Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
7. Rezoning of 32.5 PUD West of Galpin
1 CITY OF ,t G ::: ::: 11 A H S S ri N ASE #: 93 -2 PUD By: Olsen:v 1 STAFF REPORT 1 PROPOSAL: 1) Rezoning of 32.5 acres of A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, I Planned Unit Development 2) Preliminary Plat to subdivide 32.5 acres into 49 single family lots 3) Wetland alteration permit to fill portions of Ag/Urban Wetlands and to I Z create additional wetland areas Q 0 LOCATION: West side of Galpin Boulevard, approximately/ mile south of Hwy. 5 i :3 a- APPLICANT: Tandem Properties James R. Hill, Inc. 1 Q— Suite 310 Suite 120 Q 7808 Creekridge Circle 2500 West Co. Rd. 42 Bloomington, MN 55439 Burnsville, MN 55337 1 1 PRESENT ZONING: A2, Agricultural Estates 1 ACREAGE. 32.5 acres gross 19.7 acres net (not including streets & wetlands) I DENSI "TY: 1.5 units /acre gross 2.5 units /acre net, _ ,� ,�u A ' ADJACENT ZONING - Q �- —7 AND LAND USE: N - A2; vacant ik':9_-"`�.r - - S - A2; nursery /ag F "'t ' e ' t, I ig E - A2; single family note S — tA[ u'`_+ , r r +f lC .' V ti', W - Chaska I W WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water are currently being extended to the site. 1- PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The property contains two existing single family residences. The 1 subject site is a combination of two separate parcels. The site. contains wetland areas and significant trees. • 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ Trotters Ridge PUD June 16, 1993 ' Page 2 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND 1 The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Residential and to subdivide the site into 49 single family lots. The property is within the MUSA line and can be subdivided into 15,000 square lots. The proposal is for a PUD so that flexibility can be applied to accommodate features of the site (wetland areas, mature vegetation and two existing homes). The proposal meets the requirements for a PUD and staff is recommending approval of the rezoning. The preliminary plat meets the requirements as listed by the PUD ordinance. The lot areas are 11,000 square feet and above, and the average lot area is above 15,000 square feet (17,547 sq. ft.). The applicant is proposing a 50' right -of -way, for w hich the Engineering Department is requesting justification (such as increased tree removal) for reducing the right -of -w ay from 60'. The applicant is saving the majority of the mature trees and will be providing custom grading and custom house pads to work around trees designated for ' preser%ation. The Park and Recreation Commission is requesting dedication of land for passive park use and for the dedication /construction of trails. There are four city protected wetlands on the site which have been classified as Ag/Urban. The applicant is proposing minor alterations to the more degraded wetlands to accommodate usable back yards and buffer /setbacks. Staff is comfortable with the proposed wetland alterations. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning. preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit with the listed conditions. REZONING` PLANNED Unit DEVELOPMENT 1 The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from A2, Agricultural Estates to PUD, Planned Unit Deg elopment. The property was recently brought into the MUSA line with the amendment to the Comprehensi\ e Plan. For the property to be developed as a PUD with smaller lot sizes, the site must be rezoned and utilities must be brought to the site. The city is in the process of extending utilities to the site. The Cit■ ordinance requires the following for a Planned Unit Development ' General Standards A Planned Unit Development allows lot sizes down to a minimum of 11,000 square feet ' (excluding identified wetland areas from lot area calculations). The average lot sizes for the entire PUD shall maintain a minimum area of 15,000 square feet. The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space, and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently approved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a 60' x 40' building pad and a 12'tx 12' deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard of 30'. The rear yard area may not be encumbered by the required home /deck pads or 1 1 1 Trotters Ridge PUD June 16, 1993 Page 3 1 by wetland /drainage easements. It may include areas with steep terrain or tree cover. Additional PUD requirements are as follows: 1 Minimum lot width at building setback - 90' Minimum lot depth - 100' Minimum Setbacks: PUD exterior- 30' Front Yard - 30' Rear Yard - 30' 1 Side Yard - 10' The front and setback may be waived if environmental protection will be enhanced. 1 The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and presen e natural features. A landscape plan providing boulevard plantings, exterior landscaping and rear yard landscaping is required as part of PUD approval. Also, architectural standards are required FI \D1 \GS The applicant is proposing some lot sizes under the typically required 15,000 square feet, reduced 1 right -of -way (50' instead of 60'), variances to wetland regulations and variances to setback requirements. Therefore, the applicant applied for a PUD zoning. The site contains features that lend\ itself to a PUD. The site contains several mature vegetated areas and wetlands. There also are tv.o existing homes which the applicant is planning to keep and must work around. The proposed lot sizes range from 11,000 square feet (net, not including wetland area) to 33,075 square feet (net). These lot areas meet the requirements for a PUD. The applicant has demonstrated that adequate building pads can be located on the lots. The lot width, depth and setbacks required by the PUD regulations are all being met. There are some lots with less than 90' frontage at the front lot line, but which do have the 90' at the building setback. There are also lots w hich will have a reduced front yard setback of 25'. The applicant is proposing to have a 50' right -of -way rather than the required 60' width. The reduced right -of -way reduces the setbacks into the lots and has been used several times with recent developments to limit the amount of alteration to sensitive features of the site. The Engineering Department strongly supports maintaining a 60' right -of -way and unless the applicant can prove that sensitive features are being saved by the reduced right -of -way. The Engineering Department has requested Justification for a 50' right -of -way from the applicant. At the time of writing this report, the applicant has not submitted justification and therefore, the Engineering Department is requesting that the 60' right of way be maintained. 1 1 1 ' Trotters Ridge PUD June 16, 1993 Page 4 The site contains significant vegetated areas. Where vegetation does not exist the applicant is providing landscaping. Specifically, there will be a landscaped buffer area between the proposed lots and Galpin Boulevard and the property to the south. Staff is recommending additional landscape buffering between the westerly lots and the adjacent property which is an industrial ' use and visible from the subject site. Any lot which does not have existing trees must have landscaping provided. The City is considering requiring two overstory trees per lot instead of the one tree per lot. The Lake Susan Hills PUD 9th addition required the applicant to provide two ' overstory trees per lot. Since this proposal is also a PUD, we are requesting that the applicant be required to provide in the front yard two overstory trees per lot for any lot that does not already have two trees in the front yard. The trees have to be from the city list. 1 SU\1N1ARY OF PL'D/REZONING ' The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Residential Low Density, with a net density of 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. The rezoning would be consistent with the designated land use. The proposal meets the requirements of a Planned Unit Development. One of the reasons that the 1 applicant proposed a PUD was to be permitted the reduced right -of -way. The applicant is also using the flexibility for the setbacks and lot areas. If the applicant is not permitted the reduced right -of -w a.. the need for reduced setbacks will be increased and the PUD designation will allow this. The city will be achieving additional landscaping along the perimeter of the site and within the indi\ idual lots. Additionally, the applicant is dedicating an area of land for passive park purposes. This park land will become part of a large park complex that is being assembled by the Lit} o\ er se\ eral parcels. Staff is recommending rezoning the property to PUD - R. PRELIMI \ARY PLAT ' The applicant is proposing to subdivide 32.5 (net) acres into 49 single family lots. The site PP P P g contains 5 wetland areas, mature vegetation and two existing single family residences. The net acreage of the site, once right of way and wetland areas are removed, is 19.7 acres. The gross densit is 1.5 units /acre and the net density is 2.5 units /acre. Both densities are well within the land use designation of residential low density. The lot areas range in size from 11,000 square ' feet (net) to 33,075 square feet (gross). As a PUD, the site can contain lots down to 11,000 square feet (net) and must maintain an average lot area of 15,000 square feet. The average lot ' area is 17,547 square feet. All of the lots meet the requirements for a PUD. The site is divided into two blocks. Block 1 contains 33 lots around the perimeter of the site. Block 2 contains 16 lots (including the two existing homes) in the center of the site. The site is bordered by Galpin Boulevard along the easterly border, agricultural uses to the south, industrial uses (Chaska) to the w est and a large Ag/Urban wetland to the north. 1 1 1 Trotters Ridge PUD June 16, 1993 Page 5 , STREETS The preliminary plat proposes a 50 -ft. wide right -of -way with a 31 -ft. wide back -to -back urban ' street section, which is the city's typical street design, although the 50 -ft. right -of -way is below the city's standard right -of -way (60 feet). The developer has expressed to staff a desire to use a 50 -ft. right -of -way in an effort to reduce grading and preserve trees, but staff has not seen the benefit other than increased lot size in compromising the street right -of -way width from the city's ordinance. The applicant was to submit to staff a detailed plan indicating the actual benefits bets; een a 50 -ft. wide right -of -way versus the typical 60-ft. wide right -of -way. As of preparation of this report today, staff has not received any of the documentation. Therefore, staff recommends the street right -of -way be the standard 60 -ft. width. ' Street grades are proposed between 69c and 0.50%, which are within the city's standards. Due to topographic constraints, such as existing homes and vegetated areas, a couple of sharp curves ' are proposed with the street layout. Staff is generally comfortable with this layout, but the layout will require additional traffic signs and speed advisory signs when the streets are completed. The applicant is dedicating an additional 17 ft. of right-of-way along Galin Boulevard (CR 19) PP g g Y g P as requested b■ staff and Carver County. Staff had some concerns regarding turn lanes into the site The Can er County Highw ay Department has recently completed a study and has indicated that onl■ a right turn lane on southbound Galpin Boulevard will be required (see Attachment No. 5) • Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be required for re\ iev by staff and City Council approval. Both street and utility improvements should be constructed in accordance to the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. The site has two existing homes which will require relocation of the driveways. Both dm ew a s should be relocated so they are perpendicular to the new street. One of the drib eu a> s is currently gravel. With relocation of the driveway, it is recommended that the applicant/homeowner be required to have the new driveway paved with a hard surface, such as bituminous or concrete, to help minimize erosion to the new street. Driveway access to proposed Lot 33. Block 1 and Lot 9, Block 2 should be from the street on the west side of the lot from a traffic safety standpoint and to minimize tree loss. UTILITIES 1 Municipal sanitary sewer and water service to the site is contingent upon the City Council authorizing Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Trunk Improvement Project 91 -17B. The public hearing for the trunk improvement project is scheduled for City Council consideration on June 14, 1993 The site is included in the scope of the trunk improvement project and is proposed to be assessed. The site consists of two parcels being combined, the Johnson parcel (25.0151800) 1 1 Trotters Ridge PL'D June 16. 1993 Page 6 and the Carlson property (25.0160100). The estimated trunk sanitary sewer and water assessment for this site, based on the proposed 49 lots, is $110,005.00 ($970 sewer and $1275 water per lot). The proposed utilities are fairly well laid out in the development. Fire hydrants have been ' reviewed by the Fire Marshal and are in accordance to his comments. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the utility improvements will be required for staff review and City Council approval. All utility and street construction shall be in accordance with the city's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. There are tw o existing homes within the development. According to city ordinance, existing ' homes within 150 feet of the sewer lines shall be required to connect to the sewer lines within 12 months of the lines being operational. The applicant and /or homeowners will be required to meet this condition. ' GRADING AND DRAINAGE ' Site grading appears to be minimal in the wooded areas. Similar to Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition, topographic constraints have made it difficult in placing the streets and house pads. The o\ erall plan is fairly well laid out considering the constraints. A couple of items that should be addressed is the proposed grading on Lots 12 and 13, Block 2. The grades are such that runoff will be directed fairly close (10 feet) to the house pad location. It is recommended that ' use of retaining walls in the property to be able to divert lot drainage away from the house would be beneficial Another item of concern is that there is no drainage outlet from the wetland located on Lots 7 -11, Block 2. A storm sewer outlet will need to be developed to control the ' water le\ el in the wetland and convey the runoff through the storm sewer system eventually to w ater treatment facilities downstream. The last concern staff has is with the drainage from the neighboring parcel to the south. Based on field observations, the lowland directly south of Lot ' 2. Block 1 drains northerly towards the development. It is recommended that a storm sewer system be extended along the lot line to convey drainage from the low lying area to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern. ' Staff recei\ ed no soil boring information on this site. Based upon inspection, it appears soil conditions may contain high moisture content and therefore a drain tile system should be included ' in the street construction where adjacent lots will not be able to discharge sump pumps into a storm pond or wetland. The plans propose a series of storm sewers to convey street and overland storm runoff to pretreatment ponds prior to discharging into wetlands. A quick review of the preliminary plans revealed additional storm sewers will be needed. This will be further addressed during the plan and specification review process. Two pretreatment ponds are proposed prior to discharging into the wetlands. Since the city has not implemented the overall Comprehensive Stormw ater Management Plan, the applicant will be required to follow current ordinance standards regarding storm ponding and discharge rates. The applicant will be required to provide an outlet control structure in each pond to maintain the pre - developed runoff rate into the 1 Trotters Ridge PUD 1 June 16, 1993 Page 7 ' wetlands. The final plat should provide the appropriate utility and drainage easements to access the ponding areas for maintenance purposes. Utility and drainage easements outside the right-of- way should be a minimum of 20 feet in width. The overall grading plan proposes to maintain for the most part the existing drainage patterns. Slope stabilization methods in accordance with the Best Management Practices Handbook (BMPH), such as wood fiber blankets and Type III erosion control fence, should be utilized. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) should be included along Lots 11 -14, Block 2 outside the street construction limits. TREE PRESERVATION/ LANDSCAPING ' The site contains significant stands of trees and is similar to Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. Staff has w orked with the applicant to preserve as many of the trees as possible. Similar to Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition, there will be custom grading for the vegetated lots. The applicant has submitted a tree survey and the grading plan shows which trees will be affected. The applicant , will design the house pads to fit within the trees designated for preservation. As we did with Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition, staff will require the list of trees designated as being saved (see list from applicant) to be preserved as a condition of approval. This means that the house pads will ha\ e to accommodate the trees designated for preservation. The tree survey lists a total of 542 significant trees on the site and the plan is resulting in the removal of 85 trees (169c of the trees are being removed). The list of trees submitted by the applicant provides the number the tree is labeled and the size and type of tree. The plans submitted by the applicant label the trees onl} b. their size and type. The number that the tree has been tagged is not on the plans. Therefore. staff cannot confirm which trees on which lots are being removed. We can see from the grading plan which trees will be affected, but need the complete information to draft a condition specifying which trees will be permitted to be removed. This information will have to be pro\ ided prior to the application continuing to the City Council. Where . egetation does not exist, the applicant is providing landscaping. Specifically, there will be a landscaped buffer area between the proposed lots and Galpin Boulevard and the property to the south. Staff is recommending additional landscape buffering between the westerly lots and the adjacent property, which is an industrial use and visible from the subject site. Any lot which does not haN e existing trees must have landscaping provided. The City is considering requiring tw o overstory trees per lot instead of the one tree per lot. The Lake Susan Hills PUD 9th Addition required the applicant to provide two overstory trees per lot. Since this proposal is also a PUD, w e are requesting that the applicant be required to provide in the front yard two overstory trees per lot for any lot that does not already have two trees in the front yard. The trees have to be the preferred species from the city list. , PARK .AND RECREATION The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned preliminary plat on April 27, 1993. Dick Putnam of Tandem Properties was present representing the applicant. Issues of 1 1 Trotters Ridge PUD June 16, 1993 Page 8 ' concern to the Park and Recreation Commission in regard to the proposed plat include the preservation of a portion of the wooded areas of the site in an unaltered condition, the acquisition ' of property encompassing the large northerly -most wetland, the granting of trail easements as required by the Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan and as required by the plat, and the construction of a trail skirting Outlot A. ' Preservation of Wooded Areas As you are aw are, one of the original conceptual plats depicted a north cul -de -sac penetrating the northwest property line to gain access to the O'Shaughnessy (Pemtom) and Opus properties. This