Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
8a. Approve Preliminary Plat for Zimmerman Farm
N CITY o g... ., . 1 ., . : ,,,:„ _.. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I N.60 ; " (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City Administratcr IMEMORANDUM En`''` '°- R c.,,_--- s_--emu TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ;r_ ___._ IFROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Datt sa ,ni;,d to ;,r,,,—.:.;ior; DATE: April 5, 1990 Date ": !: t` `Gt)u�`.`a SUBJ: City Council Update - Brandt Subdivision I At the March 12, 1990, City Council meeting, action on the Brandt Subdivision was continued to allow staff an opportunity to review available and new data and propose overall access alternatives for I this property and for the surrounding area. In the attached memo from the City Engineering Department, 3 overall access alternatives are proposed. These 3 alternatives are in addition to the original I one that was explored by the City Council would link Dogwood Road with Crimson Bay. Since there has been so much material generated on this issue, it I may be worthwhile to take a moment to re-examine why this is an issue in the first place. Dogwood Road/Tanadoona Drive is an extraordinarily long deadend street that does not have a legitimate I turnaround facility. It is also not built to current city standards. At the present time, the intensity of development in the area is rather low and will probably remain so until at some point in the future when sanitary sewer is provided. However, Ithere are a fair amount of homes in the area and with subdivisions such as the one being proposed by the Brandt's, the amount of homes continues to increase in small increments. Crimson Bay Road is a I newer cul-de-sac built to city standards and serves a single subdivision along Lake Minnewashta. During its platting, provisions were made for a potential future extension of Crimson I Bay Road to Dogwood Road. Extensive background material was developed several years ago relative to an earlier subdivision where alternatives for improving access into this area at some point in the future were explored. At that point in time, the I Dogwood/Crimson Bay Road connection was dismissed due to a perception that grades were excessively steep in the area. Alternatives showing the ultimate looping of Dogwood back out to I Hwy. 41 appeared to be the most viable. Consequently, when staff worked with the Brandt subdivision, it was our original recommendation that provisions be made for a future loop of Dogwood 1 Road back out to the Hwy. 41 area. Staff did not originally Brandt Subdivision April 5, 1990 ' Page 2 recommend approval of the Crimson Bay Road connection. Both the Planning Commission and City Council asked that this connection be ' explored. With the new topographic information obtained by the City and the fact that extensive tree removal was undertaken by the power company to install a power line, it is currently our opinion ' that the Crimson Bay connection is technically feasible. There are a large variety of access alternatives concerning this proposal ranging from the do nothing request by the owner to modifications that would allow the construction at some point in the future of an improved cul-de-sac at Dogwood on up to various connections of Dogwood to Crimson Bay or loops back out to Hwy. 41. ' Each of these alternatives has a varying degree of impact on not only the two lots that are being proposed for creation today, but also on the future subdivision of the area and the city's ability ' to meet access needs as they occur. It is our opinion that the new access alternatives that are being presented tonight represent a more innovative approach to these questions that will resolve local access concerns, provide for future access needs, and which are consistent with MnDOT's requirements to cope with significant projected traffic increases on Highways 5 and 41. ' Each of the three alternatives that are being proposed in the Engineering memo accomplishes the goals of the City. Planning staff favors Alternative B for the reason that it minimizes impact ' upon the new home sites that will be created as a result of the Brandt subdivision. Also the alignment of the future loop back to Hwy. 41 from Dogwood Road is consistent with staff's recommendation that 30 foot of right-of-way be maintained along the north side of ' Lot 1. Alternative B also provides an outlet for Crimson Bay Road which we believe will be needed as traffic continues to build on Hwy. 5. However, as with other alternatives, construction of this ' road is contingent upon a decision by the Arboretum as to how their property will be developed at some point in the future. If this decision is not made, then the Crimson Bay Road/Hwy. 41 connection ' does not appear to be viable. Alternative B allows the Dogwood Road/Hwy 41 connection to be made without impacting Arboretum property. We would also recommend that provisions be made, as illustrated on the current plat, to provide for the ultimate ' construction of a legitimate cul-de-sac on Dogwood that meets city standards. It is further our recommendation that the City Council direct staff to undertake official mapping of the selected alternative so that as future home construction and platting occurs, the alignment for these routes can be protected. We would anticipate mapping both connections outlined under Alternative B. The final question that remains is whether or not Alternative B should be modified to incorporate the original Dogwood/Crimson Bay connection. Staff does not have a strong recommendation on this. We believe that Alternative B without this link will provide IF Brandt Subdivision IF April 5, 1990 Page 3 ' adequate access in this area. At the same time we believe it is prudent to keep our options open and the connection would enhance access into the area. While we continue to believe this connection is viable it does impact the lots on the Brandt parcel and still could not be built without agreement from the Arboretum. Staff is seeking City Council direction regarding the Dogwood/Crimson Bay connection. The recommendations outlined below would result in the approval of Alternative B without the Crimson Bay/Dogwood connection. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. The City shall officially map the road alignment as illustrated by Exhibit 2 of the Sr. Engineering Technician memo dated April 4, 1990. 2 . Erosion control shall be Type II. , 3. The applicant shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources. 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. 6. Require dedication of 40 feet along the west lot line of Lot 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 requirement improvement. 7. Require dedication of 30 feet of roadway easement along the north lot line of Lot 1, Block 1. 8. 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. ' 9. The two approved septic sites on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. 10. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake Minnewashta from Lot 2, Block 1 would require a wetland permit as would .1 .� Brandt Subdivision April 5, 1990 Page 4 any dredging or removal of vegetation in the area of the shoreline. 11. Construction plans and specifications for the temporary turnaround shall be submitted to the City Engineer for ' approval. The turnaround shall be built in accordance to teh City's rural road design (7 ton) . ' ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Jim Chaffee dated April 3 , 1990. 2. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 4, 1990. CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 , MEMORANDUM TO: Dave Hempel , Senior Engineering Te nician ' FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director DATE: April 3, 1990 , SUBJ: Crimson Bay/Dogwood Connection You asked what would be Public Safety' s concerns regarding the Crimson Bay Road/Dogwood/Tanadoona Drive connection. As you are aware, getting to Dogwood from Tanadoona Drive is a very long route accessed off of State Highway 41 . Since that is the only access to Dogwood, it is sometimes difficult to respond to calls in a timely fashion. We have on several occasions responded to alarms on Dogwood and again, have found it difficult to arrive in a timely fashion. On the other hand, with a Crimson Bay Road connection to Dogwood, our response time should be considerably less for emergency calls on Dogwood. This is especially true for responding units coming from the west on Highway 5. Often times Waconia Ambulance will be responding from the west on Highway 5 and if a connection is made from Crimson Bay to Dogwood, then the response time should be quite a bit less. I CITY e t: ': -. CHANHASSEN - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 40w (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 IMEMORANDUM TO: Gary Warren, City Engineer IFROM: Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician 4001 I DATE: April 4, 1990 SUBJ: Zimmerman Farm - Alternative Street Alignments File No. 90-2 Land Use Review II At the March 12, 1990 City Council meeting, the Council tabled II the preliminary plat of Zimmerman Farm and directed staff to further study the access situation. This report contains alignments for three alternatives for future I linking of existing Dogwood Road with Trunk Highway 41 and/or Trunk Highway 5. The data for developing these alignments was taken from the City' s half-sections, aerial and topographic maps. II Staff also calls attention to the attached feasibility studies prepared by Van Doren Hazard Stallings which in further detail reviews the access issue. For purposes of this report, the I alignments chosen follow the path that causes the least impact on environmental issues , i.e. tree and vegetation loss and excessive grading. I Alternative alignments were designed to utilize existing access points along Trunk Highway 41 and Trunk Highway 5 provided by MnDOT. Further discussions with MnDOT Traffic Engineer Evan I Green revealed MnDOT has controlled access along Trunk Highways 5 and 41. Service to these areas would be provided by frontage roads or interior streets such as proposed on the alternatives. ITraffic counts taken in 1988 revealed the average daily traffic along Trunk Highway 5 west of Trunk Highway 41 was nearly 11,000 vehicles per day, while along Trunk Highway 41 north of Trunk I Highway 5, the average daily traffic was around 7,500 vehicles per day. Projected traffic counts for the year 2010 by the Eastern Carver County Transportation Commission anticipate I traffic volumes along Trunk Highway 5 in the range of 30,000 vehicles per day while Trunk Highway 41 is estimated to be 10,000 vehicles per day. II ' Gary Warren April 4 , 1990 Page 2 Alternative A proposes a new street from existing Dogwood Road easterly along the north line of Lot 1 , Block 1 out to Trunk ' Highway 41 parallel to Tanadoona Drive. Alternative B also proposes a new street similar to Alternative A although it connects to Trunk Highway 41 further to the south. Alternative C ' looks at establishing the street along the common property line of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 and follows the similar alignment as Alternative B. All three alternatives provide Dogwood Road with a looped system as well as linking Crimson Bay Road and the Arboretum property back out to Trunk Highway 41. ' Alternative A ' The alignment would follow the right-of-way proposed over the northerly 30 feet of Lot 1, Block 1 (Exhibit 1 ) and continue easterly to Trunk Highway 41. The terrain is generally rolling farmland with street grades up to 7% near Dogwood Road to 2% to ' 5% for the remainder of the alignment. This alignment would require tree removal along the westerly portion of Lot 1, Block 1 . The remaining alignment is farm fields with the exception of a wooded area near Trunk Highway 41. Alternative B The alignment is the same as Alternative A for the portion within the Zimmerman Farm plat (Exhibit 2 ) . Outside the plat, the alignment will turn southeasterly to the north property line of ' the Arboretum property , then follows the Arboretum property line east to Trunk Highway 41 . ' The terrain, street grades and tree cover are similar to Alternative A. This alignment would require removal of a barn-like structure near Trunk Highway 41. ' Alternative C The alignment for this alternative is centered on the common ' property line of proposed Lots 1 and 2 , Block 1, Zimmerman Farm, then continue southeasterly following the similar alignment as Alternative B (Exhibit 3 ) out to Trunk Highway 41. ' The terrain is also rolling with steep street grades of 10% through the westerly portion of Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Zimmerman Farm. The depth of cut would be up to 9 feet with a 7% street ' grade versus a 5-foot cut with the proposed 10% grade (Exhibit 4 ) . This alignment would reduce the tree removal through the plat of Zimmerman Farm. Gary Warren ' April 4, 1990 Page 3 Conclusion The three alignments provide a concept in looping existing , Dogwood Road back out to Trunk Highway 41 and establishes a guide for future development on the adjacent parcels . All alternatives would require some tree removal and additional right-of-way. All three alternatives are technically feasible from an engineering standpoint. ktm Attachments: 1. Exhibit 1. 2 . Exhibit 2. 3 . Exhibit 3. 4 . Exhibit 4. 5 . Staff report dated February 22 , 1990. 6 . Van Doren Hazard Stallings feasibility study dated July 17 , 1987 ( included in Attachment #5) . 7 . Van Doren Hazard Stallings feasibility study dated June , 1988 ( included in Attachment #5 ) . 8 . March 12 , 1990 City Council minutes . OFFICIAL ENGINEERING COPY I Received Revision No. , Approved by City Engineer Date r 414& '4IS Jq o Approved by City Council Date , ' 1 1 I f(i' ��9Doayv� AllImmes w41/44-4 , • QUM x 111/A __�1 ADO W (i ` O ..... .e..12....:,% /CP 3► 144,..,..„..e._ DRIVE I, ! Q , All .. , ZIMMER AN FAR S , i ( INIon..... , �- . I MNDOT rra I _ ACCESS l POINTS Q 0 rfr Pit )/ fly , i t . . . [.k _,. ..... ..... -----)) cr r. III k ALTERNATIVE A I GGif Ei c, .P POND $IP'.• Gs r w EN r r r T A . r Yrr _� (', ‘..... _.... , k .---......es if \,--.. i • , I � � 1 (Sts1 YR 1 o on,:t 7,X RkI mi1. a h ir .... r. , 1 D r y 4 ._ .. i, ir , 7 ..,.A...„..„,,E... . / '''''' \ ss, , t : 1 I f; \ Q k. O 1 re : I, :,• J 7 i ` a 1 IP ril Q 1 r' \ ' . rn<- i X 1 a) .i.orri a 4, o Z D-0 0 D �� O m z . E ...c --�z 8 XHIBIT 2■ gill& co • . �.� i-Iri.„3 1 1 i ))", CITY OF CHANHASSEN " ..,., . 1 ../441 U .:. +� 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 IMEMORANDUM TO: Paul Krauss , Planning Director 1 FROM: Dave Hempel , Sr. Engineering Technician ki . DATE: February 21 , 1990 I SUBJ: Future Road Access to To Trunk Highway 5 from Zimmerman Farm Subdivision 1 File No. 90-2 Land Use Review I At the February 12 , 1990 City Council meeting, the Council requested staff to look at traffic impacts on Trunk Highway 5 if a roadway was constructed in the future linking the Zimmerman Farm plat through Crimson Bay Road to Trunk Highway 5. IThe initial platting request for this parcel appeared before the City Council in July, 1987 . A feasibility report prepared by Van I Doren , Hazard, Stallings (Attachment #1 ) identified two alternatives for connection to the Worm property which has since been platted as Crimson Bay. Alternative "A" proposed a straight I 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 I 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 I from existing Dogwood Road would only intensify congestion at Trunk Highway 5. Therefore, this access alternative was deleted and not pursued any further. IRecent discussions with MnDOT Traffic Engineer Evan Green regarding the possible future through-street of Crimson Bay Road to Dogwood Road received favorable response. In fact, MnDOT I 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 I 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 Ilanes. I City Oouncil Meeting 'ebruary 12, 1990 ' • only 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 'bat I see here is alternative D, exhibit 6. I don't know II 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. ' Councilman Boyt: Right, a T. Gary Warren: Right. That was as close as you get I think to the loop. 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 term 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 II people who are intending to buy a lot and the lot hinging on that. I don't know that we want to rake 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 movement to Crimson before we just kind of shoot it here. Councilman Boyt: I would second that. Mayor Oriel: Yeah. It's been moved and seconded to have staff review and came II up with sane more conclusions. Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to table action on - t Preliminary Plat 189-11 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 ANA TO MODIFY THE RECREATIONAL BFACHLOT ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY LOT DEPTH REQUIREMENTS, FIRST READING. Councilwoman Wrier: I move item, 11. Councilman Johnson: Second. ' Mayor Or del: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor. Councilman Boyt: Whoa! I 69 ' . Citycincil ? eting - Fe nary 12, 1990 ' Mawr andel: That will probably stay there forever. ' Cauncilman 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 went it out to TH 5. Councilman WorJ .an: Cr 41. That's not really an option. Councilman Johnson: And Crimson Bay? See I'1m 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 tress. Whether they're ever going to 4 lanes through Lake Minnewashta. Councilman ncilman Workfian: But do we want a rile 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 somebody's driveway at the end of Dogwood. This extends almost, it doesn't ' extend anything does it? Tim Foster: Ton., 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. ' Clourcilran Boyt: But there's no loop Tim. There's still only, it's just a long T instead of. Tim Foster: No, there was sane plans that looped and same that T'd. ' Councilman Boyt: Well I think I've got all four of them in front of >re and I don't see a loop in any of them. 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. O uncilman Johnson: That's right. Councilman Boyt: What 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 Cauncil wasn't interested at that titre 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 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. Mawr Clydel: Thank you. Any other discussion? Councilman Johnson: In spite of whatever I've said... Councilwoman Dirler: What did you say at that time Jay? ' Councilman Johnson: At what time? Councilwoman Wilder: The Council that Dan is referring to was the former ' Council. Were you a part of that? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. ' Councilwoman Diller: 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 Diller: So then it would make 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 tmorrow, I like to have as many II 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 Hoyt: Tax free land? 67 1 L 1 City Council Meeting - Feb. .ry 12, 1990 Councilman Boyt: I think that's the one you decided not to pursue isn't it Tim? Tim Foster: Well I sold the 80 acres. - Councilman Boyt: Took care of that problem. Tim Foster: I can...speak for Peter because I was in the same position that he was in and I'll tell you where my house would have been placed. I wouldn't have built on there. ' Councilman Boyt: The other Pa rt of this is that somewhere in here we looked at upgrading Dogwood. The neighbors care in and said, we're tired of plowing this ' thing. We want the City to take it over and the cost of doing that and the trees it was going to amount to removing, the neighbors decided that once they saw the bill, they didn't went to do that anymore. They'd just as soon plow it. ' There's something about the terrain, the type of houses, everything that indicates that nothing's probably going to happen here for an awfully long time. Expense. All those sorts of things. I'm just saying, and I think Jay is saying the same thing that from my point of view, easements are something that now's ' the time to get them. When the property's in it's biggest possible piece. I don't know that we need to belabor this. A couple of you haven't spoken at all on this issue. I personally would like to see us get the easement. ' Councilman Workman: The only thing we have before us is what's taking place now in a very small, I don't know what's going to happen on putting another, maybe ' we're going to have to have our exit/entrance onto TH 41. That's no better than putting it on TH 5. We only have what's before us tonight. I don't know if Public Safety ever got a chance to look at this but it's gone completely. Leaving this a cul-de-sac goes completely against everything that we've ever discussed. Vine Hill, we were worried about 400 foot, 500 foot cul-de-sacs and this is about a mile at least. It seems to make sense to go through to Crimson. I'm anxious to hear others. ' Camcilwaran Dimler: I guess the reason I was asking if anybody knew how they were going to place their house yet and if the easement would affect the placement of their house. If it doesn't, I guess I would be in favor of taking the easement at this point also. Councilman Boyt: I think what Tim said is it rdght very well affect the ' placement. Tim Foster: ...I don't think they'll be a house there. ICouncilman Boyt: Okay. I don't know what that means Tim. I Peter Brandt: There's a good chance I wouldn't buy the property if that easement's in place there. It's just that simple. It destroys the lot. Dan Herbst: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. When I carne before you with I Crimson Bay, you were very concerned about introducing Smote lots onto that access that goes into the Arboretum because the entrance and exit to TH 5 there is substantial and it's increasing daily with the activity at the Arboretum,. I I think your study took that into consideration. If the Arboretum, or the Apple Orchard is developed to the east of Crimson Bay, TH 41 frame a traffic count 66 ,City Council Meeting - !'ebruary 12, 1990 by the way also go over their septic system and it's going to create tremendous problems if a road is ever built. Councilman Johnson: Oa over their septic system? Oh the grading. Let me give you some of my logic for saying that if the Arboretum develops. If the MUSA line canes down there in the future and then we develop, we bring in sewer to the area. We develop the Arboretum, or somebody develops the Arboretum property. The 80 acres. That whole area eventually's going to develop. Crimson Bay's a long, long cul-de-sac going through forested areas. It's your typical safety nightmare if there's a natural disaster, tornado, whatever of getting access back to that last house. You always want the back door. Peter Brandt: The last house will be my house. Councilman Johnson: From Crimson Bay. Crimson Bay is the last house. You're ' even a longer cul-de-sac. Peter Brandt: Right. ' Councilman Johnson: And access to yours, if there's same reason, you'd have two accesses to yours. One from the south and one from, the north. It provides more ' options for future development if that is there. Peter Brandt: When and if future development occurs, then I would came before you again to suggest another plan for the land and subdivide the land. ' Councilman Johnson: You're talking only Lot 2. We're talking the whole area. j We have to think bigger than exactly what's before us. If we only think about the minute part of the city before us, then we'll be mdcramanaging the entire city and nothing will ever interconnect. Peter Brandt: Right and if you look at the way that land is laid out today and where people own property, more than likely a road will come in through County Road 41, not through TH 5. There's actually no reason to come in through TH 5 because it's going to create more problems then it's worth, both in terms of traffic and in terms of destruction of the property themselves. Councilman Johnson: How will this ever hook up down to Crimson Bay? Peter Brandt: My property to Crimson Bay? I don't understand. Councilman Johnson: No. The new development you say that's going to came in , from TH 41 rather than TH 5. Peter Brandt: Why would it have to hook up to Crimson Bay? ' Councilman Johnson: That's one of the things we're trying to do is give them, a back door. Okay, they have no back door. Would you build a house without a back door? Only, a front door. Tim Foster: Jay, June 21st of 1988 I think this study was like $4,000.00 that the City paid for with their plans A, B, C and D and they all suggested going ' back out through the 80 acres. 