1h2. Lake Riley Woods South, Dev Contract CITY OF
, CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM '-"'"—
TO Don Ashworth, City Manager
•
FROM Gary Warren, City Engineer IAt Nit*Submitted to n,
DATE: June 23 , 1988 ate subriae,! to =�
' SUBJ: Approval of Development Contract for Lake Riley Woods South
File No. 88-7 (private)
' Attached is the development contract for Lake Riley Woods South.
The contract has been prepared incorporating the conditions of
' approval from the June 13 , 1988 City Council meeting with the
exception that on the advice of the City Attorney ( see Attachment
2 ) , Article 8L of the contract calls for the developer to provide
the City with a letter of credit guaranteeing the construction of
the alternate roadway to the Halla property if this roadway beco-
mes a reality prior to December 1 , 1989. You may recall that the
deadline for platting of the Halla property is July 6 , 1989.
I concur as elicited in the the City Attorney' s memorandum that
the only practical means of providing for payment of construction
of this alternate connection is to obtain said letter of credit
' which would be released if the Halla plat is final platted prior
to the July 6 , 1989 deadline, thus eliminating the alternate
connection possibility. A clause has also been included in the
development contract requiring the developer to notify perspec-
tive property owners in the subdivision of this future connection
potential (see Article 8M) .
It is therefore recommended that the City Council approve the
attached development contract with revised conditions as noted
and authorize its execution.
Attachment: 1. Development Contract
2 . Memo from City Attorney
3. June 13 , 1988 City Council minutes
1
I
r
I.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT II
(Developer Installed Improvements)
LAKE RILEY WOODS SOUTH I
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
II
AGREEMENT dated , 19 , by and between
II
the CITY OF CHANHASSEN, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ( "the
City") , and GEORGE NELSON ASSOCIATES, ( the "Developer" ) .
1. Request for Plat Approval. The Developer has asked I
the City to approve a plat for Lake Riley Woods South ( referred
to in this Contract as the "plat" ) . The land is legally
described on the attached Exhibit "A" .
II
2. Conditions of Plat Approval. The City hereby
approves the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this
Contract and furnish the security required by it.
II
3. Development Plans. The plat shall be developed in
accordance with the following plans. The plans shall not be I
attached to this Contract. With the exception of Plan A, the
plans may be prepared, subject to City approval , after entering
the Contract , but before commencement of any work in the plat. II If the plans vary from the written terms of this Contract, the
written terms shall control. The plans are:
Plan A--Plat dated June 13 , 1988 , prepared by Ron Krueger I
& Associates , Inc.
Plan B--Grading , Drainage , and Erosion Control Plan dated
I
"Printed June 22, 1988" , prepared by Ron Krueger
& Associates , Inc.
Plan C--Plans and Specifications for Improvements dated II
"Printed June 22 , 1988" , prepared by Ron Krueger
& Associates , Inc.
II
II
I
II
II
SP-1
II
4. Improvements. The Developer shall install and pay
for the following:
A. Erosion Control
' B. Storm Water Drainage System
C. Streets
D. Street Signs
E. Street Lights
' F. Site Grading
G. Underground Utilities (e.g. gas , electric ,
telephone, CATV)
' H. Setting of Lot and Block Monuments
I. Surveying and Staking
J. Engineering and Construction Inspection
5. Time of Performance. The Developer shall install
all required improvements by November 30 , 1989. The Developer
may , however , request an extension of time from the City. If an
' extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the
security posted by the Developer to reflect cost increases and
the extended completion date.
' 6. Security. To guarantee compliance with the terms
of this Contract , payment of special assessments , payment of the
costs of all public improvements and construction of all public
improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter
of credit from a bank, cash escrow, or equivalent ( "Security")
for $ . The amount of the security was calculated
as 110% of the following:
Site grading $
' On-site storm sewer $
Streets $
Street lights and signs $
Erosion Control $
' Roadway connection reserve
to Halla plat $ 50 ,000
Engineering , surveying ,
' and inspection $
Landscaping $
$
TOTAL COST OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS $
This breakdown is for historical reference; it is not a restric-
tion on the use of the security. The security shall be subject
to the approval of the City. The security shall be for a term
' ending December 31 , 1989. The City may draw down the security,
without notice, for any violation of the terms of the Contract .
