Loading...
1.2 Preliminary Plat to subdivide single family lots , , 4 /. _._ It . ___________ ,. CITY OF t , - 1 ,. , . ,. CHANHASSEN ,:. . • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 '' (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM ITO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning V) IDATE: February 22, 1990 ISUBJ: City Council Update - Brandt Subdivision IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY The City Council last reviewed this item at their February 12, 1990, meeting (Attachment #1) . At the meeting, the Council I raised a number of questions regarding the potential of con- necting Dogwood Road with Crimson Bay. In the report presented to the Council, staff had indicated that such a connection I appeared to be feasible based on new topographical data and taking into account site alterations undertaken by the power com- pany, however, we had not recommended in favor of such a connec- t tion in view of past actions of access in this area. The Council directed staff to further investigate the potential of this con- nection and continued the item. II The City Engineering Department has had an opportunity to investigate the matter further with their findings presented in an attached memo from the Senior Engineering Technician I (Attachment #2) . In it, it is indicated that we continue to believe that a connection to Crimson Bay is a realistic possibi- lity. In discussions with MnDOT, they indicated that a connec- tion to Crimson Bay would be viewed favorably from the traffic 1 safety standpoint which would result in another means of access for that subdivision and would, in their opinion, tend to limit the number of curb cuts that they would ultimately see on Hwy. 5 IIand on Hwy. 41. It is our opinion, based on data and all observations, that the 1 Crimson Bay connection is not only feasible but that the environ- mental impacts associated with it could be substantially reduced from what has been indicated on the applicant' s plan by developing a design that uses a 10% rather than 7% grade and employs I retaining walls to reduce grading requirements. It should be noted that city staff had not undertaken a full design study of our own for this road, nor are we advocating that this be done at Ithis time. It is our opinion, that the Crimson Bay connection I , IF Mr. Don Ashworth February 12, 1990 II Page 2 is not likely to be needed until city utilities are available in I this area allowing development at much greater densities then is presently the case. We also note that further acquisition of the property would be required from the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum to provide sufficient right-of-way for the road connection. IIBased upon the foregoing, we have concluded that it would be advisable to reserve right-of-way for the connection to Crimson II Bay to maintain access options for the city in the future. We also continue to believe that the 30 foot wide easement that runs to the east -along the site continues to be a valid concept and I are recommending that the easement be required as a condition of approval. Again, we do not believe that a road would be constructed until such time that sewer is available. However, even with the potential of the Crimson Bay connection, we believe I further road connections in this area, which is quite large, would be reasonable. We also note that even if the city does require the right-of-way dedication for the Crimson Bay Road I connection that experience has shown that these types of connec- tions are by no means a certainty. They are often subjected to dispute and neighborhood concern at such time they are actually proposed. IIOne final issue remains. Staff notes that on the applicant' s plat, Dogwood extension is referred to as Lake Drive. We believe I that for continuity purposes, the entire stretch of roadway should be referred to as Dogwood Road. IISTAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Zimmerman Farm dated October 18, II1989 , revised January 10, 1990, with the following conditions: 1 . A 60-foot wide roadway easement shall be dedicated across I Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 to connect with Crimson Bay Road. - The street alignment shall follow the existing right-of-way dedicated as Dogwood Road until the intersection of Lot 2, I Block 1, then continue southeasterly along the power line easement to Crimson Bay Road (Attachment #2 of Sr. Engineering Technician memo) . The existing right-of-way dedicated as a cul-de-sac on Dogwood shall be vacated after Irecording of said roadway easement. 2 . Erosion control shall be Type II. II3 . The applicant shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources. II4 . The street name on the plat should be changed to reflect the current street name of Dogwood Road. II II Mr. Don Ashworth 11 February 12, 1990 Page 3 I S. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a temporary roadway easement for the proposed turnaround. 6 . Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of- way for the full 60 foot rural street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive is improved or until development in the area would require improvement. ' 7. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2 , Block 1, Zimmerman Farm from the southeast corner of Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision. 8. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. 9. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake , Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland per- mit as would any dredging or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. " ATTACHMENTS 1 . City Council minutes dated February 12 , 1990. ' 2 . Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician dated February 21, 1990. 3 . Staff report. 1 1 I I I City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990 I Council an Johnson moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Subdivision #89-16 as shown on the preliminary plat dated December 29, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall be amended to provide right-of-way for the extension of ' Crestview Lane as shown on Exhibit B. 2. tab additional sewer and water hook-ups beyond the 16 lots will be allowed ' until the MUSA line is expanded by the Metropolitan Council. 3. Future subdivision of the property and extension of the waterrrain to the ' property will result in the requirement of an additional fire hydrant as recce/tended by the Fire Inspector. 4. A cross easement shall be granted over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block 1. 5. A trail easement shall be reviewed further by the City Council and/or Park and Recreation Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman moved, Councilwaman Dialer seconded to approve the final plat for Subdivision #89-16 for Shively Addition with the following conditions: 1. The extension of Crestview Lane shall be dedicated as public right-of-way and labeled as Crestview Lane. 2. A cross easement shall be provided for access over Outlot A to Lot 1, Block ' 1. 3. Typical drainage and utility easements shall be provided along Crestview Lane. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO 7,90 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND 10.2 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF DOGWOOD EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA) , PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT. Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, as you start this, didn't we subdivide this Iproperty a couple years ago? But that never went through? Gary Warren: It never went through. 1 Councilman Hoyt: Before you proceed, if it's 11:00, then I would crave that we adjourn. Mayor Oriel: I would notion that we continue on with the next and proceed with what we have going. There are people sitting here who have been here all night waiting to discuss some of these things. ' 58 I City Council Meeting - February 22; 1990 Councilman Boyt: We would need to amend our rules. If that would be your motion then. Mayor Chmiel: That would be remotion to amend the rules. Is there a second? Councilwaman Dimler: Second. - Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilwoman Dimler seconded to amend the Rules of Procedure for the City Council to consider an item after the City Council's curfew. All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 20 acre piece into two 10 acre parcels. The issues with this one are future road access and improvement to existing roads. Staff proposed to the Planning Commission that the applicant provide the necessary easement to provide the full 50 foot right- ' of-way to serve the lot and we also recognize that that be approved... The Planning Commission recommended the easement be provided but that the road not be improved at this time. They did go along with staff recommendations to provide future easements to the east and the Park and Rec Commission's proposal for the trail easement so we are recommending approval with the Planning Commission's mission's conditions. Again that does not recanmend improving the street at this time. They brought another plan and I can put it up here so you can see it... The other issues that originally they were going to have the turn around in this location. They have moved that more to the north so that will service I some of the other existing lots. We are asking and this isn't a condition, that we need to add it in that they provide an easement for the turn around where it's being proposed to be moved. Other than that we're recamending approval with the conditions and that one amendment. I Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone here who would like to address this? Ken Daniels: Daniels is my name. Ken is the first name. We have 3 people here that are concerned. Really two people that are involved and they're in favor of this. They have no objections. I think everybody's smooth and everything's worked out. We had a long time...city planning and I won't take up your time anymore. Councilman Johnson: Where do you live? Ken Daniels: Were do I live? Councilman Johnson: Are you one of the neighbors or are you the proposer? I Ken Daniels: I'm on the buyers. The other buyer's right there. Councilman Johnson: That's the other buyer. You said there were 3 people here i then. The existing owner? Ken Daniels: Right. 59 i City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990 i' Councilman Johnson: Okay, and everything's smooth? Okay. Na neighbors showed Ken Daniels: No. They were here at the Planning. Tim Foster: Dan Herbst is here. He's the Crimmson Bay neighbor. Mayor Chrsel: Dan, would you like to vane up? Do you have something to say? ' Dan Herbst: I'm Dan Herbst. I live on Crimson Bay and also developed Crimson Bay and I support the proposal. I think they're done a lot of homework with your Planning Commission and your staff and it's a good plan before you. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I like this cul-de-sac further north too. IIMayor Chmiel: Okay, discussions. Councilman Johnson: Does that make that Lot 2 a flag lot then out to a Icul-de-sac? Jo Ann Olsen: That still has the right-of-way. The right of way is here. ICouncilman Johnson: Oh, the right-of-way still goes but they're just building a cul-de-sac back there and he's going to put a driveway through the right-of-way? i Jo Ann Olsen: Right. Well actually the right-of-way's going to be going on the easement over Lot 1 to Lot 2. They're going to be providing it but we'll still need an easement... The right-of-way will be there but will not be improved IIunless you recommend so. Councilman Workman: So the future of a road going through, all the way through I to Crimson Bay? Jo Ann Olsen: Unless you request that easement to be provided at this time, it's pretty much a dead issue. ICouncilman Johnson: There's some pretty bad topography there ain't there? IJo Ann Olsen: It can be done though. Councilman Boyt: What would the grade be? Jo Ann Olsen: 7% to 10%. Councilman Boyt: We do it all the time. ICouncilman Johnson: How many trees, that's a forested area. I Dave }epel: The applicant has a drawing showing the impact of the grading with the 7% grade. It would approximately take about 150 foot swath through here for our current standard rural width of 24 foot of bituminous with 6 foot gravel shoulders and a ditch section with 3:1 slopes. Jo Ann Olsen: But that'd be a lot less with a 10% grade. 60 i City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 I/ Dave Hempel: With a 10% grade it would reduce some of the area down. I Mayor Chmiel: Jay, did you have anymore comments? Councilman Johnson: No ' Mayor Chmiel: Bill? Councilman Boyt: Tell me about the impact again of moving the cul-de-sac? , We've got it out of the trees? Jo Ann Olsen: The turn around that they're proposing is not going to affect the trees. Councilman Boyt: Well the originally proposed cul-de-sac was going to take quite a whack out of the trees as I recall. Tim Foster: That's where the power line cleared... ' Councilman Boyt: It's already gone? I think we should add in the condition that the Planning Commission took out. I don't know if it's because they didn't understand why it was in there. I think that was probably it but Lots 1 and 2 waive their rights to contest future assessments as part of improvements to Dogwood. The reason for that being in there is because they're creating the need, the future need for the assessments and so they're just simply saying we ' agree that if they're needed or when they're needed, we'll do them. Just don't assess us for then now. And so we're just making things easier. It's not taking away somebody's right to protest. Now would be the time to do that but it is saying it's part of this issue and we need to resolve it as part of this development. Councilman Johnson: They also have the right to protest the public improvement. 1 Councilman Boyt: Sure. All we're saying, they're simply not contesting the assessments. The other part, being consistent, I suspect this shouldn't surprise anybody that was here through the last debate. I think it's important to take easements when the City can get the for free. I don't know if that's a very good way to go out and there may well be a point at which the City comes back as they did earlier this evening and vacate that easement. But it makes sense to have the potential to have two ways in and ont of something. This is a chance for the City to begin to get that and it does create hardship to the property. It's kind of the situation, not getting that easement creates a potential for a hardship to people someday when that's subdivided so I would encourage us to take the easement and include the condition that Lots 1 and 2 waive their rights to contest future assessment as part of improvements to 11 Dogwood. Tim Foster: The easement to? Councilman Boyt: The south. Tim Foster: Over to Crimson Bay? I Councilman Boyt: Down the power line. 61 City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 1• ' Tim Foster: The preliminary plat approval in 1987 was without it but you changed your mind? ' Councilman Boyt: Well we had, at that point Tim we were looking at, as I recall, at a road that went way off to the east. Didn't it curve back around up that way? There was same major road. Tim Foster: When I was going to build a house there instead of the Brandt's, the issue was the same and it's just that there were 3 lots, not 2. That's all we were talking about. IIMayor Chm.el: Would you like to came up to the microphone so we can capture this on the Minutes? Tim Foster: Tim. Foster. 6370 Pleasant View Cove. Jo Ann and I and a number of people have been working on this for some time and originally I was going to move there and the same issue was, is the easement going to go through to ' Crimson Bay and at that time it was suggested that it wasn't and the easement in front of now the two lots, and we requested 3 at that time, and there was a potential at that time of actually, because of the fact that we didn't know what we were going to do with the 80 acres. Okay? And now we know that Tam Courtenoy is building one home there, okay at this time. And Ren Daniels is going to build one home on a 10 acre lot and the Brandt's are going to build ' another hate so I think the timing is right to get an easement but I don't think the timing is right here because of the fact that really it's actually less density by 1 lot than it was in 1987 and you were going to allow me at that time to build a house there without an easement through to Crimson Bay. Councilman Boyt: Wasn't it, I'm trying to think back to that because we don't have the Minutes to that meeting but that had something to do with where you ' were putting your house. Weren't you putting your house so we were separating your house from the lake or something like that with that easement? Tim Foster: No. The road actually had my house placed and designed Bill and the road ended up kind of going through the corner of my garage so no, it wasn't. I had net this morning with the people at Jim Hill's office and they suggested that it is relatively difficult. Dan Herbst's house that he has right II next that is currently for sale would have, to bring that driveway up to grade, would have a relatively steep driveway and I don't think any of the neighbors in the Crimson Bay want that type of traffic going through their place so I think ' the time to deal with the issue is really when somebody comes in to develop the 80 acres or the Brandt's or the Daniels develop their 10 acres. There's really not a whole lot more development can go on there. II Councilman Boyt: Tim, the dilemma is, and I can understand why Crimson Bay doesn't want this road coming in. It's that there's no way that we can lay out a road... 1 Tim Foster: You don't need a road now Bill. I Councilman Boyt: No, but just wait until I finish this point. On a piece of undeveloped property. We can't lay a network of roads on Chanhassen unfortunately and say okay, this is it. Now build around it. We have to take 62 I City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 the pieces as they come to us. And so you get Crimson Bay and son of a gun, it doesn't go all the way up to the north. So we don't get to build a road all the , way up to someplace in the north and now this one doesn't go all the way to Crimson Bay. Somewhere out here and maybe this isn't the point at which we fight it, I don't know, but somewhere we've got to have a plan on where the roads are going in this town and where the trails are going or we'll end up with a bunch of dead ends. Tim Foster: Bill, you have an 80 acre parcel and two 10 acre parcels and I think the time to do it obviously, if it always stays that way, then the road situation is possibly you'll improve the road that goes by the Girl Scout Camp so I just don't think the timing is right. You don't need the cards now. You don't really need them in your hand. I think when someone cores in. Councilman Johnson: We'll never get them in the future. ' Timm Foster: Why not? You still control the deck. Someone has to care to you to get further subdivision Jay. Councilman Johnson: If Lot 2 never further subdivides. Tim Foster: Correct. , Councilman Johnson: Whichever one that is, and a lot of people sitting around thinking...don't, we're never given the deck back. We have to ask for that deck back. We have to have a subdivision in order to get that easement. If we get the easement now, we retain that card you know. Tire Foster: I think it's an undue hardship on that Lot 2. It's not talking I about a trail which they axe suggesting a trail and we worked with Jo Ann. Or she did and the Park people for the trail going around it but this just isn't a trail with somebody walking across close to your garage. It's a road close to your garage so therefore it's still... Councilman Johnson: An easement. Tim Foster: I understand. I think it still is the time for is when the major portion comes in and that's when either the 80 acres or some major development canes in there and I don't forsee that occurring until the MUSA line allows some type of development there. And when that's going to occur, I still think Jay that you control the cards. Councilman Johnson: Not for Lot 2. We control Lot 2 today. When that 80 acres develops, we control that 80 acres but we control Lot 2 today. And if we give away that, we're going to hand then that card today. We're going to say here it is. No easement or we're going to keep the card. We're going to have this easement and we'll slide that thing up our selves to play it same other day but if we hand the card over, unless they want to came in and give the card back to us. 1 Tim Foster: As you recall the studies done by Van Horn or whatever the name of the people was that did the studies, there wasn't any of the roads that went through to TH 5. They all went in and came back out through the 80 acres. It wasn't even suggested that they go through there anyway I think. 63 ' City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 tCouncilman Johnson: Nov does Crimson Bay have a road access going all the way 1 to the property line? A road easement? Gary Warren: Yes. Jo Ann Olsen: A 25 foot easement. ' Councilman Johnson: 25 feet. So when the property to the north of them develops, they get another 25 and have 50. Gary Warren: The property to the east of them. Councilman Johnson: Or east of them. Gary Warren: The Arboretum. ' Councilman Johnson: The Arboretum. If the Arboretum ever were to develop, then we would be able to connect and there would be the ability to go out to TH 5. There would be the ability to access Crimson Bay from the north versus having to access it only from TH 5 in case of a natural disaster or something. It makes ' sense to reserve that ability. I don't know, there's probably 10 times a year we give back those easements because we got them 20 years ago, 30 years ago and finally decided they weren't worth having but something could have changed and ' they might have been worth having. Once you give it away, you never get it back. Tin Foster: Never say never. Councilman Johnson: I haven't seen many people came walking up and say, oh yeah. Cone on and put a road access through here. Cbncilwaman Diner: Jay, I guess I would like to hear the two buyers of the property come up and tell us how getting that easement now is going to affect the placement of their hares. Peter Brandt: In terms of obtaining an easement right now, I guess I don't . I understand why you would need one for that piece of property specifically because we are essentially surrounded by either 80 acres, which Tam Courtenoy owns. The other piece of property or the Crimson Bay thing on the other side or the Arboretum. If you're going to build roads in there, you'll probably came in through the 80 acres more than likely. You're not going to came in through Crimson Bay because that's going to create a traffic problem on TH 5 for you. Councilwoman Disler: Could you address how it's going to affect the placement of your home if we take the easement now? Peter Brandt: Well, I guess I can't tell you specifically how it's going to ' impact the design of our home but it could. We haven't designed it yet so we would have to work around that sort of thing. I think the studies that have been done show that that type of a road in the first place is going to be, it's I going to hurt the properties. Not only our property but also the Crimson Bay properties because they're going to have to build a grade in there which will, 1 64 1 city council Meeting - February 12; 1990 1 point of view and a visibility point of view and all the other activities, is a lot more desireable than going onto TH 5. Also, the second thing that you've just touched on is the topography's very tough up there. You're talking about putting 150 foot swath through this Outlot 2 and also going onto Lot 5 of Crimson Bay. I think when the 80 acres of Foster's is developed and when the Apple Orchard is developed, you've got opportunities to look for alternative accesses on TH 5 which won't conflict with the Arboretum entrance and you'll have other opportunities to get a couple of accesses onto TH 41 which is a lot less density as far as traffic goes in TH 5 so. And I think that was a concern when we developed Crimson Bay and it doesn't make any sense to take all the Tanadoona traffic, the Dogwood traffic and dump that out onto TH 5 at the critical entrance to the Arboretum. Mayor Qir iel: Thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: In spite of whatever I've said... Councilwoman Dimler: What did you say at that time Jay? Councilman Johnson: At what time? Councilwoman Dimler: The Council that Dan is referring to was the former Council. Were you a part of that? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Councilwoman Dimler: How did you feel about the TH 5 issue at that time? Councilman Johnson: Oh, I wanted to keep traffic off of TH 5. If you've ever turned into Crimson Bay, especially if you're eastbound on TH 5 and try to turn into Crimson Bay. It's taking your life into your own hands. Councilwoman Dimler: So then it would crake sense not to bring the easement through? I mean to get the easement to bring the road through back onto TH 5? Councilman Johnson: Well an easement out to the Apple Orchard or to there and at that point when the Apple Orchard goes, it gives that back door there. There is a lot of capabilities here. Future easement up the side of Lot 1 when the 80 acres develops. That gives a very short cul-de-sac then. When the Apple Orchard develops, we can connect into Crimson Bay from the Apple Orchard. In this case, despite what I'm saying, I love to reserve easements before. I like to have as many cards. Since I'm going to Reno tomorrow, I like to have as many cards up my sleeve as I can get but in this case, I'm not sure if it's absolutely necessary because when the Apple Orchard or the 80 acres develop we should cut that... Councilman Workman: Are you talking about the Arboretum developing? That's the second time I heard that. Is the Arboretum... Councilman Johnson: Eventually maybe. Who knows what's going to happen in 50 years. Councilman Boyt: Tax free land? 67 _ I - City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 Mayor Chmuel: That will probably stay there forever. Councilman Johnson: It would take a heck of a lot of pressure to do it. Councilman Workman: That's not an option out to TH 5. Councilman Johnson: No, I don't want it out to TH 5. Councilman Workman: Or 41. That's not really an option. Councilman Johnson: And Crimson Bay? See I'm not too sure if I want to connect too many more lots into the Crimson Bay. Then people are running through Crimson Bay out to TH 5 and TH 5 is a mess. Whether they're ever going to 4 lanes through Lake Minnewashta. Councilman Workman: But do we want a rule long cul-de-sac? ' Councilman Johnson: The mile long cul-de-sac would be solved when the 80 acres. I mean we've got that now with the only way to turn around is to go into saRebody's driveway at the end of Dogwood. This extends almost, it doesn't ' extend anything does it? Tim Foster: Tom, if we would just look at the work that the engineers did in 1988, every one of the plans A, B, C and D all went back out through the 80 acres. Councilman Boyt: But there's no loop Tim. There's still only, it's just a long T instead of. Tim Foster: No, there was some plans that looped and some that T'd. ' Councilman Boyt: Well I think I've got all four of then in front of me and I don't see a loop in any of than. Have you got one? ' Councilman Johnson: They weren't looking at future development on this plan anyway. They were looking at what can we do now. They weren't looking at when this was within the MUSA line. That was not their objective in this study. Gary Warren: I believe, if I could just interject, the feasibility study that Van Doren was directed to do was with the conclusion that a Crimson Bay connection was not a part of their evaluation. Councilman Johnson: That's right. Councilman Boyt: that does that mean? Gary Warren: That they were not to look at taking it any further to the south. That was pretty well concluded already that that would not, the Council wasn't interested at that time in pursuing that connection and therefore we were just dealing with the internal street setup on how to address Dogwood and Tanadoona. That's the reason why the report does not talk about going out to TH 5. Councilman Boyt: Gary, through the 80 acres, I don't see a loop. Do you remember a loop? This isn't a loop because we were going to shut off this. 68 City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 Gary Warren: The only loop that I recall is somewhat to what was proposed here is that the road pattern through the cutting, transversing through the 80 acres, if you would keep Tanadoona in place. That really wasn't attractive because of the camp property and the difficulty in passing on assessments for that road improvement. Councilman Boyt: Now what I see here is alternative D, exhibit 6. I don't know if you have a graphic of that but it shows Tanadoona crossed out. Councilman Johnson: We made two slightly shorter cul-de-sacs off the end. I Councilman Boyt: Right, a T. Gary Warren: Right. That was as close as you get I think to the loop. 1 Councilman Johnson: That's still undeveloped to the 80 acres. That 80 acres develop, part of that cul-de-sac may connect to other road systems. There will be other roads going...and a road going through there. They didn't look at what the ultimate development would be. They only looked at the short tem in this study. Councilman Workman: I don't know if this makes anybody happy but I think there's sufficient confusion that we might want to table this. I know there's people who are intending to buy a lot and the lot hinging on that. I don't know that we want to make an eleventh hour decision on this this evening because there's quite a bit in the balance for individuals. Why don't we work with staff. I know this packet was extra big and it wasn't fun. This is number 9 but I think we should maybe move a little bit slower about the potential for future :covenant to Crimson before we just kind of shoot it here. Councilman Boyt: I would second that. , Mayor Gael: Yeah. It's been moved and seconded to have staff review and come up with some more conclusions. I Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table action on - Preliminary Plat $89-11 to subdivide 20.9 acres into two single family lots for Peter and Deanna Brandt. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREENTS, FIRST READING. Councilwaran Dimler: I move item 11. Councilman Johnson: Second. ' Mayor Oiriel: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor. Councilman Boyt: Whoa! 1 69 CITY OF CHANHASSEN • • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss , Planning Director FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician 424 DATE: February 21 , 1990 SUBJ: Future Road Access to To Trunk Highway 5 from Zimmerman Farm Subdivision File No. 90-2 Land Use Review At the February 12, 1990 City Council meeting, the Council Y . Y g► requested staff to look at traffic impacts on Trunk Highway 5 if II a roadway was constructed in the future linking the Zimmerman Farm plat through Crimson Bay Road to Trunk Highway 5. The initial platting request for this parcel appeared before the City Council in July, 1987 . A feasibility report prepared by Van Doren, Hazard, Stallings (Attachment #1) identified two 1 alternatives for connection to the Worm property which has since been platted as Crimson Bay. Alternative "A" proposed a straight line connection from the end of existing Dogwood Road right-of-way to the street right-of-way provided with the plat of Crimson Bay. Alternative "B" proposed construction of a street along the lot lines of the proposed three lots for connection to Crimson Bay Road. Both alignments were physically possible, however, it was concluded to not be economically feasible. In addition, there were concerns that additional traffic generated from existing Dogwood Road would only intensify congestion at Trunk Highway 5, Therefore, this access alternative was deleted and not pursued any further . Recent discussions with MnDOT Traffic Engineer Evan Green 11 regarding the possible future through-street of Crimson Bay Road to Dogwood Road received favorable response. In fact, MnDOT would actually prefer such a connection to limit access points onto either Trunk Highway 5 or Trunk Highway 41 from the Arboretum property. In 1994 MnDOT proposes to improve Trunk Highway 5 from Trunk Highway 41 to Waconia. Proposed improvements will include resurfacing, flatten slopes and vertical curves and modify intersections with turn lanes. These are safety related improvements that would not add new traffic lanes. 