1d1. Stone creek final plat approval l
/ s `
C ITYOF
110). CHANHASSEN
' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORA ' UM
' TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
1 FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
DATE: June 18, 1992
SUBJ: Final Plat for Stone Creek First Addition
On April 29, 1992, the City Council approved rezoning of the subject property from RSF and
' RR to RSF with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract containing all of the conditions of
approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The contract
shall be recorded against the property.
1 2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table.
3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -1 and Wetland Alteration
Permit #92 -3.
The Council also approved Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -3 with the following conditions:
1 1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion
control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the
1 disturbed areas are stabilized.
2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance table for
1 each lot will be recorded as part of the development contract. The buffer strip
may not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be preserved by an
' easement.
3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to the
wetland and not during the migratory waterfowl breeding season.
4. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers.
1
If
1 �� 111, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
•
Don Ashworth
June 18, 1992
1 Page 2
5. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -1 and Rezoning
#92 -2." •
The City Council also approved Subdivision #92 -1 as shown on the plans dated April 29, 1992,
and subject to the following condition; that staff work with the developer to attempt to obtain a
second curb cut onto the county road. Failing that, this layout as proposed without the
Timberwood connection will be acceptable, and subject to the following conditions:
1. A tree conservation and wetland buffer easement shall be placed on the plat. All building
1 sites in the tree conservation or wetland buffer shall be shown on the building permit.
2. The development shall follow the standard in Subdivision Regulations Section 18 -16
1 regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation.
3. Park land shall be dedicated, 8 acres of property, as recommended by the Park
1 Commission, including a 20 foot easement south of the Timberwood subdivision between
Timberwood Drive and the park.
1 4. A front yard variance shall be granted to all homes that fall into the tree conservation area
but in no case shall the setback be less than 20 feet.
' 5. The applicant shall convey to the city a temporary easement for the temporary cul -de -sac
at the end of Boulder Road. In addition, a sign shall be installed on the barricades stating
that the street (Boulder Road) will be extended in the future.
6. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed with the final plat
' over all utilities located outside of the public right -of -ways, along with standard easements
over each lot. Timberwood Drive shall be constructed 36 feet wide gutter to gutter.
' 7. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed
Districts, Health Department, MWCC, etc.
' 8. Storm sewer calculation for a 10 year storm event, along with pond storage calculations
for storage for a 100 year storm event, 24 hour intensity, should be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval.
9. A deceleration an acceleration lane on northbound County Road 19 shall be provided
along with a bypass turn lane on southbound County Road 19 to improve turning
movements into the development.
1
1
Don Ashworth 1
June 18, 1992
Page 3
10. Watermain pipe sizing shall be increased to 8 inches in diameter on Forest Road and that
part of Stone Creek Drive lying north of Forest Trail.
11. All storm retention onds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as provide
P P
storage for a 100 year storm event.
12. A permit from the railroad (Twin City Western) will be required for any grading or
construction activity within the railroad right -of -way.
13. Fire hydrants shall be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in
accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
14. The proposed earth berm along County Road 19 shall be reduced or relocated easterly to
provide adequate room for future trail considerations.
15. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks of site grading or before November 15,
1992, except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. All
areas disturbed with a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or seed.
16. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for maintenance purposes to the 1
proposed retention ponds.
17. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the
1992 edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and shall prepare final
plans and specifications and submit for city approval. 1
18. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from the PCA and
Minnesota Department of Health and street access permits from Carver County Public 1
Works.
19. The final plat shall be contingent upon the city authorizing a public improvement project 1
for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to the site.
20. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a development contract 1
and provide the financial security to guarantee construction of the improvements and
payment of any pending assessment.
21. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility improvements they may install
as a part of their overall site improvements. The credit will be applied towards the Upper
Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements. The credit amount will
1
1
1
Don Ashworth
June 18, 1992
1 Page 4
be determined as the difference between a standard lateral pipe size (8 inch diameter) and
1 the proposed trunk improvements which are 12 inches in diameter.
22. The applicant/builder shall provide at the time of building permit application a tree
' removal plan and grading permit for 11 wooded lots, specifically, Lots 1 through 7, Block
1; Lots 1 through 24, Block 4; Lots 1 through 21, Block 5; and Lots 1 through 12 and
15 through 24, Block 4.
23. The applicant shall work with staff to explore the possibility of conveying backyard
' drainage from Block 5 into the development storm sewer system.
24. The outlot along County Road 19 (Galpin Boulevard) needs to be replatted with another
1 lot.
25. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Rezoning #92 -2 and the Wetland Alteration
Permit #92 -3.
FINAL PLAT REQUEST
The construction plans propose development of the Stone Creek site in three phases. The first
phase will concentrate on the southwesterly corner of the site. The first phase includes 21 lots.
The remaining portion of the plat will include five outlots. Outlot A is located at the corner of
Stone Creek Drive and Galpin Boulevard. The applicant wants to plat these at a future date. All
necessary right -of -way adjacent to Outlot A on Galpin and Stone Creek Drive will be dedicated.
Outlot B is the location of the U. S. West Transmission Tower. This property, which was also
owned by Mr. Volk was granted a conditional use permit for the tower. Staff had requested that
this property be included as a separate parcel and appropriate easement and right -of -way
dedication be granted. Outlots C, D, E, and F will be platted in future phases. A portion of
Outlot F will include the park dedication.
' The applicant is requesting that the eight acre park dedication be granted when the phase abutting
PP �1 g g P g P g
the park is platted. The city would like to have the security of the dedication of the park up front
in case the subdivision is never completed. The applicant has proposed, and staff supports the
applicant posting a letter of credit for the park and trail dedication fees for all lots platted until
the park property is dedicated to the city.
The subdivision will be receiving sanitary sewer from the Bluff Creek Trunk Improvement.
While the bid for this project has not yet been awarded, Bonestroo, the city's' consulting
engineers on this project, feel there is an alternative to provide sewer service until the trunk line
is operational. The alternative proposed by Bonestroo would be pumping the sewer in the line
until the trunk line has been accepted by the city and is operational. The expected date of
1
Don Ashworth
June 18, 1992
Page 5
completion and operation of the trunk line is in July, 1993. Mr. Hagen, the developer, is
proceeding with this risk. He expects to build one home for the Parade of Homes this fall and
up to 2 homes a month from January through July. 1
SITE GRADING
The first addition includes construction of both retention onds, lot grading and rough grading
P �' g g g g
of future Boulder Road to the east boundary of the plat. Boulder Road is proposed to be graded
at this time for extension of the Bluff Creek trunk sewer and water improvements which will
service this first phase.
EROSION CONTROL 1
Erosion control fence is proposed around the westerly and southerly perimeter of the site. As
each outside of the street right of way is graded, topsoil, seed and mulch is proposed as soon as
practical.
STREETS 1
The construction plans propose a 31 foot back to back urban street with the exception of Stone
Creek Drive. On this street staff recommends a wider street section, 35 foot back to back, due
to the anticipated volume of traffic. The developer has expressed concern with to the additional
tree loss due to the wider street section. Staff acknowledges his concern however initial utility
installation will necessitate removal of most of the trees located within the proposed 60 foot right
of way.
Street grades range from 0.60% to 5.15 %, well within the city's guidelines and ordinance.
Deceleration and acceleration lanes are proposed along Galpin Boulevard (CR 117). a by pass
lane as recommended by staff is not proposed at this time. Traffic projections with the 1st
Addition will not warrant construction of the bypass lane. In addition, the right of way width
is deficient to construct said by pass lane.
DRAINAGE
Runoff from the development will be conveyed to the retention ponds via a series of storm
sewers. Storm sewers calculations are still needed to verify adequate catch basins and pipe sizes.
Rough grading of Boulder Road may require a interim retention basin at the easterly edge of the
plat. The developers engineers will be preparing calculations confirming storage needs.
1
1
1
I
Don Ashworth
June 18, 1992
Page 6
' MISCELLANEOUS
The final plat should be amended to include the following utility and drainage easement for
extension of trunk sewer and water improvements:
A. The westerly 10 feet of Outlot F.
' B. The easterly 20 feet of Outlot C.
A drainage easement for ponding as proposed may be required over Outlot C. The developer's
engineer will be reviewing the drainage pattern and providing calculations verifying storage
needs, if any.
The following items are comments on the approved conditions, specifying whether they have
been met, or still need to be complied with.
Rezoning
1. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table.
' 2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -1 and Wetland Alteration
Permit #92 -3.
' Wetland Alteration Permit
' 1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control. The
erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas are
stabilized.
2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance table for each
' lot will be recorded as part of the development contract. The buffer strip may not be less
than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be preserved by an easement.
3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to the wetland
and not during the migratory waterfowl breeding season.
1 4. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers.
5. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -1 and Rezoning #92 -2."
1
1
Don Ashworth 1
June 18, 1992
Page 7
Subdivision
1. A tree conservation and wetland buffer easement shall be laced on the plat. All building
P P g
sites in the tree conservation or wetland buffer shall be shown on the building permit.