65 , \\ ' City Council Meeting - F'el 3ry 12; 1990 Councilman Johnson: Now does Crimson Bay have a road access going all the way to the property line? A road easement? ' Gary Warren: Yes. ' Jo Ann Olsen: A 25 foot easement. Oounciiman 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. ' Caunciipan Johnson: Or east of them. Gary Warren: The Arboretum. ' Counciinan 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 rakes sense to reserve that ability. I don't know, there's probably 10 times a year we give back those easements because wie got then 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 : oster:k. Never say never. Councilman Johnson: I haven't seen many people came walking up and say, oh ' yeah. O yore on and put a road access through here. Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, I guess I would like to hear the two buyers of the ' property are 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 .� understand why you would need one for that piece of property specifically because we are essentially surrounded by either 88 acres, which Tom Oourtenoy 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 care in through the 80 acres amore than likely. You're not going to come in through Crimson Bay because that's going to create a traffic problem on TH 5 for you. ' Councilwaran rimier: 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 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, 64 City Council Meeting - February 12, 1990 the pieces as they care to us. And so you get Crimson Bay and son of a gun, it I 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 sa►ewhere we've got to have a plan on where the II roads are going in this town and where the trails are going or we'll end up with a bunch of dead ends. Tim Poster: 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 Care 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 cares in. Councilman Johnson: We'll never get then in the future. ' Tim Poster: Why not? You still control the deck. Someone has to came to you to get further subdivision Jay. ' Councilman Johnson: If Lot 2 never further subdivides. Tim Foster: Correct. I Councilman Johnson: 1ichever 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 II back. he have to have a subdivision in order to get that easement. If we get the easement now, we retain that card you know. Tim Foster: I think it's an undue hardship on that Lot 2. It's not talking I about a trail which they are 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 comes in there and I don't forsee that occurring until the MUSA line allows same type of development there. And when that's going to occur, I still think Jay that you control the cards. Councilman Johnson: )bt for Lot 2. We control Lot 2 today. then that 80 acres I develops, we control that 80 acres but we control Lot 2 today. And if we give away that, we're going to hand them 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 11 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 Dame in and give the card back to us. ' Tim Foster: As you recall the studies done by Van Horn or whatever the mime 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 ussn't even suggested that they go through there anyway I think. 63 City Council Meeting - Feb „pry 12, 1990 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. Mayor Oriel: Would you like to care 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 hare there, okay at this time. And Ken Daniels is going to build one hams on a 10 acre lot and the Brandt's are going to build another hone 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 re 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 fray 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 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 88 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. ' Councilman Boyt: Tim, the dilalmmra is, and I can understand why Crimson Bay doesn't want this road coring in. It's that there's no way that we can lay out ' a road... TimFbster: You don't need a road now Bill. Councilman Boyt: No, but just wait until I finish this point. On a piece of undeveloped property. Wle 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 City Council Meeting • 'ebruary 12, 1990 Dave Hempel: With a 10% grade it would reduce sate of the area down. , Mayor Oriel: Jay, did you have anymore comments? Councilman Johnson: No. 1 Mayor Ch'iel: Bill? Councilman Boyt: Tell me about the impact again of moving the cul-de-sac? I 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 wa agree that if they're needed or when they're needed, we'll do them. Just don't assess us for them now. And so we're just raking 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. I 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 them 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 cotes 11 back as they did earlier this evening and vacate that easement. But it rakes sense to have the potential to have two ways in and out 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 pert of improvements to J . Tim. Poster: The easement to? Councilman Boyt: The south. Tim, Foster: Over to Crimson Bay? Councilman Boyt: Down the power line. 61 ' City Council Meeting - February 22. 1990 ' Councilman Johnson: Okay, and everything's smooth? Okay. No neighbors showed up? Wen Daniels: 1k. They were here at the Planning. ' Tim Foster: Dan Herbst is here. He's the Crimson Bay neighbor. ' Mayor a del: Dan, would you like to cane 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 Ccrmission and your staff and it's a good plan before you. Councilman Johnson: Yeah, I like this cul-de-sac further north too. ' Mayor C del: Okay, discussions. ' Councilman Johnson: Does that make that Lot 2 a flag lot then out to a cul-de-sac? Jo Ann Olsen: That still has the right-of-way. The right of way is here. Councilman 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? ' 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 unless you reca+mend so. Caucilman Workman: So the future of a road going through, all the way through ' to Crimson Bay? Jo Ann Olsen: Unless you request that easement to be provided at this time, it's pretty much a dead issue. Councilman Johnson: There's same pretty bad topography there ain't there? Jo Ann Olsen: It can be done though. Oamci] an Boyt: 1tat would the grade be? ' Jo Ann Olsen: 7% to 10%. ' Cb u oilman Boyt: We do it all the time. Councilman Johnson: How many trees, that's a forested area. Dave Hempel: 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 1 City O ur cil Meeting February 22, 1990 Councilman Hoyt: Wle would need to amend our rules. If that would be your motion then. Mayor Omiel: That would be my irotion to amend the rules. Is there a second? Councilmen Dialer: Second. - Mayor Chriel roved, Councilwoman Dialer seconded to wend the Rules of Procedure for the City Council to consider an item, after the City Council's curfew. All voted in favor except Councilman Hoyt who opposed and the notion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 20 acre piece into tun 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 Om mission recommended the easement be provided but that the road not be improved at this tine. They did go along with staff recanrendations to provide future easements to the east and the Park and Rec Corirmission's proposal for the trail easement so we are recommending approval with the Planning Camvmission's conditions. Again that does not recommend 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 roved that more to the north so that will service } _ same 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 recommending approval with the conditions and that one amendment. Mayor Channel: 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. Ybu said there were 3 people here then. The existing owner? Ken Daniels: Right. 59 i , City Council Meeting - February 22, 1990 ' Councilman 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. No 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 recamended 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 Compassion. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Workman moved Councilwoman Dimler seconded to rov app a the final plat for Subdivision 489-16 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. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND 10.2 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF =WOOD EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA) , PETER AND DEAN NA BRANDT. ' Councilman Johnson: Jo Ann, as you start this, didn't we subdivide this property a couple years ago? But that never went through? Gnry Warren: It never went through. Councilman Boyt: Before you proceed, if it's 11:00, then I would trove that we ' adjourn. Mayor Chmdel: I would notion that we continue on with the next and proceed with that we have going. There are people sitting here who have been here all night waiting to discuss some of these things. 58 i TO: The Honorable Mayor, Don Cbaiel, and City Council Members I as writing in regards to an agenda item at tonight 's council meeting. Specifically the proposal for an easement for a future road connecting Hwy. #5 with #41. Future road in question is to be an extension of Crimson Bay road already in place, and the easement to be voted on is through the property Just north of Crimson Bay Lot 5. My wife and I own Lot 1 at Crimson Bay, and plan to build ' within the year. I want to respectfully convey my strongest objection to the proposed easement and any inter-connecting road through Crimson Bay. This seems to be a ludicrous safety risk. 1 #5 and #41 have an intersection only a mile from where the outlet of the proposed would be and what purpose would it serve other than a shortcut, greatly increasing the arose traffic) from Crimson Bay Road, Hwy. #5 and the Arboretum entrance? This would become a very dangerous uncontrolled intersection, not to mention the risk to children playing in the Crimson Bay area. Also, I believe that the council should consider the crime factor. With access to only 5 lots, a very successful neighborhood watch program could be in place. All local traffic would be recognized. With a through street I We strongly urge the council to be against such an easement for safety, traffic and crime abatement purposes. , Thanks for listening Fred C. Hyde I 11900 44th Place Plymouth, MN 55442 - 11 = =.4 r4 i•-•0 li.7.4 ..4■4.: • C VI pa:a II 0 0 i n"0 VI 441 i • i .:fi a - a NI tat 0.4 en n pa -4 Cs 10 re • = t•• . II :: :i1 i• • ,•_.--`: • • • . //2--•,:1„,. 1"".. a .i •- ' -- - r—Tilviit7r—— ‘••it....,---1 t 1 :' • .i / .■•■••;,;..7, GitS \ •. 1=71 ... / , ./.,. 7, - - 1 - . , • I i )74 . . .1 , , ,,,..,„/ „,.„ , ,::„..,,, . ... (..: f• ,, . , ,. ./ 4y1/1.11. ,•,. o • • • .,, SI • C.'1. .40- ''.1 .•' / 4ZF.:.: r . - . : ••V.1 o • ; 1 / :.:.p. ) . , . 3:• ( i . / ' !'7/./. ... :.... I • ,.....,,.. I _ / r pr, -• •i ,.,./,. - Al / . i.:,. r Z co Z ■ l .. ,,..e...;;--- . .C...7st •11. rn • 1 1 i _.•i 1 'ff!li • •.• ild i lilt •A.. . •■• taw- / .1.11:' 1.1:fr.:11 47 f ' ... t.3,... .ei • • • tli I / 87. A.X.,...1: ••• i 4-'%%%.4•44444%, 4-.......,..,ree•!1:./ WO RI •"4 I nr.ilf **1 rf:',. Ing• 1%) .%. US 1,3 • . ■•• • ...••,,,,, • 11 • .bc ••il:.• g'.. --t.:•:. • :fs 7 Ct.i:i. 4......;..r. 012. r‘3 i .•• ..., . .. .;.''1 .... / . r..........;..;: 2 ". .... ri., .... r- I –— ......., .. ..------■ f.0 1 x -,..,,,, I. a A I • 1 A . , ,..-i, -i.:%--:-..,.. '--f'.' •••• . oll, •ID ■ 1 - . • , • :i — -•% ••....... I%`+,.. -... '11 (I....:.:_s_NI, E•54\ ., ... .-----?•.. •■ n \.... i ■.,..... . j...,17. ........... A 844 - ..i -...'--.------ - ,- . -1 Ir • •.... •.• _ ..I. •S if 1 - , .7"-;;.•4 _...., - 7, • pi • Z 4 ......N.,:.:4, . to I - • .!1 1 : , • : ....,_ ■•• _' • _its.140•100141r_ 1 ....-""" .%ir'\ . %ft...7 ''' • 1 , % ..... 04 • ''- , .... 4.,....,...‘...„...,..,‘. .:: ,s • (0I ci*66.4. 10 .- • ..........t) i r - ‘ 0?• .. ■ Ar 4410 t - v ,. 4.. ••• . .11,4 r . ..... ..."...41, . ..\ / ••••0. t tU ....:. ,•.irmAr...,1..... •. .. . ii : rt • .......4„....10■...... ...74., /C\ I ' , .,..•?•• % fr , ..0.---.. .. . •.'t:.. ,. - -.• t I / :••*\*A _,.. .. t-v... : ,- Agiii.F0:::it;!.- N.\ 'VI k -1/4 , es, •'• 1.* .. .4 41101156. .. . • 11.• 10_,:i , .•:-.4.4.44.-_-_,-_-..,,- ._4%1. t' lit ‘400117•LV- ." \'''‘I 1 a 0 ..''' ill;.. -••••::''''.....,- ii,iO4,‘ .41W ee7":'. ".f.-.:: : ... .;,4•10.\ i e• • • /: I r ro :1, ‘,. ---.1.--0:,,4„Big:..:... :. -:.:.. ..- ........:.:e..,.....-..,-.. 4 b. I ... • ::,,,,,,,.. • ,,, C — 1641/4,.. . •-•,' T ,1..,..F i,..'. ..." leir....,610. 0ailigigli 01.1241 77:".",,c .....•''..1".ti#11N• ..%..".....:;..;1.',...:::..." , .I p:.....‘"" ".•;i:e'' ,,..I' ,/,,..*r7:::.: - - ,.....f.j......0......,„„,,, ,,, ,P--- =0"".7.,_i_• .....:,...N.;.....::.,. via 1 .:::::.:.:.:.:::;::: :-0, • __ ....-k- • e. iiir'''' i -::.'.01,-....- i*:,,,,, ., . .: if 47,— „..,•• :::.:•.,:::,.__ . ..„-. ..\ s, .,.. .. ......„. ,.... .....,_:,...„.::::,:•:•.......:..::::::,:: ,.... ,. •— . -•,:„..„.. - ....- ,.. • .... s .411 4-743.1.:;-: •1...::::: Ir .. . -- - 40.' ----......„........._ ),... :i..1 . , ..„-,,,....._,,_.........._.,,, -....„..-: v L. • . -..„r i i NN \ .-x--..--- • - 1 4 ' . ,:..... - :\,, ..„,,„...... . ft . 4. 4— - !•••• .... ...1• , , .,„'7:4t:/ft..;.-(?. i .. - _. ... .. .._... -......1,4,..g.....a • \ V I . ..... 1=1/ .. . / in'. % 't 1 1. L...,• 14. 1.0f: :'; r`m.-----1. r r--0.-• ..,.s - - ---_:_ .\%\ \ ; A 6,--_ ------=- • 11 I i -'. .• 41'.'414q11tf 't:; -.I 7.7,.. ; I %N.:" .* " ' .. a. --- '''''1".11. 1". - . .a•'vim'.et.'`f.'41• 1■i i .a il.17i ? 1 :i ,L. ..,.:1412.-—7 ...L Z——.,........it. .1.7"..!,, . < .1.;,011 ._..A........r....... .. Iii:',/• rili ,,'... ././■,„<,..... ,..../^". ' y'l.%"%%- ••:.:::.'',•';'':.7:•••• •■.,,...............--•-•..„ I . Pi I I \ • / ' / "b ,••• ; ',/,,,j-;, ".. -,' ".2,.....------..,..--., 41 II t/0,".7•••''.• 1 11:11 li ' .• .. ■•• .........0\ • / / / / 4 •I'" ••„."110-; 4 . , f• e , •••' • I 11•>el M E • =1 3Io 171 .., 0T5 I . 1 1 Ms. JCAnn Olsen Page Two 5) There is no plan given to indicate bow future roads and lots could be developed on the property north of the Worm property or bow 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 bearing, if at all possible. S• cerel _ r J. • . Director cc: Dr. James Bartz, Head, Department of Horticultural Science, III! Mr. Thomas Nelson, President, Board of Trustees Mr. Steven Drialhrm, DM Vice President and General Counsel Mr. Clint Hewitt, OM Assoc. Vice President, Physical Planning 1 • 1 1 - • -- . \ ' = 1 1 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Landscape Arboretum °.-,i J J 3675 Arboretum Drive P.O.Box 39 - - Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 (612)443-2460 IApril 27, 1987 Ms Jo Ann Olsen .. Assistant City Planner 1 City »„ 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 IDear Ms. Olsen: - Qn 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. II5 from the Arboretum entrance. . These concerns are as follows: I1) 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 II increasing), having an entrance to a development 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 1 the two lanes from Highway 41 past the Arboretum entrance ma provide a left turn lane into the Arboretum. I 2) The proposed recreational development and perhaps the housing . developrent 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 I -- . .. ... Eighway.(5. Further degradation of the wetlands could occur from-- . septic tanks and leaching fields draining into the wetland area and Lake Minnewashta. • II3) The roadway into a recreational development of the parcel labeled "Outlot A" could be an additional traffic generator Icausing even more traffic related problems. 4) Ile cul-de-sac proposed comes close to the.Arboretum property line which could provide a very definite detrimental impact on I fact, any future development of the Arboretum's land. In fa , . because of the proposed road design with Lot #1 being 50% of the road frontage, no future logical subdivision roadway could be IIdeveloped. 1 . 1 26 February 1990 Page 2 Chanhassen City Council %Paul Krauss The Horticultural Research Center and Arboretum have never been asked for input on this planning scheme for our property. We strenuously object to this action withait our ccnsultaticn. We further abject to the approval of a 60 foot R.O.W. as proposed in the rLaaughi 4 se property. • J. Ol i R7D/bod e . cc: Dr. John Carter, Acting Head, Department of Horticulture Science, University of Minnesota Mr. W. John Driscoll, President, Board of Trustees, Minnesota landscape Arboretum Mr. Clint Hewitt, Associate Vioe-president, Physical Planning, University of Minnesota Mr. William Donohue, Acting Vice-president and General Counsel, University of Minnesota 1 I 1 1 !Sri UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Minnesota Landscape Arboretum 3675 Arboretum Drive P.O.Box 39 Chanhassen,Minnesota 55317 ' (612)443-2460 26 February 1990 ' Chanhassen City Council % Paul Krauss City Hall ' 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, ?I 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 Crin son Bay Road, Dogwood Lane and Tanadoona Drive. This plan includes University of Minnesota property on the northwest corner of the Horticultural Research hr's apple research orchard. ' Until Friday, February 23, 1990, when I was informed by Dort Laughinghouse, I was totally unaware that city plans involved connecting ' the above-mentioned roadways and that if connected, would involve taking University land. With all due respect, planning of this nature should, at a mninium:, ' 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 lard 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 (115, as attached) for future develapmenrt. 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 order 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 hav+e no darbt that it will be, you have given no option other than to require the taking of University property. Mr. Don Ashworth I February 12, 1990 Page 3 5. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a temporary roadway I 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 I 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 I the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Zimmerman Farm and along the south boundary of Lot 2, Block 1, Zimmerman 11 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, II Zimmerman Farm shall be staked and preserved. 9. Any access, including a dock or boardwalk, to Lake II 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. 10. Construction plans and specifications for the temporary tur- naround shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval . The turnaround shall be built in accordance to the City' s II rural road design (7 ton) . " ATTACHMENTS II 1. Letter from Minnesota Landscape Arboretum dated February 26, 1990. 2. Letter from Fred Hyde dated February 26, 1990. II 3 . City Council minutes dated February 12, 1990. 4. Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician dated February 21, 1990. 5. Staff report. II II II II 1 II II II Mr. Don Ashworth February 12, 1990 Page 2 is not likely to be needed until city utilities are available in U 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 Ito provide sufficient right-of-way for the road connection. Based upon the foregoing, we have concluded that it would be advisable to reserve right-of-way for the connection to Crimson I 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 Iproposed. One 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. ISTAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the City Council I 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 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, II 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 I recording 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 IResources. 4. The street name on the plat should be changed to reflect the current street name of Dogwood Road. II II ys . CITY OF 1 • tiPli- fr cHANBAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM V' b.v Pt Ir r _ TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager p`; FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning ) '� r1 U DATE: February 22, 1990 N- ; SUBJ: City Council Update - Brandt Subdivision ' ` tom .._ -=P PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The City Council last reviewed this item at their February 12, II 1990, meeting (Attachment #1) . At the meeting, the Council 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 appeared to be feasible based on new topographical data and II taking into account site alterations undertaken by the power com- pany, however, we had not recommended in favor of such a connec- 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. The City Engineering Department has had an opportunity to I investigate the matter further with their findings presented in an attached memo from the Senior Engineering Technician (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 safety standpoint which would result in another means of access for that subdivision and would, in their opinion, tend to limit II the number of curb cuts that they would ultimately see on Hwy. 5 and on Hwy. 41. It is our opinion, based on data and all observations, that the II Crimson Bay connection is not only feasible but that the environ- mental impacts associated with it could be substantially reduced II from what has been indicated on the applicant's plan by developing a design that uses a 10% rather than 7% grade and employs retaining walls to reduce grading requirements. It should be I 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 this time. It is our opinion, that the Crimson Bay connection 1 ATTACHMENT # 5 1 • . . . . .