7. Lake Susan Hills PUD 9th Addition 1 . 7
e,,*
C ITYOF
1
1 cHANB
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
I MEMORANDUM
Action by City Administrator
TO: Planning Commission 6ndorseed._..✓ 7
,e" Modified
t
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner v `� � Rejected
Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer Vote 5 - 3 - l3
I Date Submitted to Commission
DATE: April 14, 1993 Dote Submitted to Council
1 SUBJ: Lake Susan Hills PUD 9th Addition '.6 t 3
1 On March 17, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat for Lake Susan Hills
PUD 9th Addition (Attachment #1). The 9th Addition is the final phase of the single family lots
for the Lake Susan Hills PUD. The 9th Addition also contains the nicest elements of the whole
I site, specifically, specimen trees. Prior to the Planning Commission reviewing the proposal, staff
had worked with the applicant to adjust the lot and street layout in an attempt to minimize
I removal of vegetation. At the same time, we were - trying to work with the approved PUD
concept plan. The result was a reduction in the number of lots (by three), shifting of the streets
and reduced grading. Even with these changes, there still was a significant amount of tree loss.
1 The Planning Commission recommended unanimously to table action on this proposal until the
following issues could be addressed:
1 1. Provide more details on tree loss. Have the DNR Forester comment on what trees are
being lost/saved. Work to further reduce tree loss if possible.
1 2. Answer whether the landscaping fee could be increased from $150/lot to $750/lot.
1 3. Answer whether the new PUD regulations can be enforced.
4. Look into swapping existing parkland for "forested" parkland.
I Additional comments from the Planning Commission were that the lots in the vegetated areas are
too small and specifically, along Mallard Court, the lots should be larger. Additional comments
1 from the public were that the speed limit along Powers Boulevard should be decreased, where
there would be trail crossings and clearly that there was too much tree removal.
1
Is
1 t«: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
April 14, 1993
Page 2
TREE PRESERVATION
Staff met with Alan Olson, DNR Forester, at the site to view the existing vegetation and what
g t
was proposed to be saved and removed. Prior to visiting the site, staff had the applicant stake
the limits of grading and the centerline of the streets. Upon walking the site, we discovered that
the tree list was somewhat inaccurate, in that the tree types and size were not always correct.
Staff walked the whole site and made notations on the tree list correcting the type and size of
trees and highlighting the "must save" (particularly valuable tree stands). We found several
stands of trees that are "must saves" and also areas where the trees were damaged or had a short
life left. After walking the site with Alan Olson, it was clear that there are significant trees on
the site with some being "pre -civil war." From the notes we gathered on site, we established a
working plan which showed areas that the applicant had to work around to save the trees. We
also established "sacrifice" trees. These working copies, along with the revised tree list, were
given to the applicant for revisions to the original plans.
A major influence on the amount of trees being removed with the original plans was the grading
necessary to service the lots with gravity sanitary sewer (this is what is typically required by the
City). The Engineering Department analyzed what alternatives to gravity sanitary service were
available so that the grading could be reduced. It was proposed that a lift station or ejector
pumps be used to service the house pads which were requiring extensive grading for gravity
sanitary sewer service. The applicant has used these recommendations and where necessary will
install ejector pumps. Now with the revised plans, the only grading being proposed within the
lots with vegetation is for the house pad. No grading is being proposed within the lots.
Although this shows almost all of the trees remaining, we must take into account tree removal
for individual sewer and water services and for construction of the house pad/driveway. Staff
drew in where the house pads shall be located on each lot and which trees shall be saved. We
also requested the applicant to provide detailed grading for all of the vegetated lots, so we know
up front what the limits of grading shall be and exactly which trees will be saved. We did not
want this issue to arise at time of the building permit application and find out then that the
grading was more extensive than what was thought. This will also allow the City to condition
approval upon these detailed grading plans, so that the builder and homeowner know exactly
what size and where their building pad is. Attachments #2 and 3 compare the amount of tree
removal between the original and revised submittal. The development contract will be
referencing the detailed grading plan for each custom graded lot and will also be listing
specifically which trees are permitted to be removed from each custom graded lot. Any tree not
listed, which is located within a custom graded lot (not including the street right -of -way) must
be preserved.
1
Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
April 14, 1993
Page 5
Kentucky Coffee Tree
Black Walnut
Norway Maple
The boulevard plantings shall be revised to include species from the above list. The internal
landscaping should include Sugar Maple.
PUD ISSUES
The City Attorney has submitted a letter in response to the question whether the new PUD
regulations can be applied to this development. The answer is yes, but the PUD contract must
be revised, which is essentially rezoning the property and requires a separate public hearing. As
with the Prairie Creek Townhome proposal, staff did review this proposal with both the existing
PUD contract and with the new PUD regulations to see which benefitted the City. The issue
with the Prairie Creek Townhomes was density. Clearly, the issue with this proposal is tree
preservation. Therefore, staff looked at the benefits to tree preservation between the existing
PUD contract and the new PUD regulations. The City's ability to preserve trees is the same with
the existing PUD contract and with the new PUD regulations, since the PUD contract allows us
to apply the new tree preservations regulations.
The new tree preservation regulations simply states that the development shall "retain as far as
practical, substantial tree stands." There is no definition of "as far as practical" or "substantial
tree stands." Due to the fact that only concept plan approval has been approved, the City can
require modifications to "retain as far as practical, substantial tree stands." Staff feels that we
have required modifications which have resulted in a significant amount of tree preservation. We
do not recommend dismissing the existing PUD contract and concept plan and starting from
scratch with a new rezoning of the property. The reason for this are as follows:
A. The existing proposal contains lots ranging in size from 12,350 square feet to
36,780 square feet with an average lot size of 17,858 square feet. The new PUD
regulations would permit a lot size down to 11,000 square feet with an average
lot size of 15,000 square feet.
B. We cannot expect to receive the same amount of parkland as is being dedicated
with this phase, primarily a lakeshore trail.
C. Our ability to save trees is not increased. We would still receive proposals
locating the streets and lots in the same locations.
In summary, staff does not feel applying the new PUD regulations to this proposal provides any
benefit or flexibility that we don't already have.
1
1 Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
April 14, 1993
Page 6
' STREETS
As previously mentioned, the applicant has greatly reduced the amount of grading to the site.
One of the ways they are doing this is by increasing the street grade along Lake Susan Hills
Drive to 10 %. The City normally requires the street grade to not exceed 7 %, but we have in the
past allowed the street grade to be increased to reduce impact to the site. Therefore, staff is
recommending approval of the increased street grade.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
' The overall number of lots being proposed remains at 90. The revisions to the plans has not
resulted in the removal of additional lots. The major changes to the plat are the removal of
Crane Court, reconfiguration of the lots in this area and reduced grading. The lot areas are
' basically remaining the same with the lot areas ranging from 12,350 square feet to 36,780 square
feet and an average lot area of 17,858 square feet. The gross density remains the same at 1.2
units /acre and the net density has been reduced from 3.2 units /acre to 2.4 units /acre.
1 MISCELLANEOUS
' At the Planning Commission meeting, both the Commission and residents expressed concerns
related to or as a result of this development proposal. Staff has provided a response to these
concerns as follows:
1 1. County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) Upgrade - The City and County are actively
pursuing a financial plan for the upgrade of County Road 17. The upgrade will consist
' of a four -way urban divided highway. If a financial plan is created this year, County
Road 17 could be scheduled for upgrading in 2 to 4 years. Without this financial plan,
it may be 8 to 10 years for the project to accumulate the necessary funding. Staff will
1 know more with regards to the financial aspect of the project after May, 1993.
In conjunction with the proposed residential developments along the County Road 17
corridor between Lyman Boulevard and Trunk Highway 5, many of the residents have
expressed concerns with regards to speed limits, trail considerations and trail crossings.
Staff has recently met with members of the Carver County Highway Department on these
' issues. The County engineer will be putting together a list of all the County roads in the
City and recommending speed limits accordingly for MnDOT's consideration. According
1 to MnDOT's traffic office, the last speed study along County Road 17 was performed in
1976 (south of Lake Drive East to Lyman Boulevard).
' As a part of the County Road 17 upgrading, 8 -foot wide bituminous trails will be
recommended on each side of the roadway. A trail crossing will be proposed at the south
end of the project. The crossing will most likely be underneath County Road 17 with an
1
1
Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
1
April 14, 1993
Page 7
8 -foot wide box culvert. There currently exists an 8 -foot wide box culvert crossing
approximately 400 feet south of Lake Drive East adjacent to Lake Susan Hills Park. The
Park and Recreation Commission has voted to require both developments, Prairie Creek 1
Estates Townhomes and Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition, install trails in conjunction with
their developments. As a result of our meeting with the Carver County Engineer, the
trails along County Road 17 could be placed within the County's right -of -way. If future
upgrading of County Road 17 occurs within the next 2 to 4 year period, it would be
feasible, both financially and from a construction standpoint, to collect the trail fees from
the developers and put it towards the construction of the new trail system with the
upgrade of County Road 17. However, should the financing plan to upgrade County
Road 17 not occur by June of 1993, staff supports the Park and Recreation Commission
to have the developer install the trails through their developments respectively within
County Road 17 right -of -way.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON APRIL 21, 1993 '
At the April 21, 1993, meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval
of the preliminary plat with one additional condition and minor additions as noted in bold in the
recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff the City Council adopt the following motion: 1
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition as shown on
plans dated April 12, 1993, with the following conditions.
1
1. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25' where it will preserve natural features if
approved by city staff.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide a
financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance
1
with the conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event and
ponding calculations for the retention ponds (NURP standards) for the City Engineer to
review and approve.
4. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for utility and street improvements
for the City to review and formally approve. All utility and street improvements shall be
constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates.
1
1
1 Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
April 14, 1993
Page 8
' 5. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with all necessary permits
such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed District, PCA and Carver County
1 Highway Department.
7. All retention ponds shall include an outlet control structure to control discharge rate
pursuant to NURP standards.
1 8. The Applicant shall provide maintenance access routes to the retention pond areas and
dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat. In addition, all utility lines outside
the street right -of -way shall be dedicated with a minimum of a 20 -foot wide drainage and
1 utility easement.
9. Erosion control and turf restoration shall be in accordance with the City's Best
' Management Practice Handbook.
10. If feasible, the applicant shall work with the City and County in oversizing the storm
' drainage improvements to include the future runoff from the upgrade of Powers
Boulevard. The applicant would be compensated for the associated oversizing costs.
1 11. The location of all fire hydrants shall be approved by the City's Fire Marshal.
12. Mallard Court should be renamed to either Drake Court or some other acceptable street
name. Lake Susan Hills Drive shall also be renamed as supported by the Public
Safety Department.
13. Five -foot concrete sidewalks should also be extended from Lake Susan Hills Drive west
to Dove Court.
14. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by
a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of
dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height
' shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location
of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description.
' Generally the conservation easement shall be on the following lots:
Lots 1 -6, Block 2
1 15. Lots 6 -16, Block 3, Lots 1 -10, Block 4, and Lots 20 -28, Block 5 shall be custom graded
lots and the following conditions shall apply:
1
1
1
1
,
Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition 1
April 14, 1993
Page 9
I
a. Each of these lots shall conform to the approved custom graded plans. Deviation
from these plans which will result in more removal of vegetation, will not be I
permitted.
b. Each of these lots shall have a woodland management plan developed by the I
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
I
and a copy will also be given to the homeowner.
c. Each of these lots shall only be permitted to have the following trees removed
(these numbers correspond to the tree survey numbers as shown on Sheets 8 and I
9 of Plans dated April 12, 1993:
Block 3 1
Lot 6 - 64
I
Lot 7 - 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91
Lot 8 - 100, 502, 503, 504, 507, 510, 511, 512
Lot 9 - 567, 575
1
Lot 10 - 582, 602
Lot 11 - 592, 593, 594, 559
Lot 12 - 598, 626, 633, 634, 635, 647, 648, 649 1
Lot 13 - 605, 624, 625, 652, 715
Lot 14 - 615
I Lot 15 - 606 *Lot line must be adjusted to save stand of trees.
Lot 16 - 573
Block 4 I
Lot 1 - 870, 871, 872, 875, 878 *House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50, must save I
863
Lot 2 - 817, 857, 861
Lot 3 - 828, 829, 840, 841, 519 I
Lot 4 - 985
Lot 5 - 532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 550, 990, 991, 994
Lot 6 - 587
Lot 7 - 563
Lot 8 - 528, 568, 569
Lot 9 - 616, 626, 627, 630, 637
I
Lot 10 - 619, 620, 621
1
1 '
1 Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
April 14, 1993
I Page 10
Block 5
1 Lot 20 - none
Lot 21 - none
I Lot 22 - none
Lot 23- 911,914,917
Lot 24 - 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 878, 879
I Lot 25 - 996, 997
Lot 26 - 570, 571, 573, 578, 579, 580, 581
Lot 27 - 604 * House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50.
I Lot 28 - 612
16. The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide the following:
1 a. Increased landscaping along Powers Boulevard (CR 17) and internal boulevard and
entrance landscaping.
I b. Improved landscaping materials, with at least 50% of the hardwoods from the
Primary species list.
I c. A plan providing $750 worth of landscaping/single family unit.
1 17. Park and Recreation Commission conditions:
a. Dedication of Outlot E to the city;
I b. Construction of the following trails:
1 1. an 8 -ft. wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake Susan as
indicated on Attachment B, Segments D and E;
1 2. an 8 -ft. wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers Boulevard (CR
17) as indicated on Attachment B, Segment B;
1 3. Trail segments A, C and F
I 4. Park fees are assessed at one -half of the rate in force upon building permit
application. All trail fees have been waived as a part of the development
of Lake Susan Hills West.
1
1
1
1
Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition 1
April 14, 1993
Page 11
5. The two trail easements identified allowing ccess to the shoreland trail
g a� be
consolidated into one 40 -ft. easement at the location of the northerly
easement.
18. Building Official conditions:
a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for each house pad on
the grading plan.
b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests, limits 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.
c. Oversized street signs shall be placed at each of the four outlets of Lake Susan
Hills Drive on Powers Boulevard. The signs shall indicate the range of addresses
on the street.
19. The applicant's engineer shall provide a final grading plan with detailed house types,
elevation and grading limits on all lots. The final grading plan shall also take into
consideration existing stockpiled material along County Road 17.
20. A condition shall be placed in the development contract regarding maintenance
responsibilities for homes with ejector pumps. 1
21. Any trees damaged during construction shall be replaced on a caliper inch basis per
the ordinance, Section 20- 1178(c)(7)." 1
ATTACHMENTS
1. Plannin g Commission minutes dated March 12, 1993.
2. Original tree removal plan.
3. Revised tree removal plan.
4. Draft detailed grading plans.
5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated April 15, 1993.