1 Paul Krauss February 21, 1990 Page 2 The applicant's engineer has indicated access to Crimson Bay Road was feasible with street grades in the range of 7%. However , extensive slope grading would be required necessitating tree removal along this alignment. It appears that by increasing street grades to a maximum of 10%, following the alignment of the power line and modifying the typical street section by eliminating gravel shoulders or possibly adding retaining walls similar to the Near Mountain development, that tree loss could be significantly diminished. This would have to be worked out in the final design to know for sure. Even if full dedication of a 60-foot wide roadway easement is granted through the plat, it would still be necessary to acquire a roadway easement across the Arboretum property in order to complete the connection to Crimson 11 Bay Road. Should dedication of a 60-foot wide roadway easement through to Crimson Bay Road be approved, Council may wish to vacate the existing cul-de-sac on Dogwood Road (Attachment #3 ) . A temporary turnaround built to City specifications is proposed on Lot 1 by the applicant which would satisfy Public Safety' s interest until a roadway is constructed through to Crimson Bay Road. A temporary roadway easement over the proposed turnaround is recommended until a connection to Crimson Bay Road is constructed. The City currently does not provide maintenance on Tanadoona Drive or Dogwood Road and such is not anticipated until the streets in the area are brought up to full City standards. Previous staff reports recommended improving the segment of Dogwood road (Lake Drive) proposed within the plat. However , the consensus between the Planning Commission and City Council was not favorable; therefore, staff is withdrawing this recommendation. , RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the preliminary plat of Zimmerman Farm dated October 18, 1989, revised January 10 , 1990, with the following conditions: 1. A 60-foot wide roadway easement shall be dedicated across 11 Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 to connect with Crimson Bay Road. The street alignment shall follow the existing right-of-way dedicated as Dogwood Road until the intersection of Lot 2, Block 1, then continue southeasterly along the power line easement to Crimson Bay Road (Attachment #2 ) . The existing right-of-way dedicated as a cul-de-sac on Dogwood shall be vacated after recording of said roadway easement. 2. Erosion control shall be Type II. I 3. The applicant shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources. I Paul Krauss February 21, 1990 Page 3 4. The street name on the plat should be changed to reflect the current street name of Dogwood Road. 5 . The applicant shall dedicate to the City a temporary roadway easement for the proposed turnaround. 1 ktm Attachments: 1. Feasibility Report from Van Doren, Hazard, Stallings . 2 . Proposed road alignment. 3 . Proposed right-of-way vacation . c: Gary Warren , City Engineer 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 r 1 i i I , 0 • r..; • . , s 1 2 : - • r" - tr v - - r = = = - '- • i/ I 1 I )\N s INSEr I � _ -��.�• � NIL n 1 I ?� ' i'' j�f .�.,t.���� ".� -�s+io`�rnnp ---i A ,. /.•w•►:..-- tom_. lfADWA- I - L_ /�j f�=�-; 1 �CRIM9^N �l11T 7A� <f�:��.�./.-- d" �,���� v�' -it .ffe:s .)--ivrec .1 ,.,A . f � �� IF se:- ' '` if ,foil Li y$ , !elr /,. I • it‘ I . . e I; . Ji? Ej ft, V 1 - : io ig I [ ' 1i1 F i r� I. Fiit-' i 6 : t ii _ 6i f5.ii-i fli-'i #= =a' #F 1 F[i E is€�i ifp m pi gi[i[i !IN lip lip pit p i ; sea i•-[g Et iii: a ��•'••� ae �5iz i [a p f.• ea: t i•- i•• i : tt [ iE aa i'g pi Mid i 5si i i i=i i i[ i f if; { i s l'1 v[ Mir Mil i +�! i �iai ii �vi f t1{i! Ei-Isa it p f �!`ptyhF ' Oil 1siii -!;3 '''i I- 'I' 114 a ii; ' at if' i9 Iii F:iS E •fiefs{. ieet ic� i �=ii9=E F �` o 1i i iiit[ i �a[ gild[ !i e•; i i[ 31.0' 1 1%11 Ill `55l 1 ill 1 islaf z ihrtz-t1 ss iE FFiyiica•1 •i .•ilip114111:;Y i= 1 [i° er a i i+ I.'- S ai a-i i 1 [ •• :JeN -t 1-:i sal• L s [ it 1 [ gis.i ;11 � ; v i [, � a a [ i E ( v I-;i F ;'i �• n+ : +I e 3 @ i [1 !! i! j ` fiE i e_lsppi- ti i fill ti E1° III;ii � �vs lit VIII ��v p[8! si 1 i • • (� iz�•-1+ I• - t'�`- Fi ti I s v ?ii[[+.gg cI 1 v [ i e a i ! i i• re/ i 1 i 5I[ fire [ei i i E i[i i1•� j i 11-4;altIr:.:getl:rtil&ail Fi i i!°i. . sl { etrs � [ ia� iii i.I e; [ a: ire s i ii" e[s y °a s i isg.i• 5loi; iei:i s e t F i 3 i v9P'- Pi-s.i al a [:- [ a Pieer [ [[a ! . =-°�i �ij t �1ia�fit I Is 1 i� �'"'- f a.i°2 :gi; :ii i� 1� 111 g�;s61 di�y I a i [ [v •t � i i' a i �•�-e•ive;�F � s '���� �ii�i ii ii iFe �E4. ias it i �d '§ F11i�i- l:iI= a :i-1::-14g,( p' f: I! • i[i[[!siE-� =.ii is i i, is II, s 1 [ ;[ i i [ii trill i:1411:1 It II = 111?1 1• i _ff ' !ill '412 it .1.[ ii i of i is ivi ff i a il- e.ii[- g t lit: - sE ATTACHMENT 2 i . . ,..___ , IT .` ZIMMERMAN FARM N _ James R.HiII,inc. icon 'r^:^ _'^€ PRELIMINARY ORAOINO ANO EROSION CONTROL►LAM ! r-q"a d.3 i :^ . !o. ' �;�,� PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS I • TIMOTHY O.POSTER ,�.�.._.�- i tit,r[TRO 11f1.f71R6.YR.11•!1 ,...p6.r..r We J•.4•K•. • IOONNOTON.WI 1•.71 • f.1•M-0771 N , N Iv f \ \ / �, s'^ t \ Imo/ • t 4 ____ ___ ___ ___ ik, 2. , ___, t --,. c7.r-- -___ ;c4._ cuiniig / Jo ND Saha-E- II • '� ? /? �. FRap OSEa i I i �— T�-MPoRrt+-1 Pli DT• Tu RN R�uu D t4 �Zm � LHo' ) l •I b.; ___.f) il 1 ;r .5 L.t1 U I Leer I co I I ;6 \gym \ I — N I; \ N I 3 \ ) ----- . -------- , �� S 8943'07 � �Z 3 E 367,1. •R 4 't I \ .....A.0 rn h%, ptteposED Ca•WbO D RD .' ; = t , ,-DE-sue VAG*T1oN j I 111 i 1 f' N\ LAKE 1) I MiN NEW ASNT A so!: _ --------- --- / S 89'40' I25 / II I II 11 // — e. r.sf 1.-:(31 �. ��� a / �. ra_ 1__ is1 LL 1251 i:..i I `f IQ co 1 ( <=1 „1I 1 1 ATTACHMENT 3 Van Doren. Ns Hazard:- taping ■ Inc:: July 17, 1987 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 Planning Commission Mayor and City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 I ATTENTION: Barbara Dacy Dear Ms. Dacy: I The enclosed information constitutes the location study for the Extension of Dogwood Road. This is not a Chapter 429 feasibility study which would have to be undertaken at a later time if the City chooses to go ahead with the project. The material has been assembled in accordance with the direction provided by the Planning Commission. i This report contains alignments 'and cost information for two alternates for connecting existing Dogwood Road with the proposed new street in the South Bay Subdivision. Both alternates are technically feasible. , We appreciate this opportunity to provide continued engineering services to the City of Chanhassen. At your convenience, the personnel of Van Doren-Hazard-Stallings, Inc. are available to further discuss the details of this study with the staff, Planning Commission, City Council and interested residents. 11 Very truly yours, VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS, INC. 1 by: J L. 5..g,a. Robert L. Sellers I Senior Engineering Technician RLS:fa 11 enc. I ATTACHMENT 1 i a • .f/ ;: t. .. -- ' .-ss: 7`‘ :‘ -.\ ' ' 0 I 7 - ". ' '� I M / N N E W A S H T A ,` . .?. i I . A ',ME I _ • �441% ZIMMERMAN FARM PLAT Jv fir/ . , • t O DgIV E . .A . .. I Fr. III r- ye 4/ . .1 A . I `v_ C N , STUDY LOCATION 1 � I _ POND `,4 SOUTH BAY PLAT -11 -i%' I ---..... ST ATE ` MS HYTAY I DOGWOOD RD. EXTENSION LOCATION EXHIBIT I LOCATION STUDY MAP NO. 1 t • INTRODLKTION , In its current state Dogwood Road, along with Tanadoona Drive, is a dead end road approximately 5100 feet in length. The Dogwood Road portion has a gravel surface approximately 12' to 15' wide and serves 10 existing residences. The recent filing of two plats--South Bay and Zimmerman Farm--has raised the possibility of connecting Dogwood Road to a proposed street in the South Bay plat to alleviate the dead end condition (Exhibit No. 1). Therefore, the Planning Commission ordered this study to examine the possibility of this connection. ALTERNATES Two alternates were looked at in detail for the purpose of this study. 1 Alternate "A" is a direct connection from existing Dogwood Road to the ' proposed new street in the South Bay subdivision. Alternate "B" would go around the perimeter of the proposed lots in the Zimmerman Farm plat then connect with the street in South Bay. A discussion of each follows: ALTERNATE "A" I As described above, this alternate would provide basically a straight line connection from existing Dogwood Road to the new street in the South Bay subdivision (Exhibit No. 2). The alignment would follow reserved right-of-way for most of the length beginning at Lot 4 in the South Bay and extending north approximately I 1220 feet to Lot 1 of Zimmerman Farm. Right-of-way adjacent to Lots 4 and 5 of South Bay would have to be acquired from the University of Minnesota and additional right-of-way would be required across Lot 3 of Zimmerman Farm. This alignment would alter the existing Zimmerman Farm plat by severing existing Lot 3 thereby creating two lots. Both remaining portions would meet the minimum lot size requirements with the westerly portion being approximately three acres. This additional lot would count in the total lots allowed for the property, therefore, outlot "A" could only be subdivided into six (6) additional lots. Further investigation would be necessary to determine if there is suitable area on the westerly lot to locate the septic systems since the slope on the majority of the lot exceeds 12%:L. The terrain for this 11 alignment is rolling at the north and south ends with a section of very steep slopes (12%11 across Lot 3 of Zimmerman Farm and part of Lot 1 of South Bay. The grades range from 8% through the steep slope section to 1% - 3% for the remainder of the alignment. The depth of cut would be up to 9' ± in some areas. The cost of this alternate, based on a 24' wide paved section with bituminous curbs, is $97,500. Construction Cost $75,000 Engineering & Administration $ 7,500 Contingencies - $ 7,500 Staking & Inspection $ 7,500 TOTAL $97,500 2 , • 1 k $1/ 1 ..e=1:kr "-1 I a.7".•"14" >77-----..---7 7----....,•-,-...-4-;a. IF I l l I I _IL, _ .___:. ...-z--_:-..,=.. <2...-_ - s. , 7- . :_, -.-..-.___...-:--ti,_ -%,.;:...---. --,-:-:: ..--...:. •..1..-.... ..isi i I :1.::', ' -,1714`.'N-..-*,.t- s'''.)*\ 1. .; I ek%.. i :•4.71./ /' • . % \••• '` _ ( );!)11 ` i ),/;,, • .1.4....0r...: ...„(1% •,,s ....s..\1, )/0,1 14: 43---; ).:,/,, / '''.1.-.157) r A 11)) -'-- - - ,,// It Y, .7 . rFiti' fOri ..i inirt i) / -4 f/ 4', / ' . A• \!} it 01 , // / A .fi ',0.1 , i 0.. . 1p , •......, l 'i) if, i I. `, f 'i1 • • 4'L4 :: ."-.:: \I\.."..‘\1.4/ (45:-..'%:::S.:••- ... '7;:.;PT:~ ••• svA _____. ... ,:..4 s..;,, I ..-..i.....:`, \%\;et.. .. . . ..r.....7.....::.'- , -• N N , \r ,_.. IN,.... .. .. .. -: _____ :19 . �•.�t• .\` *,' ...• ice ij ��� iv t \ 1 • "..t.:.:-.'::..:. •":.•-- .. , -‘)•\ • • 1 ' 1 -;.....`;-_,...--.... --- -.., i A, 447%...,_______4, 0 li rilhP.41111 . 'Al,.,:7 n . , , , • ...: . .., ,v, _ , , , ,, , 4,,\ . II ../ I 1 I a likv\ ... .... „..... .iti lir, ,,,;ii .\ 1 i -.II 4 f s)\\ , ‘"4. i. . ----% 1 ; ‘A f ss Nk.s.: 1 111■11: A. d .-• 7.I....Z.,..... .. ID 8 1,, ,*".•* .1..1 a .. . II 1.H.:. . '....:r',c •‘'.•..N's, 1.4 ip e /.... ....—...:„....,.....V. 1 Ili ;0/ , :411'..1111411 p -,:ig. ., �. • 11.1'.'\ $ jf" �— :,•— I_••` 1 _ _` I i DOGWOOD RD. EXTENSION EXHIBIT •, 1 LOCATION STUDY I ALTERNATE "A' _ NO. 2 • COST SUMMARY Alternate "A" Alternate "B" Construction Cost $75,000.00 $170,000.00 1 Engineering & Administration $ 7,500.00 $ 17,000.00 Contingencies $ 7,500.00 $ 17,000.00 Staking & Inspection $ 7,500.00 $ 17,000.00 ' TOTAL $97,500.00 $221,000.00 Notes: 1. Alternate "A" Cost based on a modified rural section - Typical Section 1. 2. Alternate "B" cost based on a standard rural section - Typical Section 2. 3. No right-of-way costs are included in either alternate. I/ 1 I/ I/ 1 6 a 3 o - • s ti a 60' cc • 4' 8' 6' `24' I7 4246 N .r�' •... ,4.,;`N+' ri:::,.11.4 wI'n1:Y 00%::r tt.7ij• .w»ye. '�!40- 1 • I3" 2341 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 8° CLASS 5 GRAVEL (100%CRUSHED) • .6° CLASS 5 GRAVEL SHOULDERS 1100%CRUSHED) . 1 TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2 I e s - o Q s t 2 40' Of 60' I . F---s'--- 24' ..—s'—. . , • I tCM • I - riff MAt - I TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1 I • • DOGWOOD RD. EXTENSION TYPICAL • EXHIBIT I LOCATION STUDY SECTIONS NO. 4 - ` CITYOF i , 4. . :„. . CHANHASSEN • .,. : . ! . 4 ,, , • I690 COULTER DRIVE• P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 , (612)937-1900 • FAX(612) 937-5739 IACtIO by Gty Admlrttsttator MEMORANDUM EMor D WIC • II Rejecte,t T0: Don Ashworth,, City Manager Re)ected Date A- 1-5.2 FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner pate Submitted to Commission, IDATE: February 7. 1990 4 Submmod to Council bite SUBJ: City Council Update - Brandt Subdivision X-11•46 IPROPOSAL/SUMMARY I The applicant is proposing to subdivide 20 acres into two 10 acre parcels. As with previous review of this property, the proposed plat meets all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance and all issues have been addressed, except the provision of road access IIand Location of a trail easement. the current application is providing an additional 40 foot wide ROW adjacent to an existing 20 foot ROW to provide the rural standard of 60 feet. The issue 1 at hand is whether the 60 foot ROW Should be improved beyond what currently exists and what additional . roadway easements should be provided to accommodate any.suture development that may occur. 1 :, On January 17, 1990, the ,Planning Commission recommended approval of Subdivision #89-11 asxshown on plans dated November 13, 1989. All voted in favor except Conrad and Batzli who opposed the 1 motion for the reason'`that they felt the would prefer to see further study on the route taken by the tower line with potential connection to Crimson Bay Road at a future time. Staff had recommended thattbe-°iight-of=way servicing the two newly created lots be a improved" "-city-standards lat.!this time. I The Planning Commission did not feel that improvement:4of the road was required at this time. The Planning Commissioh "'did agreed that the easement for °future connection.,�to--the'east should be provided. The applicant has works `with the Engineering I Department since the Planning omatission meeting to relocate the turnaround servicing the two lots" so that it could be located to service some of the existing lots along Lake Minnewashta. Staff I has reviewed this option and has approved the relocation of the turnaround. The turnaround "must be improved to city standards to provide year round access for emergency vehicles. I I I } II Mr. Don Ashworth February 7, 1990 Page 2 CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on the I plans dated November 13, 1989, with the following conditions: 1. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of- way for the full 60 foot rural street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive is improved or until development in the area would require improvement. 2. The developer shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District. 3. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm from the southeast corner of Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision. 4. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. I 5. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland per- mit as would any dredging or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. 6. There will be a cul-de-sac at the end of a system of private ' driveways that serve the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and plans and specs for that cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. If the parties decide not to use the system of private drivways but rather use Lake Drive somehow, they will still be responsible for providing a cul-de-sac at the end that meets the approval of the City Engineer. " ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated January 17, 1990. 2. Staff report submitted to the Planning Commission. 1 I I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 18 I Ellson: We're hoping like you said, to propose it in July so that would ' probably make it spring or something. Conrad: One thing I failed to do as we made that motion and Joan, what I always do is I make sure that the negative, those that don't vote for it, highlight their key reasons for not voting. So Annette, can you summarize briefly? ' Ellson: I agreed with staff recommendation for the access to the south because of future development. That I think we should have it ready in case. • Ahrens: I agree. I think that we should get access when we can. It's very hard to go back and try and get access when you need it. . . ' PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF ' 10.1 AND 10.2 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED RR AND LOCATED OFF OF DOGWOOD, EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA, JUST NORTH OF CRIMSON BAY, PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT. Public Present: Name Address Kurt Laughinghouse Represenative for the Applicant Peter and Deanna Brandt Applicant John Getsch 7510 Dogwood Road Ed Getsch Dogwood Road Ken Daniels Owner of Proposed Lot 1 Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Conrad: Jo Ann, could you summarize for me your recommendation? What, in 11 terms of the clearing. Olsen: What we pointed out was that if the road was to be a full rural ' standard street must be provided in here, that actually if you drive out here you just kind of go -> real easily and that's where it's already cleared. We're just pointing out that rather than clearing additional land and leveling the topography, it would be less expensive to install the ' street there. You wouldn't have as wide of an area. Conrad: Yeah. And that is your recommendation? Olsen: Well our actual recommendation is that they provide the 60 foot. We don't require conditioning 100 foot right-of-way to be dedicated.. . ' We're just pointing it out that that's probably the best location for a road. Conrad: Okay, we'll open it up for public comments. Is the applicant here ' or a representative? Mr. Laughinghouse. I've seen you here before on this Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 19 i issue. Kurt Laughinghouse: Yes sir . Mr . Chairman and commissioners. I sure have. I And the issues haven't changed an awful lot. I 'm representing Mr. and Mrs. Brandt who are here. They are the purchasers of what is proposed Lot 2. The south lot. Subsequent to their application the northerly lot was purchased by Mr. Ken Daniels and he is here this evening. I know that some of the other neighbors of this property are here and they probably have something to say. To set the stage a little bit for those commissioners 11 who weren't here a year ago. The owner of this entire 100 acre property, Tim Foster who does live here in Chanhassen and has for some 10 years, applied to divide the 100 acres into 4 lots. It was one 80 acre lot and this 20 was divided then, or proposed to be divided into the 10 that you see on the south and two 5 acre lots. Ultimately the Planning Commission recommended and it did not go to Council , a lot of road development and in effect Foster withdrew the application. He then subsequently sold the 80 II acre parcel to another party and a home is being built on that property. Now with this 20 acres we propose to simply divide it into two 10 acre lots. I think the fact that it's being platted is almost a quirk in the law in the sense that these 10 acre lots are hardly, it's hardly an urbanization of this property. It's really only a matter of getting to the zoning but because it is a plat, then the City has a review and that is why we're discussing all these roads and streets. I guess the short series is that it's an awful lot like, if you've read all this transcript from a year ago, the story is the same. This land is not being subdivided. It's not being developed. Foster bought 100 acres of property. Ultimately he now II proposes that 3 homes be built on a 100 acres of property. It is not as though it's urbanized and we don't know whether urban services, sewer and water will be delivered in 5 years or 50 years to this area. Probably a lot less than 50. Probably a lot more than 5 years. It's when the urban services are delivered, sewer and water, is when we should deal with paving streets and things of that nature. I feel. Sewer and water are going to come in from the east along TH 41. Along Tanadoona. And that 80 acre property will develop before these 10 acre properties are reached. I think II that's the reason that I propose that you not require the 30 foot easement on the north side of what is Lot 1 here. When the 80 acre property is developed, and we all agree that someday somebody, if not the current owner. Their heirs or somebody that they sell the land to, will develop that property. When that happens, all of the terrain, that whole 80 acres will be considered. Having that 30 acre easement there might even be a 11 distraction as to what the best development of that 80 acres is or what the best development of the whole 100 acres is. If this subdivision is approved, each of these owners can only put 1 house on the 10 acres. This II is rural zoning, and that's all they hope to do. Someday in the future either they, and they'll deny it, with they and their heirs will subdivide the land. We know that. But that is when all of us should get together again and decide the best way to lay out streets and lots in this neighborhood. We understand fully and we agree with increasing that right-of-way on the west side of the property to the full 60 feet and that means that these owners will dedicate 40 feet. We do not agree that that should be paved. In fact we feel very strongly that the road will not be developed in the future in that area. The lake lots are long lots. Sewer and water service will probably go on the other side, on the lake side of I 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 20 II all those homes, if that ever happens because that's the only way that you II can put gravity sewer in there. Be on the lake side of all those lake homes. And so I think it would be murderous to take the 60 foot right-of- way where we propose to grant it just for a matter of for the record let's us say and then pave that. Now there is, as was described by Ms. Olsen, a II 40 or 50 foot wide power line easement that is utterly devastated as we all know and that only happened about a year and a half or two ago. There's no reason in the world to believe that that is where a street will go in the I future. Just because there are no trees there now, by the time sewer and water arrives, at this point in the world, that might be 20 years from now. There could be 20 year old trees on that property. The owner of the 80 I acre parcel intends to bury the power line through his property. I think that the owners that are purchasing this property may well do it. I know that the neighbors to the east would like to see that power line buried and I inquired a couple days ago with Minnesota Valley and it's about $3.00 I a running foot to bury that power line so that may be what will happen there. Then that land may grow up and we may have an oak woods there instead of this power line easement. So I think, and that just underscores I the point that this is not a development. It is a plat and technically therefore it's subject to all requirements, a street and all this and so forth but it really is just two 10 acre lots on a 20 acre lot and ultimately is 3 lots on a 100 acre parcel . It is a very modest request of I the city so. We agree with all the staff recommendations except for two points. One is that the Lake Drive should be paved. We think it should not be paved. Secondly, that the 30 foot easement across the north line of I the property, we feel that that should not be required mostly because we simply do not know where roads are going to be needed in the future. So I probably said more than I need to. If there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer them but some others may want to speak to this. Thank you. Conrad: Thank you. Other comments? II John Getsch: I'm John Getsch. I'm at 7510 Dogwood Road. Just own the property there. The proposed subdivision as it's laid out there, as brought our earlier , is at the end of a mile long cul-de-sac. It really I just, as Mr. Laughinghouse said, they're just dividing that lot 'if half which is not a major problem but planning for the future is the big problem here. Whenever this has been brought up before and the subdividing, it seems like whoever wants to subdivide it, does not want to have an easement I on their property. The problem's never going to get taken care of until some easements are put in there. As we just saw in the earlier problem, when there's no provision put in there, they don't get an easement now out I of there, there's going to be a fight and they're going to come back and say, well it's got to come when the 80 acres is developed. It's got to come all out of the 80 acres because the easement was granted earlier. I I think there needs to be plans now, somehow of getting a road out and it has to be started now. 20 feet along the properties that are along the lake, there really isn't any other easement other than that coming all the way in there. The other issue is the easement for the power lines. How is that II going to be handled and put back in there. The problem with the trees and moving the road over where it's proposed there is acceptable. That's what we have talked with Kurt when he was trying to develop this before and said IIit's got to be put on. It doesn't make any sense to go in there and rip r Planning Commission Meeting II January 17, 1990 - Page 21 out 150 year old trees when the power company already dick it for you. And ' nothing's going to grow there as long as the power company sprays it every year to keep it from anything coming back. The other issue that was brought up, I think it was last fall. I can't remember, was a trail coming through from the south. Some type of trail and there was talk about something easement. I know it's not in here that there is nothing showing III for any plan of that. It just deadends coming off of Crimson Bay there. You'll see there was an easement granted up to the edge of the property II through Crimson Bay and nothing has been done to follow that and that was brought up in the last meeting when this was looked at and they were talking about running all the way around the 80 acres. Running I think it I was around to the east. Running along the south edge of the property and then up along the east, cutting through to the Campfire camp property and then through up to the park. Olsen: The trail easement, I forgot to point that out. They're proposing II a trail easement along in here. John Getsch: Okay. So that is part of the. . . 1 Olsen: Yeah. I forgot to mention it. John Getsch: Those are the only real concerns I have right now. For future planning, to get the easement because there is no other way of improving that road right now unless the people along the lake want to have II their garages and homes ripped out. It's the only way. There's no place to move towards the lake. Thank you. Ed Getsch: My name is Ed Getsch. I'm at the very end of a 5,000 foot cul-de-sac which doesn't bother me at all. What bothers me is the potential of widening what the power company did to the property about 2 years ago. The way it was proposed earlier that they develop the road in I purple but not take any trees down and that's a little difficult to do. They either have to put the road where it's cleared or they're going to have to clear 100 foot wide swath through the woods west of the present power line. I don' t think there's even an easement there at this point. I II think it's only there because it was run 50 years ago so I don't think there's any defined easement there. I ran into a problem about 6 months ago I wanted to run underground electric up to the power pole and the Electric Coop said well that's fine. You can run it up to the property but you're going to have to get an easement from the neighboring property to go over to the power line which is another 80 feet. Well, I think if they're II going to develop this. He doesn't want to call it a development but it's turning into a development, is that they either get their act together and do it all or don't do anything. Clean the road out. Put it in or do II nothing because we don't have access to the power lines. Maybe we'll have access someday. Maybe we won't. If it's cleared up in easements now, where the road is actually going to go. Where it's going to be cleared and where the power lines are going to go so we know where we can get our , access if we want another access to those other lots. Right now all of the last 7 lots are under one ownership so it's not really a problem right now but it could be in 10 years where if we want access to the road that's now II in blue up there, we're going to have to cross somebody elses property to 11 I .Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 22 get to it. So I think they need to define where the road's going to go and say what. They're saying we want to have it where the clearing is now. Jo Ann says let's put it where the purple is. Well, the two aren' t the same. They're about 80 feet apart. So that's all the complaints I have. ' Kurt Laughinghouse: It was something that wasn't described. Because of the topo on here, there's an awful lot of things that are hard to read. But if I may, this is the same. . . These are the 7 lots that Mr. Getsch has described that are under one ownership. The power line, and let me start again. There's a 20 foot easement that runs from here, in fact it runs all the way back down to TH 41 but then runs along the back edge of these lots and there's a little small partial cul-de-sac in here. That is currently owned by the City. The 20 feet. This proposal is to dedicate 40 feet or use easement, whichever it is, 40 more feet so there is a 60 foot ownership by the City here. Now, this land is in 150 year old oak trees and it's not ' our intention at all to have that paved. The power line runs approximately because Ed said, 80 feet from this point parallel to the road. And it runs down here along the Arboretum fence. It is that that was cleared at least 40 or 50 feet wide. What we didn't describe but it is hard to see in this topo so you didn' t realize it but there is an easement in favor of Lot 2 over Lot 1. It will be for ingress and egress purposes and we already have a description of it and will run from this point across a long power line and will terminate as Jo Ann Olsen described a 40 foot cul-de-sac. To city standards. I think permanent. . . Hempel: All weather. Kurt Laughinghouse: All weather. Be an all weather driveway. These purchasers, and they're both here to speak for themselves, want to live in this rural situation. We all know that someday it will be developed. In the meantime, they do propose to use the power line with an all weather driveway as do all these 17 homeowners along here. They have a 20 foot actual city owned road. So just to clarify. We agree completely with the Getsch's. This land under this right-of-way should not be developed into a road. Should not be paved. It is old oak trees. Then as a practical matter, a driveway will be an easement and we agreed to that. Put in a development agree in yesterday. Will go over the power line in this fashion to lead to access to this property. I hope that eases the concern. ' Ken Daniels: I got Lot 1. I just bought it. I don't know, I do know the owner of the 80 acres. Only because he plays golf at my golf club and he called me today and found out that I had bought that. Now the Lot 2, I don't know that person. I just met him tonight. My intent was not to put a number of houses or ever subdivide Lot 1. My only purpose in agreeing to allowing that easement across was to allow Lot 2 to have ingress and egress off his property. I don't like carving up easements over Lot 1 on the north or on the west side of that property. I understand the guy in Lot 2 needs to get in and out of his property and that's why I agreed to that. I don't think that I should be stuck paying for all these things however and I just don't see number one, the easement on the north side of the road. It doesn't make sense. To use easement you'd have to get the guy with the 80 acres to give you another 30 acres back and he's going to have to come in and plat that property if he wants to develop it. As far as a power I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 23 line going across that property, I would like to see it buried too.9 P P � • o. If there's reasonable cost for doing that, I 'd be happy to pay for it. I don't mind giving this other party an easement but I don't want to build him a highway through that property either. Okay? Thank you. Ed Getsch: My main concern is preserving what's there rather than II destroying any more. Also, how do we get to the power lines when they're buried? Now if they bury them along the easement for the road, weave in and out of the trees, the easement that's on that drawing. But if the power lines are buried over where it's now cleared or anywhere in that clearing, we have to cross at least your land to get to it and that needs to be addressed somewhere along the line. Otherwise I believe in property rights for the owner. So that's all I'm concerned about. • Peter Brandt: I'm Peter Brandt and I'm the purchaser of Lot 2. I just want to voice sort of my objection to putting a paved road in. If you've been out there before you'll realize that there are no paved roads. The road that goes out there right now is a dirt road. Putting in a 60 foot paved road at this point is going to look, first of all it's going to be ridiculous becaue neither of us can subdivide and have no intention of doing so. Secondly, all we're asking for is a driveway and putting a 60 foot driveway in doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense. Especially when you go back to some of Kurt's comments in terms of if the whole area II is going to be developed, you really have to look at the whole 100 acres. You can't just look at the two 10 acre parcels that are being subdivided today. Emmings: Why? I mean I think that's exactly what we're doing is looking at the two. I don't understand that at all. Maybe you could tell me why. Peter Brandt: Well first of all, the two 10 acre parcels are landlocked at 1 this point. There's property owners on all sides of us. There's 80 acres on the north side and the west side and then on the south side, the , Minnesote Arboretum has an apple orchard on the south side and then the Crimson Bay development is also on the south side. Emmings: We've all looked at this, this is the third time in the last I couple years so we're pretty familiar with it. But this is, the thing that's in front of us is the division of 20 acres into two 10 acre lots. It's not the division of 100 acres into three lots. ' Peter Brandt: Sure. And for that reason, I don't personally see a need for a 60 foot paved road pretty much in the middle of nowhere. It's going I to connect up to a dirt road. The other thing, in terms of the easement through the trees, we object very strongly to taking any trees out. One of the reasons we're interested in the land is because it's wooded. Although a very small portion of our property would actually be affected by it, as II far as we're concerned, any trees taken out are too many. Especially given the fact of the power company has already gone through and taken trees out for us. Hempel: Mr . Chairman, if I could just clarify the city standard road width for a rural. It is a 24 foot bituminous mat with 6 foot gravel shoulders. 11 I 'Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 24 I Not 60 foot pavement. ' Conrad: Thanks. Other comments. ' Batzli moved, Ellson seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. ' Conrad: Joan. What are your questions? Comments? You don' t have the background the rest of us do so you're. . . Ahrens: Yeah, why don't we start with Steve. I pass the buck. Conxad: That's fair. Any questions at all? ' Ahrens: I don' t understand some of this. First of all , there's a 20 foot roadway that the City owns on the west side of Lake Drive. Right? There's going to be, the road that is proposed to be put in is on the east side of ' Lake Drive. Right? So there'd be Lake Drive but it'd just be, so there'd be no access for. . .Lake Minnewashta. Conrad : Yeah, that's a good question. What would be the process, would there ever be a way to connect? Olsen: To connect? Conrad: Those lots that are currently serviced by the current road. By Dogwood. Let's say in 20 years, what would be a process to hook them into the new right-of-way? Olsen: The right-of-way right now is being proposed where they wouldn't have it. They would be adjacent to it. If the right-of-way went up to where the clearing is right now. Batzli : They'd be on a long cul-de-sac there. The people currently on Dogwood. Conrad: So there's really no benefit to those people for this particular road. The right-of-way that we're talking about right now. Even in the Ifuture, there is no long term benefit for them. They're still going to have a separate access to their own .property. ' Batzli: Ladd is talking about if we go the power line route, you're going to get a Y shape and the people currently on Dogwood. Emmings: I didn't know you were talking about the power line. Conrad: Oh, I'm sorry. I knew that. Ahrens: That's what I was asking about. The power lines. Wouldn' t there be a piece of land on Lot 1 that would go between the power line route and the access? i I Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 25 I Conrad: Yeah. Still under the ownership of those owning Lot 1 and 2. Ahrens: So there would be no access. ' Conrad: Not unless they sold it. Olsen: Or if it was all acquired as an easement now but that would mean that Lot 1 would be giving up about 100 feet. It's never been done. Ahrens: I'm going to go with that for a second. I do have a problem with II this provision, one of the conditions provided by staff. That Lots 1 and 2. Block 1 waive any rights to contest future assessments. . .Dogwood. i don't understand why they can do that. I don't know if that's possible. Olsen: It's been done before like in development contracts and such where. Elison: That's if you don't recommend the street. ' Olsen: Right. They're saying that at this point that they do not want to have a street but at some point that the street does need to be improved to ' provide the safety, the standards. Then at that point we want it to be made clear that. . . Elison: You could have got it now but we chose not to so we can get it later. Olsen: They always can still contest it but we kind of let them know that II at some point it will happen. Batzli: It's certainly making it of record as to those lots so that people " purchasing it will have noticed that the street was deferred to a later time. Ahrens: They have notice of the objection. ' Batzli: Yes. Whether they object or not, you can always object. 1 Conrad: You don't have anything else or do you want to think? Ahrens: I'm going to think about this. Batzli: Just an easy question first. Have they ever decided where the septic sites would be? I have a tough time deciphering these. It already II currently shows them? Olsen: On these plans, it should. Batzli: Oh. Okay. Those little dotted guys are septic sites? Olsen: Yes. The soil borings were performed years ago. ' 87 or so but they were all approved. Batzli: Things like that don' t change over time? I I II Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 26 I Olsen: No. Batzli: You wouldn't have a requirement to go out there and do it again? ' Olsen: No, you wouldn't. Batzli: Okay. Why aren't we, I remember hearing in past conversations why 11 we're not going to connect to Crimson Bay Road but explain to me why we're not going to do that. Olsen: In looking at the options we were thinking that the access onto ' like TH 5, . . .Dave input too but that that was going to be difficulty. It's already a bad intersection. When we went through this process before, in front of the Planning Commission, at that time it wasn't felt that this ' should be the connection to the south. We agreed to have, that' s still an option and we have looked at the cross sections and it can be accomplished. Still meet the City standards. Batzli: It seems to me that we just got done talking about long cul-de-sacs and here we have an even longer one. I don't know. It's obviously a very narrow dirt road at this point. ' Olsen: It was sort of a compromise between the staff and the applicant. They did not agree to having it go to the south. . .options for future connections and that's why we were going back to the east because in the all the feasibility studies, a lot of them showed roads going back through that section. It's still a possibility. It wouldn't be able to accomplish. . .unless the property from the Arboretum would come down. ' Essentially that splits Lot 2 into 2 lots also. If you do improve the street. Hempel : Mr. Chairman, I think the major factor why we're not considering the southern connection is because of TH 5. The intersection there, if you add traffic to it, it's going to get worst. We're looking at future ' upgrading of TH 5, the State is I should say, and at that time they're really requesting limited access. They might have only right turn, right out in that intersection also. Emmings: Does the upgrading go west, that the State is looking at, go west of TH 41? Hempel: Some day it will. Emmings: But it's not now? Hempel: But not in the immediate future, no. Conrad: So it's not topography? It's traffic you're telling me which is kind of new information. Hempel: Topography is difficult also but it could be managed. Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 27 I Emmings: They told us that topography was the thing, the reason we shouldn't do it the last time it was here is my recollection. ' Conrad: Yeah. That's where I was at. Steep grade and some other stuff. Obviously engineering wise we can do anything but I guess I 'm not swayed by traffic on TH 5 there. It seems, and I've always thought this, it seems like a nice solution for an access to that site but I was swayed by topography. It couldn't be done reasonably well and I guess I need confirmation that that's still the case. Olsen: Part of the reason is we do have new topo for out there and it showed that it's not as steep as what the original topo showed. Even on the plan, if you actually go out there, it doesn't look as steep and that' s II why, we did pursue the south access again and did show that it could be done. Hempel: The grades are more gentle up here the power lines are though. Actually where the right-of-way is proposed, the slope is much steeper. Conrad: On the Crimson Bay development we have an access or we have an easement going to the property line don' t we? Olsen: It's 25 feet past. 1 Conrad: Is the grade more than 7% going up? ' Hempel: I believe it was in the 7% to 10% range, yes. Conrad: What's the vegetation like? I haven't visited that. i Hempel: It's heavily wooded going up the hill. Conrad: Okay. Brian? , Batzli: Is this area within the MUSA line expansion as well? Krauss: No. Batzli : Why isn't it? Just out of curiousity. Why did we jog it up right II there? Did we cut it at TH 41? Was that our line? Krauss: It actually cuts off before you get to TN 41. That area on the north side of TH 41 was designated as a study area. Then it picks up north ' on TH 41 a ways. Batzli: That corner on TH 41 and TH 5 was the study area? Okay. I Krauss: It was felt that that was more area for residential development than we could justify based upon our expectations of growth at this time. Batzli: I guess I look at this being a little bit different than the last one in that I think in order for Lot 2 to develop, which at some day it probably has to, I think we do need to have some sort of improved street ' Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 28 and I think now's the time to get it. An interesting question raised 1 though is if in fact they do bury the power line and then you're looking at a long delay over a period of time, I don' t know that it makes sense to put it where the power line is now, although that seems like the best option I right now. But in a matter of years, if they do go through with it and buy the line and they quite cutting the trees, if you're looking down the road, that's a heck of a question as to where you're going to put it. Conrad: Well, you go back to the current road. And you' ll take 40 feet of the trees that are there. ' Ellson: And they'll be older than the other ones that are 20 years old. Batzli: Well, they might all be dying by that time. If you put a road in next to the power line, would it fit in the right-of-way? You'd be taking out more trees yet wouldn't you? Hempel: Some additional trees would have to be removed. I think the slopes extended out approximately 80 feet wide through there. Batzli: If we took right-of-way now, you wouldn't necessarily have to include. It could be a private drive at this point couldn't it across Lot 1? Okay, I don't have anything else right now. Elison: This one, I mean I only saw this one time. I don't have all the history of the other people but it's always been confusing to me so I'll be the first to say that. But the different street choices really threw me for a loop and I guess I had almost the same questions as his at the end. I mean you're looking at Miss I want to save every tree I possibly can. I hate the thought of going in and taking them just for the sake of right now two more lots. I like the idea of getting the easement so that we could build it and bring it up to the standard as the density increases or something but I really didn't want to do that right now and I wondered if what we're proposing here in the motion is to bring it up to a standard like right now. It shall be built to City standards. In other .words, as ' soon as they get it, we're going to have this long dirt road and then just this great looking little piece down there for one person and I'd rather not do something like that but I'd like the capability later on to say okay, now we want it. We've got that easement, we'd like to do it about now. If we have that with maybe just changing that number 1, that's the way I'd like to see it going. Conrad: Can you react? Elison: They're shaking their heads. Olsen: The way it's written right now is that it would have to improved at this time. Ellson: But we could like. . . Emmings: We could propose that as an alternative. 1(a) . . .like they said but not require improvement. Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 29 Ellson: Okay. You're right. And that's what I 'm looking to do. i Emmings: Just a couple of things. On page 6 of the staff report, under lot frontage, it says Lot 2 has 100 feet in that the ordinance requires 200. And then it says that no variances are required and can you rationalize that for me. Olsen: That's one. . . ' Emmings: So it would need a variance. Is that a variance that they have to go to the Board of Adjustments for or is that something that we give them by passing this? Olsen: We've done it before. . . Emmings: Well, what's required? Olsen: Technically we take it back in front of the Board of Adjustments. ' Emmings: So this needs a variance for lot frontage, at least for Lot 2. As far as the road thing goes, to me I believe what should be done is that we should get the 40 feet off the west side of 1 and continue to Lot 2 as II it's drawn on the big map that we have and not have them develop it until , for the present. I don't see any reason of bringing that end of things up to a standard that the rest of that long, long road doesn't meet right now. II Temporarily they'll have their own system of private driveway which seems very reasonable to me and seems to fit the character of what they're doing and everything else so I'm fine with that. I do think, it wasn't in our report this business of them putting a cul-de-sac on the end of the private II driveway that would be up to city standards but that is commonplace? Olsen: Yes. It's going to be. . . 1 Emmings: It's not there as a condition. It might have been mentioned. Olsen: We're showing it on the plan. . . ' Emmings: No, they're talking about doing it at the end of the private drive. Is that right? Hempel: On the common lot line between 1 and 2. Emmings: But that's on their own private system of road that they're doing. Hempel: That's correct. ' Emmings: Alright. I think that should be in there as a condition that they will provide plans and specs for a cul-de-sac at the end of the private drive that will satisfy the City Engineer because that gives us finally a place for things to turn around down there even if it isn't in the best place but I think that's an important thing to have now. I don't 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 30 I like the provision where they waive rights to contest future assessments. I think that's awful. I think if they dedicated the, if we're forcing them to give us that easement across there to build a road in the future, when it comes time to build that road, they're going to get assessed and they should have the right to come in and complain all they want before they get assessed. It's good to let off steam. I think that the road needs to be where it is. I think we've got to add the 40 to the 20 so we don't cut off the properties along the lake and I think what ultimately ought to happen out there is that that damn power line ought to buried and it ought to be buried in the road right-of-way. That solves everybody's problem. I don' t think the power company would have any problem with that. If there was an ' easement out there, they'd be happy to use it. Would that be right do you think? ' Hempel: I would say so, yes. Emmings: So I think that's a good solution. It will fit everybody's problems. I have a question about, I wonder Mr. Brandt, is he still here? ' You understand that you can't put in a dock or a boardwalk or move any vegetation or do any dredging or anything to that shoreline without coming back here for a wetland alteration permit? Peter Brandt: Yes. Eumings: Has that been explained to you? ' Peter Brandt: Yes. Emmings: Okay. And I wondered, as far as Mr . Daniels is concerned. Do you have any, has anybody said you'd have any lake access from your lot? Ken Daniels: No. I'm looking for somebody. I was just talking. . . Emmings: Well, forget it because I'm watching you. I'd advise you, if you're planning on that, to read our regulations. There can't be boats on docks. If you're not an owner of the property, you can't put a boat on the dock and things like that. There are a lot of rules regarding that and I don't know. You're buying a real nice big lot real close to a real nice lake that I live on and I just want to make sure your eyes are open when you're going in. Ken Daniels: I'm buying the wooded lot. Emmings: That's good. This is just a question out of pure ignorance. On Lot 2, the septic sites are a long ways from the house. Is that common? I've never seen septic sites so fax away from a house before. Olsen: That's not where they have to be. What usually happens is that ' they'll bring in new soil borings once they have the location of the house. Emmings: If for any reason those happen to the be the only sites, is that any problem? I don't know. Is it uphill or anything so they'd have to 1 have a pump station? Planning Commission Meeting I January 17, 1990 - Page 31 i Conrad: You can always pump it. I Batzli: That's a long ways up the hill though. Emmings: It's just a matter of cost though. It's their problem I know but. Hempel: I guess I'm not that familiar with septic systems. , Emmings: My only comments then would be, I would change condition 1 such that it was essentially like the alternative 1(a) so that we require dedication of the 40 feet at this time but don't require any upgrading until the whole road, something is done with the entire road or something else happens out there with development such that it makes more sense. I think that condition 6 should be expanded because it says any access to II Lake Minnewashta would require a wetland alteration permit and I know what that means but I think that that condition ought to be expanded to say there'd be no dock or boardwalk or dredging or removal of vegetation or any II activity in the area of the shoreline without a wetland alteration permit so it's very, very clear what we're talking about there. I think that there should be a condition on the cul-de-sac at the end of the private II drive that one will be done that will be designed that meets the approval of the City Engineer and I think that we should strike this business about them not contesting future assessments. That's all I have. Conrad: You said you only had a couple of comments. Jo Ann and Paul, tell 1 me about, I 'm vacillating. I really like the power line as a potential access to that site simply because it's been stripped and it looks like the right place to do it but then I go back and say when we do that then we've got some acreage that we've separated from this lot and that doesn't seem right. So then I go back and say well let's add 40 to what we've got. To what's currently there. When we do that and we do upgrade this part of the II road someday and I should have gone back. I thought I was real clear what I was going to vote on tonight and I should have driven back there and taken a look but what do we need to cut down? If we expand it to 60 feet, II what's going down in terms of woods? Krauss: We haven't done a study of that. Dave hasn't looked at that in 11 detail yet but you can see that where that cul-de-sac occurs, it's quite steep. The steeper the grade, the wider the cut is to kind of pinch a cul-de-sac into the hill there. It would be a significant cut. Olsen: It would all be cleared. The full 60 feet. Conrad: I have another major problem and I'm still not convinced that that access to the south. I guess I haven't seen enough information on that or been brought back up to speed on a potential connection to Crimson Bay development. Boy, it seems 6 months ago, a year ago, whenever we saw this last time, it sure seemed like that would be a nice way to access this area 11 and we're losing some potential here and that bothers me a little bit but I don't have enough information to react to that. Are you two, and I guess I've got to just put, ask you the question, you're both convinced that we 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 32 don't need it and it's not smart to do? I just have to say that. Krauss: A real definitive answer, I don't think it's as definitive as that. We think that it's possible to put through a connection to the south and it would not be a bad thing if we were in a position to do that. What we think made it possible was that power line cut. You see the problem with that cul-de-sac, where the cul-de-sac would be located off the ' existing street is what you're doing is you're rolling off down a hill into a fairly steep area. What the power line easement does is it stays up nice and high where it's relatively flat and it allows a much more gentle grade back down to the existing street in Crimson Bay. One of the things we looked at though in doing this was when this was looked at before, the direction we received was that we should not proceed with that connection to the south. That it was looked at and was dismissed. So then we looked for some alternatives to that. Conrad: Was that us that did that? Do you recall. ' Olsen: No, there were other comments somewhere along the line with TH 5 being added and with the other. The last time it was up, I think there were more comments made that not to have the street improved at this time. Take the easement but not to have it improved. Conrad: It could be done you're telling me but right now you're not convinced of it. You're convinced we've solved some access problems some other ways. Maybe on the north of this will help a little bit but you're convinced that we really don't need the access to the south. There are more detrimental things that could occur? Olsen: No. Krauss: We would still prefer the access to the south if it were feasible to do that. The problems with that are that if you're going to do the access to the south, you have to look at relocating the street onto where the power line easement is. ' Conrad: Which is what you recommended. Basically in the staff report you recommended that. Krauss: Which is what we would prefer but there's really a problem with it in that we'd be stranding property or the dedication be wider than we're normally entitled to. Conrad: What's a normal dedication? Krauss: 60 feet. Conrad: Isn't that what you asked for the power line? ' Olsen: . . .power line but to keep it all within right-of-way and not to split another piece, you'd be taking almost 100 feet of right-of-way. ' Batzli: Otherwise you'd be leaving that Y cul-de-sac. Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 17, 1990 - Page 33 I Olsen: You'd be splitting from other land. I Conrad: I now what you mean. Who cares? Do we care? Olsen: Who cares? ' Conrad: We might. I might not. This is a real problem area. I think you've got to make some hard decisions on solving the problem here. What's II the negative of running the road through to the south? We've got to cut a lot of trees down? We've got some elevation problems possibly? Krauss: Running the road through to the south on the power line easement, 1 if that were to be done, would result in considerably less tree loss than putting the cul-de-sac in where it's illustrated with the right-of-way. Emmings: You're going to have to condemn property out of the Arboretum. Krauss: Yes. , Olsen: And there's traffic. And then if that road is improved, you're splitting Lot 2 into two lots. ' Emmings: Can we condemn State property? I never even thought about that. Can you take State property? Krauss: No. Emmings: I wouldn't think so. I don' t know really. I Conrad: So the Arboretum has the land between the Crimson Bay. Emmings: To the east of Crimson Bay. ' Conrad: I don't want to go through there. Olsen: You have to. To connect to Crimson Bay, you would need to improve... Hempel: You'd have to improve a portion of it from the end of the , cul-de-sac to the subdivision. Olsen: Right now you have an easement. r Conrad: That's what I'm trying to connect to. Emmings: But you need another 25 feet on this side. Then you'd wind up condemning it out on that side. Conrad: Can't do that. , Emmings: You know Ladd , on that connection south, I remember my own feelings that it was real important to do it and I remember stall telling II Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 34 I us that it could not be done. That's what I remember. And I feel like that decision back then, staff has turned around on this and it may or may not be the same staff. I don't know. I don' t even care to think about it but they've done a 180 on us here. I feel like. But now I think the die is cast and I do think TH 5. . . Conrad: Just to support, they probably heard us react the last time and said well there's not support. There are other alternatives to provide the access so in their defense, I think they're negotiating with developers or buyers. I don't know that they've done a 180. Emmings: Well to me they have and I 'll tell you, TH 5 is an incredibly dangerous road in the area where Crimson Bay dumps out. I think we can turn something around inside that 80 back out to TH 41 that will wind up being better probably. It's a big enough tract so I think that will okay at that time. Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr . Chairman, may I speak to that for a moment? Conrad: Well you're at the podium. We'll listen to you. 11 Kurt Laughinghouse: In the staff report. Part of the staff report is the report from the engineer 's last year. No. Yeah, last year's, I 'm going to come to the name of the engineering company. Emmings: Feasibility study. Kurt Laughinghouse: Anyway, it's your consulting engineering. They have 5 alternative road systems here. Conrad: Yeah, we've read it. Kurt Laughinghouse: Yeah, I know you've read it, but none of them include going south down through Crimson Bay. Believe me, despite what people are saying on the side here, a person cannot, I've drawn where the power line destruction is. You'll notice that it is off where the dedication would be. That blue line indicates roughly, or very close, where there are no trees. That's where there are no trees. Everything else east and west of that is wooded . Okay? When one gets to the end of that blue line, and that leads directly into the Crimson Bay easement that you have. That's 25 feet wide and you can see it there on that plat. A person cannot walk off the end of that blue line and walk down to Crimson Bay without, almost without turning around and grabbing onto weeds or grabbing onto branches or grabbing onto the fence. It is very, very steep. Now, that doesn't mean a road can't be built there. It does mean though if we're going to build, if ' one were to build a road there, there would hive to be a cut much wider than 60 feet. In order to make this, to get down this slope, or up, you would have to cut the soil back on both sides and fill here and cut here 70 or 80 feet and I think Dave will back me up. Maybe he can. . .it is not level. It's very, very steep. Set aside the fact that you're not going to get the University land anyway. It would not be easy at all. Always doable but it's not easy. There's several things that have been said. It would devastate Lot 2 and I think it would just destroy the purpose that I II Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 35 I we're here for. I think the applicants would withdraw the plat. It just simply is not a feasible thing to do and it bears out what I tried to suggest earlier is that this leads into an 80 acre parcel to the east that ultimately there's 100 feet or so of frontage. Several hundred feet of frontage on TH 41. One or 2 or 3 road accesses can be drawn into this 11 property and there will be plenty of safe development and publicly safe development of this property in the future. When it's really on the table. What's on the table now is two rural lots. Conrad: I'll just, you know what you're doing. We also have been here a while too. As you divide things smaller and smaller you lose perspective of the big picture. We're trying to keep our eye on the big picture along with staff and you know that's our job. You can't do it when you divide 8011 acres. We know what just happened to make this happen. We know that we've solved some of the economic restrictions we put on Tim when he was trying 11 to get in here. This I think is a good way to reduce some of those restrictions but just your point, it doesn't make sense. It potentially does make a lot of sense. I'm not saying this is a right thing to do. It's just an issue that I forgot about and it's a major problem back there II Mr. Laughinghouse and we're trying to deal with that. It's real tough when you start dividing down into 10 acre parcels. It's a lot easier when you're dealing with a 100 acre parcel because then you've got roadway structures II and you can move it but now we're trying to plan for the future and that's II why we're taking a look at a few different things and I don' t have all the information that maybe I should have looked at beforehand because I've kind of precluded this because of the last time we looked at it. I don't know the safety on TH 5 issue. I do know that Lundgren Bros. is making the same cuts that you'd have to make there, Lundgren Bros. is doing it in Chanhassen very nicely with the same type of stuff. It can be done. It can be done pretty easily. It can be done very attractively. I'm not recommending that we do it here but it's just one of those options that given a lot of lousy solutions that we're looking at, I'm just bringing in ' one other possibility here which will help me make up my mind. And you're going to run into the same diverse opinions as you get to City Council so I don't want to bog this down at our level because we're just a recommending body. I Batzli: Can I ask a question of Dave? Conrad: Yeah. I Batzli: How close can you make the access points on a trunk highway? Hempel: They are restricted by MnDot. I don't have. It's limited to sight distances on the terrain and so forth. MnDot is the one that has the right-of-way documentation where they have certain. .. I Batzli: And there's also I suppose intersection limitations. In looking at how the road to the north here comes out onto TH 41, we don't know from 11 looking at that if there would be a problem of putting in additional accesses to the south of that? I 1 Planning Commission Meeting Jane ry 17, 1990 - Page 36 Hempel : There was talk of the possibility of another access point out onto I TH 41 but that would take MnDot approval also. I guess we feel that is a possibility. Conrad: Yeah, I think I saw that once upon a time. One more. Batzli: One more south of Tanadoona. Conrad: Yeah. I don't mind the balance of the, I know Steve you're concerned with some of the other issues in the staff report. I guess things are foggy enough in my mind that I don't mind some of those. Some of the staff comments in there. Any other comments? Joan, anything that you want to jump back in after you've heard us mish mash the thing up? Ahrens: I just wanted to say one thing. That the southern access to Crimson Bay Road , I think the biggest issue there is getting the land. Even if we could get the land, I'm not sure it's good public policy to take State land . Conrad: Can't do it. All you can do is not preclude that option right now and require an easement up to it. It doesn't say it's going to, it's just like our previous one. It doesn' t say we're going to do it but you could require an easement and therefore the purchaser right now knows that in the future we may want to run a road through. It may prevent his decision to buy that property. In my mind, that's the last thing I want to do is divide his parcel up as he comes out here and wants to live on 20 acres. I would love to live on 20 acres and I 'd never want to exclude anybody from wanting to buy that and use it that way. On the other hand, our job is to say well, downstream what's going to happen and that access might be the right one. Ahrens: I'm not sure, I think maybe my point was missed on that about acquiring the land from the State. . . I'm not sure that that's the best public policy. Conrad: To buy State land? Ahrens: Well, that's Arboretum land right? And the Arboretum land would have to be acquired in order to have access to Crimson Road. Conrad: Right. 11 Batzli: But it would benefit all the people in there. Ellson: When it turns into a development but it's the same principle. Batzli: But you wouldn't be purchasing the land until you needed it. You wouldn't even ask the Arboretum unless you needed that access when it developed. • Elison: But are we saying that we want to take State land to help people develop this? The bottom line is, is that a good way? 1 • Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 17, 1990 - Page 37 Ahrens: I don't think you can anyway but even if we could, I don't think it's. . . , Conrad: It could be less costly in the long run. Anything else? Is there a motion? Emmings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of 11 Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989 with the following conditions. Number 1 would be basically what's down as option 1(a) . That it would require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line II of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of-way for the full 60 foot rural street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive II is improved or until development in that area would require improvement. Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 would stay as written by staff. Condition 6 would be expanded. Essentially stay the same but just be expanded a little bit II to say that any access including a dock or boardwalk to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging, or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. Then I 'd add the condition 7 that would say that, there will be a cul-de-sac at the end of all system of private driveways that serve the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and plans and specs for that cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. If the parties decide not to use the system of private driveways but rather use Lake Drive somehow, then they' ll still be responsible for providing a cul-de-sac at the end that meets the approval of the City Engineer. The end. I Conrad: Good. Is there a second? Ellson: Second. ' Conrad: Any discussion? Olsen: Since the street won't be improved, then we should also have a condition that there shall be easements across Lot 1 for access to Lot 2. I know that they said that they're providing that but. I Emmings: Well, but Jo Ann if they don't give an easement, they always have the right to use Lake Drive so let them worry about it. That's what I think. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, condition 2 should maybe be deleted if you're not proposing to improve the street to city standards because it will not be a 11 public street. Public improvement. Batzli: What would they have to do for the cul-de-sac? I Hempel: We could make it conditioned upon building permit approval. Thmings: So that's probably not really a public improvement? I Hempel: That's correct. I 1 'Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 38 Emmings: Yeah, that makes sense to me. There aren' t any other improvements? Okay. Then number 2 could be striken. It doesn't mean anything. Conrad: And that's going to be a condition of what? If it's not here, the improvement of the cul-de-sac. Emmings: It's still a condition because that's my condition number 7. That there will be a cul-de-sac that meets his approval but we don't need a development contract for a public improvement because we're not grading or paving a street or building the shoulders or whatever. Conrad: Okay, do you agree with eliminating number 2 then? Emmings: Yeah I do. Ellson: I'll change my second also. Emmings moved, Ellson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989 with the following conditions: 1. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of right-of-way for the full 60 foot rural street right-of-way but improvement of that right-of-way would not be required until the rest of Dogwood or Lake Drive is improved or until development in that area would require improvement. 2. The developer shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District. 3. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm from the southeast corner of Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision. 4. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. 5. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would any dredging, or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. 6. There will be a cul-de-sac at the end of a system of private driveways that serve the owners of Lots 1 and 2 and plans and specs for that cul-de-sac shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. If the parties decide not to use the system of private driveways but rather use Lake Drive somehow, they will still be responsible for providing a cul-de-sac at the end that meets the approval of the City Engineer. All voted in favor except Conrad and Batzli who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. I Planning Commission Meeting II January 17, 1990 - Page 39 Conrad: Brian, the reason for your negative vote? Batzli: I would prefer to see further study on the route taken by the power line with potential connection to Crimson Bay Road at a future time. Other than that, I think it's fine. Maybe access along Lake Drive is the way to go but I don't think that was studied because I think staff had the impression that we weren't interested in that and I think that we might be if there was further thought given it. Conrad: I second that opinion. I PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS. Conrad: Jo Ann, just as a point. This is a public hearing. Were notices II sent out? Olsen: We sent out to all the people who have been interested in it. 1 Conrad: To associations with beachlots by chance? Olsen: No. ' Emmings: Was there published notice? ' Olsen: It was published in the paper and then we sent it to those who have been involved. Ellson: Who have come to these before. Batzli: Does this apply retroactively to any of them? Would they be grandfathered in? Conrad: They will exceed this standard. Olsen: There's a condition in here that says we can go back. Conrad: So they weren't invited. Do we care? I Ellson: So what, do you want to table it? Conrad: No. • I Ellson: Just be sure they're notified for the Council. Conrad: No, that's not fair either. I don't think they'd have any issues with this. They typically have what they want. They've met the standards. They have a beach, their own lot and we're not taking any of their rights II away. Emmings: Right. That's true. I i • . ' CITY OF k. DATE: Jan. 3;'1990 r' CUANllA !E N C.C. DATE: Jan. 22, 1990 I/ lie CASE NOf 89-11 SUB Prepared by: Olsen/v I STAFF REPORT il PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat Request to Create Two Single Family Lots Z 1a VLOCATION: West of TH 41, south of Tanadoona Drive and east of IDogwood Road a. APPLICANT: Kurt Laughinghouse B. & D. Brandt 1 < 281 Norman Ridge Drive 5200 Beacon Hill Road Bloomington, MN 55437 Minnetonka, MN 55345 I ` 1 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential. ACREAGE: 20 Acres IIDENSITY: One unit per 10 acres II ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RR; single family 1 S- RR; Minnesota Arboretum, & Crimson Bay QE- RR; vacant agricultural IIQ ' W- RSF; single family I 1- W WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services not available .... PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Densely wooded in the west and south portians of the site with some steep topography to the Isouth. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential 1 ' II ' p#YiNN E WA S .H TA ) „ . _ _ _ L l -.� RD • I - PUD-R - - - (-"\.,..,_ � , , 4 .--- ... . 0,N . 4 Wfr - „ - F”.-1111111M11110 - A \\\\ ,-- ----- - % - - '' ' tee RR - MAPLE SHORES s� DRIVE M1 - -, •4 i- DRIVE : . . 7..,- it - ...6.4%.........****%. *****--..:-..........%-P-Hitili . 00 sccl: , arm./ POND ffe • Y . A2 . I _ E'.) 0 I 82ND STREET • . . •!c‘ ).' ' \ CITY OF CHANHASSEN IBrandt Subdivision January 3, 1989 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES Roger Machmeier Attachment #1 ' City Engineer Attachment #2 Public Safety Attachment #3 BACKGROUND 1 In 1987, this site was the subject of a preliminary plat approval that was almost identical to the plan currently being offered. The major issue that surfaced during the previous review was the provsion of road access to the proposed lots. On July 6, 1987, the City Council approved the preliminary subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall be required to install a cul-de-sac into Lot 3, at the end of Dogwood; however, the applicant may be allowed to put in a driveway as approved by City Staff. ' 2. No development shall occur on either 5 acre lots until completion of a feasibility study and the plans for that road are determined. 3. A feasibility study shall be initiated to evaluate the alterantives to improving Dogwood Road and Tanadoona Drive, as well as evaluating the connection to the Worm property to the south. ' 4. The developer be required to enter into a development agreement guaranteeing the installation of the improvements and provide financial sureties as required. 5. Dedication of a 20 foot trail easement along the south and east property lines. ' Consistent with the City Council action, a feasibility study for Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue was prepared by VanDoren- Hazard-Stallings, Inc. in June of 1988. The report identified four different road access alternates with improvement costs ranging from $255,000 to $302,400. Preliminary assessment rolls were identified depicting the allocation of costs to benefiting properties. On May 12, 1988, City Staff and personnel from VanDoren-Hazard- Stallings met with interested residents from surrounding neigh- borhood area. At the meeting, the alternative alignments were reviewedand public comments were noted. At the conclusion of the I • Brandt Subdivision II January 3, 1990 Page 3 meeting, city staff requested that the residents arrange a sub- 1 sequent meeting to discuss their petition to the City requesting road maintenance and their further thoughts on the road issue. On September 15, 1988, the City received a letter from David D. Getsch, a representative of the Dogwood Homeowners stating, "after review of the proposals and options presented by various parties over the past six months, a proposal was made to withdraw our request for road maintenance. That proposal was voted on and passed unanimously. Please accept this letter as the official withdrawl of our request for road maintenance." ' On June 21, 1989, the Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary plat to subdivide 100 acres into three single family lots and one outlot. The proposed lots included one 10 acre lot, two five acre lots and the outlot with 80 acres. The primary issue of discussion during the Planning Commission review was the location of the trail easement and the extent of improvements to the existing road. The Planning Commission recommended tabling the item until staff could further review the issue and reach a conclusion on whether a full 60 foot right-of-way should be pro- vided, if certain improvements should be made to the site and to allow the Park and Rec Commission to reconsider the trail easement location (Attachment #4) . Since the Planning Commission last reviewed the subdivision application, the 100 acres was split into an 80 acre and a 20 acre parcel. Since the parcels were 20 acres or more and met all of the requirements as required by state statute, the split of the 100 acre site was approved and recorded at Carver County without it having to receive Planning Commission and City Council approval. The 80 acre parcel is being developed into one home site and the 20 acre parcel is being proposed to be subdivided into two 10 acre lots. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to subdivide 20 acres into two 10 acre parcels. As with previous review of this property, the proposed plat meets all of the requirements of the zoning ordinance and all issues have been addressed, except the provision of road access and location of a trail easement. The current application is providing an additional 40 foot wide ROW adjacent to an existing 20 foot ROW to provide the rural standard of 60 feet. The issue at hand is whether the 60 foot ROW should be improved beyond what currently exists and what additional roadway easements should be provided to accommodate any future development that may occur. Access 11 The applicant is proposing to service Lots 1 and 2 by a driveway extending from Dogwood along the power line easement (Attachment I #5) . Since the current proposal deals only with the 20 acre parcel IBrandt Subdivision January 3, 1990 ' Page 4 located at the end of Dogwood, the city only has control over ' requiring improvements to that portion of road adjacent to the 2 lots. The remaining length of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood is not part theof the subdivision and cannot be required to be improved. ' The Planning Commission and City Council have several access options to consider as part of the proposed subdivision. la. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lots 1 and 2 to be combined with the existing 20 feet of ROW for the full 60 ' rural street ROW, but not require improve- ' ment of the ROW to typical rural city standard, or; This option only adds to the problem of having residences on a long unimproved deadend. Safe accessJoes not exist and should be provided whenever possible. b. Require dedication of the 40 feet and require the ROW adja- cent to Lots 1 and 2 to be improved to rural city standard. This option would provide two residences with street frontage meeting city standards. Although these lots are at the end of a substandard street, the city should take advantage of the opportunity to improve the situation rather than exacer- bate it. 2. Provide ROW easement for future street improvements over the power easement, where vegetation has already been removed and grading of the property has occurred (Attachment #6) . This would result in the applicant dedicating a 100 foot easement rather than 40 feet. I This would result in less cost for improving the street and would not further remove vegetation which is a protective screen for new and existing residences. 3. Provide additional roadway easement for future subdivision and secondary access to the site. ' The property has potential for subdivision and secondary access must be provided. ' In the past, when the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed the proposed subdivision it had been stated that the applicant should only be required to provide right-of-way and to I not improve the street to full city standards at this time. The existing roadway conditions are very poor and this subdivision provides the city with the opportunity to require improved access to the two newly created lots. Therefore, staff is again recom- mending that the right-of-way adjacent to Lots 1 and 2 be upgraded to city standards rather than servicing the lots with private drives, as proposed by the applicant. One way to reduce I Brandt Subdivision 11 January 3, 1990 Page 5 the cost of improvements is to locate the street where the pro- perty has already been altered by the power line easement (see Engineering memo) . Should the Planning Commission and City Council not agree with improving the street, staff is recom- mending that at the very least, an improved turnaround and the 40 foot road easement be provided for future road improvements. Staff would also then recommend that Lots 1 and 2 shall waive their right to contest future assessments as part of the improve- ments to Dogwood. Staff has reviewed several alternatives for future road access providing secondary access to the property. The alternatives reviewed included continuing right-of-way to the south of the property where the road connects to Crimson Bay and then exit onto Hwy. 5. Staff also reviewed several options for looping the street back to the east where it would then join existing Tanadoona Drive or connect with Hwy. 41. In the long term this could offer an alternative means of access into the area. Staff believes that if the MUSA line is altered in this area it could support the development of a substantial number of homes. After review of topography and existing vegetation, staff is recom- mending that the applicant provide a 30 foot wide easement along the northerly line of Lot 1 which would provide location for a future street looping back to Tanadoona Drive or connecting with Hwy. 41. Staff is recommending the provision of only a 30 foot easement rather than the full 60 foot easement. The remaining 30 foot easement would have to be acquired from property to the north when the property is further subdivided and/or when a public street is required. Easements The Park and Rec Commission reviewed this application on December 12, 1989, and requested that the applicant provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2 and along the south boundary from Crimson Bay Road to the southeast corner of Lot 2 (Attachment #6) . Park and trail fees shall be required in lieu of park dedication and trail construction. The applicant is providing 40 feet of additional street right-of- way along the westerly edge of Lots 1 and 2 and is providing a 30 foot roadway easement along the northerly lot line of Lot 1. The applicant is providing the typical utility easements of 5 and 10 feet on Lots 1 and 2. Utilities I The property is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and therefore, the lots have to provide two approved septic sites. The applicant has provided soil borings which have been reviewed by Roger Machmier and Jim Anderson and have been IIBrandt Subdivision January 3 , 1990 II Page 6 approved. The septic sites are shown on the second sheet of the plans and staff is requesting that these be staked and protected Ifrom any alteration during construction. Grading and Drainage ISee Engineering Department memo. IWetland Lot 2, Block 1 contains a Class A wetland adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. The wetland is part of the same wetland which was I part of the Crimson Bay subdivision. It is a Class A wetland which should be protected from alteration. Lot 2, Block 1 will have to receive a wetland alteration permit prior to any improve- I ments along the lakeshore including installing a dock and stair- way. In the past, the City has not allowed a dock to go through a wetland and has instead required boardwalks be located above I the wetland vegetation. The proposed home sites and private drives servicing Lot 1 and Lot 2 will not impact the wetland adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. ICOMPLIANCE TABLE I Lot Lot Lot Area Frontage Depth Wetland Ordinance I Requirements 2.5 ac. 200 feet 200 feet 1 unit/10 ac I Lot 1 10.2 acres 550 feet 1000 ft. N/A (approx.) I Lot 2 10.1 acres 100 feet (350' total 1100 ft. There is a Mass A (approx.) wetland adjacent width) to Lake Minnewashta 1 Variances Required: None . IRECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Ifollowing motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989, with the Ifollowing conditions: 1. The 60 foot ROW (Lake Drive) proposed with this subdivision Ishall be built to city standards for a rural street. Plans I Brandt Subdivision January 3, 1990 Page 7 and specifications for the street construction shall be sub- mitted to City Engineer for review and approval. 2. The developer shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements. 3. The developer shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm from the southeast corner of Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay subdivision. 5. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. ' 6. Any access to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 shall require a wetland alteration permit. " I * NOTE: Should the Planning Commission and City Council not recommend the street to be built to city standards, then the following condition should be added: 1. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 waive any rights to contest future assessments as part of the improvements to Dogwood. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from Roger Machmeier dated June 14, 1987. 1 2. Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician dated January 10, 1990. 3 . Memo from Public Safety dated June 5, 1987. MI 4. Planning Commission minutes dated June 21, 1989. 5. Plans showing proposed drive. 6. Park and Recreation report dated May 13, 1989. 7. Plans showing proposed 40' right-of-way and power line easement. 8. Feasibility study dated June 21, 1988. 9. Preliminary plat dated November 13, 1989. 1 I 1 RESL)URCE ENGINEE1LdNG Roger E. Machmeier, P.E. James L. Anderson. C.P.S.S. 29665 Neal Avenue 3541 Ensign Avenue, North Lindstrom, MN 55045 New Hope, MN 55427 (612) 257-2019 (612) 593-5338 June 14, 1987 • JoAnn Olsen, Assistant City Planner • Y City of Chanhassen P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Planning Case 87-11 Subdivision Zimmerman Dear JoAnn: Enclosed is our evaluation report for the above proposed subdivision. There should be no problem to locate a number of sites which are suitable for the installation of sewage I treatment mounds and possibly trenches on each of the proposed lots. The soil boring data was collected in the open field to the east and this is presumably the reason that the proposed sites are located a considerable distance from where the house is likely to be. We assume that our evaluation report is self-explanatory. If you have any questions, however, do not hesitate to contact us. ' Sincerely, CC Mackrytiat) Roger . Machmeier, P. E. RESOURCE ENGINEERING ' REM/jjm ' Enclosure 1 i I # 1 SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT REVIEW OF PLANNING CASE NO. 87-11 SUBDIVISION (ZIMMERMAN) SUITABILITY OF SOILS FOR ONSITE SEWAGE SYSTEMS for the CITY OF CHANHASSEN by Roger E. Machmeier, P.E. James L. Anderson, C.P.S.S. June, 1987 ' This proposed subdivision in the City of Chanhassen has been reviewed with respect to soil suitability, topography, drainage, slope limitations, and area available on each lot for the installation of two onsite sewage treatment systems. The information used for this review included the map of the proposed subdivision submitted by the developer, soil boring data submitted by the developer, and the Carver County Soil Survey. The soils and site information upon which the evaluation of 1 the lots in the proposed subdivision is based is that which has MI been collected and presented to the City of Chanhassen by the developer. It is assumed that the data has been collected from the soil in its natural condition as it existed on the site at the time that the soil boring was made and at the time the field evaluation of the subdivision was made. It is also assumed that the topographic map which presents contour and slope information is accurate and indicates the actual contours which will exist when the plat receives final approval. When the site and soils data on each lot are evaluated and it is determined that the submitted data will allow the location of two sites for onsite sewage treatment systems, those sites absolutely must remain in the condition that they were when the soils data were collected and the field evaluation of the subdivision was made. Any manipulation or movement of the soil from its natural condition as evaluated for the preliminary plat will require additional detailed soils information and a re-evaluation of the subdivision prior to final approval. Each lot of the proposed subdivision has been evaluated 1 independently as to the availability of two sites for the installation of onsite soil absorption systems. It was assumed that the homes which will be built will be Type I, 4-bedroom which 1 according to Minnesota Rules 7080, have an estimated average sewage flow of 600 gallons per day. Since mottled soils at depths of 24 to 36 inches predominate in the area, each lot was evaluated to determine if two sites were available for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. The rock layer in a mound which would treat 600 gallons of I sewage per day would be 10 feet wide and 50 feet long. The area required for the mound would have dimensions of 60 feet by 80 feet. The long dimension of the mound must be located parallel to the existing ground contour lines. The mound must be located on natural soils and on slopes not exceeding 12%. Absolutely no grading to modify the natural slope can be done prior to mound ' I ' t -2- construction. A mound can be located on a soil having as little as 1 foot of unsaturated soil. This soil would require, however, a 2-foot depth of clean sand as opposed to the normal 1-foot depth of sand. While trenches can be located in a wooded area between the trees, an open area is required for a mound. Thus, the trees ' would all need to be removed from an area at least 80 by 100 feet for construction purposes. Also, even though the evaluation of the prelimiinary plat of the subdivision has assumed the use of sewage treatment mounds, a more detailed site investigation which is necessary for the design of the sewage treatment on each lot at the time of development may locate some soils which are suitable for the installation of drainfield trenches. ' Lot 1: This lot is reported to be 5.0 acres is size. The west portion of the lot is wooded and the east portion of the lot is open land presently growing corn. The soil borings for the two ' proposed sites for onsite sewage treatment systems were made in the open area. Mottled soil conditions indicating seasonally saturated conditions were reported in the boring logs at depths of 20 to 33 inches. The land slope in the area where the borings were made is approximately 4 percent. The proposed areas are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. The contour lines indicate that the land slope in the wooded area on the west portion of the lot is less than 12 percent. If the soil is suitable and the lot owner wishes to remove some trees, other sites for the location of the sewage treatment mounds are likely available on this lot. Lot 2: The same comments as made for lot 1 apply to this lot. Mottled soil is reported in the boring logs at depths of 30 to 38 inches. There should be no problem locating at least two sites on this lot which are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. Lot 3: This lot is 10 acres in size. The western portion of the lot is wooded and has some slopes steeper than 12 percent. The soil borings were made in the open field to the east of the woods. The boring logs showed depths to mottling of 24 to 42 inches. There should be no problem locating at least two sites on this lot which are suitable for the installation of sewage ' treatment mounds. Summary The three lots which we evaluated on this proposed subdivision each have at least two sites which are suitable for the installation of sewage treatment mounds. A detailed site ' investigation on each lot will be necessary to collect soils and site data for the design of the sewage treatment system. Sites may be found to be suitable for the sewage treatment systems which are closer to the location of the house on the lot. I 1 CITYOF lir • . . • 4 , 