Loading...
5. Oak Ponds/Oak Hill Site Plan/Development Contract.I MEMORANDUM it 1 CITY OF � CHAXHASSEK 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator DATE: January 17, 1996 SUBJ: Oak Ponds Development - Tree Removal Request On January 3, the Planning Commission. recoi an oak tree from the Oak Ponds development. 1995. At that meeting the Planning Commiss walls and renderings of such walls. At the sec approved with an additional comment by Corr wall as an option for preserving the tree. AWN 6y C1W AdmintStlito� Re je.^ted -- _,_ Date Submitted to Comnissiori it ^tF S to Council approval of applicant's request to remove n was initially heard on December 6, cted additional information on retaining ing, the request for removal was ,Skubic to explore a terraced retaining Staff still advocates the preservation of the`tree due to the °h the banks. However, issues to considet,if the tree is remove planted as replacements as well as the° amount of grading th; conditions, staff recommended that ° at least half of the replac oak species. A same- species.reptacement requirement is ap: value of the species lost, A"specified minimum caliper inch insure a suitable size ofthe..trees replaced y Councal may wp recommends all planting be.guaranteed.for-a minimum of tv lth of the tree and the stability of include the size and species to be will be allowed. In the original ment planting inches be from an opriate in this case due to the high ;placement was also necessary to t0'require a larger minimum. Staff Grading on the site should tie limited to removing 5 feet or less of the knoll area`only. Height reduction will be necessary to effectively. "slope the side banks, but:retaiiiiiig the natural rise will also be possible. As stated in the conditions, other trees' within the island are not to be affected by the re- grading of the site. RECOMMENDATION ' Staff's initial choice is to recommend the City Council deny the applicant's request and require a retaining wall to be constructed around the oak. 1 F1 Don Ashworth ' January 17, 1996 Page 2 ' If the City Council supports the applicant's request, staff recommends that the City Council ' adopt the following motion (with staff additions in bold): "The City Council approves the request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds with the I following conditions: 1. The applicant is to replace the required twenty -nine inches of plantings with species I native to this area. A replacement planting plan must be submitted for approval. 2. Staff work with the applicant to get a mix of conifer and deciduous trees for the ' replacement plantings. Half of the replacement plantings, 14.5 inches, are to be oaks each of which have a minimum of 1.5 inches caliper. All plantings are to be guaranteed for two years. , 3. Spacing of all deciduous or evergreen plantings shall be a minimum of 25 feet. 4. Grading imits shall not encroach upon the dri lines of surrounding trees. Tree ' g p p g preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits. Erosion control fence, Type I, ' shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits and maintained until the site is fully re- vegetated. Reduction in total elevation of existing knoll will be five feet or less. ' 5. All disturbed areas shall be sodded." ATTACHMENTS ' 1. Planning Commission report dated January 3, 1996 ' 2. Planning Commission minutes dated January 3, 1996 3. Planning Commission report dated November 29, 1995 4. Planning Commission minutes dated December 6, 1995. 5. Drawings. 1 n MEMORANDUM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator DATE: January 3, 1996 SUBJ: Oak Ponds Development - Tree Removal Request At the December 6th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission tabled the request of the Oak Ponds Development to remove an oak tree. Members of the Commission requested that the applicant submit color renderings and alternative fo s r =wall materials and safety precautions for children. W The safety issue associated with the height addressed by city or state laws or regulatio limitations of a wall nor any safety feature: safety does not have any rules or regulatiol ' walls either. There are no state laws dealir property owner. J Fthe wall, while an important one, is not specifically There are no city ordinances that cover height hat must be installed because of height. Public associated with the height and safety of retaining with this issue so it is solely a personal issue for the Since the banks of the cut have not crumbled, fallen, or sloughed off more than what could be expected of an exposed cut, it is safe to say that the slopes are stable and that there are a variety of walls that could be installed. The limiting factor is the amount of bank removal needed to install a wall on the. tallest side which is the south., Elimin4ting,another 5 feet or more of the bank would further testahe ability of the tree to withstand root'removal. It is impossible to say with absolute certainty what" effect additional root removal would have on the oak, but it is safe to say that the more roots that are removed the greater the chance of a visible negative impact. The types of walls that could be installed and their probable impacts are as follows: Boulder or rock wall: not engineered, nocuts into existing bank needed, structurally acceptable to a height of ten feet because bank is stable. Keystone wall: engineered, 5 -7' cut required into bank to install geogrids which help to stabilize wall. Poured concrete wall: engineered, 5' cut required into bank to install footing. Planning Commission January 3, 1996 Page 2 The applicant has submitted drawings depicting alternatives with and without the tree. In both drawings it should be noted that there is a sidewalk present on the north and west sides. Any retaining wall or grading could begin at the curb on the south side. Presently there is 8 feet from the curb to bank and it is possible to build a retaining wall at curbside as depicted in the rendering. This method of construction would greatly reduce the need to cut into the bank. RECOMMENDATION Staff's initial choice is to recommend that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request and require a retaining wall to be constructed around the oak. If the Planning Commission supports the applicant's request, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is to replace the required twenty -nine inches of plantings with species native to this area. A replacement planting plan must be submitted for approval. 2. Half of the replacement plantings, 14.5 inches, are to be oaks each of which must have a minimum of 1.5 inches caliper. 3. Spacing of all deciduous or evergreen plantings shall be a minimum of 25 feet. 4. Grading limits shall not encroach upon the driplines of surrounding trees. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits. Erosion control fence, Type I, shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits and maintained until the site is fully re- vegetated. All disturbed areas shall be sodded. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission minutes dated December 6, 1995. 