6. Letter from Roger Knutson dated April 1, 1993.
7. Previous staff report.
8. Planning Commission minutes dated April 21, 1993. ,
9. Plans dated April 12, 1993.
1
1
1
1 COMPLIANCE TABLES
1 BLOCK 1 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth
I Lot 1 12,600 83 148
Lot 2 12,800 85 150
1 Lot 3 14,150 87 157
Lot 4 14,950 85 172
1 Lot 5 15,550 83 173
Lot 6 13,900 83 152
1 Lot 7 13,750 94 146
Lot 8 12,700 141 144
1
BLOCK 2 Lot Revised Lot Revised Lot Revised
1 Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot
Area Width Depth
111 Lot 1 20,875 100 208
Lot 2 22,350 120 220
1 Lot 3 20,725 104 219
Lot 4 20,775 100 209
1 Lot 5 20,225 18,450 100 88 203 204
Lot 6 20,425 20,550 100 203
BLOCK 3 Lot Revised Lot Revised Lot Revised
1 Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot
Area Width Depth
1 Lot 1 21,825 18,675 98 90 220 224
2 24,800 22,750 116 115 257 275
I 3 22,825 22,275 151 163 241 267
4 25,650 23,525 97 85 200 229
1 5 24,325 21,475 90 90 194 231
6 16,675 21,075 85 90 189 197
1 7 16,475 23,450 85 135 195 167
I 8 15,070 21,000 90 145 194 163
1 1
9
15,350 16,925 90 108 179 172
10 17,017 15,925 92 100 154 172
1
BLOCK Revised Lot Revised Lot Revised Lot Revised 1
4 Block 3 Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot
Area Width Depth
Lot 1 11 16,800 18,225 100 - 153 Flag - I
Lot
2 12 23,000 21,750 100 - 259 Flag - 1
Lot
3 13 27,750 22,600 100 - 88 Flag - 1
Lot
4 14 22,550 23,400 100 - 228 Flag -
I
Lot
5 15 14,525 14,775 83 92 174 155
I 6 16 15,000 13,475 87 83 174 158
7 17 16,575 14,800 85 90 179 158
I
8 18 15,000 14,175 85 84 172 148
9 19 13,400 13,050 86 - 155 138 1
10 20 15,125 15,000 208 227 136 -
11 21 14,575 14,250 163 122 183 105*
1
12 22 16,208 16,475 98 86 137 145
13 23 22,500 26,400 87 85 161 207 1
14 24 22,935 23,400 83 82 171 229
15 25 19,165 19,850 85 90 179 217 I
16 26 17,750 17,700 85 - 179 213
I
17 27 17,400 - 85 - 178 191
18 28 15,820 - 116 - 187 -
19 29 15,000 - 105 - 193 -
I 20 30 16,320 - 87 - 191 -
21 31 15,450 - 115 - 191 -
1
22 32 15,150 - 128 - 210 -
23 33 16,000 - 119 - 206 - _ 1
2 1
I 24 34 15,350 - 89 - 192 -
25 35 16,192 - 85 - 190 -
26 36 17,680 16,645 85 81 20 3 -
II 27 37 17,340 16,906 85 81 213 215
28 38 18,920 17,700 86 81 220 222
1 Revised Revised Revised Revised
Block 4 Lot Area Lot Lot
Width Depth
I
29 1 20,972 19,816 85 200 195
I 30 2 17,750 16,885 83 - 179 177
31 3 18,100 16,865 87 - 176 175
1 32 4 17,950 17,950 85 - 177 -
33 5 18,100 18,100 85 - 178 -
1 34 6 17,525 - 83 - 176 -
35 7 18,250 - 95 - 200 -
' 36 8 24,500 - 100 - 320 -
37 9 28,600 - 100 - 320 -
' 38 10 26,225 - 153 - 200 -
1 BLOCK 5 Lot Revised Lot Revised Lot Revised
Area Lot Width Lot Depth Lot
1 Area Width Depth
Lot 1 19,375 - 140 - 208 -
' 2 18,250 16,825 190 135 189 178
3 16,050 14,100 124 116 189 169
1 4 15,800 13,225 124 112 183 159
5 15,625 13,875 116 110 161 145
I 6 12,450 13,350 97 100 146 140
7 12,525 12,350 86 - 146 143
I 8 12,450 - 86 - 147 146
I 9 13,325 - 83 - 147 -
10 14,425 - 85 - 158 -
1 11 14,650 - 87 - 159 -
1 3
. 1
12 13, 175 - 87 - 148 - ,
13 12,700 - 85 - 149 - 1
14 15,200 - 83 - 160 -
15 18,600 - 83 - 172 - 1
16 15,650 - 87 - 160 -
17 13,325 - 83 - 144 - 1
18 14,925 - 83 - 159 =
I 19 18,400 85 202
20 14,875 21,675 100 85 149 250 ,
21 20,875 25,295 86 85 153 305
22 31,475 36,780 86 120 195 307
23 23,800 20,690 86 100 185 186
24 16,750 15,305 100 163 165 187 1
25 19,250 15,723 231 167 169 187
26 15,000 14,800 142 109 180 187 1
27 17,550 21,250 95 85 183 250
28 26,800 26,500 146 100 183 265 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4 1
1 '
• ' ' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 17, 1993
I Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Batzli, Ladd Conrad, Nancy Mancino, Jeff Farmakes,
I Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott, and Diane Harberts
STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant
I City Engineer
I PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 93 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ON 76.47 ACRES AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CREATE HOLDING PONDS ON
I PROPERTY ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTHWEST OF
LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION, ARGUS DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
II Name Address
I Riley F. Kopp
Don Patton Argus Development
RCI
Ron Isaak Argus Development
Wayne Tauer Pioneer Engineering
I
Phil Jungbluth Argus Development
Scott Montgomery 8260 West Lake Court
Andrew K. Olson 8290 West Lake Court
I Tom Nilsson
James Domholt 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive
8251 West Lake Court
Gary Kassen 8270 West Lake Court
I Tom Dotzenrod
Pete Kurth 8280 West Lake Court
1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Randy Koepsell 1110 Dove Court
Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive
I Ron & Ann Kloempken 8311 West Lake Court
Tom & Pat VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court
Don & Annabelle Diamond 1131 Dove Court
I Randy Marquette 1101 Dove Court
John & Karen Engelhardt 8645 Chan Hills Drive No.
Thomas A. Rasmussen 8531 Merganser Court
I Chris Miller 8401 West Lake Drive
Gary & Mary Nussbaum 8391 West Lake Drive
Don Wisdorf 8639 Chan Hills Drive No.
David Flaskerud 8411 West Lake Drive
I Tom Burns 1551 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Jim Pehringer 1010 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Robert Smithburg 8651 Chan Hills Drive No.
I Dave Durnmer
Rod Annis 417 Santa Fe Trail
8625 Chan Hills Drive No.
I Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 2
Batzli: Does anyone on the Planning Commission have any questions they
want to ask Jo Ann or Dave before we ask the applicant for their
presentation?
Harberts: I have one. Could someone just explain the rationale with
regard to the front yard setback reduced to 25 feet. This is number 1 in'
the recommendations.
Olsen: It's adding flexibility. It's not a requirement. We're allowing
them to do that and what that does is, along what's shown as Mallard Court'
is that it can pull the house up 5 feet closer and a lot of the trees were
in the rear of the lot and so that would help.
Harberts: Okay, so it's a matter of saving the landscape.
Olsen: Right. '
Ledvina: Do we want to restrict that 25 foot setback or allow the 25 foot
setback to a certain number of lots?
Olsen: You can do that.
Ledvina: As you've written the recommendation here, this applies to the I
entire subdivision. Is that correct?
Olsen: Right.
1
Mancino: On page 6 Jo Ann, you talk about the City can require caliper
replacement of tree. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with
staff and the DNR Forester to develop a reforestation plan. That is not
put in the recommendations.
Olsen: Yeah, that was a mistake. Is that page 6 did you say?
Mancino: Well, yeah.
Olsen: Right, okay. '
Mancino: So did you mean to leave that out of the.
Olsen: No, I think I just forgot to put that one in.
Mancino: Because I think that's...is that we will be asking for
reforestation of the lost trees.
Scott: Excuse me Jo Ann. On this Mallard Court is the longer cul-de-sac'
that's on Block F?
Olsen: Right.
Scott: I just took a look, I know we've got a new cul -de -sac length
ordinance. I think it's 600 feet. Did someone calculate the length of
that cul -de -sac because if it's non - conforming with the new cul -de -sac
length ordinance, that has to be pulled up. And I just took a look at it
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 3
I Olsen: I think the 600 foot minimum is.
1 Scott: Or maximum.
Olsen: Maximum, right. Is if it could be connected with another street
I or if it should be a thru street. It's not necessarily saying that you
have to pull it back to that distance. What the ordinance is saying is
that there's a reason, a physical reason why that street cannot be
connected to another subdivision, to another phase, then it can be a
1 longer distance. I don't know that we've ever used it to require that
cul-de-sac to be, you know that has to be a cul -de -sac to be reduced.
I Batzli: Okay. Would the applicant like to give us a presentation or talk
to us about the conditions?
•
I Wayne Tauer: Good evening. My name is Wayne Tauer from Pioneer
Engineering. I'm representing the Joe Miller Homes. Argus Development
tonight. We have a couple people from Joe Miller Homes here tonight who
can also answer questions. I think before we move on I've got some
I literature that I would like to probably hand out just to expand on a
little bit as to what I'll be talking about tonight. Maybe I could ask Jo
Ann or somebody to take these. Okay, everybody got one? Jo Ann, maybe if
I you could rotate that to the left making kind of north up. Maybe we can
just get a better feeling making Powers Boulevard go, yeah. Well, back a
little bit more. Well I mean rotate it. Doesn't Powers kind of run
I north /south there? Something like that. Now we're getting close. Okay.
Generally speaking, running through the points on page 11 I guess. The
conditions of approval. We have basically no major problems with that.
Jo Ann touched on a park problem that we will have to go back to the Park
I Board and talk about. I think an assumption was made in a preliminary
drawing that possibly shouldn't have been made and I guess maybe that's
about all I need to talk about it tonight. Where we were putting a pond
I on city park. Well, we didn't think it was city park. We were just going
to be basically nice guys and give more park away is what we were going to
do but we are going to give all the park that the PUD and the preliminary
concept program did recommend so therefore, everybody's going to be happy
I hopefully, after the Park Board meeting. Just talking, a couple of minor
exceptions or revisions, possibly typos in the staff report. On page 5,
I believe, it talks about average lot size. In the middle of that larger
I paragraph, about 2/3 of the way down where it says the average lot size is
13,658. Actually it's much larger than that. It's closer to 17,500.
Between 17,000 and 18,000 based on how you figure it out. So we are above
I the average or the minimum lot size by far. That City requirement is of
course 15,000 square feet.
Farmakes: Is that taking into account the setbacks and the land areas and
1 so on?
Wayne Tauer: Well that is the lot specific.
1 Farmakes: The average size.
Wayne Tauer: The average size of every lot, right. Not including streets.
I
or.
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 17, 1993 - Page 4 .
1
Farmakes: Where you can't build?
Wayne Tauer: No. I don't know. Now Jo Ann, is that a.
1
Olsen: When I did the calculation, I just did the lot areas themselves.
Farmakes: So what you're saying is that there's a 4,000 square foot 1
discrepancy here on the average lot size?
Wayne Tauer: Well it depends on how you calculate it I guess. We're I
talking about the boundaries of the lot here. That's what the boundaries
of the lots area. 17,550 square feet. I
Olsen: We can recalculate that.
Conrad: Why is there a difference Jo Ann?
1
Olsen: I don't know if we know why there's a difference.
Conrad: A lot size is a lot size.
1
Wayne Tauer: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I went back actually through each number
on one of your handouts here and averaged those up. Actually it came up I
higher but that's what we have on our preliminary plat is 17,550 so I'm
going to stay with that. But no, we are not under 15,000 for average lot
size. We are above 15,000 and that's I guess the only thing I wanted to
point out. Okay, one of the other things I wanted to talk about a little I
bit was the landscape plan along Powers Boulevard, County Road 17. There
was a recommendation in there that we should abide by the City's primary
deciduous tree list. One of the problems we had with that, and we knew o�
the list when we did it but the thing that we have a problem with is the
fact that virtually every tree on that list is not salt tolerate at all.
Either they're very sensitive to salt spray or very sensitive to salt in I
their root structures. Therefore that's why we changed some of the tree
types along County Road 17. Anytime you have a major thoroughfare where
speeds exceed 40 to 50 mph, you're going to have a problem with that, I
especially a county road where they salt quite heavily. I can see that
primary list being a good list for anything that is residential in nature
where it's 30 mph or less and not a major amount of salting is done. In I
the handouts that I gave you, maybe just for your own information, I did
some research. Actually I've had it in my files for a long time and
that's where some of the design work that we do was based on. On those
particular recommendations by the University of Minnesota. So maybe just
for your own information you can walk through those and see the trees that'
are salt tolerate and salt sensitive. And that's why we're changing it.
Now again, we can work with the city staff and work out a reasonable II solution to this. Maybe not all primary trees. Maybe some on the
secondary list are more appropriate. Also I know one of the problems or
one of the things that people who are here tonight are going to look at,
as far as the plat goes is the tree removal process and how much we are I
actually going to remove. We have an exhibit that I think most of the
neighbors have seen at the neighborhood meeting Monday night but for the
Commission's viewing, we're going to pull it out here. Where would be till
best place to put this? Right here? North is being that way of course.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 5
The trees that you see in green here are the ones that are being saved.
Unfortunately I guess I didn't highlight the ones that are being lost. The
major, there are some being lost right in here obviously where the cul -de-
sac is and where the house pads are ultimately going to be. This is where
we worked with the staff to move the cul -de -sac to the west basically.
We're moving this road over. We're asking for a 5 foot front yard setback
here. That allows you the 5 feet. We're asking for a 5 foot setback
here. That allows you to...we've adjusted the grades in here so we get
' down and match the grades better. So the trees there were in the
backyards are now being able to save. The ones that are actually on the
pads are real hard to save obviously. We did pull this cul -de -sac back,
' therefore most of the trees on the pine knob are being saved. And then a
nice band along here being saved and virtually every tree, except for just
a few right here, are being saved along Lake Susan. So there's a major
band here. Major group here and a band here that are being saved. And a
group that are between the two groups...are being saved. We worked up the
numbers and that's on the handout that we gave you. There's a total of
938 trees...specifically shot from here over. And out of those trees
' we're leaving 279, which turns out to be 29.74 %. Of those trees, you can
see the breakdown. 30 are oaks and 30 are elms and 27 basswoods and so on
and so forth. Now amongst that group we did not go down to this area and
' count these trees at all or this group in here. We have no idea I guess
basically as far as what count is down there. But as you can see, it's a
fairly major group and it's trees that obviously are the parks but we're
not taking them out. So if you're talking about an overall average,
I mean probably 29% is not a real number based on what trees on the entire
project that we're saving. It may drop dramatically. I supposed we could
go out and get a count down there. We didn't think it was necessary. In
' fact we are saving 70% of the trees on the site I think is probably pretty
good for a residential development. I guess basically that's about my
only concerns that I had about the staff report. Was those minor changes
' in the square footage and to let you know what we're doing as far as tree
removal, or saving trees, as far as that goes. I'll be glad to answer
questions.
' Batzli: Let me ask one about your issue with the primary versus secondary
list. In the conditions what staff is asking for is 50% from the primary
species list. You want to change that from 50% so that you can choose
more than 50% from a different list?
Wayne Tauer: No, I don't know if I want to do many from the primary list
at all because those trees will be dead in a few years. I'm saying that
they are not salt tolerate and maybe for a year or two they might survive
or until such time as the... You know they may survive for a while
because of the fact that there's only 2 lanes at this point in time. But
as soon as 4 lanes go in and the salt tolerance probably comes into effect
when the high speed develops. I mean I'm not saying that we're not going
to put in nice trees. I just don't, I want to kind of get away from the
' primary list a little bit so that when we develop, trees that will
ultimate survive in this area.
Batzli: So you're thinking about landscaping along the road there and not
' internal to the project? That's where you're concerned?
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 6
1
Wayne Tauer: We will also put $150.00 worth of landscaping per lot.
That's also part of our program. It's hard to show any kind of a
landscape plan due to the fact that you have no idea where the trees are
really going to be. Once you determine where the houses are going to sit,
where the driveway's going to be and where these surfaces are going to go
it's just a condition of approval we prefer and we would put that $150.0011
per lot into each lot yet. That's not a problem. We're not disagreeing
with that.
Batzli: So do you have a problem with putting species from the primary I
list internal to the development?
Wayne Tauer: No. Internal's fine.
1
Batzli: 7o Ann, on this condition, were you thinking that all of these
species were going to go along the county road there? '
Olsen: No, not necessarily. They have to provide additional landscaping
within the subdivision itself. You know with the boulevards plantings an
• so no. We do not want Russian Olives and trees like that. Wayne talked
to me about this and we can look into that and I'm going to research to
see whether those trees are salt tolerate or not also. But the 50% can
I easily still apply within the plat itself.
Mancino: Is this $150.00 for landscaping just include plant materials?
Olsen: It doesn't state what it's really going towards. I mean the
$150.00 doesn't buy you whole lot.
Scott: It's like one tree. 1
Olsen: That was '87.
Ledvina: That's a question that I have. Is it appropriate to adjust thaII
for inflation which has occurred over the last 6 years? I mean that would
be about 25% or 30% over that time to get a comparable landscape or tree III
or whatever as was originally intended with the PUD contract.
Olsen: Today we require $750.00. It's $500.00 for sod and $250.00 for '
trees.
Scott: Especially since a major issue of this development has to do with
trees and reforestation, that appears to be quite appropriate in this
I
instance.
Batzli: What's the ramification of adjusting that Paul? Any? 1
Krauss: Well as long as we're allowed to do it within the PUD guidelines,
which I think we may be.
Olsen: Well, the PUD contract stated it was $150.00 per lot. There was
5 year grace period for the PUD contract that stated that any new
regulations you couldn't apply but that 5 year grace period ended on II December of 1992. So we can look into that but technically I think you
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 7
r
can now pull in any other regulations that you wish to do. Or else you
r could even just recommend that the PUD contract be amended and go that
route too.
