staff considered a number of issues. These are described below as follows: II 1. Access plans for Vineland Forest should be designed to serve not only the site but also adjoining vacant and under- developed parcels in a comprehensive manner. For the pur- ' poses of this analysis, we have defined the study area the II 1 ze' a . • .. zi,e4 zuc zo .1. A 0 4. ts4oSr4ef: 1 • - 1 / 1 0 / 1 8 7 il 04 o / // / 1 Z• / 1 0 / IN 0 \* t N 1 III P4 ,/ D( 12 i. / 4 i 1 I / ! ' 1 411 7 .............1 i 1 , I I . 11+ .. 0 Iz l i t O • 0 1 sin 1 1• lo m 1 .4, t 1 1 Nf. N i IM in , t Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 Page 4 5. Peaceful (Redman) Lane , Advantages - The street is intended to serve the Pleasant Hills plat. The plat was given final approval but has not been filed. Plat approval will expire in October. Access through this area is reasonable and without serious difficulty. Provides reasonably good connection to the north with east /west connection via Pleasant View Road at a good location. Disadvantages - Approved plat (which probably will expire 1 October) may limit design options. Would still result in the introduction of traffic onto Pleasant View but this is off -set by short distance to Powers Boulevard. 6. Outlot A, Carver Beach Estates ' Advantages - Undeveloped right -of -way to Lake Lucy Road. Provides good access to the south. 1 Dis - Grades make access difficult. Proximity to Powers Boulevard may make connection redun- 1 dant. Alternatives /Comment There are a large variety of alternatives for serving the study area. Staff has attempted to limit the number of alternatives to those which have been discussed previously and a new alternative, that in our opinion, represents the most reasonable remaining option. The alternatives that have been studied are described below along with comments derived from review criteria established earlier: 1. This alternative is essentially the access option proposed by the developer illustrating serving Vineland Forest by a long cul -de -sac from Pleasant View. The concept has been expanded to illustrate how the balance of the study area could be served in a comprehensive manner. Comment - The option illustrates the ultimate construction of a street loop between the originally proposed Vineland Forest/ Pleasant View intersction to the Peaceful Lane dead end to the west. The alternative will ultimately provide a street loop that should offer adequate service internally within the study area. Construction of the street loop would be con- tingent upon the decisions of other property owners to develop their land. As illustrated, the northern stub street in Vineland Forest has been eliminated since, as proposed, it • Mr. Don Ashworth ' September 8, 1989 Page 2 ' land located between Peaceful Lane on the west, Pleasant View Road on the north, the Fox Path neighborhood on the east, and Lake Lucy Road on the south. We acknowledge that these par- cels may not be developed in the same time frame. However, we believe the overall access plan is essential if adequate levels of service are to be provided while minimizing neigh- borhood and environmental disruptions. Existing platting and neighborhood's development pattern should be taken into account to maximize feasibility of the concept and minimize neighborhood disruption. 2. Given the size of the study area, staff estimates that approximately 55 homes could eventually be built. Each single family home will generage approximately 10 trips per ' day. This estimate is based upon the access and development concept plans that are presented in this report. The plans attempt to provide lots consistent with city development ' standards. In our opinion, to adequately serve this large an area a through street connection is warranted. The connec- tion is important to being able to provide adequate levels of ' service for local residents and reasonable emergency vehicle response times. From the standpoint, of the larger, surrounding neighborhood a north /south connection is con- ' sidered to be of benefit for traffic flow and emergency vehicle access since it would be the only connection between Powers Boulevard and Lotus Lake. ' 3. Traffic levels on Pleasant View Road are a consideration. The street carries a fairly high traffic volume and is on the city's state -aid system. Recent counts taken by the city show traffic levels of somewhere between 960 and 1300 ADT (average daily traffic) at the Vineland Forest site. An ADT of 1000 is commonly thought to be the dividing line between local and collector streets. Portions of the street exist as ' a substandard design exacerbating traffic problems. 