• The first an hase does not contain wetlands or tree conservation areas.
p any
2. The development shall follow the standard in Subdivision Regulations Section 18 -16
regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation.
• Galpin and Lyman Boulevard have a landscaped berm. 1
3. Park land shall be dedicated, 8 acres of property, as recommended by the Park
Commission, including a 20 foot easement south of the Timberwood subdivision between
Timberwood Drive and the park.
•
• A letter of credit will be held until the park property is dedicated. 1
4. A front yard variance shall be granted to all homes that fall into the tree conservation area
but in no case shall the from setback be less than 20 feet.
• Not applicable with this phase. 1
5. The applicant shall convey to the city a temporary easement for the temporary cul -de -sac
at the end of Boulder Road and Stone Creek Drive. In addition, a sign shall be installed
on the barricades stating that the streets (Boulder Road and Stone Creek) will be extended
in the future.
6. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed with the final plat
over all utilities located outside of the public right -of -ways, along with standard easements
over each lot. Stone Creek Drive shall be constructed 35 feet wide gutter to gutter. '
7. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed
Districts, Health Department, MWCC, etc.
• Staff has received approval from MWCC and Carver County Highway
Department.
8. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event, along with pond storage calculations
for storage for a 100 year storm event, 24 hour intensity, should be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval.
1
1
1 Don Ashworth
June 18, 1992
1 Page 8
• Staff has received pond storage calculations for the first addition but not pipe
1 sizing calculations.
9. A deceleration an acceleration lane on northbound County Road 19 shall be provided
I along with a bypass turn lane on southbound County Road 19 to improve turning
movements into the development.
1 • A by -pass lane is not proposed with the first addition. Staff believes traffic volume
will not warrant a by -pass at this time. Also, existing right -of -way along Galpin
boulevard is deficient to construct the by -pass lane.
I 10. Watermain Pe i P sizing sizin shall be increased to 8 inches in diameter on Forest Road and that
part of Stone Creek Drive lying north of Forest Trail.
I • The condition has been met.
1 11. All storm retention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as provide
storage for a 100 year storm event.
1 • This condition has been met.
I 12. A permit from the railroad (Twin City Western) will be required for any grading or
construction activity within the railroad right -of -way.
I 13. Fire hydrants shall be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the subdivision in
accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
• This condition has been met.
14. The proposed earth berm along County Road 19 shall be reduced or relocated easterly to
1 provide adequate room for future trail considerations.
• The condition has been met and is reflected on the landscaping plan.
I 15. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks of site grading or before November 15,
1 1992, except in areas where utilities and streets will be constructed yet that year. all
areas disturbed with a slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or seed.
1 16. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for maintenance purposes to the
proposed retention ponds.
1
1
Don Ashworth 1
June 18, 1992
Page 9
• This condition has been met.
17. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in accordance with the 1
1992 edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and shall prepare final
plans and specifications and submit for City approval.
18. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from the PCA and
P q q tY P
the Minnesota Department of Health and street access permits from Carver County Public
Works.
19. The final plat should be contingent upon the City Council awarding a bid for extension
of trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities to the site.
20. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a development contract 111 and provide the financial security to guarantee construction of the improvements and
payment of any pending assessment.
21. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility improvements they may install 1
as a part of their overall site improvements. The credit will be applied towards the Upper
Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk improvements. The credit amount will
be determined as the difference between a standard lateral pipe size (8 inch diameter) and
the proposed trunk improvements which are 12 inches in diameter.
22. The applicant/builder shall provide at the time of building permit application a tree
removal plan and grading permit for 11 wooded lots, specifically, Lots 1 through 7, Block
1; Lots 1 through 24, Block 4; Lots 1 through 21, Block 5; and Lots 1 through 12 and
15 through 24, Block 4.
•Not applicable with this phase. 1
23. The applicant shall work with the staff to explore the possibility of conveying backyard
drainage from Block 5 into the development storm sewer system. 1
•Not applicable with this phase.
24. The outlot alori County Road 19, Galin Blvd, need to be re Tatted with another lot.
g tY � P � replatted
condition has been met, and has been included in with lot 10 Block 1. This is
not included in this phase.
25. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Rezoning #92 -2 and the Wetland Alteration 1
Permit #92 -3.
1
1
1 Don Ashworth
June 18, 1992
Page 10
26. Secondary access on to Galpin Boulevard.
• In discussing this matter with Roger Gustafson, County Engineer he has stated that
for access control, minimum intersection spacing should be between 1/4 and 1/2
1 mile. A access will be gained between Timberwood drive and Stone Creek Drive,
therefore, another access of the Stone Creek Subdivision is undesirable.
' RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the final plat for Stone Creek First Addition
Subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table.
2. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -1 and Wetland Alteration
' Permit #92 -3, and Rezoning #92 -2.
3. The applicant shall acquire all necessary agency permits.
' 4. The applicant shall provide a letter of credit for full park and trail fees to be held until
the park property is dedicated to the city.
' 5. Provide the following easements:
a. Dedication of all street right -of -way.
b. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding
areas.
c. Access easements as required to service the retention ponds.
d. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas.
e. Provide a conservation easement over all designated tree preservation areas
established wetland buffer areas. Such easements shall be marked with permanent
visible monuments and the location of such easements shall be provided to city
staff for approval.
f. A drainage and utility easement over the westerly 10 feet of Outlot F.
g. A drainage and utility easement over the easterly 20 fee of Outlot C.
1
1
Don Ashworth 1
June 18, 1992
Page 11
6. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control. The
erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas have been
re- vegetated.
1
7. The proposed wetland and tree conservation and wetland buffer strip shown in the
compliance table for each lot will be recorded as part of the development contract. 1
8. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of pumping the sanitary sewer until the
trunk sewer lines becomes operational and accepted by the city.
9. If after three years from the date the final plat is approved by the City Council, the I
remaining public utility and street improvements (Phase II) are not constructed, the city
shall proceed with a 429 public improvement project and assess the costs back to the
benefitting properties. The developers and/or property owners shall waive any and all I
procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment, including but not limited
to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the
property. 1
10. The applicant will hold harmless the city if the Bluff Creek Trunk Improvement is not
awarded. i
11. Only one building permit will be issued until the utility improvements in Stone Creek
subdivision have been accepted and approved. Two acceptable septic sites, 50' x 100',
I
must be provided prior to issuance of a building permit and in addition, a well site will
be required.
12. The developer's engineer shall provide drainage calculations to determine if additional I
retention ponding is required at the easterly edge of the plat in order to maintain water
quality and discharge at predeveloped conditions.