2. Renderings. i C L J ' Planning - g Meeting January 3, 1996 1 Conrad: Okay, I hear you. Okay. So if I made a motion, excuse me for chit chatting here ' but if I made a motion just to table, what kind of direction, without the points, which I don't want to have in there, do we have enough direction based on what we said? ' Aanenson: In summary, the two points are street grades and future access. Trying to resolve that and I think that's the direction you give us, or the applicant. ' Conrad: Okay, then I'd recommend, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend tabling the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -20 for the 12 lots and whatever ' so that staff and the developer can come back and resolve the street grade issue as well as the future access issue to the property to the east. ' Farmakes: Motion's been made. Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning ommission table the nelimin g p a,y plat for Subdivision 495 -20 so that staff and the applicant can resolve the shleet grade and future ' access to the property to the east issues. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. ' CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR OAK PONDS /OAK HILL SITE PLAN /DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD JUST NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET. Public Present: I Name Address Drew Clausen 7717 Nicholas Way Dean Johnson 8984 Zachary Lane ' .Fill Sinclair presented a slide presentation and the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Did we ever get an answer in regards to the public safety issue? ' Sinclair: Yeah. I talked to Bob Zydowsky, the public safety officer, and additionally to Steve Kirchman in the building, and there are no rules or regulations pertaining to safety ' treatments of walls. It doesn't matter how high the wall is. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: But do we take a position of common sense. Obviously if we create a 30 or 40 foot wall with no barrier to it in a residential area, common sense would tell us that that might be a danger. Sinclair: Sure, although their point was if it's on private property, it is their responsibility and it would be the applicant's responsibility to use common sense to put a wall on his property. Farmakes: So as in the report, it's a fielder's choice situation? Sinclair: Basically. Farmakes: That might be grounds for something future for us to look at. It's a little concerning. This is a continuation of a public hearing. If the applicant wants to make a statement, please feel free. It's a continuation and we've already done it once so if you could keep it as brief as you can so we can continue on to the other items. Dean Johnson: My name is Dean Johnson. I'm the builder and developer of the Oak Ponds project. I talked before you approximately 2 -3 weeks ago... At that time they asked us to, the commissioners asked us to do a couple renderings to give you an idea of what the wall would look like and possibly change... There is a bit of difference between what you saw on the slide and what's being done on the drawing there. The drawing is a little bit incorrect. I don't think that really impacts as much out on the front. The nose of the wall here, the curve is actually out in front of where the wall would be 4 to 5 feet. But as you go along Nicholas Way here, the wall, in order to not or to take the minimum amount of-would have to be tight to the curb so one difference that I noticed in the photos that were up, were in fact all of these walls were set back from the trees... change grade going up from it. There'd be plantings in front which you're going to be able to take away some of the impact of this tall wall, like... Here we end up with this situation of not trying to take ... end up building this wall just flat up against the curb. It's going to be straight and then we're going to be going straight up ... so in a Keystone wall here...10 foot high wall which I think we'd pretty much agree that that's the height that is needed. You would have ... layers of Keystone. The alternative is to take and round the hill down. I showed layouts to the artist... artist that actually lives in Chanhassen and this is kind of what he came up with. He didn't place the trees per anything. He just knew that we had to do at least caliper inch replacement so provided that it was 29 inches, he drew in what he felt was 4 to 6 inch trees on top of this... So that's the difference between this wall here and the trees. Also too the wall is done ... Maybe not quite coming up Santa Vera where Jill's picture showed where... sidewalk along the south side of Santa Vera... I guess I do want to comment as the landowner on it, I do want to comment that even if I'm the landowner on this site ... I really want to make sure that whatever I do on this site, that I... I think that's all I have to say. Any questions? 11 L L 0 I ' Planning ommission Meeting - g t g January 3, 1996 ' Farmakes: Any questions? Okay, thank you. Since this is a continuation of a public hearing, are there any other people wishing to make comments in regards to this issue? Come forward and state your name and address. I I I I Drew Clausen: Good evening. Drew Clausen, 7717 Nicholas Way. It is a continuation. I will be brief. I'm President of the Oak Hills Townhouse Association. As a matter of fact, I don't know how easily it would be to take that last slide back up there. There you go. That's practically the view out from my deck so not only am I president, I'm also affected by the view. There was another photo that showed the tree in total, and I just want to speak to a couple of key points. There you go, even though it's fuzzy you can see the right hand side, the lower main branch going out to the east. Last year that main branch had no leaves on it. One of the reasons why I noticed it is that I have a 10 year old son. Who here has ever been 10 years old? I think all of us. Dangling from that branch playing Tarzan. The reason that Dean is here today is basically because of the people, the residents. I think he was prepared to build whatever kind of wall was mandated here about a year ago and we asked him not to because we took a vote as an association, and by a vote of 2/3, of roughly 3 to 1, we decided we didn't want a wall. A lot of people have children. Most of us moved in this past summer and that whole island there was filled with children. It's a great place to play but we also have to make it safe. Jeff, you spoke the most brilliant thing I've heard all night. Even though there are no city ordinances, no safety regulations, no state laws, let's talk about common sense. Again, how many people have been 10 years old? This is an open invitation to climb and everything else and somebody's going to get hurt. There isn't any cushion below There's no, there would be practically no slope. Somebody here also mentioned on a previous issue we had to look 30 -40 years out. I don't know how much an extra 5 foot cut would cause that tree to suffer but somebody 20 or 30 years from now is going to look around and have to take that tree down and say you know, who did this? And I think it would be just as beautiful, just as ecologically sound, environmentally sound if we took down the tree, sloped the hill down, replaced it with the appropriate trees that 20 or 30 years from now will be just as beautiful, if not more beautiful than the existing tree. So I think it's a safety issue. The residents there are really would like the issue resolved and I think that Dean is working cooperatively with the city and we'll hope for a resolution to the issue. Thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Any other comments? Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Peterson moved, Comnd seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Don? 12 I Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Mehl: Yeah, I've got some comments. We've got a tree here that's probably older than the Gettysburg Address. Been around a long time. If it's been, some things bother me too. This tree has been an important feature in the community in that it's, number one it's old. And number two, it's on probably one of the highest points in the county. But for whatever reason it's suddenly not, the tree is located where it was supposed to have been and the elevation heights are different than what the elevations were supposed to have been. So suddenly we're faced with you know, what are we going to do with this thing. I went out there and I sat there and stared at it today and tried to envision that wall and I question whether this drawing is proportionally correct. My recollection of what it looks like is that wall would actually appear a lot higher than what's depicted on the drawing here. I believe at the last meeting somebody already mentioned that instead of fence up there we could put some shrubbery and on the surface I think sounds good but unless you make that stuff thick enough and prickly enough, you know kids are going to get into it. And that wall I know is going to be vertically 11 feet tall and sloped is probably about 13 or 14 feet of surface on it. And I agree that there's an unseen sign here that says, climb me. I've raised two kids and my son, he's busted two collar bones and broke a thumb and gotten two concussions because he's done things that he shouldn't have been doing you know. And I can see somebody climbing from the bottom up on this thing and it's a long ways down when you're skidding down on your face. And I've got a problem from a safety standpoint. On the other hand, I look at this drawing and I've got a problem with that too. That surface area I don't think is big enough to support all those trees that are shown. What happens when those trees fully mature, you know. They can't be that close together. So I've got a suggestion I'd like to run by you. First of all I think from a safety standpoint, I think we have to remove the tree. I really do. What I would suggest is that we would build a Keystone wall 3 or 4 feet high, at it's highest point, which would be in the southwest corner here because I think the Keystone wall looks kind of neat. And if we were to continue that around it would of course gradually decrease in height because the, around to the north and east you've got an increasing street grade elevation. And then shave off the top of that hill with some low creeping junipers around the upper edge. Back those up with some 3 to 4 feet tall ornamental shrubs and then junipers and perhaps in the center of it with 2 or 3 ornamental trees like an elm or an maple or something like that who would get nice fall colors and... foliage and fast growing. In doing all this you still have the wall, which I think kind of looks neat but if it were scaled way down like this, we're not going to have the safety problems and I agree, I don't know how much longer that tree would survive up there. Those are my thoughts. Farmakes: Alright. Bob. Skubic: I have a question of staff. Are we convinced that there is not sufficient room between the curb and the beginning of the cut to do any terracing to say break it at 5 feet at one elevation? 13 0 7 0 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Hempel: That's correct. Sinclair: Do you remember what the distance is between the curb and bank? Was it 8 feet? Skubic: Excuse me, did you say 8 feet? Sinclair: 8 feet, yeah. Skubic: And whatever wall we put up will require most of that for a pitch. Hempel: The Keystone wall design, for like a 10 foot high wall, would require 3 to 4 geogrids tied back into the earth 5 to 6 feet, at 3 to 4 different levels in the wall. So if you build it at the face of the curb you have 8 feet back to the existing bank so essentially you're not taking any more roots of the tree. If you do start back say 3 feet behind the curb, then you're right at that 5 foot zone. You may even have to encroach another foot into the existing bank. So maybe there may be some flexibility to leave a foot or two behind the curb before the wall starts. This street is a private street. The city doesn't maintain it. The homeowners association does. So from that standpoint I guess, we don't have to ... snow storage standpoint... Skubic: My thoughts are to start it at the curb and build it up to 5 feet and then put a terrace ' on to say 3 feet back so you have two 5 foot sections there. Make it, improve the safety of the wall and perhaps it terraces also. ' Hempel: That may be a possibility. I'd have to consult a designer of a Keystone wall to see if that was feasible. Skubic: Thank you. It's unfortunate it didn't turn out as planned that the cut is so close to the curb and that the cut is 10 feet high. It doesn't appear to be any obvious, there doesn't seem to be a good way of fixing it at this point without creating a hazard or further endangering the tree. And I appreciate the photographs you brought in Jill. That helps considerably to visualize this better. The photographs show some, I think some real good looking walls. However those walls are in most cases several hundred feel long and quite a bit, not as tall as this one. I think the aspect ratio of this one is going to make for a seemingly very tall wall so I don't think appearances are going to be very sightly either. So unless this can be terraced to decrease a safety hazard, I guess I would vote for removing the tree and I think Don had an excellent idea there. How to set... Farmakes: Thank you. Craig. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Peterson: One more question for Jill. If we were to put a Keystone wall in as depicted here, if you had to make an educated guess as to how much that would lower the probability of a tree lasting or ... can you tell me that percentage point? Sinclair: If you started the Keystone wall at the curb and went up, what kind of step were you looking at from bottom to top? Hempel: Well it's an 8 foot set back from the curb 10 foot so it's, 1 to 1 approximately. Sinclair: It would affect it very low percentage because you wouldn't end up cutting back any further than it is and you know, the foot or two that we may have to go in, it's already been exposed to dry soil and stuff so. Peterson: It could enhance it because we build around it and keep the water back. Sinclair: Yeah, if you started at the curb... Peterson: Well, I struggled with this one too. I went out there and stared it at for a while myself. And I'm not comfortable with the wall being as it is from a safety perspective, and I think from an aesthetic perspective it just doesn't do it for me either. So I was hoping Jill would say that it wouldn't lower the probability of the tree ... she didn't do that so it makes my decision harder but I think it still would offer the opinion that we would remove the tree and do some type of replanting... Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Ladd. Conrad: I'm not going to vote on this Mr. Chairman but I'd just ask the Planning Commissioners, you know my perspective on this, it's too bad we've got the situation but the solution is not very attractive. In fact it's a strange solution. Plus it creates some other problems so I guess I'd just request that you spend your time thinking about the right fix in terms of how it looks. In terms of the size trees, and I'm not sure this, you can do that but I don't think the developer has presented exactly what I'd like to see there. I think it's good for comparisons but it's not what I'd like to see so I think this is a prominent feature of the plat, or the project. It's not going to be there so I think you should take the opportunity to make it a real cornerstone of the project. Farmakes: So you feel that the option that city staff was suggesting is not adequate? Conrad: The retaining wall in any form, and I like what Jill did but it looks ridiculous. It's way out of, it's a monument to a tree that's just real strange, you know. It's too bad it's been 15 1 . n ' Planning g Commission Meeting January 3, 1996 there for a year and a half. When you drive through the property, it's real bad looking. Let's ' fix it but putting a wall there Jeff, I don't care if it's boulders or something we all like, it's not going to fix the visual. It's just not going to do it. ' Farmakes: I was referring to the, under the recommendation or the alternative if we remove the tree. ' Conrad: Yeah, I think it was on a caliper basis but again, I'd look for some, I don't know. I guess I'd look for some green, something green there year round. I'm just not sure how it ' should be but I'm not real sure that in the staff report that's what I wanted. I guess I'd like to see at least 8 big trees there. ' Farmakes: Putting in larger trees to replace it? Conrad: Yeah, but I guess again I'm not sure what I'm talking about and again, I'm not going ' to vote on this one so you know, but I guess I'd prefer to spend some time, or direct staff to make sure that what we get is something that's really attractive. Farmakes: The reason I'm trying to pin you down is that, we all seem to have a different opinion here so far. Are you done? I'll make my comments on this. I have no argument with what was just said. It seems the alternative would be, it almost looks like a monument to a tree. If there were other trees or the area was larger, then I think the solution would be maybe more obvious. Apparently tonight we're not going to have any obvious solutions to anything. I'm concerned about the safety issue. I'll bring up the reason why. Normally we ' don't deal with safety issues or talk about that. We try to stay clear of that because nobody up here, at least that I know of, is a safety expert but I do know that the city, it's on private ' property. They comment they were saying, well it's on private property. The city makes safety requirements all the time on private property. If I build a deck out the back of my house, it's 30 inches off the ground, the city requires me to put a very specific type of railing on it. But the idea that if you inhabit this particular area, you might fall off or somebody that comes into your house might fall off that 30 inches. In some of these cases we're looking at areas... in a landscape area but they're in an added area and it, they're part of an engineering ' situation. It's not a natural event. And certainly if there are children playing up there and looking at boy, I'd be scared to death if my kid was hanging off one of those branches above that area. My daughter, when I got out of a parking lot over by the Vikings office, there was ' a Keystone wall, and it goes up about maybe 15 feet. She was just making about 12 when I turned around and noticed her stepping up on top to get up to the top and I have real concerns about what I see here. This maybe is pointing out something to us in regards to ' these walls that we should be a little bit more concerned about, in some cases, in the area what type of slopeage we're looking at or how we terrace them. I know on some issues we 7 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 1 have looked at that where we've terraced them but I thought maybe we'd have more to define that requirement on that and I see that we don't. I'm not sure what to proceed here. I guess ' my thoughts on here is that, I'm not sure that there's any solutions to save this tree. Or a logical solution. One of the commissioners feels that if you were to reconfigure, or look at reconfiguring. A few others feel that maybe there isn't a way to save this tree but anyway, ' we'll put that out I guess for a vote. Does somebody want to make a motion here? Peterson: I guess I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends the ' approval or request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds subject to the conditions 1 through 5 with, how do we amend that? Subject to the condition that staff work with the applicant in providing a more aesthetic and safety minded resolution to what is currently ' being presented. Is that too vague for staff? Sinclair: Kind of ' Farmakes: I don't know if it's appropriate for me to make a comment while you're making a motion but it seems to me we're looking at two things. Either we remove the tree or we don't ' remove the tree, and then one or the other, how do we deal with the issue of the landscaping. And I know that one was a part of your other motion and I'm not sure if the staff has a recommendation, if we want to modify that, then we should modify that recommendation. Peterson: I'll just leave the motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ' removal of a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds without conditions. And then add under the motion, as far as specifying, staff can work with the applicant to develop a new replacement plan for the tree. Essentially that may even be tabling it and bringing it back with another option but... Farmakes: I'm not sure without conditions that we're giving them any direction on what to do ' once the tree has been removed. We still have the abutment and, we could table it. That's another issue so I'm not sure if we'd be voting, cutting the tree down is only part of the issue. Peterson: I think the only concern I have with this is, outside the motion now, is the necessity of the conditions or that staff is recommending that the replacements be a specific type and 14.5 inches, and a 1.5 inch caliper minimum. I guess I would simply like to see a ' better alternative than what is being presented and whether that is, as one of the previous engineers mentioned, a lower retaining wall with more of an evergreen style on top so that it is, it does have a feel, it does have a presence within the area. ' Farmakes: So you'd like to see them review 2? Of the recommendation. 17 1 n n Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Peterson: Yes. That probably is the closest we can get tonight. Farmakes: 1, 3, 4 and 5 then as is? Peterson: Yes. With that I would approve the motion with the exception of number 2. Farmakes: And then that would be that the staff review that issue to look at alternatives for evergreens working with that, is that correct? Peterson: Yes. Farmakes: Okay. Motion's been made. Is there a second? Mehl: I'll second it. Peterson moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to remove the 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds with the following conditions: 1. The applicant is to replace the required twenty -nine inches of plantings with species native to this area. A replacement planting plan must be submitted for approval. 