•• .3.& o A\ • \ --<\-\\-....... • . . . . .4,-,---A..... . . . . : . I . : . . 1 : : a era:•�E • _ . . I • - I : = : : . : : : �: . i \\t . . 1 . - - k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . ... . . . . . • . . . . ,..4 . . .. .. . .. . . . 1 • . _ . . . . - . . . . - - . . . . . . . • . . • . • . . . k . . . . ., .,. • .... 0, . . . . . _ . . N. • . • . " . • . . . . . \_,,.., . . . . • . : . • . : . . . . . 1 . . . . . .., : . . . . . . • _ . . . . , . . . . : •-: . . . . , . ... . .... . . . ..1„. . . . . . . - .. ... .. - • - - . . . . . . . • . . . .__. _:,. . „....,. _4...4,, • -, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N . c•N • • • . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . .. . . . . . . .. • • • . . . . • . . • . . . .. . . . . . . . : : •. : •. .,:/: . . . : - . . . . . . . • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . _ . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :, . .....„- . . . : . . .. .. .. .. .. • -. -. - . .„,.. . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . .. . . . . .,o. . .... .. . . .. . _ . . . . . . .. . . • . •. . . - 1 . I .t7. : . : . :.: . - . . I : . : : . . . . . . . . . . . . EXHIBIT 4 I . aoi (/\ • if (S--, ,,_ . - i A ,...L...... .„..._ ._.....,.._:.iiimuur . . ,....„ \N. It i r:/' / O Si o0 3 R _I 1 C 411 .1Z I I awn ZI s I ill ►'` � ^ a e e i I ''3.'' 4. • A • 7.";414 y/ -t ) > r a k N\ - . _ 2) m , if o Z D I �, - ° E �� --�Z v, EXHIBIT 3 nit � � .� ik 0 f 16%.4 I Paul Krauss February 21, 1990 Page 2 The applicant 's engineer has indicated access to Crimson Bay Road PP g Y 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 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 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. 3 . The applicant shall receive and comply with any necessary permits from the Watershed District and Department of Natural Resources . I 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. 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 1 I I 1 I s i f _ 1 s - ;'` • �p s 11 • it r � ��•— f I 1 1 , 1 ` .F1 . • 1 ' i� I �:rKE , . / . 1 1 i a . �:. ...`' ' p .nary.. �;- i� 1 �. •I/. ` 1 1 55 I. / 1• r- .;\ Eii :. 14iiiii• ; -it kly I i i;ii V7 x. ' , A ill Q:aa • /I. I . ii di I I III g 1 0 I . I a I9 = 1 F r i pi `� 1 1� e!l.f� c !;1 !=1 !=c! �� °r fr d' Ijf'�l[aifii E i:il �fi BIN II i? = ' �i 'p i i c� iJ1tflujEIJiDq (iJI([1iLi!1iJIJ� Jr! .Ji� = 'jjsi`'If1: J 4s! 1c%!8 i �faf ;" BIN i il p . ls fiii iII rf ii�� �, 1� i,i1� ' 3 f I Jqj hI , 1� t: =iz =F 1 G i11.slit l ,,1 Mill ei -l! -Ii 1II I ! i II 1l- Is si i ij fc • s i5 • c1 iel l� l • 3iii ic� ilial��e i � e c 1 � lI e �I [f z 1 1111! 1! cc �lcci ; ;c- pm q - i hid f � i e�j i • � i�1 !� a-�el= e � { �� ' lfi� it I fi11=. i g; f11 is I ii c!i fl 11 I i f ='s li c .� cijlc i c a 1 ,' 1111 iii= :� � is I.f ! ! i i i1 i � 1• : :f [r I i f i 1 i c l 1111113 � nil c f fs1. !� i _ !s 1 II 11 � a . . _ - : 1.1 11 4 13� �is�ll�-ii�s''•� di3ii i�13 �E�1 !j i�� 1�i� l.li [ I = j' t ls��l1l��i� � !-�.fs�•�1 � I� I! '�l1lillillfR- ;ill ls[ [ !; I-� f=Ef,i� �i� i it � I hl ���[E =;=i:rllls '�ip�'�EE�• tff:1 �� 1 ` l �;I is_ ; i� l! z Nil: 1i i !! 1[I IP; Iff•tz z�•=i ici:it titigti f _ 3i f i[ 9 c ! is sE I ATTACHMENT 2 I 1 1 .Al ZIMMERMAN FARM 7.--:—..L-rm. James R Hill inc.•.s�. IX � aM.wuN.w � ^= 1\ Q s-• [4 f t`s NIELIMINANY GRADING AN0 EROSION CONTROL KAM .« — PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS • a TIMOTNT D.POETEN 11•01 I MP • .14.0 \ ail' I \ iiu I." \ /-:.-/ ly 4 __ ,. ____::___ ,. _I:,\ 47 --- 20 ,...if ____ , . :2 ,.._ ..../. rn � q \ •N* s �-E- cr ' l \ u Z. ? 1. riapos�a I TromPo1A'M r r — Tv Ks*ktouu D .1„11111 14 Irr IZm \ Cyo'RM* �� V • 1 ' L. �� � �W 1..,..: W r� C31. I Lo.r 141 W f:=r _ _ _ � C _ J\ IlD�N '; '\ 1.° s 8943'07` E 367,1 r .0 1 I = -T 4'4 i 011 '\ /cO 'A� przamsED 'D—WoeD RD '� ��; LoT Z I� �\ I LAKE 1\ D - --_____ _ ___ __ _I_ MN AN W ASHT A 5°2.E — S es 40 l 125 1 � � I // €: �,� / — -- --c. -v-{ pi.�- _ ` _ _ _ __it 1 I I zs 4 I CO I ,J \ �► I ATTACHMENT 3 I f • 1 Van Dom-n- ilHazard Stallings- Inc. July 17, 1987 1 Mfn.n Fq.ru,•q.n.,,• 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 I Minneapolis,Minnesota 35441 612/55531550 Planning Commission ' Mayor and City Council City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive 1 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ATTENTTION: Barbara Dacy Dear Ms. Dacy: 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. 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. Very truly yours, ' VAN DCR N-HAZARD-STALLINGS, INC. by: gaij L. 5 4144- ' Robert L. Sellers Senior Engineering Technician RLS:fa enc. 1 1 1 S. ATTACHMENT 1 i , i • ? --. filli st • '-,... r---". -M\ r__,- 6 - Y1 \ - - ; ) / ,LAKE '�1 . M / N N E W A S N T A .A - qtr ,� ,,NE • :7-k ritilImillIilli • ZIMMERMAN FARM PLAT 2.(41irmfr ,..0 - • . :A . % ce • • ......, , *... Imum [-`- . -ir 0 t=. ` � STUDY LOCATION I 10t `\ SOUTH BA PLAT ••NO 1 I c `DOGWOOD RD. EXTENSION LOCATION EXHIBIT LOCATION STUDY MAP NO. 1 1 • INTRODUCTION ' . 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. 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" 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 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 128{'. The terrain for this alignment is rolling at the north and south ends with a section of very steep slopes (12%±) across Lot 3 of Zimmerman Farm and pert 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 1 1 2 1 I — - ,� \ .:-,.-__:::;:A jo.r.. .riL:::.r. ri-i!. 1 e-___ .,:::„.—...=,,,,,,,..„-<:-.0,,...---=,....- .---,...„... - \k,!.,!)\,,,\\ -,*44,e ,--- - _ ,.-r, i., ,,, . : -_-_,..,,, „.____:-..r2.,,.....r—,.....- .... ,....----,, ,,&1>, - x I „-,-.....„4,,,, ,.prt 1 _4:1 __... ....:........—..",„....i...,.. ..;;,...A.4. 4,.. . •,,t,,,,, •4.,,,,N. . ... - 1.• ...17'.. :' 4- 1 iii, 7 ti b„,, ‘ ,, 2,,zi...."---..... ,- ;:,i,‘:, k.'-\ , . I 1\ --"41:,:vgi.T77:.'"-#.i:/;:- -:%:' _ ( k i l l �!•'�'':% ter- '1 � a _ 1'cp, gWOW. ' -.. %, ' \,4 • :V. ° 0 i)4/447,/e.41 i 111, ,v1 7 .4.:1 T, .;;_„..• __. . 7 . (\.14ix,:--- 0) 09/ .-...... ,:t . z 1J f J/ 1 , .., / / , r ,... ))■))? if• ' I.-.4 ,-,.,'-. ...:,•:•.7.....7z.--- j ) i • iirit_V,Ii.:- I 1 ;•." \\s\It. ... -- :7:1.:-L- .. .P.'V▪ T. T'... rz....-______,,L- - ..1:a9 It 1 _.;I �. I - AJ1 . 1 _,.,-; ,,j . , N NI % .Z.''• ' '' '''•;� ' . ..1 a �,,,I/ice`ijt I 4'.,7-- '-.---...--.' -`' ■11‘;'; I I • I I ::-.: . \% 44‘. I �� •lid \�.1`\.; � / '�/':t if( I. 2,_ . • 'X.r1 4 ..►� • i I DOGWOOD RD. EXTENSION I EXHIBIT ALTERNATE 1 LOCATION STUDY r �A. NO. 2 ALTERNATE "B" The alignment is the same as alternate "A" for the portion within the South Bay plat. On the Zimmerman Farm portion the alignment will follow the perimeter of platted lots and connect with existing Dogwood Road at the northwest corner of Lot 1 (Exhibit 3). The length of this alternate is approximately 3230 feet. This alignment will require additional right-of-way for the entire length including a substantial amount from the University of Minnesota. This alignment would not alter the existing Zimmerman Farm plat and outlot "A" could be divided into seven (7) additional lots. The terrain is rolling with steep slopes 12% 1 along the north part of , Lot 5 of South Bay and south line of Lot 3 of Zimmerman Farm. The grades will range from 1% - 3% in the rolling portion to 8% in the steep slopes. The depth of cut through would be up to 15'A: . The cost of this alternate, based on a 24' paved roadway with 6' aggregate shoulder and ditches, is $221,000. Construction Cost $170,000 Engineering & Legal $ 17,000 Construction $ 17,000 Staking & Inspection $ 17,000 TOTAL $221,000 ' CON(IUSIONS From an engineering standpoint both alternates are feasible although there would be problems with either alignment. 1 I - . : F FIC t>,,-,:- , . _7( 4, . „.-..._-_,-, ,111r- ' . .`—•-•,. v. \\,z , - . , cp -4 . -- -- -- '-----,..---"."'"----- --- ----*' -\" N '-N. •-.l.4,.- -- I _ iliPer i...;-- C ' A ii! ----- --- :""L-•-, ----N4 - 4* ,-S ., - _ ---.-:-. - . e.. . , . ,t," ,41_,, - --_-----3-r',1 .,N. --..•-:.:! A, - 4 1\ . ,_ .4....,.,._..,-..,: ...- 4--- );.. , ...... ,,....p7je.___ _ ....-__ -e-4 ,. , 4... --- ___-----_..-.-- --.z.: - -- --- -7- ----:- .1`f dir;;;:. f. .46- --4 NIP f •I t ''-: illkit---...*--fts— ‘,1):11‘,0)))) ) * /r • _„ sc\ilil • , • ../.. .....!„..... ....../ ..„..........„./ it; : - s ...r, i i 1 I //t ( oe< pi; 4 . /,,i I, _ I . . /- /i--, ‘1 \ . - 1,1 _.• -• _. i :_" 1,-,-, : 1 ,),1)) •.1 y„ .1 )) / 1 , , ,, .,.. .f ,frY.:. ...'■. <....-.•:•••"•-•••-• i i ' itilikL /....)/0 •.. ,--....._ -• -„. ........=.-... ,......1. %%Oh iliej , _ . ,.,, _...... --..,!1. ......, ,Ar•-•7---=—.-.......• -...--zp,....... - V''',.vit. "-,'".:, i'./t j / INIVII 4 pi /..es \ �- : -- A rte---- ∎lid f croliFir s .. 4.1%., \i T , hiL 1%,_ t ; ild • if / 14 ‘ s'... `......."%* e "■'1: ---74.47,/ % it ....■ • ■... : . . 14) . I . 4; 4-■ I ' " k % ` ,� t I „ t,, ‘„:, /P r .•ti....-,.......... '' A arrl I‘ *' 1.::�: :f 'ri?7171 1 . .•. 1 .4......_ I ' DOGWOOD RD. EXTENSION EXHIBIT LOCATION STUDY ALTERNATE 3 NO. 3 I IR . 1 COST SUMMARY ' Alternate "A" Alternate "B" ' Construction Cost $75,000.00 $170,000.00 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. II 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 e` I/ 6 ` + • IX Ir 60' I I • 4' S' 6' I:4' i . �. _% I I3. !fM PLANT Mix® 6(TUwNOUS WEAR came • e• CLASS 5 GRAVEL 4005 maim 1 G. CLASS $ GRAVEL SMOULDERS (100%CRUSIEDI I TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2 I 1 It o it r ` s 2 1 ( 40' •r 50 III le... 1 :4' ..._�'-...� a�a . Iriff Ewa I CIA I TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1 I I DOGWOOD RD. EXTENSION TYPICAL • EXHIBIT LOCATION STUDY SECTIONS NO. 4 1 / - CITYOF r �.. 1 )1400r . CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 Action by City AiMt :S'I,?a If MEMORANDUM fndosea_...._.✓b Wfr Mod el. _._-. TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager Re)f.c+= I FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner mete suw-^-- ' *mssiort DATE: February 7. 1990 Dee S _ :: c:.umcfi SUBJ: City Council Update - Brandt Subdivision ;' - )Z`-1 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY 1 The applicant is proposing to subdivide 20 acres into two 10 acre parcels. As with previous review of this property, the proposed I 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 II 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 II provided to accommodate any future development that may occur. On January 17, 1990 , the Planning Commission recommended approval I of Subdivision #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989. All voted in favor except Conrad and Batzli who opposed the motion for the reason that they felt they would prefer to see II further study on the route taken by the power line with potential connection to Crimson Bay Road at a future time. Staff had recommended that the right-of-way servicing the two 1 newly created lots be improved to city standards at this time. The Planning Commission did not feel that improvement of the road was required at this time. The Planning Commission did agreed II that the easement for future connection to the east should be provided. The applicant has worked with the Engineering Department since the Planning Commission meeting to relocate the II turnaround servicing the two lots so that it could be located to service some of the existing lots along Lake Minnewashta. Staff has reviewed this option and has approved the relocation of the turnaround. The turnaround must be improved to city standards to I provide year round access for emergency vehicles. 1 1 I 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 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. ' 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 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 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 18 1 Ellson: We're hoping like you said, to propose it in July so that would II probably make it spring or something. Conrad: One thing I failed to do as we made that motion and Joan, what I II 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 I 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 II 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? 1 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. . . 1 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 1 or a representative? Mr. Laughinghouse. I've seen you here before on this I Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 19 issue. Kurt Laughinghouse: Yes sir . Mr. Chairman and commissioners. I sure have. ' 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 t 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 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 ' 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 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 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 ' 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 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 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 20 all those homes, if that ever happens because that's the only way that you t 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 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 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 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 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! 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 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 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 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? ' 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 I brought our earlier , is at the end of a mile long cul-de-sac. It really 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 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, I when there's no provision put in there, they don't get an easement now out 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 I come all out of the 80 acres because the easement was granted earlier. 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 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 it's got to be put on. It doesn' t make any sense to go in there and rip Planning Commission Meeting 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 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 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 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 a trail easement along in here. John Getsch: Okay. So that is part of the. . . 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 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 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 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 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 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 in blue up there, we're going to have to cross somebody elses property to 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. I 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 al 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. I 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 I 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 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 23 line going across that property, I would like to see it buried too. 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 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 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. &timings: 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 ' 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 ' 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 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 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 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 24 Not 60 foot pavement. Conrad: Thanks. Other comments. Batzli moved, Elison 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. ' Conrad: 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 II 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 future, 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. Endings: 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 P ower lines. Wouldn' t there be a piece of land on Lot 1 that would go between the power line route and the access? Planning Commission Meeting ' January 17, 1990 - Page 25 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 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. . . ' Ellson: 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 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. 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 ' 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? Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 26 ' Olsen: No. Batzli : You wouldn't have a requirement to go out there and do it again? II Olsen: No, you wouldn't. Batzli : Okay. Why aren't we, I remember hearing in past conversations why 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 II 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 . 'timings: 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 II kind of new information. Hempel,: Topography is difficult also but it could be managed. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 27 ' Empings: 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 ' 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. 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. 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 there? Did we cut it at TH 41? Was that our line? ' Krauss: It actually cuts off before you get to TH 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. ' 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 ' 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 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 II 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. Ellson: This one, I mean I only saw this one time. I don't have all the II 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 . III 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 II 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? Ellson: 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. . . & mings: We could propose that as an alternative. 1(a) like they said II but not require improvement. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 29 Ellson: Okay. You' re right . And that's what I 'm looking to do. ' 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 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. 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 ' driveway that would be up to city standards but that is commonplace? Olsen: Yes. It's going to be. . . ' 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. ' Enimings: 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 I 1 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 30 1 like the provision where they waive rights to contest future assessments. II 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 II 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. Bnmings: So I think that's a good solution. It will fit everybody' s II 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. Bmmings: Has that been explained to you? Peter Brandt: Yes. I framings: 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 . . . E1mings: Well, forget it because I'm watching you. I 'd advise you, if II 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 II 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. Rumings: That's good. This is just a question out of pure ignorance. On I Lot 2, the septic sites are a long ways from the house. Is that common? I've never seen septic sites so far 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. Brsiings: 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 have a pump station? Planning Commission Meeting ' January 17, 1990 - Page 31 Conrad: You can always pump it. ' 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 ' 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 ' 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 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 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 ' 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, ' what's going down in terms of woods? Krauss: We haven't done a study of that. Dave hasn' t looked at that in 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 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 I I 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. i 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 II 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 I 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 II 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. II Take the easement but not to have it improved. Conrad: It could be done you're telling me but right now you're not II 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 I 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 II the power line easement is. Conrad: Which is what you recommended. Basically in the staff report you recommended that. 11 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. I Batzli: Otherwise you'd be leaving that Y cul-de-sac. 11 I Planning Commission Meeting 11 January 17, 1990 - Page 33 Olsen: You'd be splitting from other land. ' 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 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, 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. Ems►ings: 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. ' 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. ' 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 I 11 Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 34 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. ' ER.mings: 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. I 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. 