1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Compliance Table. I
2. Planning Commission minutes dated April 29, 1992.
3. Final Plat.
1
3. Grading Plan.
1
1
1
1
1
1
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
I Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
I Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
I Lot 1 15,000 90 167 30
I Lot 2 15,000 90 167 30 10
Lot 3 16,380 95 167 30 30
1 Lot 4 15,000 90 167 30 40
Lot 5 15,000 90 167 30 40
I Lot 6 15,000 90 168 30 40
1 Lot 7 15,000 90 170 30 20
Lot 8 15,655 95 155 30
I Lot 9 17,670 72 172 30
Lot 10 31,000 60 200 30
I Lot 11 17,670 65 156 57
1 Lot 12 23,566 57 170 30
Lot 13 17,360 100 174 30
Lot 14 17,205 80 166 30
Lot 15 15,345 88 162 30
I Lot 16 15,500 90 165 30
1 Lot 17 15,330 104/146 146 30
Lot 18 15,190 112 137 30
I Lot 19 16,120 72/156 143 30
Lot 20 15,655 91 174 30
1
1
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
II
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
BLOCK 1
Lot 21 15,010 90 168 30 1
Lot 22 15,035 90 171 30
I
Lot 23 17,205 90 192 30
Lot 24 21,390 92 230 30
1
Lot 25 27,280 105 266 30
BLOCK 2 1
Lot 1 18,600 150 /100 150 57
Lot 2 23,566 102 179 30
Lot 3 15,000 105 158 30 1
Lot 4 15,010 105/140 140 30
Lot 5 16,120 88 179 30 1
Lot 6 16,740 84 166 30 111 Lot 7 15,810 90/110 156 30
Lot 8 15,810 90 172 30 1
Lot 9 16,430 104 182 30
Lot 10 16,275 113 182 30 1
Lot 11 16,275 110 183 30
Lot 12 15,041 114 178 20 80 1
Lot 13 15,506 114 175 20 90 1
Lot 14 16,585 90 180 20 90
Lot 15 17,050 90 185 20 90
1
Lot 16 17,515 90 199 20 90
Lot 17 22,475 90 234 20 90 1
1
1
1
1
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
I
BLOCK 2
Lot 18 20,000 110 275 20 90 75
1 Lot 19 18,445 118 175 20 90 75
I Lot 20 19,536 117 251 20 90 75
Lot 21 32,240 72 234 20 90 150
1 Lot 22 33,325 80 279 20 90 150
Lot 23 19,530 90 207 20 90
1 Lot 24 17,360 60 155 20 60
' Lot 25 15,500 55 140 20 50
Lot 26 18,135 55 144 30
1 Lot 27 16,275 70 159 30
BLOCK 3
1 Lot 1 19,840 185/115 197 20 90
I Lot 2 17,515 93 190 20 90
Lot 3 15,190 90 170 20 90
1 Lot 4 15,345 95 175 20 90
Lot 5 19,580 115 207 20 90
I Lot 6 23,850 70/50 250 20 90
I Lot 7 20,480 100 227 20 90
Lot 8 18,000 90 200 20 90
1 BLOCK 4
Lot 1 19,536 185/135 198 30 90
1 Lot 2 15,600 120 130 20 90
Lot 3 15,000 100 150 20 90
1
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland I
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
BLOCK 4 1
Lot 4 15,000 95 165 20 90
Lot 5 15,186 90 165 20 90 1
Lot 6 15,000 90 165 20 90 I
Lot 7 15,030 90 167 20 90
Lot 8 15,300 90 170 20 90 1
Lot 9 14,030 90 167 20 100
Lot 10 15,000 90 165 25 1
Lot 11 15,000 90 165 20 90
Lot 12 15,000 90 165 25 90 1
Lot 13 17,970 90 157 30 90 1
Lot 14 15,655 85 160 20
Lot 15 15,345 95 159 25 90 1
Lot 16 15,500 98 171 20 90
Lot 17 17,100 105 185 20 90 1
Lot 18 16,830 105 190 20 90 1
Lot 19 16,830 95 182 20 90
Lot 20 15,750 90 175 20 90 1
Lot 21 17,100 110 190 20 90
Lot 22 18,250 115 182 20 90 1
Lot 23 15,000 100 155 20 90
Lot 24 17,830 170 132 20 90
1
1
1
1
1 Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
1 BLOCK 5
Lot 1 17,360 145 160 20 90
1 Lot 2 18,300 90 200 20 90
I Lot 3 17,330 95 192 20 90
Lot 4 15,530 95 172 20 90
1 Lot 5 15,000 90 165 20 90 may be unbuildable
Lot 6 15,000 90 165 20 90
1 Lot 7 15,300 90 170 20 90
1 Lot 8 16,430 90 182 20 90
Lot 9 17,550 90 192 20 90
1 Lot 10 17,550 90 192 20 90
Lot 11 16,650 90 185 20 90
1 Lot 12 15,570 90 172 20 90
I Lot 13 15,000 90 165 20 90
Lot 14 15,300 90 167 20 90
1 Lot 15 16,200 95 180 20 90
Lot 16 18,000 95 197 20 90
1 Lot 17 18,900 90 207 20 90
1 Lot 18 18,000 90 205 20 90
Lot 19 18,000 90 197 20 90
1 Lot 20 24,020 80* 195 25 110
Lot 21 19,060 78 180 30 120
1 Lot 22 15,000 90 165 30
1
1
1
Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland I
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
BLOCK 5 1
Lot 23 15,965 90 172 30
Lot 24 16,275 92 179 30
1
Lot 25 15,965 100 184 30
Lot 26 19,800 98 220 30 1
Lot 27 24,490 72 212 30
1
Lot 28 22,470 68 192 30
Lot 29 26,195 86 235 30
1
Lot 30 24,300 100 270 30
Lot 31 27,230 106 302 30 1
Lot 32 27,235 98 341 30
I
Lot 33 15,210 90 167 30
Lot 34 15,080 90 167 30
1
Lot 35 15,965 100/167 167 30
Lot 36 23,095 90 249 30 1
Lot 37 23,870 100 246 30
I
BLOCK 6
Lot 1 19,070 185/135 310 30 90 1
Lot 2 15,500 120 130 20 90
Lot 3 15,000 100 150 20 90 1
Lot 4 15,000 90 165 20 90 '
Lot 5 15,180 95 165 20 90
Lot 6 15,000 90 165 20 90 1
Lot 7 15,030 90 167 20 90
1
1
1
1
1 Lot Lot Lot Home Conservation Wetland
Area Width Depth Setback Easement Buffer
I BLOCK 6
Lot 8 15,300 90 170 20 90
1 Lot 9 15,030 90 167 20 90
Lot 10 15,000 90 165 20 90
1 Lot 11 15,000 90 165 20 90
'Lot 12 15,000 90 165 20 90
I Lot 13 15,970 90 157 30
1 Lot 14 17,520 85 167 30
Lot 15 15,300 95 170 20 90
1 Lot 16 16,380 100 182 20 90
Lot 17 17,100 105 190 20 90
I
Lot 18 16,830 105 187 20 90
1 Lot 19 16,380 95 182 20 90
Lot 20 15,750 90 175 20 90
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 29, 1992
Mayor Chmiel reconvened the City Council meeting at 8:20 p.m., which was ,
continued from April 27, 1992.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Chmiel, Councilwoman Dimier, Councilman Wing, Councilman ,
Workman and Councilman Mason
STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Paul Krauss, Charles Folch, Kate Aanenson, Scott
Harr, Todd Hoffman and Todd Gerhardt
(CONINUATION OF REZONING REQUEST FROM A2 TO RSF, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST
FOR 141 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, AND 8.2 ACRES OF PARK
AREA LOCATED NORTH OF LYMAN AND EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD, JUST SOUTH OF
TIMBERW00D ESTATES, STONE CREEK, HANS HAGEN HOMES.
Public Present:
Name Address 1
Richard Larson 8141 Pinewood Circle
Greg VanderVorste 8141 Maplewood Terrace
Mark Foster 8020 Acorn Lane
Karen 011son 8020 Acorn Lane
Dave Maenke 2041 Renaissance Court
Jim & Colleen Dockendorf 2061 Oakwood Ridge
James R. Lano 2060 Oakwood Ridge
Hans Hagen 941 Hillwind Road
Stan Rud 2030 Renaissance Court
Greg & Julie Sorenson 8121 Maplewood Terrace
Bonnie Murkowski 2051 Renaissance Court
Mary Harrington 8140 Maplewood Terrace 11 Jean Dtrand Rollins 2081 Timberwood Drive
Jeff Heinz 2071 Timberwood Drive
Brad Foley 2061 Timberwood Drive
Mayor Chmiel: If I remember correctly, we had this back here at Council with
our discussion. I think we've all had an ample opportunity to re- review the
entirety of what the project is and where we're going. I know none of the
Council members discussed anything with me...project and I none with them and I
think everybody is independently come up with a conclusion. As to what that is,
we're going to eventually find out. So with that, let's just start with some
additional discussions on this proposal. I'd like to start with Mike.
Councilman Mason: I think we all understand the issues here. I understand
where Timberwood's coming from about not wanting the road to go through there
and quite honestly if I lived there I'd feel exactly the same way. I think with
just one curb cut on the county road there, that poses a major problem. If we
can get another curb cut on that county road, I personally don't have any
trouble at all with dead ending or emergency barricade or whatever. I think if
we can't get another curb cut there, then I certainly would push to have
1 1
1
II 'City 'Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
11 Timberwood come to a T intersection and have Timberwood end there and that would
be Boulder Drive or Boulder Trail or whatever we want to call it.
Paul Krauss: Would you like us to show you why we think there's only one
possibility for a curb cut there?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think it'd probably be a good idea. And I did want to
get back from you too discussions with the...apartments as well.
Paul Krauss: Down here you have Lyman Blvd.. Lyman Blvd. is ultimately going
to be 4 lanes and a very high volume street. And according to the County
engineer, we certainly agree with him that there's absolutely no chance of
getting access point down there. Then you have an area over here where you have
to provide clear separation from this intersection. Here's your major
11 intersection. We need to provide distance back here for acceleration and
deceleration for turns that occur. And this intersections about in the right
place. I mean possibly you could move it down here a little bit but not very
' much. Originally this plat had another intersection right over here and in
talking to, I think to the County Engineer, we got feedback from them that the
sight distance at that point wasn't too great. You have a hill situation on
Galpin that tends to tell you that this isn't a terribly safe spot to turn out.
Even if you did, you wind up with a short circuited loop that really leaves
everything else a dead end. So in terms of coming out on these roads, we don't
think that that's very likely. Or will really produce the results that we're
looking for. Now, we think that there's a long term possibility of another
entrance into this area. I can't tell you that it's got a 50% chance of
succeeding but we've been looking at it long term here today. Bluff Creek runs
II through here and there's a very narrow area of residentially zoned property
between Timberwood and a creek. It's possible to extend that road somehow up
through there and ultimately there's going to be another...to do something like
that. Come up and intersect with that. Provide another...access into the
neighborhood. There's a lot of issues with that though. Issues being this area
is not terribly deep and I'm not going to...double row of houses in this case.
Houses on either side. That can lead, you'll have a major creek crossing here
II and we're going to some great extent to make sure that there's a bridge over
TN 5 here and possibly another bridge here. It would be a shame to look at
putting a culvert over there. I doubt you can justify the expense of going with
a third bridge in the area. So that is a long term possibility. I don't know
that it's a real good one. But in terms of this particular site, there really
only is one point to come out on the county road.
I Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Paul.
Councilman Workman: How many acres is Timberwood?
II Paul Krauss: Gosh, I don't even know.
11 Councilman Workman: 130 some. How any homes are in there? Are you ready for
me Don?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes, go ahead Tom.
1
2
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992 II
Councilman Workman: I only ask because I know that Timberwood is trying to
depict their neighborhood as something that's a whole lot different than what
people would like to connect it to. 141 homes on 81 acres versus 37 homes on
137 acres is very different. They are very different. I think we all agree
with that. If we ran the second entrance to the north there as Paul had shown,
this really wouldn't serve a whole lot of homes. I mean this coming out here
wouldn't serve or really alleviate from here so something would have to come
through back here I would assume. But if we had just one entrance, one exit at
this time, really the rest of the neighborhood isn't just coming out on one.
They're kind of coming out on really two. Two main all the way through. And as
the last four lots or so that everybody's funneling onto one. And I understand
the problem with having just one for that many homes. That does create a 11 problem. I do promote the idea of two. And I maintain as does Mike that I have
a problem connecting it together. I talked to Kate today about it and some
other people. Not having this road at all stub into Timberwood. In other
words, not creating a dilemma that's been created as in Curry Farms and
elsewhere. In other words, leave no possibility for the connection. So two on
the west. I mean they're showing a dead end and a connection here on the east
end. I mean it's got to go somewhere if not across the creek and out to, I
think isn't there platted industrial?
Paul Krauss: No. What I think is more likely, it's more likely that that would
just be an extension of a dead end street that would serve the homes that would
occur in that area between Timberwood and the creek. The idea of another creek
crossing there, it's theoretically possible but it begins to stretch the
imagination a little bit.
Councilman Workman: I guess we're talking and every discussion that I've heard
has said, these people down here will never go through Timberwood. And I buy
that. So why put it in? Second argument being, and I had this humdinger of an
argument again today. You know the public safety issue. And we went through
this issue with the Kurvers Point. About the long cul -de -sac and will public
safety be able to get in. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. More likely than
not they'll be able to get in to these things but it just seemed to me that too
many coincidences have to happen all at the same time for there to be a
situation where public safety's going to have a serious problem. And maybe I'm
taking that too lightly. But all in the same hour, somebody has to have a life
threatening problem, a tornado or something has to be coming through and a big
tree has to fall over in the right direction to block the road. And I never
• really got much clarification on that at the Kurvers Point deal that that was
really something that we should be worried about. I lean over to Richard and he
tells me, we'll get through. Don't worry about it. Will they have to and
that's where, as a City Council member, I've kind of had to think, well do I
I/
have to worry about just about everything and lay awake at night thinking about
those things? And I've opted for not.
Councilwoman Dimler: Not thinking about it? 11
Councilman Workman: If we get Hennepin County Commissioner pay, then I'll. But
that isn't to mock or mimmick staff's understanding of what they think we need
to do. I understand that. And they're very real concerns. I just don't
personally tend to hinge things on those as heavily as they do. Timberwood is
in and almost done. People live there. These people don't live here. That
3
11
II City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
doesn't mean I don't feel for the developer but I think we can do some
modifications to make it work so that this group of homes is onto itself and not
affecting the neighborhood.
II Mayor Chmiel: What modifications are you suggesting that we could make to that?
How can we do that?
1 Councilman Workman: Well, take Stone Creek Court and run it out and then bend
the west end over along the property line or wherever. I don't lay out plats
but.
II Mayor Chmiel: You're making some suggestions but I'd like to know what those
suggestions are.
II Councilman Workman: Well like I said, bring this piece. Now that's going to
leave a big lump and maybe they can work here, maybe they can't. But bring this
and bend it straight out along there or drop it through and ultimately connect
I up to there. Rather than make it a cul -de -sac. And that takes care of or
serves the other half of that.
Kate Aanenson: There's a wetland right there.
Paul Krauss: There's a real pristine kind of a wooded wetland right over here
that we've assigned in the conservation area. You really wouldn't want to put a
II road through that.
Councilman Workman: But we've got yards and lots in there. If you're telling
me it's impossible, I don't believe it. But we have a pristine pond and some
pristine trees. We've also got a neighborhood that's going to be changed.
That's where I've been directing some of my concerns. I can worry about the
pond, which I will. Or I can worry about the long term affect it's going to
II have on the neighbors to the north and that's what I've done.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom are you saying, going and extending to the east from that
II cul -de -sac with that road? Are you really saying taking Stone Creek and going
to the west and coming out on CR 18?
I Councilman Workman: As a second entrance.
Mayor Chmiel: There would be two out on County Road 18.
11 Hans Hagen: Maybe I can shed some light on this. I don't disagree with the
residents... I heard you and I went back... What we tried to do after we came
up with the PUD and we felt that that wouldn't be a viable alternative for the
city, we laid out the roads to do two things. To stay away from the wetlands
and to preserve the forest as much as we could. That's really our mandate
because the city really mandates that so you have to start from there. And the
I area that you've been speaking about which would be extending Stone Creek, as
it's named here, and rather than hooking the cul -de -sac down here, bringing the
road across adjacent to Timberwood is a difficulty because of two things. You've
got the wetland issue here and you've also got a very steep bank here and you've
II probably got a 30 foot grade elevation from here to here. So going from this
location down to here, you've got probably 20 to 30 feet and when you do that,
4
11
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992 II
obviously you end up taking all the trees out. That's why this road hooks down
around here to take care of the grade and be able to put the house pads in and
leave some trees between each house. And while the plat, as it's drawn here
shows a preserve area in here, it's our intent and we think we would be able to
maintain trees on the lot lines. Now not all of them will live but every
attempt will be made to do that. And that only works if you follow the contours
carefully. So the road layout seems to just meander around but it has, the
reason it meanders around is to save the trees. Now I think maybe there's
another way to accomplish what Timberwood is after. I totally agree that you 1
don't want traffic needlessly running through your neighborhood. Here's
Timberwood located here. The road system you see coming through Stone Creek was
the original layout that we had and that is no longer valid. That was a PUD.
But generally speaking, this major road's coming through here and wandering
through in about the same way. Now you'll notice that Timberwood Drive goes up
and circles around and goes north and actually even down south a little bit. So
that is a circuritous route. It would be much better if somebody was coming,
leaving Stone Creek. It could go back and glance at this route rather than
going north and then east and then down south and going out onto TH 5.
Remembering that there's a speed limit within your neighborhood. There's a
higher speed limit perhaps on Galpin. Well, I understand...but in any event,
we've got a different issue with regard to neighborhood speed traffic than you
do on Galpin. So if people drove the speed limit, you would be wiser if you
were in a hurry to get someplace, to take this route which is the most direct
going north on Galpin. Now to make it a little bit more complicated to get out
of Stone Creek. Rather than bringing Timberwood as shown in the original
drawing. We're bringing Timberwood up to here. This is the line, our property
line... And as has been suggested to the Council at the last meeting is to
bring Timberwood down and have a stop sign here so that it'makes it a little bit
more difficult to go through Timberwood. This would go out to Galpin. This I'm
suggesting goes to TH 5 but I understand that may be a difficult issue
because... I assume we can stop it right here at this intersection. What we'd
like to do is stop traffic to go this way so that we're making it difficult to
go through your neighborhood.
Resident: That stop sign wouldn't do it.
Paul Krauss: No, actually you'd want the traffic to feel a whole lot more
comfortable zipping out on Stone Creek rather than turning onto Timberwood.
Hans Hagen: You could take a right here and go north. 1
Mayor Chmiel: If we could just hold it so we can hear what he's saying. Thank
you.
I/
Hans Hagen: You could add stop signs if the neighborhood decided to at this
location so you'd have a stop on the way through Timberwood which would slow
traffic down. That might accomplish keeping the traffic speed down on
Timberwood for the neighbors but it would certainly, if you've got a stop sign
here and you've got a thru street going out to TH 5, the logical traffic flow
would be that way. Now, I think the other issue with regard to the thru traffic
for buses and for also your emergency. Well not as much emergency vehicles but
for buses and trash and that sort of thing. If you take a bus and go in here,
pick up everybody and then return and go out, you're doubling the number of
5 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
trips you have with the bus and that's the same thing that's true with any
vehicles going on through so it would seem to me that logic would dictate that
you do permit school buses to go all the way through and you just reduce the
number of bus trips by 50% and the same thing is true with other delivery
vehicles that would be going through the neighborhood. So in all my years of,
25 years now of platting property and so forth, this is something that always
happens when there's an existing neighborhood and you bring another neighborhood
on and leaving this road was extended to the property so that it could connect.
That does make good sense and yes, it takes a bunch of moons to line up to have
that crisis where somebody can't get there but when that crisis does occur, then
11 you wish you would have gone the other way. But I do feel that by changing, by
putting the stop sign up at this intersection and by T -ing this intersection,
that you're going to get probably the best alternative...