2. Staff work with the applicant to get a mix of conifer and deciduous trees for the replacement plantings. 3. Spacing of all deciduous or evergreen plantings shall be a minimum of 25 feet 4. Grading limits shall not encroach upon the drip lines of the surrounding trees. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits. Erosion control fence, Type I, shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits and maintained until the site is fully re- vegetated. 5. All disturbed areas shall be sodded. All voted in favor; except Skubic who opposed and Conrad who abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1 and 1 abstention. Farmakes: Would you like to make any comments? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Skubic: Yeah, I just would feel that terracing it should be explored a little bit under the remote chance that we could come up with a plan here that preserves the tree and also provides for a safer environment. Farmakes: Alright, thank you. Drew Clausen: I know maybe I'm not supposed to say anything but what was just approved? Farmakes: What was just approved was that we made a recommendation to the City Council, based on the staff report. We have 3 to 1, with 1 abstention voted on the second issue of the recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend the approval for the request to remove the 29 inch oak. We modified 2 to, you'll have to check the exact Minutes. Off the top of my head explaining to you that the mix of plantings be modified than what is recommended here and that staff work that out to basically mix some evergreen situation with the deciduous trees. This issue will go before the City Council then with our recommendation and then they have the final decision. If you want to check with that, check with staff as to when that's going to City Council, we'll let you know. TED DELANCEY FOR A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.9 ACRES INTO 9 LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED AT 7.505 FRONTIER TRAIL, LOTUS GLEN Public P»esent: Name Address Andrew Hiscox Ted & Kathy deLancey Charles R. Stinson Dwight Jelle 7500 Erie Avenue 7505 Frontier Trail Minnetonka Eden Prairie Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Does anyone have any questions of staff? Peterson: How substantially would the houses have to be moved away from the bluff ..? Generous: It was just a quarter of that one on Lot 4, is it? This lot right here, that was in the setback area so they couldn't ... And otherwise, all the other building pads were outside of that side area. 19 ILI MEMORANDUM: CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern DATE: November 29, 1995 SUBJ: Tree Removal Request, Oak Ponds Development BACKGROUND Oak Ponds is a medium - density development that began Existing on site was a significant stand of oak trees, all c significance in the community. One of the critical issue; the preservation of the oak trees. Currently, at issue is tl approximately 6 -12 feet above grade and is a prominent to the development contract, the applicant was required 1 if removed. The applicant chooses to remove one of the the planning and construction processes of the developm be brought before the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS grading and construction in 1992. f which had visual and historical in the review of this development was e presence of a large oak that sits .eature at the west entrance. According save the tree or replace it inch for inch c)ak trees and due to its prominence in ;nt, staff feels that such a request should In spite of the large�exposed cut that occurred during the grading process in 1992, the roots of the oak have not dried "out and the tree is in good condition. The 29 -inch white oak'dbes have some dead wood in the crown which should have been pruned out, but overall the tree is healthy and structurally sound. Estimates as to the age of the tree would run about 125 - 175 years old. White oaks have a life expectancy of 300+ years, so by no means is the tree near the end of its life. _. A retaining wall that was to be installed nearly two years ago would have improved the appearance of the site as well as protect the roots and retain moisture. The applicant began constructing a keystone wall in 1994 which, since it was over 4 feet in height, must be engineered and approved by the city. A keystone type of retaining wall requires tie backs as far ' back into the bank as the wall is high. Therefore, due to the additional root damage that would Oak Ponds Development November 29, 1995 Page 2 have occurred the wall construction was stopped. Since that time, estimates for boulder retaining walls have been taken. A boulder wall would not have to be engineered nor would it be necessary to cut further into the hill to install. However, there are no guarantees that the wall would be structurally sound. The price per foot was also comparable to a keystone wall. However, a twelve foot high wall of any type of material is unusual and could be a safety hazard without precautionary amendments, such as a fence. Presently, the tree sits atop a pedestal which is 12 feet high on the south side and can be easily seen from Highway 5. By removing that oak, the community will lose a symbol of its past and the development reduces its namesake oaks by one. An alternative to removing the tree is to install a poured concrete wall with rock facing. This type of wall would be structurally sound and cause only minimal damage to the roots. A fence on the south side where the height difference is the greatest would prevent safety hazards. Vines, rock facing, and other landscaping materials would break up the west facing wall and make it more attractive and less imposing from the Powers Boulevard entrance. The applicant has submitted a grading and landscape replacement plan. The required rate of replacement for trees removed at Oak Ponds is 1:1 and the applicant has met that by designing a landscape that includes 29 inches of white pines and hawthorns. Staff does not feel these species adequately replace the loss of a native white oak. The variety of hawthorn chosen is not native to this area nor is it appropriate considering the oak theme of the development. Staff recommends that if the applicant's request for removal is granted, all replacement inches be from native species and that at least half the inches be represented by oaks. Spacing of the plantings is also of concern. As drawn, the white pines are to be planted approximately 12 feet apart. These trees can be expected to grow 80 to 100 feet high and have a crown spread of 50 to 80 wide. Twelve foot spacing is not adequate for these trees. RECOMMENDATION Staff's initial choice is to recommend Planning Commission deny the applicant's request and require a concrete wall to be constructed around the oak. If the Planning Commission supports the applicant's request, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds with the following conditions: The applicant is to replace the required twenty -nine inches of plantings with species native to this area. n 7 Oak Ponds Development November 29, 1995 Page 3 2. Half of the replacement plantings, 14.5 inches, are to be oaks each of which must have a minimum of 1.5 inches caliper. 