If the required public improvements are not completed at least
thirty ( 30 ) days prior to the expiration of the security , the
City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down , the
draw shall be used to cure the default . With City approval , the
security may be reduced from time to time as financial obliga-
tions are paid, but in no case shall the security be reduced to a
SP-2
point less than 25% of the original amount until all improvements
are complete and accepted by the City. ,
7. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall
be in writing , and shall be either hand-delivered to the
Developer , its employees or agents , or mailed to the Developer by
registered mail at the following address:
George Nelson Associates ,
1660 South Highway 100
Suite 428
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Telephone: (612 ) 542-8474
Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand-
delivered to the City Manager, or mailed to the City by
registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following
address:
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen , Minnesota 55317
Telephone: ( 612 ) 937-1900
8. Other Special Conditions. ,
A. The developer shall obtain and comply with all
conditions of the Watershed District and Carver County permits . '
B. A minimum 18-inch diameter culvert shall be
installed underneath the proposed access onto Pioneer Trail , CSAH
14.
C. The proposed road profile shall provide a
"landing zone" being a 0 . 5% grade for a minimum distance of 50
1
feet beginning at the connection with Pioneer Trail.
D. The typical rural roadway section shall be
revised to a 3-inch bituminous wearcourse as per the City stan-
dards for rural construction.
E. A 20-foot wide trail easement shall be provided '
to the City , in a form suitable for recording, along the south
side of the proposed subdivision cul-de-sac.
F. If an emergency access or road is constructed
to Great Plains Golf Estates , the developer agrees to provide, if
required by the City Council , a trail easement along this connec-
tion.
G. No construction traffic shall be allowed beyond
the erosion control fence to be located to the south of the
wetland on Lot 2 , Block 1 as shown in Plan "B" .
I
SP-3
H. A 75-foot structure setback and 150-foot septic
system setback shall be maintained from the edge of the wetland
on Lot 2 , Block 1 .
' I. A permanent drainage and utility easement shall
be provided to the City covering the storm water storage area on
Lot 2, Block 1 and the culvert outlet on the property.
J. Carver County shall approve the final construc-
tion plans prior to the City signing the final plat .
K. The developer shall provide the City with a
60-foot wide roadway easement, through Lot 3 , Block 1 as shown in
Exhibit "B" before the City signs the final plat.
' L. Future Street Construction. The City has under
consideration the construction of a street leading to the west of
the plat as indicated on the attached Exhibit "B" . The estimated
' construction cost is $50 ,000 . The developer shall furnish the
City a letter of credit acceptable to the City for $50 ,000 to pay
for the street. If the City does not order construction of the
street by December 1 , 1989, the letter of credit will be released
by the City and the developer ' s obligation under this paragraph
shall be released.
11 M. The developer shall place a restrictive cove-
nant on all properties within the plat to notify perspective
buyers of property in the subdivision of the possibility of a
' future roadway connection to the Halla property.
9. General Conditions. The general conditions of this
' Contract , approved by the City Council on February 22 , 1988 , are
attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein.
SP-4
II
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY: II
Thomas L. Hamilton , Mayor
(SEAL)
II
BY:
Don Ashworth, City Manager
II
DEVELOPER: GEORGE NELSON ASSOCIATES I
BY:
I
Its
BY: IIts
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) I
ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
II
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 19 , by Thomas L. Hamilton ,
Mayor , and by Don Ashworth, City Manager , of the City of
II
Chanhassen , a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the
corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City
Council.
II
Notary Public I
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss . IICOUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of _ , 19 , by
and
I
Notary Public
I
I
I
SP-5
I
CONSENT
, fee
' owners of all or part of the subject property, the development of
which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, affirm
and consent to the provisions thereof and agree to be bound by
the provisions as the same may apply to that portion of the sub-
ject property owned by them.
Dated this day of , 19
1
I
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss .
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 19 , by
Notary Public
i
SP-6
LAW OFFICES '
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: '
DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612) 455-2359
VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L.HARMEYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
PATRICK A. FARRELL MICHAEL J. MAYER
DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 TIMOTHY J. BERG
ROGER N.KNUTSON TELEPHONE(612) 455-1661
June 23, 1988
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
Mr. Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor ,
Mr. Clark Horn, Councilman
Mr. Dale Geving, Councilman
Mr. Jay Johnson, Councilman
Mr. Bill Boyt, Councilman
RE: Lake Riley Wood South Development Contract ,
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
At the June 13th City Council meeting staff was instructed '
to insert in the plat and development contract the right-of-way
easement for the street connection to the Halla property. If the
Halla preliminary plat as presently configured is final platted,
the street connection could not be made. If the plat is dropped,
then the street connection could be made. Subject to your
approval, the Development Agreement requires the developer to
escrow with the City the estimated cost of constructing the
street. This procedure is recommended because of the difficulty
of specially assessing the street after the plat is approved.