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, did you have anything that you wanted to say?
Paul Krauss: Actually there is one thing we could add. Kate, why don't you
give the distances on that. We had some information that we didn't get a chance
to give you last night in terms of one of the prime reasons we think that most
of the traffic will naturally, by common sense, want to go out thru Stone Creek.
Kate Aanenson: What we just looked at, if this was going through Timberwood,
which is 3/4 of a mile from this point out. And the longest from the edge of
this...other point out...Stone Creek Drive and that will be half a mile and this
line...2 /3 of a mile.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Why don't you just leave that one up there. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well I see two issues here, and I've tried to separate them
out. Number one is Mr. Hagen's development which I have no problem with and I'm
ready to get on with it. The other is Timberwood and I feel that Timberwood
people came in and they bought large lots intentionally. Isolated property
intentionally and I think that Timberwood deserves to be protected. They built
their neighborhood. It's kind of what we've called a little island and we've
argued about this and these two neighborhoods are very, very different. So in
my own thinking, I'm taking Timberwood out of this issue. I think they deserve
to be protected and kept away from this. So for my discussions I'm simply
taking them out of there and not worrying about them. Now on Stone Creek, I
think that if a piece of land is going to be platted, it has to stand on it's
own and it has to be responsible for it's own egress and entryways. I don't
think it's my responsibility to try and plat this project and I don't want to
get caught up in it. If that piece of property with 141 homes can't get cars in
and out, it doesn't have proper egress and ingress to the property, then I have
to suspect that maybe there's too many homes on that 81 acres and we have to
start relooking at the density that we've got there. I'm not suggesting that
and I'm not unhappy with the density but again to repeat myself on my opening
statement. I think Stone Creek has to stand on it's own. The last comment I
1 would make is the public safety issue and I think that in this particular
development as I'm seeing it, if there's only one way in and that one way
branches off into a maze of cul -de -sacs, that is a public safety hazard. We
I don't have access to these properties and all it would take is one tree falling
down, as Tom mentioned but there aren't any trees anyway so that's sort of moot.
It will be 20 years before a tree's going to be big enough to fall over and
6
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
bother us. But any calamity that should happen that would block off that
initial entryway and we don't have any way to get to the rest of that community
whatsoever so this development with this many homes, I'm going to suspect the
fire chief, speaking as one of the fire chief's or the fire marshall's going to
say nix. It is unacceptable to have only one entryway into this. It's going to
have to have two. But when I start again, Stone Creek has to stand on it's own.
Be responsible for it's own development and not rely on the Timberwood area to
give them that second access. So Timberwood's not in my discussion for the
future here. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Since our last meeting, which wasn't that long ago,
I did drive out into Timberwood and I went to the end of the drive there and I
discovered that there is a huge amount of trees that would have to be cleared to
put the road through and there's also a creek there. Is that correct? 1
Paul Krauss: There's a flowage that would have to go, be routed under the road,
yes. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I didn't know that before and I guess that does
kind of change my outlook on that particular opening. I also, you know think
that we need two entrances here for safety but as I thought about it, I began to
think why do we have to make Timberwood less safe in order to provide safety for
a new development? So I would kind of tend to go along with what Richard just
said. This Stone Creek has to stand on it's own without depending on Timberwood
to provide it with another access. And I think Timberwood is safe today and it
will be as safe tomorrow without that street going through there. But it's
Stone Creek that we need to be concerned about the safety. Then I have an
unrelated question as well and that has to do with the model homes that are
supposed to be ready by September without utilities in there but maybe we can
talk about that later.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. I guess I had, I received a call this evening. There
were some good issues that were brought up to me from that discussion. It was a
resident within Timberwood. Many things that I heard, concerns about speeds
within the development. I guess I charge each and every one of you to
respectfully watch your own speeds so you can bring that back down to where it
should be. 30 mph is basically what that road is designed for. And if it be
necessary, we can provide the kinds of protections that maybe you're looking for
but I don't like to see our officers write tickets on our own residents, or
anyone else. I don't think this is a police state. And if everyone has certain
numbers of children within that area, I think each of you owe it to yourselves
to police, as I said, yourself rather than us do it for you. I've learned over
the years and this right foot of mine probably has some lead in it, just like
you have in driving through your neighborhood. I find that if you've got a
cruise control, set it on 30. It's amazing how well it works. And I use that
driving in town. On the main street. In the neighborhoods and mine even trolls
down to 25 mph and I use it in a 25 zone. Never have to look at the speedometer
because I know exactly where it is once I set it. Just a word of advice. One
of the other things that I also heard was the fact that many of you have
indicated that you were made aware that there was not going to be an outlet from
that area or a connection. In discussions that I've had with a couple people in
I
1
11 City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
buying those properties, from what I've been told, everyone has been told that
there could very well be a connection through the neighborhood. I just found
that out yesterday in doing some more checking as I said we would do and
consider and think about other things. I'm sure that Mr. Hagen is not in any
particular position of saying I have to have that access into Timberwood and I
don't think he's going to take that position as I've just heard him say that
before as well. So some of the things that I really see is his proposal in
putting this residential development in there. I'd support it because of what
I've seen. This platting has indicated with the sizes of lots and you have a
vast different amount of sizes. From 15,000 square feet. As much as 33,000
square feet. So he's working with that particular piece of property I think
very well. Whether or not that access goes in there, I think we've stood more
behind Timberwood than we have in any other subdivision within the city. And
even during our preliminary stages of going through our comprehensive plan and
11 making the changes to accommodate you people, that's who we represent. But
sometimes when I look at the necessity of public safety. We're charged with
that and I want to feel comfortable with the public health and safety of this
particular connection of if the connection were to go through. I'm getting a
feel from Council, I don't see that right now. But even for your own concerns
and some of the concerns I have for your own properties, that is something that
has to be looked at and I did look at it quite strongly. And everybody feels
comfortable enough right now. Hopefully you'll feel comfortable enough if you
live there for the next 20 years or 30 years but in this changing world as we
have it, how many of us are going to still be here. I know I will because I'm
going to retire here. Very shortly, in about 2 months. But how often are we
all going to stay here? The job markets change. We make changes. We leave the
area. Once everyone leaves, is this going to be the best for the city and
that's what I look at again. So with just a few of those analyzations that I've
gone through, I'm ready to poll the Council for a motion regarding this
preliminary plat as well as the two other aspects of the platting. The wetland
alteration and the rezoning. If the desire by Council is to eliminate the
connection into Timberwood Estates, that should so be indicated. Whether or not
the Timberwood Estates name should be on there, because I'm sure the reason that
was done to have that connection into Timberwood. Possibly that should change
and that's strictly up to you. But with that, I would request a motion in
regards to this particular platting.
Councilman Wing: Don, just one clarification. For me to approve the plat, part
of the approval would be the requirement of two entryways. Is that correct? Or
would that be part of the motion, if desired?
Mayor Chmiel: Paul, do you want a clarification?
Paul Krauss: Yeah, I wish Roger were here tonight. I think you're raising an
issue here because we've already gone on record telling you that we don't think
there are two good points to come out on the county road. This developer does
have an option to loop a street but you're considering precluding him from using
that option. If you then put the developer in the position where you're
insisting that he have two accesses but it's impossible to provide it, therefore
the property can't be developed, I think we have a problem.
Councilman Wing: Alright, I'll go along with the one but then the Fire Marshall
comes along and says that's not going to fly.
8
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992 11
Paul Krauss: That's the situation we'll have. I mean we can reopen the book
and see what we can do but we did look at this intensively. We have conferred
with the County Engineer and we've pretty much eliminated those alternatives.
Councilwoman Dimler: Is there anything that can be done to that second side
that you said the.
Paul Krauss: The sight distance?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, wasn't good enough. Can we do something with that
intersection there?
Paul Krauss: I honestly don't know. It probably would involve some major
reconfiguration of a street. Lowering of grades. Significant and you can't do
that just on a localized site. You've got to go half a mile up the road so the
grades match. You probably look at loss of trees. I/
Councilwoman Dimler: Is this a county road?
Paul Krauss: Yes.