3. Spacing of all deciduous or evergreen plantings shall be between 20 and 30 feet. 4. Grading limits shall not encroach upon the driplines of surrounding trees. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the grading limits. Erosion control fence, Type I, shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits and maintained until the site is fully re- vegetated. 5. All disturbed areas shall be sodded. ATTACHMENTS 1. Survey elevation 2. Letter from applicant CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ' DECEMBER 6, 1995 Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave a brief description of 1 how the meeting would be conducted. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Jeff Farmakes, Bob Skubic, Nancy Mancino, and , Mike Meyer MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Don Mehl ' STAFF PRESENT: Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; John Rask, Planner I; Bob Generous, ' Planner II; Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern; and Kate Aanenson, Planning Director PUBLIC HEARING: ' CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR OAK PONDS /OAK HILL SITE PLAN /DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD, JUST NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET ' Public Present: Name Address Dean Johnson Applicant Alan Brown 7659 Nicholas Way Drew Clausen Oak Hill Homeowners Association Jill Sinclair presented the staff i-epoit on this item. Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners to Jill? My only question Jill, now this I was a project that began and commenced grading in 1992? So that tree has withstood. Sinclair: Yeah. A good two full seasons. Throughout all of this, since it has gone through ' two seasons where it's had exposed roots, you know whole summers, and it's still, if there's any damage to be done, you could have seen it this last summer and it still looks really healthy. In spite of the that. Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? ' Dean Johnson: Hello. My name is Dean Johnson. I'm the builder and the developer of the Oak Ponds project. I think the request that I'm making here, more has to do with the fact that �I U 1 the tree is, due to topog problems and due to a mistake in location of where the tree was when the tree survey was done of the site, has ended up closer to things and higher to things than what was originally anticipated by our grading plan and by the engineer. We ended up being, originally I believe the grading plan showed like a 7 to an 8 foot height of this tree above the road. It's more like 10 -10 1/2 feet. We also have the tree being closer to the road than what was anticipated so more or less what ended up happening is what we thought was going to be a workable situation, we thought we were going to be far enough away from the tree, turned out not to be true. Whether the tree surveyor made a mistake, if the topog was a little bit wrong. Irregardless, the situation has arose where now the tree is farther to the south than what was anticipated and the grade is higher than what was anticipated. So in trying to deal with this and not trying to cut any more roots, we went about putting up a Keystone Wall that was ... not fully engineered. What I mean by that is, we could not put the recommended amount of construction behind this wall to match the engineering recommendations of a Keystone wall without cutting farther back into the bank, which would have cut farther back into the roots. Again the tree was thought to be farther north. The 7 or 8 foot wall we thought we were going to deal with, this wasn't expected to be a problem. We ended up building part of the wall actually and then got stopped. The Building Department stopped it because it did not meet all of the, did not meet the requirements of the specifications of the manufacturers basically is what ended up happening. It kind of was started because everybody's best opinion was, including the landscaper building the wall, who had 22 years of experience doing this type of work, thought it would work. Felt that since the tree had stood, and the bank has stood for 2 years. Actually at that time a year and a half, that we weren't looking at a real pressure situation on the wall. That the dirt, being it's clay, would self support to a degree. It's already proven that it has. And that the wall could be put in such a way, even though that it lacks some of the engineering, would still stand and be alright. It ended up not happening. We ended up looking at other alternatives with the staff and staffs help. We looked at boulder walls. Boulder walls cannot be engineered at all. There's no such a thing as an engineered boulder wall because there's no way of knowing what the surfaces that are going to be in contact, specific weights, friction, all sorts of different things end up coming into play with the boulder wall. There's just too many variables so a boulder wall didn't end up being any better type of solution to it. Because of the staff report I looked into doing a poured concrete wall was one of the recommendations or request of the staff. I talked to an engineer by the name of John Dahlmeier that is actually used by the City of Chanhassen. Does a lot of work for the building officials, Steve Kirchman and Steve Turrell and those types of people. He looked into putting this poured wall up. Felt that there would have to be, from the back of the wall to the end of the footings that would support this wall, there would have to be 5 feet of distance basically and what you're looking at is an L shaped affair. Putting the plat of ground with the wall coming up vertically out of it but you need the weight of the dirt on top of the footing to stop the wall from tipping out. So we'd end up having to cut 5 more feet in, back to possibly damaging, or not possibly, probably damaging roots. Also probably you have a bit of an alternative there. I guess I'm not really prepared to speak fully about it but if we can dig 5 foot farther into the bank, it probably would have continued on with the Keystone wall because we probably would have been fairly close ... doing that. Because of all these 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 problems, because of the height, that's really what caused us to bring this back. We have found that trying to put this wall in has turned out to be, turned out to take more space, turned out to get it in properly to any type of an engineering requirement is going to cause cutting closer to that tree... probably losing the tree is what we're getting back from the different people. I did address it to the Homeowners Association to see what they would like on it. This is the Oak Hill Homeowners Association. The President of the Association is here so I'll let him speak as to what their feelings on the tree was. That's kind of where it ended up being and maybe what we should do is bring it back to you people. Bring it back with a plan where we do take the tree but we do replace it on a caliper inch basis which was originally