area is a heavily w ooded knoll which slopes into wetland areas on three of four sides. During ' preliminary staff meetings with the applicant, the city's desire to preserve portions of this area v, as communicated. The applicant responded by dismissing the north cul -de -sac and reserving ' a small triangular- shaped parcel for park dedication. Acquisition of Property Encompassing the Large Northerly Wetland It is the city 's desire to acquire ownership of the portion of the wetland, City No. A16 -7(1), bordering the most northerly lots found in the plat. Early editions of concept plans indicated priv ate lot lines extending into this area terminating at the property border. Through ' communicating our desires to the applicant, Outlot A has been expanded to encompass this area. Grantine of Trail Easements A 2(i -ft trail easement is necessary along Galpin Boulevard /County Road 117 to accommodate the construction of a trail. Construction of a Trail Segment Skirting Outlot A ' During a site inspection, it was determined that the applicant would proceed with the mapping of the trail to be located parallel to Outlot A, commencing in the northwest corner of the property and terminating at Galpin Boulevard (see Attachment A). It was agreed that the applicant would construct this trail allowing the alignment of the trail in relation to the lots to be at their discretion. This trail is to include a connection to the proposed road in the vicinity of Lots 17 ' and 18 or 26 and 27, Block 1. These trail alignments are not shown on any of the proposed plans that I hav e seen to date. It should be noted that a discussion of the consequences of ' squeezing lots betvveen the wetland and the proposed road alignment coupled with the construction of a trail in the rear yards in the area of Lots 25 -29, Block 1 were discussed. One alternative to this design would be to shift the road even further north in this area and reconfiguring the plat. 1 Trotters Ridge PUD 1 June 16, 1993 Page 9 1 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The site contains 5 wetland basins. The city has classified all of the wetlands within the city. The wetland shown as Basin C (on the separate plan sheet) is not considered a wetland by the city. Basin C is clearly a manmade wetland with the remnants of a concrete base for a diving 111 board and a concrete edge, but because it does have open water and wetland vegetation, the applicant's consultant did include it as a wetland. Staff considers there to only be four wetlands on site w hich are protected by our ordinance, Basins A, B, D and E. All of these wetlands are classified as Ag/Urban wetlands. Basin C would be classified as a Utilized waterbody and not a protected wetland. The applicant is proposing to fill the entire area of Basin C to create a building pad. Since the PP P P g cit) does not consider Basin C a protected wetland, staff does not object to this. The only concern that staff w ould have is that the water and runoff currently accommodated by this ponding area continue to be accommodated on -site. The applicant has done this. Basin A is located in the w est/central area of the site and is classified as an Ag/Urban wetland by the city. The wetland is in good condition and is one that should not be filled or altered to a lesser cld.sifiLation. Staff recommends that Basin A be maintained in its natural state or that it could be expanded for mitigation. The applicant is proposing to increase Basin A by .05 acres at the northeast corner of the wetland and maintain the rest in a natural state. Basin B is classified as Ag Urban and is the large w etland located on the northern portion of the site. This wetland is in a degraded state from having a beaver dam removed and the water level reduced. Once the wetland stabilizes with the new water level, it should be a nice Ag/ Urban wetland. The applicant is proposing to create a mitigation area adjacent to Basin B. The mitigation area w ill be .38 acres in size. The applicant is also proposing to create a storm water pond adjacent to Basin B and is proposing to fill .12 acres of the wetland to create a building pad for Lot 29, Block 1. The proposed fill in Basin B within Lots 28 and 29, Block 1 will also move the w etland edge away from the house pad and allow the required setbacks to be maintained. The applicant is proposing similar filling of Basin D, to allow the wetland setbacks to be maintained and to proN ide a usable backyard for the lots. In both cases of filling within Basins B and D, the w etland areas proposed to be filled are in degraded states. The applicant is mitigating the etland areas being removed on a 1:1 ratio in wetland areas that are in better condition and will benefit b) being expanded. Staff felt, in areas where the wetlands are in a degraded state, that it is more beneficial for the lot to meet the required setbacks and provide useable backyard, then ha\ e variances to the wetland setbacks. Originally, staff stated that we would not recommend altering a wetland to "fit" in another house pad, and that the applicant would have to request a 1 variance to the setback (which would most likely be recommended against) or the lot would have to be remoN ed. After visiting the site and seeing the restrictions due to the wetlands and trees, and seeing the condition of the wetlands (Basin D has cattle in it), staff no longer objected to the proposed filling of the wetland areas. Basin E is also classified as Ag/Urban and is in a degraded state. The applicant is not proposing any alteration to Basin E. The applicant is providing the 1 Trotters Ridge PUD June 16, 1993 ' Page 10 required setbacks around all of the wetland boundaries and is providing the required buffer areas ' (0' - 20' buffer with an average of 10' and 40' setbacks). MISCELLANEOUS ' There appears to be an existing private driveway easement over the parcel for one of the existing homes. This should be resolved or abandoned prior to the final plat being recorded. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE ' On June 16, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat, rezoning and wetland alteration permit for Trotters Ridge. One of the conditions of approval from staff was that the applicant provide justification for a reduced right -of -way of 50'. On the afternoon prior to the ' Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provided data on the different impacts between a 60' and 50' right -of -way (additional tree removal with the 60' right of way). Staff was not able to review this information in time for the Planning Commission meeting. Staff did discuss the issue with the applicant and it was agreed to keep the 60' right -of -way, as recommended by the Engineering Department, but to allow trees within the right -of -way, not affected by street grading, to remain. The plat which was submitted for review by the Planning Commission contained a ' 50' right-of-'ay. A revised plat would be required, with new lot areas and lot lines, for a 60' right -of -w a} . The Planning Commission discussed at length whether the item should be tabled until a re\ iced plat was submitted for review by staff and for the Planning Commission to review prior to making a recommendation. The revision to the plans to provide the 60' right -of -way would not significantly change the layout of the site and staff was comfortable that action could be taken at this Planning Commission meeting. If the revised plans contained significant changes, it w ould be brought back to the Planning Commission for their approval. The Planning Commission did decide to recommend approval and have the process continue in front of the Cit■ Council with the understanding that if any major changes took place with the plat, that it ' w ould ha. e to come back before the Planning Commission. The applicant has submitted revised plans which contain a 60' right - of-way. The lot areas have been adjusted so that all have at least 11,000 square feet (not including wetland area). The street right -of -w ay does not contain many areas where it is designed in a straight line. The majority of ' the street is of a curvilinear design. Therefore, most of the lots are permitted to have 90' of width at the setback line. The only lot which is on a straight part of the street and does not have the 90' width at the street frontage is Lot 31, Block 1. Lot 31, Block 1 has 88' of frontage and ' this must be increased to 90'. Lot 32, Block 1 has enough frontage so that the internal lot lines could be adjusted to provide Lot 31, Block 1 with the required frontage. This must be done prior to final plat approval. Another issue with the Planning Commission was tree removal. The Planning Commission w anted detail tree removal information on each lot. The following list provides the tree inventory r 1. Trotters Ridge PUD I June 16, 1993 Page 11 1 number, type and size of each tree proposed to be removed on each lot. As we did with Lake Susan Hills 9th addition, staff is conditioning approval upon only those trees listed as being I permitted to be removed. The applicant has worked closely with the site to locate house pads and house pad designs to save as many trees as possible. Some of the trees proposed to be preserved are very close to grading areas and may be impacted by construction. As we have with I other tree preservation plans, staff will work closely with the developer during the final plans and specifications, grading of the site, and during building plan approval. There may be instances where we agree that a tree will be damaged and should be removed. There will also be times I when a tree designated for removal may be saved. Therefore, the list of trees permitted to be removed is close to what will actually occur on site. All trees not designated for removal will be protected by snow fence and inspected by our forestry intern prior to any alteration to the site. I There are a total of 529 trees that have been inventoried on the site (6" caliper or more). There I are 56 trees proposed to be removed from lots and 47 trees proposed to be removed within the right -of -way for a total of 103 trees to be removed (19% of the total tree cover). LIST OF TREES PERMITTED TO BE REMOVED ON LOTS 1 BLOCK 1 Number Size of Tree *Type of Tree i Lot 1 467 15" A 468 twin 14" A I 469 twin 14" A 470 17" A 479 triple 14" W I 480 16 ", 13" A 13" WW 481 14" BW 1 Lot 17 365 26" BO Lot 18 337 36" BO I Lot 19 71 20" BO 1 76 32" BO 77 24" BO I Lot 20 49 24" RO 50 18" BO I 52 12" BO 53 18" BO 1 1 1 Trotters Ridge PUD June 16, 1993 I Page 12 Lot 21 44 30" BO 1 Lot 22 38 15" A 40 18" BO Lot 23 18 20" BO 19 32" BO 1 41 36" WO Lot 24 11 15" IW I Lot 25 14 36" BO 147 38" BO I Lot 31 454 16" M 455 13" M I Lot 32 456 14" BW 457 6" A 1 458 14" A 459 12" A I 460 14" BW • Lot 33 446 12" RC I 465 10" RC BLOCK 2 1 Lot 1 439 32" BO I Lot 2 429 22" BO 430 10" PE 431 24" BO Lot 3 353 33" BO I Lot 9 306 30" BO 310 32" BO 1 Lot 10 322 34" BO 323 14" E 344 28" BO I I Trotters Ridg e PUD June 16, 1993 Page 13 1 Lot 11 3 22" BO 4 17" BO 1 Lot 13 5 14" BO I 152 12" E 153 20" BO 154 18" M , 155 15" BO 156 18" BO Lot 14 157 30" BO 1 158 24" BO 159 24" BO 1 160 24" BO 163 26" BO LIST OF TREES TO BE REMOVED BY STREET CONSTRUCTION 1 NUMBER SIZE TYPE 1 6 23" BO 7 22" BO I 8 28" BO 20" A 24 18" BO I 25 30" BO 2 7 24" BO 28 24" BO I 141 22" BO 142 24" BO 143 20" BO I 149 15" BO 150 26" BO I 151 22" BO 164 30" M 165 36" RO I 314 42" BO 315 30" BO 320 28" BO I 321 20" BO 325 24" BO 326 18" BO 1 1 Trotters Ridge PUD June 16, 1993 Page 14 327 28" BO 330 26" BO 1 331 28" BO 333 16" BO 338 22" BO ' 340 16" A 351 34" BO 385 37" BO I 386 26" BO 387 24" BO I 388 42" BO 440 40" B O 441 31" BO I 443 12" A 444 12" A 445 12" A I 447 13" CW 448 18" BO 449 26" BO I 450 36" BO 453 14" A 461 38" WW I 466 8" RC * Tree Key - see Attachment #11 I RECOMMENDATION 1 Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves of rezoning 32.5 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate I to PUD, Planned Unit Development, approval of the preliminary plat (93 -2 PUD) to subdivide 32.5 acres of property into 49 single family lots, and approval of a wetland alteration permit I (93 - WAP) as shown on the plans dated June 29, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: I 1. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include landscaping between the westerly lots and the industrial land to the west where vegetation does not already exist, and two front yard overstory trees shall be required for each lot where two trees do not exist. 1 Trotters Ridge PUD 1 June 16, 1993 Page 15 ' 2. A revised plan shall be submitted which provides information on tag number, size and type of trees. 1 3. All trees designated for preservation shall be protected by a snow fence 1 times the diameter of the drip line prior to any alteration of the site. Any understory vegetation within the snow fence shall also be preserved. 4. Each of the lots shall have a woodland management plan developed by the developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The woodland management plan shall be developed by a licensed forester approved by the city. A copy of the woodland management plan shall be kept in the building permit file and a copy will also be giN en to the homeowner. 5. Unless a lot already has two overstory trees in the front yard, additional overstory trees, from the city's approved list, shall be planted in each lot so that there are two overstory trees in each front yard. If this has not been accomplished prior to the issuance of a building permit for a lot, before a building permit is issued, 1 arrangements must be made to have the trees planted within one grading season after the building permit is issued. The city should require security to guarantee compliance. 1 6. The v etland boundaries including buffer areas will have a monument designating it as protected v etland at each lot line. 7. All utilit) and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utilit} plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council appro‘ al. 8. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Carver County Public Works, MWCC, Minnesota Health Department, and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract. 10. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless City's Best Management Practices Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. .1 Trotters Ridge PUD June 16, 1993 Page 16 11. Utility drainage easements outside the street right -of -way should be a minimum of 20 feet in width. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over all ' ponding and wetland areas on the final plat . 12. The street right -of -way should be increased to 60 feet in width, and the applicant 1 should work with city staff to preserve trees within this right -of -way as a result of the increase to 60 feet. 13. Preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the city authorizing Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Sewer and Water Improvement Project 91 -17B. 14. All driveways shall access the interior streets. No driveway access will be allowed onto Galpin Boulevard. Driveway access to Lot 33, Block 1 and Lot 9, Block 2 of the preliminary plat shall be from the street on the west side of the lot. The two existing drip ew ays shall be realigned perpendicular to the new street and paved with a bituminous or concrete surface. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for construction of a right turn lane on southbound Galpin BouleN and into the site in conjunction with the overall site improvements. 16. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer and water service to existing home sites. In addition, they will notify the property owners of the city ordinance requiring connection to municipal sanitary sewer. 17. The applicant shall provide a storm sewer outlet for the wetland in Block 2. 18. The applicant shall extend the storm sewer to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through Lot 2, Block 1. 19. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a ten year storm event and ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with city ordinance for the ' city engineer to review and approve. 20. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 13 and 14, Block 2 to divert drainage further away from the house. 21. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be extended along Lots 11 -14, Block 2 ' along the street boulevard. ' 22. Drain tile will be required behind the curbs in those areas where sump pump discharge ill not be directed into the storm pond or wetland area. The applicant will submit Trotters Ridge PUD June 16, 1993 Page 17 information regarding hook -up of sump pump for city staff approval at the time of building permit issuance. 23. The proposed street names "Trotters Lane" and "Trotters Circle" are unacceptable. The city current has a "Trotters Circle." To avoid duplication, new names must be submitted to Public Safety for approval. ' 24. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., NSP, NW Bell, cable boxes, street lamp, trees, shrubs, etc. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance, ' Section 9 -1. 25. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed 1 loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all - weather driving capabilities. The roads shall be in place before construction on new dwellings start, which are greater than 150' from County Road 117. 26. Fire h} drants are not shown on utility plan. Hydrant spacing is not to exceed 300', beginning at County Road 117. 27. Fire hydrant caps must be painted per Chanhassen Engineering specs. 2� Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on the grading plan before final plat approval. ' 29. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of the pad and elegy ations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the de\ elopment should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This condition must be met before any building permits are issued. 30. The dedication of Outlot A as park and open space. This dedication to include a survey of the property and field staking of property corners and lot intersection points. Transfer of fee title of this property shall occur through an unrestricted warranty deed ' at the time of platting. The applicant shall receive 50% park fee credit, or $300 per home, for this dedication. The balance of the park fees being collected at a rate of 50%Ic of the park fee in force upon building permit application. At present this fee ould be one -half of $600, or $300. 31. The applicant shall provide a 20 -ft. wide trail easement along the entire easterly property line. This trail corridor is identified in the city's Comprehensive Plan and no trail fee credit shall be granted for said easement. U Trotters Ridge PliD June 16. 1993 Page 18 32. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling Outlot A as described herein ' and as depicted on Attachment A. Any easements for trail purposes which are necessitated by this alignment shall be conveyed to the city. The applicant shall receive full trail dedication fee credit for this condition. The entirety of this trail shall be constructed above the 933 elevation mark. 33. Staff will work with the City Attorney to draft an agreement with the developer to ' provide financial guarantees for replacement of any trees removed within the right -of- vay which were not approved for removal. ' 34. A 25' front yard setback will be permitted where necessary to preserve natural features. 35. All lots shall meet the 90' frontage requirements. 36. Staff shall re\ iev the location of the trail connections. 37. On1■ the trees listed in Attachment #11 will be permitted to be removed. All other trees shall be preserved and protected with snow fence located at 11/2 times the drip line." ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated June 11, 1993. 2. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 27, 1993. ' 3. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated May 10, 1993. 4. Letter from DNR dated May 5, 1993. ' S. 6. Letter from Carver County dated June 9,1993. Tree sun, . 7. Letter from James R. Hill, Inc. dated June 4, 1993. 8. Compliance table. 9. Letter from Summit Envirosolutions dated April 30, 1993. 10. Letter from Tandem Properties dated May 5, 1993. ' 1 1. Tree Key. 12. Planning Commission minutes dated June 16, 1993. 