Hans Hagen: The County did deny that other entrance. 1
Kate Aanenson: That's what went to Planning Commission were the two entrances
and the County said no. So we came back with the revised. 1
Councilman Mason: Mr. Mayor, two things. I have a little trouble with a
development has to stand on it's own. We're talking, then I think all of a
sudden I've heard some citizens accuse development of being patchworked. I
think if all of a sudden we're saying a site has to stand on it's own, then
we're creating patchwork. I also did hear a number of Timberwood people say
their first choice is absolutely no road through there and I've already said if
I lived there I'd feel the same way. I also did hear them say that if that
can't be done, can we please have a T intersection and Timberwood end at what is
currently now called Boulder Drive. I share your concerns about the public
safety issue also. I think if we approve this with one in and out, we're
essentially not approving anything and we're going to have to deal with it a
month or two from now anyway, is my opinion. And if the County has already told
us that two in and outs on CR 18 is not going to wash with them, I find us to
some extent, caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. And if that's
•
the case, then I think we need to take a little harder look at a T intersection
there. Where Timberwood and what's now called Boulder Drive come together. 1
Councilman Workman: If I can add to that. I guess it's, and I understand where
you're coming from. It's not my job to plat and I don't know out of which book
or which law or to what degree the County can say yes or no to an entrance
there. It would appear to me that where Stone Creek would come out, the
elevation is 981. If you go to the north, the next elevation I see anywhere
near there is 985. That's 4 feet. The next one I see is 968. So it drops
significantly there. So they're almost near the top of the hill. I guess if
not near it and so while I'm hesitant to, during a variance process to help
somebody design their garage for them, I guess I think the developer's kind of
getting a strong idea about what we want to do and that can either be worked out
9 1
1
II City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
I or it can't. I don't know that I'm convinced that it can't be. To say that it
absolutely can't. Roger Gustafson has made the decision. It's now in stone
down there at the County without Al Klingelhutz and everybody else looking at
it. I don't know. I guess I'm not a surveyor or other but I'm not convinced
II that it can't be done.
Charles Folch: Mr. Mayor. What it basically boils down to is, being that it is
11 a county road. Carver County has of course jurisdiction over that road. Any
other agency looking to tie into that County Road has to get an access permit
from the County. If the County is not willing to grant that permit without
II taking further action, legal action or whatever, you can't acquire the permit.
Basically as Paul's mentioned before, to try and cut that hill down to make the
sight lines feasible to provide a secondary access, one is that economically
feasible? Who would pay for it? I'm sure the County is not going to be willing
I to pay for that. That's something that would have to certainly be considered.
It's not impossible but it would be a major task to do that.
II Mayor Chmiel: Charles, do you know what the sight line was and what the given
problem is?
Charles Folch: The exact distance? I don't have that off hand what the exact
distance was. It's not too far down from the crest but that is the problem.
Kate Aanenson: If I could just add to that. The other issue that the County
il raised was based on the volume of traffic, this space, they have a requirement
of spacing of entranceways and that also fell into too narrow of a gap there.
Spacing. With the volume of traffic. Conflicting turn movements.
I Mayor Chmiel: If, and I'm not into designing either but if Creek Court were
looked at, that's probably better than 500 foot distance from the existing
verbage of Timberwood Road to Stone Creek and of course that would eliminate
I that cul -de -sac there. But I don't know where Hans is coming from with that
part either.
II Hans Hagen: I think the two issues you have are, one coming over the crest of
the hill here does not have good sight distance. We pull this out. So that's
one problem the County had. The other problem is the County has a minimum
I distance between access points on Galpin Road. On this County Road. So they've
denied it based on that. So when we received that information, then we backed
• off and made this a cul -de -sac. Because originally we had put this through.
When you get over to this point however, and you can see all these lines coming
11 down pretty close and for the public who isn't dealing with plats everyday, that
indicates there's a very sharp hill going down this so you've got a situation.
Actually we are peeling off the top of the hill as part of the grading program
II but to pull a road back through here and I think it's probably a moot point
because you can't get out here anyway with your second access so it really
doesn't change anything but you can't pull a road down through here because the
11 wetland here. You've got a very sharp hill which is in grade and in order to
make that grade work you'd have to pull it down to a 7% or less grade and in
order to do that, you would really have massive grading and pulling all the
trees out. So we were trying to work with the environment. We thought quite
II honestly when this road came down and T'd at this property, that typically that
should be pulled on through from a safety point of view. It isn't our company's
II 10
II
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
point of view that that should be done. It's just that cities generally require
that so we just followed it through. So I think from an environmental point of
view, when you're talking about the trees and woods and all of you have talked
about those, and the wetlands. You've talked about those. The plat is
sympathetic to those issues. And so if we start out with the trees and we start
out with the wetlands and start out with the hills and the grades and work out
plat out and then come out with a safe intersection, it really ties you in. And
whether it's Hans Hagen Homes, you know. If we don't get this through, somebody
else is going to come back and do the same thing. You're kind of stuck and I
think the solution to your problem is not really devastating the forest or the
wetlands or creating an unsafe process out here because I think that's doing the
wrong thing. You're creating lots of problems there. The better issue is to try
and get the traffic not to want to go through your neighborhood. That's really
what the issue is. Now one other thing and I tried to explain it on the other
plat and I wasn't very good at it. But what we're proposing to do is to change
this road so the road does this. And now it goes through and this, Timberwood
comes down and stops here and there's a stop sign here so that's what I was
trying to explain. Actually there's a little difference than I'm showing here
but it's very close. Then we would change this name to Boulder Creek Drive, and
I think some of the neighbors brought up the fact that what happens if
somebody's looking for Timberwood Drive. They come to the first one on Gaipin,
take a left and they're really trying to find somebody that's on Timberwood
Drive in Stone Creek. Well, we can resolve that by changing the name to Boulder
Creek Drive down here so they aren't going to look for Timberwood. So
Timberwould come down and stop here. That would keep your neighborhood
identified as Timberwood and not mix it up.
Resident: I'm confused with your logic. If you want to restrict traffic, which
we do through Timberwood, why put a road there? 1
Hans Hagen: That's fine with me. I have no problem. We don't have to do this
and I'm not arguing for it. You know we can block that off but then the issue
comes back, is it safe? Is it safe for you? Is it safe for us? I'm not going
to make that decision. That isn't my job. We can take and simply make this a
loop street. That isn't a problem with us but the question is, is it good for
you ultimately and is it good for the people that we're selling to here and from
a safety perspective, I would say this is not.
Resident: People keep talking here about the distance... The other night Paul
had mentioned that first, lower portion of Timberwood was maybe a little farther
away from...than it needed to be. As well as north... Maybe some of those lots
on the north should be just pulled and the road should curve up more to the
crest of the hill. There are options there...well it's going to fail. By how
I/
much-and how much can you make it work ?...fails the test. Maybe another
proposal...that passes the test.
Councilman Workman: If in fact, if we make believe for a minute that we have a
road through there and the developer and staff are telling us that people aren't
going to really use that. Buses and the UPS guy. Then in fact what we have is
141 homes draining out one entrance and exit. That's in fact what we're telling
the people to the north. That is not safe. If we have one access here, it's
not safe. Forgetting the emergency vehicle argument for this point. That means
we've got everybody, because it takes so much more to go up through Timberwood,
11 1
1
II ,City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
and so much more time, everybody and whatever trip they're going to take, is
II going to come out this exit and I don't know who in their right mind would live
there with that kind of traffic unless this were in fact going to be used as a
purge valve out to the north. So we either have a very, and believe me, I'm
II maybe giving the developer mixed signals. I think Timberwood would much rather
have this than a commercial and I agree that they do do nice work but it's a
difficult parcel. We're working very hard on what and how the environment on
this side of the creek is like but it is going to affect the environment on the
II north side. I know it is and you can tell me that by making this connection
nobody's going to use it. It's just there for service vehicles and emergency
vehicles but then you're telling me that everybody's coming out this thing and
I that is going to be a very, very unsafe one place to come in and out of this
neighborhood and 141 homes.
I Councilman Wing: When I come home at night, I'm going to make the first turn
off of TH 5. I'm going to make the first left into Timberwood and roll through
that open land and those wide streets right into my home in the middle of this
to avoid having to come down here and wind through the whole thing.
Councilman Workman: I don't deny that it's not a difficult thing to lay this
all out with the contours and everything else. I'm not trying on purpose anyway
II to be ignorant. If all the arguments that I've heard are that people are not
going to go up to the north and don't worry about it, then 141 homes are going
to empty out one spot. That's where I would piggyback on Richard's comment that
it needs to stand a little bit more, at least on it's own. And have that extran
one to the north and...
Resident: Are we free to make comments? No?
11 Mayor Chmiel: Not right now. Not yet.
II Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, in regards to those comments. I can't believe we
could possibly hear anything we haven't heard already. I would ask you to
temper those. I want to go home. Thank you very much.
II Councilman Mason: I'm almost to the point of being amazed at all this
discussion. If the County is telling us they will not, and maybe we need to
find this out 100%. But if the County's telling us we won't give you another
II access there, what's the issue?
Councilman Workman: Whether or not 141 homes are going to empty out of one.
II Councilman Wing: We should have one exit.
I Councilman Mason: So you're saying then, if we only have one access there,
we're not going to let that road in there so therefore we're not allowing
development there and we have to buy more property.
II Councilman Workman: No. I'm saying pretend that road is there. I'm being told
that people are not going to use that.
11 Councilman Mason: Right.
12
11
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Councilman Workman: That means 141 homes will have to come out this okay. But
in reality I know people are going to use it Okay so, how many? Who in the
room can tell me how many of those homes? Is it half? So is that 70? Then
that does.
Councilman Mason: I'm not saying it's not going to impact Timberwood. I'm just
saying I think we're beating a dead horse. If the County is saying one access,
I don't know that we have any choice.