1 ERmings: Feasibility study. Kurt Laughinghouse: Anyway, it's your consulting engineering . They have 5 11 alternative road systems here. Conrad: Yeah, we've read it. 1 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 I 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 I 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 II 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 II 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 hove 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 II 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 II would devastate Lot 2 and I think it would just destroy the purpose that I Planning Commission Meeting ' January 17, 1990 - Page 35 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 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 80 ' 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 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 Mr. Langhinghouse 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 and you can move it but now we're trying to plan for the future and that's ' 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. Batzli: Can I ask a question of Dave? Conrad: Yeah. ' 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. . . ' 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 looking at that if there would be a problem of putting in additional accesses to the south of that? Planning Commission Meeting Janu ' ry 17, 1990 - Page 36 Hempel: There was talk of the possibility of another access point out onto' 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. I 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 I 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 I have to be acquired in order to have access to Crimson Road. Conrad: Right. ' 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. Ellson: But are we saying that we want to take State land to help people I develop this? The bottom line is, is that a good way? • ' Planning Commission Meeting 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? ' ERehings: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of 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 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. 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 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 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, 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. ' 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. 1 Enmings: 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 1 public street. Public improvement. Batzli; What would they have to do for the cul-de-sac? ' Hempel: We could make it conditioned upon building permit approval. ' Etumings: So that's probably not really a public improvement? Hempel: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting January 17, 1990 - Page 38 11 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. Planning Commission Meeting 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. II 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. 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 sent out? Olsen: We sent out to all the people who have been interested in it. Conrad: To associations with beachlots by chance? , Olsen: No. Efimings: 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. 1 Olsen: There's a condition in here that says we can go back. Conrad: So they weren't invited. Do we care? Ellson: So what, do you want to table it? ' • Conrad: No. 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 II 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 away. E'atings: Right. That's true. ' .. ITY O F f C. DATE: Jan. 3, '1990 II 111( C.C. DATE: Jan. 22, 1990 CHAHASE CASE NO: 89-11 SUB Prepared by: Olsen/v 1 STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat Request to Create Two Single IFamily Lots I- Z Q VLOCATION: West of TH 41, south of Tanadoona Drive and east of IJ Dogwood Road a. I APPLICANT: Kurt Laughinghouse B. & D. Brandt 281 Norman Ridge Drive 5200 Beacon Hill Road Bloomington, MN 55437 Minnetonka, MN 55345 1 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential, IIACREAGE: 20 Acres DENSITY: One unit per 10 acres IADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RR; single family II S- RR; Minnesota Arboretum, & Crimson Bay QE- RR; vacant agricultural I0 ' W- RSF; single family IW WATER AND SEWER: Municipal services not available PHYSICAL CHARAC. : Densely wooded in the west and south porticos I of the site with some steep topography to itie south. I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential II t,)) H T A ` Lli1/4t. RD PUD-R - - - - `litt/t4; ' : P,N i I' , 4 : r4"-A-tuilimilliouR li \ , . ,., , --Nrr .... , • RR uA'LE AMORE! A DRIVE �_• �Qum .46: . . DRIVE ., "AillM.W",r4i. .' • . n �:, r"pp.- reizaac;ez,,varm! . *''' ..■,. 1.. ,.,.,.......1..........4 POMO OM • Y \/ A2 1.i___=0"---J - re i • 1 _ g (3a7 . 62N0 STREET '• • •/A , , . . r 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ` Brandt Subdivision January 3 , 1989 Page 2 REFERRAL AGENCIES Roger Machmeier Attachment #1 ' City Engineer Attachment #2 Public Safety Attachment #3 BACKGROUND ' 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 1 Brandt Subdivision January 3, 1990 Page 3 meeting, city staff requested that the residents arrange a sub- 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. I Access The applicant is proposing to service Lots 1 and 2 by a driveway i extending from Dogwood along the power line easement (Attachment #5) . Since the current proposal deals only with the 20 acre parcel Brandt 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. IThe 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 access)ioes 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. ' 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 ' 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 II Brandt Subdivision January 3, 1990 II 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 I 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 II 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- II ments to Dogwood. Staff has reviewed several alternatives for future road access providing secondary access to the property. The alternatives II 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 II 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 I 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 II 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 II 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. I Easements The Park and Rec Commission reviewed this application on December II 12, 1989, and requested that the applicant provide a 20 foot trail easement along the east boundary of Lots 1 and 2 and along II 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- I 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. II The applicant is providing the typical utility easements of 5 and 10 feet on Lots 1 and 2. Utilities II The property is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area II 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 II Brandt Subdivision January 3, 1990 I Page 6 approved. The septic sites are shown on the second sheet of the I plans and staff is requesting that these be staked and protected from any alteration during construction. IGrading and Drainage See Engineering Department memo. IWetland Lot 2, Block 1 contains a Class A wetland adjacent to Lake I Minnewashta. The wetland is part of the same wetland which was 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- ' 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. II COMPLIANCE TABLE I Lot Lot Lot Area Frontage Depth Wetland I Ordinance Requirements 2.5 ac. 200 feet 200 feet 1 unit/10 ac ILot 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 Class A (approx.) wetland adjacent width) to Lake Minnewashta II Variances Required: None IRECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Ifollowing motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision I #89-11 as shown on plans dated November 13, 1989, with the following conditions: 1. The 60 foot ROW (Lake Drive) proposed with this subdivision Ishall be built to city standards for a rural street. Plans II 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." ' * 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. ' 2. Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician dated January 10, 1990. 3. Memo from Public Safety dated June 5, 1987. 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 R RESOURCE ENGINEE}AING Roger E. Machmeicr. P.E. lames 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 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 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, Madivryteifku I Roger . Machmeier, P. E. ' RESOURCE ENGINEERING REM/jjm Enclosure t* j ' SPECIALISTS IN ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT 1 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 the lots in the proposed subdivision is based is that which has 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 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 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 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 II -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. ISummary The three lots which we evaluated on this proposed I • 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. • CITY OF 0 i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM i TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician OW I 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 i October 18, 1989, revised January 10, 1990 , submitted by James R. Hill, Inc. , I offer the following comments and recommendations . BACKGROUND 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. i 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. i STREETS The existing street, Dogwood Avenue (or as the plat reflects, "Lake Drive" ) , consists of a narrow 10 to 14-foot wide gravel roadway. The City does not maintain this segment of roadway because it is not built in accordance with City standards. The I #2' I 1 Jo 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") . GRADING 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 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. 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" . I 1 I i 1 11 I Q CO• • Xr': 1 ' W CAMP TANADOONA AT MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS e IF a a =® , NNW' ( 0 3 A 2' ® colostomy sammarr . Yews.,.1..� IV 4 ,'k'f' ' Vii.®,•® ?�iyMFgM p ! �N 15*CUP rOs 9 li ► 1,./ TYN.r O= O? 10 m! I © JOHN P. ' FUTURE lAL �,� ` M " " SAVARYN " ,!3 SECONDARY N k±.(31 _ _ (NO SCALE y „®\ M ,l© • ) 10%° ' 14% Lor a . C)--- • TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. . . . ._. IN NS MOM MI NM NM I NE I EN NM I NM MEIN M U N an: . . ion : : :NO: : : N :Ili: : :�: . . III . : :—: '—: : : :Or : :—:1NM : : MN: : :Elk : : AM: : Eli : : all : : :— Ci • :. ..: : �. . . . . . . . . CO :. • Q :.:.:.:. . ... : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . :.. o h _ �s 3° BAST ,o°/�o Wv-• : : : .� /0 00 ....0" :1;0%.........6.4 , • b.' ii6S.r. • • • • . . . . . . . . .„L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?Refry Se A> . ¢ GleAcit ea'✓G /use':v� 4. 44,44potz.<- m At ii Ilk �r�• N r. . . . . . . . 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . .t . . . . . . . .f . . . . . . . . .6) . . . . . . . . . DRAW PR 0J- - [oil PRELIMINARY STREET GRADE TIMOTHY 0, FOSTER Ver: ■ ■ FARM 7Zoo METRO WLvp. EppNk,MJ, 5543S :NIM N, I She • of 7 • - - . . . . • . . . S till"; :o.\ : . . . • ;s..$Q$ o, 3 I ��og �o;; :2. -.oA: #441/ " le fo/647S•#.R/',...' :.:.' __ -. ; r • -2.. 0S U, :.• - E -1) .,__ . is . . . . . . . . . . . • • • • .• • i.,1 /0i.$2,-.2., T.- -if v:A - ... ),„ r.1.) ...k z ',ten : : : : " : : : ___ . m . . . . . . . . : : . . . -- tp . . . . . , . . . . . . � ... .. . :' . . . . . . . . . . V, - Fil in X ' '%. • c ...4• ..... i 0 . . . . . .� , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • _• to a \ o„ . . . . . . . . . . . . . MIN= • N. • % 0 rsft/ 1 A \ C 44 • „., ri) N b. c. 1 . . : . . . . . . N m 1; /8 ....,, • i cn /I • 1 /O'Z:y4;: 2'S .._/604-7.v ,e•nr tfie....___24. ... __ .. N . . . . . x. � EXHIBIT C r I Ili . r I •.d V W W O I S N y N = h ' S ti 0! Q < W � U,` 3• W c $ 0 m N O y• Z N ¢ c .. I m z c CC - X N p p F. C c S� a v ►- ¢ C P. I _ QZ in a x }= Q V -) N N W • ,. N CZ a N < N 0: - Z W mow. .• • _ I M ca v p 2 i W s:. _ N Q �� W ie < W a < ii� W m` �_ CO W`c. �'• J I .•••. Cr) J H .� O AL-* W F- S v3 O , 0 C Ili • Q W = 10 1; U 0 < W 3� cc 1 2 ■ W U J CC m J I— CC = cc z V O Q at 2 F IL • EXHIBIT D CITY il _ -. OF TYPICAL STREET . t^ CUAI'?IIAZET RURAL , - 1 N I SCALE 1' DATE PLATE NO. I 5-89 5202 . I . . .._ _ ..._ 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ir 1 �' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner 1 FROM: Jim Chaffee, Public Safety Director 1 DATE: June 5, 1987 SUBJ: Otto - Timberwood (86-27 SUB) Lake Susan Hills West (87-3 PUD) Zimmerman/Pemtom Company (87-11 SUB) 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 1 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. 7Picrixt61/7es 1 i 1 1 i 1 Planning Commission Meeting 9 9 June 21, 1989 - Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING: II 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 ' 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 I 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 based on the Council's. . . Olsen: At that point it was determined by the public that they didn' t want I 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 01- I ' 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 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. 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? Kurt 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 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 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 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 I by the City. Now this is a plat from 30 or 40 years ago. Perhaps longer. Nevertheless, that is the physical and legal situation. This proposal suggests, we propose to dedicate an additional 40 feet of right-of-way and I cul-de-sac here in this area so the City would have the appropriate 60 feet 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 I 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 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 I that's outlined like that. So we left that remark there to remind us we've 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 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 I Dogwood road and that, as is suggested, as stated in the engineer's report, 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, I weaker police protection. They understand that. The people who have purchased this lot, contingent of course, this lot and this lot understand I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 13 , 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 II from TH 5 and is the source of power for all of these properties and that 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 II 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 II is our dilemma. We have here a 50 foot swath right through the trees with 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 I furniture trucks, which I would guess have gotten down there anyway and 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 I easement around the back of these properties to get back to Dogwood here. 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 I 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 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 Planning Commission Meeting 11 June 21, 1989 - Page 14 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 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 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 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 I 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 I our direction to staff so if that's acceptable to everybody, I think I'd 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 Italked to us about. Any public comments? John Getsch: I'm John Getsch, 7500 Dogwood. . . .the road easements and the I discussions along those development plans , still presents a problem on what 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, I there is no long term plan for any improvements of the road and that's a concern. Right now it' s a 20 foot wide, almost single lane all the way in and that presents a problem. . . I 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 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 II 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 II 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 I one that was recommended at the time. I think primarily due to the cost 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 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 15 ' 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 II at. Option C was similar . . . Once again you still have the constriction of 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 II 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 II 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 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 II to some of the individual parties. They ranged, as I indicated, from about $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 11 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 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 II 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 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 16 11 ' 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 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 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 ' 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. 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 I sympathetic to local conditions in a certain regard and were willing to 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 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 I don't think it's our job to force a developer to develop and require them to 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 II hearing. I wanted to respond, you asked a question and I was trying to get some 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 I 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, I 60 foot wide swath is cut right through there and cleaned out so there's 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 II 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. I Conrad: It is embarrassing what the power company did there. I just can't believe 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. IIKoegler : Kind of a follow-up to that. The feasibility study that was I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 17 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 II 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 through that area? Conrad: Jo Ann? Olsen: That was part of the Park and Rec Commission's recommendations and II 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 II 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 IR 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 II 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 II 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 I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 18 change to the plat, the 100 foot segment we've asked, the Bergen' s home is 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 I 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 I this piece like that. That's the purpose of it. It benefits Mr. Bergen 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 ' 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 I'm able to put a shovel in the ground and make this my home, the happier we' ll be so any input at all from the Commission would be most gratifying . I Conrad: Thanks for your comments. Linda Oberman: . . .farming that? ' Tom Kordonowy: It is now a farm and it is really appalling this tree swath that goes through there. I Wildermuth: If the road were to follow that utility easement, that swath 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 I would be desirable more or less but then the power line goes straight 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 Rordonowy's I home will be. Then the wooded area runs out around here also. You had another question and I didn' t quite get it. Is your home one of these two homes right here? I Linda Oberman: Right. I was just wondering if he was going to farm that land or. . . ITom Rordonowy: I personally will . . . Linda 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 Ineighbor's preference and I speak for the neighborhood. At the last meeting I was voted to be a representative to speak to the Council and 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 19 ' Planning Commission on this. Our preferences obviously are to keep 1 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 II 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. II 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. Conrad: I think what I 'd like to do right now, let us go around the I 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 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 II 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 I 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 II the 60 foot right-of-way. Erhart: Right, so normally we would require the easement in that case so I II guess again, without having full discussion, my immediate reaction is to go 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 I many houses on it? I thought there was an upper limit on the number of Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 20 houses that can be served by a private drive. Olsen: Three lots you can have. The other ones, no you can not have. ' Resident: What was the answer? Emmings: The answer is no. What is the maximum? Is it 5 or 4? Olsen: It's 3 and then in the rural standards it states that you can have 2 so there's some discrepancy there. 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. 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 I inadequate. At least that's my recollection of what happened back then. I 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 I 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 ' t 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 I potential for not being able to get any emergency services or not, that's 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. IResident: It's still there. Emmings: 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 . IIMartin 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? IOlsen: It's public safety. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 21 Warren: Secondary access . ' Emmings: That's all I have. Elison: 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 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 II for what they proposed, I don't have a good basis on which to judge that at 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 II least planning for the future and it looks like the only way we can do that 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. 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. Beadle: 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 the Park and Rec to look at that. Look at it closely. As fax as the road improvement, if they all agree, they don't want to improve it, they've got II 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 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 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 II because it's a big new piece of information and I think that plays a role, at least in how do we get access to those particular 3 sites. The trail , I Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 22 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? IIOlsen: You've got 100 acres and you can have 10 units. Conrad: 1 per 10 so they could literally 7 more? Warren: 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 II 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 I 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 I disturb the balance out there so I don't feel that we need to force any 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 Iright-of-way or easement out of this parcel. However, this parcel is not being 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 Iwe'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. Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 23 i W.C. Getsch: I'm talking about any assessment or anything else. They're ' in bad enough shape as it is. Conrad: Right. No, we understand that. There was a lot of logic in what I he just said. Is there anything that would contradict that logic Jo Ann? Olsen: I'll let Gary answer that. 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 I 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 I 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 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 property, we can deal with reasonable geometrics 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 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 24 you're right. 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 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 of these lots, but there is no dedication around the rest of the property I 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 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 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 II 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 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 Iinto an urban process. I think we ought to. . . Conrad : Mr. Laughinghouse , you're right yet it takes the power away from I the City and the power away from the neighborhood right now that are currently living there under your direction. Now's the time in 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 I the individual who owns the large parcel there, when they want to develop 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 Imaybe 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. Conrad: But you're comfortable the way things are today aren't you? IDave 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 but what I'm saying is that it has a certain charm to it. . .we certainly want the easements. IWarren: 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. IIConrad: 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 Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 1989 - Page 25 ' the new information? , 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 II 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 hearing 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 II you on that. Koegler: The City is in the process of updating it's Comprehensive Plan at II the present time which a review of the MUSA line is a part of that effort. 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 support this application and we don't actually know that tonight. I guess • II s s r % 1 >; r„ * ,,•• i I I I • I t • , 7 I� I / 'WI a I s / / I , 4?� .-- / S / .� --_.7... .- ,-• %i • / 0 ,net.'''''' ---. ---- —.rot= 1 - „'r„ I. I r ii- 4111i t-• F P: itri‘ ri k .' Fu r • 1 p 111 . . ill f . ..rikl _ _ _C,/hy 1 t 111 ; del I • I I ' -� - 1 III, . . . . . . P P •, ;elf 51II`{f I1I1= !H� c:11$11/ I :1 ! 111111911111! iii• rIi 1; i 5 {7!. iIIIIII i { IEE {{ ! ° p�' al{•. a=11 a • a sa i {a II {{ i Ii i ;Ig{ {{ 11 I'll 1111 I�! { i d � °i Fa f Ii Iili !i 11111 '�lil al{i I:Il�a 1� �ll f l = f E�. Ia ° � 'Il {I 3 , E.I ° Iel 1 fa — il� t°ff a: a ` r a sf 1 I !'� I { {°I ; I I i 11 { - � r he ii� I; 1 of f . ° o •° a s• :J141.311111 •'i 111 1 rr i I{ ° i� I { i 1� °•`l-ai. 1 3 1. ° ° gi �ii NI 0114a E EI a:if f .11. e s {•{ill ° E{!Ir i E � � � � �) �ii i+ ` { °��.� {list es {- I �,I { I ;��r°� �•, II=I'{� Ili! � ! ! i f 1' _ � _ � ��� �-�a _�f f�a. ° {{ilae i { °gia i iif. 1 11111 1 1 =•a • rf•411118!° la1 !°1 fj i �{� 111E"{.°� I � { E Ir{ E a ttflf ;_ a al f 3 °i {I ."-{�-:ii 3.{ 'II .i rIi I. ° IIi� r `r �aC•aa 'P tal{1 iiI 1 II I 1 '_° r:f°. `E3{i 'II { •{1 I iri Iii iI �i I !I 0111i41110111;IYH'il f':1 �i{��{�I�{{�i� �{'i{ :` 3�iEIr �� isliii� � E I •� { { '{ ra �� °II •iii iI {: app ; 511 I ! MN IIa 1{' ° III I!J I i 1 ; IiI f= I"{ P .{t P . I1 I �'! ! -13IS , I: II . 11 11I i 1' i , 1111 r Ill j•1:1� sl 1 F°{i= l i. : 4 { �. : g is •a: at ZIMMERMAN FARM �-\ i; g �. *$UN. . _ =;; lames R•Hill,inc. 1 F PRELIMINARY GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL RAM ••• ..,, = PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS 4 a ni” TIMOTHY D.POSTER �.c"'L • _ _ _ - ./ ?H•■a/a0 NMI,Ine,A,r01. • ma L•�AKI • t001MO1OM.1M mom • aM.M�a•■ . ITY O F 'C DATE: May 13, 1989 11 C.C. DATE: if 45 CHANHASSEN CASE NO: ' Prepared by: Sietsema:k STAFF REPORT Y ` PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 20.3 acres into 2 single family lots I- Z VQ LOCATION: Tanadoona Drive, west of Highway 41 and } mile north of Highway a, APPLICANT: Timothy Foster Cl. 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 north and Minnewashta Regional Park and the F.74; Landscape Arboretum are also injthis area. COMP. TRAIL PLAN: The Comprehensive Trail Plan calls for a W trail along the entire west. si'de 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 I park will be needed. II Park and Recreation Commission December 12, 1989 Page 2 I BACKGROUND I 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 I lots. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended at that time to I 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. ) IIAs 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 II 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- ' went to the east and north of this sight. Recommendation IIStaff 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 I 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 I the southeast corner of Lot 2 and along the east boundary of lots 1 and 2. IIPark 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 II 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. IIThe Park and Recreation Commission has recommended approval of the Zimmerman proposal with the condition that a 20 ft. trail II 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. II II 1 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, I 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 I 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 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 I 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 I up for development. { Lash: Are you saying that our recommendation is based on. . . You've got the Minutes attached? Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 2 ' 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 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 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 go 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 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 S street here, whatever that street connection is, we can tie into that. Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 3 1 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 II 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 I 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. II 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 II 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. A major portion of it or 8B% of it doesn't come in front of us. It's just II 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 4 1 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? 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, 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 I 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? 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. 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. Park and Rec Commission meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 5 I Lash: I don't want to appear to be real nit picky but I have a question. II 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? I 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 II 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? I 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 II 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 II 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 wag our last recommendation. 1 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. 1 Schroers: What' s kind of confusing me now is like if the street goes here. That kind of leads me to believe that we don't know exactly what we're doing, at least that's what I felt. ' 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 t 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 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 ' 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 Plannin g typically but t� icall 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. 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. I Park and Rec Commission meeting December 12, 1989 - Page 7 Boyt: Second. I Mady moved, Boyt seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend I 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. SELECTION 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 I 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. . . 1 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 I and people will never find that. They'll know there's like 3 or 4 Kiowas around. Lash: Or are they set up, I mean I'm not even sure where these all are but II is it set up in a way that there's a directional thing where one is north I g s s r S 1� I i '* Fit r i • I . I IL ' SUNSET I NL i ' ,�`,. 74011'111 4 55 R (I r. I 1/„.. I _1i S la' ' • ' I Id - 1 1,.. ill r�It��IpW?r; Ji i! ill ��EI; '=�°1111111, !!i{ JJI Pi II�i i 1 ��i gilliqlAgif:rill-rigiriiiii,� • • • iJ ��tip`PIII, �I JI'9i i]Iii 1 fRI n: 1 j D f I g tii ii 1 1 ! Ii i iiII 111111 1 _ = t _ t,I. i ii I !' iJiJ � 1 Is� r t� • 14l'= „ jilr •r t =i t t i 1 :iE t i j� ft ° rstioiF ii�� lip�ci III! �� ; � � �l �a��.��trl<rr �.� �pp�_ t�i� tr t! ��!!s"� i ! li r�f �! R 1 i 11041 rs . ,i.: .!� 0 1tl t i! 11 � N1i s� i l! i,� �1 1s !t� 1 t ! �a 1 1 •` tt! € - �. _ >E I II iEE'i 1 I-� a 1f Rill l L i 111 ! s!e s !!!a I t i !t0- 111 4�Eb P t r t :0�-s "1-11 tE1 'I 1 Y i Pi!,t _ d t . . _ �� ! !glib 1. .• t: / i- sf!2 e i � g is f f ! tt� �"t �I i : ll 11;11111;hp lei !:5 ' DER= !IIa iafl 1/ ! . "� r isr: _ - -I;- - t - f(.P10111410 =9 5 _� 1Eii� ;pa EE' s ! ! ! ' i !l� 0:3111.=�IMill i,f.-'1 II: iF •i =1 y�: �� C�a t: it i �r i 1 Di 02111 _ r �tiid= C e ZIMMERMAN FARM F 74'7%V.' James R.Hill inc -;. i litlft: CHANKA/nK.wa ' • .,2 _"14 I PRELIMINARY OIIAOINO AND ERO$ION CONTROL max , r.:::::: R's E d 1 F!w ' TIMOTNr D.PORTER ' g - PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS ft WM SWIM • aIMINCI M.WI MM • mews= • I I , VanDoren Hazard Stallings architects• Engineers• planners I 1 -1 1 Etopeka • wichita • minneapolis• kansas city 1 f i L. CITY OF CHANHASSEN MEM JUN 2 1 1988 ENGINEERING DEPT. L 1 L I I � 1 [ Ir 1i 1 � I( Ij 1 FEASIBILITY STUDY FUR STREET IMPROVERS FOR I� TANADOONA DRIVE - DOGWOOD AVENUE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA JUNE, 1988 11_ 1j I hereby certify that these plans and specifications were prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. eg stration No. g14. $ Date 60/1'7 , fg18 VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS, INC. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55447 (612) 553-1950 F I Ir 0 I 1 HazarrdrEr> 1 Stallings' ....En„...En„..-Ramos. 3030 Harbor Lane North June 17 , 1988 Bldg.II,Suite 104 jMinneapolis,MN 55447-2175 612/553-1950 E Mayor and City Council I c/o Mr . Gary Warren , City Engineer City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive 1 Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317 I Dear Mr . Warren : IThe enclosed information constitutes the feasibility study for I the improvement of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue . This material has been assembled in response to a resident petition 1 and has been prepared under the guidelines established by the City Council . [ This report examines four alternatives , all of which are feasible I 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 ensure public safety and all are appropriate for acceptance by 1 the City of Chanhassen for ongoing maintenance purposes . Alternate "A" is recommended for implementation should the City decide to initiate an improvement project . Background I information and specific reasons for this selection are detailed in the report . IWe 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 1 and property owners . I.. Very truly yours , I VAN DOREN-HAZARD-STALLINGS , I . Lby: L Darrell D. Ha mond , P. E . I President LDDH: sd ' L ' BACRGROUNID 11- Tanadoona Drive - Dog wood Avenue is a dead-end street, approximately one mile le IFlong, that currently serves the Camp Tanadoona Campfire Girls camp, the residents of Sunset Hill on Lake Minnewsshta Subdivision and one farmstead. ItThe 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 the original Zimmerman farm, the City reviewed options to eliminate the existing Dogwood Avenue dead end. II 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. The purpose of the proposed public improvement project for upgrading Tanadoona Drive - Dogwood Avenue is: 1. To upgrade the streets to an acceptable minimum design standard allowing the City to assume responsibility for ongoing maintenance. I 2. To provide safer, more direct access for emergency vehicles. 3. To provide access for future development of undeveloped land in the area. I I 1 1 I I 1-I1 f _ tIIgI_P p∎.. ,,,„i� v-i. i 47,, ,,��• �1a ,- G::�i.e **-_ , - ll '��,�� .,t•�L' . 1 � ': �, • _• :ass ow;i=t A,.: t•• ..:.. . i -(4.- 4,,,...„----..0. .,:::%.,.4 I!►.., �--„ ..I ♦t!titiiiT li 1 ' I _ - LAKE \�1. ® / I -_; AIINN E WA S N TA I t i _ _ 1 I . z , p,1 piliwki I SM.; Q LAKE I ``\ t r 1.- , row• :1', l \s-,� tn'ffiuj♦��./7 I - 1 c- 1�� _ P-OJECT OCATION 0 ' 1 " Z►/ I 1 MO 1ZST.4t L ...... .....—,.. . , .. , ,i __ _ _ oMq I 1 IL Zr it `' HIGHWAY L___. L , L i IL 1 p 112110 STRUT I BOND L. (NO SCALE) I EXHIBIT NO. .1 L VICINITY MAP 1 2 L 1 F EXISTING CONDITIONS i 1 Although separately named, Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue are essentially one street. Tanadoona Drive begins at State Highway 41 and runs westerly approximately 3,250 feet. The traveled portion of Dogwood Avenue begins at this point and goes south another 1,250 feet ending at lot 12 of the Sunset ' Hill Subdivision without a turn around or cul-de-sac. The easterly 1000' of Tanadoona Drive from Highway 41 to the entrance of Camp Tanadoona has a 20' gravel surface and is currently maintained by the City. Beyond the camp entrance, the roadway narrows to 14'+ in width and is iiessentially a one-way street. This portion of the roadway also has gravel Ir surfacing 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 difficult for emergency vehicles to access. Major changes in this portion of the road are required to meet current City standards. 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 subdivision. The plat that has been submitted calls for three new lots to be created with the remainder of the parcel as an outlot. Under current zoning IlLstandards, a total of 10 lots are possible in this development. I I I 3 1- I- A • 1,- rCAMP TANAOOONA Tr MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 30 i2r� ww, +1 `e Z ut® `] .F. lFA Mauna System . 0 w4C ��®� C� I/MMFgM N r a f'® ,, A 'Won 1 JOHN P. / , Jo-. SAVARYN 1 .0 0 ZIMMERMAN FARMS I W1a icv ' Oueo+A N 8 W ,a® (NO SCALE) i ;.._...'.... EXHIBIT NO. 2 I EXISTING CONDITIONS r I r M Mt .1111_1111M TANIIIPOIN DiallOGINIODINE. SIBIOY Maw go The three new lots coie in the southeast corner of the parcel and access to If 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 Since the existing right-of-way for Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue is only 20' wide, the developer agreed to donate the additional land needed to establish a 60 foot wide right-of-way area. II Near the intersection of Dogwood Avenue and Tanadoona Drive is a low marshy IIarea 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. ,I II I I I I I I I 5 I ALTERNATES 1 Four alternates were selected for detailed study and cost estimates. Alternate "A" looks at upgrading the present alignment to current standards. 1 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 maximum access for future development of the Zimmerman farms plat. 1 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 1 be needed. Detailed soils information is unavailable. The Carver County 1 soils map indicates the predominate soils are Hayden and Glencoe Loams. These types of soils normally do not pose any major problems for street 1 construction. A discussion of each alternate follows. 1 1 t 1 L 1 L 1 1 1 61 L 1 ALTERNATE A - EXHIBI'.'' 10. 3 IThe alignment for this alternate follows the existing Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue. Dogwood Avenue, which currently ends at lot 12, would be It extended to the south end of the Sunset Hill plat. A cul-de-sac would be I t built at the end of Dogwood Avenue and a modest realignment is proposed at the intersection of Tanadoona Drive and Dogwood Avenue. Ij The proposed roadway for this alternate would be a rural type ditch section Ifusing 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 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. Ii 1 Due to the proximity of the garage on the west side of the road and the lift station 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 ILsection, 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 manhole approximately 25' to the east. The estimated cost for the relocation is approximately $10,000. I I It_I 7 I w J N f o to 1 Z it 1 Q .1 M CO ci W t Z Q m w cc W Q I it x IF„ I M d Y w =R co �< 0 O co am T. 2 li----"...'"'"-- U i < O ! ..• O < 2 0 4 N V''/ r ■ U 2 �' Cr = i 1 N 2 • .2.1/ / ../Z If } W / W II: \ i e 1 7 I I w a tis: ® _ . '■ 44, .., = I x Y 0 14,4, 1 e a U 1 1 MB ! L_- L_ L_ l_ Lai an ! L- <_ L_ L La - ! L- -- - 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 field 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 IIadverse impact to the wetland would occur from this alignment. lir 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 would be acquired to provide for the realignment at the intersection of Tanadoona and Dogwood and across the Savaryn property. 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. I I I I I I I- 9 I ALTERNATE B - EXHIBIT N0. 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. 1 Dogwood Avenue would be extended south to the end of the Sunset Hill plat and 1 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 both ends of Dogwood Avenue. With this alternate, existing Tanadoona Drive test of the Zimmerman parcel could be vacated. 1 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 i 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 mound system. f_ 1 The terrain, tree cover and slopes are similar to Alternate A. This alignment I 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 I right-of-way. The alignment would provide limited additional access for L future development of the Zimmerman Farms Addition. , The cost of Alternate B is $281,500 and is to be assessed on a front foot I basis. This cost for Alternate B is $25.80/front foot. 10 t ' MN MI MN MI NM IIIM I I M In OM UM NM NM IIIII MI IIIII I IIIIII 1 4 J r r t..••, rCAMP TANADOONA �� MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS 0o G t• ' 4, Q© ?= O ' C•ww•1w•f••x•n 0 ,; 77.1/ Mwnf.rn•m O w� f I \IEL• f,'CM®r 24 CMP 2/MMFOMAN ,s c +� ®. _ N'CMP I r O ------...%2 fflo r r f'O JOHN P. liall% —4©,f SAVARYN s 0 ZIMMERMAN FARMS OAP �1 ONb1 N q ,.® ip (NO SCALE) 00 ANN I c.„.."\---...._ , / EXHIBIT NO. 4 ALTERNATE B TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. FEASIBILITY STUDY 11, 1 1 IALTERNATE C - EXHIBIT NO. 5 I 1 The alignment for this alternate is essentially the same as Alternate A except ' 1 for a portion of Dogwood Avenue which has been moved to the east of the mound I system. A tie-in to existing Dogwood will provide access to lots 1 - 5 and Lthere would be cul-de-sacs at either end of Dogwood Avenue. I 1 The proposed roadway section for the tie-in would be an 18' bituminous surface I Las in Alternate "B". The existing terrain, proposed grades and drainage I structures also will be similar to those discussed for Alternate A. Tree 1 removal for this alignment will be greater than for Alternate A due to heavily I timbered land to the east and north of the mound system. I I This alternate would not require major modifications to the mound system but also does not provide access for future development of the Zimmerman Farms IAddition. I LAdditional right-of-way to be acquired for this alternate would be Lapproximately 2.8 acres. [ The cost for Alternate C is $281,700 to be assessed on a front foot basis. I Assessed costs would run $25.65 per front foot. L I L I L I L I 12 L 1 1 - - I I I r I r I I I I I I MI - I I I■I III I Ma 1 r. I r 1 CAMP TANADOONA G . MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFISIIE GIRLS r ' 9 ~ -w r 2 i, S fir^ ' 41: ,/ C..P...ty 4.MUr � CI �' MwMId tP.t.w ----------, ............„i r®t f 21.CIAP Zi4e4gEWEA. A i, ,...« r ° �y ' JOHN P. r , SAVARYN "'© n cw® ZIMMERMAN FARMS 11.°11111711144 1 illrlin i oma�• N l (NO SCALE) Virr. • dl is y I "®r r l ("` " EXHIBIT NO. 5 ALTERNATE C F. TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. FEASIBILITY STUDY 13 1. 1 1 ALTERNATE D - EXHIBIT N0. 6 1 This alternate improves internal access for the future development of the Zimmerman Farms Addition along with the existing 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 1 Dogwood Avenue. Existing Tanadoona Drive could be vacated west of the entrance to Camp Tanadoona. I , 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. I , 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 I 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. L , L 1 L 1 L 1 L 1 14 • L IIIIIIII 111111 MI E ON OM NM - - = MN NM MI - NM IS MN OM MI I ill J r Two. CAMP TANADOONA X.T MINNEAPOLIS COUNCIL OF CAMPFIRE GIRLS I it .IC G.® I lege it d���A J r. 2O e...wPnr a.x.n a �f�!' . I / Mew/Spasm O wA �� ®r ® I 1•CMP =/4416„M�N ,.'CMP e0 ... .... -r �® f Oa O / , 1 JOHN P. SAVARYN 1 u ®,. cMP- .^^�,.,,, .........2IMME: ARMS © ,.•eM. N 15 CMP ,.Q, (NO SCALE) m q® gyp+ I I "® 0 A r- _______- 1 ; ,_ EXHIBIT NO. 6 I ALTERNATE D r TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. FEASIBILITY STUDY 15 . I i I IF 8' ] 1248 1 4' t 61 .4.. _ 4.7 e4ope 1 00% I -e• '''"7 "....•'......."4':::Y kshillk 1:.7.1:::0 1•••••?11';"1•%ft:44,:k1"ci.FY.I.I c_Vvr:;:;.. •'VI:ft:ft •- `111'11."t'fi40/4 I I- I li ' 2" 2341 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE 10. CLASS 5 GRAVEL (100% CRUSHED) 111 I6* CLASS 5 GRAVEL SHOULDERS (100%CRUSHED) I TYPICAL SECTION FOR TANADOONA DRIVE I I 1 1 I 1 e' 1 2' 18' In 20' I *7 eCrt- i 'gut I ,. 