1 1 CITYOF _I\ CH ANHA SSEN \ /1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM TO. Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM. Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director , •, DATE. June 11, 1993 1 SL BJ. Preliminary Plat, Trotter's Ridge The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned preliminary plat on April 27, 1993 Dick Putnam of Tandem Properties was present representing the applicant. Issues of concern to the Park and Recreation Commission in regard to the proposed plat include the preservation of a portion of the wooded areas of the site in an unaltered condition, the acquisition of propert■ encompassing the large northerly -most wetland, the granting of trail easements as required b■ the Recreation Section of the Comprehensive Plan and as required by the plat, and the construction of a trail skirting Outlot A. Presen anon of Wooded Areas As you are mare. one of the original conceptual plats depicted a north cul -de -sac penetrating the northwest propert line to gain access to the O'Shaughnessy (Pemtom) and Opus properties. This area is a heayil} wooded knoll which slopes into wetland areas on three of four sides. During preliminary staff meetings with the applicant, the city's desire to preserve portions of this area was communicated. The applicant responded by dismissing the north cul -de -sac and reserving a small triangular- shaped parcel for park dedication. ' Acquisition of Property Encompassing the Large Northerly Wetland It is the city's desire to acquire ownership of the portion of the wetland, City No. A16-7(1), q P P Y bordering the most northerly lots found in the plat. Early editions of concept plans indicated pri\ ate lot lines extending into this area terminating at the property border. Through 1 communicating our desires to the applicant, Outlot A has been expanded to encompass this area. 1 I1 IN O r PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen June 11. 1993 1 Page 2 Granting of Trail Easements 1 A 20 -ft. trail easement is necessary along Galpin Boulevard /County Road 117 to accommodate the construction of a trail. Construction of a Trail Segment Skirting Outlot A ' During a site inspection, it was determined that the applicant would proceed with the mapping of the trail to be located parallel to Outlot A, commencing in the northwest corner of the property and terminating at Galpin Boulevard (see Attachment A). It was agreed that the applicant would construct this trail allowing the alignment of the trail in relation to the lots to be at their discretion. This trail is to include a connection to the proposed road in the vicinity of Lots 17 and 18 or 26 and 27, Block 1. These trail alignments are not shown on any of the proposed ' plans that I have seen to date. It should be noted that a discussion of the consequences of squeezing lots between the wetland and the proposed road alignment coupled with the construction of a trail in the rear yards in the area of Lots 25 -29, Block 1 were discussed. One alternati\ e to this design would be to shift the road even further north in this area and reconfiguring the plat. ' To compl} w ith these directives by the Park and Recreation Commission and staff, the following condition, of appro`al in regard to parks and recreation are applicable: 1 1. The dedication of Outlot A as park and open space. This dedication to include a survey of the propert} and field staking of property corners and lot intersection points. Transfer of fee title of this property shall occur through an unrestricted warranty deed at the time of platting. The applicant shall receive 50% park fee credit, or $300 per home, for this dedication. The balance of the park fees being collected at a rate of 50% of the park fee in force upon building permit application. At present this fee would be one -half of $600, or $300. 2 The applicant shall provide a 20 -ft. wide trail easement along the entire easterly property ' line. This trail corridor is identified in the city's Comprehensive Plan and no trail fee credit shall be granted for said easement. 3. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling Outlot A as described herein and as depleted on Attachment A. Any easements for trail purposes which are necessitated ' by this alignment shall be conveyed to the city. The applicant shall receive full trail dedication fee credit for this condition. The entirety of this trail shall be constructed abo‘ e the 933 elevation mark. 1 1 1 b l / \� 1 'ti I , ' 6 i1 J , i ce' IL, ,� ' A k 1 . .,/' ' , / ,„/ ''./: , ,/t/ ' i r* — , / I i 1 ,i(iii 1 i / j � / ' / / , _ 1 C11 i T( ; 1 2 ` . ' i ' , „, i / , 4 f \ 1 N \ H T rH" awls o 7 ` N 1 C 1 • \—_ y a of---i____ •......-, 1 ca 1 r co 1 / / 1111. MN so � � as .. 1 \.,.. ; �' ~ 1 +1 i • CITY of CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner ' FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: April 27, 1993 SUBJ: Trotters Ridge, Planning Case 93 -2 PUD and 93 -WAP ' I ha\ e reviev, ed the site plans and have the following requirements: 1. The proposed street names "Trotters Lane" and "Trotters Circle" are unacceptable. ' The Cit\ currently has a "Trotters Circle ". To avoid duplication, new names must be submitted to Public Safety for approval. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., NSP, N.W. Bell, cable bores, street lamp, trees, shrubs, etc. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec. 9 -1. ' 3. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all - �i either driving capabilities. The roads shall be in place before construction on new dv, ellings start, which are greater than 150' from County Road 117. ' 4. Fire h} drants are not shown on utility plan. Hydrant spacing is not to exceed 300', beginning at County Road 117. r 5. Fire h` drant caps must be painted per Chanhassen Engineering specs. 1 es o w• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER II CITYOF eir t t 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 1' \ (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official OC4 /l� 1 DATE: 05/10/93 SUBJECT: 93 -2 PUD and 93 -2 WAP (Trotters Ridge) Background: 1 I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval. Analysis: Problems have occurred with dwellings on corrected pads being too large for the pad or missing the pad. Soil conditions for future additions are also a concern that will inevitably have to be addressed. Details on corrected pads must be furnished to the Inspections Division. Pads that are corrected at the time the streets are installed should be submitted to the Inspections Division before City acceptance of the subdivision. Data on lots that are individually corrected may be submitted before the certificate of occupancy is" issued. Details on corrected pads should include a soils report, compaction tests, the limits of the corrected pads and elevation of the excavation. Standard designations (LO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) for proposed dwelling types, 1 lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevation need to be indicated on the drainage plan to insure an adequate plan review by the City. 1 Discontinuous, widely separated streets with the same name or number designation have proven to be confusing for emergency personnel. Although the" City is addressed with a grid system, an older or more well known street always seems to get responded to first in an emergency. The less well known street is "discovered" afterwards or when emergency equipment is already headed in the wrong direction. 1 1 1 t fa* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 11 1 11 Jo Ann Olsen 05/10/93 'rage 2 1 Recommendations: Staff recommends the following be included in the conditions of approval: 1. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for 1 each house pad on the grading plan before final plat approval. 2. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. I A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This condition must be met before any building permits are issued. 3. Rename both proposed streets, and submit proposed new names for 1 review before final plat approval. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 STATE OF � DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONE NC 772 -7910 FILE NC 1 Jo Ann Olsen May 5, 1993 Planning Department City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: TROTTERS RIDGE, JAMES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms. Olsen: , We have reviewed the site plans dated 4/19/93 (received April 21, 1993) for the above- referenced project (portions of sections 16 and 15, T.116N, R.22W) and have the following comments to offer: 1. The project site does not contain or appear to involve any public waters or public waters wetlands; therefore, no DNR public waters permit is required. 2. No DNR shoreland management or floodplain concerns were noted. 1 3. There appear to be wetlands on the site that are not under DNR jurisdiction. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be consulted regarding pertinent federal regulations for activities in wetlands. In addition, impacts to these wetlands should be evaluated by the City in accordance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991. 4. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation 1 Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed. 5. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriations permit is required. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772 -7910 , should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, ' Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc: James Development Co. Bob Obermeyer, Riley- Purgatory -Bluff Creek WSD Joe Yanta, USCOE Wayne Barstad r �. QPPCPTL .IT Y E ,'PLOYEP � fF,R Co! N * 1 j I ; j‘4 1 CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE 1 600 EAST 4TH STREET I PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 (612: 448 1213 !N AFES od 1 COUNTY O'CA' VE:Q June 9, 1993 CITy DE Gf� ANHASJEN Mr Dave Hemple t, n City of Chanhassen LL J I 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen. MN 55317 JUN 1 0 199 j I RE Trotter's Ridge Access EI�GII�EER DEPT. CSAH 19 ( Galpin Blvd) 1 Dear Dave. I We have completed our sight survey at the proposed access to Trotter's Ridge located on CSAH 19 (Galpin Blvd ), Following is a summary of our findings: 1 Stopping Sight Distance (3 5 ft eyesight to 0.5 ft. object) 40 MPH 45 MPH 50 MPH I Desirable distance 325 feet 400 feet 475 feet Minimum distance. 275 feet 325 feet 375 feet Measured distance. 370 feet 370 feet 370 feet 1 Intersection Sight Distance (3.5 ft. eyesight to 4 0 ft. object) I 40 MPH 45 MPH 50 MPH Desirable distance 650 feet 800 feet 1000 feet tvleasured distance. 565 feet 565 feet 565 feet I As you can see by the numbers, the proposed location meets the desirable stopping sight distance for a 40 MPH roadway. Regulatory speed on this road is 50 MPH. The stopping sight distance of 370 feet is close to meeting the minimum 50 MPH sight distance. ' On the intersection distance, it would appear that if a vehicle turned northbound from this entrance just before a northbound vehicle was visible to the south, the northbound vehicle, if I traveling at 40 MPH, would need to reduce their speed by about 5 MPH in order not to over take the turning vehicle. Considering the close proximity of this entrance to the CSAH 18 intersection to the south, I would expect the speeds at this location would be in that 40 to 45 MPH range. I It does not appear that any special intersection design, such as a by pass lane, is necessary at this time 1 I Affirmatnt Artrnn /Equal Oppoflw ctl Emplolcr l'rm /rd 011 Rn1<lyd Pap? The County would require construction of a right turn Zane. An access permit will be required from II the County The developer should contact our office to obtain the permit forms and the turn lane requirements We would also ask that consideration be given in the landscaping plan to try to I improve the sight distance at the access by keeping trees and bushes back from the roadway Please convey this information to the developer. If there are further questions, feel free to contact I me at your convenience Sincerely, 1 William J. Weckma n, P.E. 1 Assistant County Engineer I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ _ — .::::-:. I 5 1EE F HILL INC TEL a: :: 61 SK—E.144 4475 RO_ 1 Tree No. Size /Type Removed /Save I 1 38 "BO 2 34 "B0 3 22 "B0 R I 4 17 "B0 R 5 14 "BO R 6 23 "B0 R I 7 22 "B0 R 8 28 "BO R 9 20 "A R I 10 32 "BW 11 15 "IW R 12 24 "B0 II 13 14 TWIN 14 "80 36 "B0 15 24 "WO II 16 17 38 "BO 24 "B0 18 20 "BO R I 19 20 32 "B0 R 15 "80 2_ 32 "BW 22 30 "RO I 23 24 "B0 24 18 "BO R 25 30 "WO II 26 24 "B0 27 24 "WO R 28 24 "WO R I 29 24 "B0 30 30 "B0 31 32 "B0 II 32 24 "B0 33 30 "B0 34 44 "BO I 35 30 "B0 36 36 "BO* 37 18 "WO I 38 15 "A R 39 30 "M 40 18 "B0 I 41 36 "WO R 42 12 "A R 43 16 "BO R II 44 30 "B0 R 45 16 "BO 1 _ _ . ID: 3r;1 iE_ F HILL INC TEL HO: E12 290 -6244 p F.='= II Tree No. Size /Type Removed /Save 46 24"RO II 47 24 "B0 48 TWIN 12 "B0 49 24 "RO II 50 18 "A 51 18 "B0 52 12 "B0 R II 53 18 "B0 R 54 16"M 55 24 "M II 56 24 "M 57 20 "B0 58 36 "BO I 59 30 "B0 60 20 "A 61 12 "A II 62 16 "M 63 18 "A 64 36 "B0 65 32 "B0 II 66 24 "RO 67 36 "B0 68 12 "IW II 69 26 "R0 70 26 "B0 R 71 20 "BO II 72 24 "B0 73 32 "W0 74 20 "WO II 75 32 "WO R 76 32 "B0 77 24 "B0 R II 78 20 "B0 R 79 TWIN 18 "B0 80 18 "0 II 81 32 "RO 82 16 "M 83 14 "A II 84 20 "A 85 TWIN 14 "BE 86 46 "B0 II 87 32 "RO 88 30 "B0 89 30 "BO II 90 30 "BO II II -- ' - r. _ - - THEE r HILL INC: TEL : _ 12 E; ., V - ,-- I I Tree No. Size /Type Removed /Save 91 30 "BO I 92 30 "BO 93 12 "BO 94 30 "RO I 95 34 "RO 96 30 "RO 9 32 "BO I 98 30 "B0 99 30 "BO 100 26 "B0 1 101 12 "BE 102 32 "BO 103 14 "A I 104 30 "B0* 105 26 "BO 106 30 "B0 I 107 18 "BO 108 26 "BO 109 24 "B0 I 110 24 "BO 111 36 "B0 112 24 "BO I 113 14 "BO 114 33 "B0 115 30 "B0 Il 116 117 30 "B0 20 "B0 118 36 "B0 119 30 "BO 120 12"E 121 12 "WO I 122 12 "A 123 TWIN 21 "CW 124 18 "Cw I 125 126 20 "CW 2 - "CW 127 12"A I 128 12 "CW 129 12 "M 130 30 "A I 131 132 12 "Cw 12 "A 133 14 "A II 134 TWIN 17 "A 135 TWIN 11 "A II II -:-.2,- == !'_ _ C _ 2_ ID: Jam" E= P HILL INC TEL t J0: 612 E?-' - 52= 1 #4T5 PC "- IF 11 Tree No. Size /Type Removed /Save 136 TWIN 12 "A II 137 5: 16 "A 138 6 "C 139 6"C II 140 8 "C 141 22 "B0 R 142 24 "B0 R 11 143 20 "B0 R 144 12 "B0 R 145 24 "BO 146 18 "B0 II 147 38 "B0 148 27 "BO 149 15 "B0 R II 150 26 "BO R 151 22 "BO R 152 12 "E R II 153 20 "B0 R 154 18 "M R 155 15 "B0 II 156 18 "B0 R 157 3 - "B0 R 158 24 "B0 II 159 24 "BO R 160 24 "BO R 161 32 "B0 R I '_62 36 "0 163 26 "BO 164 30 "M R II 165 36 "RO* R 166 24 "B0 167 16 "BE II 166 12 "BE 169 38 "RO 170 12 "M II 171 36 "RO 172 24 "RO 173 24 "RO* II 174 14 "RO 175 24 "RO 176 16 "RO II 177 18 "BO 178 12 "E 179 32 "RO II 180 12 "E II II II ' II Tree No. Size /Type Removed/Save 181 22 "Ro 182 30 "RO I 183 28"Ro 184 16 "B0 185 30 "B0 I 186 32 "M 187 12 "B0 188 20 "M II 189 20"80 190 24 "RO 191 30 "RO II 192 30"80 193 24 "B0 194 26 "80 I 195 32 "BO 196 12 "E 197 18"E I 198 10"C 199 26 "B0 200 36 "WO II 201 40 "WO 202 24 "B0 203 36 "B0 II 204 18 "BO 205 26 "WO 20E 24 "WO II 207 24 "WO 208 26 "B0 209 24 "BO II 210 16 "8O 211 18 "BO 212 20 "RO II 213 214 30 "RO 30 "RO 215 22 "RO II 216 16 "BO 217 24 "B0 218 24 "B0 II 219 30 "B0 220 14 "B0 221 24 "B0 II 222 12 "BO 223 20 "B0 224 22 "Bo II 225 40 "RO II II -14-': C'J ID:JHME- R HILL INC TEL NO:612 290 -5244 1442` PO ' I II Tree No. Size /Type Removed /Save 226 15 "B0 I 227 20 "BO 228 16 "B0 229 TWIN 19 "B0 I 230 16 "BO 231 24 "B0 232 18 "WO II 233 26 "RO 234 15 "RO 235 36 "RO II 236 18 "RO 237 30 "B0 238 30 "R0 II 239 18 "BIR 240 18 "BIR 241 18 "RO II 242 24 "WO 243 34 "B0 244 20 "RO II 245 24 "A 246 15 "BE 247 15 "BE 248 15 "A II 249 18 "M 250 12 "A 251 18 "BO II 252 15 "BP 253 22 "BP 301 18 "BO I 302 21 "B0 303 18 "BO* 304 34 "RO II 305 18 "B0 306 3 - "B0 307 12 "A II 308 30 "B0 309 32 "BO 310 32 "BO R 11 311 28 "BO 312 30 "B0 313 32 "B0 II 314 42 "B0 R 315 30 "B0 R 316 38 "BO II 317 28 "BO II II .I I Tree No. 318 Size /Type Removed /Save 16 "B0 319 30 "B0 II 320 321 28 "B0 R 20 "BO R 322 34 "B0 I 323 14 "E 324 14 "RC 325 24 "RO R II 326 18 "B0 R 327 28 "B0 R 328 38 "B0 II 329 27 "BO R 330 26 "BO R 331 28 "B0 R 332 18 "RO II 333 16 "B0 R 334 36 "B0 R 335 22 "B0 R II 336 30 "B0 337 36 "BO 338 22 "B0 II 339 34 "BO 340 16 "A R 341 20 "B0 I 342 24 "B0 343 29 "BO 344 28 "B0 R I 345 24 "B0 R 346 32 "B0 347 34 "B0 I 348 TWIN 14 "BC 349 22 "BO 350 28 "Bo II 351 34 "B0 R 352 36 "BO 353 33 "B0 II 354 36 "80 355 26 "B0 356 26 "B0 I 357 22 "RO* 358 34"B0 359 42 "B0 I 360 34 "B0 361 24 "B0 362 12 "P II II II _ - 7:', C77-:1 ID:31:IMES R HILL INC TEL NO : t 1 2 650-6244 2-:4 it-i Pc:. Tree No. Size /Type Removed /Save II 363 16 "P 364 14 "RO I 365 26 "B0 R 366 23 "P 367 21 "BO II 368 16 "B0 369 21 "BO 370 35 "B0 ' 371 32 "BO 372 22 "80 373 36 "B0 II 374 32 "B0 375 17 "B0 376 32 9BO II 377 31'BO 378 38"80 379 29 "B0 II 380 38 "80 381 30 "B0 382 29 "B0 II 383 26 "BO 384 33 "BO 385 37 "B0 II 386 26 "B0 R 367 24 "BO R 388 42 "B0 II 389 18 "RO 390 23 "RO 391 13 "BC 392 17 "A II 393 32 "BO 394 29 "B0 II 395 23 "B0 396 30 "B0 397 30 "B0 398 21 "B0 1 399 22 "B0 400 16 "B0 401 29 "B0 II 402 18 "BO 403 34 "B0 404 22 "RO II 405 24 "RO 406 30 "B0 407 30980* II II II II •z - w .. II 429 22 "BO 430 10 "PE R 431 24 "BO 1 432 433 34 "BO 30 "BO 434 35 "BO I 435 436 37 "BO 22 "BO 437 32 "BW R I 438 439 30 "BO 32 "B0 R 440 40 "B0 R I 441 442 31 "B0 R TWIN 12 "E 443 12 "A R I 444 12 "A R 445 12 "A R 446 12 "RC R I 447 448 13 "CW R 18 "BO R 449 26 "BO I 450 451 36 "B0 R 32 "BO R 452 32 "B0 R 1 1 1 1 462 38 "R0* 463 TWIN 16 "WO R 464 36 "BO R 1 465 10 "RC R 466 8 "RC R 467 15 "A R 1 469 469 TWIN 14 "A R TWIN 14"A R 470 17 "A R 1 471 18 "A 472 13 "A 473 13 "A 1 474 13 "A 475 TRIPLE 12 "A 476 TRIPLE 13 "BW 1 477 14 "A 478 8: 16.75 "BW 479 TRIPLE 14 "WW 1 480 481 16 "E,13 "A,13 "WW 14 "BW 481 14 "BW 482 16 "BE I 483 18 "BE 484 24 "B0 485 30 "80 II 486 22 "B0 487 24 "B0* 488 TWIN 18 "B0 I 489 16 "BO 490 18 "B0 491 17 "B0 I 492 18 "BO 493 22 "B0 494 14 "B0 , 495 29 "BO 496 24 "BO 497 26 "BO I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _=:." ' - „ _ 22 I : ?RIMEc F' HILL INC. TEL NC C 12 HiO -c 244 #.4 _ - P1 .I II Tree No. Size /Type Removed /Save I 498 499 30 "B0 16 "BE 500 13 "BE I 501 502 14 "B0 34 "RO 503 24 "BO I 504 15 "E 505 16 "E 506 24 "RO 507 30 "B0 508 18 "RO 509 38 "BO 1 510 22 "BE 511 34 "B0 • 512 26 "B0 513 28 "B0 I 514 24 "BO 515 15 "80 516 26 "B0 I 517 29 "B0 518 28 "B0 519 24 "BO 1 520 26 "B0 521 27 "B0 522 29 "B0 I 523 30 "BO 524 18 "BO 525 35 "BO II 526 38 "B0 527 16 "BO* 528 22 "BO I 529 21 "B0 530 20 "B0 531 13 "B0 I 532 533 16 "BO 16 "B0 534 24 "WO II 535 28 "B0 536 18 "B0 537 17 "B0 I 538 539 25 "B0 27 "BO 540 19 "B0 I 541 542 28 "B0 36 "B0 1 1 of JAMES R. HILL, INC. PLANNERS ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 2500 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 1 20, BURNSVIIIE, MINNESOTA 55337 (612) 890 -6044 Fax 890 -6244 1 June 4, 1993 II Ms. JoAnn Olson City of Chanhassen II 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, ,N 55317 Re: TROTTERS RIDGE II JRH Project No. 3520 Dear JoAnn: I The purpose of this letter is to describe the design of a shallow water : -arsh to replace the Agriculture urban wetlands that will be II affected b; the above referenced project. The existng wetlands for the project have been described and I delineated by Summit Envirosolutions in the letter report. dated - 19, 1993. The mitigation presented on the wetland mitigation plan will occur ;: II o locations. One mitigating pond of 0.38 acres will occur in in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to wetland B. The second mitigating pond of 0.05 acres will be an expansion of the existing wetland Basin A. I The r:itioation proposed to replace the impacted wetlands is a shallow water marsh. The construction of the shallow water marsh I will i= rove :�e the aesthetics of the area. The construction of the shallow water marsh adjacent to Wetland II Basin. B shall be as follows: 1. Constructed with irregular side slopes to create shallow water. II Tne pond will be constructed with curvelinear to irregular s 2. The bottom of the pond will be constructed with a clay liner II together with six (6) inches of topsoil taken from the impacted wetlands and placed over the clay liner to encourage the growth of the native wetland vegetative species. II 3. _he aver< ;c water depth shall be 2.04 feet. II Ms. Jo Ann Olscr. June 4, i93 11 Page 2 1 4. The maximum water depth shall be 4 feet. 5. Approximately 31 percent of the wetland area will be less than 1 foot deep, and approximately 44 percent will be greater than 2 feet deep. ' 6. Wetland species will be planted in areas that are less than 3 feet deep. ' The drainage area of the proposed shallow marsh wetland is approximately 5 acres. 