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 , MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician OW DATE: January 10, 1990 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Zimmerman Farm File No. 90-2 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat for Zimmerman Farm dated October 18, 1989 , revised January 10, 1990, submitted by James R. Hill , Inc. , I offer the following comments and recommendations. BACKGROUND I If you will recall , back in August, 1987 , the City Council con- sidered a three-lot subdivision in this same area. The three lots were to be created at the end of the existing Dogwood right- of-way as is proposed with this two-lot subdivision. Two issues were discussed during that preliminary plat review, one being whether or not to extend Dogwood out to Trunk Highway 5 through Crimson Bay Road. Because of the hazardous intersection at Trunk Highway 5, this alternative was dropped. The second issue that was discussed was to make an internal con- nection through the proposed plat back to Tanadoona Drive. Because of the high cost to improve this segment of roadway, this was concluded to be not economically feasible until sewer and water became available to the area so more lots could be sub- divided and share the cost burden. A motion was adopted, however, that a "back door" access through the remaining outlot to either Tanadoona Drive or Trunk Highway 41 be sketched out. It appears this proposed preliminary plat will give the City one piece of the puzzle in completing a "back door" access route eventually out to Tanadoona Drive. STREETS I The existing street, Dogwood Avenue (or as the plat reflects, "Lake Drive") , consists of a narrow 10 to 14-foot wide gravel I roadway. The City does not maintain this segment of roadway because it is not built in accordance with City standards. The I #21 IJo Ann Olsen January 10 , 1990 ' Page 2 plat proposes dedicating 40 feet of right-of-way adjacent to the ' existing 20-foot right-of-way for Dogwood Avenue together with 60-foot wide right-of-way for extension of the 60-foot cul-de-sac at the end of Dogwood Avenue. The developer does not propose upgrading the extension of Dogwood. Consideration should be given to improving this segment of ' Dogwood Avenue. Typically, when a parcel of land is subdivided,- the City requires the developer to provide the necessary right- of-way and pay for all improvements involved in platting the par- cel, i .e. streets and utilities. In this case, the segment of ' road abuts some existing lots in the Sunrise Hill on Lake Minnewashta plat. The developer is reluctant to build this segment of Dogwood Avenue up to City standards without having the existing lots assessed for the improvement. There is some question at this time as to how much benefit these existing lots on Dogwood Avenue would receive from improving this segment of Dogwood Avenue since the existing lots do have their own access ' already; therefore, they do not receive direct benefit from the new road and, in turn , may not be assessed. Based on costs from the previous feasibility report, the esti- mated cost to improve Dogwood Avenue from Tanadoona Drive to the end would be approximately $50 per lineal foot of the street. Using this cost factor, the estimated cost of building the 660-foot Dogwood extension to City standards is $33,000 or $16,500 per lot. An alternative to reduce costs of building the road and lessen impact to the surrounding trees would be to follow the existing power line in which trees have already been cleared and the ground somewhat levelled. This is the same route that the deve- loper proposes to extend the private driveways. ' In addition to the 40 feet of right-of-way for Dogwood Avenue, the developer is providing right-of-way along the northerly 30 feet of Lot 1, Block 1. This will provide a portion of a future secondary or "back door" access route out to Tanadoona Drive (see ' Exhibit "A" ) . Based on data and drawings supplied by James R. Hill, Inc. , this route appears to be feasible from an engineering standpoint (see Exhibits "B" and "C") . rGRADING AND EROSION CONTROL The plan proposes construction of two driveways. Both are out- side the proposed right-of-way for Dogwood Avenue. The driveways will basically follow the power line, which has been cleared and levelled out some time ago. The plan does not indicate proposed grading contours. A plan indicating proposed grades should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. i Jo Ann Olsen January 10, 1990 Page 3 The plan indicates erosion control along the back side of the house pad on Lot 2, Block 1. The type of erosion control spe- cified is basically silt fence. Due to the nature of the area, Type II erosion control , as a minimum, should be used. , RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS 1 . Erosion control shall be Type II. I 2. The segment of Dogwood Avenue (Lake Drive) proposed with this plat shall be built to City standards for a rural road design (Exhibit "D") . The street alignment shall follow the existing power line alignment through Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. Plans and specifications for street construction shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 3. The developer shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial securities to guarantee the proper installation of the public improvements. 4 . The developer shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District. Attachments: Exhibits "A" , "B" , "C" and "D" . ' 1 r I 1 • a E-- '1 til OM • . CO W , _ � � • X W CAMP TANADOONA „e MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS co 3e � w 4 c © ►'' iii: \J Q=® `fi- SSE k. * i, .i a? O. f e.....a„s..•.n � w..d•ru.. W 41107 / qM4 p a•GAP _+++om' POTENTIAL i JOHN P. (>i►+=a i �, .3.T...~ FUTURE ' 8AVARYN +, a SECONDARY N "+• _�O • ACCESS . i ,•+o (NO SCALE • C=301-7.-----.........-.....) i A'.-••,_, I,4 , ,. r • TANADOONA DR.—DOGWOOD AVE. '" ' : " ' " r .. i NM I - MI - I M E I • MN I - NM i NM MO MN MN 1 3 Z • : K I • 1 . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -o T - 7 . \\I ‘ 1: i .. :. �'1'/: : .:a . . . . 9 :Opt. . 11i, II V A \ % ... 1 ■ \P 1 i APO'V -.oat .1 o: � ,. C 4 0o S • "� QO:.rt!:.Pro' er y .LI, C . . . . . . . . . . :.4.o / :4f.:/ i. a o T p.r 0 vl oni tft f tO r 13 0 EXHIBIT B . •- • w� • • X. a �^. : • • ill o: o X . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � . . W • 44, N. 4 N •fir RI ...---•-•:;,4....6)7:--'-' .... . . . . . . . 2ot9•V C i . . : . .60 • q iac):':Y. C , trb/'' 1 M=l.Y..3' . . . i. . . . . . . . . . . . 4111r440:1iieit. 1/1 it lkj 14 ? . Neaerii• • • •Z/4/.6. • 1.42:7".!• .•/2.—• :64., .. ./ I.• / z 1 if s 4 1 n«.oy certify that Inc. a mes HIl �X report not pgpand by _ an at under my direct R. i<y-e warris.on and that I or R•qqr.a "�+� p►ol•••i•not ow o r fnp•t.inot under l Minnesota n' PLANNERS / ENGINEERS / SURVEYORS Z ►MM ERM/ (MANN ASS 1 `-- Dale Rea lra 9401 JAMES AVE S. • BLOOMINGTON,MN. 55431 • 612-884-3029 ILO N a iT ..1 .r .. i It 1241 . • W • + `e N //�'-' )J4 t •••••• .ti•.:.. L.t.. :.:d 4•'•w••-• •V. '.va 31 _.m O to 1 • (n um -- 1 1/2° 2341 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE �, 2357-TACK COAT I = M - 2" 2331 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE CO I0" CLASS 5 GRAVEL (100•% CRUSHED) I 6" CLASS S GRAVEL SHOULDERS (100%CRUSHED) r • D TYPICAL SECTION NOTES m FOR. R/W REWIRED 6d G • 141N. ST. GRADE 0.5 • v 0.5%RURAL ROADWAYS MAX. ST. GRADE T.0% v1 ti NOM N 33 r .. o NOTE: mTHE WEARING SURFACE SHALL BE PLACED THE NEXT CONSTRUCTION SEASON rn FOLLOWING PLACEMENT OF THE4BASE . -i $11. 6 iii-. .- Ns — .■� -11.-- •. .- •= am me -i = ■I me .. CITY F O I � L . CHANHASSEN • , • d 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner ' • FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: June 5, 1987 SUBJ: Otto - Timberwood (86-27 SUB) Lake Susan Hills West (87-3 PUD) Zimmerman/Pemtom Company (87-11 SUB) 1 These plans were reviewed by the Fire Chief, Art Kerber; Fire Inspector, Steve Madden; and myself. The following recommen- dations are made: - Lake Susan Hills West: Minimum 100 ft. setback from William's Pipeline Zimmerman/Pemtom: Dogwood cul-de-sac should have a \ 45 ft. radius '1 ' Public Safety has no input at this time for the Otto subdivision noted above. If you have any questions, please let me know. 7Pfcmit9v745/3 I I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 11 t , PUBLIC HEARING: I PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 100 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON TANADOONA DRIVE, WEST OF HWY 41 AND NORTH OF HWY 5, KURT LAUGHINGHOUSE. Public Present: Name Address I David Getsch 7510 Dogwood John Getsch 7500 Dogwood Mr. and Mrs. W.C. Getsch 7530 Dogwood Craig and Barbara Freeman 7431 Dogwood Martin Jones 7321 Dogwood Thomas Kordonowy 6100 Apple Road Linda Oberman 7450 Hazeltine Blvd. Conrad: Just a point of clarification addressed to Jo Ann. We have ' reacted to this application before and so has the City Council but the applicant has not carried it out I assume so therefore the applicant is II back. There's no timeframe for when the applicant can come back with a new preliminary plat? Just for our information. Olsen: He never went through the whole process. It got as far as the Council and then they had that street. Conrad: So the applicant decided it didn't like what the alternatives were I based on the Council's. . . Olsen: At that point it was determined by the public that they didn't want to have Dogwood improved. Warren: I think the applicant withdrew and the neighborhood also did not want to pursue the street ownership transfer. , Mark Koegler presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order. Kurt Laughinghouse: I'm Kurt Laughinghouse and I am representing the owners of, there are now 3 different owners of the property. Mark Koegler's introduction is exactly right. The development of this plat and what is turned in as a plat and submitted to the City has grown over the last month in fact. Initially our intention was just to come in with the 20 acres that comprised the three lots that you see there and then we decided to hold the entire 100 acres. Just yesterday I learned that, and I ' think I can better explain this, just yesterday I learned that we need to move what shows up there as Walter Zimmerman, we intend to move that 5 acres in fact to the east 100 feet. So we want to add that to the plat. Plat that property. Clear up all these descriptions. We actually have a I third application. We don't have that third applicant in writing who owns 1 " Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 12 that property so therefore I just wanted to introduce these two changes to you this evening. Maybe make some points. The public had already been ' notified and I know that some of the neighbors are here who may have comment and then I would ask that you continue this until July 5th. So if I may use this overhead. The plat that you received in the mail and were ' studying, the differences here are almost indetectable to you but there are two. One is that this large parcel to the center of the property which is 80 acres was marked outlot. It is now marked Lot 4. Then secondly, we have added this Lot 5 and that is yet another applicant. This property was not included in the application which I turned in a month or so ago. So those are the two changes. They're substantial enough of course that the staff should react on them and I wouldn't ask you to react without having I some time for staff input. One of the major changes, one of the major effects is that any plan to put a road through the middle of this would not work and that was one of the recommendations I believe of the staff. I Wanted a road through the middle of this large property so that's going to be something we're going to have to work on. Conrad: Why would it not work, just out of curiousity? IKurt Laughinghouse: The owner of this property is Mr. Tom Kordonowy who is here this evening and he intends to put a house in this vicinity and also a 1 barn and live on the entire 80 acres so it is, in effect is not going to be developed. It's going to be one homestead as will be the case with the I other three lots. Of course this lot is in effect already in place. So as ' Mark Koegler suggested, the biggest issue is the road. I guess I should talk about that. Currently, there are three issues that I 'd like to introduce and answer questions on and then you can do what you choose. The City currently owns a 20 foot right-of-way that runs along, that is I Tanadoona Drive and then is Dogwood Lane all the way down to this point and then there's a quarter of a cul-de-sac on this 17th lot here that is owned by the City. Now this is a plat from 30 or 40 years ago. Perhaps longer. I Nevertheless, that is the physical and legal situation. This proposal suggests, we propose to dedicate an additional 40 feet of right-of-way and cul-de-sac here in this area so the City would have the appropriate 60 feet I of right-of-way in this area. Now, that's the dedication. We also have a special situation here. You notice, it's not clear to you perhaps but there is a dotted line that runs this way. Now when this property, the Zimmerman buildings were separated from the whole parcel several years ago I and is now a separate parcel. The City did not take a dedicated right-of- way here. The City took an option to purchase this 40 feet and that's why that's outlined like that. So we left that remark there to remind us we've I got to deal with that always. Then secondly, we put an outlot here, we'll call it Outlot A and that's the 40 feet in front of the property here at this point. That's to remind us we've got to deal with road right-of-way I dedication or something at that point. We would like not to dedicate any more right-of-way. That's certainly going to be the point of contention. In effect we are adding 3 more dwelling units to the end of this Tanadoona Dogwood road and that, as is suggested, as stated in the engineer's report, I is essentially a mile long cul-de-sac and people living at the end of cul-de-sacs have all the problems of potential weaker fire protection, weaker police protection. They understand that. The people who have purchased this lot, contingent of course, this lot and this lot understand Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 13 1 that situation and that' s agreeable to them. They are not expecting a paved road. Nevertheless, that is one of the biggest issues. Now, the second issue, not the same as dedication, is paving. About a year ago, let me stop myself and say this. This line depicts a power line that comes up from TH 5 and is the source of power for all of these properties and that II actually goes out here to the farm buildings. Last summer Minnesota Valley Electric Coop came in and cleared a 50 foot or greater swath along the entire power line. Going right through the mature maples and oaks and everything. They were reacting to the fact that there had been storm damage to trees that had cut the power so they reacted strongly. You all may visit that and see if I'm overstating that. I'm understating it quite a bit. Nevertheless, shortly after they finished that work there was another storm and another power failure because they didn't get all the trees. Maybe that proves they should have taken more. Nevertheless, here is our dilemma. We have here a 50 foot swath right through the trees with II a power line into the house. If we pave in here, in the right-of-way, we will have to cut another 40 or 50 or greater swath of trees out. We simply ask your authority not to do that. If we have to pave anything, we can perhaps put temporary easements along the power line in favor of the City and pave those if that' s appropriate. If we need a cul-de-sac or an area big enough to turn fire trucks around and oil delivery trucks and Dayton's furniture trucks, which I would guess have gotten down there anyway and II gotten out but we do need that kind of a space we can also do that here in the vicinity of the power lines or not. We can also pave it. We ask not • to pave it. So roads in one issue number one. Paving is issue number two. ' And the third issue is trail easement. We thoroughly agree with the City' s plan to have a trail network around the city and around lakes. The City owns, when Crimson Bay was platted down here, a 20 foot easement was brought up to this property line. To our south property line. The staff report calls for a 20 foot easement around the entire property to get back here to Tanadoona. We request that we cut that easement back to a 20 foot easement around the back of these properties to get back to Dogwood here. II Now I don't know what the plans for the entire city are in terms of trails but it seems to me ultimately you want to get from here to here and go around the lake. I don't know that so that's certainly disputable but if that's the goal , this is a shorter route. Further, Mr. Kordonowy and his family are going to put a barn up here and run horses. His question to us, to the City I guess, if we have to have a 20 foot easement around the entire property, that amounts by the way to almost exactly 4 acres of property. Where does he put his fence for his horses? Does he put it on this old fence because they city is not going to develop this easement for many, many years or does he put it 20 feet inside that line? That's the dilemma that's created by putting a trail easement here that in effect is not going to be used for a long time. Not going to be developed for a long time. We think that the purposes of the City can be served by putting that easement around the back of these lots. 10 years from now, 30 years from now, as was indicated in the other. . .that was up here, this is all open farmland now. It's got corn growing on it. 30-40 years, whenever sewer and water arrives at this site, something else may happen to these II properties. Roads are going to be different. Park trails are going to be different. I think it's premature and that's part of my argument, to plat all those things right now. So that's my presentation briefly and I 'd certainly be happy to answer questions but we might also might want to see II Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 14. I what the people have to say. ' Koegler : Mr. Chairman, just two other items. Kind of really reminders from what happened a couple years ago. Mr. Laughinghouse referenced I Crimson Bay to the south and there was a review at the time of making a street connection to the south to Crimson Bay and it was just determined that literally topography precluded it. It was given really a good I thoughtful look and was determined totally to be infeasible. The other thing is the difference between the plat now and then is the plat that would have been approved back in 1987 did show dedicated public right-of-way 40 feet all the way around the west and north sides of that I property. So had that preceeded and had the road issue have been resolved, that would be right-of-way today. Now they're proposing not to include that as right-of-way so there are just some subtle differences between the ' two plans from 2 years ago and the one current. Conrad: We have a choice. We could table the item for future considerations and to take a look at what Mr. Laughinghouse has presented ' or we could listen to input from anybody who has come here tonight. I guess my preference is to listen, maybe instructive for any staff review or our direction to staff so if that's acceptable to everybody, I think I 'd I like to conduct the public hearing and we can continue the public hearing also until the next time. Would there be any comments related to the presentation tonight? Mr. Laughinghouse or anything that the staff has talked to us about. Any public comments? I John Getsch: I'm ohn J Getsch, 7500 Dogwood. . . .the road easements and the discussions along those development plans, still presents a problem on what I is going to be the long term plan for the road and the easement for any improvement of the road. The way it stands right now, what's presented, there is no long term plan for any improvements of the road and that's a I concern. Right now it's a 20 foot wide, almost single lane all the way in and that presents a problem. . . Conrad: Let me interrupt and see what kind of reaction I can get from Mark or Jo Ann on that. What are the City's responsibilities at this point in time given that the property is, the applicants do not really want to develop fully. They want to put a few houses there. What's the City's I responsibility in this case in requiring an upgrade to a bad road? We've treated it in the past as it's the only time we can require that when there's something happening. So what are our options I guess. Future ' options. Mark, do you want to tackle that? Koegler: Yes, I'll address that and perhaps Gary will want to join in the chorus on this one. Just very briefly, the feasibility study that was done ' a year or so ago looked at a series of alternatives. This was Option A, which I believe if I remember right was the lowest cost option. It was the one that was recommended at the time. I think primarily due to the cost I factor. What it resulted in is a street that does not meet current city standards in terms of width. The reason for that primarily being the mound treatment system that sits right there. The positioning of that relative I to the lot across the street just really make it impossible to get anything wider than I think it's about a 18 foot road section through that Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 15 1 particular area so there is a constriction here that had to be dealt with and that was the way that was done by building a road that did not meet current standards. The second alternative that was looked at was a variation that brought the road in past the Zimmerman parcel and then turned and went across and then it came back up serving kind of a hammer head cul-de-sac arrangement off of either side. Again, you had the constriction here regardless. That was another alternative that was looked at. Option C was similar. . . Once again you still have the constriction of II coming back however. Finally, Alternate D that was looked at brought the road on the interior alignment and this was partially due to what I guess you'd term as kind of a ghost plat that was done by the developer at that time for informational purposes only and it was indicated as such. Then it actually showed a potential for a lot arrangement that radiated off of this reflecting that 75 acres ultimately being developed into I think it was initially 10 acre parcels. It was again, I think it goes without saying, we still had the 18 foot roadway right there. You ask a question that is really difficult to answer because the proceedings of the Planning Commission and Council ultimately on this item will probably be the answer to the question that you pose in terms of where do you go with providing street on this. It's my understanding that the City's practice over the last 2 years since this originally surfaced was to require a minimum road improvements for all rural subdivisions. You in your own mind can say where is the threshold? We're adding 1 house, 2 houses, 3 houses, 4 houses to an existing bad situation. Where do you draw the line? I don' t know that any of us have a definitive answer for that but the general staff II consensus though is that, as you indicated Mr. Chairman is that now is the time when the subdivision is being approved that perhaps the most leverage is evident in terms of being able to accomplish some improvement of that area. Whether it's a full improvement or whether it's securing the right-of-way or whatever that's defined as. Conrad: All the alternatives were real expensive. ' Koegler : They really were not tremendously difference in cost. They were to some of the individual parties. They ranged, as I indicated, from about II $250,000.00 to $300,000.00 and that was about a year ago so those numbers are still reasonably accurate but the actual assessment to some of the various parties did vary quite a bit under that scheme depending on where the road alignment went. The assessments that didn't vary tremendously probably were to some of the existing homes that are on Lake Minnewashta and I think as a ballpark those ran from I'll say $1,500.00 to $4,000.00 depending on lot frontage. ' Warren: I might add Mr. Chairman, Mark has summarized it I think pretty well. It's a difficult issue no matter how we look at it here. Some properties are in advance of being ready to be developed because of the City not being able to provide adequate utilities. Adequate roadways and some of this nature. I think that at sometime has to be addressed. That maybe they're a little bit ahead of their era so to speak. This is in the II next area for the move of the MUSA line and we all I think are very familiar with whether that's the 1990's and it's hard to believe that 1990 is almost here or whether it's a 2000 line or someplace in the middle so I really think an eye has to be kept to that because we're not that far Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 16 ' . away from this area being further eligible to subdivide and it's the ' ability to further subdivide lots that would make the distribution of the cost for a roadway of this nature more palatable. More lots able to be subdivided. I look at it almost as there's somewhat of a self-imposed I hardship here in that this total property I believe would sustain 10 building units and in the application we've seen prior to this one, it was the developer 's choice only to plat 3 units basically. If they were to come in and take all 10 units for example, then there's 10 units to help ' defray the cost of the roadway. So there is sort of a self imposed issue there that is, take it for what it's worth. When we have looked at these in the past as far as rural subdivisions, it has been I think a very strong I line with the City's part to upgrade roads to full rural standards and we do have a rural standard versus an urban standard to recognize that we don't need curb and gutter necessarily and that expense in some of these I roadways. In addition in this issue, we have existing access that I think even the existing residents would chime in, as was mentioned earlier here, that is a less than desireable access. In general I think everybody would like to improve if we could get some reasonableness to the dollars here. I The section that was proposed for the existing roadway, to sneak by the 201 community system out there, I think did recognize that we were trying to be sympathetic to local conditions in a certain regard and were willing to I accept an 18 to 20 foot road section instead of the city standard rural section. I guess I throw those comments out for some of the things that really have gone through our minds here on what's right for the property II and the property owners to have to put up with. Conrad: I'm going to throw it back to you sort of later in terms of, I don't think it's our job to force a developer to develop and require them Ito put in maybe $300,000.00 or $200,000.00 worth of road improvements forces them to develop so it's a difficult situation. It is a public hearing. I wanted to respond, you asked a question and I was trying to get Isome comments back from the staff on that. Go ahead with other questions. John Getsch: That is the issue on the road. The other thing is what Kurt has brought up and that was where the power lines come through. That really created, up until there was solid woods for probably a third of the property that went along parallel to the lake. That now has been 50 foot, 60 foot wide swath is cut right through there and cleaned out so there's I kind of a natural area that is no longer wooded. That's something that needs to be addressed. Kurt brought it up and I think it's noticed by everybody that has gone in that road'during the last year. It has changed significantly and that needs to be recognized as some way to preserve the forest or whatever you want to call it and that needs to be recognized. Conrad: It is embarrassing what the power company did there. I just can't Ibelieve that they could go in and take down what they did. John Getsch: They sprayed again in the last couple weeks to kill anything ' that was growing back. Conrad: Yes, that's just amazing. IKoegler : Kind of a follow-up to that. The feasibility study that was Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 17 1 published in June of last year was prior to the time the guy showed up with chainsaws so that's a new piece of information that was never considered as a part of these alignments and that's certainly something that should be looked at as a part of this. The feasibility study when it laid the alignments in there, took great care to try to minimize tree removal. That 1 was one of the major issues of making alignment through there so it's kind of embarrassing to sit here a year later and find out there's a corridor through there now. That needs to be taken into account. Barbara Freeman: Barbara Freeman, 7431 Dogwood. Could you give us some idea of your long range plans on the trail proposition that Chanhassen has 1 through that area? Conrad: Jo Ann? Olsen: That was part of the Park and Rec Commission's recommendations and Mark might be able to address that a little bit better. Koegler: The City's Comprehensive Plan is shown as a series of trails basically going around and connecting major points within a community and the Minnewashta Regional Park would be one of those. It's not specific to say exactly how you would get from Point A to Point B other than to indicate that it's a desire to make the connection. For example the trail perhaps in some areas may run along TH 41 and then may go back into the park or it may run through the property and go back into the park. That's I not been determined yet but again, back to 2 years ago when this was approved, the easement that Kurt Laughinghouse described was a part of the approval at that time around the perimeter of this site to accommodate that movement. The City has gone out with 2 referendums over the last few years and I'm sure you're aware it has not been approved and certainly that has had a major impact on the feasibility to build those trails so realistically, as I think Kurt eluded to again, those trails are quite a ways off in the future but the right-of-way generally is trying to be secured now for those to bank that if you will for future development. So the alternative that again was just raised is another one of those factors that will be looked at over the next couple of weeks prior to the time this comes back to see if that has any validity compared to the original improvement that occurred on the south and east sides. Conrad: Other comments? Linda Oberman: Linda Oberman, 7450 Hazeltine. We own the land adjacent to the outland area, the 80 acres. Can you show you on that map, I didn't get your name, Mr. Kordonowy? Is that right? What land did you purchase and what are you planning to do with that, farming? What areas? Tom Kordonowy: My name is Tom Kordonowy and I'm acquiring this property for single family home. The 80 acres I'm acquiring is everything other than this 5 acre section here, the old Zimmerman homestead and these three lots are being divided for Mr. Foster and I guess someone else so I' ll be owning the balance of the property. Tanadoona to Dogwood, back up and back. The house I'm proposing to put in will be located here right where this number is in front of the tree line. The reason for the addendum or IIPlanning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 18 I change to the plat, the 100 foot segment we've asked, the Bergen' s home is II 5 acre piece is the only logical place for my road to service my single homestead is, this starts to get quite low. The topography is rising through this little wet area substantially to the highest point in the area which is here so I plan to come in with about a 9 9 in topography which is the same as what's here. That encroaches on what is now the Bergen homestead so we're simply swapping a 100 foot parcel for this piece for this piece like that. That's the purpose of it. It benefits Mr. Bergen 1 because the farm where he's actually farming is very, very close to his living room right now. It's to his advantage to actually move that way over. This lower area is a little west of us so these options, and I ' haven't seen these options, our household here will be pre-empting I'm sure any roadway going through here. We have no interest in that. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have and I appreciate your direction at II this point so several weeks from now when we come forward we may resolve this. I'm moving my family into a condominium which I 'm not very anxious to do for the period of time it takes to build this house so the quicker I'm able to put a shovel in the ground and make this my home, the happier I/ we'll be so any input at all from the Commission would be most gratifying. Conrad: Thanks for your comments. 1 Linda Oberman: . . .farming that? Tom Kordonowy: It is now a farm and it is really appalling this tree swath IIthat goes through there. Wildermuth: If the road were to follow that utility easement, that swath I that was cut through there, how would that impact you and your plans to build your home? ' Tom Kordonowy: It would go through what is going to be my house. Kurt Laughinghouse: There's a two part answer. One is, along here that would be desirable more or less but then the power line goes straight I through here and this is approximately where the, the power line doesn't show up on the other may but this is approximately where the Kordonowy's home will be. Then the wooded area runs out around here also. You had I another question and I didn't quite get it. Is your home one of these two homes right here? Linda Oberman: Right. I was just wondering if he was going to farm that II land or.. . Tom Rordonowy: I personally will. . . IILinda Oberman: Would you be open to selling 5 to 10 acres of that? IConrad : Other comments? Dave Getsch: My name is Dave Getsch, 7510 Dogwood. Certainly the neighbor's preference and I speak for the neighborhood. At the last IImeeting I was voted to be a representative to speak to the Council and I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 19 I Planning Commission on this. Our preferences obviously are to keep property as close as possible to what it presently is in it's present state. Certainly we're very much in favor of someday wanting to use 80 acres for basically the same purposes as it's presently been used for and also as much preservation of what stays there and what is a gorgeous, gorgeous area. We want to work at all possible to maintain what's there. Certainly to try to improve the road somewhat but not lose some of the uniqueness of what's there. We certainly want to turn it into a thorough- fare. That's just our preferences. Conrad: Other comments? Okay, we'll close the public hearing for tonight. Erhart: I'll move to close the public hearing. Emmings: Well continue it to the next meeting so they can react. ' Erhart: Okay, I'll move to continue the public hearing. Conrad: That's a better motion. Emmings: Second. Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to continue the public hearing until the ` next meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I Conrad: I think what I'd like to do right now, let us go around the commission briefly but kind of give some direction to staff so that when it comes back to us, we may have a clearer idea than I currently have of what II we want to do here. Again, I don't know that we want to belabor it tonight. I think we want to more than belaboring issues is give staff some direction to explore alternatives for us before it comes back here. Tim, comments on what we've seen tonight and directions. Erhart: I guess the way to look at this is if the road didn't exist. One ' of the ways to look at this is if the road didn't exist at all and the developer was attempting to subdivide 3 lots off on the extreme end of the property from where his access is and in that case what are our requirements? Private driveway or does it require a 60 foot easement to get in 3 new lots? Olsen: You could have a private drive but we would most likely be requiring I the 60 foot right-of-way. Erhart: Right, so normally we would require the easement in that case so I guess again, without having full discussion, my immediate reaction is to go 11 back, I think which is what we previously, didn't you state Mark that's what we ended up the last time was just requiring easements to get in there. I tend to think that was probably where we were going to end up with this again, but not to improve it at this time. Emmings: Building on what Tim said, can you have a private drive with this 11 many houses on it? I thought there was an upper limit on the number of I IPlanning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 20 1 houses that can be served by a private drive. IOlsen: Three lots you can have. The other ones, no you can not have. IResident: What was the answer? Emmings: The answer is no. What is the maximum? Is it 5 or 4? II Olsen: It's 3 and then in the rural standards it states that you can have 2 so there's some discrepancy there. 1 Emmings: Looking at the Code, on the subdivision code under Section 18-39 it says that in order to approve a preliminary plat and a final plat, the City Council has to find that the proposed subdivision is not premature. I One of the things that makes it premature is if there's a lack of adequate roads. If I remember , I was here a couple years ago when we looked at this thing at that time and everybody agreed that the roads in there were inadequate. At least that's my recollection of what happened back then. I 11 think there should be a 60 foot easement going all the way in. I can see that maybe some allowance is going to have to be made for that spot where the mound system is. I think things like that can be taken into account for something like this but the easement we should have. How much construction of the roadway should be done, I think is we can talk about but I 'd probably, if this is the best opportunity we're going to have for f cleaning up what's a bad situation. It's a very long cul-de-sac. We don' t like that. As a matter of policy, we don't like the long cul-de-sacs. Whether people agree to submit to the extra lack of fire services or the potential for not being able to get any emergency services or not, that's I not something that's just in the hands of the landowners but it's a concern of the City too and I don't think we can. . . IMartin Jones: The fire trucks can get in there now. Emmings: I know. IMrs. Getsch: An 18 wheeler was in there last week. Resident: It's still there. IEmmings: I'm telling you what I think. IW.C. Getsch: I know but we can tell you what actually happens. . . Emmings: Reality doesn't interest me. This is theoretical. I Martin Jones: I've driven the fire truck down the road many times so I know it goes down and it comes back out. Emmings: What is the reason that we have roads like we do and the reason that we don't like long cul-de-sacs? Olsen: It's public safety. I Planning Commission Meeting 41 June 21, 1989 - Page 21 I Warren: Secondary access . Emmings: That's all I have. Ellson: I think that we should probably do some sort of minimum standard ' roadway improvements at this point. I also think that the reservation of the trail easement should be left as was recommended. That's it. Batzli: I guess taking what I consider to maybe the easier issue first. I II think the trail easement, I think Park and Rec if they didn't consider why they were going around the back end. If they just thought we did it this way last time, let's do it again, I guess I'd like to see them reconsider whether they really need it around the entire parcel or if it would make more sense to jog it back to Dogwood there and not knowing their reasoning for what they proposed, I don't have a good basis on which to judge that at II all . I don't believe I was here to consider this last time around but as far as the roadway improvements but I kind agree with Ladd, or his earlier comment anyway. Maybe he's not really in agreement. Maybe he's playing devil's advocate but the question as to whether we should force the developer to develop the road at this time. I don't know that it's the inadequacy of the road is going to be further exacerbated by the addition of 3 lots when it appears that the reason that it's inadequate is due to the existing lots currently in there. But on the other hand, I do think due to public safety concerns, there should be some sort of upgrade or at least planning for the future and it looks like the only way we can do that II at this time is to get some sort of easement and perhaps minimally blacktopping it or something else. It seems to there was some sort of discussion about whether you go in and build a 60 foot road or just kind of blacktop it now and upgrade it later. I don't know. I Wildermuth: I guess my thinking is, with the addition of 3, 4 lots or parcels there. One being the 80 acre parcel. We're not looking at that much greater load on the existing roadway and the upgrade at this point probably ought to be up to the people who live on the road. But I think the easements should really get some consideration this time around. Headla: As far as the trail goes, I would assume that the Park and Rec wanted to go from Point A to Point B. If I understand the proposal , the trail will go from A to A-. It never even gets to B+ so I sure would want II the Park and Rec to look at that. Look at it closely. As far as the road improvement, if they all agree, they don't want to improve it, they've got the problem and a lot of people back there have been happy for many years so I guess I'm inclined to say let it be. Conrad: My comments. I agree with getting the full easements at this point in time. I think we really don't know what's going to happen but we 1 have to get the easements so if that's the 60 foot easement that we need, that we have to get that. I don't want to force a developer to develop a property I think right now yet I want them to be able to use it and I don' t II mind the way they're dividing it right now. I think we do Mark, as you suggested, we've got to look at that power line as they've cleared it out because it's a big new piece of information and I think that plays a role, II at least in how do we get access to those particular 3 sites. The trail, I I II Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 22 1 : I think that should go back to the Park and Rec for their comments. I guess my only other concern right now is, if there future potential to continue to split off? When the MUSA line goes out there. Back up. I'm comfortable allowing the subdivision as we see this yet I'm still II uncomfortable at what point we can say no, you can' t add one more house to this. Based on the zoning right now, can they add additional, how many additional could they add? rOlsen: You've got 100 acres and you can have 10 units. Conrad: 1 per 10 so they could literally 7 more? IWarren: They could add 5 more. He' s platting Zimmerman as a lot. I Olsen: Right, and that's something that we have to determine if we would have to determine if we would consider that one of the building eligibilities. Since they're including another one. IConrad : So they could put 5 more there. Okay. It gets kind of difficult to know what to say. Those are my comments but I think that we need the easements. It' s a difficult situation but I think if we get those I easements, at least we have our options open but I personally don't think we need to, the neighbors are saying don' t develop. Well , I'm not sure what the neighbors have said. They're basically saying to me we don' t want any assessments. I 'm not sure what they think of development or improvement of the roads but my impression is they're happy living the way they have lived there and I don't think 3 more units or 4 is going to disturb the balance out there so I don't feel that we need to force any I kind of road development in at the current time other than making sure that we have our options open for the future and that probably means to me covering our options and getting as much property for easement as possible. IAnyway, those are my comments. Tom Kordonowy: If the Commission were to acquire an easement around the ' entire property, if they saw that to be appropriate, wouldn't it -be, insofar as I 'm taking this 80 acre portion for a single family house, wouldn't it be appropriate. . .on the west side of Dogwood to take the entire right-of-way or easement out of this parcel. However, this parcel is not Ibeing developed, it wouldn't be a fair arrangement to take half of what would be the required right-of-way from here should this develop and take the other half on the other side. If at a later date, I as an owner here Iwere going to develop this, then I would think it would be appropriate for the City to say you've got to dedicate additional right-of-way. . . I'd be concerned that the City now has the easement or right-of-way and they say we're putting in a blacktop road and you're the benefitting party, you're paying this portion of it. That would be a burden. W.C. Getsch: I don't think Camp Tanadoona is going to hold still for that. ITom Kordonowy: They wouldn't be taking the easement from them at this time. They'd only be taking half an easement. I I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 23 , W.C. Getsch: I'm talking about any assessment or anything else. They're t in bad enough shape as it is. Conrad: Right. No, we understand that. There was a lot of logic in what II he just said. Is there anything that would contradict that logic Jo Ann? Olsen: I'll let Gary answer that. I Warren: Thank you Jo Ann. The comment about Camp Tanadoona I think is a reality as far as if at some time in the future, if that's the way you're going to look at this, if you're going to want to build that road and want II to build it to city standards, the City would have to go through considerable expense to probably condemn, if you will, the portion of the right-of-way that we would be deficient. Now whether that's from the Campfire property and actually my recollection, the topography out there is, you talk about trees and you talk about some tough topography. The further to the north from that roadway, you get into some real difficult topography. Conrad: So the situation would be, if we only required half the dedication of the easement on the property that's now being looked at and platted, • basically what, if we only required half of it, then what we're saying to the current residents is we probably can't. If nothing else happens on that property, we' re probably not going to upgrade that road for a long ' time. That's basically what we're saying. If we only require the half of the easement for rural road or whatever that we'd like to have, the options of improving that road for the current residents are neglible until the big I parcel develops. Warren: They're certainly restricted as to what you can do and quite honestly what I prefer about Alternate D, putting cost aside for the I moment, is the fact that to pursue the alignment along the current roadway as we're all aware, when you get down to the northwest corner there, the bottleneck, the sharp right angle turn, that is a very undesireable I alignment and in the alternates that we showed and the feasibility study we showed cutting across that meadow land area which actually is a beautiful meadow land area. You still have to deal with the bottleneck at the community mound system whereas if the road is brought in through the 1 property, we can deal with reasonable geometries to put in the proper access and then you only have a compromised road section for the piece that goes to the north, the hammer as Mark calls it, and the other three quarters of the roadway is a full city standard roadway. That's what I guess is attractive from an engineering standpoint about if you're going to take easements, if you're going to follow the existing alignment, then you're locking yourself into the future probably about trying to upgrade with that existing alignment. Whereas if you take another easement, maybe if you're going to restrict it to not using it for a while, I don't know what kind of restrictions we could put on but at least get the easements where you ultimately might want to build the full city section. Conrad: I liked the D alignment. In my mind that was the right way to fly yet that may not work with the owner's plans. He's got a house that's probably he's situating and that probably doesn't work but conceptually 11 • IIPlanning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 24 I you're right. 1 Kurt Laughinghouse: I think what you just said argues against taking any interest for roads as follows. If there's one person owning this 80 acres I and it is platted as lot , the only way it can be further subdivided is to come back to the Planning Commission and Council and then the whole game is open again for roads. So if this plat is approved as we propose it, and there is dedication here so there's a full 60 feet available on the front I of these lots, but there is no dedication around the rest of the property in effect unless we deal with this in here. In that situation, the City controls. If anybody wants one more lot, then the City says okay then now I we need the road here or we need a road here. We need something else. And, and if water and sewer come this far, to this edge of the lake, Camp Tanadoona will not be able to resist the amount of money that will be I offered for that property. . .and that will probably be developed too and a Campfire camp will be built 30 miles further west in another more secluded wooded place. Then this sewer system is no longer needed. If and when there's any redevelopment, either because of the water and sewer or because ' this low owner of Lot 4 in this case decides they don' t want to have the horse farm anymore, the City controls. If the City needs easements, they take easements where they need them so really what we're doing, although I we're going through a platting process which is an urban process, we're really dealing with 5 and 10 acre lots. This is a rural situation forced into an urban process. I think we ought to. . . 1 Conrad : Mr. Laughinghouse, you're right yet it takes the power away from the City and the power away from the neighborhood right now that are currently living there under your direction. Now's the time in 1 subdivisions that the city can make improvements and what you' re suggesting is don't do anything right now and basically the power will be left with the individual who owns the large parcel there, when they want to develop I and the City is locked out of improving road access to the current neighbors. Yet I have heard the current neighbors say some things that say maybe they don' t mind that. ' Dave Getsch: We might want the road coming down the hill before the hammerhead, we might want that widened a little bit. We certainly want to have easements so we can do something like that. IIConrad: But you're comfortable the way things are today aren't you? II Dave Getsch: Yes but we don't necessarily, there are times when it's less than desireable trying to get in. For instance when the frost goes out in the spring and you park your car on top of the hill and walk in. That's less than desireable. After a good gully washer is less than desireable IIbut what I'm saying is that it has a certain charm to it. . .we certainly want the easements. Warren: The City can always vacate easements. I'd rather get the bird in the hand and give it away in the future if we don't use it. Conrad: I think you've heard a lot of comments. Is there a motion to table this item until, what do we table it for Jo Ann? For staff review of I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 25 the new information? i Olsen: That would be best. Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to table acition on the preliminary plat to subdivide 100 acres into three single family lots and one outlot for Kurt Laughinghouse until staff has reviewed the new information. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ' LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE MUSA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE 140 ACRES INTO THE METROPOLITAN SERVICE AREA LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF LAKE ANN, 1680 ARBORETUM BOULEVARD, MICHAEL GORRA. , Public Present: Name Address ' Mike Gorra Applicant Leander Kerber 1620 Arboretum Blvd. Bernie Schneider P.O. Box 103, Chanhassen Mark Koegler presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public II bearing to order. Bernie Schneider : Mr. Chairman, I'm Bernie Schneider. I represent the Chanhassen Legion. I'm not quite clear what this. . . I didn't quite follow you on that. , Koegler: The City is in the process of updating it's Comprehensive Plan at the present time which a review of the MUSA line is a part of that effort. II That effort has been underway for some time and we feel that within 60 to 90 days the planning aspect of that will come to a close and a lot of the documentation that will be needed to support this application with Metropolitan Council might be available at that time. For example we' ll need to provide them with some information on how the property ultimately is going to develop. What the sewage flows will be so they can consider what impact that has on the regional treatment systems. So what I guess we're saying is it's a very complex issue and the documentation that will make that issue perhaps a little more clearly discernable is going to be available in 2 to 3 months. It's not available as we sit here tonight. ' Conrad: Bernie, it's my guess that with the information that the staff compiles, you've got a much better case than going in there right now without it. Other comments from the public? Anything else? Koegler: I want to emphasize I guess on the record that the kind of comments that I just made assume that the plan to a certain degree will II support this application and we don't actually know that tonight. I guess 11 III s t , _ ; ` ,4+ 1 ; : . ! ��.;, I s T I M I L ` I I / • J A., I / • / -P f, S—. " . • I rE r ff • i ; I 4-,,,,........?;i /J.�� -!`"� _� % . .�' Ste' I ,- . _Moir!!�IT IM- a#�Y/��� ^( . i trif. f I 4 1) ii ,•111P14114. 141\ .., . ;. z- ' arerci 1. -_.. 1 1 1,..Ai ver. iiil /),;.. X74. 011 . . . i . . , , Illi= . 1 : - : f iii ��. • . • r Iv iii $1 . a I i - 1 I I It -I F p I : r r r !) t rill': t : 1 i itE ;I i� - . - �� �cii f�� cs� ;r -� iii ! 1 iisl1i I rill tit i*itii =F1111 y!• • �'ii= i ! 1i I ( I t t _d r 1irt� °_a t tR t_ I.e. f tt ti 11! i i! Iie E i iii hI' lit 111 a � -� id' i �i 3� �E F• i R •i i tii i- t i ' . t € t pp� i pp !t� FEE�� i i0ti � � 3 ii t � � ii! tt �9 � � 1� F t ��1: _�� ti =1 1 4 i9E! ` Ii 1, ' iI ° 1 i 0 I �� _ u re ,;.r. si i 1iF tiii t i, at t fi t: t .s t � r I • y i ' ip°t a i 1i t i / t 1 1 t � C�i � �a 3• I �� � Ii � it � Ii 1 i � � .'L�•'Ci ii�F�,:� ��I� 41110( 1i�a 1;i I E ill 1 • IIIPIi ��t 1� ! 11 1 l - Fi II t � t i ".`: i E i 1 t 1 r•. t t � iii : ti i . � 01014 0 � � 11111,1111;141114=11.1N111;11111 1 r . . :I i1i i i,i Hi i 1 iii iiE Rii 1 I 1 I 16 _ =F• L : ;is ti II a 11g9iii i;• iIII ti e tt �, +•• ii F t-� t �i 3. i• tit- t i �i t � � C• t �t '� � i � � 1 i°i:$ ��ittt -e1it •ii e =IO iI $ i t t iliiiilillidilkillitilliVillill ti a I t.i; y 1 1:1 i i 1. i g i5 ri 1 i �� :i pp i i� 4i i tt : i E ii • i II i :��5�1/liiiii. •�1; iti a ii iii �=IE,1� ��°d !1 1E 1 i i�� . � � =ei=. ; tp i,� ,i i! •. i 'ii ; •i: F;�/ 1 t it ;ii " iiliii = 1111 lt 1,101 r .4A . 1 - ;t E• 41 t III E t fl �� tita 1 ZIMMERMAN FARM inc.ll I r s 0 i E CMAMMA..t14M. _ ^ �- James R.Hil� c•s s .PItELIMIMART ORADIMO AND novo*coltrRO.Kaii , w .-._"— PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS Ri w TIMOTHY p POSTER " � _.. _ y - ten rtT.O i1�0.tlu�.re. e../ ∎•••� M�7i MINI.1St • ROO•/03,0NA.1 WIN • .INM.MM. , ITY O F �C DATE: May 13, -1919 '` 1 C ��I1 1 4 11 C.C. DATE: CASE N0: R'� Prepared by: Sietsema:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 20.3 acres into 2 single family lots z VQ LOCATION: Tanadoona Drive, west of Highway 41 and } mile north of Highway APPLICANT: Timothy Foster 7200 Metro Blvd. Q Edina, MN 55435 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 20.3 acres ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RR, Camp Tanadoona • S- RR, Single Family Residential E- RR Single Family Residential W- RR, Single Family Residential EXISTING PARKS: There are no neighborhood parks in this Q area. Camp Tanadoona is located to the F- north and Minnewashta Regional Park anal the 0 Landscape Arboretum are also in` this area. COMP. TRAIL PLAN: The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for a W trail along the entire west.side of the development from Crimson Bay-Rd. to Tanadoona Dr ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan does not call for parkland in this park deficient area in the near future, however, when an urban development is proposed, a neighborhood park will be needed. , Park and Recreation Commission ' December 12, 1989 Page 2 IBACKGROUND The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed a plan for this site in June of 1989, which did not get final approval. This proposal revises that plan from 100 acres to 20, and includes only two lots. ' The Park and Recreation Commission recommended at that time to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction and that a trail easement along the south and ' east property lines from Crimson Bay Road to Hwy. 41. (See attached report and minutes. ) ' As this plan no longer includes the large 80 acre parcel, a con- nection cannot be made from Crimson Bay Road to Hwy. 41 at this time. However, a section of that trail alignment can be pre- served with this development. Planning and Engineering are exploring two street options on this site. The first would con- nect Crimson Bay Road to Lake Drive. However, this would increase the amount of traffic through these neighborhoods to ' Hwy. 5, which is not desirable. The second option would put a street between the two lots that would connect to future develop- ment to the east and north of this sight. Recommendation Staff feels that the trail connection should be made along the ' street as much as possible. If the first scenario is opted for, then the trail should run through Lot 2 along the street, and along the east boundary of Lot 1. If the street goes between the ' two lots, then the previous recommendation regarding the trail should stand; along the south boundary from Crimson Bay Road to the southeast corner of Lot 2 and along the east boundary of lots 1 and 2. Park and Recreation Commission Update (12-12-89) ' The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for the Zimmerman proposal at their December 12th meeting. Their primary concern is to provide another link in the trail system that con- nects the Landscape Arboretum and the Minnewashta Regional Park. Currently there is an easement along Crimson Bay Road. ' The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended approval of the Zimmerman proposal with the condition that a 20 ft. trail easement be required along the south and east boundaries of the property, and that park and trail dedication fees be required in lieu of park dedication and trail construction. CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1 REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1989 1 Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Jan Lash, Jim Mady, and Larry Schroers 1 MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Hasek, Dawne Erhart and Curt Robinson i STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Schroers moved, Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 14, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW, ZIMMERMAN ADDITION. 1 Sietsema: This item was brought before the Park and Recreation Commission previously only it was 100 acre site and 3 lots. 3 or 4 lots. They revised the plan taking out the 80 acre outlot and it's just a lot split soli it's 20 acres into 2 lots. At the time that we talked about this before, the recommendation from the Park and Recreation Commission was to come in 1 with a trail easement along this border and then along the eastern border - to get up. It would have gone through the other outlot up to Tanadoona Drive and eventually over to TH 41 and up to the Regional Park. Since that time I 've talked to planning and they're talking about a couple of ' different options for a road in connecting Crimson Bay through here or coming in with a road that would come in here and eventually connect to the east. Now the latest is a road along the north boundary. It's unlikely II that the option of connecting Crimson Bay Road is going to go through. If that doesn't go through, it doesn't make a lot of sense to put a trail in there and cut off, divide that lot up. So staff would recommend that we II just continue with the previous recommendation. Going along the south and east border of the property. _ Mady: We' ll have the opportunity at a later date to do something else. ...develops this whole thing. Boyt: Are you saying the road would go along the northern edge then? 1 Sietsema: Right but it doesn't make sense for us to come in along the south and east and then go back down over. Our goal is to get up here. If 1 you're looking at, this is south and the regional park is going to be up here so our goal is to zig zag our way through and at the time we make that the next connection would be when the 80 acres comes through and that again is one of the sites that was identified as potential community park I property. When that changes is apt to be long range when that ever comes up for development. Lash: Are you saying that our recommendation is based on. . . You've got the Minutes attached? 1 1 1 I ' ., . . . j r a _ I I �..✓ 1 NI : r. I • 1r / ./ I �° : ism 1 ,.,.. _. _" ,. , / o %�' KE d ., / / I ,� r ,,,,., ,i,„,,r 1 r .fi Ae/ /tattileil 1 1 ; I NiPrt • . iii /it . 1 . A ,' , . /14% . , /. (:///t/ . - Ili Tr i 1 o I. . 1 i li . . • . l E 1 F e ` e - r . •�JJII'ill � �� E �i:il 't! ��i €1 ij;j I!iIiI E ` II' t n� i 1• 1 1 2 E 1 i'1 I• J• NN B I iiji I - i! ! : 3 t!� 1 11j . =eIdr li J :r&i=�tt r F F E 1 t� •R` ! a 1 i 1! 1 i =t . E t 2 2 1,50 !� _� Ill � �E � i 3 �°z ' F i t t ill" 1'111-14 ii s E 111s'� {'; 11,1111 1311 h4 1 'Ij t • 11fI Eti l t. ti ! "1111!.[ i F1 1. ( i1 2 i "" 1 ti• ruli ' 1 1rt 1!3 i $.1111141 a1 I. i�� 1 1 i1� i i �i 1 !• 1 1 ili 'c = F t t =l 1 11 3 is Iii =Ii14p1= lib / �t�• t. :1=�s [!1l r�E3; _3e�1 1i{[C F fl �� 1_ 'E� p � tf1 � e SI1. I 0E 1 � � t • •�_111:11i11:43:11:ille!fili 11. i ' !•��� 1��71�1 .1 1 t.iiI 111 •/ 1 1 1; 1.1R ! 11 1=a t 1114:/iri ' I:9•pp 1 illli iE' - .E� 1 1i • i h }f�7 I ��'.Sa' i 2 �:� 1 1E j C '1. . i r I ' a s � t1� � ! 1 !• � �1 �a { i � � s� 2• �r� 1 pp 4. 11lill 1140 !.°o 41 PIN •11 Milt ii III 1 ti°i,11,I ; R iX 1111114111111 t ' .i i ' a . 1 1 iil iE iii 1 fi- 1119 tit= I 1 r-:1_ ZIMMERMAN FARM I ■ a; �.»»9999»�t I _ =- -= James R.Hill, inc. a "s "_ PRELIMINARY GRADING AND!EROSION CONTROL PLAM , =--r- PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS • N TIMOTNY D POSTER _ toes re'MO Rt•.