Ver ruly ours,
RLNNIS, G• ANNIS, FARRELL '
& KNUT _0N, P
Roger N. Knutson
RNK:srn
cc: Don Ashworth '
Gary Warren
1
City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 1 5
Councilman Horn moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the agenda to
discuss item 16 before item 15. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, LAKE RILEY WOODS SOUTH.
Barbara Dacy: The applicants are requesting final plat approval and the first
two pages of the staff report identify that most of the conditions, of I should
say all the conditions that were required to be addressed prior to final plat
have been addressed. The other conditions will be incorporated in the
engineer's review of the plans and specifications which will follow later. The
primary issue of concern for the applicant and staff is clarification of
Council's action on April 11th regarding the road easement. This is the lot
where the road easement was required by Council to be located. The applicant
' had originally intended to submit a letter to put forth his position but he
preferred to make a presentation tonight. Quickly just from Staff's standpoint,
we had interpretted Council's action to be that an easement should be reserved
' through Lot 3 for possible connection into the Halla subdivision. What we
wanted to do was look at if the Halla subdivision was to be finalized within the
next year and final platted, we wanted some questions answered so that we could
' come back to the Council with some type of means to construct the road if and
when Halla ever develops. We did determine that we could carry out road
construction from the road into this subdivision, into Halla's subdivision
through special assessment public improvement process. If that occurs, we are
I recommending that this portion of Lot 3 be given to the City as an outlot so we
have control of the land and that the development contract provide that Lot 3
will waive their rights to object to any future special assessments. If Halla
does not file his final plat nor if he does not develop our concern was that you
' would have a 60 foot easement existing through the middle of Lot 3 with no
possibility of it being constructed and the Council is well aware of those
issues where we try to connect streets 10 or 15 or 20 years down the road. It
just creates a lot of problems so in any case, the applicant is here and is
basically asking the Council not to require the road through on Lot 3. We have
prepared recommendations as to how to proceed depending upon Council action and
clarification of their motion from April 11th.
Mayor Hamilton: Didn't we discuss the Halla's subdivision after we discussed
this one?
Councilman Boyt: No.
1 Barbara Dacy: Right. Halla's preliminary plat was approved prior to action on
this plat. We did discuss the Halla plat during this item on April 11th.
' Councilman Boyt: He was here and talked about it.
Mayor Hamilton: George or Jim, did you have anything you wanted to add to that?
Jim Peterson: Not necessarily anything to add. I don't know that we ever
really stated our position...staff and Council recommendation and made every
effort to work with staff and Council on this. Originally when we went to the
Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommended that we work with staff
to try and create an emergency access for this project. Since we have worked so
closely with staff it was my impression, we knew we couldn't back onto CR 14,
' 55
i .ty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988
Pioneer Trail. We had the ravine in the back and west side and
geographical...work with staff to try and find a solution. Then at Council we
were requested to provide an easement, which we did. I got the impression that
Mr. Halla held the key here to this and my opinion has been all along, or our I!!