3 ei ' 1 ...... ... „ 1.•"1":"A4.11:44•**Zirirtt.i.F:IT:t 1:11•%.6.7.. •st"itl'a" 'II. ...' S40/3 1 I T 1 is 2341 PLANT MIXED BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE I L , , JO* CLASS 5 GRAVEL (100% CRUSHED) 66 CLASS 5 GRAVEL SHOULDERS (100% CRUSHED) I 1_ I TYPICAL SECTION FOR DOGWOOD ROAD I._ I E. EXHIBIT NO. 7 1 L I L I 161[L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ' I RED C. • ..•. R/W , i 1 I i I. _ IOy CITY OF —__ C H AN H AS S EN I DRIVE AT JONES PROPERTY .•J A I— I i I i) RELLLOC. P P _ I • I M I I I I ROCK BED AREA IT'tos I� GAR. 30' I /— — III� III 1.: 20' EX.R.W w • /'-i � , III I I _ _ 1 i ICLEANOUT EXIST.) • I I( OAD(E IST.) � ``-1 �0 �pLVE PIT I SECTION BETWEEN GARAGE AND MOUND r • LIFT STATION 1I I --- - --� pa1VE REL C. r '��� t J 1\r RAISE TOP ——im I I P IIIIIIIIIIIIII -- N _ ____ (NO SCALE) � EXIST.LIFT STATION PLAN SECTION AT LIFT STATION It. ` n rf EXHIBIT NO. 8 TANADOONA DR.-DOGWOOD AVE. FEASIBILITY STUDY 17 IQJS'T TABULATIONS 1 I I Table 1 shows a comparative cost breakdown for all of the alternatives. All improvements are to be financed by the City of Chanhassen. The cost of these I improvements will be assessed to the benefitting properties on a front foot Ibasis. Tables 2-5 provide a comparison of the assessments for each of the I alternates. I 11 ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAES I Alternate A Advantages I I 1. Lowest construction and front foot cost. 1 2. Would require the least additional right-of-way. I 3. Has the least tree removal. I 1 Disadvantages 1. May require modification of the lift station. I f 2. Does not provide access for development of the Zimmerman Farm I Addition. I I Alternate B I 1_ Advantages L 1. Would not require large drainage structures at outlet of wetland I area. IL2. Would not require modification to mound system. I 3. Provides limited access for Zimmerman Farms. 1_ 1 L 18 1 L I Disadvantages if 1. Requires substantial additional right-of-hay. 2. Requires the most tree removal. II IfAlternate C If Advantages 1. Would not require modification to mound system. II Disadvantages II1. Would not provide access for future development. ' 2. Would require substantial additional right-of-hay. I Alternate D Advantages II 1. Provides maximum access for future development . 2. Provides more opportunities to develop a second access. 3. Would not require modification to mound system. Disadvantages 1. Highest cost. 2. W old require substantial additional right-of-hay. I- I L I- 19 I I TABLE 1 I- II IPROJECT COST - ALTERNATE A PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE B I ITEM COST ITEM COST I CLEARING & GRUBBING $12 ,000 .00 CLEARING & GRUBBING $15 ,600 .00 I GRADING $41 ,000 .00 GRADING $47 ,300 .00 II 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 - I CONSTRUCTION COST $193 ,500 .00 CONSTRUCTION COST $209 ,800 .00 1 RIGHT-OF-WAY $2 ,600 . 00 RIGHT-OF-WAY $6 ,700 . 00 1 ADMINISTRATION ,LEGAL $58 ,900 .00 ADMINISTRATION ,LEGAL $65 ,000 .00 AND ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING TOTAL $255 ,000 .00 TOTAL $281 ,500 . 00 I INOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , I EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION 1 I PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE C PROJECT COST - ALTERNATE D ITEM COST ITEM COST 1 CLEARING & GRUBBING $14 ,600 . 00 CLEARING & GRUBBING $13 ,700 .00 I GRADING $45 ,700 .00 GRADING $50 ,500 .00 PAVING $137 ,000 .00 PAVING $148 ,000 .00 C{ DRAINAGE $13 ,700 .00 DRAINAGE $9 ,700 .00 II RAISE LIFT STATION RAISE LIFT STATION L CONSTRUCTION COST $211 ,000 .00 CONSTRUCTION COST $221 ,900 .00 I 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 II TOTAL $281 ,900 .00 TOTAL $302 ,400 . 00 I- II NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , NOTE : GRADING INCLUDES EARTHWORK , 1_ EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION EROSION CONTROL & RESTORATION II II 20 II quil- pm. mum. mps. lim 41116 low "IL MIL 411k MIL MN 41141 Iiii gal ow ow NE ame 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 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 r--- r..... r— r --- I"" r— rim , - Poom4 — Poi. P161.14 MIMI ..1..4 111.1.1 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 MI 111111 Ell all E 11111111 MI I ill MI • • • MI OM 111111 • NI r 112., 911-. 19/11" 'III, "I1,,, in,, um r - - 1, �, l , r, , 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 ,770 6 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 2 RONALD GESLIN 163 $4 ,181 7 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 3 L. MARTIN JONES 149 $3 ,822 8 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 4 JANET QUIST 126 $3 ,232 9 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 5 RICHARD LUNDELL 102 $2 ,616 10 SUNSET HILL ON LAKE MINNEWASHTA-LOT 6 JOYCE FOLEY 137 $3 ,514 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 43 • I"""" r— I""'""" r.... f'""""' r"""' rift I riamma 0.00-0 limmi•I ow* r— .nom ►.mil am" imml "Ill ..u'"M 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 an NM ME M I - r MI i - - n - MI MN NM MI EN If RECOMMENDKTION r� This report has examined four alternatives for improving Tanadoona Drive - rfDogwood Avenue. All of the alternatives examined are feasible from an engineering perspective. Selection of one favored alternative involves 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 that the City of Chanhassen pursue the implementation of Alternate "A" to provide an acceptable level of public streets serving the existing neighborhood g rhood and the surrounding properties. Alternate "A" has been recommended due primarily to cost considerations and the fact that it is the least disruptive option since it substantially follows the existing street alignments. The primary concern in implementing Alternate "A" is the mound treatment stem and sy the accompanying existing lift station. As shown on Exhibit 8, clearances in this area are extremely tight between the existing system and existing property lines. Although detailed survey information of this area is unavailable at the present time, it appears that this solution is workable. Detailed survey information in this area will be needed as a part of the preparation of design plans to determine what ac ual 9'1 P t impacts may be and what, if any, mitigation efforts will be necessary. L I- 25 I 1 s s r = s I — — •— • .a 1 — ■ I J I ..- ' SUNSET I NI I I f• %I ( AK T77. " `' I • ./ E �.is,/tr ,,,r, /7- Ell ,. i;y; IT L- .41 Wil: i 1 Fi; 7 /. ilinT ; ' y a^ic l,. M iti . . � r .s � � I , 1 ii 0 E , a 1 t 11 P ! ; P'� !) �I1f1tII= t �tIt � � �sI�saIfff fi 1 II! 111111111i111! ieii Pi g iii IT TT; b f E E ! a s �= 'Ir . ` !L•-tL t Wr t t { II i__ !! l t ct o t�sl =[iit5 �_ dill iwii iiiili ibli � �iPl � ��i � I��1 s�� ��ifl�t��r���t�f�1�i���i�����a �� �a psi 1 i s l ° i• s E s sil fvisiti t fi • tl a tl 1 [[ 1 '� �' ��f s�si �� ji •_� �� f�! 3i�:b � !1! IP� �i sE��ts -r•!E (rtttestf mf i of 1 lip != 1. _ is s :hi it 1 s = s I 1 . i a k iii141 •i� •iC a is 'II s si i is ii i tE i iil `� �ii� � ' ' ti f �t la = n 1=Rf{ �1 iilti �;iiii _ E �, , II I lil. AI!10 ,/ Il 1 I f .�i. gig 1� _1-0. 111 ill I s � �` i i s s 1 ( � ��? i stE. s t: tislli Ojai!. i I 1 i1 �� 1I� [ j 1 `1i =•t .{sf•s .gta S a trt r 1 i � • i •fl � 6�� �� his isj Ili 1• � 1 1 1t� �! s" �s� �ts�� � �4 iei ! i� ii is :i s i iiif I s �t�•ia =ts E �i� �ii I f [[ ': 1 b . 14 sEi �'�� li s I s • .r:E - E ¢ • s �� �1 i 1i=Sf 'f3i1s'' i E : = i si 1i { i= t 1 t'I•t E E: 11 i # .i14 i i_ � j eEiil �iE i ! i aj� ile hi ti'E_taa tI is -i: f li: il li i j=. .111 1 ' i iy i1= = s ii g1 i is • ( a• . : t - t t js= a alll ay f• i• ji j =iii i11 3a iil �`�' atEi•� F�i•= abis 1 •_; aE 1 I-- s ZIMMERMAN FARM = s R.N.HEEill, inc t .1 R <f t L eMwlwuss=s wt _�4 i .tf _3. PREUMINARY GRADING AND EROSION COMTIIOL ALAN I• ntloTlsr o�OETER "" ice FLANNERS/ RS/SURVEYORS VW••1a0 ttt0._.,••./•. «.il.r M•i SAM Nt�. • lOW,O,OR Iw so • •1�•dlo I s s r s I Vt s A v I \ I' _ SUNSET ••� I I HI N 1 / '� 'rte I j! i : : ■ 1 I: 0 I I 1 1 I2 , 1 I•�KE mINNF.NIASNTd / • I II / / . lMS'fM LN6r�0.)C5 / --- r / I / I e / s / i /I II 1 55 r / -II :use ° 0 // I I!!! c / \ NI MM / ! i /'/ �_ --�J t / ' .. . .;.o. I I a z I TN qr.-0111'11W VI f 41 ti �I! {!iIifJ I!j! ii li 1,1 III I; . R � I r ZI . 1!it1!Ii! !1!Ii1 !fliUI1I!I1!Jj!! �I!!j1I IIb:1t !jr : Fp`I to I hi 11111.11.111 =I 1" ,161111■aa_ Fi I - ZIMMERMAN FARM _ p i=.1 1 Ire I; PRELIMINARY Ya �dClleS R.Hill, inc. R$d$R ,^I PRELIMINARY PLAT .E. .» d TIMOTHY O'osi ;"---77"."'""4" '"' PLANNERS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS to�...0 a....M1M s ems. •.._•w�_ M.1 PIS On S. • <OMM.700.mot.Ma • 1104101-Nell IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 IIsystem is very difficult for trucks to maneuver as they're heading east on West 78th Street. Through that construction we would, those trucks would be able to 1 make that maneuver. We needed special legislation to extend that district for a 2 year period of time. This plan outlines that those monies would be solely , , used for that reconstruction. This is very unique. I think it's the first time in the State of Minnesota that a tax increment district has been extended and it 1 is extended for just the 2 year period of time and everybody should be credited for their efforts in this, especially Senator Schmitz and Kelso in their efforts. 1 Don Ashworth: I should note that this is, at the Hennepin County District there was same concern as far as spending Hennepin County dollars basically on the Carver County side which TH 101 at that particular is in Carver County. Todd is II correct, this is putting to paper the work that was done with the legislature this past year. 1 Mayor Chmiel: There was a lot of time. A lot of effort and a lot of lobbying that took place in trying to accomplish this. I Councilwoman Dimler: I move approval. t Councilman Workman: Second. 1 Councilman Boyt: Before we vote I think it's important to point out here that without that tax increment district, this road wouldn't be straighten out. 1 Todd Gerhardt: That's correct. Councilman Boyt: Tax increment districts get a lot of heat from the public and some of it's well deserved. In this case, this is a million dollar project and I the State didn't want it. Nobody wanted it. 3 million dollar project? Excuse me. 3 million dollar project. So it clearly wouldn't happen without the tax increment district. 1 Councilman Johnson: We'd still have TH 101 running past a grade school and two churches. 1 Resolution #90-32: Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve modifying the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and Tax IIIncrement Financing District No. 2. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 20.9 ACRES INTO 2 SING1.F FAMILY LOTS OF 10.1 AND 1 7.:°.2 ACRES LOCATED OFF OF DOGWOOD, EAST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA, PETER AND DEANNA BRANDT. I Jo Ann Olsen: I'll just give a brief smeary and then I'll let Gary address the engineering aspects. I believe this was tabled 2 weeks ago at the'request of the applicant to allow the people that live nearby to be present and comment. The reason it was tabled originally was to give staff an opportunity to look at II the connection of the proposed subdivision through Crimson Bay to TH 5. Originally several years ago that was looked at briefly but then with comments frox. Planning Commission and Council that was not pursued. Today we have new IItopography that shows that there could be a connection to the south to TH 5 1 16 ATTACHMENT #8 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 through Crimson Bay. We've also received comments from MnDot that has said that that would be an acceptable connection. That they would approve of that. So in light of some of the new information, we are proposing that they do provide right-of-way for connection to Crimson Bay. Not saying that this will happen but to preserve that in case that we do want to improve a street to the south. We still wish to maintain the 30 foot easement going back to the east to still provide a loop through the remaining 80 acres. I think Gary's got the transparencies from before if you may want to go through. If you have questions. Mayor Chmiel: I think it might just be a good idea to put that transparency up. Gary Warren: Dave Hempel who's in Hawaii did this so I feel like it's important for me to be able to show off his work. Basically this is I guess the heart of the issue as far as considering the extension of the access. The areas in green here outline the cleared areas already. Here's the easement from the power line that was cleared and it's obviously the access area to the existing buildings. If you recall, when we initially were dealing with this topic back in 1987, this easement had not been cleared and I think that was one of the key issues as far as the relunctance to consider extending that road further. As things happen, now with the easement cleared, I guess it doesn't provide, the damage is done so to speak from the utility standpoint. Temporary cul-de-sac would be proposed. That's shown here in yellow for access to the property. The area in brown through here would show the ultimate extension of a 60 foot right-of-way from existing Dogwood, Lake Drive as it shows here, to the Crimson Bay Road and obviously without additional 25 feet or actually 35 feet, would have to be obtained if a 60 foot right-of-way would be continued here on the Arboretum property. The concern as far as the street grades and the difficulty with that terrain had been looked at by the developer's engineer and the width of the clearing area that would be necessary... Councilman Boyt: There's an extra bulb in there. You can just flip the switch. ' Councilman Johnson: It's probably burned up too. Gary Warren: I was basically- done. The width of the cut through the terrain with a 7% grade proposed by in the alternative looked at by the developer's engineer. By compromising the City's 7% standard and utilizing a 10% grade and sane retaining wall, we feel that the width of the cut can be reduced considerably to help minimize that. We have done that in the past in Near Mountain and other areas on an exception basis for items such as topography of the environmental issues come into play... Mayor Cimiel: Is there anyone wishing to address this issue at this time? Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Kurt Laughinghouse, 281 Norman Ridge Drive, Bloomington. This piece of land has been before you as you know plenty of times and we appreciate your graciousness and the staff's persistence in creating these heavy duty reports. I really think that the issues have been thoroughly discussed. I'm going to let, if I might, the people most closely involved, the people who intend to purchase the property, speak to the issue specifically but generally we agree with the staff report with two exceptions. We have great reservations about the idea of building a road, or i_m even taking an easement for a road that is going to benefit these properties, 17 IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Iright straight through these two properties. That's number one. And secondly, the 30 foot easement across the north edge of the property is placed where it is I only because it's the edge of a 20 acre lot. I think that those two requirements are in excess or normal platting, lot serving procedures. I think I should just defer to the two property owners and I know there are other people here who want to speak to the issue and then if there's anymore discussion, we IIcan talk some more. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. IIDeanna Brandt: I'm Deanna Brandt. Co-applicant along with my husband Peter for Lot 2. I don't know where that thing went. Maybe I'm here for no reason. IMr. Mayor and Councilmem,bers. I've outlined briefly 5 points that I'd like to present to you. Right now our intent for this land, for the 10 acres, are to build a house and I don't know, possibly have horses or a small hobby farm. Maybe a garden. The choices that this piece of property offers is one of the 1 benefits. One of the things that we really like about it. The lake. The country. The rural and lake setting. The privacy that the location now offers. We also intend to someday have kids and feel that this property is ideal for our Ichildren to learn about the environment, animals, lakes. Kind of like growing up on a farm. I think that would be nice to have kids have that atmosphere. Our desire for the conditions of the subdivision. We agreed and agree to the recommendations submitted by the Planning Commission. This includes providing a I20 foot trail easement on the east and south sides of our property. I can't make reference to it, and easement for a cul-de-sac leading from Dogwood Road. There was an exception there. They didn't like it being called Lake Road. IThat's okay. We don't care. That was just for demonstrative purposes only. We'll call it whatever you guys want to call it. Once it extends into our area there. We do not wish to have a road easement from Crimson Bay Road to Dogwood Road across the middle of our property for the following reasons. Maybe if you can remember what the thing looked like or if you've had some previous things.. . Councilman Boyt: We have a map. IDeanna Brandt: Great. Wonderful. It roughly cuts the property into approximately a 3 acre piece and a 7 acre piece. Here's number one. I've got ' five reasons and then I'll get out of here. Number one is the road easement provides absolutely no benefit to this particular piece, which is Lot 2, of property while it incurs a majority of the burden. Under the current purchase Iagreement we have with the seller, Tim Foster, all of our essential needs regarding this property are addressed. We have access to both utilities and to roadways. Your plan actually places a burden on this land making it less valuable without any benefit to the property. Furthermore, there's absolutely Ino compensation being given in consideration of this reduction in value and additional burdens being placed on the land. The plat approval without the roadway easement meets all of the legal and normal use requirements for a ' subdivision of this nature. You are essentially claiming this land today as a so called precautionary measure for future development. I can appreciate your wish to save the City money since we are almost future city dwellers here but Iyou're essentially doing it at our expense. If the easement were not taken, the other properties around us were to be developed and you decided a road through our property made sense, then the property of course we all know would have to be condemned, we would be compensated. The method you're using here is to hold Ithe subdivision plat approval, you're holding it hostage while giving us nothing ' 18 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 ' in return. Point number two. The road easement limits our current and future ' use of the property. The roadway easement will limit our use of the land in terms of home and garage placement. Fences. We've got 2 dogs and we don't want them running into neighbors places and their's running into ours. Any other buildings or gardens that we might want. We couldn't place it on that 60 foot wide swath cutting right through the property. We will also have to refrain from planting anything in the easement area with the knowledge that anything we plant, any trees, will eventually be destroyed when a road goes in. Essentially you've taken over a half acre of our property, which is what that amounts to, and rendered it completely useless to us. We've got nothing and also made it difficult to use the property on the other side of the potential road. Nim,ber 3. The roadway easement contradicts the reasons we are actually buying the property or want to. As we stated previously, our major reasons for buying this property are to enjoy the privacy the land now offers and to provide a safe, healthy envirorvent for our family and animals. You can tell we don't have kids yet. Our dogs are really important to us. We realize that there's a perception that the current road access is considered unsafe. However, the reality is that fire trucks have been able to get in and out of the area. It has already happened. What the easement does do is to potentially take away our privacy and present a danger to our family and animals. I don't mean to really harp on this danger thing but if you own this property and you know you want to go across the street to weed your garden, I mean you have to keep going across this street to your own property. It's kind of crazy. If a roadway is built along the easement, it will present a dangerous situation for our children who would have to cross the street in order to access a barn area, stable or garden, greenhouse 7 - on our own property. I just said that. Number 4. Neighborhood opposition. We understand that our neighbors on both sides have acquired property in this area for same of the same reasons we have. Putting a road easement in with the potential that a road would eventually be built also negates many of their reasons for owning property and living in the area. I believe some of them are also here tonight to voice their opposition to this plan. We darn to speculate that you would find no one from this area that wants this plan adopted with the road easement. Finally, number 5. Lack of an overall plan for any future development in this area. Lastly, we don't know what the plans are for future development in this area. In fact in hearing and reviewing same of the previous minutes, there doesn't seem to be a plan for development, the big overall plan. Without any plan, why should we be burdened at this time for potential future development. It would seem to make more sense to decide where roads should go. When and if the properties can be developed rather than burdening us for years until it happens. Do you have any questions? Mayor Chmiel: Anyone have any questions? At this time, I guess not. Thank you. Anyone else? Ken Daniels: I'm Ken Daniels. I've been before you before. I think I've been out here 4 or 5 times listening to a number of things. Now I understand you want 600 feet of the property that I have on the west side of my property. That's government Lot 1. Now I'm hearing you want the 30 feet for an easement on the north side. What do you guys want to do, make an airport out of this? And who's going to pay for all the assessments that would come in there if you put those roads in? Having an easement on the north side just doesn't make sense to us at all. There's nothing there if you look at the property. I think the concern before might have been, which wasn't brought out, with regard to the easement over the west side. I can see that. My purpose in granting her ' 19 IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 IIthe easement was so she's have some access to her property. That's the only way she'd have an access to government Lot 2. I don't object to that. But to take the north end of this property just doesn't make sense and I think you people II ought to have your head examined for doing that. You are trying to make an O'Hara field of it under the circumstances. You're saying that 1,130 feet of the north side of that property, there should be an easement of 30 feet on that. I Then you're saying on the other side, 600 feet. You should have an easement for 60 feet. I don't go along with it and I think you're crazy. Now the thing that was brought up before was access and ingress off of TH 5 onto Crimson Bay. I t think it was discussed that that might be a problem on anybody's left turning off of TH 5 going east. I don't know if that's been studied or not. I don't have anything more to say. I think that if you do what you're asking for, you may involve yourself in a lawsuit. Thank you very much. IIMayor Chmiel: Ken, I might just add that I don't think we're crazy but appreciate your Arments. IINick Dennis: Mt. Mayor, Honorable Council members. My name is Nick Dennis and I own Lot 5 in Crimson Bay. I'm a little remiss on what's going on because I haven't been very active in following this. When I originally bought the lot I I got a letter with the City letterhead that was given to me along with other materials and things to look at when I bought the property but it said on the second page, line 12. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement .I along the southerly and easterly property lines. I wasn't really aware that that was going to be a road. My concerns are that there's really no planned transportation scheme overall of what's going in there and with the Arboretum ' across the street. With cars going in front of the lots. What's the plan? I don't really know what it is and I guess I'm concerned from the standpoint, there's same pretty nice maple trees. There's a drainfield in front of my lot that I'm concerned might have to be reworked. I guess my overall concern is I Ithink there ought to be an overall transportation plan before this is done. That's my only comment. Thank you. ' Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is ' Dan Herbst. I'm at 7640 Crimson Bay Road. As I reiterated the first time I stood before you, there was a great concern with our access to TH 5 with 5 lots. I'm kind of wondering where that concern has gone now. It seems like your concern with 5 properties creating egressing from that site with the busy IIArboretum traffic there, you seam to have no concern now with bringing out the whole loop road and the people that live on Dogwood and Tanadoona. I also agree with the previous speaker, Mr. Dennis. It seems somewhat arbitrary if you're Ijust taking an easement without the benefit of an overall transportation plan to where you're going to service that property an the future. It seems that with 80 or 100 acres that's going to be developed sometime in the future, there's ' substantially less traffic on TH 41 than there is on TH 5 and we're not compounded by the Arboretum. I think that ought to be the most logical spot. It is true, when the approval for Crimson Bay was made by the City Council, there was a 20 foot easement for trail purposes placed over the 25 foot, 1 additional easement that was placed on this side. I'm wondering what the plan is for that trail now. If you're going to want a 60 foot easement that doesn't even line up with the 25 foot easement. So those are my 3 questions. I'd like Ito see if someone can address those. ' 20 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else? , Tim Foster: I'm Tim Foster, 6370 Pleasant View Cove, Chanhassen. Mr. Mayor, Council Timbers. I've spoke to this issue before and obviously you've heard from a number of the residents and the proposed new residents and it appears that there's somewhat of an undue hardship I think with the number of easements. It's just two lots that they're basically asking for and there's approximately 120,000 square feet of easements that are being asked for 2 residential lots which seems to be a fair amount. When in reality to continue the road the way they had agreed to with just off of Dogwood or Lake Road, I think is in my opinion something that the proper time to take the necessary easements would be with an overall transportation plan and when this property is developed. So in view of the comments that I've made that are on record in the past, I think it's just an undue hardship for just two residential lots coming in to have easements almost all the way around it for roads or for trail so I hope you take that into consideration and just let then build their homes and when it develops, come in later. So thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Tim. Is there anyone else? Fred Hyde: Mr. Mayor, Council members. My name is Fred Hyde. We're the owner of Lot 1 at Crimson Bay. We're currently residing in Plymouth and getting ready to move to Crimson. We're not as directly affected as a number of the people who have spoken this evening but we did want to be heard that we're also opposed to the proposed easement. Again, not because we're directly affected by loss of - property but from a practical appearance to us as layman, it doesn't appear to make a whole lot of sense under the conditions that are laid out right now. No plan and the future need for a road may or may not ever be used but we can see that if a road is ever put in down there, that you have a very bad intersection at TH 5 and the Arboretum and Crimson Bay. Currently it's a non-controlled intersection and I don't know to what limit it will be an uncontrolled intersection but being on Lot 1 which is right next to TH 5, it's not very pleasant to envision the number of accidents and what not that could occur down there next to our ro , rty. Also, we have a concern about the safety with children and animals. It has 5 lots in there right now. It's currently set up and there's not going to be a tremendous amount of traffic but if an easement and a road is eventually put through, that's going to increase the danger to everybody in there and there doesn't seem to be, at the outset a lot of benefit for the general public to that access road being through there or an eventual road being through there. And we have the same concern about the future possible crime going up with strange traffic coming in and out of a residential area which there really isn't a great need or seem to be a great need to increase these risks for not a lot of reasons. So thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Fred. Is there anyone else? ' John Getsch: John Getsch. Owner of part of the property, the 7 lots that are along Lake Minnewashta, right where all the green is. We're opposed to this from the standpoint that it's just kind of grabbing the land for the purposes of saying well, maybe this will take care of the problem. About a year and a half ago a plan was looked at, I think 3 or 4 different alternatives on how to solve the problem of Dogwood Road and a male long cul-de-sac. I don't see how running this road through is going to solve that problem. You still have how is the land going to be developed. How is it all going to fit together so we really 21 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II don't see this as a solution to the problem. It's just kind of, well in case we need it it's there. That's kind of our general feeling on it. UMayor Chmael: Thanks John. Anyone else? Kurt. Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, regarding that 60 foot easement. If the II Brandt's were to draw a building permit on Lot 1, if it were approved with that easement, would they have to have a setback fray, that easement? Building setback. ICouncilman Boyt: Sure they would. Mayor Chmiel: I would think that they would. IKurt Laughinghouse: So now instead of occupying only 60 feet, I suppose it's a 30 or a 35 foot setback. IICouncilman Boyt: 35. Kurt Laughinghouse: 35. 30? IICouncilman Boyt: 30. IKurt Laughinghouse: Okay. So now the City is occupying 120 feet wide. The City's preventing the use of 120 feet wide swath of land through there which makes it perhaps nearly an acre of their 10 acres. Let me ask this then. Those red lines were prepared by the engineer, Harold Peterson. Jim Hill and II Associates and they do represent a normal way of preparing, of building that road in there. Obviously that can be confined to sane smaller amount if you use walls. Retaining walls but first of all that's extremely expensive. The I question would have to be asked, would the adjoining property owners, which in this case is one party, Mr. and Mrs. Brandt, would they then have to pay the easements for on both sides of that road? You're shaking your head yes. IMayor CIr iel: No... Kurt Laughinghouse: You're saying it's a fair question? That's right. Right. I And clearly they shouldn't because they don't want the road. It's not their road. The road is for the other 100 acres or the 100 acres plus Camp Tanadoona. It's for someone else. And either someone else should pay for that road if it's I ever imposed on that land, or the City should pay for that road if it's imposed on that land. It is not a benefit to that land. And, and I'll just leave that point and just talk about it for a second, the overall transportation plan. I'm going to ask Jo Ann Olsen if she has a chart that shows the whole 100 acre Iproperty. Do you have a transparency that shows that? Jo Ann Olsen: I don't think I do. IIKurt Laughinghouse: Let me just talk for a second even without a transparency. I think you realize kind of the situation here but look on the eastern side of Ithat drawing. That is the edge of the cornfield. Of that whole 100 acre property that's been dealt with here over the last couple years, some 30 or 35 are wooded and that ends there where you see that green line on the east side and then the balance is cornfield. It's not wooded. We don't know at all. Let I 22 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 II me step back and grant you the point as you all have made, and your staff members have made, that you have to take the birds eye view of this and the II future view of this development. This whole corner of TH 41 and TH 5. I can see that. I think everybody involved can see that but if that's true, which I concede, we haven't yet taken a birds eye view of what really, where that road, II where that main road that's going to serve the 100 or 200 acres to the north, should be. Perhaps it should be there. Probably not. Probably not when you look at the topo and you look at the woods on this end. I'm sure that you all have traveled Dogwood Lane by now probably more times than you care to and that II is a treacherous, narrow land on the edge of a bluff. If you drive too far to the west on that road, you'll tumble down a hill. Well that's not where, I don't think, necessarily anyway, where you're going to put that main road that I will serve that 160 acres or 200, whatever it is up north. You may well put it to the east of that woodline and go even further, and I hope the representative from the Arboretum isn't here tonight because he's, reading his letters his a II pretty tough guy, but you may well have to go further east and properly go further east and go through the Arboretum for the best development of that property. But if you install an easement here, if you take the easement here, Iset aside whether it's right or not or proper, but if you do, then that's where you'll put the road. The easement's here. A developer comes in and buys Courtenoy's 80 acres and said I want the road where the easement is. Public property. Petition for the road and you put it there, even if it isn't the II best. So I think that the plea that has the most power in this whole issue is here's a 100 acre property. The owner in effect sold it to 3 different parties. They want to build 3 different single family homes. They ought to be able to do I that without a great deal of imposition. But the discussion isn't heading that t - way, well I don't know where the discussion. Council hasn't discussed it this evening but the recommendation of the staff doesn't head that way. It says well ` ! we've got these guys here under the microscope. Now's the time to get the II easement. I don't think it's fair. It may not be the best planning and it certainly may not be environmentally the best scheme for this property. Thank you. I Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Is there anyone else? Discussion. Councilman Johnson: I've got a question for staff. In our old alternate B from II the relocation study we spent a bunch of money on a few years back and went through a lot of heartache on, we called for making that connection to Crimson Bay that would eliminate that fairly long cul-de-sac and poor access conditions II for emergency response and also would make a connection into Dogwood by going up the south side of this property and around the north side and back down basically. I Jo Ann Olsen: Which one? B? Councilman Johnson: Yeah. It's Alternate B, Exhibit 3. It's right behind the II staff report a ways back here. But we're not asking for any easements to the. See at that time we had thought that we couldn't make a 10% grade or even a 7% grade up that hill but there's always been this concern. That's why we kept 25 II foot roadway easement from Crimson Bay over. To give a backdoor to Crimson Bay and a back door to Dogwood. They're two long cul-de-sacs with potential problems. Kind of like Russian roulette. You know 5 out of 6 times you don't ' have a problem. It's that sixth time when the fire engine can't get through or II the paramedic can't get through in the middle of a storm. Does it make a little 23 II IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 IImore sense at this point to extend the easement up the edge of the Arboretum property versus going on the north side and going right snack through this 1 II particular lot? So that in the future we could extend a road down from the east 1 ' down the south property line and then intersect the 25 foot easement there. IIGary Warren: You're talking about Exhibit 6, Alternate D Jay? Mayor Chmiel: Alternate B. Exhibit 3. ICouncilman Boyt: Have you got a transparency of that one Jo Ann? Paul Krauss: Afraid not. IGary Warren: I think it shows as Alternate 6. II Councilman Johnson: That's about halfway through. See that way we didn't cut up their property. That one lot. Our current zoning ordinance is what's holding us back here. The lots have to be 10 acres. Or the lots have to be 2 1/2 acres. II Q Councilman Boyt: 2 1/2 acres. It's a 1 in 10. I Councilman Johnson: Yeah, with 1 in 10 density. I mean this thing could theoretically be split. The lot to the north of the proposed street and the lot to the south. Or to the east and west. ' Mayor C r iel: Jo Ann. you're talking butting up to the Arboretum property. Councilman Johnson: That's assuming the Arboretum at some time might, I don't I see any indication that the Arboretum would ever want to leave. I think we made a mistake a few years ago and I probably said it then. Taking only 25 foot along the Arboretum property from Crimson Bay because the chances of ever getting the other 25 foot are slim. At that time we should have gotten the full I city right-of-way in there. There's an opportunity lost because we've only got 25 foot right-of-way and there's not much you can do for a 25 foot right-of-way. One way road. ` IIJo Ann Olsen: We talked about the roadway easement coming through. 'Turning around rather than caring right up the middle. ICouncilman Boyt: I remenber when we discussed that. Why did we rule that out 3 years ago or 2 years ago? IIJo Ann Olsen: This was more for just to look at alternatives and the cost I believe was one of the reasons and the topography. ICouncilman Johnson: Why are we taking the land from these lots? Why not the other lots? The third lot that's being created here. We're creating three lots right? IIJo Ann Olsen: No. This is already a separate. Councilman Johnson: Oh, this is where we already created four lots. At one IItime we created 3 lots in here. II24 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Jo Ann Olsen: No. It began with 100 acres. And then it came in with a 3 lot split and then that just died. Then the 80 acres was split off and because it was large enough, it just went straight, it didn't have to go through the City approval process. Councilman Johnson: Okay, so the 80 acres are no longer involved with this? Jo Ann Olsen: No. Councilman Johnson: So now we've got a 20 acre site that's trying to be subdivided. Jo Ann Olsen: Into two. Councilman Johnson: Ah ha. And the 80 acres got away without any impact. The 80 acres split got away without any impact. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We didn't have the opportunity to get easements. Gary Warren: That alternate was shown in the feasibility study, Exhibit 6 or close to that. I think it pointed to the fact, the reason we were thrust into the feasibility concept was to try to crystal ball if you will and keep the options open for the future. I think that's all that staff is saying at this time is that as it's been discussed by several people this evening, where's the plan? Where's the concept? It's the chicken and the egg sometimes here. When ? the land is ready for development, especially in areas of tough access and tough topography, it's very valuable to the City from a road access standpoint to have options. To have easements that are available to either use or not use. You can look at the Carver Beach area for example. We have lots of paper streets and easements and things there that have never been used for various reasons. Topography and otherwise. Looking at this option that Jo Ann just sketched out, I think part of the interest, especially from a dollar standpoint or assessment standpoint against properties, is to try to take the most direct route of constructing roadways so that you are minimizing the assessments as much as possible against the property. Here we'd be running quite a long distance to get to the same point at additional costs that would be questionable as far as assessing against the rest of the subdivision, depending on how it was subdivided. I would say at this point in time it's difficult but any number of scenarios can be put together for roads through this subdivision or this property. This happens to be a direct route and a way of eliminating two long cul-de-sacs and that's I think why the emphasis has gotten to this connection here. Councilman Johnson: That makes a lot of sense. This particular plat has to come in because there's no street frontage for these two lots? Is that why it's being. The 80 didn't have to come in because it met all the requirements? Why does this one have to care in? Jo Ann Olsen: Maybe Roger can explain that but State Statute. Roger Knutson: Yeah. State Statutes provide that if your property is more than 20 acres in size, has more than 500 foot of width, you aren't a subdivision under your ordinance and you don't have to see the City. You can just go ahead 25 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 ' and do your division and go down to the County and record it. Councilman Johnson: As long as it's a straight one division? If they tried to make four lots out of it. Roger Knutson: They can make 100 lots out of it as long as each lot is at least 20 acres in size. Councilman Johnson: That's why they got exactly 20 acres. ' Roger Knutson: Good guess. Councilman Johnson: I understand the 80 acres is being built upon by a private individial that's putting up a tremendous home. I haven't seen it yet but I've ' heard something about it. Generally that's not the type of person that puts up that kind of house wants 80 acres around their house and they're not going to be looking to subdivide and put a bunch of $100,000.00 homes around him. I don't know where this is going but... Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I was just going to ask, what's the point Jay. ICouncilman Johnson: I'm kind of thinking out loud. Dogwood has always been a problem. Like I say, it's a gun ready to, we've played Russian roulette and 5 people have taken their turn and it hasn't gone off yet. Crimson Bay we've only I taken 1 or 2 shots on the gun. With both of them there, I think it makes sense to me to make that connection. It did when I was here for Crimson Bay and got that through but it's a tough t.i.ng to happen to that lot. I think it's for the ' overall public good eventually. Then if that 80 acre ever does develop, which I kind of doubt it might for a very long time unless something really drastic happens, maybe we won't need that. But it's better to have that now than try to I condemn somebody's house and move their house or garage or something like that if they build upon it. Councilman Boyt: Well maybe I can move this along a little bit if you'd like. IIMayor Chmiel: Go ahead Bill. ' Councilman Boyt: I find there's a lot of irony in these situations with long cul-de-sacs that are being put through. It wasn't long ago I was sure fighting one of them. The Council has talked about this earlier and maybe this is the I impetus to get it done. That we sure could use a comprehensive road plan for this city. That when Crimson Bay came through and we didn't win the fight to have that easement off the end of the cul-de-sac, I think we may have set the tale for what's going to happen tonight. If you live on a cul-de-sac, you don't I want it put through. I can't imagine somebody coming in and saying they now what the cul-de-sac put through. On the other hand, as Jay has mentioned, as we talked about a month or so ago, there's a lot of good reasons to minimize I cul-de-sacs. We have some of the people tonight saying take the big view but don't take it now. And this is only too natural for all of us to say not in my back yard. You ought to do it but not now and there are same very good reasons for why not now. We've heard them all. I don't think I need to go through Ithem. � I think we need a comprehensive answer and MnDot is saying we'd rather have you go out TH 5 than TH 41. That's in the staff report they prefer the exit at Th 5 through Crimson Bay or maybe some other place. We're dealing with 26 City Council Meeting - Marcn 12, 1990 the Arboretum property and they're saying not over our dead body are you going to get and I can just imagine the challenge of trying to take land away from the Arboretum. Interesting situation to have one government body trying to condemn property from another one. So I think the answer that nobody wants, I don't want it, but probably the truth of the matter is, we're never going to put this road through. That's not the answer I want. I want the road to go through but folks, unless you're really convinced that we're going to, that this is real important. It is important. I guess what I would like to direct staff to do and I'd be willing to table this until we get it. I want to know how the roads are going to go in that area. I want to know how are we going to get any other access into this besides Tanadoona and until we know that, maybe we can't give us this easement which we're probably never going to exercise but raises a lot of grief. Just a month ago the new homeowners were saying we won't buy it if you split our property up. We've heard about a lot of economic impact and I recognize that it's another economic impact to put off the decision but if we don't have any other way out of this piece of property, we're never going to get one without a plan. I'd like to see us have a plan before we turn down the chance. Councilman Johnson: One of the controlling factors is the Arboretum because they've only got 25 feet off of Crimson Bay and the other 35 we need is University of Minnesota property. If they ever develop, which is probably even farther out than what the guy that bought the 80 acres would be, that's one time we can get the other 35 feet and then maybe the whole 60 feet going up through their property. ' Councilman Boyt: Have you been out to the Earl Brown farm? Up in the St. Paul campus. There is development all around that place but the University isn't I. talking about selling it. Councilman Johnson: Universities never sell land. Councilman Boyt: I don't know. I'd like to see staff directed to cams back to us with some sort of a plan for how to get a comprehensive road plan in this area. Particularly thjs area. Eventually the whole city and I'd like to see us hold up on this until we find out what that's going to be. Councilman Workman: I think if public safety had a chance to look at this, and they didn't meet this month, that they'd probably, where's our public safety guy anyway? Upstairs. He's probably listening to us upstairs. That public safety would probably suggest that we put this through. I don't think this connection is baseless by any sense of the imagination. When we were asking questions about the new Near Mountain, I think it's the 7th and final or 8th and final phase of Near Mountain and I asked, well why couldn't we have one connection up on that hill. That had to be one-third the length of this and I was told because if something's blocking the road that a fire truck couldn't get to the top of the hill, then everybody would die on top of the hill or something. It would seat to me that this is magnified by 4 at least and the connection. I too think that we need to maybe look at this thing a little bit further. Mr. Laughinghouse at the podium, you should know better than anybody that city government does things that don't always make people happy. How tall people can build buildings next to residential, etc.. It's really tough sometimes to take the proactive birdseye view and here we are attempting to do that for homes that ._; aren't even planned yet and we're being told it's a bad birdseye view which if 27 , IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 III lived on Crimson Bay Road I'd be having a heart attack right now. I find it very difficult to split this lot, apparently it splits it into, it could potentially split it in and it could be sold off on the lake as something else. II I'm not quite sure how that works out but I believe in a transportation plan as ' well as anybody and I thought we were beginning to do that with this. MnDot did agree with same of it. There's a lot of it that's missing obviously. The I entire pie that maybe we need to look at and I rarely, as Bill knows, demand trail easements from people because or roads because it is an infringement on what people want to do. This is a very beautiful area out here. But everything I that I have learned on this Council about this long road, which may or may not be developed while we all live, goes against everything that engineering has ever talked about. So this is no deviation. I guess I might need more information. IICouncilwoman Dimler: Basically I feel that I'm not, we do need more information and I guess one of the things that I talked to Don Ashworth about today was the possibility here of MnDot making same improvements on that roadway to improve access into and out of Crimson Bay. Don, did you have any comments on that? II Don Ashworth: No, I did not get an opportunity to relay thope to Gary to find out his reaction. I guess the question was really one of would the State Highway Department be considering any type of a median extension as a part of upgrading TH 5. I do not have an answer for you this evening. ICouncilwoman Dimler: That's certainly something I think that we should take into consideration because I do think there's a safety problem, it could be a potential safety problem there. Also, Paul isn't this the land when we're now considering extending the MUSA line, isn't this land in there? Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dimler, this is outside the area that we're looking at. Councilwoman Dimler: It is? Okay, so the potential for development is not IIimminent? Paul Krauss: Wouldn't anticipate it, based on this plan, until after the year I 2000. Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I would favor Bill's proposal to table this until II we can get a comprehensive road plan as well if that would be the desire of the rest of the Council. Gary Warren: Concerning Councilwoman Dimler's question on TH 5 improvements. I We have a right turn lane as it exists into Crimson. TH 5, and we're seeing this out of our current Eastern Carver County Transportation Study that's in a very preliminary fashion, but the demands on TH 5 appear to be significant Ienough to justify a 4 lane road all the way out to Waconia eventually but time obviously is going to be a factor and money. But interpretting the comments that Dave Hempel received from MnDot, which he included in his earlier staff report, MnDot would entertain at this intersection, turn lanes as a minimum to Iaddress the traffic movements that are proposed for this location. I think as you see at Market here now with our new intersection there, that's a significant safety improvement to the intersection like that without even having the four lanes all the way out to that point. I28 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Councilman Boyt: You said turn lanes? Gary Warren: Turn lanes. ' Councilwoman Dimler: I would feel more comfortable putting a road through there in the future if we had better access to TH 5. Mayor C''hrmiel: Yeah, I'd like to care up with some kind of a solution to this thing but I too see some real given problems here. Trying to address sane of these concerns. I think we've got to do a little more, have a little more study and get some more additional information or try to cane up with a conclusion to do what's best for everybody. Try to rake everybody happy which almost makes it impossible. Kurt you know that. ' Kurt Laughinghouse: Mr. Mayor, I was going to agree with Councilme ber Workman. It's not the Council's duty to rake everybody happy and you can't do that. I agree but I'd like to discuss this safety business for a minute from this chart. Everyone understands the situation in having a cul-de-sac that is a mile long, or however long it is down at this point. Taking this easement though, all the discussion, that portion and everything in it, that the road will not be built through there until sewer and water canes. So you're not solving a safety problem for 10 years but you are imposing a burden on this lot right away. There's a dozen other solutions to this problem and they may include, let's put it this way. When this was first brought to the Planning Commission, I went to . • the Planning Commission meeting a year or so ago. One of the Planning Commissioners said, can't we deny a plat if the plat is premature I think for utilities? Something like that. You can help me with the language. That's part of your code but if the 80 acre parcel that is now Cortenoy's parcel and yes, they are building a huge home and I don't expect that to develop but as we know, things can happen and they can change their plans. If they propose to develop 80 acres and they have only one access to TH 41 over Tanadoona, there you can say to that proposed developer, that sewer and water sitting there on TH 41, there you have a. right to say you can't put 160 homes on one access. There you have a genuine new safety problem. You could say to that would be developer, and there isn't a chart that we could put up here, you can say find another way to get to TH 41. Have a loop road or create some loop road or do something that makes that a legitimate entryway into that 80 acre parcel. Or you can require that developer to purchase enough land through here or across here or almost anything else. There you have a legitimate, that's the time to create the solution to the problem of development but just to take the easement here doesn't solve the safety problem for the current residents or the people of Crimson Bay at all until the road is put in. However, there is another solution and that is this hated NSP easement. It's really travelable. Mayor Chmael: Not NSP. Gary Warren: Minnesota Valley. , Kurt Laughinghouse: Minnesota Valley. Friends of mine. They do good work... But I think that your emergency equipment, if there's a felled tree somewhere on this Tanadoona which is a precarious road, that darn easement is probably more it s travelable than the road. So there is an alternative there. Now it did, Councilman Workman brings this question up. The public safety approval. The 29 IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Ipublic safety people did look at this and they're the ones who required this cul-de-sac be built. Originally we had designed it down here at the corner of ' the two lots and then after discussion staff agreed to have it designed up here at this end of these two lots so it could better serve the 3 or 4 lots in this neighborhood. So this is the result of current public safety thinking. Now ' staff may want to check me on exactly what they said and when they said it but they did look at this plat as you see it. It's not as if they haven't had a chance to look at it. ICouncilman Workman: When was that? Kurt Laughinghouse: Somewhere in the last 2 months. They looked at this plat. IIThat is correct isn't it? Jo Ann Olsen: They have reviewed this. ICouncilman Workman: Have they talked about this easement? Paul Krauss: We're not certain. IICouncilman Boyt: What they reviewed was what kind of turn around circle do we need if this is a cul-de-sac. They didn't review should we put it through or Inot so we've got to be straight about what's being discussed. Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question too of Paul and Jo Ann. If we were to II wait until we had a comprehensive road plan, what time frame do you anticipate f 1 you could get that done in? Gary Warren: If I could I guess respond. Council had a feasibility study done I in 1987 on road access to address this question I guess. In there we looked at, I don't know, 6 or 7 different alternates for access to the site. I would I guess like a little better direction from Council how much further or what I additional we would be looking at at this time to address that question that perhaps wasn't addressed in that feasibility study. A lot of it comes down to as we've all seen when a developer comes in with 80 acres or whatever, he comes I in and he gives us a plan and then we, there are some judgment calls here. I think we've really looked at the topography and some of those access issues in a number of different potential accesses to the site here already in that feasibility study. ICouncilwoman Dialer: Do you have any idea on timewise what? ' Gary Warren: Timewise? Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, if we were to do that, how much would we be holding this up? If we were to require a comprehensive road plan before we would IIapprove this? Gary Warren: Again, it depends on the detail and I'm looking for some direction IIon what we're missing from the original feasibility study. Councilman Johnson: Do you think there's any more detail to be had? At this Ipoint, when we're talking 20 to 30 years in the future, can we make a comprehensive road plan for an area that won't be developed under current 30 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 standards? We don't know what the standards are going to be in the year 2000. In 2020 if we're even driving cars anymore. If we have any old dinosaurs to stick in our tank anymore. Councilwoman Dimler: So this feasibility study is what? That's it? There's no need to go any further? Councilman Johnson: Yeah, Bill and I went through this a year and a half ago. Mayor Chimiel: Yeah, this is back in '88 that they had the feasibility. Councilman Johnson: The question was a little different. ' Councilman Boyt: Jay, the question then, part of it was the people on Dogwood wanted to know, should we make this a public street? Should the City take over? How much is it going to cost us? What will be the destruction to trees and so on? That was one study. Then we came in and when Tim Foster was looking at developing it, we did you know the thing Jay just talked about. One of the options was let's loop the road all around the property. But I think what we need to look at is, we want two accesses into this piece of property someday. We want to protect that when we get the chance to, I want to protect it when I get the chance to protect it. This isn't looking like a good possibility. I'm relunctant to let this one go if I don't have anything better. Can we find something better? Gary Warren: I would venture that we could put in any of a number of access ' F loop roads through the subdivision, either back out to TH 41 which would be the path of least resistence so to speak when I guess the most likely subdivision scenario would be that a developer cares in. Buys off the remaining parcel out here and says here's my plan and here's how I'm going to put the roads in and at that time Council looks at completing the loop road back out to TH 41. Roger Knutson: A possibility I was just discussing with Paul. It hasn't been 1 discussed before, or at least I don't think so, is in lieu of taking an easement at this time you could officially map the property. The official mapping process as you recall preserves the corridor for a future right-of-way yet does not take the easement. The only impact it has is they can't build in that corridor once it's officially mapped without coming in and getting a variance and they can't get a variance unless they can show they can't build anyplace else on their property. Councilman Boyt: The drawback to that is it does about 5 things that these people don't want done because when you officially map it, as you said, you can't build in there so it's basically saying to than there's a road. It's doing almost what we're doing now. The only difference is that we're saying that the City is then going to pay for the property when we need it. Roger Knutson: That's true with the exception that if you were just to leave it, say approve this without the easement going through and just say same day we might be back and see you and knock on your door or as long as that is a possibility and I would assume it always would be or could be a possibility, there's always that concern that you might knock on their door in the future and say we want your property. As you can do, they can go through my house with a street or through yours. This just makes it, puts then on official notice that 31 1 11 IICity Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 this is an ali n not wr-'re serious about and we suggest you � i 9 ggest yo z not build ld on it and you have to go through process if you want to. The only reason we threw it IIout is it's kind of a idle ground. k Councilwoman Dimler: How long does the official mapping process take? Roger Knutson: We need an alignment study. ' Gary Warren: An alignment and center line survey. Roger Knutson: Center line survey. How long does that take? IGary Warren: A few weeks. Couple weeks. Roger Knutson: So 6 weeks. A month process. 1 Councilman Boyt: But this is not an easier out because we're saying to those people you can't put your house in there. When you buy this piece of property you're buying it with the prospect that it's going to be a 3 acre and a 7 acre IIpiece someday. 15 years from now. Whenever. Someday. The` 5 things that... Councilman Johnson: 4 or 5. IICouncilman Boyt: 4 or 5 that Mrs. Brandt listed as her reasons for opposing this, we've still got them all if we do the official mapping. IIRoger Knutson: Well, scene of the reasons she was talking about, if I can jump in, were concerns about, she mentioned issues like taking. Those issues vanish if you use the official mapping. ICouncilwoman Dimler: Right. That's the one issue that does vanish. ICouncilman Boyt: We pay for something we don't have to pay for. That's good. Councilman Workman: How bad do we want something if we have to pay for it? ICouncilman Boyt: I don't think we have a good answer here and... Mayor Chmiel: No. IICouncilman Johnson: I'm not sure a study's going to give us a better answer. Mayor Chmiel: Well it could conceiveably Jay give us a better idea than what we've got existing. I think what we want to do is try to be as reasonable as we possibly can. I think at this particular time Bill made a motion to table it. II would second that. That we come back with a feasibility study on this and determine what we can do after that. I've looked at sane of these previous feasibility studies that we've got here now and sane of these even look logical enough to me at this time but I think it's something that we should look at and IIdiscuss at another time. Councilman Johnson: How much money are we going to authorize for this? IIMayor Chmiel: Total dollars, how many dollars do you think will cost? 11 32 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Councilman Boyt: Excuse me but I don't think we have to spend a lot of money. Mayor Chmiel: I'm trying to find, determine total dollars. , Gary Warren: I believe we spent $3,500.00 on that original feasibility study. Mr. Foster foot the bill on that one. That would be the other question I guess is who's expense would be used. Councilman Boyt: What we're talking about here is rethinking the issue. I think the data is there. We've got sane new topo maps we didn't have a couple years ago that might help us sort through same of this stuff and I'd like to think that we're talking $200.00 or $300.00 or $500.00 worth of staff time and not talking about thousands of dollars to reanalyze information that's already been basically looked at. Tim Foster: Going back into the history of this, again it was looked at for a development of 32 lots and I think you spent a fair amount of time when you looked at that and they withdrew that prior to going to 2 1/2 acres. This study was done which was paid for. The only thing that that study didn't do, it had several alternatives but no loops. It had no, it was just two cul-de-sacs so I don't know if we need, have to be rocket scientists to understand it if we just put a loop there, that a loop would work. Okay? So therefore I think it still gets down to the point we're looking at two lots and what do we want to impose on two lots? Let's say we only wanted one lot. Then as Jay had mentioned, well how did we miss out on the 80 acres? You know you'd miss out on the whole deal if we just wanted one house on 20 acres. Okay? So therefore it's still the fact that we're looking for 1 more house, 2 lots and it seams to be awful imposition just for 2 lots. You know because of the fact that if I was just going to build a house there personally and move from where I am now. Still stay in Chanhassen. We wouldn't even be here so we're asking for one more lot and just imposition after imposition so I would suggest and recommend that you consider not tabling it and just do it and go after the roads when it's going to cane in for development; The MUSA line is beyond the year 2000. I mean how far in advance do we have to plan? And I understand Jay that well let's get it while we can but the point being is that it's an awful imposition for 1 more house. So thank you. Councilman Johnson: It's too bad that the 80 acres were able to go bye-bye without... Mayor Ch iel: That's something that's gone and forgotten. We best deal with ' the issue in front. Councilman Boyt: But that is a case where we might go back in and officially I map the 80 acres if we decide that that answers our comprehensive road plan. I guess I'd take issue with Tim and say the best time in the world to do this is when the pieces of ground are big. When they get to be 5 acres, it gets tougher and when they're 2 1/2, it's tougher. Now is when it's the easiest time to do it. It is an imposition. It's a very important imposition for the City to be 1 r planning. 1 i_ 9 33 City Council Meeting - March 12, 1990 Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to table the Preliminary Plat to subdivide 20.9 acres for Peter and Deanna Brandt for further study on the access situation. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. i s Mayor Chmiel: Gary, with the discussions that we've had, can you see if you can ' pull something together so we can have something? Do you have a timeframe that you're going to need? ' Gary Warren: We'll be hard pressed to get it back at the next Council. I would say the... Mayor Chmiel: The first Council meeting in April is what you're saying? ' Gary Warren: Yeah. April 9th. II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, we'll bring this back on April 9th with hopefully some conclusions. Thank you for carving. Appreciate it. 1 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT REQUEST, 7007 CHEYENNE TRAIL, CHARLES HIRT, LOTUS LAKE BEWERMENT ASSOCIATION. I Jo Ann Olsen: The property is located on Lotus Lake. The property is 1 of 3 that filled a portion of the wetland last. ..without first receiving -a wetland alteration permit. We went through the process with the Corps of Engineers and ' the DNR to verify exactly what the DNR wanted to have removed since it was in violation of the DNR regulations also. The DNR has agreed with the applicant to remove a certain area of fill that's shown in the heavier dark area. What the City staff did was go back through the history to try to determine exactly where I the edge of the wetland was to begin with and to require the applicant to remove all the fill that was placed illegally on the wetland. So we are recommending beyond what the DNR proposed for them to fill and instead of a 25 x 36 x 30 foot ' area, we are recommending that it be a 25 x 45 foot in depth area to be removed. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the staff recommendation adding that it had to be removed by June 15, 1990 and that the applicant, adding IIcondition 5 that the applicant has to sulmit the plans for city staff approval prior to any grading of this site. Councilman Boyt: I'd move approval. IICouncilman Workman: Second. ' Councilman Johnson: What about the other two lots? Jo Ann Olsen: They're coming through. They're going to be seen by the Planning Commission the next meeting. The applications came in separately. Staff will I be making the same reco v endation for them. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue? Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit #89-1 with the following conditions: 34