Councilman Wing: But is it the right choice to approve that? That's pretty
extreme. On the other hand, what we haven't looked at is taking some of these
upper lots and T -ing those into dead ends and then letting this half come out on
this one. Break the division into. In other words, take the northern lots.
This whole group of northern lots and connect them into Timberwood. Dead end
and then let this other half drain out onto...
Resident: I did suggest that at the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Dimler: I didn't hear what Richard said. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Sorry, we were trying to have some discussions here. I hate to
say I wasn't paying attention.
Hans Hagen: Your Honor, maybe I can help in one other issue. I know it's
cumbersome but we are putting a right turn lane in here. The County requested a
right turn lane put on Galpin right here so the people would come out, the bulk
of the traffic would be going north. So people would come up here and take a
right. I think the other issue is at some point there is a cut off and nobody's
denying that somebody will not go through Timberwood. What we're trying to do
is suggest making the most difficult route and I think if you drew a line here
somplace and said it's illogical for people to back track and go north. So the
question is, how many lots in Stone Creek. All 141 wouldn't prefer to go
through Stone Creek, or through Timberwood rather. There is some point and
I/
maybe this lot would choose to go this way. That's possible. These 4 lots here
and there's some in here but it would seem to me that you could draw a line,
some weave through here. These logically would have a shorter route going to
the west and then to the north or south. And some of them might go through
Timberwood. That's possible. Certainly. But we aren't loading 141 people
through Timberwood. We are only take those that might find it more convenient
to do that. And the question is, you've got 37 home sites in 90 acres or there
abouts. If you add another 20 homesites, it probably wouldn't affect your
neighborhood a great deal. Granted, you wouldn't want one more. That's why you
moved there but the issue is some reasonable approach. Because it won't die
with our project. Somebody else is going to come back in and it's a question of
if this is the best. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Potentially we could, Paul? On Stone Creek Court,
which the cul -de -sac faces CR 18. What would happen if that road were to go
through Lot 10 and veer to the north more? ,
Paul Krauss: We in fact were playing with that a little bit. I'm not sure if
it works from a design standpoint.
13 1
1
11 City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Mayor Chmiel: I'm not either.
Paul Krauss: What you basically have to do is come out something like that to
get to the top of the hill. You have to come in perpendicular to the road which
means you'll probably have to go onto somebody else's property to put a road in.
Councilman Workman: Paul? When I see at the tip of Stone Creek 981 and where
you're taking it, it's 968.
Paul Krauss: I'm sorry Tom, I can't read it from this.
II Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, it's 968 to 985. Is that what you're saying?
Councilman Workman: 981 I see down at the tip. And it sounds like, yeah.
I mean down here but then it does look like through Lot 10 but you're going up
through what would probably be an outlot or something and that seems to drop
about.
Paul Krauss: Again there's two issues. There's the hilltop which is someplace
around here but what you're doing is you're having an acceleration lane to get
back onto, to allow traffic to accelerate up to speed. There's going to be a
II by -pass lane on that side so people can turn into this thing. If you're going
to do a similar treatment at these intersections, they start to overlap.
I Councilman Workman: We can't put it on the downslope. Can we?
Councilwoman Dimler: No.
I I Mayor Chmiel: No.
Councilman Workman: I mean that's not. Then the traffic coming from the south
' will surprise them.
Paul Krauss: Right.
II Resident: ...if they're going to go to the north, if I took my car and I
started heading downhill right away, I could get going up to speed...
II Councilman Workman: Want me to make a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Co ahead.
II Councilman Workman: I'll make it and you guys tell me if it flies. Are we
considering three things? The wetland alteration, the rezoning?
II Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Workman: I move to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit, Rezoning
II of property from A2 to RSF.
Mayor Chmiel: Can I make a clarification with that Tom? Items 1 thru 5 and
your other items on rezoning?
14
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992 II
Councilman Workman: Okay. And the Preliminary Plat to subdivision 81 acres
into 141 single family lots, Hans Hagen Homes with the following additions. Not
have what is Timberwood Drive, not have it stub and not have it go through
through Timberwood. Have the applicant work with staff to design a second
ingress /egress to the north on Gaipin. Period.
Councilwoman Dimler: Will they still be able to get 141 lots then or do you
want to maybe leave that number out?
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe with the redesigning, I don't think you can get another lot
in that particular. Removal of that portion.
Councilman Workman: I'll say maximum of 141.
Councilwoman Dimler: It could be less.
Mayor Chmiel: Approximately.
Councilman Wing: Paul, what I'm coming up with, this site may not be suitable
for 141 homes. It's sort of what's coming out here.
Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, if you're asking me to respond to that, there's a
lot of ways of approaching that.
Councilman Wing: No I'm not. Just a comment.
Paul Krauss: I guess I wanted some clarification on your stipulation. We'd be
happy to sit down with Roger Gustafson and our staff and the developer and try
to figure out how to get a second curb cut in there. But you've got to realize
we may not succeed. I mean looking at this and if we can do it, fine. We're in
a position to do that but if we're not in a position to deliver on a second curb
cut, is there still a condition that they provide two curb cuts?
Councilman Wing: I think that's the motion.
Resident: You say the second access but not define where it is. Could it be to
the east. Could it be to...
Councilman Wing: If I'm reading Tom's motion, he's just requiring this plat to
• get two ways in and out. That's all.
Mayor Chmiel: That's what the motion basically was. And I guess if that fails,
we can bring it back and review it.
Paul Krauss: Again, I need to define this. Does the second curb cut have to be
on one of the County Roads on the east side? I mean there is a long term goal
potential, if we can get it through at some point in the future, to have another
access into there which means you may live with a situation with 141 homes with
one access for the next 15 years. Or one year. I don't know. 1
Councilman Workman: And we'll probably have Stone Creek saying no way.
Paul Krauss: Well you can bet that would happen.
15 1
II .City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Councilman Mason: That's the whole point there.
Councilman Wing: Then if that's the case and if we're going to use that type of
time frame, I'm going to solicit the fire department stepping in. I think
II that's too many homes, too isolated. Too much, one call for 10,000 population
per day and this is you know, getting up to the point where they're going to be
calling for help down there.
II Paul Krauss: Councilman Wing, again I'm not your City Attorney.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I don't know if you can do that either.
II Paul Krauss: You've got an option here for another curb cut. Now granted you
don't want to use it but you're denying him the use of a right -of -way that
II terminates on his property. You've made the situation. If he can't resolve it,
it puts you in the position of having to figure out something because this
development meets city standards.
II Councilman Workman: Or somebody needs to come up with a different and better
motion.
I Mayor Chmiel: Just to back off just a tad. Chan Estates roughly has 120 homes
with one access.
1 Councilman Workman: Well now they can get out through Brookhill but they
didn't.
II Councilwoman Dimler: They've lived that way for 15 years. For 15 years or more
they didn't.
Councilman Workman: Of course people were dying by the dozen.
11 Councilman Wing: Paul brought up some valid points Mr. Mayor. First of all
I'll second that motion just to stop it.
Councilman Workman: Thank you. I don't want to, I want to be able to work with
it. I don't want to lock it up so that, yep. That's it. Can't have that curb
II cut but we need to maybe have the County do a little more work on it and I
don't, I'm not taking for granted all the work that Hans Hagen Homes have done
and staff have done. So we get another crack at this right?
II Paul Krauss: You get final plat.
Councilman Workman: So, my preference would be that we get it all worked out,
11 resolved by the next time. But if we're all saying that it can't be done and
I'm personally sticking pretty close to what I see is trying not to bridge the
two, then we do have problems. You know, I don't know how to resolve that.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Right. The only other way you could resolve it is to then relook
at the Timberwood access.
I Councilman Wing: What about Paul's comment that if they are unable to come up
with a second curb cut, the option? Are we giving an option to?
' 16
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
Paul Krauss: I don't want to beat a dead horse any more than I have to but if
Timberwood is not an option, and it seems like it is not, I'd ask you to word
the conditions to the effect that staff work with the developer to attempt to
obtain a second curb cut onto the county road but failing that, this layout as
proposed without the Timberwood connection will have to be acceptable. 1
Councilman Wing: One other comment before we move on Mr. Mayor. If these
first, if you only had one entryway and immediately upon entry if the road T'd,
went north /south and looped around, it would effectively give us two ways to get
to the back side of the neighborhood without a large entryway going through the
middle.
Paul Krauss: Except that you'd wind up double fronting lots. 1
Councilman Wing: Yeah, I don't know how this lays out. I just see this loop as
being close to the highway. 1
Paul Krauss: That can be done.
Mayor Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with a second. And as Paul
indicated, is there any desire to change any of that motion as a friendly
amendment? '
Councilman Workman: I thought I left in there that I wanted staff to work
further with the developer and the County to get this second access. That's
what's needed.
Councilman Mason: And failing that?
Councilman Workman: Failing that, I guess we would just have to discuss that at
final plat. I mean we're going to have to anyway.