1 The 0.05 acres of mitigation will be to create additional open water surface with a depth of 2 to 4 feet. Attached is the lot tabulation. If , have any additional questions, please call. 1 S'nc " II :c=1 l„_ _ - ctie' t .-. _cex Engineering 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 TROTTERS RIDGE LOT TABULATION LOT LOT LOT FRONT WETLAND BUFFER NET II LOT AREA WIDTH DEPTH SETBACK SETBACK STRIP UPLAND Block 1 1 17,000 116' 152' 30' N/A N/A 17,000 II 2 15,225 95' 157' 30' N/A N/A 15,225 3 14,457 91' 158' 30' N/A N/A 14,457 4 15,625 90' 158' 30' N/A N/A 15,625 I 5 16,425 90' 163' 30' N/A N/A 16,425 6 18,025 94' 195' 25' 40' 0' 11,905 7 19,050 94' 235' 25' 50' 10' 11,000 I 8 19,200 100' 250' 30' 50' 10' 11,605 9 20,790 90' 250' 30' 60' 20' 14,165 10 21,060 93' 225' 30' 60' 20' 20,83C t 11 26,060 85' 218' 25' 50' 10' 14,900 12 34,540 90' 290' 30' 50' 10' 15,285 13 21,330 90' 170' 30' N/A N/A 21,330 II 14 14,500 90' 148' 30' N/A N/A 14,500 15 13,600 87' 155' 30' N/A N/A 13,600 16 13,800 87' 155' 30' N/A N/A 13,800 II 1 18,200 85' 170' 30' N/A N/A 18,200 18 26,700 80' 240' 30' N/A N/A 26,700 ' 19 27,200 90' 210' 30' N/A N/A 27,203 2: 36,900 100' 250' 30' 60' 20' 33,075 21 27,200 105' 255' 25' 60' 20' 19,575 22 23,100 102' 235' 25' 60' 20' 19,500 2_ II 21, 21,700 100' 212' 30' 55' 15' 21, 700 2-i 21,10C 100' 210' 30' 55' 15' 21,100 25 18,700 107' 215' 30' 55' 15' 18,70C II 16 8 95' 170' 30' 55' 15' 16,800 2' 15,800 90' 155' 30' 50' 10' 13,710 1 8,500 90' 165' 25' 40' 0' 1 1,000 II 2 32,700 90' 240' 30' 40' 0' 14,370 30 18,400 90' 170' 30' N/A N/A 18,400 3 _ 15,000 90' 157' 30' N/A N/A 15,000 II 32 13,875 94' 147' 30' N/A N/A 13,875 30 14,000 97' 142' 30' _ N/A _ N/A 14,000 1 1 1 II .1 II TROTTERS RIDGE LOT TABULATION 1 LOT LOT LOT FRONT WETLAND BUFFER NET II LOT AREA WIDTH DEPTH SETBACK SETBACK STRIP UPLAND Block 2 1 18,900 116' 167' 30' N/A N/A 18,900 2 18,600 110' 180' 30' N/A N/A 18,600 II 3 16,400 92' 180' 30' N/A N/A 16,400 4 14,725 98' 155' 30' N/A N/A 14,725 5 13,125 87' 138' 30' N/A N/A 13,125 I 6 17,500 90' 170' 30' 60' 20' 17,465 7 21,300 90' 230' 30' 60' 20' 17,000 8 32,900 90' 265' 30' 60' 5' 28,365 1 9 24,700 105' 32,900 200' 260' 30' 30' 60' 5' 21,055 10 165' 50' 10' 23,400 11 31,300 240' 155' 30' 40' 0' 23,435 II 12 17,400 90' 17,400 105' 155' 30' N/A N/A N/A 17,400 1 155' 30' N/A 17,400 14 16,300 100' 180' 30' N/A N/A 16,300 I � 16,903 125' 145' 30' 30' N/A N/A 16,900 c 19,0 98' 155' N/A N/A 14,800 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Summit �.. Envirosolutions April 30, 1993 1 James Ostenson James Development Company 7808 Creekridge Circle Suite 310 Bloomington, Minnesota 55439 Subject: Wetland Delineation and Regulatory Ramifications Trotters Ridge Residential Development N' /z of the SEI/, Section 16, Township 116N, Range 23W 1 Chanhassen, Minnesota Summit Project No. 930480 Dear Mr. Ostenson: Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) has, upon request, delineated the wetlands on the above referenced site. We have prepared the following field report and regulatory ramifications. The subject property is located west of County Road 117 and north of Lyman Boulevard in Carver County. Initial field work (wetland delineation) was performed on the afternoon of March 9, 1993. A verbal agreement was made the following day to perform additional work, outside the scope of services. The remaining field work was performed on March 11 and March 29, 1993 (after snow melt). METHODOLOGY 1 Wetlands were identified and delineated using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task Force on Wetland Delineation, 1989) and the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987). The wetland basins was classified according to the methodologies set forth in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS /OBS Publication 79/31; Cowardin et al. 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39; Shaw and Fredine 1971). 1 1 1C2 :' ','.'a.zata Boulevard Suite =100 • Minneapolis MN 55305 • (612) 595 -8888 • FAX(612) 595 -0888 1 Offices Minneapolis Minnesota • Milwaukee. Wisconsin James Ostenson April 30.1993 Page 2 Summit Project No. 930480 ' CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WETLAND BASINS The wetland boundaries were staked by Summit personnel and incorporated into the Preliminary Grading and Erosion Plan prepared by J. R. Hill, Inc. Five wetland basins (A, B, C, D, and E) were identified during field reconnaissance on the subject property. Basin A ' Basin A, near the center of the property is a seasonally flooded palustrine wetland (PEM1C; Circular 39 Type 3) supporting sedges (Carex spp.) with a few green ash (Fraxinus Pens- 'lvanica) and dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) plants on the fringe. According to the Carver County Soil Survey, the basin is located in an area of soils characterized as Cordova silty clay ' loam; which is listed as a hydric soil. The upland west of the basin supports Kentuky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), white clover (Trifolium pratense), and common dandelion (Taraxacum ' officinale). The areas north and south of the basin support common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica) and burdock (Arctium minus). The area east of the basin has been filled in places to accomidate passage for vehicles. Basin B ' Basin B. on the north boundary is a seasonally flooded, palustrine scrub -shrub /emergent wetland (PENI1C /SS1C; Circular 39 Type 2/6). The uppermost fringe is only temporarily flooded after spnn2 melt. Only the southern portion of the basin lies on the subject property. Dominant species in v etland B are cattail (Typha latifolia), red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera), willows ( Salix spp ). green ash (F. pensylvanica), and lesser duckweed (Lemma minor). The Carver County Soil Sur\ e. characterizes the soils within these basins as Cordova silty clay loam and peaty muck. Both of these soil types are listed as hydric soils. 1 Basin C Basin C. is a partially drained/ditched seasonally flooded palustrine emergent wetland (PEM 1Cd; ' Circular 39 Type 3) located east of basin A. Dominant vegetation is cattail (Typha latifolia) with a few dogwoods (C. stolonifera) and willows (Salix sp.). Soils in the area are classified as Cordova silty clay loam, which are considered hydric. A drainage Swale is located in the northeast portion of the basin and is thought to convey water northward toward Basin B during periods of high water. ' Basin D Basin D. in the south - central part of the subject property, is a saturated/semipermanently flooded palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1B /C; Circular 39 Type 2/3) supporting sedges (Carex spp.) and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacia). The eastern-most portion of this basin was 1 1 1• James Ostenson April 30.1993 Page 3 Summit Project No. 930480 excavated in the past to serve the needs of livestock. The excavated portion of the basin likely 1 remains inundated through most of the summer. Snowmelt overflows toward the west and into Basin E. The entire basin shows evidence of extensive cattle traffic. Basin E Basin E is a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEM1B; Circular 39'Type 2). Dominant vegetation is reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) with scattered dock (Rumex sp.) and smartweed (Polygonum sp.). Soils are classified as Cordova silty clay loam by the Carver County Soil Survey. This basin has been saturated throughout the month of April, but will likely dry up by summer. It is not included in the City of Chanhassen's wetland inventory. Basins Adjacent to the Property A Type 2/6 wetland (sedges and willows) lies outside the western property line. Only a minimal 1 portion lies inside the subject property, approximately 20 square feet. The portion that lies outside (west) of the subject property remains undisturbed, however fill along the fence has eliminated most of the original hydrology available to the east side. The remnant wetland is a saturated palustrine emergent wetland (PEMB; Circular 39 Type 2) dominated by sedges (Carex spp.). The basin will not be altered by the proposed project. There is a narrow strip of hydric soil located in the southeast corner of the subject property. hov er. the wetland hydrology was disturbed by fill associated with the driveway and road construction and thus does not meet the wetland criteria at present. This area is not classified as wetland on the National Wetland Inventory map nor on the City of Chanhassen's wetland maps. PROJECT IMPACTS 1 Wetland impacts associated with the proposed project will be limited to two basins. According to the Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan by J. R. Hill, Inc. the development will not impact basins A, B, and E. However, the proposed project is will require that approximately 0.33 acres acre of fill be placed in Basins C and D. 1 Basin C would be entirely filled by the proposed project for the construction of a residential street within the development (Trotters Court) and for the construction of housepads on lots 33 and 34. Basin C has a total acreage of .26 acres. A small portion (0.07 acres) on the east end of Basin D would need to be filled to accommodate 1 the construction of houses on lots 6, 7 and 8. Placing fill in this portion of the wetland will alloy, Trotters Lane to be constructed farther to the south and avoid destroying several mature burr oaks to the north. The portion of the basin that is proposed to be filled was altered in the past and is currently used as a pond for livestock. 1 1 James Ostenson April 30,1993 Page 4 Summit Project No. 930480 1 REGULATORY ANALYSIS The following is an analysis of the potential ramifications associated with wetland impacts that are anticipated as a result of site development. 1 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) lists all Circular 39 Type 3, 4, and 5 ' wetlands larger than 2.5 acres in incorporated areas on its Protected Waters Inventory. These basins are not listed on the Protected Waters Inventory, thus it should not be necessary to obtain a permit from the DNR to authorize alterations to these basins. ' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 The wetland basins are within the permitting jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in isolated wetlands without notification to the Corps and between a half and three acres in such basins with predischarge notification (see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)). The proposed amount of fill is less than one -half acre, and therefore, the project should be eligible for certification under the above - mentioned nationwide permit. The Corps should be contacted to corroborate this interpretation. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has provided blanket 401 Water Quality Certification for the above described nationwide permit. Both the Corps and the MPCA have voiced concerns over existing wetland basins receiving direct, concentrated stormwater inputs. These agencies consider the diversion of urban stormwater into existing wetlands to be an adverse impact and, in some cases, have required mitigation for that impact. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 With the P assage of the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 (Act), wetlands on this site are now under the jurisdiction of the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR). During the interim period between January 1, 1992 and July 1, 1993, the responsibility for administering the provisions of this legislation fall to the local unit of government (LGU). In this case, the City of Chanhassen is acting as the LGU. We have reviewed the various exemptions contained in the Act and find no exemptions seem to ' apply to this basin. Therefore, the project will need to be certified by the LGU as having complied v ith the provisions of the Act that apply during the interim period. The Act dictates that restoration or creation of replacement wetlands only be considered after an applicant has 1 1 James Ostenson April 30.1993 111 Page Summit Project No. 930480 demonstrated that the impacts cannot be avoided, further minimized, corrected, or eliminated over time. These provisions require that all wetland impacts incurred during this period be offset by wetland creation or restoration at a 1:1 acreage ratio and be Located in the same watershed or county as the impact. In addition to the requirements of the Act, The City of Chanhassen will require a Wetland ' Alteration Permit for wetland fills of any size in compliance with local ordinance. Under the ordinance, unavoidable impacts will require compensation at a ratio required by state law (1:1 until July 1, 1993). Also, wetland buffer strips and principal structure setback are required for all wetlands, be they avoided, altered, or mitigated. Clean Water Act ' Section 402 (P) of the Clean Water Act mandated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to develop regulations for storm water. The MPCA has the authority to regulate the storm water program which is considered part of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program (Minnesota Rules Chapters 7001, 7002, and 7003). A storm water permit is required for construction activities disturbing five acres or more. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION The proposed compensatory mitigation for the subject site will comply with the Act's 1:1 acreage ratio b■ creating 0.36 acres of wetland. The proposed wetland mitigation plan includes a 0.33 acre basin in the northwest corner of the site near Basin B and .03 acres adjacent to the west border of Basin A. The mitigation areas are intended to be similar to existing basins and, ' therefore. should be designed to the extent possible to have bottom contours that approximate those of the existing basins. Summit recommends that the mitigation areas be subcut to a depth 6 -12 inches below the desired bottom elevation. The basin should then be lined with 6 -12 inches ' of organic soils to be excavated from filled wetland areas. This lining of organic soils should provide a seed source sufficient to facilitate the establishment of wetland vegetation within the mitigation area. Mitigation basin should be designed with irregular edges and irregular bottom contours. Sideslopes should be no steeper than 5:1; sideslopes of 10:1 or greater are preferable. If on -site soils demonstrate significant permeability, consideration should be given to lining the mitigation area with clay or other impervious materials prior to lining the basin with organic soils. Stormwater runoff from the site will be diverted through two sedimentation ponds, one located southwest of Basin A and the other south of Basin B. Stormwater will not be discharged into basins C. D. or E. All runoff from the site will be treated prior to discharging to wetlands. No mitigation credit is being claimed for the sedimentation basins. 1 ,1 James Ostenson April 30.1993 Page 6 Summit Project No. 930480 LIMITATIONS OF WETLAND ASSESSMENT ' Summit's opinions, conclusions and recommendations were based in part on information Summit P � P obtained and evaluated from current sources including the client, and municipal, state, and federal agencies. Verification of the authenticity or accuracy of this information is not warranted by Summit or included in Summit's scope of services. Summit's report was prepared in accordance ' with Summit's general conditions and terms, and no other warranties, representations, or certifications are made. Field reconnaissance was completed during winter season, and therefore only two of the wetland indicators (vegetation and hydrology) could be observed on a minimal level. The basins were field checked on April 28, 1993 and slight adjustments were made and documented. We appreciate the opportunity to present this analysis. If you have questions or would like further assistance, please contact our office. Sincerely. 1 Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. Matthev, T. Snebold 1 Biologist Dawn R' Kref ���� Natural Resource Department Manager 1 cc. Joanne Olson, Senior Planner, City of Chanhassen Dick Putnam, Tandom Properties ' John Prins. Realty House Joel Cooper, J.R. Hill Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 I TANDEM James L. Ostensor. PROPERTIES Richard A.Putnam' BROKERS • PLANNERS • DEVELOPERS 1 ` A' 4 '11149\ f /92 4 j , 1 � "� ? 4 7 e 4,c iiow w� e 1 t,t e".1.1 our 1.A.9 e:zelli 1,,e ; c".. E.$4.4 k-te..)-- o • 1 'iit.YG az-vic.16 V Y' 4 4•01^1.-Li • 1 a--14, 1/10&-e-7 )4 e-, SL VD ) c. ) . I? 9-iL J • I ' 9C } y Ur � y -Z r +Itee, C/9t/19,t,,--; 4 ?--i. A-T--.K: I , 1 14 A42i1Z ,/l7 y eGr,.--,51-1/Gej-fo t4 iot- J 1 1 /vtV k -' ciL-14.4 oNitt-i,f-cPC Z__) i‘,/,t,e_e__ ));, --. Useroc.,; `I b 1 .. r�e -qtx e -' -ro 1 1 1 p/Icr-_, .fit ? 6 ek, 9/ ue A ,/1 "4 4Y 7 . 1 ,, /1) li /e-e, , 4 1 s.ee_ (1,,e6,01.i ;Vii-p --. kkes12— -fit aS _ 1 , r4A/ ' - 65 Casco Point Road • Wayzata, Minnesota 391 • Office R. Fax (612) 471 -0573 • » ARCHITECTURAL -- -- - ._ EXCELLENCE is the standard for o all custom - builders carefully selected a , to create home environments of superior luxury, comfort and design. a \ 494 Deliberate attention has been paid to a ') � ,� /_ 169 c everything from energy conservation ( _.-. _ _ - l " to the preservation of the rustic s : natural landscape. ',,,\ ./ /1\ ti INCI,LJI)Ii.I) IN THE Sum a ( "4-1, MODERATE PRICING is city ( k i ` , 3 0 o water, city sewer, black top streets, a Sc o �9) concrete curb and gutters, under- k late _ _ ' o o g 0 , round electric and telephone \-/ ` .- i ti services and energy efficient natural - -. pi •,t"1 gas. Puree( Td PROTECTIVE ( 'OVI;NAN'I'S LOCATION MAI' Lk . 1. Cedar Ridge Elementary have been designed to control the 2. M iller Park ` • } environment in order to maintain the 3. Oak Point ((;racks 5th and 6th) ) ice. highest construction standards. 4. Middle School 5. High School St IMMI;R OAKS makes home b. Eden Prairie Shopping ( ;enter 7. (Manhasset) ownership in an environment of K. Flagship Athletic Club .. >r 4 spectacular beauty and convenience a 9. Library real pleasure. A variety of financing O. plans enables you to enjoy the many advantages of luxury home owner- GILiNERAI, INFORMATION ship now. • 38 1 loniu sites are av ailable now. . N,«r,-,. ) . E. • 1 ,of; sires are from 13,80( - 49,800 (1.14 acres) square feet. 1)1;VE1O1'1;1) BY • Lot widths are a minimum of 100 TANDEM PROPERTIES Ii or Information call 941-7805 • Architecture ►s controlled with Protective (;ovenants. • Sideyard setbacks are 1(1 feet on the garage and 15 feet on the house. • Future Phase 1 I will follow. am am am EN am No me um I mu um NE ow ow NE um as Ea Summer Qths ,. . , TRUNK HIGHWAY NO. 5 tiVC:deilklat ' iti4Liikiti;;"at'il --- i SUMMER OAKS ... contains 58 4 • ;, I executive home sites nestled among , '..: •' f( sl , majestic oaks, beautiful ponds and FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD' I • rolling fields of western Eden Prairie. COMMERCIAL CENTER r } � Located just off of Dell Road, south C... - ' - - . � , . •. - J . r �.,� ' I of Highway 5, Summer Oaks is the f � � �` {�"� �' ". �, �, / MULTI-FAMILY kind of neighborhood that appeals to II z ; ' - CONDO /TOWNHOUSE I today's family. l <"r • 3r ✓ , 1-. 1 SUMMER OAKS ... contains the COND FAMILY q __ unique combination of the best of two f CONDO /TO WNHOUSE }.> �F D - NE _ - ---- -- worlds: A successful blending of the i /-. Ili s a 3 c l 2: M 7 ® � ; _ O �°O 1 O.I NI quiet, comfortable and relaxed atmosphere of country seclusion ... �� i3 ' c ,00 . el " ' atmos 9a P tY'3' - Q ,, t 5 1 I combined with all the conveniences, 't • � _- ;�' 7 1 (� 1 WETLAND 24-" x i - •- < ^/ I culture and modern technology of ; ' 105 (,O ,90 • 7Sr O O 6 •� g metropolitan living ... right at your J , . } ` - -� A S � = o — ,, � �M „ j doorstep. W ` . . \' .. , ' ., ® " C IMARR ON � 1 0 } 1 \ \`` 1 I p „ :� _ 1 ' - ,a) © 'T O SUMMER OAKS ... is close to Eden �.. -� �,. i''''''''''..