4. The access concept should result in a high quality residen- tial environment. Significant stands of trees and wetlands should be protected. Cul -de -sacs should be created where feasible. 1 Potential Access Points into the Study Area There are a series of roads and undeveloped rights -of -way that could provide access into the study area (see attachment). Each was reviewed to assess its feasibility for extension into 'the area. These are described below: 1. Pleasant View Drive Advantages - Street functions as a collector with east /west access. Grades and sight distance make access. feasible along much of the frontage. 1 ' I 1 , .. ■ .1 • . •••• 401..........01.■• , V. I I 1 ill V{X ; .. i • ,.. ..A.r" .. " rt. c • .1r 't - - „ vatt •• - -- 1 3 • , ;/ ,t /./ • .4.4. _: •• arat•.. , i re...6am \ .1.:1. '•,, .,,, D _ . , • , • I , ,.. \ 5 . - •- -- . I • .._ - ••• a i I 6 - $01.0 .1f0\ '-',- '.. .■....‘ t I , . # '• •?.' A `4 *--.. 4 • , , cn 33 2 . i V . ../". 1 I SIWIP4 Mt S. •.1 i ', ‘. •:•. , s '.6 . . -■ - • ' .. - 1 1 . ! t Ctl° ' / % , . ;. 0 ' •. . • ' 1 V. 1 1. • 1c // .,:i i I • • , 1 \ : s c. -;•,. 1 ' ' • i 4\ „ . ,- --- -1.. ? ••41 . t, ..... . ‘ • ' . 111311,• 14 ,„ \ .....' • CY ---.: ." l _ ••>.•••• •. ._ 1 1 , ...• ' 2 ste.. fp . • a. . 1 ... . \ .- . NX •,‘ . - - -- - „...• -rP . ...fla • ..._ .„ ._ _ .... 1 %I. • . \ M.V11 et .., .:, • s ; ; •........ 2. 3 1 , ' • 3 . ; 1 ss 't S 1 • . 1 ogle Ara. I i . A k . • 1 A ' ta I kr. 1 1•1. . ., \„\ Amu ft's em MI • ' 4 ACRF - •-' ,A I g • • ; . 01. - • • • 9 I tRoAD . mt,r,7". ''''' • : : d - 4 . \ 0 SA / I, k ,•- Di i • I ...ir 'IL . . :::: •i \s,, \ CHR I , . P • - , , . . 1 . ; \* • • I' • ..:::..‘' • . 1 :..... . B - ,1,•• • . :ci. WA ' i; C z ilirert V s o. r: • , • N.s • • \ • t .4% . I .0 • ' I . t • • \ 4• • -.. / •',,* N "" '. If - i :: " ... • ; 1 • 4 1 *! : . 34; ft4Y1. 111111111111111021 .: -... - r., . , !• .1.4 - 1 A N . ... • 3 6 7 - .„•• 9 - A = \ x 9 -., • 1 4 : ! gaZ I . 1 1 lia _ _ __ -I- , -I- - .. - . , .... , . ...... ... viL3 Lit 1 Tuts , so ,•\71 . "rilti. .... . . . • 1 M a • IsPw Ci/ 3, See.3 - ---------- '' o -. C .. i F--- . ''1.2i=1.75.6:sA. * .:-l i : " . '.:-:::::<.: - ... . 2 1 : 1111. 4154 4 flp t i if FAO" 12 A i,... ...., 2 ....,„ r P3 6 • • 11 :;" /.. ' . - -.-: 11 I \ 3 is ill , • I ' 42- - Q. . l■ %. . ''''• 0 V 11 , 0 • A... , . - ,-• o. - • , ..... x r ' co • . op ,csit ._ • . , iz ijt A ■ • a i • ,, \ .. ,...., . .. 2 , .. 4 ,.; ';ft , ,...< .. ,.- -/ I P N • I .4 i 1 : If n . . k s / • .. . ir NM • 1 2, :: .. . Sh. : 0 1 714n 0 1P lin mminummucamin • - . c , • ...„...7 .. Nr . • . • . . I 9D ... .,.. • •-. ........, ./ - ....i. ...,. ta t. r... . •. i ,.. • :.! : Lott It LUCY &a. ■ 1 I • . • %:.• 4? i ... 0 09. 4 111/ a .. '''' •• ; ! 9 • .: ,,,.:_t.„,:..„ X gun - ninzw------ . • ,.. ......, ,..k ; ; .: _ ,..IeL •• ". . i ' • z ■ Ag.1 • 1 . : . ' 1 - . _ _ 5: : --,- - - " I ' ; . I 1 1 t --:1 ' Z I . 4 '‘`... • ;„." ■ : ... • ... o • 1 I , f I • • .... 0 . ' ' •IiIN 1 to ....". • e • : I : 'L : , • a . ...% '1. . 6 ri 'SgiFTEle0Cit -L- 7 • • • , i . ; I CZ* . ... 6 • 4=1!2 i ly : . '`. I 1 , DRIVE " - 2 : VEA . • 1 - • '.1 ' • • .: • ' • • Nit - .• • • ., .. , .. .:....,.!i. _ '..' .A■•' . : !%**, 4,.... , .. .0 .• P . 1 ' ... • le . ./ / k 1 CPIDAVer • • • . , . 'Mrft/ . : • -NA . . . .. 1 . . . s.i. _1 , ; • • Ca ri ! 4, .611 t •• /.1 •• f■•• • , , 1 tra ••• I I , " • • 7.• • .• I slit .... ; r •• ..s. ••• • I ' . 11 • . N - - 1 L. I . 0 1 .. . . • POTENTIAL ACCESS POINTS 1 1 Mr. Don Ashworth . September 8, 1989 Page 5 cannot be built without the removal of a home on the adjoining parcel. This revision has been repeated in the 1 three remaining alternatives as well. Connecting to Pleasant View from Peaceful Lane rather then ' the original Vineland location to the east, could have a beneficial traffic impact. We believe this would result from Pleasant Lane's proximity to Powers Boulevard that should ' help orient traffic to the west rather then east along Pleasant View. The streets appear to be feasible from a grading standpoint and environmental impact is not excessive. 