Krauss: I should also pointed out that the way the $750.00 is applied
elsewhere in the city is it's, if you already have mature trees on your
property that are being saved, you're not obligated to put any more in.
So at that point you just have the $500.00 for seed and sod... So you
' wouldn't be getting more trees in that area...
Scott: Yeah, because that looks like at least 50% of the lots don't have
any trees on them, or won't have any trees on them.
' Batzli: I thought it was a regulation that the developer had to either
seed or sod all disturbed areas.
1 Krauss: We put that into the development contract. The developer is
obligated to do that with the major grading and such but what happens is
' oftentimes, it probably won't happen in this case because...but a lot of
times lots are sold off to other builders and they're brought in 2, 3, 4
years from now and we typically have that $750.00 provision in there to
make sure that each individual home as it states is taken care of.
r Mancino: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
1 Batzli: Go ahead.
Mancino: 67% of the oak will be removed. Where is that on your drawing?
' Where is the bulk of the 67% that will be removed?
Wayne Tauer: 67% of the trees being removed are oak. Of 30 %. Well, I
don't know exactly where every one is.
1 Mancino: Okay, so there is no one major place?
' Wayne Tauer: Well, I suppose generally most of them are right in here and
I suppose there's a few over here. We do have a plan that typically
points out where every tree is. We have a number. We actually went out
and counted a tag on every tree out there has a number and it corresponds
to a list. I believe that's in your particular handout. But I guess I
didn't memorize it. I don't know exactly. Ron, you went through that a
little bit. Generally, can you tell me where most?
1 Ron Isaak: They're generally scattered all throughout but the more bigger
trees are up on the hill.
1 Farmakes: I have a question also. What type, on Block 1, Lots 1, 2 and
8, what type of house do you plan on putting in there? That would be a
lot area of 12.6, 12.8 and 12.7. That's your smaller lots. Particular 1
has a fair amount of contour there.
Wayne Tauer: Okay, which number? You're in Block 1 you say?
' Farmakes: Block 1, Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 8.
r
Planning Commission Meeting II
March 17, 1993 - Page 8
II
Wayne Tauer: ...not a major amount of contour in there.
Farmakes: It looks like 1 has a fair amount. .More than 10 feet. 1
Wayne Tauer: Well existing, there might be a definite break there due to
the fact that I think some of the artificial grading has gone on when Lot
3 over here was built. It looks like a very definite slope. We're going II
to come in and probably flatten that out a little bit but generally the
lot will be flat except for...
Farmakes: What square footage house do you estimate that you'd be puttin
on there?
Wayne Tauer: ...what square footage house will go on the lots on this ell
building right here.
Phil 7ungbluth: Well there's architectural controls which we have yet toll
set. And one deals with developing this...square footage, whether it's a
multi -level house, single level house... At this point we can't really
say what the square footage of any particular house is going to be on any I
particular lot.
Farmakes: Is there a structure on Lot 3 at the moment? Is there a I
structure on Lot 3, the adjacent lot?
Wayne Tauer: I guess I'm not sure. Probably. Those lots...are sold out
Phil .7ungbluth: Oh yeah.
Farmakes: But is there a home on that lot? I didn't view that particulall
lot when I went out and looked at the property... That lot is how many
square feet? That 3, the adjacent lot next to 1? Do you have any idea?
Is it scaled off?
I
Wayne Tauer: I suppose we can get a comparison. How big is Lot 1...?
Olsen: Lot 1, Block 1?
I
Wayne Tauer: Yes.
Olsen: 12,600. II
Wayne Tauer: 12.6? I suppose that might be about 14,000 then.
II
Farmakes: Is that homeowner here tonight by any chance? That's you?
Resident: Yes.
II
Farmakes: Can you tell me, what is the square footage of your property
there on 3?
II
Resident: About 135 feet by...
Batzli: I don't think we have a definitive answer. II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 9
1
Farmakes: Depending on how fluid the land is there isn't it?
Batzli: If you asked me, I'd have no clue what mine was.
Farmakes: Alright. I'm assuming that we're going to hear...vague as it
is.
Mancino: His house is 2,000 square feet.
Farmakes: I didn't mean your house, I meant your lot.
' Batzli: Did you have anything else?
Resident: No.
Ledvina: I had a question. Regarding the stockpiles of soil that are on
the site. Will those just be graded in overall?
Ron Isaak: My understanding is that's part of our...
Ledvina: Okay, so those topsoil stockpiles will be completely removed? I
' guess what I'm concerned about is the possibility that those areas haven't
been, if they're going to remain, that they haven't been adequately
compacted. So those would be cut out entirely and back to the native
ground and then compaction as necessary would be done and if there's fill
in that area?
Ron Isaak: If it's in a controlled fill area, yes. It will be
' compacted...
Batzli: Okay, thank you very much. We'll probably have questions after
we close, get done with public comment. This is a public hearing. If
' anyone would like to address the commission, please come forward to the
microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Do you have
one for the staff?
1 Robert Smithburg: No I don't. I'm sorry.
Batzli: Why don't you give this one to them so that it can go in the
record.
Robert Smithburg: My name is Robert Smithburg and I live at 8657
' Chanhassen Hills Drive North, which is across from the southwest corner of
the proposed development. I'm here to raise a serious concern about this
development and I ask that the Planning Commission not approve of this
' development plan until this concern has been satisfactorily addressed.
The concern I have is to present, or excuse me, to prevent the destruction
of valuable old growth trees. These trees, which are 80 to 150 years old,
' are an irreplaceable resource. I want the Commission to know that I
received a letter on March 2nd from Joseph Miller informing me that they
have made several design changes in order to address this concern. I
thank Joseph Miller and the developer for taking this matter into
' consideration with regards to saving old growth trees. However, their
changes do not go far enough. From the neighborhood meeting on Monday
1
Planning Commission Meeting II
March 17, 1993 - Page 10 .
night, I estimate the elimination of the growth II ni
g over 50% of old g o th trees and
we disagree. Tonight their presentation I think was somewhat deceiving. ,
Batzli: Can you please put the map back up on the easel? Thank you.
Robert Smithburg: The tree loss, there will not be as they pointed out, '
there won't be tree loss along Lake Susan because that is not, that site
is not developable. We have a major stand of old growth trees right here.
I'd say at least 100 to 200 yards wide so you'll have major loss here and
this whole area of the hill right here where the road comes in off Powers '
Boulevard is all trees also. I have reviewed the 1987 development
agreement. In Attachment A, clause 6(8), which I have in my back page,
the developer is obligated to not remove trees except as approved per plaI
by the city. I ask the Commission to exercise it's authority to not
approve this development until the destruction of these valuable trees has
been prevented. I also ask the Commission to investigate whether this II plan violates Chanhassen's Comprehensive Plan, the Tree Preservation Act
or any other city ordinances. And please refer to Attachment C9. I
believe the Planning Commission has the opportunity and the responsibilit
to protect these old growth trees and the environment by what it does her
tonight. I also believe the developer has an opportunity and obligation
to act responsibly. The standards of the 1987 PUD agreement are minimums
compared with current standards. I am asking you, the developer, to in
good faith go beyond the minimal contractual obligations of 1987 and meet
the current standards of 1993. Thereby showing the citizens of Chanhassen
you are a consciencious and environmentally sound developer who will be II
encouraged to develop in Chanhassen in the future. Thank you very much.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Ye
please.
Don Wisdorf: My name's Don Wisdorf and I live on 8639 Chanhassen Hills
Drive North. I have similar feelings to the previous speaker, Bob. That'
stand of trees, I don't know if you've had a chance to go out there and
take a look at it but you gain a quick appreciation for the age of those
trees and the size of those trees. What the developers pointed out as fa
as putting in, I also am opposed to to a certain degree. We do appreciate
the concessions he's made to, at least it's in the right direction but we
feel it's quite a distance yet from really what needs to be done to save
this old growth of trees. Bob had mentioned that they're about 80 to 15011
years old. Depending on size and also type of soil they're in, they coul
be even older than that. One thing that's not shown on here is the number
of trees that are being removed and if you take a close look at the I
circles that are here, if we were to fill those all in with red, on the
inside, you'd really get an impact about what's really being removed.
There is a lot of trees along the shoreline which is not developable. Bot
take a look at the trees that are in this area and here are some
photographs I'd like to pass around to give you an idea in regards to siz
of these trees. What's really going to be devastated.
Farmakes: In your discussions with the developer did you have discussion
with regards to specific lots or...?
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
' March 17, 1993 - Page 11
Don Wisdorf: We had questions on specific lots but our feelings are is
' that the entire development needs to have more in appreciation for the
trees that are there. For example, the ones that are along Powers
Boulevard, that's a very large stand of trees. That is completely being
wiped off where the development's going in there. There's about 1,000, or
about 950 tags on those trees and our best estimate is that it's more
like, of the ones that are going to be removed, are the larger sized
trees. We realize that the builder has a right to be able to develop that
' property and we welcome development into the neighborhood, since it is
zoned for residential development. We appreciate his efforts to be able
to try to improve the impact upon the trees but I think it has to go
' further than a few lots being custom graded and the Mallard Drive being
moved. They moved it about 5 feet to the southwest. I would suggest at
the minimum that you consider moving that Drive more than 5 feet because
if you move it more to the southwest you'll be able to save a significant
' area of trees within that area. There's about, I counted about 13 lots
that were deemed to be custom graded and as you know with custom grading,
you still have a major amount of devastation but if we could, if they have
more lots that could be custom graded rather than the 13, in fact that
gives us almost half of those lots have old growth trees standing on them.
I'd strongly urge your consideration of more than just 13 lots. I'd say
' all of the heavily wooded lots, which is about maybe 40 or 45 lots that
are there should really be custom graded. That would be another thing
that would be able to at least help this development be more friendly to
the trees. This is an issue not just of the area, neighbors in the area
but it's also an issue in regards to Chanhassen. As you know we've got
the Tree Board that's just starting to get developed. Our particular
issue we're dealing here tonight is going to be very similar to ones we
' have in the future and I think it's important that we pay close attention
to try and preserve these old trees throughout our city which have really
been here longer than the city itself and in some cases longer than what
the State of Minnesota has been established, and I think we need to be
very sensitive to that. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you for your comments. Would anyone else like to address
the Commission?
Tom Rasmussen: Good evening. My name is Tom Rasmussen. I live at 8531
Merganser Court. I'm directly across the street on the west side of
Powers Boulevard and if you came into my living room and looked out, you'd
see the entire development from left to right. So I've got a good view
here. I guess what I've got is a couple of other concerns, more in
regards to the plan when I reviewed it. I was just wondering if the
Engineering Department has had a chance to look at the slopes leading to
the NURP detention ponds. They appear to be fairly steep and what I'm
' concerned with is that if anybody is there with children or whatever,
future down the road, as somebody goes ahead and buys these plans and the
kids are playing, they could slide right into those ponds. And if those
' ponds don't have a bench, by bench I mean having a slope that's fairly
mild so that they can stop before they go sliding in all the way down,
that there's the potential for some drownings and some accidents. I just
want to point that out as a concern to your attention. The other thing is
access to these ponds. These ponds require maintenance by heavy equipment
and there needs to be a route for machinery and stuff to get there and to
Planning Commission Meeting
g g
March 17, 1993 - Page 12
do access and I just want to bring up that point too to make sure that
they can go ahead and clean these ponds so they're effective. If they II
fill up with sediment, then they're essentially worthless. My second are
of concern is dealing with the speed limit along County Road 17. It seems
like every day I'm having more and more of a problem turning left out ont
CR 17. The posted speed limit there is 50. I have a hard time believing
that most of those cars are doing that. I think they're doing 55 or
greater and we're essentially coming from a dead stop out into that and
sometimes they're just boom, right up on your tail and you're just trying'
to go up to TH 5, a short distance. I guess what I would like to request
that the City, on behalf of my neighbors and myself, is to reduce the
speed limit. There's about a 9/10 of a mile segment that's 50 mph and
reduce that down to 40 mph. And what this would do, it would only add 16 '
seconds to the commute time but what I would like to, I just think for a
safety reasons, I guess what concerns me is they're proposing a fairly
large park across the street and as the kids on the west migrate across, II
they essentially could be crossing with cars traveling in excess of 50 -55
and even 60 mph and I don't think anybody would want their children
crossing that street. I guess what I'm requesting is that that be reduce
down to 40. For the safety sake. My third area I'd like to briefly just
talk about is that Monday night the developer mentioned moving some of the
trees instead of devastating them and cutting them down. Moving some. I
guess what I would like to see is a specific number of trees that they're
planning on moving. Where they're planning to move them to and it would
be nice to get those nicer trees up along Powers Boulevard. And if you II raise the, if the slope comes up from Powers Boulevard and at a distance
with the reduced speed on Powers Boulevard, then maybe salt isn't such an
issue anymore. Like he had mentioned, 40 mph seems to be the major point.
So thank you for your time. '
Batzli: Thank you. Dave, would you address some of Mr. Rasmussen's
concerns regarding slopes and erosion and the speed limit.
Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The retention ponds are proposed to be
built to NURP standards. That type of design allows for a bench around
the pond that has a 10:1 slope, which means the first foot of water will I
be a gradual, the first 10 feet of the pond it will only be 1 foot deep.
After that I think it goes at about 2 1/2 to 1 slope. So there will be a
bench around each one of the NURP ponds. As far as the speed issue along!'
Powers Boulevard. Powers Boulevard is a county road and all speed
modifications and so forth is under the jurisdiction of MnDot. The City
can certainly petition the County to also petition MnDot to perform a
speed study on Powers Boulevard to see if the speeds are accurately poste
for warrants. My initial thoughts out there, it's 50 mph north of Highwa
5 along Powers and we have built up conditions north of Highway 5 along
Powers also. It would be of some interest to check with the State and sell
when the last speed study was done along Powers Boulevard there since we
have had quite a few residential developments go in the area. On another
note, the city and county will, in approximately 5 to 10 years enter into"
a joint construction project for the widening of Powers Boulevard. It
will be widened to approximately a 52 foot wide urban section. That's
with curb and gutter. At that time most definitely the speed limit would '
be lowered I would assume in the range between 35 and 45 mph. Mr.
Rasmussen brought up a valid point as far as children crossing Powers
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 13
1
Boulevard to reach access to the park and continue on to Chan Hills, since
' there will be a trail connection there. It may be wise to consider also
pedestrian crossing anyway and again that would have to be approved
through the State of Minnesota. Followed up by the Carver County Highway
Department. So those are a couple issues that we can certainly pass on to
the County to look into as well as the State.
Batzli: Would you address one other thing and that is erosion control.
The conditions related to that.
Hempel: Certainly. The applicant /developer will be required to prepare
' an erosion control plan in accordance with the City's recently adopted
Best Management Practice Handbook, which will address erosion control
needs, slope stabilization and so forth throughout the development.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Pete Kurth: Good evening. My name is Pete Kurth and I live at 1040 Lake
' Susan Hills Drive. That is the First Addition of the Joe Miller
properties. The first development on Lake Susan. I guess I'd like to
share with you some of my experiences that we had with the reforestation
process on Phase 1, and I'm sure many of these restrictions were in place.
What the developer had done was to take trees that were native to the area
and transplant those on our lot in a very unnatural setting. For example,
I had 3 trees in a row placed directly on the property line. And these
' were scrub trees. They met the reforestation requirements that were
placed upon them but they were trees that were also planted in a very
unnatural setting and then during the construction process of our home,
' they were further damaged to the point that it was necessary for me to
remove them once the home was completed. The developer met this
obligation to the PUD development but I, as a property owner didn't have
anything. My concern is the trees in that we physically protect those.
' We mandate silt guards to prevent the erosion into the lake. I think that
we need to take that one step further and protect our trees. We need to
identify the grade that these trees are currently at and make sure that
' they're not damaged during the construction process. My concern there is
that Joe Miller is the developer but he's not the person who does the
actual construction. And those developers or contractors may or may not
' share his ecology values. They're concerned about production. If those
are damaged during the construction process, which they often are,
susceptible to damage during delivery of materials, excavating, placement
of driveways and what have you, they're lost forever. So I think we're
' protecting the waterlands by mandating silt guards. I think we need some
kind of physical barrier on these trees to make sure the trees are not
damaged. And that's my concern.
Batzli: Thank you very much.
Olsen: Just real quickly to answer that. We do require the trees that
are going to be preserved do have to have snow fencing. It's whatever the
crown is, we do half again that size. The diameter around the trees so
they cannot get the trucks in there and dump soil or anything on the root
system so we do provide that protection.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 14
1
Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission?