- ,- 5 \ h Prairie Center, the 494 Strip, � p - � t "� 0 i e � ,� Mpls. /St. Paul International Airport, 'L, 1 . li . 1 O = r s• %_- _ J - ."= / downtown Chanhassen and the 4 !�.c � ,o c. �—' o SUMMER I Chanhassen Dinner Theatres well as - ! - - o a , . : � , ^ 0 , OAKS a host of neighborhood churches, __ -_ - - - i , ;,�� 1 +� . sly 2Q - . , �, PHAS� l ry./ d, shopping and recreational _ 13 ;I 6.1' ' '+-* - W. / I conveniences. Major employers in i :. r ' - v '\ -- i --- • close proximity include Rosemount, J , 12 . u � ' Dataserv, McGlynn's, IDS, ; _ a .' 0 `.. r / '�w 1 North ate American Family Insur- ^- j9' o I.) r - i 0 $ ance, MTS Systems, Super Valu - )% 1 - _ r 11 0,- 7 / C AR SPRING LA NE Stores, Research, Inc., Perkin - Elmer, , �� ,s \ Eaton Corp., Starkey Labs, and G.E. _ Il•, N . ' Capital. p iii 7 _ f 4, ; _ mi No no am mill NE am No 3', ', Summer Oaks i % , a '� /' • : r 4'4' .j y ! 4. w • �` •, - d d R TlG •iiy'�.� .r ■ SUMMER OAKS ... contains 58 ;, "' , \ I I executive home sites nestled among • -i majestic oaks, beautiful ponds and ''i:; FUTURE NEIGHBORHOOD' I ' ':, COMMERCIAL CENTER rolling fields of western Eden Prairie. ' I Located just off of Dell Road, south I ... e ( l' of Highway 5, Summer Oaks is the hborhood that `z t - ' ' t _ kind of neighborhood appeals 4.0 I f_ 1; ,/ MULTI FAMILY g ppe als to CONDO /TOWNHOUSE I today's family. ''t, l ^ ; f' ',., , .1 — a• ri� SUMMER OAKS ... contains the " ' % MULTI FAMILY • ''''''' � 414- - — — � ' ' CONDO /TOWNHOUSE -- . IVE I _ unique combination of the best of two ' ` • • . a . «�,- ���r`w +� e' TB' ---- worlds: A successful blending of the quiet, comfortable and relaxed ', 7 ® 1 i 1® li 0 -.:0 ,,,i 0 atmosphere of country seclusion ... p i 0 ,--.\., = i 5 � L 7 1 combined with all the conveniences, Q ; ' 7 0 I WETLAND ' � - 2 / v8 ' �� �` culture and modern technology of /0! f ,0 ,j0' m �* " r' ,s O ° 6 I .0/ 8 J metropolitan living ... right at your .� j { ? o \M „� r _ 1 -,V/ doorstep. W ''� I^ i 4 CIMA aoN G T• h - , O . .L h SUMMER OAKS ... is close to Eden • > : \� ..,� ; , . " ry,• � - 6 5 Prairie Center, the 494 Strip, -, , ■ M 12 � ' ° '' , . 7 OS ` O ` 4 ; ,� 05 M pls. /St. Paul International Airport, ii 8 downtown Chanhassen and the 1 '" "•t - I,, -; , °' SUMMER • Chanhassen Dinner Theatres well as ' <; ' ` J ' ", ;. ' � ` , , , , ' : °y �i 0 OAKS �• � _� t t/r t$ • � (7l P HASE 11 / a host of neighborhood churches, „, ,. r .; , �� 1 ," 1 , U . I shopping nd recreational "} k) , 1 \ 1 4 1 i i) conveniences. Major employers in , , -_. _ -' I ' .y ' - I close proximity include Rosemount, c 4 , ' 1 42 ) , ; 1(.(15::: , , '' Dataserv, McGlynn's, IDS, - , I r i I N X77 " � / - Northgate, American Family Insur- ./ t• / ance, MTS Systems, Super Valu F �U �i ` •U r ( 1 1 , , d J f , r :� q SP N 4ANE Stores, Research, Inc., Perkin-Elmer, ' ,, �s ,. )i.',' , / , — N NO - 1 Eaton Corp., Starkey Labs, and G.E. : ' j - ( I �o , _ _____ i s° U Capital. . 4 V--- // 1 Io 7 J • l., , h ., Iy i I — as — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ARCHITECTURAL EXCELLENCE is the standard for 41 ^ all custom - builders carefully selected ! K to create home environments of superior luxury, comfort and design. o 169 491 Deliberate attention has been paid to a WWII* ' 1 everything from energy conservation CI -' -"' to the preservation of the rustic -- � % 1 natural landscape. '� � SUM (laks' �' 11 L O INCLUDED IN THE — CI , ''^,' MODERATE PRICING is city k 0 o o O 4 t water, city sewer, black top streets, m saris a i ' q $ 4 4Z411 concrete curb and gutters, under- 2 8 , 0; ground electric and telephone 0 'o I : , ; . services and energy efficient natural t has. — -- 3 : PROTECTIVE COVENANTS LOCATION MAP: 1. Cedar Ridge Elementary `' have been designed to control the 2. Miller Park v. ` .l • environment in order to maintain the 3. Oak Point (Grades 5th and 6th) highest construction standards. 4. Middle School 5. 1-ligh School 4. . tt 6 Eden Prairie Shopping Center ;•... SUMMER OAKS makes home '' 7. Chanhassen , ;;�'� ownership in an environment of 8. Flagship Athletic Club spectacular beauty and convenience a 9. Library f" ` real pleasure. A variety of financing r' :,; plans enables you to enjoy the many ( 14 advantages of luxury home owner- GiiiINE1RAL INFORMATION ship now. • 38 -come sites are available now. • Lot sizecare from 13,800 - 49,800 '' . " (1.14 acres) square feet. ' ' .:‘ • Lot widths are a minimum of 100 t DEVELOPED BY feet. TANDEM PROPERTIES • Architecture is controlled with For Information call 941 -7805 protective Covenants. • Sidcyard setbacks are 10 feet on the garage and 15 feet on the house. • NM IN NM NM 11111 an INN I � NM - II - follow. _ — _ _ — _ — - r � a ,I , : Ilski .. � V r .. ' r :: .. 1 in • k` 1 ' U a d1 .N \ \ (I i ______-- .. , . 0 - T ', ... k i,, ,, ::::::..7.-: , ,,...1::::::. , i f WO. . 0, A41 i \ \ m x a a CA 4 q (S 4 , • N 4 O C a c . .. 1 ' t J . 0 -00 \ t,L, ,J) a \ \ 1 a Q \ N • - — _ I Y o 1 v < 4 0 Y Qi� ,• Q I Q '' \ �\ O O7 cn V p d J ry T 00 co .�1 . . O ti U \ xN a r� • \N. 4 • ' y O • i N U / ('( cr - • z d' y z J > - O ! (_ N • \ 'o ., 0 w W S. N O i ‘,.et.-44: U • ' r. i N ," I s '' • - i - •m Cr- e-- N Q x 7 • ! V Ng 4 V . O 4 I � • HOC: "L / W T •• N — • -- 11: x ^4 TJ - , � � - ,` ~' ma y • - f 90 V; \ ___ . , : N‹ • . r, . ? — _ _ " . ti of et " I Q s {. ,6 • V '� i \ I_ `S i A N Q i f 1 •� /� r` y W ` { t� W ,Q - ). P• T Y` - 1;% - ` / ; 0 �v V v N Chi►' �l • ��� U \.---------- �� —__� r "- �� 5 Erb) lg � 6 . 4 1 $ 1 %t t •r:\ - - itTnialfr _ ......______:_____--- ,4c Z I „ (a ' Oa t u 44 GILO, 2 5 E R , _ ,� -- _. E. 964.1 0 14 1g° .,a3e.AP'' - . 'tab/. r— 0013-1 , ''K• 44 4104 ADL ° 1 12 ��r S? • ri • • ao 1 W 0" 9 40.5 d t5,o rr �` �Cgo�,'�1 I t 1 co £t+tcN. z ,3 (' Q uw 0 ,15.0 r a j �" 7 . V..6 E i ` 41, A 3 OcD 30. s j `c�8 J Is • T u J i � � p� gyp.0 1 9 (✓'tz °S° 1 1 �x to <uci, C 0c .• \ + ' 0 Z ► °, ,',4 Z`,o I Z r e d + �. � �n I ` ors. e „ ' 1 01, a I 1 . M" Z 1 • c� I r• 1 -4) 1� - 't2GN[¢ , 0 t1 11 (�' e ` 1 Dz..A1 /JA Ca E. t 4 a��tc + L r1LIT—( 1 1 0 1 •ber.A.t.,,r -r J , � 1 • � � - 29 0-' i 0 X4..4 -- 115.2.1• N B ° .908 so 20�. " v./ o Denotes Iron Monument Proposed Top of Foundation Elevation = goco 9 x 100.0 Denotes Exist ng Elevation Proposed Garage Floor Elevation = 9oco s 1 (100.0) Denotes Proposed Elevation Proposed Lowest Floor Elevation = $909 -•_- -- Denotes Direction of Surface Drainage I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: 1 Lou, 6, Block 3, 3T C N CO Mil PRAIRI2, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And o` the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said 1 land. As surveyed by me this 16tti day of February 9 93 . /,,z,Ne A (.% i; /e,,..a/2 Thomas S. Bercaquist 1 Registered Land Surveyor, inn. Lic. No. 7725 g 1 ,,, 4o► CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ,. SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. 1100, PAC[ for q E C 150 SOUTH BAOADwAY•WAYZATA, MN 55391 e 0 . (,' + t 1672 1 76 6000 FAX 176 ill NO 0 0 J. PAUL STI RNS & CO. , INC. B 8 II k f ' ` �1 �� % vi / � / ` , I . Consultation Done For: 111 ;i 1. i 1 l rk � r r i v r . V ie,' Name l�iCk � :� ' �Y\c(� 4f �� t 1 r l 'l� Address 9 7 L S Co < c c' Pc ,, - F cl A i 4��1 cit lAjo ,i- c, State r'Atj Zi 3 n Phone (H) 4 -7 I % c S (W) `i 11 - 0 5 73 Rainbow Trceccre ' 4601 Excelsior Blvd, Suite 300 Consultation Date of Consultation Tel: 1 , 1 3 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 (612) 922 -3810 Form Consutting Arborist ,..JC�r'.j 1 L c °; 0 1 Yard Site Inspection Construction Site - Injury Prevention 1 Evaluations Conversations ❑ Trees checked for diseases & insects. El Trees checked for girdling roots ❑ Long term energy depletion / decline I ❑ Trees checked for hazardous conditions. C2 Discuss roots in soil (Most in top 6 ") ❑ Trees evaluated for pruning needs, ® Soil compaction & grade changes I ❑ Shrubs evaluated for pruning needs. ❑ 30% damage of 1/2 the roots rule ❑ Soil checked for compaction ® Clean cut roots during excavation ❑ Soil moisture evaluated JE1 House placement discussed I ❑ Soil Tissue sample need evaluated. Utility line placement discussed. ❑ Stressed tree - Starch analysis ❑ Sewer or drain field placement ❑ Salt injury evaluated. ❑ Foundation soil disposal. I ❑ Growth nodes examined for history. ❑Building waste material disposal ❑ Mower & ;hip damage evaluated Z Importance of fencing. ❑ New tree planting depths examined. ❑ Fence placement agreed upon by all I ❑ Truck & equipment parking. ❑ Building material storage Conversations D Oak Wilt discussed 1 ❑ Do agreements .cork for the builder'' ❑ Above items discussed ❑ Tree care history discussed. Evaluations I ❑ Importance of Rootcare for urban soils and trees. ❑ Lawn service / Herbicide, Fungicide, & Fertilizer ❑ Tree treatments for unavoidable damage use discussed. ❑ Trees checked for hazards. 1 ❑ Sprinkler system use discussed (watering). ❑ Option of aeration system evaluated ❑ Necessity of preparing trees for injury 1 ,,,e, -f- i,-\ poix e--fi i Comments Fee L., , , , , ,l r _ r ± Cii+rOV )V ) C" iUN." 1"4' ; rt t'i '`1?�',\ K; !IS C\ (1t <ctr' i .. lj:, , I Li! ;.'�.�e L,1 ._Est -_4( C Ici j«-1l.E — {t∎ci i 0. 1i1 51c(( !( H ourly Rate ' � ` — rl'.,X1 'nu „ t a -I(c Min Charge � C-{, IV ('n,_, (3 (Sl�� (. it', 1 c ri..\ck" I1T}) has 3-r, j ' i'lu�,,,l ciU!�= r lt,t(, # Hours i_ / fit D.. L Cr: Cr: _�l:100 :100 `57":01 .`J k- (:� /t.Go'7L Total Cost l cil- Total f' .45-&-2-- .45-&-2-- Lo-1g: . (,< ;l 1 , +G:( „ 1•'f Ci(k 1,t7-its D'SC .`, t 1 1( . ,I 2 J. PAUL STERNS & CO., INC, 1 CONTRACTORS OF FINE CONSTRUCTION Major Remodeling - Design - Fine Homes 1 FAX TRANSMISSION 1 - ; TO: ?) /C-fs 7e,f "rA//1)1/1 4./7 /-0 S73 FROM: C'e �'�Q 1 DATE: 1 TIME: 9 9O Am NUMBER OF COPIES: / not Including this cover sheet 1 40" /'dam,. 9 44freeerA4f 17e)ce2 1 * Cer.elde4 1 " Please contact us if copy quality is not Acceptable 1 Z -e-V4tAi 74. h e 774 44,4eb ,2evisr.o iep *Aij s c!oe oi12 MO c� , »,,& . T ,gam , 965 , 1 T <1 ' e/-Pr) 717 *4 itr■ 4-02 Jyov gee -2 7a sit 1 C c ysi - u- 77e. 7. ce, w� 1 70 P.-e er - h' /C, rC T2P.Q 7c � 4S _ 4-e7 tiS / F4' v /G T/�l /.S Accep7A6te, 14 SOUTH BROADWAY AVE. WAYZATA MINNESOTA 55391 (612) 473 -2241 1 12'CAS _ •� .' le ' �A f► • 14.'04K !2"OA . ( _ �0 -:- ; :a 2 8" 0 4,1 i° • ---�- o'0 "O �9p ,•6 �•. AdL k° .00: ~ fa• ' O n w 0 O p6 "OA : ' �_ �. O � t t • -k 20 "0AK / � \ ro — SEit vtG6S l e 30 r 1 K • " te a 'b "A,.,y� I b 2 'ASH ic5i�� .�-� _ • 2 . ' A S H -� ' G 47 A • . ` . 4106 '` t \ � �� • , i 1- ' , ,.. 6.---%%\ ,. ,,.cr . = . : • 12 410K . s ': 1 % ; ) :..A 4N 1 1 \ ,', 1 t 12 "A!..14. ' :.' 0 I ia \ 1 :' II ',-."- - I st: U ! .,` 14. ,o V / I I tit V-- ' . ` - ' a{ , ` �,� • '2 'ASH 0 , 2" ' a u t • b ii 7 I I 1 •'2 ASH 2' CHcR I j • C 4cR • C 11 'CHEF Ir "CNE •6�rC � � • • 2C "CrER • ' �:_� O .D 1 � v. 4 AS 12 r+E , t �Iv "CHEp 1 !4 "ASH 11 a su �� 4•• ■ !2 " � � I , • 0 • c ". c )\\' o 1 ' . 1 04 '2 ' ^ A i \ \ '''' ' ,I4 CE-DA 1� * , 2 "CH:R \ \ i 4, N t 4 ''' ' ' - \ \ ! f / , s� s '� ?'CECAR a 1�� •14 "PSH / 1 '''. i' I. w, r szP 7 . . . ., • i , ;.7.,::., • 1 . ,,,, 1 '� .... 111/ Cr g ,. t 2• • 0 // 8 1 0"/ i ......... ,...... "; „ ..4,- \ .. 1 ( i;.- 1,; , 1 H U� r f 1 r •� )f 7 . / ! EXIST . - _ • . . /ri.> ..b HCCP 7A .. 15.# SO:7TH BROADWAY AVE. WAYZATA MINNESOTA 55391 1E121 473-2_243 1 1 1 \ --,--,"",,,07' ' , ' 1 .-- - ' ' 1 ' ..: it : t \/ 1 -e 110 1 fiNer I 'lidge I POI u VI \- " 1 1 oln + 11.tt fr 0 14.4 r41461 4--- Tv ,...kii 1 -- * ,,,, v . I topatterClitrfv„0,1, 1 *A& {>o � w! o + � f 4 4 IF 1 4 I"' 1 ee."g7 1 lit or t v- ".-4 C 1471fri 1 1 L il o ;, A, t' ±r" ti-, (6c , I, - .014 ,�.;' j + ‘'i ii�'i Consultation Done For: t 'iVis i, � / �i',, Name J1 ((O CI Q 1 ' Address J , PoL31 seArhs Co, loc. ANt C ity � , State MN Zip 1 1 4.!.‘ a l IJ't t)3 Phone (H) (W) Rainbow Trcecare I 4601 Excelsior Blvd, Suite 300 Consultation Date of Consultation ' /� St. Louis Park, MN 55416 � (612) 922 -3810 Form Consulting Arborist �Lt 11 �'` ( S0 1 ' - \ 1 Yard Site Inspection Construction Site - Injury 1 Prevention 1 Evaluations Conversations ❑ Trees checked for diseases & insects. ❑ Trees checked for girdling roots. 12f Long term energy depletion / decline. Trees checked for hazardous conditions. 1 el la Discuss roots in soil (Most in top 6 "). ❑ Trees evaluated for pruning needs. ,,3i11 v cl li0 Soil compaction & grade changes. ❑ Shrubs evaluated for pruning needs. oc,b(E ,k ❑ 30% damage of 1/2 the roots rule. ❑ Soil checked for compaction 4 , , -67~ 0 Clean cut roots during excavation. ❑ Soil moisture evaluated. House placement discussed. 1 ❑ SoilfTissue sample need evaluated. ❑ Utility line placement discussed. ❑ Stressed tree Starch analysis. ❑ Sewer or drain field placement. ❑ Salt injury evaluated 0 Foundation soil disposal. ' ❑ Growth nodes examined for history. 131 Building waste material disposal. ❑ Mower & v, hip damage evaluated. Importance of fencing. ❑ New tree planting depths examined. ❑ Fence placement agreed upon by all. Truck & equipment parking bbl " '' I �( Building material storage. ' "'c Conversations ❑ Oak Wilt discussed. Aera ❑ Do agreements work for the builder? L V' bi -- . -/ � t 1 ❑ Above items discussed. ❑ Tree care history discussed. Evaluations ❑ Importance of Rootcare for urban soils and trees. ❑ Lawn service / Herbicide, Fungicide, & Fertilizer ❑ Tree treatments for unavoidable damage. use discussed ❑ Trees checked for hazards. I ❑ Sprinkler system use discussed (watering). ❑ Option of aeration system evaluated. ❑ Necessity of preparing trees for injury. ','s P ` `(" '�` 0 Comments Fee tat # 6 ` t' -1\E- w ^„ Johr) (c - /At (1( ( ru��ha-\ pzc(c tfteS +t•<y .,.,, 1 H':: .5("-k (�_t `fi't-�S • Di3L�s' L t r\ice5�,c,r,- (m,occ)Jur S Hourly Rate 75 I � Min. Charge �=- - a- ,' t-.k.� ci c, i. ,,^e- x )1,5 , > fi r , r ,, k�lc, 4a,ti c g ` (; i h_,,. _ c' so., r, free) , C2o -en { 0\iX1i5 g 5pil(S, # Hours t ' � i v - ll Total Cost -1:-"s--' h ' ,� i,Y, '.'i,.? kf (1: h k Cc ,) ' 6 (e +iti 7,i,'5 -6,, (;p - 111X' -.\ a,,n(Lv__" (NR - a - c I .-, ,,y).,-). � -s, / ! ( p/�� 1 lit. C.i;c- ' 1-' ('IL! (. (* ) I:, r t 1 (4'.,-.i.�F IA i+ ,_ , _,4 rUlC�l C^ P ' ,',,''( t .,t 1 ,' .. , 1r k,', , -,:,,e "> i --``,. • frq yy■ 1. t optt.i k / i 4 \ ci Ra i n b owTreeca re 4601 Excelsior Blvd. St. Louis Park, MN 55416 922 -3810 1 Information for After We Pruned Your Trees Thank you for choosing Rainbow TreeCare to prune your valuable trees. It is our intention that you be entirely satisfied with the quality of work performed. If there is anything that is not exactly how you want it, please call us so we may return and complete the work to your specifications. We want you to call if things aren't what you expected, even if you notice a problem 6 months from now. Proper pruning is a very difficult and dangerous job. If it is done correctly, it 1 will leave a tree more healthy and vital as well as help it coexist with it's neighbors and your house. There are a number of different ways to prune a tree. If your interested in more information on why we pruned your tree the way we did, please call. Were happy to talk to you anytime. If there is snow on the ground (I know that it's hard to imagine if it's summer now) and we weren't able to do our standard excellent cleanup, we will be back in the spring. We've put you on a list. If the snow melts in your yard and you're wondering where we are or if you just want it done quickly, call so we can put you at the top of our list and get your yard cleaned up. We, at Rainbow TreeCare, believe that our job is only partially done after the work is completed. We are available to come look at your trees or answer questions if you ever feel there may be a problem. Thank you for your business. 1 Rainbow TreeCare 1 1 1 Customer S ervice Eval uation i t 1 . I n order to continually improve our service, we are always seeking critical evaluations of our work. Giving us your opinions will help us to I maintain and improve upon our high levels of quality and service. Please fill out this form and return it to us with your payment. Poor Excellent I 1. Please rate your Consulting Arborist. . 1 2 3 4 . , 5 2. How would you rate our field staff? '1 2 3 4 - 5 1 3. Please grade your overall service. 1 2 3 4` 5 !,;Y;�; .j -; ) . 1 4. Our work is heavily influenced by many factors beyond our control (i.e. weather conditions, spray timing, and healthy equipment) and we are sometimes unable to Complete work when it was initially scheduled. If this happened to you, were you called and made I aware of the situation? Y N N /A. . • r 5. Did anything happen to upset you? Y N (If so, what was it ?) ' 1 6. Did we keep all of our promises? Y N (If not, what was not kept ?) 1 I Never Abiohi*sty 7. Would you use our services again? 1 2 . 3 , 4 5 I 8. Is there anything else you would like to tell us? 1 1 1 Name: Phone: 1 Type of work performed: Trim & Removal. (Please circle Insect or Disease Control. I those that apply) Aeration /Fertilization. Elm Protection. _ 1 Thank You ! ! ! I - 1 1 TROTTER'S RIDGE TREE KEY 1 TREE TYPE BREVIATION I ABBREVIATION PIKE PE 1 SPRUCE- S RED CEDAR I 1 BUR OAK BO W O !WHITE OAK 1�OAK RO 1 BA SSWOOD BW LMAPLE M 1 r LM E ;ASH A COTMNWOOD M`' 1 \'WILLOW WW HACKBERRY HB 1 POPLAR __ P BLACK CHERRY IBC . WALNUT BUTTERNUT BT 1 BOX1ELDER BE IRONWOOD I W 1 1 1 1 LIST OF TREES PERMITTED TO BE REMOVED ON LOTS 1 BLOCK 1 Number Size of Tree *Type of Tree I Lot 1 467 15" A 468 twin 14" A 469 twin 14" A I 470 17" A 479 triple 14" W 480 16 ", 13" A I 13" WW 481 14" BW Lot 17 365 26" BO Lot 18 337 36" BO I Lot 19 71 20" BO 76 32" BO 1 77 24" BO Lot 20 49 24" RO 50 18" BO 52 12" BO I 53 18" BO Lot 21 44 30" BO I Lot 22 38 15" A 40 18" BO I Lot 23 18 20" BO 19 32" BO 1 41 36" WO Lot 24 11 15" IW I Lot 25 14 36" BO 147 38" BO I Lot 31 454 16" M I 455 13" M 1 1 1 Lot 32 456 14" BW 457 6" A I 458 14" A 459 12" A 460 14" BW I Lot 33 446 12" RC 465 10" RC I BLOCK 2 Lot 1 439 32" BO Lot 2 429 22" BO I 430 10" PE 431 24" BO Lot 3 353 33" BO 1 Lot 9 306 30" BO I 310 32" BO Lot 10 322 34" BO 1 323 14" E 344 28" BO Lot 11 3 22" BO I 4 17" BO I Lot 13 5 14" BO 152 12" E I 153 20" BO 154 18" M 155 15" BO 156 18" BO Lot 14 157 30" BO I 158 24" BO 159 24" BO 160 24" BO I 163 26" BO LIST OF TREES TO BE REMOVED BY STREET CONSTRUCTION I 2 1 .I' I NUMBER SIZE TYPE I 6 23" BO 7 22" BO 8 28" BO 1 20" A 24 18" BO 25 30" BO I 27 24" BO 28 24" BO I 141 22" BO 142 24" BO 143 20" BO I 149 15" BO 150 26" BO 151 22" BO I 164 30" M 165 36" RO 314 42" BO I 315 30" BO 320 28" BO 321 20" BO I 325 24" BO 326 18" BO 327 28" BO t 330 26" BO 331 28" BO 333 16" BO 338 22" BO 340 16" A 351 34" BO 1 385 37" BO 386 26" BO 387 24" BO 1 388 42" BO 440 40" BO 441 31" BO I 443 12" A 444 12" A I 445 12" A 447 13" CW 448 18" BO I 449 26" BO 450 36" BO 1 3 453 14" A 1 461 38" WW 1 466 8" RC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 II Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 51 II opposition. The motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. il Batzli: Your reason for? Mancino: Well I certainly hope that the...looks better than I think it might. I just have some concerned about that obviously. II Scott: Mr. Hanson, when the building is finished you can invite Commissioner Mancino to come over 1 Mancino: And I'll say I was all wrong, I'm sorry and I hope that that happens. There's no question about it. But no, I do have some concern about it and I would just like to have it, I'd like to see a rendering of I the whole front face and see what else could be done architecturally to it. So we just don't have that one split. That's what concerns me. We're going to have two different looking buildings. And that's why. II Batzli: Okay. Out of curiosity, were we going to strike condition 5 and was that part of your motion? II Scott: It wasn't part of my motion but. Al- .Taff: We were going to strike condition 5 but it wasn't part of the II motion. Ledvina: But he's met it. II Scott: So that's why I just left it. Batzli: Okay. My other concern was that I share some of Nancy's concerns II about that and I'd like to see a little bit more guidance, especially in condition 3 regarding matching the...Thank you. This goes to City Council when? 1 Al -Jaff: On the 28th. I Batzli: 28th? Al -Jaff: Of June. That's next Council meeting. II Mancino: I've got to go to that one too. PUBLIC HEARING: II REZONE 31.83 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL INTO 48 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER AND MITIGATE WETLANDS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND I SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, TROTTERS RIDGE, TANDEM PROPERTIES. Public Present: II Name Address il Jim Ostenson 7808 Creekridge Circle #310, Bloomington John Prins 5120 Edina Industrial Blvd. II Planning Commission Meeting It June 16, 1993 - Page 52 r Jo Ann Olsen and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item. go with the 60 feet? Your recommendation was to Harberts: 9 Hempel: That's correct. We didn't see any advantage to going to a 50 foot. We're losing additional right -of -way for no reason. Ledvina: The width of the pavement is the same, correct? , Hempel: The street width does remain the same. Scott: 30 feet? ' Hempel: 31 feet back of curb to back of curb. Harberts: What about from Public Safety there was some comments in here about some corners. Some sharp or blind corners and in the report here it talked about maybe additional signage. ' Hempel: That's correct. Actually I brought up that point with the street and alignment and so forth. Some of the curves are very sharp and lower than obviously a 30 mph speed. We do have numerous city streets with the same predictament that we do install additional traffic signage and speed advisitory signs on those sharp curves to advise motorists. Being that this is a local neighborhood, a looped street that goes through traffic so II ( generally 90% of the traffic is going to be local traffic and once they drive it they're very familiar with it. Harberts: So you're okay then with it? ' Hempel: We are comfortable from an engineering perspective. Batzli: Okay. Jo Ann, was that all you had for us? Olsen: Yeah, just to keep it brief, yes. ' Batzli: Did you have anything else? Hempel: Just to add, Monday night they did approve to go ahead with the 1 construction plans and specifications for extensin of sewer and water to this site so there is a condition in there making this project contingent upon that. So I believe that condition has been almost complied with. 1 Harberts: It also talked about the pre - existing homes and according to the city ordinance. They're required to connect to sewer lines, so on and so II forth. Do these homeowners know that? Are they like the developers here? Hempel: Maybe the developer can address this at a later stage. I believe one of the homeowners will remain on site and the other is probably a rental. { Harberts: So they're going to know? 