1 There are two significant problems with the alternative. The loop street concept results in the fact that all of the traf- fic in the study area will be required to use Pleasant View. The second concern is that it does not provide any access of the south thus eliminating the potential for a north /south street connection. I 2. The second alternative is the dual cul -de -sac option illustrated by an architect working for the Pleasant View ' area homeowners. To allow for a reasonable comparison the alternative was expanded to create a comprehensive access plan for the study area. 1 Comment - This option tends to split the access burden with most of the traffic exiting south to Lake Lucy Road. Ultimately a connection would be made to the west to Peaceful Lane. A small portion of the traffic would exit directly • onto Pleasant View at the original Vineland Forest intersec- tion. 1 This alternative can be reasonably constructed based on gra- des and environmental impacts are consistent with normal ' residential development. There is a north /south street con- nection but the alignment is quite convoluted which presents a problem for through movements. Distance traveled will be higher as will emergency vehicle response times. Again, construction is contingent upon the development decisions of adjoining property owners. ' 3. Staff attempted to start with a clean sheet of paper to create Alternative 3. The concept is based on a street loop running from Lake Lucy /Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. • 1 Comment - The alignment is more direct then the one described in Alternative 2. Street construction is reasonable, all study area parcels are served and high quality residential environments will result. The south } of the Vineland plat remains largely unchanged. The Peaceful Lane connection is contingent upon the vacating or expiration of the Peaceful Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 • Page 6 Hills plat (due to expire in October). As with Alternatives 1 and 2 the construction of the street loop is• contingent upon development decisions of adjoining property owners. 4. The final alternative is the original staff recommendation expanded to illustrate serving the entire study area. The street connection between Lake Lucy Road /Nez Perce and Pleasant View is probably the best alignment for meeting access needs throughout the neighborhoods surrounding the study area since it is centrally located between Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy. As such it may also have a greater potential for introducing traffic increases onto Pleasant View. A significant advantage is that the connection could be constructed immediately without requiring the par- ticipation of adjoining property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff continues to support the original access concept illustrated as Alternative 4. Our reasons for this position area based on the advantages of the alignment for the north /south con- nection and the fact that it could be built immediately without requiring participation by adjacent property owners. The impor- tance of the last factor should not be minimized. Constructing street extensions after a neighborhood has been developed is 1 often a controversial process. If this option is not acceptable to the Council we would recom- mend that Alternative 3 be selected since it meets the established criteria while providing reasonable north /south con- nection. Alternatives 2 and 3 would require a substandtial redesign of the Vineland plat. If Alternatives 2 or 3 are selected we would recommend that the required be returned to the Planning ' Commission for review of a revised plat based upon your direc- tions regarding access. The Council should be aware that city staff does not have the capability to prepare an indepth analysis of traffic patterns. We believe the data presented in this report is reasonable based upon our knowledge of the subject. If a greater understanding of this question is desired a consultant would need to be retained to prepare a computer model of the area. While this would pro- vide valuable information, it would involve additional time and cost. ' The Council should also be aware that regardless of which option is selected, easements must be provided to construct sewer and water lines north to Pleasant View. 1 1 it " N i 1 • L. CP - "194.R.v7- 0Ew I 1 .... 