•mr11.IM.99999 aft......, 99p1 ONO„E• • RLOOrO*OM.1M oa • 1M41Ndo19 ,� �1i '4 • f ITY OF 11: DATE: May 13, X1989 0 !' CWHAS SEN C.C. DATE: C * I ASE N0: MB Prepared by: Sietsema:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 20.3 acres into 2 single family lots Imo z Q LOCATION: V Tanadoona Drive, west of Highway 41 and i mile J north of Highway Cl.a, APPLICANT: Timothy Foster 7200 Metro Blvd. Q Edina, MN 55435 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 20.3 acres . : ADJACENT ZONING • AND LAND USE: N- RR, Camp Tanadoona S- RR, Single Family Residential E- RR Single Family Residential W- RR, Single Family Residential EXISTING PARRS: There are no neighborhood parks in this Q area. Camp Tanadoona is located to the north and Minnewashta Regional Park ana the OLandscape Arboretum are also inythis area. COMP. TRAIL PLAN: The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for a W trail along the entire west. srde of the development from Crimson Bay_Rd. to Tanadoona Dr COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan does not call for parkland in this park deficient area in the near future, however, when an urban development is proposed, a neighborhood park will be needed. Park and Recreation Commission ' December 12, 1989 Page 2 ' BACKGROUND The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed a plan for this site in June of 1989, which did not get final approval. This proposal revises that plan from 100 acres to 20, and includes only two lots. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended at that time to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction and that a trail easement along the south and ' east property lines from Crimson Bay Road to Hwy. 41. (See attached report and minutes. ) As this plan no longer includes the large 80 acre parcel, a con- nection cannot be made from Crimson Bay Road to Hwy. 41 at this time. However, a section of that trail alignment can be pre- served with this development. Planning and Engineering are exploring two street options on this site. The first would con- nect Crimson Bay Road to Lake Drive. However, this would increase the amount of traffic through these neighborhoods to Hwy. 5, which is not desirable. The second option would put a street between the two lots that would connect to future develop- ment to the east and north of this sight. Recommendation Staff feels that the trail connection should be made along the street as much as possible. If the first scenario is opted for, then the trail should run through Lot 2 along the street, and along the east boundary of Lot 1. If the street goes between the two lots, then the previous recommendation regarding the trail should stand; along the south boundary from Crimson Bay Road to the southeast corner of Lot 2 and along the east boundary of lots ' 1 and 2. Park and Recreation Commission Update (12-12-89) 1 The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan for the Zimmerman proposal at their December 12th meeting. Their primary concern is to provide another link in the trail system that con- nects the Landscape Arboretum and the Minnewashta Regional Park. Currently there is an easement along Crimson Bay Road. The Park and Recreation Commission has recommended approval of the Zimmerman proposal with the condition that a 20 ft. trail easement be required along the south and east boundaries of the property, and that park and trail dedication fees be required in 1 lieu of park dedication and trail construction. I r - CHANHASSEN PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 12, 1989 ' Chairman Mady called the meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. . MEMBERS PRESENT: Sue Boyt, Jan Lash, Jim Mady, and Larry Schroers MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Hasek, Dawne Erhart and Curt Robinson ' STAFF PRESENT: Lori Sietsema, Park and Rec Coordinator and Todd Hoffman, Recreation Supervisor APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Schroers moved, Boyt seconded to approve the Minutes of the Park and Recreation Commission meeting dated November 14, 1989 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW, ZIMMERMAN ADDITION. ' Sietsema: This item was brought before the Park and Recreation Commission previously only it was 100 acre site and 3 lots. 3 or 4 lots. They revised the plan taking out the 80 acre outlot and it's just a lot split so it's 20 acres into 2 lots. At the time that we talked about this before, the recommendation from the Park and Recreation Commission was to come in ' with a trail easement along this border and then along the eastern border - to get up. It would have gone through the other outlot up to Tanadoona Drive and eventually over to TH 41 and up to the Regional Park. Since that!' time I've talked to planning and they're talking about a couple of different options for a road in connecting Crimson Bay through here or coming in with a road that would come in here and eventually connect to the east. Now the latest is a road along the north boundary. It's unlikely II that the option of connecting Crimson Bay Road is going to go through. If that doesn't go through, it doesn't make a lot of sense to put a trail in there and cut off, divide that lot up. So staff would recommend that we ' just continue with the previous recommendation. Going along the south and east border of the property. Mady: We'll have the opportunity at a later date to do something else. ' ...develops this whole thing. Boyt: Are you saying the road would go along the northern edge then? ' Sietsema: Right but it doesn't make sense for us to come in along the south and east and then go back down over. Our goal is to get up here. If' you're looking at, this is south and the regional park is going to be up here so our goal is to zig zag our way through and at the time we make that the next connection would be when the 80 acres comes through and that again is one of the sites that was identified as potential community park ' property. When that changes is apt to be long range when that ever comes up for development. Lash: Are you saying that our recommendation is based on You've got ' the Minutes attached? 11 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 2 1 Sietsema: Yes. Lash: Okay, because this came back to us and we changed this. Remember it !' went to Planning and then Mark Koegler came back to us at our next meeting and he said our recommendation really didn't make sense with the Comp Plan and they came back and we discussed the whole thing again and it had something to do with Dogwood? I distinctly remember that. I remember the II night Mark was here. Boyt: You think it changed? ' Lash: I don't remember but I know it wasn' t this east thing and it went. It has kind of a connection with Dogwood? ' -Sietsema: What the connection was is that the next piece, I wish I had an overall plan. ' Lash: I'm pretty sure it was the same thing. Have we done two different ones? Sietsema: What we had done was going all the way along this whole entire, including the outlot and then shooting up this way. Lash: And that was our first recommendation right? Sietsema: Right. ' Lash: Okay. I know that this came back to us a second time. Schroers: I remember something about that Jan. One of the things that Mark brought up was we were talking at the same time about the population projection for the next 25 years or whatever the projected population could reach 35,000 in the City and he felt that, if I remember correctly, it was II the opinion at that time that this additional parkland really wouldn't be necessary that far out in the City until the community reached that target population or close to it. That was something that we would consider way in the future. Lash: You're talking about a park. We're talking about the trails. That's what we're talking about right? ' Sietsema: Trail, right. Staff's recommendation was to o along Dogwood and go through, straight through that lot connecting to Crimson Bay. That was staff's first recommendation. I don't know if Mark was in the audience !' then or not but it was changed then. What the Park and Recreation Commission had recommended then was to go along the south and east boundary II of the entire site being again the outlot included so what I 'm suggesting here now, instead of bringing it way up here, which we could do at some time in the future, change that if that comes in, I'm saying go along the east here. If this turns out to develop into houses, we can get through along the streets or whatever. Whatever this street connection is going to. If they put in a street here, whatever that street connection is, we can tie into that. ' II I . Park, and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 3 ' . Boyt: It would be the most. . .to the park. ' Sietsema: Yeah, if it becomes a park, right. And if it becomes homes, then we can go along the streets to make the connection that we want to make. I'll have to look. I don't recall that. Lash: Because I know I voted against it when it came back the second time. I absolutely remember that. And on this one we all voted in favor and the motion carried . I know it came back to us. It went to Planning like the next week and there were a bunch of problems with it and Mark came and explained to us their reasoning and then we changed it. I know it something to do with Dogwood. Sietsema: Alright I'll look but I don't know. . . Mady: Do we need to act on it tonight? Sietsema: Yeah. Unless you want to wait until you get that other ' information but it is going to the Planning Commission at their next meeting. ' Lash: If you're basing that we need to change it, based on our first recommendation. Sietsema: I 'm just giving you that for background information. You can ' disregard that whole, because that is no longer a valid plan and just go based on this plan. Sue Boyt's comments couldn' t be heard on the tape. Sietsema: If you want to wait and I can go back and look that up. Lash: . . .the recommendation was to go on Dogwood here, then. . . Boyt: I don't think it was. I think it was a problem going along Dogwood. ' I think that's what we wanted to do initially because that's the one that makes the most sense when you first glance at it but it seems like there was something wrong with that. . . .couldn't get it over on this side. . . Schroers: Well there is definitely topography over there. Sietsema: Yeah, it's very, especially when you get down' to Dogwood, it gets even more erratic. Severe. You have a couple options. If you want to review it, what happened before, I can go back and dig out, see where we discussed that. I don't think it was on the agenda though because I looked back on all the agendas. That it just came up and I'll 'have to look and see what that was. Otherwise, the old plan is no longer valid because that did not get approval so you can base your recommendations strictly on what we have in front of us today. Mady: Thinking it through, the old plan really has some old basis on it. 9 P A major portion of it or 80% of it doesn't come in front of us. It's just r Park and Rec Commission Meeting } • December 12, 1989 - Page 4 this 20 acres. Ultimately we're going to have an opportunity and it may be 20 years from now, to make that connection some other way but going along that section line there, probably at this point makes the most sense. Just ' going along the edges there. We don't have any other way of doing it. Schroers: That 80 acres that. . .cornfield? 1 Sietsema: What it is is, two different people own these properties and I believe that the guy with the smaller piece, what you're looking at today, I wanted to divide, get more lots out of it and he needed more acreage to do that because it's a 1 unit per 10 acres so if you threw the 30 acres in it was 100 and he could get 3 lots out of his and make the other piece an outlot but it didn't work out that way so he's coming back with just 2 lots. Schroers: I would think we could make a recommendation on this. Mady: Go ahead. Schroers: Okay, I' ll move to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail construction and to require a trail easement straight north from Crimson Bay Road to Tanadoona Drive and also recommend to consider at the time of further development, neighborhood park needs. ' Mady: Is there a second? Boyt: I thought that was the place where there was a problem putting a trail in and going along Crimson Bay Road. Isn't that where this problem with the trail . . . Sietsema: Along Crimson Bay? 1 Boyt: Yeah. If that's the motion. , Sietsema: Your motion was to connect Crimson Bay to Dogwood or to Lake Street? Schroers: North. . . Sietsema: Yeah. I Schroers: No, I was following staff's recommendation to require trail easements straight north from Crimson Bay Road to Tanadoona Drive. Sietsema: Okay, that's the old recommendation. Go back -to the second page of your report. Lash: While you're getting your thoughts together Larry, can I make one comment? Schroers: Sure. 1 { Park and Rec Commission -Meeting ' December 12, 1989 - Page 5 Lash: I don't want to appear to be real nit picky but I have a question. You guys will discover that I have a very good memory for details and I specifically remember making a correction on these minutes and it was not ' done. I'm wondering, when we make corrections if that then is go back and correct it or. . . Sietsema: Usually I do. Lash: Because this ends up becoming the permanent record correct? ' Sietsema: Right. Where's the correction? Lash: It was on page 15. I'm just saying that this is really nit picky ' but I remember that this happened because I was the one who was questioning about this budget that we had started for Lake Minnewashta and I was asking these questions about it and Nann had gotten Dawne and I, I suppose because ' we were new at that time, our voices mixed up so she has down that Dawne was making the comments. Asking the questions and I was asking the questions and correcting that and it wasn't done. ' Sietsema: The reason these aren't corrected is because when the Minutes come in, I go through them all and label them for the files. I got these Minutes out of the files, not out of the Minutes so when I go back to a file that's regarding trails or regarding one issue, insteading of paging ', - through a huge book of Minutes and trying to find it, I can find all the pages I need by finding that date and pulling it out and copying it and ' those Minutes go in right away into the. . . Lash: Before corrections? ' Sietsema: Before corrections usually. Sometimes. Not always but usually when I get them, I put them in there because they're needed. They need to go in there. Lash: But the corrections are needed. _ Sietsema: Yeah, for the official record they are made. Mady: Ready to go? Schroers: No, as a matter of fact. I managed somehow or another to get. . .and I'm still somewhat confused so I'm not ready to make a recommendation. ' Sietsema: If you want to go with the option of going from Crimson Bay Road, which is here, along the south boundary up, that would be the second ' scenario. If the street goes through between the two lots or along the north side, then the previous recommendation regarding the trail should stand going along the south boundary from Crimson Bay Road to the southeast corner of Lot 2 and along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2. Boyt: Yeah, that wasp our last recommendation. r Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 6 Sietsema: Except that instead of going up here, it went way out. That was one recommendation. Schroers: What's kind of confusing me now is like if the street goes here. II That kind of leads me to believe that we don't know exactly what we're doing, at least that's what I felt. 1 Sietsema: That what? Boyt: We're trying to project into the future what's going to happen. Sietsema: What Planning has told me is that they want a street down in this area somehow to get these people out of here. That would connect, so I that not everybody is feeding onto what's labeled here as Lake Drive. -Okay? So if they put it in and connect Lake Drive over to Crimson Bay Road or if they put it inbetween the two lots and at a future time that the other piece develops, they continue it out or if they put it up along the I north side, those are the 3 options. There's only 2 in your packet because the north side just came up today. So if they go through, put it through Crimson Bay Road, Crimson Bay Road to Lake Drive, then it would make sense II for the trail to go along there but it's not likely that that's going to happen. What you would do is just make that recommendation. If that happens, then you want the trail here. If it goes between the two lots or ' along the north side, then you'd want the trail along here because what we - want to do is connect Crimson Bay Road over to Lake Minnewashta Park. Lash: Is there some way that we can just wait until we have confirmation ' on this so we know what's happening? Mady: Basically what we want to do is run it along whatever road they decide to put in. I don't know anything else. . . Sietsema: Basically. We can look at it after Planning but typically we make our recommendation before Planning looks at it because we're on the same schedule as the City Council and that would hold -the developer up almost a month if we have to look at it after them. Mady: The likelihood is that they're only going to put more road in? Sietsema: Yeah. I Boyt: And really what the two options are, since we want to connect from Crimson Bay in the southwest corner, the two options are to go straight north and that probably isn' t an option. _ ' Sietsema: Right. If they don't put the road in, then that isn't probably what we want to do. Boyt: So our only other real option is to go the southern boundary and the eastern boundary and it doesn't matter then where else they put the road because our goal is to get from the southwest corner to the north. Mady: So moved. Park and Rec Commission meeting • 'December 12, 1989 - Page 7 Boyt: Second. Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend Boyt e d to accept park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland and trail ' construction and that trail easements run along the south and east boundary. All voted in favor except Lash who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. ' N SELECTIO OF PARK NAMES FOR SITES LOCATED AT: A. CURRY FARMS B. CHANHASSEN HILLS C. LAKE SUSAN HILLS WEST (4 SITES) D. SOUTH PARK SITE (BANDIMERE FARM) Lash: Should we do something real novel like Curry Farms Park? Chanhassen Hills Park? Bandimere Park and then. . . Sietsema: It would make a lot of sense to go with the subdivision name in most cases. I would think that Curry Farms and Chanhassen Hills are • Hoffman: Are very pleasant names. ' Mady: My thoughts on this were basically what Jan's are. Use the subdivision name whenever possible and if you have a situation where there's more than one park, you can bet almost every situation I can remember in the 3 or 4 years I've been here, there's always been one major ' park and then there's been bits and pieces here and there. Use the development name for those and the little bitty piece parks maybe if there's nothing else that really strikes us, we can just use the street ' name that they're on. Boyt: How about Chanhassen. . .and there were a lot of indians in this area and a lot of the roads have the Frontier indian, derivation, if we go back to some of that. Some of roots. . . Lash: Do you have a suggestion? Boyt: No. I think there's a list of street names. ' Lash: Okay, but. . .Kiowa is one. Do you think there'd be a problem with that. Boyt: . . .that's confusing because there's 3 of them in 'town but we need, ' but that will give us some indian words. We don't want one like Kiowa Park and people will never find that. They'll know there's like 3 or 4 Kiowas around. IILash: Or are they sgt up, I mean I'm not even sure where these all are but is it set up in a way that there's a directional thing where one is north 1 e. t A l U7NS, MINN 74•w ' �••• •u•N• WO•rrr•11011101•00 r al•10■010•••w. .•••i 11N/OOZY www�.rr ON 311.11 ,..•.lo my•r••r 00.11•••00.11•••••0.r=Mal r w .o•• wnaio,i:°1ir e.�•ww.�awr.r0.�••r�'�n'rn• w1N[N11 wit tU r-.r ON aarow .204•Nw�.+row r••0.w�.r.••....•.0.011 ON/Otl 0 VIVO agneseing.10000 en Vane•••••11111.0.711 700•i•000 a.::r...•... err. N°..o°;.•'.. a1rti1r1 ; r mr.w... 1.r SUM SOS. 2..•ra sow .iomoos.0.n MO ltlitlt lI•1RU O w tee!mesa a moor 1 ^101 tiM 40111111110 11•04•11144. b.L.'r' .i•1 w w.•a wa•.•.uaa•••r m.fi.. 'W {3j1L7'1 Ol• 1' hi lei (. J•Ma.W••.Al•0.r•r0.•••■•m Tr•aU•H I Mrn••••••111 w a O.1'1 r w mw mama.•1. •N • MOW MN�t• I Maett•1 lei ` iN01 la 710 Ma.mw r ow•r woo • AtivVoInS v3irs .•-a•0. r•••-••011• o awa• r •• (i • a• a . •11 10 1 11 VO •0.00•00 nal tam en.00 sal lino 0.0 000 10 Al Nw•O ._ w Mt m".'"0.Tn.t a_s'aap aat II••.••'.1100•1110 r•m.mu• wm••.•0 11010.at ••. I 10••••••a•••W•0...•ma~".. r. 1010•..•sags a•.••..,0.•T.•10. a ft..Mg.T..0.•m•m n••••.•..1••Imel.aa••• •� ..m 0...t ii r viva.r1°r'.mi�•ri rwrana 1'1 Lr4 • Nl%';, 1 1.0,Y 11.2.1.0.m 10.....w T•a mn.MI •t III ".=.•.0.r r • a>w.C�;^„:•� • • •• a 0." ow r•... 0.r''•" Ni►l11 S r 0.7100 One.••./moms r•1 0. y •3 = rwmM.mrrmmrw.r••..••w A VLNSr N• < MY o n 1004.'•" 1•10.mi m•ri•1 Mew •n 01.0 �.���..�� ��±\�\'� •• • t � • ...•...... rear.r11.0..m•10t..aw w1:r '17A O N r.w...•a'w m Tr ru.lWVw•■w•r y •r ! a.=.'mom M.O. ` �` / �' O •�3 ea.'°m°.w 0010 i :'.�.T°.r"�••.m. • "o. :.••Z F. 3 •.0.N• +.. • • 1 r�\ 111 2 O flt •0.•r••■• ••••w m ri..ar.e"°.re.wem"•..•ww0•r ar : ,� ... a o••= i.= ••••00•••••. °.°'•10 r n.••r0.s•••w.=r •a ' \ .0•. 1•"ti•: �, .'.\\V` 100 }D raarww r 0.a ratraw r mr au.n•r•"�•m•m,•'�°• _ - ,`,•0 7 A I z •"w..mr..w moms•atom tow mm•1w r0. V ; / 1.1�%.0 ,: +� `` oO i T •w•O.•m•a0.w w0.w a••�•w y a * 1�'• �1►\ :�\��a1�����. a ma 210 r _ ••.ram m ate raw 01r 010•••erww w - 4 ; 1 C '_ ' t • • amtww•rasrma w a••••wm asw +`��\` !• �Z��t� \. ..., p,...;"_.-a ; sari wrm•m•taw r w a0.0.w.margew •• .• \�``;•�� -__ • A. gli,•.•room w 0.r........0.••w -_■r+ t I+\1\ �¢ 'rl�jj0 • j ,.'•"w•ISIS•...T.�..awe N w••.•170011 C•E. , •, _, ‘\‘'.‘►�•..\\�� •aw••`•w.H. a r0.1004.•..0.'./1. • �` ..0.w•••••.,.10 row.•rt•N..ttwwr... r R 1 1010 t0. 0.w+.amt N+w•r.m...w wa.ttNwNw•0.•• w N. •.••11...10•M.rH w•••■•w N.w••.•.s w •1[I•� • 1 `t • mw•••••0.w H alt Nw on N'•at•a.w••..•r• , �' �` 1•-I �� •altwl.w••1.•�•Mr•».0.w H 0.l wt w•H•• ' .i adi 2•••••N H...loam•IM 0..w•t•0.••w N 10.•1000 • �� `� .,I 1�••2M....• •WOO H.wrw•1111 0.•w••11 ` , ` S 0.M"N w01.••t.\0..awl•.•11.•y.•r 0...a l 1 1 1 •rat•0.w.rr•••t•y N••••w.0.r..0.w � ��! MI f"�w�' �.� .•.r••••11.0..•a•..w.00 ..w.N•N.w .�' w•Hot.wrw N 0.•r.. 0.•.•w"Nam...w• • f�1+ M f 1 ltIl wrrm w•sv 0.w M••••••H 0.N H10 / •� f 44•OM H w•w wm"•N••0.a••H+ ``. II, ry',1 N N•0.a+0.•f•era N'la[r w•H0.mw.•N �tf( � 0..•H N a...y .N0.10..10•..a.•0.,w••m.)0.ff ( w.1••wwir H"ra•wwrw•w f R1 {. ! �l 0.w.••t w•••••.•••H••r•4••1 awl .w N••. • + p•awn..•too•••.r wa•.w.tt...Om N Na•• 1 I w N'N•H ea."•.w mom. .0...w ♦ `1 1 T.. +_�••.............. '•1 ` / m••0.w t•10.1 Nm.l•.w w••N 0.....w•0. El Mil l� j OM..a•".••.w ne .a.•••••won•a•••0.•M it V..0. H•••1•1••.w••0.•N M1..ft•••••••w•H a / • ! t ^' 11aw N•N w w..••.w a..•..•a..1w •...• I ` • G D 7••+ ti w.+.a N•••.•••r•u•a H m.."0.••••• / �� : .2 •••••••Cl atom N w..•w••10••.owl t•••0.'M ` H.•.w••1- 10.••.••H•••N••••.••.law w 2 .a..•w.How..0..a•on w w.•..1•••10.••• • 111 w rt um.on Moore.•.w w0.N 0..•w w 0..m• �� 1• �•+• •• /1, N•law..w.1.10.•1010 Har4 A on H sow it a..•• •`\ , • N ,�1�rt+ 'Nom N•••N••••.r.11.t.......11.•N•w on w , • ammo r•m1•..N w•.00••••m••.w 10•momma • .......... ......: ! • .•0.N•-•wwwm•+•w.*••ww.•j wn an w ow t.••.• �• • nl XI •Nom wt N•.w•'.alt.•.•9 MI rmarw i....4 sal j $ GZ1 ��/ Mtl11.11∎ [ifl 1H71• • 2 = � �, 5 . . -,,,, . t N 1 1 1 . . . • r r r r r r r r r r rr r or r r r r r r Ow . 1 11: C 1 VanDoren _ Hazard Stallings architects• engineers• planners topeka • wichita• minneapolis• kansas city CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEM JUN 2 1 1988 ENGINEERING DEPT. F f ) , . ' ' ' II IF . II IF 1 IF II IF II II- II I II I II IL - PEASIBILI'IY STUDY FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS ' FOR I_ TANADOONA DRIVE - DOGWOOD AVENUE _- QTY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA II JUNE, 1988 I_ II I_ II 1_ I hereby certify that these P lans II and specifications were prepared by I_ me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered II Professional Engineer under the laws I_ of the State of Minnesota. L II egistration 00(7;7'. Date g j , 8 II VAN DOREN-HAZ `ARD-STALLINGS, INC. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 II Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 [.. (612) 553-1950 II II r ` ---1: xi t. 1 VanD r 4x or Hazards *- • Stallings 3030 Harbor Lane North June 17 , 1988 Bldg.II,Suite 104 Minneapolis,MN 55447-2175 1 612/553-1950 Mayor and City Council II c/o Mr . Gary Warren , City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317 IDear Mr . Warren : IIThe enclosed information constitutes the feasibility study for the improvement of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue . This material has been assembled in response to a resident petition I and has been prepared under the guidelines established by the City Council . This report examines four alternatives , all of which are feasible It from an engineering perspective. In all of the alternatives , the use of " standard " roadway sections is not feasible due to existing conditions . The proposed sections are adequate to III ensure public safety and all are appropriate for acceptance by the City of Chanhassen for ongoing maintenance purposes . Alternate "A" is recommended for implementation should the City decide to initiate an improvement project . Background information and specific reasons for this selection are detailed in the report . III We appreciate this opportunity to provide continued planning and engineering services to the City of Chanhassen . At your convenience , we are available to further discuss the details of this study with staff, the City Council and interested residents and property owners . Very truly yours , VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS , I . by. Darrell D. Ha mond , P.E . President DDH : sd 1[ BACKGROUND 11 1r Tanadoona Drive - Dogwood Avenue is a dead-end street, approximately one mile le , Irlong, that currently serves the Camp Tanadoona Campfire Girls camp, the residents of Sunset Hill on Lake Minnewashta Subdivision and one farmstead. I The residents of Sunset Hill requested that the City take over maintenance of the portion of the street now privately maintained. Additionally, in conjunction with the submission of a preliminary plat for the development of Irthe original Zimmerman farm, the City reviewed options to eliminate the • existing Dogwood Avenue dead end. I This study has been prepared to look at alternates for upgrading the existing street to current City standards and providing access for future development in the Zimmerman Farm Addition. 1- The purpose of the proposed public improvement project for upgrading Tanadoona Drive - Dogwood Avenue is: L 1. . To upgrade the streets to an acceptable minimum design standard allowing the City to assume responsibility for ongoing maintenance. 1 I 2. To provide safer, more direct access for emergency vehicles. 1 i 3. To provide access for future development of undeveloped land in the area. ' I L 1 ' , __ , . , I .....,-tili . imior.„... /41111MV Prsi:ag II IN r VILE 'Vs 4► *Sig , . •t,....44.1-as-., ,-----N,._do�' r 1 I AjOrcAlitgliffilliiiiiI0*. set i Erg :,,,.- ) Ai El Apriel0;147„r,--. . 1 i ....4,,,,,,...r..„....,„,,. Qro:angy+■!i■ _r 7-...:-___.-,_ - i ._ . . • [ t MI -��/ MI N N E W A S N T A `I / it i II j IF" \-, ) \ • 4 row, / .') r 1 ' a ,7 v•o ~1��[ N ' a ' Adivrwa .0.4--. _ ... . i ' - • ; .: ` . .` • it IN. Av. ,, 1 -'ft" 11;- 44,__ , ,•J 10 1 ,./..„, A „... 1 0 OM• Vo-,,--, ___ ._ It- l_.---- O.- C>Pi 1 - % SEND STREET PO*0 (NO SCALE) EXHIBIT NO. .1 VICINITY MAP 2 I- 1 ) MISTING CONDITIONS I 1 Although separately named, Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue are essentially I one street. Tanadoona Drive begins at State Highway 41 and runs westerly Ir approximately 3,250 feet. The traveled portion of Dogwood Avenue begins at II this point and goes south another 1,250 feet ending at lot 12 of the Sunset IHill Subdivision without a turn around or cul-de-sac. 1 Ir II The easterly 1000' of Tanadoona Drive from Highway 41 to the entrance of Camp ITanadoona has a 20' gravel surface and is currently maintained by the City. 1 Beyond the camp entrance, the roadway narrows to 14'+ in width and is Iessentially a one-way street. This portion of the roadway also has gravel r Isurfacing and is privately maintained. The narrow width, steep grades (in excess of 9%), and lack of a turn-around make this section of the road II J difficult for emergency vehicles to access. Major changes in this portion of II the road are required to meet current City standards. I_ 1 I_ The land adjacent to Tanadoona and Dogwood on the south and east, the Zimmerman farm, was recently sold and is being developed as a rural II 1_ subdivision. The plat that has been submitted calls for three new lots to be . II created with the remainder of the parcel as an outlot. Under current zoning 1.. standards, a total of 10 lots are possible in this development. 1 I_ 1 t 1 L 1 I- 3 1 L 1 N - NM MI MN NM - i EN MN I M I S I • i NM E I 1 7 rtN I CAMP TANADOONA Ze MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 6 . qtr 4.r� -�® O oicor ..... A : Z d0, /., ( ..:. o r * Nzi) C. ..,,UMW" O......,.... I ya ...,,,®, Z/41"w fAM,�h a '®. o o� �o® ' p O / , "0, { JOHN P. J©,1 SAVARYN II a+© ® ZIMMERMAN FARMS l m a2' ow..f• N �r1 aftliVirr (NO SCALE)AIM ire III a N ,.® r f "' EXHIBIT NO. 2 i EXISTING CONDITIONS I r _ TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. FEASIBILITY STUDY 4 The three new lots ace in the southeast corner of the parcel and access to them will be from Dogwood Avenue. Two of the lots are beyond the current limits of Dogwood Avenue, therefore, the street will have to be extended. 1 ISince the existing right-of-way for Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue is only 20' wide, the developer agreed to donate the additional land needed P 9 to establish a 60 foot wide right-of-way area. 1 Near the intersection of Dogwood Avenue and Tanadoona Drive is a low marshy area that is identified as Class B wetland. This area was reviewed by Dr. Leach of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Specific comments on wetland impacts are addressed in the discussion of each alternate. 