Jim Domholt: Good evening. My name is Jim Domholt. I'm at 8251 West
Lake Court. I'd like to set this up for a moment if I may. I don't
border this area but I don't notice any of the neighbors who are here
tonight and I did raise some concerns about this at the meeting on Monday"
This area right across here, there's been a, as was mentioned, a very
large mound of dirt compiled out there during earlier phases of
construction, and it has caused a tremendous amount of water problems for
the homes that are already built there that border to the west and border 1
to the north. And I think it's a concern of those residents that
something pretty definite be stated as far as what's going to be done it
that mound. If it's going to be brought back to the original grade, that
that be stated pretty clearly so that after this row of homes is done and
it wasn't brought back to the natural grade, there's nothing can be done
at that point in time. And there have been a lot of water control
problems on the original phase because of the way the contouring
originally had been done. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Dave, are you aware of that problem that they have I
right there on, is it the northwest corner?
Hempel: Yes I am Mr. Chairman. There's some existing stockpile of I
topsoil and excess material that creates some additional drainage going
towards the existing homes there to the west. It's my understanding based
on the grading plan that that material will be removed and those lots will
be graded in the fashion that the front part of the lot will drain out
towards the new street and the backyards will continue to drain towards
the west along that drainage swale. It appears that the drainage area
that contributes to that westerly area right now will be reduced with thi�
new development once those existing dirt piles are removed.
Batzli: So more of the water will be moved towards the east once that
pile's removed?
Hempel: That's correct. As the homes are built out there, the lots will
be graded so the drainage area is reduced.
Batzli: Thank you. Does anyone else have any comment for the Commission',
If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. '
Batzli: Nancy, why don't we start with you if we can.
Mancino: I had a few more questions. In looking at the trail map we haul
here, it designates D and E on the western side of Lake Susan. Are we
going to lose more trees due to the trail going in there?
Olsen: Well actually I think that trail's there isn't it? I think we'd 1
just be redoing that trail along the lake there.
1
1
I Planning Commission Meeting
, March 17, 1993 - Page 15
I Hempel: A portion of that trail is in place, that's correct. There's
already an existing sanitary sewer line that runs along part of the lake
there also.
Olsen: Where we did look at, where they were going to trail would have
I resulted in some more tree loss, I believe we were working with Todd to
relocate that between two of the lots that didn't have trees and so we
were working on that too.
1 Mancino: Okay. So that's like segment F?
Olsen: Well no, that was one of the fingers coming up from E. Cutting
I into a lot of the trees.
Mancino: Where does segment F go?
1 Olsen: Pardon?
Mancino: Where does segment F cross and go into the neighborhood which is
I
the southwestern corner of Lake Susan Hills Drive?
Olsen: This is really, it kind of depends on where the park property and
I the ponds go and also I believe that that segment F was connecting in with
that cul -de -sac and that was there. Now that that cul -de -sac is not
there, I believe that they weren't even going to do that section.
1 Mancino: So segment F is eliminated?
Olsen: Right.
I Mancino: Okay. So we won't be going through...forested area with a trail
anyway.
1 Olsen: Oh yeah. That's one of the things we were looking at with the
trail.
1 Mancino: Outlot H, which is a...3.9 acres, what's there?
Olsen: Nothing.
1 Mancino: Do you know is it a passive or natural park?
I Olsen: Nothing's there yet. They're going to be putting in like a totlot
and simple things like that.
Mancino: So there's no way to switch parcels of land?
I Olsen: Into?
I Mancino: To build on H and take those 3.9 acres and.
Olsen: For the trees?
Mancino: Yeah, for the trees. Kind of do a land swap.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 16
1
Olsen: Well, I believe that that park was going to be used for active.
So you'd probably be removing some of those trees with the park
development.
Mancino: Has anybody looked at that?
Olsen: No, nobody's looked at that. No. I'm sure the developer would
have comments on that. But I don't know that you could require it.
Mancino: Do you think that's a possibility at all? ,
Olsen: Well if you're talking like to replace that with Mallard Court?
Mancino: Or the, I'm thinking of the southwestern section where Lot 4 an
when you get down to Lots 28 thru 38 and also Block 5, Lots 20 thru 28
where there's a lot of tree loss. Massive tree loss. If you took that I
area and put that into park, which already abuts Outlot E and just make
that, make the park bigger and save those trees and then the development
of single homes could go in Outlot H. '
Olsen: Well, I don't know how we'd get street connections. You'd have to
have another access. Well you might be able to pull the cul -de -sac.
Mancino: We could do a cul -de -sac through 11 and 12 or you know, I don't
know how but.
Olsen: If it's going back in front of the Park and Rec, I guess they can i
look at that. I don't know. We've never done something like this.
Krauss: You know we really don't know what the determination was of the I
Park Board when they picked that in the first place. However, if it's
consistent with their other decisions, they have sought flat open ground
where they can build facilities and if it wasn't flat and open, they wouli
make it flat and open. It probably wouldn't meet your goals.
Mancino: Except that if you go back to the neighborhoods and say what do i
you want. Would you rather have flat and open or would you rather have
these landmark trees kept.
Olsen: But the neighborhood you'd be going back to would be Lake Susan 1
Hills. Right, you're not going to Chan Hills. They have their flat and
open park.
Mancino: Well I would like to bring it up in front of the Park and Rec
Commission. That's all.
Batzli: Okay, Jeff.
Farmakes: I'm trying hard to like this development but I'm not being ver
successful with it. It seems to me a couple things I'd like to point out
It seems that the last few PUD's that we've seen we're getting in the
presentation I think kind of stilted way of presenting the information.
Leaving pretty much important presentation areas modified. So that the I
presentation favors a particular direction of the applicant. I think in
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 17
1
this case one of the major features is the issue of tree loss. It seems
' to me that we have a very weak presentation. We have a big listing here
of all the trees and so on, but we don't have very good graphic
representation. I think certainly we could have better graphic
representations since this is a key issue here. Particularly along the
1 slope there next to the lake and the two problem areas that some of the
citizens discussed here. It would certainly go a long way in
interpretting this. It seems to me it's difficult to take information off
of a page or a listing of how many trees and try to associate it to an
area when somebody's verbalizing that they're spread out there and you're
looking at the total development. That's pretty loose information and I
feel real uncomfortable with that. I also am asking myself, what are we
1 benefitting here as a PUD from. To me when we're listing these properties
as total square footage, one's next to the lake anyway on the entrance
side. Off of Powers. I don't see how they'd be building in those areas
1 anyway with the slope that's there. Perhaps they could do some serious
grading but I'm not, and I'm not sure how that fits in with our
restrictions. I can't recall that if they went with the normal
1 development, how well they could tear up that area. But it seems to me
that this is an awfully tight use of this property and in a couple of
sensitive areas, it just seems to me that that's the reason we were
reforming our PUD standards. In an attempt to get more aggressive in
1 saving these trees. And this seems like sort of a half solution or that's
how it appears to me. I'd like to be more aggressive with it. I'd like
to, I think that that direction is there from the City Council and I think
1 that we should pursue that harder. The other issues that the citizens
brought up I think are being talked about. The NURP ponds and so on and
the issue of County 17 speeds. You might want to pursue that further. We
1 really don't govern that here but I agree it's been a while. There's been
a lot of development along CR 17. Although I do live on CR 17 and
visibility seems to be the issue of coming out. Your visibility's
restricted. For the person who's driving 50 mph, that then, that's a
1 concern certainly. But I've lived on there for a decade and it's good to
have that corridor route to be able to go 50 mph as long as it's not a
safety concern. I'm also very concerned about the lots that are listed 1,
1 2 and 8. Particularly 1. It seems to me just proportionately it doesn't
seem to be, compared to the home next to it in the previous development.
If they have a 2,000 square foot house on their lot, I'm a little worried
about what's going to be going next door on 1. And I'm also concerned
1 about the issue of the PUD. The average lot size. Didn't we work out
where that was going to be 15? I'm concerned about the difference of
opinion here as to what that works out.
1 Olsen: Well, with the new PUD regulations yes. Under this PUD, you just
had to have the average of 50% with 15,000.
1 Farmakes: This is going back to the '87 issue here?
Mancino: But isn't it a 5 year life?
1 Olsen: Right. And that's true. You can choose to, because of that 5 year
life, if you wanted to, to bring in the whole new regulations. We talked
1 with the Attorney's office about, because of course staff had the same
concerns. If this would have come in today, that concept plan wouldn't be
1
Planning Commission Meeting I
March 17, 1993 - Page 18
1
approved as it shows today. We would have know better to save those trees
and to have those protected. But that concept plan was approved. To
preserve all those trees, you're removing, essentially you're moving
Mallard Court. You're losing quite a number of very precious lots to the
developer also. So there was a question whether or not we should pull in
the PUD regulations and we, with what was, the background on this, we've 1
always used the old ones.
Krauss: The legal issue too isn't entirely clear. I mean we have a
developer who had legitimate approvals and who has made constant progress"
on building out the project that was approved 6 years ago. The language
that says the thing is voided out after 5 years is a little bit ambiguous
and we felt that to the best of our abilities, it's reasonable to try to
honor that original approval. We have pushed the developer I think as fa
as we reasonably could within the context of that and as Jo Ann points
out, with 20/20 hindsight, if we could do the whole project over again,
not just this phase, it might be done differently knowing what we know
now, 6 years later. But the fact is, there's a lot of dies cast and
there's a lot of obligations real and tangible and legal and otherwise
I
that are already in place.
Farmakes: Getting back to my comments. I think we should be more
aggressive with that. I think there's a difference between '87 and times'
change. I'm no lawyer and we certainly have somebody on staff to deal
with that but I don't think that this is following in lines with what we
had discussed at great length what we were going to use the PUD for. And'
it seems to me that we've been discussing that for certainly a number, at
least a few years now. I don't think that this proposal is where the
current city's at. Like I said before, I'd be real remiss to give my
approval to it.
1
Batzli: Do you have anything else?
Farmakes: No. I think that I've addressed them. I had some questions I
and again, I would like to table this until we can get some of these
questions answered. And I also would like to reiterate that we not accep
any further presentations that do not address the heart of the issue that
we know is going to come up. For an example, I don't think Opus should
have been in here making presentations showing parkland that isn't part o
the development on their presentation. That was a major issue of that
presentation. However, it kind was brushed over that they didn't own
that. And the issue here is again, tree removal and a lot of numbers with
very little visual impact being shown on the presentation.
1
Batzli: Do you think that's the responsibility of the developer or staff
to show us that?
I
Farmakes: Well again, I'd defer. I know that you can use some of your
suggestions to direct that or maybe we should address that issue. I mean
I really see this as a Truth in Housing type of situation. We should be I
seeing these things we're making decisions on and it should be relevant
information. We shouldn't be getting what I would call a directed
statistical review or if we're leaving something out of here hoping we're'
I Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 19
1
not going to notice it. It's not overt but I think it's leaving
I information from us that we need to make prudent decisions.
Batzli: Okay. Thank you. Joe.
II Scott: I'd have to agree with Jeff. I'd like to see a legal opinion on
updating or amending the PUD to current standards. Also with regard to
trees, I sat down and colored in with magic marker all the trees that are
I going to be removed and that was very striking visually so my personal
opinion is that this project needs more work and should be tabled. That's
the real extent of my comments.
I Batzli: Okay, Matt.
Ledvina: Well I had a couple of specific things that I'd like to ask some
I questions on. One of the conditions discussed is the oversizing of storm
drainage improvements. Has the city staff been able to resolve any of
this with the applicant at this point?
II Hempel: No, we have not.
Ledvina: If you haven't, what would be the schedule for doing that?
I Hempel: We would hope to get together, we were just talking about it here
late this afternoon. They're trying to get together with Carver County
I Highway Department to discuss this project as well as the next development
on the agenda tonight. So I would hope that we could put something
together or meet at least within the next 2 weeks here to discuss right-
' of -way situation and trail location.
Ledvina: Okay. And I was wondering also if it might be appropriate to
define which lots we would want, or which lots we would allow a reduction
II of setback limit to 25 feet. I think we don't want to blanket this across
the development. I think that where we feel it's worthwhile, we should
specifically identify that. So I think that should be done. Also as it
I relates to the landscaping I would support updating the provision for
landscaping to provide a requirement for $750.00 per lot. I think that
just should be done. And I guess overall, this site, there's a lot of
grading that's going to have to occur. Just almost every, well a large
II percentage of the area has up to 10 feet of cut or fill on it and again,
we talked about bringing back the Opus situation and we were concerned
about the grading on that property and comparing that to what our PUD
I standards mean in terms of evaluating sensitive parcels and I think if we
can, I'd like to see that amount of grading be reduced. I think the other
issues with the tree loss are also very important. 5o I would support
I tabling this item.
Batzli: Okay. What do you think Ladd?
II Conrad: Dave, how much grading is there? Is there a lot for this type of
area?
I Hempel: The site is somewhat difficult. It is very rolling terrain.
There's wetlands and there's the isolated groups of wooded vegetation so
II
Commission Meeting
I
Planning 9
March 17, 1993 - Page 20 i
in order to follow the street grades set by the City of Chanhassen, up to
a 7% grade, which they're doing. They're falling within that guide. It
comes to the point of balancing the earth work too. So you don't have to
import dirt or you don't have to export dirt. I don't know if the
applicant has done final numbers on the earth work yet. I think they've
just pulled together some preliminary numbers. Maybe they can address it
a little bit more whether or not the earth work actually balances or not.
But I'm sure there's probably some fine tuning that can be still done to
make street grades and building pads less cut and fill maybe.
II
Conrad: I'm just a general sense that the lots for this wooded land are
too small. It doesn't seem right to me and I think for a perspective. III
the numbers are right, and the developer is telling us maybe 1 out of 3
trees are going to go down, that's probably what happens in a typical
development in Chanhassen. In fact that may be even good. On the good
side. Even our better developers that are doing, I'm not saying, I'm not'
making a comment that this is a good or bad development but the more
expensive developments, when they're going in and saving trees it still
ends up taking out significant trees. So no matter what, unless you
• preserve it as park, it's going to be tough to make a big dent in the
number of trees that we take down. Even though I said that, I'm not
comfortable with this. It just doesn't seem like it's the right size
properties. There are more, it appears based on the concept plan that we '
saw 5 years ago, there are more lots on Lake Susan than there were years
ago. I counted, well it just looks like they're cramming a little bit
more in there. And I don't know that we're going to make a big dent but I
I'd like to see what we can do. And again I think the only way to solve
that is by making the lots bigger. I'm not comfortable with smaller lots
in wooded areas. My feeling is that's how you save trees. How many we II
can save? I think that would be up to staff and the developer to tell us
I'd like to see what we can do. I don't have a better design here except
the fact that I think the lots should be bigger. Jo Ann, right now maybe'
they're a little bit over 20 lots that are under 15,000 square feet? 20
out of 90. Is that a mix that we've followed in the other additions? Is
that typical and what were our guidelines when we allowed the PUD? What
did we?
1
Olsen: Well the real guidelines were that you had to have at least, that
half, more than half could not be under 15,000.
1
Conrad: More than half.
Olsen: And generally the other phases had I think a higher percentage ofl
the smaller lots than with this one actually. The lots are, even though
these are small, the whole PUD had a lot of small lots.
Conrad: Okay. Well, I'll just wrap it up on my comments. Again, for 1
this type of area, I'd like to see larger lots. I think for the trees and
for the nature of all the grading and the rolling area, it's just not wha
I'm use to approving over the last 10 years here.
Batzli: What do you think about the $750.00 issue?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
• March 17, 1993 - Page 21
II
Conrad: That has to be done. But there's some negotiating in this too.
I This is a PUD. The developer's coming in here with a perspective of what
he can do and what we kind of led him on when he signed a contract like
this so we have to respect his rights in this process. So when I say that
has to be done, I think there's some give and take on the tree issue. If
II they can be saving some trees, and again it's quality trees that I'm
talking about. When I see the pictures here, I'm looking at some 24 inch
plus trees. I'd be real disappointed if we're cutting down a big
I percentage of, 67% of the trees we're taking are of a real quality nature.
That bothers me a whole lot. Right now I don't know. I don't know if
we're cutting down 10 inch trees or 24 inch trees. That's why I kind of
I need to know what it is that we're talking about here. And again we're
not going to save all of them. I think we just have to make a best effort
to save the, to keep the essence of what we've got there. I think Nancy
had a good idea. If we could be trading some land with the park. But •
I that's not what the developer wants. Your land with trees, even though
you cut a few down, is still worth quite a bit more in the marketplace.