7-11 T'' I . , a . r i gy p' , 1 v ' j----i 1 / a t 1 Peep EACE 1 �.. o VI E L P ►A � D • a/ G E T PLAT VJ T4 Z 1 i____ 1 •■■■•■/1 i • • - e • i i H ,e i�t. L.cy •ee.♦.. 1 z w 1 ALTERNATIVE 1 1 .. N -1 _ t 1 4.TP J Citrh vo r.......„ j 1 AA/ 7 E I t / f . v I ■ t �h Peel ir - - . , .1 : , .1 ; ' FACE Y 1 ' ,... , . ° INEL i ND , , iPtA- ' • `\ ` a , - T P L ` Y A � -- W Te r t . 0 g - va l .■,.. ' r m i i i , n. 1 N .,....______Z Lve.y Reap .1 ALTERNATIVE 2 1 1 . •N t - t 1 ri (..... AcE+4l.�Nf �Ew 1 i 1 ,. 1 v , f 1 4 i ,- 1 1 • ■ i 1 1 '( 1 PaoL 0 i . - , F . _._.„ T•w R 1 \ . c t I - lb 1 1 ALTERNATIVE 3 Ft 1 N 1 1 ../ 4 % : *d ie-C dovo 1 PGE4127iRNT V)Ci r T -- i a ', 1 P 1 „, 1. , 1 c_,- I' . . V r e 11 1, j----; i 1 k ft” i 1 Poop 1 '.EACE 1 P ill r„ VI EL ` " ND J "� 1 • P �A ORS T PLAT ---- Yr1 0 . r ----i i ........._ • ........_. . ...... ... i 1 t rkE t ac x0A-.0 I . ALTERNATIVE 4 1 1 err. wvn msrrwprLn September 8, 198 ' Page 5 cannot be built without the removal of a home on the 1 adjoining parcel. This revision has been repeated in the three remaining alternatives as well. Connecting to Pleasant View from Peaceful Lane rather then 11 the original Vineland location to the east, could have a beneficial traffic impact. We believe this would result from Pleasant Lane's proximity to Powers Boulevard that should ' help orient traffic to the west rather then east along Pleasant View. The streets appear to be feasible from a grading standpoint and environmental impact is.not excessive. There are two significant problems with the alternative. The loop street concept results in the fact that all of the traf- fic in the study area will be required to use Pleasant View. The second concern is that it does not provide any access of the south thus eliminating the potential for a north /south street connection. 2. The second alternative is the dual cul -de -sac option 1 illustrated by an architect working for the Pleasant View area homeowners. To allow for a reasonable comparison the alternative was expanded to create a comprehensive access plan for the study area. ' Comment - This option tends to split the access burden with most of the traffic exiting south to Lake Lucy Road. Ultimately a connection would be made to the west to Peaceful Lane. A small portion of the traffic would exit directly onto Pleasant View at the original Vineland Forest intersec- tion. ' This alternative can be reasonably constructed based on gra- des and environmental impacts are consistent with normal ' residential development. There is a north /south street con- nection but the alignment is quite convoluted which presents a problem for through movements. Distance traveled will be 1 • higher as will emergency vehicle response times. Again, construction is contingent upon the development decisions of adjoining property owners. ' 3. Staff attempted to start with a clean sheet of paper to create Alternative 3. The concept is based on a street loop running from Lake Lucy /Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. ' Comment - The alignment is more direct then the one described in Alternative 2. Street construction is reasonable, all study area parcels are served and high quality residential environments will result. The south-} of the Vineland plat remains largely unchanged. The Peaceful Lane connection is contingent upon the vacating or expiration of the Peaceful 1 1 V al 4 . ' td; ,e,, - • 1 ..,k „II_ 41/8 liri/ , 2-- ( '''' s vd g ,- ''' 1 , I NO r iret i a 0- -A° __ in - k - - ' n Ora "a KV 71 ' pi 1 )13--,-- Ili - s' - ... 110 t.:1 4,:i/Nteraythi, �` + LI! iiit.Ntirie ): ' )6— Z � W DUI ■N i a ,,. ` '' ' i 1 • i J awn. •; i ■ (hi !1 )01— . - � 1.14 ■ � 1111...:1 , ta /�'' � 4131 ,1 � .. r t4�� FI on ____. 1.1 lio • -.ri ooze -- it �, & . E I ■ 1 . 4 11 11117 10 11 1*17 .4iM FAL i Kal 'taw% :., - c 6717&- . �- _ 111101 :1 I ow mune IIW ili my iri rifo 1 4.1 . !../VIA I IPP% - 7- L t1,11 41 Or �/l �� � 011W - � �, )O$ 5 - >. v jol" V ciz r 1 4 *. )0SI W ;,i 1 1 t1! !L r � QQ 'W�� Z1 k 1 rv)9I— : tr t ' a it ism ml , ad ti iiiiel -,,n,. __\ -- - OOL1 -��ry a�c �� Wrcjl .. W =a y0 O 1 AM 6 A r Al 1 ma =MO 0091___ Ni �: r '`� ���IT, it��� 0061 — �, �c�.,,Ewl � ( ; r „t . 