opinion as the developer of this, that action is now unnecessary and could be
detrimental. In reviewing his original staff reports, we find that Mr. Madden
the Fire Inspector had said that we are in compliance with the Fire Code. Scott
Harr, the Assistant Director of Public Safety has said that he sees no specific
need for a second access road. Larry Brown in one of his original
recommendations stated it is recommended that the right-of-way remain as shown
on the plans stamped "January 7, 1988" which included no secondary easement for
access. So with those staff recommendations in mind, when I personally think
about the road connection, I have concerns for our neighborhood and the traffic
would short circuit or try to circumvent the stop sign out on CR 14 and cut
through here and this connection will in fact increase traffic into the
subdivision. Also provide traffic that's not indigenous to the local
neighborhood. That if Halla's plat is ever developed, all of his traffic will
come through our neighborhood. I've heard from the neighbors that traffic at
the stop sign on CR 14 will back up all the way to their house which is right
across from Lake Riley. People back up that far at 5:00 and 6:00 and know that
this road is here and they can cut through and turn south, I think they're going
to use that. These are people that are...and I think their concern is how fast
can they get home. Thirdly when I look at the cost for that particular piece of
road, just the cost of the road construction itself I would estimate if I were
doing it at $50,000.00 to $55,000.00 plus the land cost. I personally can't see
how that piece of road is worth the economic impact. If I look at the further
economic impact, what it would do to the neighbors buying property from us who
all of a sudden have road on two sides of their house, if I were a consumer
looking at their house I would pay $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 less for their unit
easily just because they have a road on two sides and a possible road where
people are going to be shortcutting. To me it would make a lot of sense if
we're connecting two neighborhoods, for greater ease of road maintenance,
snowplowing but I don't see where it really does any of this. If the Director
of Public Safety doesn't have a problem with it. The Fire Chief doesn't have a
problem with it. The economic, if we provide Lot 3, we waive our rights to
object assessments on Lot 3, you've given us an unsellable lot. I can't see
where anybody would buy that lot. Your original directions provide an easement
that would cause the least amount of cost and damage for both those... That's
basically our position. One, we don't think that the economic cost potential
and the inconvenience and hazard it would create for the neighborhood is worth
it. I would have no objection to a connection that makes for a smooth flow
provided as a secondary and a lot of developments we looked for that secondary
access because it save us a lot of road cost for one thing but it also creates
smooth flowing neighborhoods. I don't think this is the case so from all of
us... If we have to give the easement as a condition of plat approval, we're
basically hostage. I guess we've stated our opinion. We don't feel that it's
of benefit to us, the neighbors or to the community. Originally like I say,
I just went along with the Planning Commission and the Council and I appreciate
the opportunity to state our position.
Councilman Johnson: I'm still for the easement here. I don't fool myself to
think that we're going to actually have a road going through there for a
[41
considerable length of time but if in 20 years from now we are resubdividing
this area into 15,000 or 20,000 square foot lots, this 2 1/2 and 5 acre lots
56 '
City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 1 7
III putting more and more houses on it, that easement becomes extremely important.
That gives us the ability to get that. Right now you have, I forget what the
number of lots are, 15 or 16, so you have 16 households being serviced on this
II fairly long cul-de-sac. Now you're going to, in the future when sewer and water
comes through, you're going to have 30 or 40, if they do ever subdivide. It may
become such a neighborhood that nobody would ever change their house and always
leave it 2 1/2 but we see lots of these 2 1/2 acres that are legally subdivided
I or gone right down to 15,000 as soon as I want to retire and move in town to the
new apartment building, I subdivide my big lot and create a little more profit
to it. That's what we'll see in 10 to 20 years. I'm not as much for the
II immediate connection here as reserving for future Councils and for future people
the ability to get that street in there when there's a lot more people there.
As far as waiving the rights of special assessment to that one lot, that one lot
is not the only benefitting. You're giving a second access to all 16 lots for
1 emergency purposes. I believe all 16 lots benefit from this street. Not that
one lot. In fact that one lot, if anything, is hurt more than benefitted
because of having then two streets on the side of it. I'd hate to put the cost
II of that street against that one lot. If I was going to spread the cost it would
be spread against the whole subdivision. I think that's the extent of my
comments.
IICouncilman Geving: There seems to be some confusion on whether or not the City
Council opted for the easement and after reviewing my notes on it, I thought it
was pretty clear that that's exactly what we did. That we reserved an easement
::I- for future use so I want to lay to rest any thought that there was some
confusion on the part of staff in interpretting our Minutes from the night of
April 11th. It was very clear to me that that was the vote and I too agree that
many times when we request these easements, not for today but we're trying to
look ahead as best we can in the future. There's a lot of if's here of course
because the if is the connection to the Halla subdivision and we don't know
where that's going or whether that will actually happen but the preservatiof of
I the easement I thought was a good decision on April 11th and I still feel that
way.
I Councilman Horn: I think we have to be reasonable as to how far in the future
we look. I don't see the scope of this type of development changing. I think
it's going to stay this way forever and I think it's much more desireable as a
l developTLent for these people to have a cul-de-sac. If we're going to screw up a
lot at least, potentially a whole development for some future down the road
which I don't think we're going to see for 30 years or more in this area, at
that time when people do come in and they want to have more building permits and
1 subdivide these areas, we can put a requirement on them at time that they have
to amongst themselves come up with some type of secondary access road but I
think we're looking too far in the future to put this kind of requirement on
I today. I agree at some point we may want to do that but I think the whole
purpose behind our subdivision in the unsewered area was to provide enough area
to allow that planning to occur when the subdivision occurs and I don't think
it's necessary at this point.