So I'm not sure he wants to do that.
1 Batzli: Okay. Diane.
I Harberts: I just want to flag just one comment. Everything else has been
covered. Page 4. Jo Ann, this is the second paragraph. It talks about
how the lot lines have been adjusted with regard to...trail so the lots
were not within the park property. So I guess the only thing I wanted to
I flag is, as I'm reading this that the ponds are not on city property yet.
So it's something that still has to be worked out or has that been
addressed?
1 Olsen: I think you're reading it kind of vice versa. What happened
originally with the ponds were shown within the outlot that's going to be
right here. Technically that's taking away the parkland that was supposed
I to be dedicated. So now the plans are showing the lot lines to cover, or
they're encompassing the pond and your question was whether or not that
was taking away.
II Harberts: Well the question was, so what you're saying is that the ponds
are now within the single family lots and not on the city lots so it has
II been accomplished?
Olsen: Right. But what we're trying to verify is whether or not by them
extending the lot lines, have they taken away parkland. So if the pond
II really is still on.
Harberts: Right. So I guess like I said I'm just flagging it. That's
it.
Batzli: Would you be in favor of tabling this to look at trees? Is that
II why you're not commenting on anything else?
Harberts: I would agree with that. I guess my primary concern was with
the 25 feet setback. The idea of having it apply to the entire
II subdivision here. I like trees but I guess it's the balance of with
development. I have to agree with Ladd that with some of the trees too, I
II
1
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 22 1
don't have quite a handle on the size that we're looking at. If we can
save the more larger ones, I would be in favor of tabling it until we did 1
have a little bit higher comfort level...
Batzli: Okay. And how do you feel about raising the requirement on the
amount of landscaping to $750.00?
Harberts: I would support that.
Batzli: I have a couple of technical questions 7o Ann. I had a comment II
on the first condition. Rather than limiting it to a number of lots, my
recommendation was to say at the end of that sentence, but only preserve II
mature stands of trees or to reduce grading. In other words, it would bell
limited to what we're trying to accomplish here. Preserving the natural
features of the land which is what the essence of the PUD was originally
intended. The condition 6. The applicant's engineer shall review the to
grading. What I would prefer to do is that they would somehow review tha
in connection with our engineering department as well. In other words,
tell them that they should look at it. I guess I'd rather have them look'
• at it and tell us what they find to see if we think that it's reasonable.
On number 11. When they're going to oversize and I know Matt asked and I
don't think I understood the answer. Did we decide that they're going toll
try and oversize? Or haven't we decided?
Hempel: There's really no preliminary design really yet for County Road
17 so it's difficult to say whether or not we can incorporate runoff from 11
future Powers Boulevard through this development but we'll certainly take
a look at it and if we can, we'll negotiate with the developer to do that.
Batzli: Okay. I guess I would like to see a finessing of that condition!!
then regarding compensation. In any event. On number 13. Has Mallard
Court already been renamed?
Olsen: Not on the plans, no.
Batzli: Okay. I would prefer that it reads, Mallard Court shall be
renamed to either Drake Court or some other street name acceptable to cit
police and fire officials. 1 believe that's who reviews it, isn't it or
does Paul review it and just pass it by them? Okay. On 14. Are we goini
to want 5 foot concrete sidewalks? Is that right?
Olsen: Okay, that can be removed. Well, you're getting Dove and Drake 1
mixed up. Is Dove the one that was removed or Drake?
Batzli: Dove is the one that's still in there next to the park. Where
you're putting a 5 foot concrete walk from the main drive through the
development to Dove Court so they can get into the park without walking o
the street. Is that what you're intending to do?
Olsen: That's still showing up on the plan so. 1
Batzli: Out of curiousity, which side of West Lake Drive would that be
going on?
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' March 17, 1993 - Page 23
Hempel: The existing sidewalk along the existing West Lake Drive north
I of Dove Court. There's a small segment sidewalk heading southeasterly
along West Lake Drive and deadends south of Dove Court. We'd like to see
that sidewalk extended. I believe it is shown on the plan 5 -10 plan
sheet. On this drawing. Previously it was not shown.
II Batzli: It's shown on plan 5?
II Hempel: The dashed line I believe represents the sidewalk.
Batzli: Oh. And it deadends just at Dove Court. That's the one you want
I to extend?
Hempel: Previously the plans did not show that sidewalk extending up the
proposed West Lake Drive to Dove Court. They do now so that condition
II probably could be deleted.
Batzli: Out of idle curiousity, why do you want it on that side of West
II Lake Drive? Isn't the access to that totlot is going to be through Dove
Court?
I Hempel: That's correct. That would be an on street walkway with there's
a trail between the, at the end of Dove Court.
Batzli: Right. But then, so you have to cross the street and walk up
II Dove Court to get to the totiot that you're putting the sidewalk on that
side?
I Hempel: No, the sidewalk is on the southerly portion. South side of the
proposed West Lake Drive.
II Batzli: Okay. Okay. I'm looking at it now. That makes sense. On your
condition 18 Jo Ann.
Olsen: Right. It should be 18(a) , (b) . Well go on.
II Batzli: And (c)? So numbers 19, 20 and 21 would become a, b and c?
1 Olsen: Right. And then everything...before a station plan.
Batzli: Okay. (b) I think needs to be changed a little bit to reflect
your discussions with the developer regarding the primary species list.
II It doesn't sound like there's disagreement. Obviously we don't want to
require the developer to put in trees that can't handle the overspray from
the County Road there. Those are my comments on the conditions. It
I sounds like to me that the Commission would like to see this come back
with a, in order to get a better handle on what trees are being lost and
if there's a way that something could be done to further minimize that.
I Whether that be site specific grading. I don't think, do we normally put
the requirement for snow fences around the trees in the conditions Jo Ann?
I think we have in the past.
I Olsen: It's always in the development contract and then the conditions.
I don't usually point it out as a specific condition in here but it can't
II
Planning Commission Meeting
• March 17, 1993 - Page 24
hurt, you know to put it in here but it always is covered in the standard
conditions.
Batzli: And it sounds like the Commissioners, at least right now, would
' like to see the monetary amount for landscaping increased.
Olsen: Per lot.
Batzli: Per lot. Which according to my rough calculations is increasing
it $600.00 per lot times about 90 lots is $50,000.00 with one stroke of
the pen. I guess I would like to give the applicant, if we choose to
' table this, an opportunity obviously to respond to that and I'd either you
or the applicant, if we choose to table it, to provide us some detail. A
little bit more on the tree loss. Have you, I assume, maybe I shouldn't
assume. Have you gone out there with the Forester, any of those kinds of •
people to look at which trees might be worth saving and whether we're
trying to protect the right ones?
' Olsen: No, I have not. The Forester is just now coming back after an
illness so I have not dragged him out onto the site yet. We visited the
site but I haven't, but that's something. He's back at work now and we
can, I'm sure he'd be glad to do that.
Conrad: I'd like to see a list of the quality trees that are saved and
the quality trees that are not. And I don't know what the word quality
means Jo Ann but I'm really not interested in some of the scrubbier kind.
That's inmaterial. I don't want that to count.
Olsen: They're mostly high quality.
Scott: I noticed that the trees don't get any bigger than 50 inches. Is
' that a limitation of the caliper that they use?
Olsen: I don't know. Did you have a limitation on the size? ...I'll see
how he is about that. He's recovering from a heart attack so I don't want
to push him too hard but probably next week we could probably get out
there and get those details for you.
' Batzli: Well okay. I would appreciate having that kind of expert input
as to whether we're doing a good job of, obviously if we have several
hundred quality trees, we can't save them all without buying the lot. Some
of them are going to have to go in order to develop this but I'd like to
think that we're making a good effort at preserving the natural features
of this which includes kind of wetlands. A little bit of rolling and some
trees and I don't know that the commissioners have a whole lot of comfort
' level, at least from their comments so far. 5o having said that, is there
a motion? Is there a motion to table?
Conrad: A motion to table Case 87 -3.
Batzli: Is there a second?
' Farmakes: I'll second it.
Planning Commission Meeting
March 17, 1993 - Page 25
Batzli: Discussion. Have we made it clear enough on the record what we
are tabling this for and what we need to see? Is there an uncomfort leve
by the Commissioners that their particular concerns haven't been made
clear so we address those at the next meeting?
Conrad: Well the direction to staff is strictly on trees right now. A II
little bit on landscaping cost but is there anything else besides trees?
Scott: PUD amendment to bring it up to the standards of the comprehensive"
plan that's in place now.
Olsen: A legal opinion. '
Scott: Yep.
Conrad: I don't think speed on Powers is an issue that we're dealing wail
right now.
Batzli: No, although I'd like to see that addressed by the City. 1
Conrad: And I guess I would like staff's opinion as to, I don't know how
it's coming back other than just looking at trees and I suspect we're
going to see the same plan. I guess I'd like staff's opinion as to when II
it comes back if there's significant tree loss, the quality of trees. If
they have any further recommendations.
Batzli: Meaning?
Conrad: What's going to save it, yeah. What's out within reason. And III
guess I go back to lot size.
Batzli: Okay. Yeah, because your concern was that you thought that with
an increase in lot size.
Conrad: It's going to save more trees. Without just totally changing
road systems and what have you, lot size will do it and again lot size, II
within this property. With the number of trees and the rolling nature, Ill
think lot size is the only thing that will make a difference but I'm
curious what staff's opinion is. ,
Batzli: Okay, is there any other discussion?
Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission table
Preliminary Plat No. 87 -3 for further review. All voted in favor and thell
motion carried.
Batzli: This matter is tabled to our next meeting? ,
Krauss: Well Mr. Chairman, we were going to propose that you cancel the
April 7th meeting since there were no other items on it. But if you want
this one to be on that meeting, then you have an item on that meeting.
Batzli: Yep, let's do it. I suppose Jo Ann had already scheduled
vacation.
Planning Commission Meeting
• March 17, 1993 - Page 26
Olsen: Let me look at the calendar real quickly just to see if that gives
I us time to come back with what you want. If the reports have to go out
next week, you won't get it.
Krauss: That's a fairly short turn around. We also should contact the,
speak to the developer. Why don't we agree that we will re- notify
everybody by mail of the hearing date as soon as we know.
Batzli: Okay. So this may be on the agenda for our second meeting in
April?
' Krauss: Which is the 21st.
Olsen: It most likely will be. Otherwise the report would have to go out
next Wednesday and I don't know what I would get the answers that you
want. As far as like the tree inventory.
Wayne Tauer: We'd like to comment on that. We would like to have it done
' in 2 weeks. You know we're on a, we're in Minnesota. We have but a few
months to do all we have to do and we have to get started in the spring to
get it done. So I guess if we have any choice or if we have any say in
' this thing, we'd certainly like to get it done in the next week and be
back on the April 7th, or whatever the date was to get back and go.
Batzli: Okay, what I think you should do is probably coordinate with Jo
Ann and see what works between your two schedules because we'll obviously
make every effort to schedule the meeting. Okay, thank you very much
everyone for coming in.
PUBLIC HEARING:
' PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN TO CREATE 27
TOWNHOME LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATE DIRECTLY EAST OF POWERS
BOULEVARD. ADJACENT TO LAKE SUSAN HILLS PUD, PRAIRIE CREEK TOWNHOMES.
JASPER DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
Name Address
James & Jay Jasper Jasper Development
' Greg Holling Jasper Development
Mark Jeffries Minnesota Landscape
Don Patton RCI
Scott Montgomery 8260 West Lake Court
Andrew K. Olson 8290 West Lake Court
Tom Nilsson 1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive
James Domholt 8251 West Lake Court
' Gary Kassen
Tom Dotzenrod 8270 West Lake Court
8280 West Lake Court
Pete Kurth 1040 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive
' Ron & Ann Kleompken 8311 West Lake Court
Tom & Pat VanAsh 8320 West Lake Court
•
1 i b l i P 1 fi s
�. - , V.. " ;' °` ik i 1 1!I 1= i 1 1 1 . it All l2 '
0
(4; � .b � � #1;' �e 11 =.t 1 i1 l 1
.4' tY w " ' -• - 11 i l t 1 1.1 i j ;1
i i to - -1 . -- . , 2 h1 im � t f - i it l ,. - t I
. 1 r . 1 .` f, i_r1 ; 111 3 , i t i t 11 11 ; f its itll =i • I
1 f W ''6t- 1 � ' ? ')'x-I ; 1 i� 1 :i ii i- I •
• 4 9 : ' ` if :S 3 i 1 1;1 iiifit!1i 2 r
' i 1 1i � " - d - . A 1, �o�£
1 � , il 3 y '
1 I ( � ' . f F j 1, - .- ' u {i "a.lila 1... ;aitilalma.si.t S : i
1! i;
1 I
11 4 1. t. l ... k t: 6 'bill,
1 11 1 Ili11 * � 0 ,
0 ..: f ,,,., `, ., , (I , ... --t*. i i I
Z 3 fi
1i ; 'I/ 4 7 ' X W t $ i 1 1 l s __
Isi 1111 l
_ i1, Dlili! j it b a • ` . IF 1
•
- 1 riet- r ..! „. or ,v_- �_•\.♦` .` '"fir" I
t fr vie: 7tAll*_-, " -., .
l er t sr.7 -.7, _. ,- ...--., _-■,:,.., .
V : .--11 ' ,, - -t- - 7ii„ T _ 11 IP , t ■ ,‘,
ji .,fr%A - 01 t r f ;_ ida ;11 ‘‘1. : ,..,',"s; a
, At...... -, ,...-..,., , ,,,.,.. s . i ..., :.:,•:- -*A:1qt • -is, IT .
tug___. ...0", ( -0,--47,... me s 41 t V ` 4, 11 WI
is 3
.....°.t'- 4 *P00 fs 10 : 1 - */; ' $9
� � , . ' [ a`� j ' ' , -4 e:;. J }iii :CVlo5
:ft i to . r !, i� - S SG / � �. `,f°` + 'f6 "� t ■
- / I ( _ , „ 1, i 1Z, , , , - , „ . , , " .4 p e i i _ s 0 % sr a . 44zts
, 1 -...., ,....-- --:..-- 4 ..... i \ . . ),
. .
1f 1 -11 ......,..._.„_•--- . ,, ,1 1 i ,,,...!....■ ,_,-v,-...- • • , , • ....
_� 1 'i i • -- 1 �� it
S � ' S ! h ' - - sk-Abv11 1 1 1 1 D! . 1:S i ! 1 i 1 • �:_��__<_ _____� —___ r_ -1�� —� ..., � _ ^ i
.T _Z= i__t__ —_..-- ;_r 4 -.� - - - -' 14----. �� 11
_ =--I [1 r- �� � iii
fi•
uI
1
1
I I
\scW aikracidr.. s ',..•‘f, \ ..% - I 1 AP 4 4. \ ' .■...I 111
- 1 _/
4.
1 ... 1 �O Y \ \ ..,
1 w J,� �\ 4, \ ‘ N '' ,4 , , N ‘ \ C41t1 \ ‘''e` VI • '
� - V.. _ t'...4: \
.' _ e L. 'N itk ,..4 . \ d y kr , ::■,,,,,%■\‘ ` \
__ � ,t om - -=
. (-- ' '* * \‘'. ' \ O W '... :i:1. . - - :::: - -----‘
% 40 ' ;U.ne"il to
it-
V Z / 11 .r. 7 /.: ) I - .') \ . Z-:
\ % 1 % „ 1 0)\ s ,' ' A d . / ‘ Nit, , ,-, N -'. .° * ‘# ' ' / / / '' - $..tZ 1 . Or
4 \ 1 iii 1#0.,...2 _ , - -41) : ' .;,- 1 _ r // ,.. _
,,,/ . - `N.,,,„. s ' , s _..,01- Pt. i * - -: . ‘ s , s - - - - , , 1 ...... _.
--e.:„......., .., ', itp,._ '_,._.___,__,iii-- :,.; .-.., „ , - --- v\ lit , r jr ri r- 7 --,Vovi re.lt-vt-, ce , .,,T . , ..._,
I X '''.... -. ,/li s s e /NI/ , 1 , , : . - ) / ...-..,.(fillielil \ t .4 ,i
r z ' ---' .......0V . '':.. , 'w 4 N.11051, t , :
` _ -!'•'� d � �� , r �. 44,"
/� i! /���, \ \ \� 11 � ♦ ,, „/".,, • .,:s
\\.�� - -j ,../ � �� `�\\` � \ `1 ,1 1 ,,,,,,,,,
,9 „}: ' L '� � /-- , rat *! •\ ‘,. ,
1 i II � 1 � 7 - •
G
\: ...... : _v ... 17 4014# ",,, *, IP-,..-
-i,f _/ • ../. I , . 44 . ,
- . . " •_
j t
. i l - •- ■-• -t41 - . ' / .5. w'i : ,
Nit ay \
, i 1 i ,-.:( ‘,3`c::
I 41 /it* r, . ,.
i , --.A,..,,, ‘ ,. - 'w , .„, . , / .• '
111 4 1 A trillititi .-
: % fd It ,. ,. • ,,,,,,/ ._ /
1 o;* , CA : 1
sv
•
1 1 ••
Y
( 1)?