1 1 1 1 MORE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED I REGARDING NEZ PERCE EXTENSION 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 `1 June 25, 1993 ,' `' ♦ a Mayor Don Chmiel 7 /it_ .< . / jJ�1 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: 1 We adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: 1 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase in traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which we adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In our opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector It will severely increase safety problems. We have 3 small children and safety is a major concern to us. _ 1 As members of a newly organized group, we are willing to commit our time, effort and financial resources necessary to back our convictions. As property owners, taxpayers and voters, we remain yours truly, 1 , 'j David and Paula Donna 881 Vineland Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 1 1 Date 1 1 Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: ' I adamantly oppose o connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View g ' Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. c,i rA �'f Eli cGai7y 1? l OW) v`3 1 -�Ei -Gt� -1 I "1"5h /(17; AriyOne`in tie Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to 1 Kerber Drive. ' 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. ' 3. The tremendous cost of this roject is obviously going to be taxed on all the p 1 Y9 9 adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely ' unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, 1 am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. Eft 71c &co a As a property one2 taxpayer and voter) remain yours truly, 1 � c2���lG� ' ! 1 - ,(,/ AP C 1 TODD D. NOVACZYK I June 22, 1993 I Mayor Don Chmiel I 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: I I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road I based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez 1 Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to I y g make this a short cut. t Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber 1 Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this I increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all adjoining 1 homeowners. In my opinion connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely 1 unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. 1 As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. 1 As a property owner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, f f / / /J ] 1 I - )) \I T odd D. Novaczyk ` 4 4 1 P TDN /eje (_ 1 Nov acz\ k Enterprises • 6517 Cecilia Circle Edina, MN 55439 • 612- 944 -8090 • Fax 612- 944 -3180 I 1 Date 1 ' Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: ' I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez ' Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. 1 Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. 1 Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to 1 Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. ' 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely ' unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. 1 As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, Ks0 oLakir � � � 5s3/7 1 Date 1 Mayor Don Chmiel 1 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose o connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View 9 Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. Anyone on 'Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at , Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which 1 adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, j 1 Date ._ a �� -_ �i /5 1 Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: ' I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. 1 Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. 1 Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. ' 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. � ---- J =P k� K c SA9-0. I i As a property -e ter, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, ' 1 Date 1 1 Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View 1 Road based on the following reasons: amount of additional traffic on Nez 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous a Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to turn at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. 