1 1 I 1 1 1 r t_ 1 i 1 1 51 L . .ALTERNATES Four alternates were selected for detailed study and cost estimates. Alternate "A" looks at upgrading the present alignment to current standards. Alternate "B" establishes a new alignment for a portion of Tanadoona Drive and then establishes a "T" situation with cul-de-sacs to both the north and south along Dogwood Avenue. Alternate "C" also follows the existing alignment, except in the area of the sanitary sewer mound system. Alternate "D" provides 11 maximum access for future development of the Zimmerman farms plat. i The base data for developing the alternates and cost estimates was taken from existing plats, 1/2 section maps, USGS maps and aerial photos. Before any final design is undertaken, a complete topographic and planimetric survey will be needed. Detailed soils information is unavailable. The Carver County soils map indicates the predominate soils are Hayden and Glencoe Loams. These lirtypes of soils normally do not pose any major problems for street construction. A discussion of each alternate follows. IlL 6 ALTERNATE A - EXHIBT" 'b. 3 ) IIThe alignment for this alternate follows the existing Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue. Dogwood Avenue, which currently ends at lot 12, would be extended to the south end of the Sunset Hill plat. A cul-de-sac would be built at the end of Dogwood Avenue and a modest realignment is proposed at the I- intersection of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue. II I The proposed roadway for this alternate would be a rural type ditch section I I using a 24' bituminous surface with 6' gravel shoulders on Tanadoona Drive and II a 20' bituminous surface with 2' gravel shoulders on Dogwood Avenue (see I- Exhibit No. 7.) On Dogwood Avenue adjacent to the sanitary mound system, the 1 ditch would be eliminated and special design measures will be employed to minimize impact to the system. I I Due to the proximity of the garage on the west side of the road and the lift I p Y 9a 9 th t _ Istation on the east side, construction of an upgraded Dogwood Avenue may not be possible without some modification to the mound and lift station. (See Exhibit No. 8.) By shifting the roadway to the west and using the curb I tsection, the lift station and valve manhole would be raised 2'. Another option would be to not shift the roadway but relocate the lift station and I manhole approximately 25' to the east. The estimated cost for the relocation 1 I_ is approximately $10,000. I_ II C I I I L 1 L 1 NIB - • • M I E • - MO i =II MI s = - • = r • I . A J r 1 r r 1..+ CAMP TANADOONA 6 0:r MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS gr 1 Q o � ~� a'O __ � u. , o J J it..•g . _3 Gt .....,.». c3 •e Zggw F 4.0, ®f r r®' y Mmom a Crr 4� ^ti; A 1,// *" " / r �O? me 0 " +s, { JOHN P. r ©"11 , • SAVARYN "a) w ZIMMERMAN FARMS `illr©1 ® (NO SCALE) v, is(a AdliM c 1 VO 0 I r I EXHIBIT NO. 3 r A 1 r ,, TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. FEASIBILITY STUDY 8 1 The terrain is generally rolling with some slopes up to 8% - 10%. Proposed grades up to 8% will be used to lessen impact on existing structures, some of which are within 10' of the right-of-way. As previously mentioned, there is a wetland area near the intersection of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue. A Ffield review of this area was made by Dr. James Leach of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and in a written response to the City he determined that no adverse impact to the wetland would occur from this alignment. 1 The existing drainage structures along Tanadoona and Dogwood are generally in poor condition and undersized. All existing drainage structures will be replaced. An additional 0.8 acres of right-of-way ac would be acquired to 1 Q provide for the realignment at the intersection of Tanadoona and Dogwood and across the Savaryn property. 1- The total cost of Alternate A is $255,000 which would be assessed on a front foot basis. This cost for Alternate A is $25.35/front foot. . 1 1 1 1 9 ALTERNATE B - EXHIBIT NO. 4 The alignment for this alternate follows Tanadoona Drive to the west side of the Walter Zimmerman parcel, then south along the west edge of the Zimmerman parcel approximately 400', then turns west to meet existing Dogwood Avenue. IDogwood Avenue would be extended south to the end of the Sunset Hill plat and a connection would be made from the new alignment back to Dogwood Avenue to serve the homes on lots 1 - 5 of Sunset Hill. There would be cul-de-sacs on tboth ends of Dogwood Avenue. With this alternate, existing Tanadoona Drive west of the Zimmerman parcel could be vacated. The proposed roadway section for this alignment is the same as Alternate "A" with the exception of the tie-in, to Dogwood Avenue. The tie-in and Dogwood Avenue which would serve lots 1 - 5 would be an 18' bituminous surface with 2' gravel shoulders. An 18' roadway will adequately serve the five homes and have less impact on the Hound system. The terrain, tree cover and slopes are similar to Alternate A. This alignment would require some additional tree removal but would not require the large drainage structures at the outlet of the wetland or changes to the lift station. This alternate would require the acquisition of approximately 3.3 acres of libright-of-way. The alignment would provide limited additional access for future development of the Zimmerman Farms Addition. The cost of Alternate B is $281,500 and is to be assessed on a front foot basis. This cost for Alternate B is $25.80/front foot. 10 1 ' J r r . ..... r CAMP TANADOONA I ? MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS to I du 11 c' Cz/0,Ap '% $ .2= O ew...N....w, O 24'CMi M,% I.•CW' /'- ®. a.'CMP 1 A it .,•ewe.., 0 j i : a X028 1 O r ,--(-5„ . { JOHN P. 812 SAVARYN °TIN ,aQ ® ZIMMERMAN FARMS I \.....__,..c.. atm W 1. omaI• Z „c N i a® gillifaill (0 (NO SCALE) n® I a Illi 0........ EXHIBIT NO. 4 r ALTERNATE B r m ... ,n■■ i r — TJDO Dii iOc lOgi E. lSIr y jDY� II Ilir ALTERNATE C - EXHIBIT N0. 5 The alignment for this alternate is essentially the same as Alternate A except for a portion of Dogwood Avenue Which has been moved to the east of the mound system. A tie-in to existing Dogwood will provide access to lots 1 - 5 and there would be cul-de-sacs at either end of Dogwood Avenue. The proposed roadway section for the tie-in would be an 18' bituminous surface as in Alternate "B". The existing terrain, proposed grades and drainage structures also will be similar to those discussed for Alternate A. Tree removal for this alignment will be greater than for Alternate A due to heavily timbered land to the east and north of the mound system. This alternate would not require major modifications to the mound system but It also does not provide access for future development of the Zimmerman Farms Addition. Additional right-of-way to be acquired for this alternate would be approximately 2.8 acres. The cost for Alternate C is $281,700 to be assessed on a front foot basis. Assessed costs would run $25.65 per front foot. 12 1 q I r• I r 1 wow r ` I CAMP TANAOOONA Zr . MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 3 I r P4 a �� r y do '// 1 Sr CM I 1 j ®I I. (/ timber 0 0 2 m �O ,I' I • JOHN P. -•., SAVARYN "CI `or cw° ZIMMERMAN FARMS •W ac o~• N z „� (NO SCALE) v "©r A I r EXHIBIT NO. 5 ' 1 ALTERNATE C r ALTERNATE D - EXHIBIT N0. 6 This alternate improves internal access for the future development of the • Zimmerman Farms Addition along with existing g t the a isti g homes in Sunset Hill. The alignment is similar to Alternate B except Tanadoona Drive would turn south on the east side of the Zimmerman Parcel and swing farther south before meeting Dog wood Avenue. Existing Tanadoona Drive could be vacated test of the entrance to Camp Tanadoona. The proposed typical sections would be the same as the other alternates, except Dogwood Avenue would be 20' wide up to lot 4 and 18' wide past the mound system to lot 1. The existing terrain and slopes, proposed grades and drainage will be similar to those discussed in Alternate B. Tree removal will also be similar to Alternates B and C. Additional right-of-way required for this alternate totals approximately 5.4 acres. The cost for Alternate D is $302,400 to be assessed on the front foot basis. The front foot cost for Alternate D is $25.50. 1 14 W < CI = U N O z N C N W y Z Q a 1- z = F- > X J W < • 0 \ • C)• • ds a i ¢ N 0 Rt C ( p l io CI < o < V <O. 1 J U co 77 2 i 41614.1-1 ) Q ,i LJ`W `.. Q O 3 z < i i ) 17 ;1 N ` j W 1� w I+. N S ( v 1 ) r ° � 1 , 1 I'/ 1 �` 1 - O .�• t i. O' V cleA N • le NNE No - ® ' - ��) / Ts 136N S .. Ir. 1 I _. L. _ i__ LW OM r t_ L__ L I. - u NM c L_ i 1 t 4' s' 6' ` 24' • No,� ,� 1 _ 1 __too x ii 1 I . 2" •2341 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 10" CLASS 5 GRAVEL (100% CRUSHED) . 6" CLASS 5 GRAVEL SHOULDERS (100%CRUSHED) TYPICAL SECTION FOR TANADOONA DRIVE I I i , e' 1 2' , 18' In 20' *7, a . c = 3� g::` i'4 .tIr. x?'T�1:• +%N.••..,`411.;4t�. (.•..•;/+lrr.a.•.. •∎t:ti� .'•.••"" .�.r S(O i T 1 il- 2" 2341 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 10" CLASS 5 GRAVEL (100% CRUSHED) 6" CLASS 5 GRAVEL SHOULDERS (100%CRUSHED) TYPICAL SECTION FOR DOGWOOD ROAD II- EXHIBIT NO. 7 1 16 1 I W 0 J c = coo O Z } mi- 1 1 c co ill --T— u p<1" 4~f m C1 \ W x I W gl y < 1 I- � I o 'x \ 444 ¢ --- t p G l a " ; c< c> 1 i & ei Z w 1 O ' W '- 1,1 I = Q ' N W I Q it —r V 1 W 1 -1--u.- ..+—__ g --- U . \ a I a \ I 1— I 1 r__ Q_ ce ---__i I Q I W W I Q co o I —__ --_ ; 1_, ce I 1dOd or lic: .. _Q -._ mosi=iiiimpilw,....-- in 3 .3O13a dOad e 1 W � 1 1 O k r t I I I I - NM r I _ 1_ t_ l_ 1_1111 11•11 C L- - 1r ' = TABULATIONS Ilir II Table 1 shows a comparative cost breakdown for all of the alternatives. All Ir P Al improvements are to be financed by the City of Chanhassen. The cost of these kir improvements will be assessed to the benefitting properties on a front foot III basis. Tables 2-5 provide a comparison of the assessments for each of the II alternates. IADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES II j Alternate A Advantages 1 1. Lowest construction and front foot cost. III 2. Would require the least additional right-of-way. II3. Has the least tree removal. -ItDisadvantages 1. May require modification of the lift station. i 2. Does not provide access for development of the Zimmelc rman Farm Addition. t Alternate B Advantages 1. Would not require large drainage structures at outlet of wetland area. 2. Would not require modification to mound system. 3. Provides limited access for Zimmerman Farms. 18 Disadvantages } Ii. Requires substantial additional right-of-my. 2. Requires the most tree removal. I I 11 fAlternate C IAdvantages 1. Would not require modification to mound system. II II Disadvantages I 1. Would not provide access for future development. II II 2. Would require substantial additional right-of-hay. II Alternate D II 11 Advantages II 1. Provides maximum access for future development . 2. Provides more opportunities to develop a second access. I 3. Would not require modification to mound system. 11 I_ Disadvantages II 1. Highest cost. 2. Would require substantial additional right-of-hay. II 1_ II 1.- I L 1 L 1 II 9 L 1 i - . r TABLE 1 _ PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE A PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE B ITEM COST ITEM COST CLEARING & GRUBBING $12 ,000 .00 CLEARING & GRUBBING $15 ,600 .00 ii GRADING $41 ,000 .00 GRADING $47 ,300 . 00 PAVING $122 ,500 .00 PAVING $135 ,900 . 00 DRAINAGE $13 ,000 .00 DRAINAGE $11 ,000 .00 RAISE LIFT STATION $5 ,000 .00 RAISE LIFT STATION - CONSTRUCTION COST $193 ,500 . 00 CONSTRUCTION COST $209 ,800 .00 If RIGHT-OF-WAY $2 ,600 .00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $6 ,700 . 00 ADMINISTRATION ,LEGAL $58 ,900 .00 ADMINISTRATION ,LEGAL $65 ,000 .00 AND ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING TOTAL $255 ,000 .00 TOTAL $281 ,500 .00 li NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION ii ' PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE C PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE D ITEM COST ITEM COST ii CLEARING & GRUBBING $14 ,600 .00 CLEARING & GRUBBING $13 ,700 .00 GRADING $45 ,700 .00 GRADING $50 ,500 .00 PAVING $137 ,000 .00 PAVING $148 ,000 .00 DRAINAGE $13 ,700 .00 DRAINAGE $9 ,700 .00 RAISE LIFT STATION - RAISE LIFT STATION - li CONSTRUCTION COST $211 ,000 .00 CONSTRUCTION COST $221 ,900 .00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $5 ,700 .00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $10 ,700 .00 ADMINISTRATION ,LEGAL $65 ,200 .00 ADMINISTRATION ,LEGAL $69 ,800 .00 AND ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING TOTAL $281 ,900 .00 TOTAL $302 ,400 .00 NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , i[ EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION 1 20 il[ I-- r--. r-- r-0. r-ok rows roma% roma tomiN obisoi own% ••••iig ma" nom4 mail nom momi Pasei imvaml TANADOONA - DOGWOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE 2 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL ALTERNATE A PARCEL FRONT NUMBER DESCRIPTION - OWNER FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT 1 MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 3460 $87 ,711 2 JOHN P . SAVRYN 810 $20 ,534 r 4 WALTER ZIMMERMAN 486 $12 ,320 3 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-OUTLOT A TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 2873 $72 ,831 5 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 1 RODGER OAS 108 $2 ,738 6 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 2 RONALD GESLIN 163 $4 ,132 7 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 3 L. MARTIN JONES 149 $3 ,777 8 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 4 JANET QUIST 126 $3 ,194 9 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 5 RICHARD LUNDELL 102 $2 ,586 10 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 6 JOYCE FOLEY 137 $3 ,473 11 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 7 BARBARA FREEMAN 67 $1 ,698 12 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 8 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,586 13 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 9 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,586 14 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 10 BARBARA FREEMAN 64 $1 ,622 15 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 11 GETSCH CORP . 64 $1 ,622 16 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 12 GETSCH CORP. 100 $2 ,535 17 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 13 GETSCH CORP . 97 $2 ,459 18 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 14 GETSCH CORP. 95 $2 ,408 19 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 15 GETSCH CORP. 95 $2 ,408 20 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 16 GETSCH CORP. 100 $2 ,535 21 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 17 GETSCH CORP. 115 $2 ,915 22 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 1 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 270 $6 ,845 23 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 2 TIMOTHY D . FOSTER 275 $6 ,971 24 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 3 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 100 $2 ,535 N MN MN MI • I MI NM MI 1.0 ini MN OM MN ONN ii. INE INN M MI TANADOONA - DOGWOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE 3 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL ALTERNATE B PARCEL FRONT NUMBER DESCRIPTION - OWNER FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT 1 MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 2245 $57 ,921 2 JOHN P. SAVRYN 810 $20 ,898 4 WALTER ZIMMERMAN 820 $21 ,156 3 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-OUTLOT A TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 4595 $118 ,551 5 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 1 RODGER OAS 108 $2 ,786 6 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 2 RONALD GESLIN 163 $4 ,205 7 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 3 L. MARTIN JONES 149 $3 ,844 8 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 4 JANET QUIST 126 $3 ,251 9 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 5 RICHARD LUNDELL 102 $2 ,632 10 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 6 JOYCE FOLEY 137 $3 ,535 11 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 7 BARBARA FREEMAN 67 $1 ,729 12 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 8 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,632 13 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 9 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,632 14 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 10 BARBARA FREEMAN 64 $1 ,651 15 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 11 GETSCH CORP . 64 $1 ,651 16 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 12 GETSCH CORP. 100 $2 ,580 17 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 13 GETSCH CORP . 97 $2 ,503 18 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 14 GETSCH CORP. 95 $2 ,451 - 19 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 15 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,451 20 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 16 GETSCH CORP. 100 $2 ,580 21 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 17 GETSCH CORP. 115 $2 ,967 22 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 1 TIMOTHY 0. FOSTER 270 $6 ,966 23 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 2 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 275 $7 ,095 24 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 3 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 100 $2 ,580 N N f"" r..— r.... rm." r...a ram p...., rill". roma midi% sisivi Immili ".11, mulawli 11141 ""'1 awl TANADOONA - DOGWOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE 4 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL ALTERNATE C PARCEL FRONT NUMBER DESCRIPTION - OWNER FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT 1 MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 3110 $79 ,772 2 JOHN P. SAVRYN 810 $20 ,777 4 WALTER ZIMMERMAN 486 $12 ,466 3 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-OUTLOT A TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 4153 $106 ,524 5 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 1 RODGER OAS 108 $2 ,7 0 6 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 2 RONALD GESLIN 163 $4 ,1 1 7 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 3 L. MARTIN JONES 149 $3 ,8 2 8 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 4 JANET QUIST 126 $3 ,2 2 9 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 5 RICHARD LUNDELL 102 $2 ,6 6 10 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 6 JOYCE FOLEY 137 $3 ,5 4 11 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 7 BARBARA FREEMAN 67 $1 ,719 12 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 8 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,616 13 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 9 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,616 14 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 10 BARBARA FREEMAN 64 $1 ,642 15 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 11 GETSCH CORP. 64 $1 ,642 16 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 12 GETSCH CORP. 100 $2 ,565 17 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 13 GETSCH CORP. 97 $2 ,488 18 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 14 GETSCH CORP. 95 $2 ,437 19 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 15 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,437 20 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 16 GETSCH CORP . 100 $2 ,565 21 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 17 GETSCH CORP. 115 $2 ,950 22 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 1 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 270 $6 ,926 23 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 2 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 275 $7 ,054 24 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 3 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 100 $2 ,565 N w — NM MN MI OM E MI I E r MI MI — — MN MI MI NM IMO 11111.'111.'11.111'11..-.4.1*"411111'4011111"41111111116.111111160.1111116011111114064111.0161*11111a0■111111611111111011 Moil aMooIIIIIIIL.9 Moll TANADOONA - DOGWOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE 5 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL ALTERNATE D PARCEL FRONT NUMBER DESCRIPTION - OWNER FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT 1 MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 1580 $40 ,290 2 JOHN P. SAVRYN 810 $20 ,655 4 WALTER ZIMMERMAN 452 $11 ,526 3 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-OUTLOT A TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 6577 $167 ,714 5 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 1 RODGER OAS 108 $2 ,754 6 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 2 RONALD GESLIN 163 $4 ,157 7 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 3 L. MARTIN JONES 149 $3 ,800 8 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 4 JANET QUIST 126 $3 ,213 9 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 5 RICHARD LUNDELL 102 $2 ,601 10 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 6 JOYCE FOLEY 137 $3 ,494 11 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 7 BARBARA FREEMAN 67 $1 ,709 12 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 8 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,601 13 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 9 BARBARA FREEMAN 102 $2 ,601 14 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 10 BARBARA FREEMAN 64 $1 ,632 15 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 11 GETSCH CORP. 64 $1 ,632 16 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 12 GETSCH CORP. 100 $2 ,550 17 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 13 GETSCH CORP . 97 $2 ,474 18 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 14 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,423 19 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 15 GETSCH CORP . 95 $2 ,423 20 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 16 GETSCH CORP . 100 $2 ,550 21 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 17 GETSCH CORP. 115 $2 ,933 22 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 1 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 270 $6 ,885 23 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 2 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 275 $7 ,013 24 ZIMMERMAN FARMS-LOT 3 TIMOTHY D. FOSTER 100 $2 ,550 N RECOMMENDATION I r 1 This report has examined four alternatives for improving Tanadoona Drive - I Dogwood Avenue. All of the alternatives examined are feasible from an I engineering perspective. Selection of one favored alternative involves E consideration of engineering issues as well as cost considerations property [ and natural environment impacts, comments solicited at a meeting of area property owners and other factors. Considering all issues, it is recommended I that the City of Chanhassen pursue the implementation of Alternate "A" to provide p an acceptable level of public streets serving the existing neighborhood and the surrounding properties. I i Alternate "A" has been recommended due primarily to cost considerations and I the fact that it is the least disruptive option since it substantially follows I • the existing street alignments. The primary concern in implementing Alternate I "A" is the mound treatment system and the accompanying existing lift station. I As shown on Exhibit 8, clearances in this area are extremely tight between the existing system and existing property lines. Although detailed survey ' tinformation of this area is unavailable at the present time, it appears that this solution is workable. Detailed survey information in this I IY t s area will be Ineeded as a part of the preparation of design plans to determine what.actual I 1,_ impacts may be and what, if any, mitigation efforts will be necessary. I 1_ I I_ _ 1 L L I 25 L 1 I . . ` f M . 1 a • i • I . I I _ 1 ' ,��i SiNtET I MI � I I fr 1, .,- - 4 1 I : 'E---- i �, • rf//i*4/ i ir4' 'fr A.. 1 55 11 x •• 11''; '',:t ' % . Iii fl‘'‘ • • I i 111 40 Vs/• # JAMS! . Crilf • ; Ili i 11 • • . 0 E ' -a I 15 {iii il° i.! i.� i. .i 4 � !! piii 1i`�iE E ip =1! iillfi i!fp t pr 1 i 11 1 = E-: E.E=l Eie_�� � .ox .xx .x�i-.F I lai �oB 1,", Pi' ih iiiiii Sir ieei .1 1ii ihdll iE lilt:. =f 411�F 1.1:11,ir1ffi 3d1! :111.0 Elf if PI !p 1t3 gill p 3 i in r IP'iia !� i !, E i f& !Ai i � gp{=:= Vii: ei= rfx� i E E di of i i 1r ;Cr a i �! �� i i 1 i i. ,i` _!! Ei_ i e" ;f 1 � 1' i t ht r r L x=. s: i 1:� i a� +f 1 _ , i i L ilii r! _ 1 1 1 i t i i t o i t!ti l0 3i �I i1 i 1 t 3 E �It�i ?�� i1 _ iiiiilli ii &� LjFI&� i� 4. rf1!°= -1 iiii11 ;1;11 _ i4 1 1 _ 1Et Eillt It r 6 iit ii ! !I i 1 11 �l 4.4111 efi" i t i= i tLl�i� : iy- � i� ti� i i iE ii i i x 1 =i- x t=ir o�• � �" ,ii�f� fr x• i c ct i 3 j • f t . C . �_ i - E 1 t�°''� i.�Et1� 1�i. i�� 141111 E i 1111111 !�1 ! • i fig �i 1 " i ti. � _ �_�= x� fr= f 1r 111 3' y L t e c ! r � ut--�' t . it �f E� i- i t i i it t �i � ��ii 1 x i 111:411141:1+ i �'�-iY� i= t�� f i t?obi :i tt .tig t€i ��i = o i ' p t ifiliiiiti1111111i i } l 1.141.M.;111-1 f• 1 1 it i t:F; 9 1 .t i ! € iz i r 1 e 1 lilifillii i1 ii"ii iRi 51;133 11 i=laid ! 111 i .11 i i x : =E 1 • 1. 1 ti 1 rig o' r �e 6 i • Iii ! i�i;� E lziai;� sill �°• E; ti: itl� a �! i � PI aril 1 fl-i-f'iii = 1fI '>I - _ll • . iii r ' 1 11E y ZIMMERMAN FARM James R.Hill inc. I i-—' PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN , "."1-44 PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS 0 col TIMOTHY D ROSTER .rd • ff Mi t • tOpMO1OM1u ISM • ON•. I'M r•T•O• • t•1•A.INI. I Z v fa 1 I N Z a 7 Iv , I I' $IN3ETI HILL cry �' _ r r i i / Ip �t • I i ' i ( i = I ' s = • 1 • I•�KE i MINNEI�A!NT� #1 .3)01 • T 1 421——firift < + —"tiJr5----— rPtM5^N - 9— .2.-- • / r . I / : / I t I / * � r I / r: 4 j 1111 O • if 1 U---±t x-_LI I I ate= I ._ , I I I a j � E tc-1i- tI T ` i Ott 911 j ji } i Eg F I! - �'jl tcjci'Ei�a ioI�:- I- je cj= =F= 1 sf ' 1,2!� TI •stet ?r TN •= i a� t E ! I I - 2 ; �� ij �. j6 i�tij° =j:=• =ail=� j s�.i !II, it 211tj i'iti Gil ill ll= l it g 1 4 i r i Wa diirlck j°!-11:1pjic1-� l i !t _��� �±i§� jj;:j��°e��j i jf�•i �•eEjfr:� if r I `� jz !ATVs Itl=It1=liji1IJ • ii. t .= sit= I - • ZIMMERMAN FARM � � 7•S.1 1 I s t w S CNMMNAAii14R _« James R.Hi)l inc. •PRELIMINARY PLAT R: f" .•. =7::: PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS TIMOTNT C.FOtSTER I •/ /tit■/1110 OM.t ILNE _wr_ M•,J•►ltAY••. • O0MM010N YI DWI • Mti••p•t inUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Landscape Arboretum 40.3675 Arboretum Drive c.- /4 P.O.Box 39 Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 1 (612)443-2460 I 26 February 1990 Chanhassen City O x ncil % Paul Krauss ' City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ladies and Gentlemen/Paul Krauss: This letter is to protest planning the development of a roadway system between Highway 5 and Highway 41 via Crimson Bay Road, Dogwood Lane and Tanadoona Drive. This plan includes University of Minnesota property on the northwest corner of the Horticultural Research Center's apple research orchard. Until Friday, February 23, 1990, when I was informed by Kt rt laughinghouse, I was totally unaware that city plans involved connecting the above-mentioned roadways and that if connected, would involve taking University land. I With all due respect, planning of this nature should, at a minimum, involve major landowners who will be affected by such decisions. The council proposal requirement of a R.O.W. 600 feet long, between two dead- end roads, one of which is several thousand feet longer than generally accepted standards for dead-end roads may very well make planning sense but makes the taking of University land not only Obvious but, in all probability, eminent. In early 1987, when Crimson Bay Road was built, I responded in writing to the planning office with various concerns, one of which was the lack of planning (#5, as attached) for future development. At that time I was assured, but not in writing, that there was no need for a R.O.W. of fifty feet to the adjoining property, now under consideration for development as a connection would never be made. The developer of Crimson Bay was then allowed to leave only a 25 foot R.O.W. If this road connection is to be installed, and I have no doubt that it will be, you have given no option other than to require the taking of University property. • • I ' 1 ? i UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Landscape Arboretum j 3675 Arboretum Drive P.O.Box 39 Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 ' (612)443-2460 April 27, 1987 ' Ms. Jo Ann Olsen. . .. . . 4 Assistant City Planner City Hall 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Dear Ms. Olsen: On behalf of the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum, the University of ' Minnesota and the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum Foundation Board of Trustees, I wish to express reservations about the proposed development of the Worm property located at 3430 Arboretum Blvd. across Trunk Highway No. 5 from the Arboretum entrance. These concerns are as follows: ' 1) We. have many "near miss" traffic accidents at present with the right edge passing lane on the north side of Highway 5 at our entrance. With well over 100,000 visitors per year (and increasing) , having an entrance to a develo Trent could cause major accidents as people pass on the right of traffic turning into the Arboretum. We suggest that there is a need to extend the two lanes from Highway 41 past the Arboretum entrance gind ' provide a left turn lane into the Arboretum. 2) The proposed recreational development and perhaps the housing . development could significantly alter the wetlands along Lake Minnewashta by adding docking, foot traffic, land fill parking areas, etc. This would also affect our wetlands directly across • .. ... .Highway,,5. Further degradation of the wetlands could occur from- • . septic tanks and leaching fields draining into the wetland area and Lake Minnewashta. ' 3) The roadway into a recreational development of the parcel labeled "Outlot A" could be an additional traffic generator causing even more traffic related problems. 4) The cul-de-sac proposed comes close to the.Arboretum property line which could provide a very definite detrimental impact on I any future development of the Arboretum's land. In fact, because of the proposed road design with Lot #1 being 50% of the road frontage, no future logical subdivision roadway could be developed. II Ms. JoAnn Olsen ' Page Two 5) There is no plan given to indicate how future roads and lots could be developed on the property north of the Worm property or ' how the proposed road might be connected to existing roads along Lake Minnewashta to the north. ' 6) Since our research plots along Highway 5 to the east of the Worm property drain through the property (this includes water from a subsurface tile drainage system as well as surface run off) , we ' are concerned that the drainageway may not be kept open. I would like to have responses to our concerns before the hearing, if at all possible. S' cerel — JI �� Pe er J. 0 Dilrector ' cc: Dr. James Bartz, Head, Department of Horticultural Science, DM Mr. Thomas Nelson, President, Board of Trustees ' Mr. Steven Drunham, DM Vim President and General Counsel Mr. Clint Hewitt, DM Assoc. Vice President, Physical Planning 1 I 1 ••at PROPOSED—ter"` •u / I �', ' : �'.•\%` ,'.. l` DOCK .o ,� C �_)v'4).4i.. -.:.�,1:. �� \`. .. LAKE MINNE \;$ Y \1 ` •,:.. I PROPOSED MIIIASHTA +� \ • DOCK H W.L. 944.5 _ n 1 ,, • -yo ��� (2.8 x ) ti+' we t.6. M t' \ '" 10'EASE MEN !s PROPOSED ' i �• '��;.,�::;::.�_» ; `. 944.5 L. DOCK ----- -- !./..•;:.:,.,,;,.'.,; ...-'4-.• �� w� y♦ ,max c:; . ;..• �/► �� :. t ��I'k.d t If: v ' 1A , ) I/9, R i./5 / ° P a,1'/ loll,� ;° It -EASEMENT II: t.'..:.:1; / 01 Li I?"A i? ..:. (( •-1:%::: t.�— BLK. I w,, E THE f . ►.. 4\F , 10' .r vb STS " OUTLOT A '4,,;• •\. i , r t\ � .♦\� / , - p , / II li ' 'OF I iAN- i _ r ii (3A AC.) 1 ,./ :so::, 1 .: .., 1, : -!.,••e?..'‘ ' 1, s's•-., ■.• AHD �ti 1111 :} i ,► t ,• ) fT \ 0 W Crj ` 1 f i rt1 I., III +I ;-_• t- i No :4; f.. .:.:s.XX, :.• • :. .Y (1,1 N • FENCE �- \ \\' •"'....: SURFS. 0 1 OR TO `N S.S , .v K / 5t.s„«'r i j,`� f-7. S II OR TRUN; (2.7AC. ' ... y••,�ti '��;;�;, •VATE 1 ��. ` , • (HUD \ �• /\ 45 e^' z b \,z� �1� '�♦ `\ \\ .4 ��/':f I, ry ••.`�'T;.v. \ .. 1\� •, fir te i -: ,.: 11 .. .1:'..•:: ..,w \ \ �: • •\r a �.4 < •'^1:°<S. t•,4".. `\ . ► rtttita...tiSy f a. r v . � .I. \ (SEE i \ , • • . ``.1 t molar-"-•«�. i`.� ,. _ M IIIIII ME ME 111111 i MI I= 11.11 MI an 11.111 Pm"