1
i
1
i = f —
_ F ' . 1 s i el ry .1 = , ,,
1
4. 1 1 1 id , ?:4 ' 1 ' ji lit sI I'i ill III , �,„ i qt - . , \ `♦ .‘ c
Itli-T3i +: It s s{ ry y S'* kkr • � ', • �. ,� ■ ♦ • ♦ ‘ 1
1l s i�
#T = - fi i : T 414211'1 T • =r
S I j) 4 s •
a a lT !+.s rr i iT l r:4 .s • • ` . i
liiii IV jsiTii TTiE ? 31it 11 i u th , `♦ .. . �- 1 . 3i � t + r 3 T a si ++ _ti si `it i•! t :1s'Ti i lim gi ( 1I;si +:j+ ; i;'tiisljfl„ !I ! V ' g . \ ,......424, . ilirTiiait,i lil3i,ti9aTT1 t � a �. _
dd
.. TT .116 „ �p
to — = _ •4'. 71 )1111: ,� O , i c g /` . ♦ ` \
1
...• __. , .
w � , It r - 3
E i lit • /
�a i • • i; p i , , •� , -- ilil fl. -
--\\."-::',.. i 1
7 . lit
" �i3 0013111.d •�� � �; it fir 0 �R't► ti + �7J� s /O' er �iyi , ,, . r � . .. �.. ` ♦\ � -
, Qr..;
40 001 ' ..:OP 0_,; ,106 1 , i - i '‘,%).‘ : s ,
� 1 M . �. _ ;IAA a 9; , *--,-,•116 / ` c ♦ is '
�� \� t / `\► f+ i p T �� `✓: .,1 ; �
Il
il 1 ....,. =. II ..v, ittertvt, -i-lif • %".' 1 ' • - - • % '‘ °.
. i .., , , ..
r il 1 - - / • c �; � r ' 0 !,r , ck, `' . 0 _, ~f ^ emu a, ,k N �, *` - 6. 'm t
At j k 8 W _ = ;-
_-`: - ' v j d 1 1111 ? 1 =' +
- .'��±fr Y�Z.. �1J W -?tr.„4_ : . r ell �s 're; • :I r 7.li- +i ir. • ; r 1 • ... ._. • 1
1
= - _ ii - 2i = i :41 -�'i! ` -a' ' 1 —� —! — - - -1 _. 1
, �I � � i, i „- --- 4 q
�_ --..4_ ! _ � 3 ! ! _ UaIYA3lf1G9 = ! ! :ill3iKOd = = = ...r...=4.-....-. `r ! {
1
- - - -<_ — i - -r— — f t•-------- - - -y— '� �1�' _ +1
!' 1 I I'll t
" te5 i
.4!
ter. .....
L
\ _�1
i x \ •
1 ' 110 1 , : . , r)1' . . 1-Pil k ( ',...... .,..._ A„ s c .:. \ s 1 1 1 1 ‘ , ‘ 4, \ —
\ , i r $1\,‘ \ , oii% \ . 0 I
1
t. "1 V �` ' . 1' w l . ` ■ \ Y 31 i
n1\ �� 5 H 1a _ li
1 .--.- , ‘" ' .; ,,, ', „..\\ ,.. \,),...,;\ ,,, q
...,:. ,...._._
d yps zzzllll C 7 5 .... , 41111 ‘ .... 40 I _ ; - •-^...., . " // 0\
ki S -__
1 \,,1/4%-, , ......_ .
, k ,\\„sco, 4 0 , .t
\ 1 - %. ' \-. / ti --.- - it - - 1 -4 - . 2
t,_\ ■ ,,,---- 4.! ` : \ tt, 1, ".. ,. . \ k ..it b -4. , -.q_ .4 , --,-, .
..* ; ' ''%!,\.,. ■ `, % \ \ ) - - ''-',_ - - - 11 . - :fi "4":- ._____- °
it .8e...„4-_ w...i j _ - 0" . ____-.; ...: ., z-,;it'l:ft- ..... 0 1 .
I ...- . \ . ,\:)„, / , \ 441 41114r . „
\ I ; t .... ...‘ : ,I.s s: / .. )9 \\\ I ::- - „7" _011 a „, g , 21 ‘` Ci.;' i
/\ \ <.fiN /.---'-' ,.. .,#,‘ ,, iit k::: :::: ,,t... 4 1. -- ...... ...„„ , - \ ,,,,,;.;.-,- ,,,, I
0 \ .. , i-----, _ _ --""W ....4 8 , , i'i i i 'l) . ‘ ‘,fiN 1 i
I . 7 \1 0 '- / ,. ' ; - - - s \ \ NSW 4/ el 41,1) - / i 4v}
/ I/ '- , I L4/h r i Q!' /
y_ _ ' \ }} }���iii 2 T...„„,\ 1 » : .; ' / i ,�, \� �, ~l / / y vigor �� `�� ,A -I fi r, t 1 s •
, (, 4 ./ - 1(- / A'..),1',,"--\ , ,,,,, , , , gi k I S - / 4 i i
. * 1 , ii, p , ,,, ...„,,,,,,, , i. %,
.... s.......):::/ - 9 ,,,,,,,,..... \ .- t r4e:-,Y..„,, ; :( • 'Il
l ..__-, \•••_:,,,_..... ,,,/,,, • ,s % t ii
ios ;IF, , ,....9,,,,,,„..........„•, _1 • . . ' - -oz.:, ___:::-::-, ..----,; .,..,,,-• z ....:-. /1,. yigh 4, _ i i . \ , ' ,- i ,--
< , - ,,,,,, ,..... -.
1, .... - - >, -,, - ,: .- - _:" - ' 7 • A d ''' ; 't• \ V . f . '": " \ :: . i ■ '''
s ‘ s - - --------. ---- • ••,' ';' ' -..-- - 4 - iii .r ----,' ct,die:' ' ' ‘A '1.!-- V i l itk ... : ' Q " ..-- - -.
\ 's '- - - - - ' - ,', '''f -"-■,,-- - At Yr - ' A ' '' li NR\
t "„4",
9^ -- ," ----.". / / A \ i -
. 's‘ ‘ s'' ‘ -'-'. -..' e# '. ' ' .' '' ' -- . ,401 -. : - - ' '!ti >f ' / .■ ';:\ A ... 'II - :7 -- ‘ % \ V
11 ,n� '/ �'.' N .- _ Q z i
III y , r , , , , / :' g �� •/ � �� �\\ '4 tt \t `
tit 3 r l,, l, 1 / r , ,, /� _ .. 1 \ " , 1 11•� 1 r 1
1, t 11 11,1 /r .� - ,'.✓ - •/f itii 1 Or
\ \ \j, 1::,, 1 , 1 rr�.� / '�/ '�° / • \ t+i�W / - ' 1 11 11 I
\ \\ .- / ,' L ! _ fr , �� C-•• 'fit / I 1 1
∎`: --i _ - / I ,. if s 1•x,,0•- 1 1 R \ t 1
Z I —1:: -,..! ' i-Di.
- \ r r ' r 1 sf
f/(7
1 I A �. \\ \1 1 ,�� � ,_ .t
'/- i ,- � ,.. . ill
1
. 1 1 . .t y , .s , �`
\ � '1 1 1 ! -t jf - /s i 1
• .\`,.\ 0 , C , c ,..'
' - .♦ J
--Ni t X
�) fyl.
1 '
•
Pioneer Engineering 7831883 � P.02 ,., ,. , / / - / / 1 ) i I k kNi , , Q Q r
, . , „..„4, it: . ,,,,,,.\ 4,,,,t. (ID %.% 1 0\ \di.* s
-:•
i dr -,N,
, li
1 200 1 .14 4b N ' 4t , - Ai 1454-°tIf
i *iii.:, ...
I i ' V 1 " 1 22,1• r 4[ i f
ceirj •
/ .72g / f ' 43 `'vS`'' s` 1/4. j
1 - 7,* ,"-"-.. 3 ,!'“( 44 fr
•
• / `Z y w � ti d 1 -. • / M► r, 41,40: - 0 10 - ' , VF , (zo - _ ,,„ • „: i : ‘ 1
: / .45 v a l i k ir.s‘ 13 I
.'‘:#,,,,t allirli if ., - or749,,,mr,a. l'it ite,t6:1 t, „ -
g9)
,sfg •
• r t • fi 4 1int \ r, a 4
�• i s i L il l p Oa / 111.- , sa"
• • 1 .4i 0 li �. `� •r = ft. f . / f . •
C13 --' f. l'' :- 4! A . --- k A?:.: 1 "8 . ' ‘4 I
*A, -- . ilt ' .‘ • • .
*. iv.q .,., ... . U11 \\Vs 4s. -t. / / ob /I :
.. 03 4':.9,4 .:- ii illAt ,
i v --. " ... , / Rti i ' !
( ihi . 114 0, :• .: , 4 " o $1 % 00 1 t 4 1
N. ..., vi / . ....
` ° ► ,1 •• , *0
1
4 4) • 2 0 \ 4 IVA fr /hi . 144 1 :
9o4, I
•
f #.• ... O. v :;. A A \ \ \ 0 , . ,
,••• . .. ,-,
? \ IT. l i ti . 1 „.•r o ' c V • • .
;a 0 ` • 1;k:4._
%,, lak
J . 46\ \ , , \. -\- - C 7 )7 5 4 ii - i t s I
1 % t L
0 A 1 id % 1 •••
_ _ Pioneer, Engineering 7831883 P.c3 oils C4% 4114 - . 44
I /
•
/I 1 4(4 - N„
p l?0 A 44'6 ..:1. -1 :: “
.. / 4 47
i.,, int 0
i\ II \At \ V • 1 9 ' 0 .c •
41Ik 4 o \ , r il , - •. • Ir.. ; 1 0#• : r b, r y • 0 � � �1 • Aites
. :, r \
a t I 1 1 ` 4 ■';`:ri l 'e• - .4r , ''' ';',; 7-4 ".? -•„„. Igeg e -- °• - • *.:- i?
Vil) 1 0 f . k r) ... . 4°. . l'''' .:, 111 1 '42°-. " . i et ‘eit i ,,,,,
1 rp, 1 I ', 't...-- 0. •-- ow .,.........- -
t0M •
(1. • • t
N to , .., ! rs43742.••• (" 1 • c ' c7,3 i •
4 :101110
i ,.- AO, s . k l
,,___,. ,, t
1 1 ,,,,,,. ft .„ g ot:--,, -All ir • . A ri \
\ • r.
1 •I. \ ..4 - r ..
I I \ x )4 C \''4) roll. .° -A i - 41..4 - :,...... 4 P
0 -140 / w444`79t4'...: I \
1 1.
%i.103 .. * 4 4,1 - i a l6 . -- i \ 0 1°Ps tg a • -%' cC > Q. ,:-,
1w •N 4"'.•, •.• �P y *. _ %609'! \ 617%-
I \ t•0 *tip �e
\ \ 1‘, 6, 42 . cb . ..," \- 42./ 1 , I Q: / 4 4 t .$'1 a ih r 1 ,
1 \ ‘
\ ,z,
4 i .• ' Pe• I: ; i t ,
• L
1 \ 1 iir
i., 1 •,,,..::,
\ i s ti Nii° 0 ..‘ • ''--:::•• — ' Z. `* . (
4:v
( , ilk
IF \ 60 \
1 r * f it
'—'•, ' - L" ) s i C> •
i ‘ \ \ ,il • A
1 •
.7/ sue. .. .- ` , ' \�V AZ �. f J /
r
■
N N
■ . • cd, /40111V • - ° Si .N %.
. A
I -..-.. ipi \e • 4011 § ''.., t ' ii ` err ∎• 4' ...... • _ '�. \ 5 . ■\ \ , 01•, � . 1
r \ -.... \ ....*- ..., "" . 4 1. 01 \ ' -,,. - N- . • •
\ \\v
k .;-, -... •.,- O
' � t ►� \ .-, e" --• _ _ i \ • ,.: .,,.>.„ . , 4. ..\ . e-11: 41 1 ) . -
.1 1 1 . 1 , \--
' ; Y . a ;F ' Ste. 'Z. -� j 3 , --- 1:V.;:4' . ,
14401111.1r101 r I . rilai 4° 6' ..cr.,&.,•-• , 4 1 Vtip 4 : \ ' , ,, ,.,../.. . , / '( 4
1 iii ail illii..18......_ . - 0;, 7 ,:i , ‘:' . N.... 00 , -.
4 • : 90 atok.. i .02
01111111■11 Moos
******** r: iron r =.
is, . . **,1 . 1 1 4:3 0 1".4 i 1., i 4 , r, • Atik, • , • ell. • . °° ......,"' " 00 ---■• gr —
• i $ fl � / / Illirer ���g x 'kl
.50.1 , Z fl / � . . 1 -- w
a. 4 1 ''''' 1 444 \ 1 Mr I
" i I"; Oftw,"411111111011111 1111"6'
/ 041111101 f • to l '. 1 , ( I t z
f IN , ® � 1 S'E06 t 1111•11111110
f 741mimiNumnoi 1 � t•r.:r�i � � . - -z'L -
_,
1 , 1 \ • : 4 • ) \ i ' ' 44 ‘ \ - sa - ' - a 1111111 M P/ . ail- 1141
Pioneer Engineerine 7831883 P.05
1
't 9 ••
1 /
/ O / 0 (:: ) , •
i
II
/ � • e i 'a'41> ..-- ----.
/ 0 - A:4 t S * 174 -I
i / 0 / • 0 _1 *.. V \ • CA
/ 0 _ 4) la•
1 / / i/
i / —*.
i r 1-- 0A+
I 7 4 fr /
�. =:iy t - . Y 0� a `.•
J / ,./, / 7
Q' /'�� � 'V L 1.,. •
0 1 1 es F% t / A 6 . "/- N
0 - *0 .1, • Z / i .46, ,.,. At
‘"
. / t ,... f / sl •••,1 1 fit, ,. � . s
III
f j ; / / , 4� '' �°~ _ �,', ' . N
Ilk
• _t, i 4- -_. ',/,:.
: ..- V tIr. ;,V,,r 4 e-, * q ' ''' • ,,...- ‘ I l e ,: P
, *
\ ., 4/b • " - 1 111 - -• •
. .��, 9/' ' 41 /
•
WI C 49 il .\,. ,..ir
.......... •.
s jl:W40 V . 1 t ‘,
\\ \ ,
, ,, , ,
r • 1 1 `a .A.7 A. 1
\ \ / . c 4i . _1!
\. 4.,.., ,
. , , 1 \ A
, ., ,
1 \ 1 Ak " . N fik
.V::.::_ I Wit* 1. We
/ / 4 1 ' \ t ,,,, ,-) \—, 1
/ , 9 V O ets .. ,:7-. , ■ ,
-4 4 ilJ :,
. \
.s". ‘ it k i .
il %
TJ , r { ��
Z ,,,,,,,,,, I di l k A eg }fi
... - :5 . . . , % -
•
.--.4,r- "0 0 - ,
... . N t * .1 ...-
' t , \\ . .- . ,.
'Ilia 94 : ) 40 bOvA0
\ l '.'.. 1 ..," ' ap a k tV'''. cr) ,
:, li ti‘ e .. _
1 •
Pioneer eir � ins 7831583 ���- P. 0 6 a .. ,.,, .....‘,.., „,.. .„..,..,..,
..:Nft Wileiihmik m p
.......,. ,.),,,
..-...,,,_:: ... . ,,.
..•,.... .",_..,_ ;,.. ■ 1.-A ~ � { ",•* � \` Fr ` ``'{ r :, = _ : tt - t /r/ � i _ �, j',. , , ,' i s
~ •`' `• - i' — �. r a r t ,, * '� � ~ � ; ��� ` �� \ \ k \
.