Mayor Chmiel: But we're leaving the developer sort of hanging where he doesn't 1
know which way he's going to go either. But maybe through some design or
redesign or whatever, I don't know.
Councilman Workman: But doesn't the, and I can ask the developer. Don't you
think, this looks like an awful lot of homes. Don't you think, and I don't know
what's common but isn't this an awfully stressed access anyway? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, just for clarification. You have to remember what our
ordinance reads. 15,000 square foot lots and that's what he is really complying
with. And when you say whether there's too many homes, I don't think that's the
question.
Councilman Workman: No, only in relationship to the access. That's fine. I'm
just saying in regards to that one access which they're relying on very heavily.
Councilman Wing: We have information that it appears to be inaccessible
development the way it's drawn. That concerns me.
Hans Hagen: If I could ask a question...because there's no way I can proceed
with the property coming up with a final plat and not having a resolution to
17 1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
this. Can I come in for one portion of it and say fine, we'll approve that but
II you have to resolve the...so I think the preliminary is the point to resolve
major issues. That's where roads will go and... This is a major issue and
that's a preliminary plat issue...
II Councilman Workman: Then we'd have to deny it.
Councilman Mason: Could I take a shot at it? If staff, developer and County
II are unable to come to agreement on a second egress, we'll approve the plat with
one entrance /egress? If they can't come up with two. I mean it's either that
or approve the Timberwood shot so.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. As that to the amendment, as a friendly amendment. Would
the first and second accept that?
1 Councilman Workman: So you're saying what Paul had said?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Richard? Okay. With that I'll call the question then.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Wetland Alteration
Permit 192 -3 with the following conditions:
II 1 . All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion
control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until
' the disturbed areas are stabilized.
2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance table
for each lot will be recorded as part of the Development Contract. The
' buffer strip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be
preserved by an easement.
II 3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to
the wetland and not during breeding season.
' 4. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers.
5. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision *92-1 and
Rezoning #92 -2.
II All voted in favor and the motion carried.
II Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Rezoning *92 -2 of
property from A2 to RSF with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract containing all of the
conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required
' financial guarantees. The Development Contract shall be recorded against
the property.
2. Compliance with setback standards established in the compliance table.
' 18
1
City Council fleeting - April 29, 1992 • 11
3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #92 -1 and Wetland
Alteration Permit #92 -3.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
1
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Subdivision #92 -1
as shown on the plans dated April 21, 1992 with the condition that staff work
with the developer to attempt to obtain a second curb cut onto the county road.
Failing that, this layout as proposed without the Timberwood connection will be
acceptable, and subject to the following conditions:
1. A tree conservation and wetland buffer easement shall be placed on the
plat. All building sites in the tree conservation or wetland buffer shall
be shown on the building permit. 1
2. The development shall follow the standards in Subdivision Regulations
Section 18 -61 regarding Landscaping and Tree Preservation.
3. Parkland shall be dedicated, 8 acres of property, as recommended by the
Park Commission, including a 20 foot easement south of the Timberwood
subdivision between Timberwood Drive and the park. 1
4. A front yard variance shall be granted to all homes that fall into the tree
conservation area but in no case shall the front setback be less than 20
feet.
5. The applicant shall convey to the City a temporary street easement for the
temporary cul -de -sac at the end of Boulder Road. In addition, a sign shall
be installed on the barricades stating that the street (Boulder Road) will
be extended in the future.
6. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be conveyed with the 1
final plat over all utilities located outside of the public right -of -ways,
along with standard easements over each lot. Timberwood Drive shall be
constructed 36 feet wide gutter to gutter.
8. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits,
i.e. Watershed Districts, Health Department, MPCA. 1
9. Storm sewer calculations for a 10 year storm event along with pond storage
calculations for storage of a 100 year storm event, 24 hour intensity,
should be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
10. A deceleration and acceleration lane on northbound County Road 19 shall be
provided along with a bypass turn lane on southbound County Road 19 to
improve turning movements into the development.
11. Watermain pipe sizing shall be increased to 8 inches in diameter on Forest
Road and that part of Timberwood Drive lying north of Forest Trail.
12. All storm retention ponds shall be constructed to NURP standards as well as
provide storage for a 100 year storm event.
19 1
1
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992
I 13. A permit from the railroad (Twin City Western) will be required for any
grading or construction activity within the railroad right -of -way.
' 14. Fire hydrants shall be spaced approximately 300 feet apart throughout the
subdivision in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations.
15. The proposed earth berms along County Road 19 shall be reduced or relocated
' easterly to provide adequate room for future trail considerations.
16. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc- mulched or wood -fiber blanket within two weeks of site
grading or before November 15, 1992 except in areas where utilities and
streets will be constructed yet that year. All areas disturbed with a
slope of 3:1 or greater must be restored with sod or wood -fiber blanket.
17. The developer shall provide adequate access easements for maintenance
purposes to the proposed retention ponds.
II 18. The developer shall construct the utility and street improvements in
accordance with the 1992 edition of the City's standard specifications and
detail plates and shall prepare final plans and specifications and submit
for City approval.
19. The developer shall acquire the required utility construction permits from
the PCA and Minnesota Department of Health and street access permits from
Carver County Public Works.
I 20. The final plat should be contingent upon the City authorizing a public
improvement project for extension of trunk sanitary sewer and water
facilities to the site.
21. As a condition of final plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a
development contract and provide the financial security to guarantee
construction of the improvements and payment of any pending assessment.
II 22. The applicant shall be given credit for any trunk utility improvements they
may install as a part of their overall site improvements. The credit will
be applied towards the Upper Bluff Creek sanitary sewer and watermain trunk
improvements. The credit amount will be determined as the difference
between a standard lateral pipe size (8 inch diameter) and the proposed
1 trunk improvements which are 12 inches in diameter.
23. The applicant /builder shall provide at the time of building permit
application a tree removal and grading permit for all wooded lots,
specifically Lots 1 thru 7, Block 1, Lots 1 thru 24, Block 4, Lots 1 thru
21, Block 5 and Lots 1 thru 12 and 15 thru 24, Block 4.
I 24. The applicant shall work with staff to explore the possibility of conveying
backyard drainage from Block 5 into the development storm sewer system.
' 25. The outlot along County Road 19, Galpin Blvd. needs to replatted with
another lot.
20
City Council Meeting - April 29, 1992 - II
26. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Rezoning #92 -2 and the
Wetland Alteration Permit #92 -3. 1
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Mason: If I could just make a quick comment. I think people who know 1
me know I tend to not be very pro - development but I would like to thank
Mr. Hagen for his consideration...in trying to come up with plans that were...
REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR HIGHWAY 5 CORRIDOR STUDY AND COMMENT ON HIGHWAY 5 OVERLAY
DISTRICT. 1
Paul Krauss: We've been talking about a Highway 5 corridor study since about a
year ago and of course I think we made a lot of progress in a lot of areas.
Some areas we haven't. I think tonight's meeting was an interesting one and
showed the kinds of things that a highway corridor study could have done. I mean
we could have know, we should have ideally have gone through this process before
Target or anybody else thought about going there and we would have known what
the City's position is and we could have dealt with it effectively. Plus it
would been an ordinance and you would have had another tool in the arsenal to
make these visions happen. We need those tools. We need something to convert
the things that you hear from Bill and Barry and from us into the realty. The
last time we met on this you asked me to go back and try to come up with a
proposal to put together that corridor study. Put together those elements and
those elements include a lot of things. They include working with MnDot to
refine the design of the highway. They include designing those arterial, or
sorry. The parallel collector streets in an environmentally sensitive and
effective manner. It includes working with MnDot and the Metro Council to
hopefully procure funding under that Federal Ice Tea Bill. It includes revising
the land use plan as necessary to fit this new vision and it includes getting
ordinances and a plan amendment into our Comp Plan that again we can put on the
table and say, developer. this is the way we want you to do things here. It's
part of our ordinances and still give plenty of flexibility. I think tonight
you saw how much flexibility you can really have but still get a good idea of
what you'd like to achieve. So we started from the concept that those were the
goats we wanted to achieve. We also started from the concept that there is I
think a fair amount of comfort here with Bill and his staff and a desire to keep
them involved. At the same time there's I think a good comfort level with 1
working with Barton - Aschmann. Barton - Aschmann has a good relationship with
MnDot and the Highway 5 design folks. They've also had a good relationship I
think with the City, with the HRA and designing the streetscape improvements.
The complimentary work in accordance with TH 5. So building upon that, we
really needed to add a final element and that was a good planning function.
Somebody who can convert all these things into the reality. And what we came up
with is the firm of Camiros who has a working relationship with Barton - Aschmann.
They've been in the Twin Cities area for a couple years. Their principle office
is in Chicago. I do happen to know their local person. They are working on a
number of design projects including Minneapolis' design ordinance. They've got
a number of other projects throughout the State and in the area. They're
working in Sioux City as well and Galena, Illinois and they've done some
interesting work there. I think that's a fairly good fit. What we had them lay
out for you was a flow chart of how this study might work and who would be
21 1
1