II
Councilman Boyt: Dale I agree with you. I don't think there was any question
that we approved that easement. However, I also feel that we don't want to have
this easement hang out there for 20 years. I think what we're really trying to
do is, what I'm trying to do is clean up the road connections with the Halla
development and if that comes in the next year so we don't get a chance to
II 57
II
1 8ity Council Meeting - June 13, 1988
replat it, than we don't need this road easement because we've got nowhere to
take it. But until that happens I think we definitely do need it and I'll say
again that I am shocked if the Fire Chief recommends the approval of an 1,800 to
2,000 foot cul-de-sac.
Dale Gregory: I'd like to make a clarification. The Fire Chief has never seen
this plat. It's the Fire Marshall...
Mayor Hamilton: It was never stated that the Fire Chief had anything to do with
it.
Councilman Boyt: Pardon me. I misstated. Thank you for clarifying that.
Councilman Johnson: The applicant misstated it earlier.
Councilman Boyt: I think that we've all talked about cul-de-sacs and kind of
know where we're coming from on these things. I think protecting the easement
for the next year is not an exceptional hardship on the developer and I'd like
to see us protect this until we can see how the Halla development is going to
come out.
Chris Brandle: I live adjacent on the property to the north. Would the cost of
that road ever be assessed against my property?
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know. I haven't any idea. '
Councilman Boyt: I don't think you're going to connect to it.
Eil
Mayor Hamilton: Is it abutting?
Gary Warren: Are you fronted on CR 14?
Chris Brandle: Yes.
Mayor Hamilton: It's hard to say. It depends on how you develop your land. ,
You've asked an impossible question.
Chris Brandle: It means a lot of me right now whether this road gets pushed
through and if I'm assessed for it in the future.
Mayor Hamilton: We can't answer your question right now. If you had a proposal
on the table of how you're going to develop your land and how it's going to to
fit in with the Halla's.
Chris Brandle: My land is developed. My land is as is. They're putting a road ,
up the back side of it. If there's a chance that I'll be assessed when that
road goes through, I'd like to know now so...
Mayor Hamilton: If you're not benfitting from it, I can't imagine you'd ever be '
assessed for it. The only comments I have, I don't think it was a unanimous
vote that we keep the easement and I'm sure I was not in favor of it simply for
the reasons stated by Clark. It's not necessary and as I recall it just didn't
fit in with Halla's. Although we don't have all of Halla's plat here yet to
deal with so it's not something that I'd like to even retain for right now. If
58
. 19
IICity Council Meeting - June 13, 1988
14--
it was a subdivision within the community, 15,000 square foot lots, then I like
to keep neighborhoods connected but when you get out into the rural areas where
,1. you've got 2 1/2 acre lots or larger, I see no reason to connect one to the
Iother. It's the same thing as across the street when we had Lake Riley Woods
and Dave Hanson's. It's the same thing. It didn't make sense to connect those
two and it still doesn't to me to connect this one. I see no reason to connect
Ito it at all. So from my standpoint I don't see any need for the easement.
Councilman Geving: I think Tom this is another one of those areas where Mr.
1 Halla's plat is going to trigger some things and we should be putting those
notes in the file. If it doesn't happen a year from now and we don't need this,
I'd agree with Bill to let it go, until we see what that plat looks like.
I Mayor Hamilton: Except it makes it harder for the developer to try to go ahead
and he's going to have to, how does he sell the adjoing lots. Try to tell
somebody you can buy this and maybe there will be a road next to you and maybe
I there won't. It's hard for them to put a value on a lot because it may be of
less value if there's a road adjacent to it. It just makes it a more difficult
process for them.
IICouncilman Horn: I think you're talking about more than just that one lot.
You're telling several other lot owners that they may not be living on a
III cul-de-sac which makes a terrific difference to them. You're telling 9 other
property owners out of the total 16 that they may not have a cul-de-sac and I
think that's a significant impact on the development.
Mayor Hamilton: I just can't see any positives to having, even if we had
Halla's plat here I just can't see a positive of connecting the two. I just
don't see how it could be a positive impact. Let's see, Barb needs final plat
I and you also need just clarification on what was on the 11th, is that
correct?
Barbara Dacy: If you are going to reconsider the easement, than you need to
Imove to reconsider it.
Councilman Horn: Since I wasn't here can I make that motion?
IICouncilman Boyt: No, you weren't from the prevailing side. I don't think any
one of the three of us is interested, from what I heard.
11 Councilman Geving: I think I disagree with Mr. Boyt on this. I think that a
person who misses a meeting on a crucial vote can bring it up for
reconsideration. I'd like to have the Attorney's advice on that. We have done
I it in the past. I think Clark has a right to vote on this or bring it up for
reconsideration.