\ 1 1 1 ,
. 111 L OR
\ ‘ " A L 0 \ tt \ 1 i _. lip • . otro
w ' { �f . 'fir •
Ir.. 0 . • ---........._ : lel, t gt 7,1 \ 1,,i I, -III! - \ ...... 1
el 00:. t - 1111,11, '-A.- ' 4100(..-
i 1 ‘ t, t C
I • 6'^ (1, e 1 it 7 -rip g '” °,",,f,!;14„:.
, \ WOP
1 In. 1 1 4
Air
- t f. I ,-. •
. - li . ..-
..
..-- : 0
c, s 4 0 . . ita ".zW_ANIIIIE 101 -
i d i tidtlikVV. cl 1
\ •••,............, ..),.. kl% 5: : * S i 1.41A klr olok 0
\ .* % U-- -- ...5 '''-• 4 ^ vio)9/4-,. -,
_ ..,,„ . .0"-A
1
•
'Pk •:* vledr !
. e v \ ‘ V t i ti • 4-, 9 . 1. 11, I i
1 irli I t ‘'''/
t•\ •� \L 00 8 /
, A. %) 01
\\ . 1
t '\�� �+\ x �+ 0 906 • • i .`_ � "
f
A / .• , 4 ,, *4 t. 411X% 71.•
\ : % ' V \ P 0
/ / * itilli:\ -_, . i gir t - • • ■ A
Al t de : ill I 4 1 , _ ;.,4 \
t4 * / 4A,'170
1111111t _ .-
....,, . \.\\ \\ so� f ` *4 0f 4 •� , it:::„.,--z.,
: \i';i::,..4 ., fr - , i 4 1 --VP , .A. , -
. \ „me „: 1 - , ofr.1 .
\ : \
• i f \ ` , ,' _ '7"( . sh •$* .
1
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
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
i s‘
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
1 DATE: April 15, 1993
SUBJ: Update of Review of Preliminary Plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition
File No. 93 -8 LUR
Upon review of the revised relimina plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition dated April
P rY P P
6, 1993, prepared by Pioneer Engineering, I offer the following comments:
1 GRADING
1 The revised grading plan significantly reduces the amount of initial site grading and tree
removal in two critical areas. One of the areas includes Mallard Court. The street grade
1 on Mallard Court has been slightly adjusted and the proposed grading limits and tree loss
reduced. Lots 6 through 16, Block 3 are proposed to be "custom graded ". Staff has placed
a house pad (50' by 60') on the custom- graded lots in an effort to show where a house may
' be built and still preserve most of the trees. While the proposed house pads appear to save
trees initially, it may not be the case when the lot is actually constructed upon. The use of
retaining walls, type of house design and grade have been carefully analyzed to preserve the
1 most desirable trees. The trees shaded on the revised drawings indicate the trees
anticipated to be lost as a result of construction. The remaining are to be preserved. It is
staffs experience even with the most stringent restrictions and covenants, additional trees
are inadvertently lost due to construction practices or errors on topography. One good
example of this occurring would be the Shadowmere subdivision on Bighorn Drive east of
Kerber Boulevard. In that subdivision the lots were "custom graded" when the lots were
1 built on. However, there was no approved tree removal or grading plan to follow. As a
result, a number of unexpected trees were lost during house construction and site grading.
In conclusion, due to the area's topographic terrain and limitations by the sanitary sewer
1 service, this latest proposal may be the best proposal short of no development at all.
1
�
•
e4u PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
Jo Ann Olsen
1
April 15, 1993
Page 2
The applicant's engineer has also redesigned lot lines and street configurations along Lake
Susan Hills Drive at the south end of the project. The revised plans have eliminated Crane
1
Court and reconfigured lot lines in an effort to save trees. The street grade along Lake
Susan Hills Drive has been revised to 10% which exceeds City ordinance. The grade was
raised in an effort to reduce grading and tree loss on the adjacent lots. Since the 10% street
grade exceeds City ordinance, a variance may have to be considered. In the past, staff has
recommended approval of these variances if the result was saving trees and the natural
topographic terrain, which staff believes will. Therefore, staff would be in favor of granting
a variance to the ordinance to allow a street grade not to exceed 10% on Lake Susan Hills
Drive.
In conjunction with revising lot and street grades, sanitary sewer service is still limited.
Sanitary sewer capabilities along the east side of the street (Lots 1 through 5, Block 4) may
need to employ ejector pumps or grinder pumps to convey effluence from the lower floor
of the house to the street. This will result in additional costs in constructing the home as
well as an ongoing maintenance for the homeowner. If any of the houses are equipped with
the ejector pump system, it should be clearly noted in the development contract that
maintenance is solely the responsibility of the property owner and not the City. The other
alternative to ejector pumps would be to fill the lots to create the house pad high enough
for the house to drain by gravity out to the street. This will result in essentially clear cutting
the lot as previously proposed.
Staff again has proposed house pad locations upon the custom- graded lots along Lake Susan
Hills Drive, taking into consideration the more valuable trees, driveway location and grades
similar to Mallard Court. Staff is concerned that if grading plans are not followed during
1
construction of homes, tree removal may be at the discrepancy of the builder. It is
recommended that the applicant follow an approved grading plan for each of the custom
lots detailing the types of homes and elevations along with grading limits and tree removal 1
to guide the builder /homeowner /staff. This way the prospective buyer /builder will know
up front what trees must be preserved.
As the Carver County Highway Department's memo pointed out, the final grading plan
tY g Y P P � �' g P
should show the previously stockpiled material along Powers Boulevard adjacent to this
development. Incorporating these stockpiled areas may require modifications to lot and
street grades adjacent to Lots 15 through 20, Block 5.
RELATED CONCERNS - FOLLOW UP FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1
At the Council meeting, both the Commission and residents expressed concerns related to
or as a result of this development proposal. Staff has provided a response to these concerns
as follows:
1
1
1
1 Jo Ann Olsen
April 15, 1993
1 Page 3
1. County Road 17 (Powers Boulevard) Upgrade - The City and County are actively
pursuing a financial plan for the upgrade of County Road 17. The upgrade will
consist of a four -way urban divided highway. If a financial plan is created this year,
' County Road 17 could be scheduled for upgrading in 2 to 4 years. Without this
financial plan, it may be 8 to 10 years for the project to accumulate the necessary
funding. Staff will know more with regards to the financial aspect of the project after
1 May, 1993.
In conjunction with the proposed residential developments along the County Road
' 17 corridor between Lyman Boulevard and Trunk Highway 5, many of the residents
have expressed concerns with regards to speed limits, trail considerations and trail
crossings. Staff has recently met with members of the Carver County Highway
Department on these issues. The County engineer will be putting together a list of
all the County roads in the City and recommending speed limits accordingly for
MnDOT's consideration. According to MnDOT's traffic office, the last speed study
along County Road 17 was performed in 1976 (south of Lake Drive East to Lyman
Boulevard).
As a part of the County Road 17 upgrading, 8 -foot wide bituminous trails will be
recommended on each side of the roadway. A trail crossing will be proposed at the
south end of the project. The crossing will most likely be underneath County Road
17 with an 8 -foot wide box culvert. There currently exists an 8 -foot wide box culvert
crossing approximately 400 feet south of Lake Drive East adjacent to Lake Susan
' Hills Park. The Park and Recreation Commission has voted to require both
developments, Prairie Creek Estates Townhomes and Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition,
install trails in conjunction with their developments. As a result of our meeting with
' the Carver County Engineer, the trails along County Road 17 could be placed within
the County's right -of -way. If future upgrading of County Road 17 occurs within the
next 2 to 4 year period, it would be feasible, both financially and from a construction
' standpoint, to collect the trail fees from the developers and put it towards the
construction of the new trail system with the upgrade of County Road 17. However,
should the financing plan to upgrade County Road 17 not occur by June of 1993,
' staff supports the Park and Recreation Commission to have the developer install the
trails through their developments respectively within County Road 17 right -of -way..
1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. The applicant's engineer shall provide a final grading plan with detailed house types,
1 elevation and grading limits on all lots. The final grading plan shall also take into
consideration existing stockpiled material along County Road 17.
1
1
Jo Ann Olsen 1
April 15, 1993
Page 4
2. A variance should be granted for the 10% street grade proposed along Lake Susan
Hills Drive. 1
3. The required 8 -foot wide bituminous trails may be placed within the County's right -
of -way. Trail construction shall proceed with the overall site improvements unless
the City receives a financial package to proceed with the upgrade of County Road
17 in which case the developer would be required to pay the trail fee in lieu of
constructing the trail. 1
4. A condition shall be placed in the development contract regarding maintenance
responsibilities for homes with ejector pumps.
ktm 1
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I .
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
1 AttorneyN at Law
Th, m.,- 1 (612) 452-5000
R, _cr `: Knut"on Fax (612145' -5551
Th. \i �.; -c,
Gar, G Fuch-
Jame- R
Elliott R Knet"I A April 1, 1993
R nhae1 ,A cinel l P
Renae D 4�iner
BY FAX AND MAIL
' Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Lake Susan Hills West PUD
Dear Jo Ann:
In 1987 the City Council rezoned the Lake Susan Hills West
property PUD in accordance with a Planned Unit Development
Agreement dated November 16, 1987. Preliminary plat approval is now
being sought for the Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition, single
family, and the Prairie Circle Townhome Addition.
You asked me to comment on the effect of paragraph 7 of the
PUD agreement which provides:
Effect of Planned Unit Development Approval. For Five (5)
years from the date of this Agreement, no amendments to the
City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to
' or affect the use, development, density, lot size, lot layout,
or dedications of the development unless required by state or
federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the
' Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this
Agreement to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by
state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments
' to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting
or dedicating requirements enacted after the date of this
Agreement.
' Since five years has passed since PUD approval was granted,
this provision is applicable. It means, for example, that if the
City has new design standards for streets the City can impose the
new standards on the PUD. The City could also rezone the property
from PUD to some other classification.
The provision does not mean that the design elements in the
PUD as approved in 1987 are superseded by the new PUD design
criteria set forth in Ordinance No. 179 adopted on November 23,
REGEMTF
199 -
su.t, • E,i:an111e Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eagan, MN 55121
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
April 1, 1993
Page 2
1992. Lake Susan Hills is zoned PUD in accordance with the PUD
Agreement. That agreement continues to be the basic zoning
regulation for the property as to the issues addressed in that
agreement. The City has the authority to change the agreement by a
rezoning action. Unless this occurs, both the City and developer 1
are bound by that agreement.
Although the City is bound by the PUD agreement, as to issues
not expressly addressed in the PUD, new regulations generally
applicable throughout the City are applicable to Lake Susan Hills.
Amendments to the zoning ordinance, City Code Section 20 -1179, and
subdivision ordinance, City Code Section 18 -61, concerning tree
preservation adopted in 1991 are applicable to Lake Susan Hills.
These Code provisions require development "to retain as far as
practical, substantial tree stands." The phrase "as far as
practical" is not defined. Because the PUD only granted concept
approval, the City has some discretion to require modification to
take the new tree regulations into consideration.
• ly yours,
C' PBELL, 4' TSON, SCOTT 1
-, P.A.
B. 1
Roge N. Knutson
RNK:srn
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 '
. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
II REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 21, 1993
Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
I MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts, Ladd Conrad, Matt Ledvina, Joe Scott,
Brian Batzli, and Jeff Farmakes
II MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino
I STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss, Planning Director; Jo Ann Olsen, Senior
Planner; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner I; and
Elliott Knetsch, City Attorney
I PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 93 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ON 76.47 ACRES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, AND LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD
I AND SOUTHWEST OF LAKE SUSAN, LAKE SUSAN HILLS 9TH ADDITION, ARGUS
DEVELOPMENT.
Public Present:
II
Name Address
I Jerry Lindholm
Chris Miller 8421 West Lake Drive
8401 West Lake Drive
Kirby & Sandy Paulson 8410 West Lake Drive
11 Robert F. Kopp Argus Development, Inc.
Wayne Tauer Pioneer Engineering
Phil Jungbluth Argus Development, Inc.
John & Karen Engelhardt 8645 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
I Don Wisdorf 8639 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
Jon & Mary Jo Hansen 8631 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
Jane Judd 8635 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
I Peder Olson
Robert Long 8635 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
8629 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
Robert Smithburg 8657 Chanhassen Hills Dr. N.
I Thomas Burns
Tom Nilsson 1551 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1060 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Andrew K. Olson 8290 West Lake Court
I Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item.
Batzli: Jo Ann would you address one, and maybe you said something on
I this and I apologize if you did. On condition 15(b), the woodland
management plan. Have we ever done that before? What is a woodland
mangement plan?
II Olsen: No. Woodland management plan, and that was something, an idea we
came up with when we were out on the site with Alan Olson, the DNR
Forester. Because one of the things that we've seen is that we do take a
I lot of steps to preserve trees during the development process but once the
homeowner comes in, a lot of times they don't understand what is there or
whether or not it was really protected. Also we're finding that there's
II like a second forest growing on the site. It's either large, the large
trees and then it's the undergrowth that's growing and that's like the
11
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 21, 1993 - Page 2
second forest that's coming replace will lace this one And we want to be
P
able to educate the people that that's an important aspect and not just t
clear all that out also. So what it is is really just a plan to describe
what's on the site. Why it's been preserved. What type of tree it is. I
it sensitive to, is it a red oak and that you shouldn't be doing any kind
of alteration around it and it's just really a plan that they can hold in li
their hand and it's to educate them with what's there and to hopefully
help preserve the trees better. It's done, if you called up Alan Olson
and you wanted him to come out to your lot, he would do that and work on I
your site if you were wanting to plant trees or find out what's on your
site. So it's something that's commonly done and that can be done by a
licensed forester pretty easily. So it's just more for education and
hopefully preserve beyond the development. '
Batzli: Why for example don't we look at placing a conservation easement
around parts of these that we've done on other sites?
1
Olsen: I am still proposing that. Where it's simple to do. But if you
see on a lot of these we've got individual trees and you have to have a
legal description to do a conservation easement and that's almost
impossible to do for all the little individual trees that we're saving.
Batzli: Okay so what you've done is just on lots, on those particular I
lots is where you're doing this woodland management plan then?
Olsen: Right. Those lots that were listed as the custom graded lots
would have that. The other lots that still do have forested areas that II
are being preserved, like along Lake Susan would have a conservation
easement but there you can have a simple lot. You can have a simple
description. We would take an elevation along here. '
Batzli: Right. But that's the only one you've listed as having a
conservation easement is that Lots 1 -6, Block 2. Is that right? Is that
the only place that you've done that?
Olsen: Right. The other ones will have, the other ones are under pretty,
much the custom grading.
Farmakes: How serious was the discrepancy between what was listed and
what you found on this? '
Olsen: Well one of the problems we had was that there was round tags and
square tags. So at first we were thinking they were totally off because,'
and then we found that we were looking at the round tags when it was
actually square tags. There was, it wasn't all completely wrong. I mean
a lot of them were correct but there was enough where it was a large tree
and a good tree and it was shown as a smaller ash or something like that.,
Farmakes: For the future, just for my own education, do we have a
criteria of when we bring the DNR to look at that and review that? Do we'
have, to insure that there isn't a discrepancy? Because I assume when
this stuff comes in that it's accurate.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 3
Olsen: Yeah, so did we. Well I think what we're going to do is from now
on require them to be performed by a licensed forester. Require them like
we do with a registered surveyor or something so that we know that they
are done by somebody who really knows what they're doing. Also the DNR
has a list of foresters that have been licensed and so we can use that
list. So I think that's one way to do it.
Batzli: Dave, I was wondering if you could address something. The
I ejector pumps, the condition that's going to be placed in the development
contract. Who, is this going to be placed on the developer or on the
ultimate homeowners or what are we talking about there?
Hempel: That specific condition Mr. Chairman will be contained in the
development contract which is recorded against the property of the overall
subdivision on each property. It will go with each property owner. It
1 stays with the land.
Batzli: Have we ever done that before?
1 Hempel: The development contracts are always recorded with these certain
conditions of approval of a plat. There hasn't been...one containing
ejector pumps however at this time.
Batzli: What kind of condition is placed on that? That they have to have
it inspected annually?
11 Hempel: Mainly our reason for putting it in there, a lot of times the
homeowners will call the city if they have a problem with the sewer lines
or water lines or whatever and our maintenance and ownership
responsibilities end at the property line. 9 out of 10 times the problems
are on the private property. So we just want to make it clear up front of
the ownership's responsibility.
' Batzli: Okay, so this isn't going to be an annual type, it's just going
to clarify to the homeowner, it's going to be part of their lot
' description or something that it's their responsibility out to the curb
and then the city takes over from there, or something like that. Okay.
Would the applicant like to address the Commission now and respond to any
of the conditions that are in the staff report?