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 53 il Hempel: It's advantageous with the septic systems that they do connect to city sewer. Batzli: Okay, would the applicant like to address the Commission? Your 11 brevity would be appreciated. Jim Ostenson: Very brief. My name is Jim Ostenson. I'm with Tandem Properties. John Prins, a partner is with me tonight and Joel Cooper, the I project engineer with James Hill is also here. We agree with everything in the staff report. The only issue we had outstanding was the 50 feet versus 60 foot right -of -way. It was our understanding that if we went to 60 feet I we'd have to clear or grade right -of -way to right -of -way and now if we can save those trees, attempt to save those trees within that right -of -way, that's what we were trying to accomplish anyway. So we don't have any problem with that. We would still request the variance of a 25 foot front I yard setback on certain lots that are necessary. And again that's to save trees. 1 Harberts: Which lot? Jim Ostenson: I think it's on that handout. II Harberts: It's all inclusive in this list? Jim Ostenson: Yes. Is that right Joel? II Harberts: Okay. Even with the 60? I Olsen: We'll verify exactly. Jim Ostenson: We can verify that with the staff if there's 1 or 2 more that should be added. II Harberts: My understanding from the report was that if the applicant was not permitted the reduced right -of -way, the need for reduced setbacks will I be increased. So that means that there'd be more homes that would have to require that. II Olsen: Right. Again, it's hard to say without seeing the actual plan but a lot of times if you push in the right -of -way, then you're pushing back even further. So I was just making an assumption. II Harberts: So it's a matter of revisiting that issue then? Jim Ostenson: Yes. The other issue that was brought up regarding the I home, we purchased both of the homes. The one tenant in the one house is buying that house. They will purchase it with the understanding that they have to hook up. The other house we're going to be remodeling and then II selling that house also. So both of those will be able to hook up to sewer and water. Batzli: Thank you. I'm sure we'll have, I assume we may ask some questions as we go through this. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Are you guys all with the applicant? II II Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 54 C Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. , Harberts: I would agree with staff not to grant the reduced right -of -way. I had a little concern about the corners but as long as Public Safety and II staff is okay with it, I'll go with it. It looks like a nice neighborhood. Any comments in terms of value of homes projected? Jim Ostenson: I would think probably about $180,000.00 to $300,000.00. $275,000.00. Batzli: Do you feel that what you're looking at is close enough to what's I going to go in? You feel comfortable saying looks good, let's go with it? Harberts: Oh, with some little squares on here? Yeah right. I guess I defer to the staff. You know I look at plans all the time and I'll just leave that up to staff I guess. But the wetland issue. I found it interesting that one was concrete and I think it was B that was going to be filled, had a diving board or something. That was interesting. I guess II I'm not, I won't oppose the proposed mitigation then. Leaving things in as much as a natural state as possible I guess is always preferred and as I had seen it was just a matter of adding a little here and there. I guess II that basically sums it up from my perspective. My concerns were more along that public safety issue. Batzli: Okay, thanks. Matt. Ledvina: Well I've got some concerns for this development. I am uncomfortable with the change in right -of -way and how this might affect the II building pads. I like to see fairly accurate plans in front of me. I'm concerned about the tree loss. I see routinely 32 inch trees being cut down. I didn't count the number of them but there's a significant number. 11 36, 32, 42, 34. I understand that when you develop you need to take down trees but I don't know. We worked fairly hard with Lake Susan Hills, with that to deal with the trees. Some very special considerations there. I look at the grading plan and I don't see a lot of grading here. I think they've done a pretty nice job of fitting things in and you don't see the exact grading for all the housepads. The major street grading that's in here. It's not too bad. Mostly along the eastern edge. One thing that I, as Tim Erhart would say, I think is insane, is the filling of wetlands to accommodate a setback. I can't support that. I don't know. I like to see things moved along but I don't know, I would favor tabling this. Batzli: Joe. Scott: Yeah. I concur with Matthew. We spent a lot of time on Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. I'm actually quite proud of what the city staff II and the developer ended up with on it and what I'd like to see is something that helped me visually understand the impact was to see the location of the trees with their numbers and something that the applicants brought in the other PUD, residential PUD that we had, is that they showed, the Forcier property showed by lot the trees that were going to be removed and the size. Because when I see tree 499. Number one, I don't know where it II is. And then number two, on a lot by lot basis, I have no way of 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 55 II ii understanding it. And I think we set a very good precedent with Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition so I'd recommend tabling this until we get a tree inventory that not only shows the location and number of all the trees, but then by lot which ones are gone and you guys can provide the applicant with a copy of what they did on the Forcier property. Because then we can make II a decision but I don't really appreciate, and neither does city staff, receiving pertinent information at 4:30 -5:00 via courier on the date that the Planning Commission has to take a look at something. So I would II support tabling this until we get the correct tree information. Harberts: Just a comment, question. Staff, did you feel comfortable with II receiving that information at the time you did? Hempel: The information we received was strictly for the right -of -way area. It wasn't for the house pads. I guess I am comfortable. I thought I I was going to have to fight harder for my 60 foot right -of -way. I'm getting it. They're getting the trees. We're getting trees. I'm comfortable. The comfort level with the buildable pads like we did in Lake I Susan Hills 9th, that's a different story. We have some more developments coming down the line with similar topographic features that we're going to be running into the same situation. They're right on the heels of this project. They don't have a tree survey either. II Scott: They really should. II Olsen: We're not getting the same information that we got with Lake Susan Hills 9th and that's not the developer's fault. We don't have that set, exactly what we need. II Ledvina: This is a PUD though...take a look at when we take on this' process. II Scott: We're eating away at that 5% forested acreage. Harberts: I guess my overall comment to be made is, you know in a matter II of saving time and everybody's time and expense here, maybe it needs to be communicated to these people coming up that this is what the expectation is. II Scott: And get them started on it now. Olsen: Well we are doing that with the new ones and they're already. II Scott: I mean these guys, their clock's running right now and it costs them money every. I Harberts: Every time they're sitting here. Scott: Yeah. If they sit here, they've got to be building and doing what they've got to do. Batzli: You're next. 1 II i Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 56 Mancino: I agree with Matthew and Joe. I would like to see, as I went through this list I circled those, it was a 36 inch white oak. Anything I that was over 32 I circled and just have a concern about where it is on the property. And if the house pad could be moved so that we do save other trees because I can't tell from what I'm looking at. Jo Ann, did you go out and are there tags on every tree that's saved with a number? Olsen: We saw some of the tags. Some of them we didn't see but at that time we didn't have, well the ones on the plans and we didn't have the list , so it wasn't, but what's difficult with this site and when you look at that list, they're all large. I mean, and we did look at some of the lots where we could massage around it but you're still going to take down those big trees. And they really have worked closely in trying to save that and we've looked at, we've gone through different plans. This is like the third one with the streets and trying to save more trees and locating the house pads and we feel that we're saving as many as possible. We want to get those details down where so we know exactly for each lot what they can remove and what they cannot. I'm comfortable that we can get that done before final plat approval and all that but that's for you decide. And as II far as the adjustments that are necessary for the 60 foot right -of -way, there's only a few lots that are close to the 11,000 square feet. Again, I'm comfortable with those changes too. We have 2 or 3. Mancino: Two that are 11,000 and two that are 11,500 and 600. It shouldn't be a problem. Jim Ostenson: We have, as Jo Ann said, I mean this is probably the 20th rendition that we've been on on this plat. We were hoping to be here about 6 weeks ago and we have continued working with staff on and on in saving the trees. I don't know if any of you follow what's going on in other communities but I happen to be on the partners in the Big Woods controversy over in Eden Prairie. We understand trees and we understand the importance of trees and we understand what you can do to save trees. On this site, which is a very heavily wooded site, it has wetlands. It has 2 existing houses. It has a lot of site. It has topography. It has a lot of site constraints in it. We are saving 75% of the trees on this site. We, in II addition to saving these trees, will be hiring a tree company, a foresting company called Rainbow Tree which we've used in Eden Prairie and Centex has used in Eden Prairie in the Big Woods project. They'll come in early. II Consult with us. They'll use a vibratory plow. Plow around trees that are in danger of being killed. Are in right -of -way or would be subject to small utilities. And we will be making them available to all homeowners in • there. To consult with them as to how to place a house and care for the yard and care for the trees. It's something that we do on our own nickel. We feel that we can do a better job than anyone saving trees and I think saving 75% of the trees on a site like this, I mean it's commendable. I do. II I would guess that if we added up a number, and we could certainly do it with the staff, or they could do it themselves, you'd find that about somewhere around 18% of those trees are probably going out just with the 11 road. Not the houses but just by putting a road through the site. So I don't know if we've saved every tree in there that we can but we certainly tried and we'll continue do that. And I also might, I think we have done a complete tree survey out there. The only trees that we have 1 not surveyed are trees that are down below the slope adjacent to the 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 57 II il wetland that are totally removed from any development at all. Anything that's on the upland, anywhere near in the lot pad or street right -of -way or anything like that, they've all been surveyed and tagged and inventoried. 1 Batzli: Thank you. Jo Ann, assume for a moment that we table this so that we can see the redrawn plans to show the perhaps trees or tree loss or the difference in right -of -way from what we're looking at here. How different I is it going to be and are those the only two things that we're going to see? Is there going to be any other changes to the plan? 1 Olsen: No. I don't see any big changes really. I think the plan's going to look almost identical. We might get more lots with the reduced setback. You have some lot line adjustments. Maybe you can explain it more but. I Joel Cooper: I can answer your question on it too. This drawing right here that we colored up will show the difference. II Batzli: Okay, your name is? Joel Cooper: My name is Joel Cooper. I'm an engineer with Jim Hill 1 Associates. I don't know how well you can see but this dashed line right here represents what the limit of the 60 foot right -of -way would be. And underneath here is... II Batzli: What's our requirement for frontage Jo Ann? Like for example Lots 15, 16, 17, 18, Block 1. Are those going to have enough frontage? Olsen: It's the same where, if it's on a curve or whatever, you do it at the setback. Batzli: Are these considered on a curve? I Olsen: Which ones were you saying again? 15, 16 and. I Batzli: The ones on the west side of the development. Harberts: 15, 16 and 17. I Olsen: That was one of those, it's not exactly a straight line. It's not exactly a curve. It was, I did it at the 90 foot setback, or the 30 foot setback. I Batzli: You did it at the 30 foot setback is where you measured that? I Olsen: Yeah. You didn't. I mean you have, did you? I assume that you hadn't? Joel Cooper: Well when I did this yeah, I was measuring the distance at II the distance I was given here as the front setback. Olsen: The width at the front setback? II Joel Cooper: Yeah. II ' It Commission Meeting Planning Comm � g June 16, 1993 - Page 58 i Olsen: Oh okay. Well then yeah, those need to be adjusted to 90 foot. Batzli: If that happens, then you start moving all the lines around. Jim Ostenson: Well, could I speak to that for a brief moment? Batzli: Sure. Jim Ostenson: When we were placing lot lines, what we were doing was actually at the same time we were placing lot lines, is looking at where would be a logical place to site a home. On those we try to set the lot lines basically where the trees, where we can set a home without interrupting trees but if you start juggling these lines 3 feet here and 3 II feet there, pretty soon you're going to end up with a spot where we wouldn't have saved a tree and now that tree's going to be...potentially be II gone with the advent of a house being there. We spent a lot of time...and keep tree loss to a minimum. I guess it was, our thought with the PUD that we would have the flexibility to do those types of things to save these trees. ' Olsen: The PUD specifically says 90 foot. Batzli: You were going to address something else? 1 Joel Cooper: Yeah I was. You were saying earlier you wanted to see what the impact was...and basically what I've got on here is dashed house pads { that move back 60 feet. Or this dash line is a 60 foot right -of -way and what impact is being the shaded green then would be the boulevard. And when we prepared this we were under the understanding that the right -of -way II would have to be basically 35...and Dave had mentioned to us that the city is willing to allow the street to remain in the right -of- way...those trees that we thought we were saving before but now that we've widened the I right -of -way we've lost...the same grading restraints that we had with the 50 foot right -of -way we would have been able to save those. And the house pads then, what we've done is shift them back 5 feet because that's the 30 foot setback...we will be able to accomplish that...I had a separate sheet II where I had the lot from the street and it would be affected by the lot moving and the house pad moving. If we're able to maintain a 25 foot setback on certain lots, these red trees that I've shaded back here within ' the lot themself we would be able to save those as well. With the 25 foot variance on the front yard setback. Hempel: Joel, I guess from our experience with buildable lots, custom , II graded lots, these homes that you see within 15 feet of the house pads, they're essentially gone. When we mark on the certificate of survey, when it comes in, tree removal limits. We essentially border the house 15 feet. II Those trees are gone. You need that for excavation of the house, overhang, • root damage to the trees. They're gone anyway in a few years. 5o a couple of these trees that may be highlighted in here are going to go regardless 11 whether it's 60 or 50 foot. Or 25 foot setback. I just thought I'd point that out now that we're not, when it actually comes down to building, these trees are gone. ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 59 II il Joel Cooper: Possibly but I've seen...trees very close to the home that have survived too so it depends on who's doing the work and what kind of care they give. I understand what you're saying and I'm not disputing that that would happen but I think given the right circumstances and right II perspective, that I have seen people be successful in doing that. And I guess I would like to make every opportunity for these homeowners to pick and choose how they want to do it and then give them the opportunity to do it rather than... II Batzli: Well we're not saying you have to go out there and cut them down. Just that for the purposes of us looking at it, that those trees will be I saved is iffy. Joel Cooper: Well I can appreciate that. I Batzli: I'm going to ask you one stupid question because I'm that kind of guy. 25 foot setback variance on these particular lots. Is that something that you got as one of your conditions or that you don't have as one of II your conditions, Jo Ann? Olsen: I don't have it as one of the conditions. Again, I didn't have the I specific lots that were going to have the 20 foot and if it's a PUD, you don't have to give a variance. The PUD just allows you that flexibility so, no. It's not in there. You can look, it's not in there. II Batzli: Do we need something in here? Olsen: Well I think it would be, yes. It's good to have it in there but I maybe more general that lots can be reduced. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25 foot. It seems like we switch with each subdivision. We specify some of the lots and then the other one we keep it general. So right now I think it'd be good to keep a general one in there. II Harberts: I'd like to just comment on the 25. You know I don't like 25 foot setbacks. I live on one and as far as I'm concerned, I'll never do it I again. But we're on Frontier Trail and it's heavily traveled so you can hear it. Things like that. But I would be okay with the 25 foot setback in this area simply because it is kind of an isolated neighborhood. And that's I my thinking that I use on it. If you get more of an open stretch of road, I'd say no. But I'm comfortable with it in here and that's my own personal opinion. I Olsen: And again, it would only be used where it's necessary. Where there's a, you can see where they have done it. Where they've shoved the forward and there's trees behind the home. II Batzli: What do you think about this 90 foot dealybob here on the west side? Olsen: Well they need to adjust the lot lines. I think they can do it but, well I have to look at that closer. I was looking after you were saying that and I don't really, I see one lot where, Lot 15 I can see where they're on the lot line. I'd have to look at that closer. I couldn't, but you know it's, I don't know how far. I don't know how many lots they would II Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 60 11 have to adjust to get that. I don't know how far they would have to keep shifting. ' Jim Ostenson: We can adjust that and to the extent of doing that to restict the size of a house on... Batzli: Well, I guess we have two senses up here. At least I feel like there's two sense. There's probably some people up here that would like to see a plan that reflects what's actually going to happen and in my case II what I'd like to do is, well it depends on what sort of precedent we want. If we want to see a detailed survey of where the trees are and where they're going to be removed for each one of these, then I suppose we'd better require it here, or at least require them to have it ready to show the Council. So that we're requiring everybody to do it. If we don't make them do it here. If that's what we want to see. I don't know that I want to see a plan with a line of 3 feet but I understand Matt's concern because II you look at that particular aspect of the plan more closely than me so you want to see that. So if you need to see that and you want to see that, I'd be happy I guess to have them bring it back. I don't know that I would get II anything more out of the plan by seeing a lot line shifted 3 feet. This kind of gives me a rough idea of some of the trees around. Where the street's going to go and where they're going to lost. On the other hand, II I understand that we're talking about other trees and I don't know exactly where they're going to take them out. I went out and kind of looked around the site and it's tough to tell where this was. So I don't know. I don't know what to tell everybody. My sense is, I'd like to see them have ( everything in order and have it go to Council but if everybody else wants to see it back here, got to vote that way. I think I would like to see, if we decided to pass it along, I would like to see something about the applicant remove the trees in the right -of -way that are killed by construction in the next several years. And the 25 foot setback where necessary to save trees and that would be submitted to staff for approval II or what have you. Having said that, is there a motion to either table this or to approve? Harberts: I'd like to make a comment first. That if the motion is made that the applicant is responsible for removal of the trees for a certain period of time, then I think there needs to be some type of escrow account to insure the funds to be there. Hempel: We can certainly incorporate that in the development contract we secure for landscaping. Batzli: You want them to post a bond. Harberts: Something. To assure that the funds are going to be there. ' Batzli: If they escrow funds, they'd have to escrow the full amount. Harberts: Well, they've got 17 trees. , Ledvina: You could add that as a condition. Yeah, I would move that the Planning Commission table the Tandem Properties proposal for. 1 II Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 61 II Scott: Case 93 -2 PUD? Ledvina: Case 93 -2 PUD. Batzli: Is there a second? II Scott: Second. I Batzli: Any discussion? Jim Ostenson: Can I say something? II Batzli: Sure can. Jim Ostenson: We have all the information. We've done all the homework. II You're asking for something that was never required of us. We've got it available. We can provide it to the staff prior to going to City Council. I don't know if that makes a difference at all but you aren't asking for I something that we don't already have available. Batzli: Well I think there's been several changes to the plans that we're approving and we're not comfortable that we're looking at the project I that's going to go in the ground. Jim Ostenson: Well the changes are, there really haven't been any changes. I We're asking for one lot line to be shifted or...the right -of -way that is shown. The road alignment. I Batzli: What will change is that granted, the alignment of the road won't change but it will affect the square footage and some lot lines will 'have to be adjusted for that I think. And on the west side of the project there was apparently a misunderstanding as to the frontage which may have to be I adjusted. And by doing that you may have to adjust the building pads which may have to adjust tree loss. What we're saying is, okay. All these things have added up to we don't know what we're approving. I don't know II if we're saying that or not. We haven't taken a vote but I think people that made that motion are feeling that way. Harberts: Do we need to clarify what this commission would like to see II come back for information? Batzli: Yeah, as part of discussion. I'd like to know what you want to II see. Harberts: I'm asking. 1 Batzli: What do you want to see Matt? Ledvina: Well, I would like to see a more detailed tree removal plan in I terms of what goes and what stays. I would like to see them, just as you indicated, the exact lot lines. I want to see the tabulations on the lot footages and I think we can see those things. At this point I'm not I comfortable with allowing the placement or for the development on Lot 6, or possibly Lot 7, Block 1. And I don't know, I think there was some filling Plannin g Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 62 ( on Lot 29, Block 1 as indicated on... As it related to the wetland plan but at any rate, where we're filling in wetlands to meet setbacks. I think II I don't know how the other commissioners feel but I don't think that's appropriate and I think some changes should be made regarding that. Batzli: You felt that way even though the particular wetland that they were filling was not considered a viable /protected wetland? Ledvina: I don't think that's the case. I think 7 is a protected. The wetland that they're filling was that one that was man made or with the concrete thing and the diving board and all that. I don't have a problem with filling that wetland. Or it isn't even a wetland so it's a man made pond supposedly. But at any rate, I think those are two of my reasons why I'd like to see it again. Mancino: I would like to ask, what has been the effect of having the house II too close to the wetland that's in the backyard. You brought up Curry Farms. Olsen: As I just said, there's constant alteration to it. The lawn has, the activities back there. It's just it's always being impacted. There we didn't have the buffer strip either but it's just, it's no longer really a wetland. It's now just a holding pond. I mean all the vegetation has been removed eventually by the homeowners. Ledvina: Well the homeowners have to understand that when they buy that ( lot. They have no backyard. If that lot is going to be developed that way. Olsen: Sure. 1 Ledvina: I don't know. Olsen: Are you suggesting then that they don't alter the wetland and they receive a variance to the required, or that the lot just be removed? Ledvina: No. No. I don't think a variance is appropriate. I don't know. II Maybe Lots 6 and 7 become one lot or something. I don't know how you can adjust that. Or maybe the road gets pushed a little bit further to the north. The curve comes in at a point further east. I don't know. I can't make that. Olsen: See we looked at all that and it impacts trees and it was, it came II down to trees versus wetlands. We've had those issues before but in this case I think the trees won out in these areas because they were really nice big trees and the wetland was. , Ledvina: Well that's not the way it was presented. Batzli: Don't you mitigate somewhere? ' Olsen: It's all being mitigated. It's all being replaced. II Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 63 II ii Jim Ostenson: The wetlands on Lots 6 and 7, what that wetland is is someone has gone basically in there and dug it out and it's cow watering hole...it's not something that's real pleasing to the eye. It's a man made cow...it's just a pasture and there's a watering hole... II Harberts: Has staff seen it? Looked at that particular area. Olsen: Yes. II Harberts: Did you know that it's a cow watering hole? I Olsen: There is cattle in it. On the south side of it. Yeah, I felt comfortable with what they were, with the filling. I wasn't, and that's not easy for me to say because I'm always the wetland advocate but like the wetland that's in Block 2, that was, if they had been proposing the same I thing for that I wouldn't have allowed it. Or I wouldn't have agreed with it. It was either that or the house pads be removed completely. Even if you combine those two lots, they still won't meet those required setbacks. I And they couldn't really get a, they're going for a PUD and the PUD specifically requires that you have to maintain that wetland setback and that has to be the back yard and so you could even go for a variance to that. So it was kind of a complicated issue. I Harberts: I thought I heard though that it was either the trees or the wetland. And you chose trees. II Scott: In my mind too, I don't really, when I see dotted lines and all this kind of stuff I'm going, you know this isn't really a final plan. And 1 then also too, I like to see where the trees are. Which ones are going. And to be conservative. So you're saying 15 feet around the outside, we'll take that as a worst case scenario and then maybe by some custom grading or repositioning of house pads or something like that. But I don't have the I same sense and I use that Lake Susan 9th Addition. We had all the information and we still tabled it. We don't even have anywhere near the information so I'm just not comfortable moving on it at all. So that's II where I'm coming from. Batzli: Assume for a moment that they give you the information tomorrow. I When is the next time this goes on the agenda? Olsen: Well we could get it on the 7th. The information is there. We just haven't listed for you specifically which trees. We have looked at II what trees. Where they're proposing the house pads. I mean we've done everything that we did with the 9th Addition. We just weren't able to get the numbers of the trees. II Scott: I guess what I sense, I sense too that there was a big difference inbetween the "good faith" of this particular group versus the other guys. II I mean I don't know who these people are but from what you're telling me, I'm more comfortable with where they're coming from than those other guys? That's a gut feel so I mean if there's something that we can do, I mean I obviously waiting until the 7th is an expensive proposition. From what I you're telling me, and I trust you too, that all the information's there and for whatever reason we don't have it. Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 64 Olsen: Well we just don't have the two, they weren't meshed. We've got the list with the trees and the size and the number but we just don't have II the numbers on here so we weren't able to say, give you the specific details that we were with the 9th Addition. Exactly what trees could be removed. Harberts: But Joe we didn't ask for that either up front from these guys. I mean that was not part of what we asked them to supply us with. I mean we are now, I understand that. And I would like to from now on but I would II like to have those developers who come in know that right up front. This is exactly what we need. Scott: Well I guess what I'm coming to here is if the information is there, and I don't know if this is, I'm new to the Planning Commission. But I would certainly be willing to have an interim meeting inbetween now, II I mean whenever the information is ready to take a look. I don't know, do you do stuff like that? Take a look at it and say, I mean instead of making them wait until the 7th when the information could be made available sooner. ' Olsen: If they're going to do, adjust the lot lines and stuff. Scott: Specifically deal with this issue and get it on it's way to the City Council. I don't know, what do you guys think about that? Ledvina: ...interim meeting for the Planning Commission? ' Scott: Yeah. Harberts: I think we can do anything we want. , Scott: Yeah, I don't think we need to, it seems like the information's available. Could be put together relatively quickly and if you can say, okay on such and such date for, and it probably isn't going to take what, we can just figure an hour? Batzli: We have to publish. Jo Ann? Olsen: Do we have to for Planning Commission? I know for Council you do and you've already closed the public hearing. Batzli: Well we have closed the public hearing. Olsen: So I don't know that you have to publish again. Harberts: I just want to also comment that I was real happy to hear about ' the Rainbow Save the Tree farm or something that they're going to bring in. It's getting late. I'm comfortable with the trees. I'm comfortable with filling in the wetland Matt simply because it is a cow thing and I would bet that it was expanded to get the herd in there. I wouldn't be afraid to II you making it a condition of what they had said about that Rainbow person. Forester or whatever it was going to come in and basically work with every homeowner to place the pad in such a way that it minimizes the tree losses II and this is something that they're proposing. Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 65 I il Olsen: We've got that as a condition too already. Harberts: So you eluded to, you feel really comfortable. I'm really comfortable with it. You know I don't like to fill wetlands. I thought it I was a 2 to 1. I don't like to cut down trees but I'm comfortable with these folks and I'd like to see it move foward. You know get everything in order. Make sure staff's okay with it and put out some of those conditions to make sure that they follow through with regard to the bond or escrow. I With regard to bringing in the Rainbow people and working with all of the homeowners to minimize to the greatest possible extent tree loss, and that's my comment. II Batzli: What might also be a possibility, if we don't do an interim meeting or if we don't table it, what have you is, is to deliver a set of plans to Matt and clearly go to the Council and say this isn't what we II expected to see. Harberts: Would that work? I Ledvina: Well sure. I could do it that way, if that's what you. I Batzli: I mean as a courtesy to you because obviously you really want to see it. Ledvina: Sure. II Batzli: And I don't know that the rest of us want to see it back. I guess unless there's something drastically altered, like they've got to eliminate II a lot or they've got to go below 12,000 or they're going to be doing something weird, I don't see that it's going to change enough for me to want to see it back, based on what I'm hearing staff tell me. If they were I going to have to realign something or move a lot or take something out, then I want to see it because then we're not looking at the right thing but they're going to juggle a couple of lines 3 to 5 feet each way, I don't personally, I'd say let's keep it moving and have them put it in order. Let II Council see it and make them do that kind of stuff. Ledvina: I can understand your sensitivity to keeping it moving. I know I staff, that's certainly their disposition but I just think that if there were 20 residents here we would table it in a heartbeat and I don't know, I think there's many...people out there that deserve that support anyway. In some way. I don't know. And that's one of the reasons I'm not comfortable I with it. Scott: Well they're also, I don't believe there's a lot of neighbors. 1 Ledvina: Well that's true but we're dealing with the resources for the residents of Chanhassen so. 1 Harberts: Do you have any additional feeling, based on the new information about that wetland? That it's cow. Ledvina: Well maybe but I think I didn't really know that condition. I wasn't able to get back to that specific site so. Just the thought of II Plannin g Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 66 1 ( ' saying the ends justify the means, the tail wagging the dog, it's very unpallatabie to me. And that's just my philosophy on dealing with wetlands. If we're going to classify it as a wetland, that means that there's a merit in preserving it in it's state, whether it's pristine or cow dumping but I don't know. I don't know. Philosophically it rubs wrong 11 but, and that's fine. 1 can see other people justifying it too. Scott: So you want to see it again. I want to see it again. You want to move it on. You want to move it on and Brian, do you want to move it on? Batzli: I want to move it on. Scott: Let's make a motion then. Batzli: Well we've got a motion on the floor to table it. Is there any other discussion? ' Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to table the Trotters Ridge Case #93 -2 PUD for further information. Ledvina and Scott voted in favor. Harberts, II Batzli and Mancino voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Batzli: Can I have another motion. ' Harberts: I'll move Case #93 -2 PUD. Do you have a date? ( Ledvina: ...so many times, June 16th. Harberts: That's this one though. Ledvina: That's today. You're going to have to mention both of them though. Batzli: May 19th. Harberts: 5/19 and then that was 6/16. How far did I get with my recommendation? I recommend moving Case #93 -2 PUD with the plans, preliminary plat dated both 4/19 and 6/16. Batzli: We also have a wetland alteration permit in there. 1 Harberts: Yeah. That we rezone 32.5 acres of A2 to PUD. Preliminary plat to subdivide 32.5 acres into 49 single family lots. And 3, the wetland alteration permit to fill portions of the ag -urban wetlands and to create additional wetland areas as sited in the plan. And to move the staff recommendations as outlined in the plan with the changes or additions as follows. I'm looking at with regard to the development of an escrow or bond. Scott: Performance bond for replacement. 1 Harberts: Be added as number 33 and that staff works with the attorney and appropriate staff to get the appropriate language. , Planning Commission Meeting 9 June 16, 1993 - Page 67 II Batzli: That's for removal of trees? il Harberts: Exactly. 