I Don Ashworth: You've taken that position before. In fact the Court tested it
in the McDonald's issue and you were the one Councilman Geving who had brought
that to the forefront. Again, it went through the Court process and the Court
sustained the position that you had that right so if you are not present at a
meeting, you can vote to bring up that motion.
Councilman Boyt: I want to be sure I understand this. You're telling me that
IIany item you vote on when I miss a meeting I can bring up for reconsideration?
59
II
ty Council Meeting - June 13, 1988 t
Councilman Geving: I would say yes. That's my opinion.
Councilman Horn: I would like to reconsider this item. '
Councilman Boyt: If the Court's tested it I'm sure not going to contest it but
Robert's Rules would contest it.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to reconsider the easement in
L3
id ley Woods South. Councilman Horn and Mayor Hamilton voted in favor.
Councilman Geving, Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition.
The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Councilman Johnson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the final plat for
Lake Riley Woods South as shown on the plan stamped "Received May 19, 1988" and
subject to the following conditions:
1. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper
installation of these public improvements.
2. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
3. A revised plan showing the changes in the horizontal roadway alignment as
discussed previously in this report, shall be submitted for approval by the [II
City Engineer as part of the final planning review process.
4. An 18 inch minimum diameter culvert shall be installed underneath the
proposed access onto Pioneer Trial, CSAH 14.
5. The proposed road file shall include a 0.5% grade for a minimum distance of
50 feet prior to the access onto Pioneer Trail.
6. Wood fiber blanket or equivalent shall be utilized on all distrubed slopes
greater than 3:1. '
7. The typical rural roadway section shall be revised to a 3 inch bituminous
wear course as per the City standards for rural construction. i
8. Trail and park dedication fees shall be accepted in lieu of trail and
parkland and if the road or an emergency access is connected to Great Plains
Golf Estates, the Park and Recreation Commission shall review it for the
trail along the proposed road.
9. Submittal of stormwater calculations to determine predevelopment rates. '
10. The City will not sign the plat mylars until Carver County has approved the
construction drawings.
11. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along the proposed
street into the subdivision.
60
City Council Meeting - June 13, 1988
1_ A voted in favor except Councilman Horn who opposed and the motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to amend the agenda to discuss
' item 19 at this point in the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
REVIEW FINAL CONFIGURATION FOR TH 101/WEST 78TH STREET INTERSECTION.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't know Gary if there's really anything you need to
' present us. It's pretty clear off your drawing what you're going to do.
Gary Ehret: I don't know if you have any questions. I did not bring a larger
' exhibit than that which you have. You may have a question, one thing I want to
offer as a revision to this. There was some confusion at MnDot, I called them
on this again after this came up. The correction I'd like to make is that on
the westbound, that yeild sign can not in anyway be a yeild sign. That's got to
be a stop sign so that will not be a yeild sign.
Mayor Hamilton: Why did you call that to their attention?
' Gary Ehret: It would have come up sooner or later. Legally they can not in a
condition such as this where they have to stop that turning vehicle,
particularly the one that would go southbound, they have to have a stop sign on
the right side of the vehicle.
Mayor Hamilton: This thing here that appears to be 4 feet wide. What is that
going to be?
Gary Ehret: That is going to be similar to what you see on a typical freeway
' type application. It will essentially a median, concrete median. It's curb and
gutter.
Mayor Hamilton: It's not going to be any taller than a curb though?
Gary Ehret: No. This is not a huge, obtrusive. I would propose to put in
surmountable curb so you don't have a problem with snowplows, that kind of
thing. If a semi for some reason got in there cockeyed and his wheels would
conveniently roll up and over so it would only be a typical mountable curb that
you might have in a subdivision.
' Mayor Hamilton: It appears like that's going to extend far enough back so you
won't be able to, coming from the south to go east on TH 101 you can't cut
across and go in the driveway to get into Kenny's. You have to go down to the
corner of Great Plains.
Gary Ehret: That's correct. That would be a problem movement. The other thing
' is we have to pull it up to the point of curvature so that the driver as they
approach westbound can see that median approaching. You see them typically
they're a little bullet shaped and an arrow to the right to keep them to the
right and that's a part of what you're seeing as a problem right now.
Councilman Johnson: I've actually got two things. One that entrance to Kenny's
is too small. I was trying to get out westbound, somebody was trying to get in
61