Loading...
RE CSAH 18 Meeting with Rick Dorsey and Jeff FoxLyndon, In response to Item below we offer the following: Item A 1. Understood. 2. a-c: We have information including USDA soil mapping that indicates existence of Hamel Loam (HM) over a large area either side of Lyman from the Bluff Creek east about half way to Sunset Trail with lobes extending farther east. Does the County need additional input from us on these items? 3. We would like to discuss this item in greater detail including next steps. 4. Understood. Item B – Attached for your use is a quick plot of the current layout (scale approx. 1”=100’) with the Dorsey lot split lines shown. Upon further review, the Sunset Trail intersection would need to shift approximately 10-12 feet west in order to be centered within the roadway easement approved by the City. I will add this item which includes potential buyout of 1330 Lyman to the list of outstanding items. Item C – Agree, a traffic study would be needed from the landowner/developer. The CSAH 18 traffic study did not specifically discuss the potential right in / right out entrance to Lyman Blvd. Sincerely, Nate From: Lyndon Robjent [mailto:lrobjent@co.carver.mn.us] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 4:42 PM To: Nathen Will; poehme@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: Bill Weckman; Scott Smith Subject: CSAH 18 Meeting with Rick Dorsey and Jeff Fox Greg Graczyk and I met with Rick and Jeff today at 1pm. A. The main discussion point was the Wetland NOD. Here are my notes FYI: Rick went over the history of the area from his perspective with dated pictures that he has. 1. He understands that the delineations were done and depict current wetland characteristics. 2. He does not agree with that the following wetland are jurisdictional: a. W-16 – this is where most of the discussion was about with the pictures. He claims large quantities of muck were brought in from someplace else in Chanhassen during the 80’s Lyman construction that account for the hydric nature of the site. He continues to claim the area was simply a ditch prior to the 80’s road construction. He made a pretty compelling argument . He wants the TEP reopened and be able to explain his case. b. W-15 along the Degler parcel. He was adamant this was not a wetland prior to the development in 2006+/-. He said a wetland delineation was done then and showed nothing. This was created because of the development. This is concerning to me and something we should investigate. c. W-17 – he said he dug this pond when the home was built. He said that Terry told him this was not considered wetland. 3. His biggest concern was about the process of determination. He was not informed about the determination process on his land and says that is a legal requirement. He is very upset with us and our consultant for not contacting him for the required permissions. I have since read the NOD again and it talks about Lyman ROW only. So technically it was a valid process but not for the area outside the existing row. We have 2 choices: 1. redo the determination process to include all wetland areas within the construction limits and get permission from the land owners as required. 2. Acquire the land first and then do the remaining determination. I say we try number 1. first. 4. I sent an email to the City requesting the NOD be suspended. B. Rick and Jeff continue to talk about the road design. They are very upset about the alignment of Sunset. I said I was still looking into it. They asked if the County would consider a total buyout of 1330 Lyman and eliminate the expense of the driveway, easements, retaining wall. I told them we would look into the cost factors of this before we entertained it. Nate we need to add this to the list of outstanding items. C. They rehashed the 100% commercial retail land use thing with the aim to justify the Ri-Rout. I told them I did not have the info available for this with me. I will take a look at this again. I told them they would need a traffic study to show this as I recall ours said it did not have a significant benefit to traffic operations. They mentioned a City Traffic Engineer said 2 accesses to a proposed large retail site were not enough. That summarizes my discussion. Lyndon Robjent, P.E. | Division Director, County Engineer | Carver County Public Works 11360 Highway 212, Suite 1, Cologne, MN 55322 Tel: 952.466.5206 | Fax: 952.466.5223 lrobjent@co.carver.mn.us “The unauthorized disclosure or interception of e-mail is a federal crime. See 18 U.S.C. SEC. 2517(4). This e-mail is intended only for the use of those whom it is addressed and may contain information which is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the law. If you have received this e-mail in error, do not distribute or copy it. Return it immediately to the sender with attachments, if any, and notify the sender by telephone.”