17 trees or whatever trees are going to be affected. That the 25 feet setback, staff will work with them on the appropriate 11 lots. On lot, I believe it was Lot 15. The property line needs to be some adjustment to meet the 90 feet frontage requirement. Batzli: What if you broaden that to check them. All of them. I Harberts: Check all of them. And also be added as a condition, and I need the name of your Rainbow people. II Jim Ostenson: I assume that's who, that's who we've used in the past. It's called Rainbow Tree. They're a forester. ' Olsen: ...number 4. Harberts: Do you feel that it's covered in there? That they have a II professional. Olsen: Woodland management plan. Same thing. II Harberts: That will be included in the developer's agreement? I believe that's it. Il Mancino: The City Engineer on the 60 foot that in some cases the grading doesn't have to be the full 60. The grading on the side of the right -of- way. We can keep some of those trees. II Batzli: Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Discussion. I Mancino: Discussion is on the 17 trees that we're trying to save. By going to the 60 foot wide but not having to grade the right -of -way in those 17 areas. To work with staff in figuring out where those are. Can anyone make more sense out of that? II Batzli: Was that something that you were looking for Dave? I Hempel: That's something I can work with on the grading plan. I can make sure that. Scott: Just identify those trees. II Hempel: Right. Work with staff in preserving the trees. 17 trees located within the right -of -way as a result of the increase in 60 foot right-of- way, Batzli: Is that acceptable? 11 Harberts: Yes. Batzli: Okay. Sounds good to me. It seems to me there was something else I that we're missing here and I can't think of what it is. I had it moments ago. Something we talked about. I'm at a complete loss. II Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 68 1 Harberts: I'm sure that staff will. Mancino: To bring plans to Matt. , Batzli: Well, yeah. I don't want to make that a condition of approval but I think they should send a set to Matt. I think what I was thinking of was that they're going to provide plans to you for approval regarding the trees. The stuff that we saw for Lake Susan. Those kind of plans. Olsen: Provide a plan with the numbers that correspond to the tree loss? Batzli: Yeah. Olsen: I think I've got that as a condition. Batzli: Did you have that in here? 1 Olsen: Yeah, provide information and tag numbers, size and type. Batzli: Which one is that? ' Olsen: Number 2. That's what I intended. Batzli: Okay, that's intended to be what we've seen before. Alright. Harberts: I think the motion included the fact that all this information II l was put together in time for the staff to review it, comment on it and move it forward to Council. Batzli: Dave, on the draintile, number 22. Are you going to get, you're going to have people hook up their sumps to the draintile again? Pursuant to your plans that we looked at last time. Hempel: That's correct. It was an assumption that they do not have another acceptable discharge area, i.e. a wetland in the back yard... discharging into the street. Batzli: By saying the draintile is required, are we really trying to say that they're going to hook up a sump pump so that they discharge into the draintile behind the curbs. Pursuant to the plans approved by you. Hempel: It's kind of, not all households have to hook up. There's a select few that have the water problems. Not all homes... 1 Scott: Like walkouts usually don't. Hempel: Yeah, or even if the house is on top of the hill. In some cases one neighbor will have a problem and the other neighbor won't. Batzli: So you're just going to leave it up to the, who are you going to leave it up to to connect to your draintiles is my question. { Hempel: We have a city ordinance that requires approval and permit for any II kind of discharge in the city street already. We can employ that on the I Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 69 1 ii homeowner if necessary...placed behind the curb though. Batzli: But here's what happens. Here's reality. The developer puts the sump discharging out the back into a soggy back yard and then you, he complains and tries to run it into the street sideways or something and you II say no. You've got to put it into the draintile behind the curb. And by that time it's coming out the wrong side of the house and it's too late. Because this is exactly what happened to me. So I'm thinking that the time I to handle this is up front. If there's an area that you're thinking of that you want this to happen, let's just have the developer run it out the right side of the house underground to the right area with the little I gravel down to your draintile. Hempel: Unfortunately I don't have soil borings that may indicate whether there is...water at this point. II Batzli: But couldn't this all be done at the time that the building permit is issued and isn't that when you really want it to happen? Is fine, let's I have them install the draintile but then let's just say that you'll review it or something when building permit is issued. For connection to the draintile. I Hempel: Some sort of language of that could be inserted, sure. Batzli: More work for you right. II Hempel: Just another thing for us to check but I mean it's in the development contract, it's easy for us to find. It's different if it's in I another file. We review all these building permit issuances. Batzli: I guess I propose an additional sentence that says, applicant will submit information regarding hooking up the sump pump to the city staff for 1 approval at the time a building permit is applied for. Is that acceptable? Harberts: Yes. I Batzli: Something like that. Otherwise I think it's going to be pointless to have the draintile there. Any other discussion? 1 Ledvina: Yeah, I just wanted to just bring up the situation with the trail easement. I think that, is this the diagram that we have for the trail at this point? The trail is shown to be on Lot 27, 28, 29, Block 1. You have II the trail, it would appear 5 to 15 feet away from the actual houses there and I don't think that should be constructed in that manner. I Jim Ostenson: We can talk to Todd about that...out on the site and walked that. We would agree that we're going to...other side of the pond. Ledvina: This trail here? So it would be on this side? That would be the north side. Olsen: If that would be possible. 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - June 16, 1993 - Page 70 r Jim Ostenson: If that's possible to do that. There's an elevation that we have to work with. Mancino: Would you still have an easement through those lots? Lots 17 and 18? Jim Ostenson: Yes. Ledvina: And one other thing that we did on Lake Susan Hills. We had, we II decided that these 10 foot access easements down from the trail weren't necessarily a very good idea. I think we decided that we had two access points and we decided to combine it into one with a large with a large access point so that people would actually use them and they'd be less obtrusive to the neighboring houses. And I know this is the case because we have one next to my neighbor and the guy across the street on our cul -de -sac and it's never used because the houses are very close and people II feel like they're trespassing when they go through there so, I don't know. That might be a consideration for how this thing ends up ultimately. Just a comment. i Batzli: Do you want to propose a condition that trail locations be reviewed prior to going to City Council kind of a condition? Ledvina: I'd rather see it tabled. Batzli: Well you may lose the vote so this may be your chance. Ledvina: Well that's why I'm making the suggestion. Batzli: I mean if you were Senator so and so, you'd be adding stuff into here that we hated so that we'd all vote against it so we'd go back to your motion. Ledvina: Well, if someone else wants to add it, that's fine... Batzli: You don't want to appear to support this by amending it? 111 Ledvina: No. Batzli: Is there anybody else that would like to see the trail issue 1 looked at before it goes to Council? Mancino: Sure. I think that's a good idea. I'd like to move that we add a condition to it. Batzli: That it be resolved before it gets to Council. What do you guys I think about that, combining the two access points? Is that something that we want to start doing? Olsen: Another one to answer that. That's really a Todd Hoffman question 1 but, I think the reason we did it with the 9th Addition was also because it was in an area where the sewer was going to go down and the trees were going to be removed anyway. To be honest, we haven't looked at that that closely. Didn't we talk about that though when we were out there? II Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 71 I Hempel: I think we felt that where it's going down between Lots 26 and 27 is the same lot line where the storm sewer's going down into a NURP basin so it made sense from our standpoint. We could double it as an access for maintenance to the pond and storm sewer. I think...iniative from staff was the fact to keep this point here. II Olsen: We can look at that. I know that we did talk about the one between 17 and 18 too. I'll talk with Todd on it. I Batzli: Okay. Is there any other discussion? If not I'll call the question. The motion on the floor is approval to rezone, approve preliminary plat and approve the wetland alteration permit as shown on the I plans dated the various dates, pursuant to the staff report and as amended here with our several other additional conditions. II Harberts moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning 32.5 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate to PUD, Planned Unit Development, approval of Preliminary Plat #93 -2 PUD to subdivide 32.5 acres of property into 49 single family lots, and approval II of Wetland Alteration Permit #93 -2 WAP, as shown on the plans dated May 19, 1993 and June 16, 1993, and subject to the following conditions: ' 1. The landscaping plan shall be amended to include landscaping between the westerly lots and the industrial land to the west where vegetation does not already exist, and two front yard overstory trees shall be 0 required for each lot where two trees do not exist. 2 . A revised plan shall be submitted which provides information on tag number, size and type of trees. I 3. All trees designated for preservation shall be protected by a snow fence 1 1/2 times the diameter of the drip line prior to any I alteration of the site. Any understory vegetation within the snow fence shall also be preserved. 4. Each of the lots shall have a woodland management plan developed by I the developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The woodland management plan shall be developed by a licensed forester approved by the city. A copy of the woodland management plan shall be I kept in the building permit file and a copy will also be given to the homeowner. I 5. Unless a lot already has two overstory trees in the front yard, additional overstory trees from the city's approved list shall be planted in each lot so that there are two overstory trees in each front yard. If this has not been accomplished prior to the issuance I of a building permit for a lot, before a building permit is issued, arrangements must be made to have the trees planted within one grading season after the building permit is issued. The city should require I security to guarantee compliance. 6. The wetland boundaries including buffer areas will have a monument designating it as protected wetland at each lot line. Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 72 ons 7. All utilty and street improvements shall be constructed ucted in accordance a e with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and I Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 8. The applicant shall apply and obtain permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Carver County Public Works, MWCC, Minnesota Health Department and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms in the development contract. ' 10. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless City's Best Management Practices Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. 11. Utility drainage easement outside the street right -of -way should be a I minimum of 20 feet in width. The applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility easements over all ponding and wetland areas on the final plat. 12. The street right -of -way should be increased to 60 feet in width, and the applicant should work with city staff to preserve trees within this right -of -way as a result of the increase to 60 feet. 13. Preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the city • authorizing Phase II of the Upper Bluff Creek Sewer and Water Improvement Project 91 -17B. 14. All driveways shall access the interior streets. No driveway access will be allowed onto Gaipin Boulevard. Driveway access to Lot 33, Block 1 and Lot 9, Block 2 of the preliminary plat shall be from the street on the west side of the lot. The two existing driveways shall I be realigned perpendicular to the new street and paved with a bituminous or concrete surface. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for construction of a right turn II lane on southbound Gaipin Boulevard into the site in conjunction with the overall site improvements. 16. The applicant shall provide sanitary sewer and water service to ' existing home sites. In addition, they will notify the property owners of the city ordinance requiring connection to municipal sanitary sewer. 17. The applicant shall provide a storm sewer outlet for the wetland in Block 2. 1 18. The applicant shall extend the storm sewer to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern through Lot 2, Block 1. ,I Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 73 II 19. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a ten year storm event and ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with city ordinance for the city engineer to review and approve. 1 20. The applicant's engineer shall review the lot grading on Lots 13 and 14, Block 2 to divert drainage further away from the house. 21. Additional erosion control fence (Type I) shall be extended along Lots 1 11 -14, Block 2 along the street boulevard. 22. Drain tile will be required behind the curbs. in those areas where sump I pump discharge will not be directed into the storm pond or wetland area. The applicant will submit information regarding hook -up of sump pump for city staff approval at the time of building permit issuance. I 23. The proposed street names "Trotters Lane" and "Trotters Circle" are unacceptable. The city currently has a "Trotters Circle ". To avoid duplication new names must be submitted to Public Safety for approval. 1 24. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. NSP, NW Bell, cable boxes, street lamp, trees, shrubs, etc, pursuant I to Chanhassen City Ordinance, Section 9 -1. 25. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with II a surface so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities. The road shall be in place before construction on new dwellings start, which are greater than 150' from County Road 117. 1 26. Fire hydrants are not shown on utility plan. Hydrant spacing is not to exceed 300', beginning at County Road 117. I 27. Fire hydrant caps must be painted per Chanhassen Engineering specs. 28. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each 1 house pad on the grading plan before final plat approval. 29. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits of I the pad and elevations of excavations to the Inspections Division. A general soils report for the development should also be submitted to the Inspections Division. This condition must be met before any building permits are issued. II 30. The dedication of Outlot A as park and open space. This dedication to include a survey of the property and field staking of property corners I and lot intersection points. Transfer of fee title of this property shall occur through an unrestricted warranty deed at the time of platting. The applicant shall receive 50% park fee credit, or $300.00 I per home, for this dedication. The balance of the park fees being collected at a rate of 50% of the park fee in force upon building permit application. At present this fee would be one half of $600.00, or $300.00. • Planning Commission Meeting ' II' June 16, 1993 - Page 74 31. The applicant shall provide a 20 foot wide trail easement along the entire easterly property line. This trail corridor is identified in the city's Comprehensive Plan and no trail fee credit shall be granted I for said easement. 32. The applicant shall map and construct a trail paralleling Outlot A as 1 described herein and as depicted on Attachment A. Any easements for trail purposes which are necessitated by this alignment shall be conveyed to the city. The applicant shall receive full trail dedication fee credit for this condition. The entirety of this trail shall be constructed above the 933 elevation mark. 33. Staff will work with the City Attorney to draft an agreement with the • developer to provide financial guarantees for replacement of any trees removed within the right -of -way which were not approved for removal. 34. A 25' front yard setback will be permitted where necessary to preserve I natural features. 35. All lots shall meet the 90' frontage requirements. ' 36. Staff shall review the location of the trail connections. All voted in favor except Ledvina and Scott who opposed and the motion 1 carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Batzli: And your reasons for voting against are, for the record? 1 Ledvina: Well I don't know. Batzli: I mean it's pretty clear but it's really nice, it's right at the end so then they can pick it up. Ledvina: I don't think we've done our work. 1 Batzli: Okay. Joe. Scott: I don't have a feel for the tree placement removal and I wanted to see it again. Batzli: Okay. And Jo Ann, when does this go to Council? 1 Olsen: July 12th? I have it at the end of June. That's the wrong date, sorry. So August, is that okay with you guys? I've got it on the 28th. June 28th. Batzli: That's assuming they get everything in. Harberts: When do you need the materials in? Olsen: Well, to do the report, it would have to go out next week. I don't I know. ( Hempel: It's supposed to go out Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. I Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 1993 - Page 75 1 Harberts: They have like tomorrow huh? Batzli: Yeah. And Jo Ann, I'd like a coyp to go to Matt for sure. Do you want to see a copy? • Scott: I'd like to see a copy, yeah. I Batzli: If you can make copies for these two guys... 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Batzli noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 19, 1993 as presented. 1 OPEN DISCUSSION. Olsen: Did you want to talk about the special meeting? About the I Saturday. Batzli: Yeah. We're going to hopefully have a special meeting. We have I incredibly backed up, full agendas for the next several meetings and we're not getting to the proactive good stuff. And what I'd like to do is propose that we meet perhaps not only in a special session to talk about all of the ordinances that we're supposed to be looking at and passing but 1 also, there was something else we were going to talk about. In addition to the special meeting that hopefully we're going to meet on. Fred Hoisington has asked for us to meet on a Saturday with the HRA and City Council. Not I this Saturday but the Saturday after that, which is what day? Olsen: The 26th. I Batzli: So if everyone can jot a note at least, the 26th and what was the other date we had Jo Ann? It was the second Wednesday in July. 1 Olsen: The 14th of July. A Wednesday. Scott: I'm out of town that weekend. So let's reschedule. 1 Harberts: I've got family in town too that weekend. Batzli: Which weekend? The 26th. Well, if some of us can make it we'll I do it a different day but it's important because what's happening is they're going to redo the Pony, what do you call it? Or no, the Hanus thing, yeah. 1 Olsen: Where Gary Brown's Tire and Auto. I Scott: Are we going to meet, you know that trivial little $6 million exercise with the community center. Are we ever going to have a meeting like that with the HRA on that just that insignificant investment? That one. I Batzli: You know what I totally forgot about, was getting you my comments. I commented it all up and then I never sent it to you. Whatever happened to that?