1 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce 1 which I adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. View is completely In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant Vi e s p letel y unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, 1 1,1 1 Greg Hedlund 748 Lake Point 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 June 18, 1993 1 To; Don Chmiel, Mayor City of Chanhassen 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel, 1 I recently received a letter outlining the proposed connection of Nez Perce Road with Pleasant View Road. I bought a home in the Fox Chase development five years ago, and Pleasant View Road is my regular commuting route. Additionally, and most importantly, 1 I use this roadway for leisure activities; running, walking and cycling. During my pedestrian forays, I often meet with others pursuing these same activities. These people include my 1 neighbors and others from surrounding communities, Mountain and Christmas Lakes. Consequently, I see Pleasant View Road as possessing a vital ambience that is a major asset to this community. It is pleasant to walk, cycle and jog along Pleasant View, and also a safe roadway for these pedestrian activities. The proposed connection of Pleasant View with Nez Perce is simplistic 1 civil engineering certain to diminish the vitality of the area. This area is first and foremost a residential area and should remain so. 1 Addressing greater traffic volume is always difficult for every community. The City of Chanhassen must balance this problem with the needs of its residents for a residential setting. 1 Sincerely, Greg Hedlund 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Date Q Q zz/ / q3 1 1 Mayor Don Chmiel 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: ' t tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez 1. This connection is going to create a 1 Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. 1 Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. 1 Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to 1 Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this 1 increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. 1 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on a!! the adjoining homeowners. I Pleasant View is completely In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and as p y 1 unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and financial resources necessary to back my convictions. 1 As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, 1 1 1 1 Date 6 Mayor Don Chmiel 1 7100 Tecumseh Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mayor Chmiel: I adamantly oppose connecting Nez Perce Road with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View Road based on the following reasons: 1. This connection is going to create a tremendous amount of additional traffic on Nez Perce where it connects with Kerber Drive all the way down to Pleasant View, and then east on Pleasant View all the way over to 101. Anyone in the Nez Perce area who wants to go to Highways 101 or 7 is going to make this a short cut. Anyone on Pleasant View who wants to go to Chanhassen is going to tum at Peaceful Lane and take a short cut up through neighborhoods along Nez Perce to Kerber Drive. 2. This increase in traffic is going to be a major safety challenge. Eventually this increase of traffic would lead to a proposal to widen Pleasant View and Nez Perce which I adamantly oppose. 3. The tremendous cost of this project is obviously going to be taxed on all the adjoining homeowners. In my opinion, connecting Nez Perce with Peaceful Lane and Pleasant View is completely unnecessary. It is going to substantially increase traffic and create a collector road. It will 1 severely increase safety problems. As a member of a newly organized group, I am willing to commit my time, effort and 1 financial resources necessary to back my convictions. As a property oner, taxpayer and voter, I remain yours truly, 1 MR. & MRS. THOMAS A. MEIER 4 6410 FOX PATH ROAD CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 }""