in the development contract and I guess we'd like to hear wisdom on it and guidance on the thing. I guess I'd like to introduce Drew Clausen who is the President of our Homeowners Association. Mancino: If he could wait and speak during the public hearing, that would be fine. Dean Johnson: Oh, okay. Mancino: Mr. Johnson I have a question. In that area, is that a dedicated green space or the park area for the development where the tree sits at this point? Dean Johnson: When that area was, when preliminary plat was first approved, there were apartments, if you remember on the north side of Santa Vera. There was going to be 101 apartment units and the plan was to put a pool in that area that the apartment building would own and operate. If the townhome association wanted to, the right to use the pool or... so to speak of the maintenance costs... That what was approved. What ended up happening though is through negotiations with the city and through negotiations with the seniors, the senior site became developed beyond that location. And with needing the densities of those apartment buildings in order to ... in other words if I were to build the apartment buildings and the senior site, we would have been over densities in the area and so between, in negotiations and being that I am a for sale townhome builder, I agreed to build the townhouses. They ended up basically swapping density with the senior site. With that there became nobody to own and manage the pool area anymore. There's no one entity like an apartment to do it. Now you have an association. You have two different associations. Nobody to build it. Put it into the ... mortgage for it or do anything of those types of things so a pool basically came out of existence. So basically what's happening, not to talk too much longer here, is that I ended up owning it and right at the moment nothing's been decided... Mancino: Okay, but it is staying a green area at this point with the rest of the oaks that are there and a trail system through it? 3 U Imo 7— �1 Planning ommission Meeting eeting - December 6, 1995 ' Dean Johnson: The trail's already through it. The only thing is it's a private piece of ground and ... Any other questions? ' Mancino: Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Thank you. Farmakes: I have a question for our engineer. The city has several boulder walls. How do boulder walls become so unstable? Hempel: Boulder walls that you see in place are put in by private developers like Lundgren ' and so forth. They're on private property. They're owned and maintained by either homeowners association or private property owner. Those walls generally are 7 feet or less and they've fared pretty well. I've only noticed a couple areas that have failed and the development's gone back and repaired those. These have been withstanding pretty well. Getting in the 10 foot high range of the boulder walls, we're a little uncomfortable with that. They're not engineered. Reliance on landscapers who have been doing it for a while and their expertise in it, it was felt there may be some liability with that... Farmakes: So it's the height primarily and then with the, is the issue? Hempel: That and then also applying a fence on top of that retaining wall. Mancino: Then I have another question to piggy back on that. I have also seen on Lake Lucy, on the northern side of Lake Lucy between Yosemite and that Shadow Lane area, there is a limestone wall... which is higher than 7 feet I'm pretty sure and it has been put together with cement and limestone so it's stable but I'm sure it has no support, other type of support and it seems to be holding. It's been there for years and years and years. ' Hempel: That wall was installed with the Lake Lucy Road improvement and I believe after the first year or so it did require some repair but after that it's been holding up very well. Mancino: So it has the limestone in the cement. Is that something that engineering would support on a wall this size? And especially since it has settled and I believe it's maintained. i Hempel: As the developer, as Mr. Johnson indicated, it seems like the banks are very stable. During the winter /spring thaw season you do get the frost movement in the ground. Typically you see it in roads too where you get the bumpy surfaces. That's typically what happens with the ... if they're not anchored securely below the frost line. It's very well possible that boulder walls could hold up over time. The true test would be the first and second spring thaw. Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 1 Mancino: Otherwise they could just tear up part of the road. Just kidding. May I have a motion and a second to open for a public hearing please? I Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time on this issue, please come forward. Draw Clausen: Thank you. I'm Drew Clausen, President of the Oak Hill Townhomes Association. And really is just here to speak to one portion of this. Not so much the type of ' wall, keystone versus concrete versus limestone and concrete, which is mortar, but to a large extent the reasons Dean is undergoing this exercise is at our request. When the Association was turned over to the homeowners, at that meeting we asked the status of the wall and Dean ' explained the process he was going through to build a wall and we requested him to stop because of the fact that some of our association members have children. Others have friends who have children who come to play in the summer and our intent in that island is to have that be a recreational area. And I don't know how many of you have 7, 8, 9, 10 year old children but our concern is one of safety. I'm 6 foot 2, 6 foot 3. As I stand there, that's at least an 11 foot drop, possibly higher. There is very little below it. Even with sod it would ' be probably ,lust about 2 foot before you have a concrete curb and an asphalt road and we feel that somebody's going to be climbing on that, fall down and hurt themselves. It really isn't a liability issue. It's more of an issue of just ease of recreational use. We took a vote of our ' association, because we're the ones that really are most affected by the aesthetics of it. It was a 3 to 1 vote, I forget how many, the whole association wasn't there but it was something like ' 35 or 36 to 9 or 10 to request that Dean, through whatever methods are appropriate, ask to have that hill sloped down and replace, take the tree down and replace it with the appropriate trees. I've read the report. There's some discussion on if the Council or the Planning Commission should approve this, what type of trees should go in and again that really isn't what our concern. None of us are in that, that's not our bailiwick in other words. But what we are requesting and urging the Planning Commission and other appropriate bodies is to , grant the request to remove the trees, slope the hill down so it can be used without concern of safety. We also are not desirous of a fence on top of an I1 foot wall. We feel that there's no way that we can imagine to have that be aesthetic, especially when you're talking about again, 7, 8, 9, 10 year old children who are going to be climbing on things and now you've just added more height for them to climb on and fall down. So that is our primary concern. Again we certainly urge the Planning Commission and the Council to grant the request , because we're the homeowners that are going to have to live with the decision. Any questions? Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Peterson moved, Fmmakes seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was closed. Mancino: Comments and questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: I'd like to get a little bit better understanding I guess and the ... but what would a poured wall look like? Would it have a brick facade in front or is it just a piece of gray concrete? Is there a variety of options? Hempel: It would be a cast poured in place type structure similar to what you see on a bridge abutment or something like that. Cosmetic can be added. You can add color to the concrete. You can add a textured wall face more to make it look like a block type wall. It all gets very expensive though. Those are our options available. Peterson: If you had to control the price of a poured concrete with some addition nuances to it versus the ... block, can you give me a ballpark as to what the cost difference would be. Double? Triple? Hempel: Certainly. I'll give you a range. The Keystone or alien type block is in the range of $14.00 - $15.00 a square foot. Similar to a boulder wall, retaining wall. That might be closer to $16.00 a square foot. Poured and capped in place would be in the range of $25.00 to $30.00 per square foot so it is double. Peterson: That was my only question I guess. I'm struggling between the issue of keeping a tree that age that has a long life span versus the request of the neighbors and the owners that live there. I think I have to do some thinking on that a little bit yet. ' Mancino: Would you like me to come back to you? Peterson: Yes. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. ' Farmakes: It's a legitimate safety concern and I've often argued with the statistical safety. It seems to ... common sense but if that's the case, if there is a safety issue, I'd rather have ' children be safe than have a tree saved and I'm sure the city would also, the question seems to me is, is it a safety issue? I'm not going to preport that I'm an expert on that and I think 1 6 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 1 1 that we have a Public Safety Commission and /or city engineers that should respond to that issue. We have plenty of walls around this city and some of them are above 4 feet, 5 feet. I'm not sure we've had that much trouble with people falling off of them. But if there is a legitimate concern, maybe the tree has to go. I'll leave it at that. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. Skubic: I sure would like to see the tree preserved but there certainly are legitimate concerns about safety ... I'd agree with Commissioner that safety has to come first. Also I don't know, it's not clear to me what could be done to make this aesthetically pleasing. I appreciate the details ... but without actually seeing some renderings, I'm not sure what it would look like. When you look at it now it certainly is a very attractive. It sounds like there is ... process of putting up a wall would be further jeopardizing the tree. Audience: Could you speak up? , Skubic: Certainly. In the process of constructing the wall, we might be jeopardizing the tree ' further and after all of our concerted effort we end up not preserving the tree anyway. So I think there's a legitimate amount of concern here and I'm tending to feel that the tree would have to go. ' Mancino: Commissioner Meyer. I Meyer: I have yet the same concerns as Bob and the rest of us. It's safety number one I think is, having a fence on top of that high of a peak there really, I've got a young one too and I can see where your concerns are coming from. Also putting a fence on top of that, I don't know how you can do it and make it look good. It just, it's so close to the road I just don't know. Maybe you could make it look fairly decent but then the tree dies. People 100 years down the road are going to think we were crazy to design that but yeah, that's all the comments I've got. I'm leaning towards taking it down. Mancino: Commissioner Peterson. Any further comments? ' Peterson: I think they do parallel. I think aesthetics is probably my number one concern with safety coming in after that. I think in this case, with the desire to keep trees that age, I would vote to remove it and replace it with the appropriate number of younger trees. Mancino: Okay. Mr. Generous do we, is this something that we ask to see in detailed , renderings on that... structure or wall to be... LJ F� Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Generous: Yes. Mancino: I'd like to do both. I'd like to one, keep the majestic, old oak as obviously the City Council wanted to in 1992 when they asked that it be saved. And secondly I'd like to also make it safe and I think that there are other ways to do that besides a fence at the top. You can certainly put bushes. You can put 3 to 4 foot high junipers that spread and come down over that fence and kids are not going to get in the middle of those junipers or jump off of it. So my recommendation is, I'd like to see it come back with some drawings of what kind of wall would work and even what kind of a safety medium we could use up there besides a fence that would keep young children from... Jump off into the street anyway but are there alternatives that haven't been talked about... So that is kind of where I am going. I have all the concerns that every other commissioner does too but I think there are some other answers than what we're looking at right now. Any other comments by the commissioners? Peterson: Is timing an issue as far as making a decision now? Is postponing it and getting that. Mancino: I would say no. Is that an issue at all? Generous: Not really. Mancino: Okay. It's been up there that long. Is there a motion? Meyer: Is it a motion to table this? Mancino: If you do motion to table it, you can ask them to come back with something. Meyer: Okay. I'll make a motion that we table this then and come back with some renderings. Maybe some different alternatives like Nancy had asked for before... Mancino: Is there a second? Farmakes: I second that. Mancino: Any discussion? Meyer moved, Farmakes seconded to table the request to remove a 29 inch oak from Oak Ponds and ask the applicant to bring back color renderings and alternatives for a wall and safety precautions for children. All voted in favor- and the motion canied. 8 �AVYA' Olt i IR . ei U.40 6 S ..... . . . . . . . �AL Jo w q zr M'i' lip kkk 1_7 :I: TJLjl L �� � 1 •h< ,3�'.i.. .rtr .. �� ✓t k) 1 y .Y' � - .- ...:.. _ '^ I} '� +~/ •Sy a'S ��'� °�.,�, � �WT�� 1i- ... y'- �5� ��dun �... `— . � .f -r .d. eve. r 'y r�+� "•h _t? � I-.' 4 �� �i .-ag. � a ' 7 � r F e i '•r, ;�at�F..t,. d}*'- .�i�P ^� I �� (...' � wr;!S. lb t r_ - s � _ u:.::'"'•,' "�- �/ '� - .� r,•��yyr.. � "�"�t� "• i�.�K' � '�� 7 ' �J•�it "•S�`Lt -- ��• r._, }•�t r : jj > 2, �'>a. '/ i _� i i 1 � r `. i �r�' I s ��a �i)! �� � _4 t±� 2: yY- 1 1 l (' • j }!s , f } j, :�--! .. '�*, =' �9 � � �. � y tl 7 �y r ' � y s te t r� I �f_t 4 �' r ' ` A ) � } P y �. �, � v��R.. ! ; i r4 �, 1��1+ _ -,� S«5"t`".. . .l / It nF vy' : . � w, � •.! -rye �~� �,S ,.Z. 7, , '.: � I t I •��., t✓ ,may 7J , • ; �yh'� t •� �<< q j f ` ,tl+ ,mss p r': N' Y -(