1 Wayne Tauer: My name is Wayne Tauer from Pioneer Engineering representing
Joe Miller Homes. I guess all that we have to say tonight is the fact
' that we have worked with the city staff, Jo Ann and Dave and the forester
and have tried to work the best we could to work out the problems. I
think we did a pretty good job doing so. As far as the conditions of
approval, as outlined in the staff report, we have no major problems with
any of those conditions. We're willing to accept them all and go from
here. We have put together an exhibit just simply showing trees lost,
trees saved and the two that you see here is obviously the brown are dead
' trees and the green are hopefully live trees. I don't know if everybody
can see that or not but as you can see, especially...up here that there's
a massive amount of trees which are being saved and a lot of the trees
that probably didn't show up on Jo Ann's drawing that shows up on mine are
the trees that are actually in the right -of -way. There's not much we can
11
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 21, 1993 - Page 4
do between the 60 feet of right -of -way that we have to obviously put
pavement on and maintain. But beyond that, in the lots themselves, I
think we've done a very good job in avoiding trees. Moving lot lines
around. Limiting the building pads. Moving them back. Lowering them
below the street and requiring the ejector pumps. And they asked for a
graphic and we're presenting this tonight. Like I say, other than that 11
I think we've done a good job in working with the staff and except for
questions I guess that's all we have to say.
Batzli: Does anyone have a question right now? Go ahead. 1
Harberts: Jo Ann, how do we insure that there won't be additional trees
taken or maybe impacted due to stress? '
Olsen: The major thing that we're doing as far as the conditions that
will be part of the development contract is listing the trees that can be
removed. So when the building permit comes in, that's what we'll be crosil
referencing to make sure that they're doing that. Essentially what we've
done is we've decided exactly where the house is going. What the size of
the house and style is right at this time. Again that's also what that II
management plan is going to do to also try to save what's there. We
should have a pretty good feel.
Harberts: So when the actual contractor or contractors come in to build II
house, there's going to be some oversight by the city to insure?
Olsen: Right. As far as when the building permit comes through, we
confirm on the building site what's done. Then also during the
inspections we make sure that the snow fencing is up and all that.
Scott: Jo Ann, what happens if a tree is accidentally damaged? ,
Olsen: That was not supposed to be?
Scott: What's the financial implications to the builder?
Olsen: There's no financial. We've been asked that too. If we can hit '
them in the wallet and you can't. We have the replacement of 1 inch per
caliper whatever's lost. We can require that and then we can also,
there's the 90 days in jail and if you want to pursue that, which we neve"
have.
Harberts: Per tree.
Batzli: Per tree?
Olsen: Yeah, per tree. Yeah, I've already told Wayne that he'll be the I
first one in jail.
Wayne Tauer: I need a vacation.
Olsen: So that's really all we have. I mean if it happens, we'll try our
best not to have it happen but if it does, we don't get that tree back.
mean we'll get the smaller trees replaced or the fine and that but we
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 5
II
can't say it's $1,000.00 per caliper inch or anything like that.
II Scott: Sure. But is that, that's an ordinance? Is it something that
it's at the discretion of the city staff to?
II Olsen: To require the.
Scott: Replacement.
II Olsen: Yeah.
Scott: Is that something that is normally put into a development
II agreement?
Olsen: I don't know if that's typically in there. It's in the ordinance.
I I don't know that we ever really had to have it in the development
contract.
I Scott: So it's in the ordinance and whether it's enforced or not is
really the issue.
Olsen: Right.
I Batzli: I thought from time to time we made it one of our conditions.
II Olsen: That?
Batzli: That damaged or lost trees would be required to be replaced on a
I caliper basis.
Olsen: We can do that. There's no reason not to.
II Krauss: It doesn't hurt anything.
Olsen: And you want to do per caliper inch?
II Batzli: Well I don't want to put them in jail. I'd rather have a tree.
Olsen: We could do both.
I
Wayne Tauer: Thanks Jo Ann. Our friend over here.
II Harberts: I have another question just to staff.
Batzli: Go ahead.
II Harberts: Jo Ann, could you just address the street naming issues. As it
dealt with just Lake Susan Hills Drive. And maybe, I don't know the
comments from, highlighting again the comments from Public Safety.
II Olsen: They wanted, it's getting confusing because it's on both sides so
originally they wanted to change Lake Susan Hills on this side because
II there's only like 6 or 7 homes already on it. But they notified the
affected parties and there was so, no way. You know we don't want to do
11
Planning Commission Meeting 1
April 21, 1993 - Page 6
this so they dropped that. I don't know what the, I think they're still
working on it. I think they're going to do, well what I heard last was
that they're going to have large signs on Powers saying East Lake Drive I
Hills 1 thru 30 or something so that's how they were going to resolve it
so emergency vehicles could see it that way.
Harberts: So the City was comfortable with, Public Safety was comfortabl1
with that?
Olsen: Yeah. You know they didn't want to take on the battle of changing
the streets since people were objecting to that. They felt that this
would work also. It's one of those that we should have caught earlier.
Batzli: Does anyone have a question for the applicant? Otherwise I'd 1
like to open it up for public comment.
Phil Jungbluth: I'd like to say just prior to that. You know we've ,
talked before about custom grading lots and so forth and I just want to
make sure that people understand what we really mean by that. And that
means exactly what it says. We will work with the site to build the hous'
to fit that site and around those trees. I mean that's exactly the
intention. There isn't any grading on the site, so.
Batzli: Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Would anyone 1
like to address the Commission at this time?
Robert Smithburg: Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert Smithburg. I live at II
8657 Chanhassen Hills Drive North and I'd like to pass this out before I
start. I took an interest in this project in January. I'm concerned
about the loss of old growth trees, a valuable resource to Chanhassen. II
Chanhassen has adopted a tree preservation code. It states, it is the
policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city
and with respect to specific site development, to retain as far as
practical substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the
overall landscape plan. This is the current policy and can be applied to
this site development. It is good reason that this code was adopted and
if you'd look at this overall aerial view of Chanhassen I've given you. '
This is a 1968 map and what I've done, I've deleted. In orange are the
areas that were forested. Woodland areas that are gone or proposed to be
eliminated. Number 1 is Timberwood Stone Creek. Number 2, Chanhassen I
public works. Number 4, this is proposed Highway 212 roadway, which is
coming. And Number 5, Highway 212/101 interchange. Number 3 is
Chanhassen Hills development which is adjacent to Lake Susan Hills 9th
Addition proposal. In Chanhassen Hills development, in this wooded area
they punched a cul -de -sac in. What remains is there's a rim of trees on
the back side of the homes down to a wetland. You have 7 homes in. One
new pad going in now. And in the process they took out 3 full semi '
truckfulls of red oak. If you zero in then on the area that is
highlighted, this is what's left of the forested wooded areas in
Chanhassen. Basically we have Lake Ann Park and the proposed development"
which we are talking about now. I spent many hours reviewing the Lake
Susan Hills 9th Addition development design maps and have made an attempt
to estimate how many trees would be lost. I would imagine we're going to
1
Planning Commission Meeting
- April 21, 1993 - Page 7
differ
on this but what I have done is I used the latest map and only did
roadway and, housepads and roadways.
Batzli: Those actually appear to be pretty close I think.
Robert Smithburg: As I said, street and housepad loss is only shown.
Damage due to construction, digging, grading, etc cannot be shown. These
trees are from 12 to 48 inches in diameter, 80 to 150 years old.
I Allowable loss is approximately 20% or 195 trees. Loss percentages can
significantly increase. We have to ask, what is acceptable tree loss in
regards to old growth wooded areas. Chanhassen does not have any more
significant old growth tree stands left to be eliminated. As has been
' shown, city staff, you, the Planning Commission and public input can have
an effect making positive changes. The redesign and site changes by the
developer are commendable and are headed in the right direction but is
' this minimal change. Chanhassen has to make sure we go beyond minimum
standards. I believe there are still design modifications and changes
that can be done to save old growth trees such as increased lot size in
' heavily wooded areas insuring more flexibility for housepads, more custom
grading and better compliance with the City's official amendments or
controls or requirements. The City does have discretionary leeway. Refer
to Attorney's letter dated April 1st to the City concerning the PUD, last
' page of your agenda. I ask the Planning Commission to take the tree
preservation section of the city code to heart and not approve this
development until a greater number of these precious old growth trees can
' be saved. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission?
' Don Wisdorf: My name's Don Wisdorf. I live on 8639 Chanhassen Hills. I
just have one concern about, or major concern about what has been
proposed. I understand as part of the development contract we can specify
I which trees are allowed to be removed and have that part of the
development contract. My concern is that we possibly have within the
contract what trees can't be removed. My concern there is that we're
' leaving it up to the developer to be able to mark with snow fences around
it the trees that cannot be removed. That's up to his discretion and it's
also up to his discretion in regards to which ones he can cut down. I
would urge us to kind of put that in a little bit stronger contract so we
' can control and not only be assured by willful or by unintentional means
that the developer doesn't cut down trees that have been deemed to be
important to save. Also the other point is, it doesn't take long to cut
' down trees and then we find out, it's too late. It takes many more years
to grow these back. If there's some way for an audit to be done, the city
staff to be able to check and inspect upon the property periodically
' rather than before all the damage to be done, I think that'd be a good
consideration to make. So that the plans as have been put together here
can be carried out to the fullest. Thank you.
Batzli: Jo Ann, do you want to respond to that?
Olsen: Well the whole list itself will be, the whole list of trees will
' be part of the development contract and I guess we can make it clear that
the numbers that weren't specified out that could be removed will be
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 21, 1993 - Page 8
saved. I think we're still doing the same thing. I'm not exactly sure i
I'll follow what the difference was. And then.
Batzli: Okay but, the survey has been done.
Olsen: The survey has been done. ,
Batzli: In our current conditions we list those trees which are permitted
to be removed. And the inspection process out on the site, as far as II putting snow fence around the trees that are to be saved, that is not at
the developer's discretion, correct?
Olsen: Correct. 1
Batzli: Okay. That is part of the development contract where he has to
go out and put up those trees and so the inspectors basically will be out
there and they will see those things already as a part of the process.
Olsen: Right. They'll see the snow fencing up and then they'll also hav
this list that they can confirm that the numbers, the trees that aren't
fenced are the correct ones and not be fenced.
Batzli: Okay. Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Yes
sir.
Don Wisdorf: Are those snow fences put up before tree removal can begin
then?
Olsen: Right. Before any activity on the site.
Don Wisdorf: Okay, thank you.
Batzli: Would anyone else like to address the Commission? There appears!'
to be a large number of people in the crowd. Are most people here for
this issue? Can I see hands. And is trees your number one priority
here? Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to address the 11 Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing?
Ledvina moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. 1
Batzli: Diane, do you want to start at your end here?
Harberts: Sure. From my perspective with the activity that has gone on II
by both staff, bringing in the DNR and the extensive survey. I think it's
very commendable. One of the dilemmas we certainly have here, we have a in
developer who wants to develop a plan. We have residents. We have
environmental issues and I think when it gets to the Commission level
here, as well as to the City, I see that it's our task to bring the
balance between all of these issues. I certainly have to agree that we II
need to try and be careful in terms of losing some of our natural
resources such as trees, but at the same time the developer certainly has
his right. His or her right to develop the piece of property. I think 41
with what has happened since the last time we've seen this, I find it as
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 9
very good compromise taking into consideration the environmental issue,
' issues by the residents as well as the interest and rights of the
developer. And if I, there isn't any other significant comments, I'm
planning on supporting this compromise. The only thing I would raise
issue to is the street name. In my previous residence I went through an
address change because the Post Office told us. Not because they asked.
And when you look at a public safety issue, if there's any delays simply
because of a potential misreading of an address, I think it's in the best
' interest to suffer a little bit upfront in terms of having to go through
an address change. So I would really certainly recommend that. I know in
the past the city has requested different names and I would support that
' the city continues with that practice of different names because the
bottom line here, it really is in the best interest of all residents.
That the names are clearly identifiable, especially in the area of public
safety.
Batzli: Anything else?
' Harberts: No.
Batzli: Ladd.
' Conrad: I thought the only solution was to create bigger lots and I'm
impressed that staff and the developer have done some things to save what
I perceive to be a significant amount of trees on the property. It's hard
' for me to get a handle on the trees that are going down but on the other
hand, as I challange what I see here, it's probably as good a plan in
terms of if you're going to develop it. I couldn't change it. If I
' challenged each lot up there and said well, if I made the lots 50% bigger
I don't know that I'd save many more trees. That's what I tried to do. I
think as I look at what I see, it's very reasonable. That's all I have to
say.
Batzli: Let me play devil's advocate then. Let's assume you cluster the
houses so that you didn't have to run the road through there, which is
' where you lose most of the trees.
Conrad: You could do that.
' Batzli: But then you're talking about a completely different style and
type of development.
' Conrad: Yeah, you cluster all your houses out where there aren't any
trees and I don't think that's reasonable. If we clustered them in where
the trees are, that's not reasonable. From anybody's standpoint. I think
' if somebody had some wisdom a while back when this was originally
proposed, we might have thought of this as some park property or something
along that line but it's not right now and the developer is way down the
road on this one and we really haven't said that this is a park parcel.
Yeah Brian, I think you could, if somebody could tell me a better use, I
would listen to it but in terms of the map that we're looking at on the
top that's, if somebody's going to put houses in, that's a fairly minimal
amount of tree loss.
11
Planning Commission Meeting ,
April 21, 1993 - Page 10
'
Batzli: Okay. Given that it's fairly minimal, would you then require.
Conrad: Let me say, before you say that, take a look at Lundgren
Brothers, who we typically hold up as a fairly sophisticated developer an
putting in some higher priced home. They took down far more trees than
what we're looking at here. '
Batzli: For the Ersbo one?
Conrad: Up on. ,
Batzli: Summit?
Conrad: Yeah. If you take a look at what they took down and we say
they're doing a good job. They took down a whole lot more trees.
Batzli: Would you, in view of the fact that we're doing such a nice job II
of saving them during the development process, are we going to be unhappy
several years later when people move in and cut them down out of their
yards? Would it be better to apply more conservation easements rather
than giving them a management plan and leaving it up to their whim?
Conrad: Tim Erhart should be here for that... I don't think we should bell
I'm not on that line of thinking, no.
Batzli: I don't think he would be either. '
Conrad: We know he would not be. There's a fair number of trees on the
bottom plat that we're looking at. Fair number that are going down. But
I have a real tough time saying change this and do it a different way and
Brian, if you want to cluster them, it just is a whole different concept.
Single family, this was always thought of as a single family area and
I just don't know how I'd do it differently. ,
Batzli: Fair enough. Anything else Ladd? Matt?
Ledvina: Well I think the developer has done a good job. And getting
back to what was originally was proposed and the alignments of the streets
that were approved in the conceptual stage and the things they've done to
change the alignment and the design have really enhanced the tree
preservation. I'm fairly comfortable with what they've got here. I had II
other questions on some of the staff recommendations here. On the first
condition, you talked about the front yard setback being reduced to 25
feet where it will preserve natural features. I know we used this reduce
setback for Lundgren and did we not identify the lots that were actually
involved?
Olsen: I had identified the lots and you recommended that it be just
general. That it generally applied. This condition really, we've alread
set the housepad up if it needed to be and so it's really not even
necessary because those lots that it would have been used to preserved th
natural features already, we have established where the housepad is.
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 11
II
a
Ledvina So for the areas for example in the northe rn part of the
I development where there's no concerns.
Olsen: There shouldn't.
II Ledvina: Okay. So we're not worried about those, the builder coming in
with the 25 foot setback and us being required to approve that?
II Olsen: Right. I think it's pretty, we could say that it's not preserving
natural features. Or we could take it out. Complete...the condition
probably. Unless we need to specify which lots we've done it.
II Batzli: Last time I think actually what it read was the frontyard setback
can be reduced to 25 feet period.
II Olsen: And then we added where it will preserve.
Batzli: Right. But I think, we would be more comfortable if this wasn't
I at the discretion of the developer. If the city staff.
Olsen: Pointed out which ones.
I Batzli: Right. I think we were comfortable as long as it's being
submitted to you for approval if they're moving them around.
II Olsen: So add, if approved by city staff?
Batzli: Yeah.
II Ledvina: I know the City Council was concerned about that specific
provision on the Lundgren subdivision so I'm a little bit sensitive to
that.
II Olsen: Yeah. That's the one I was saying that we had specified the lots
and it was asked to change to be general so. But I'll just add, if
I approved by city staff.
Ledvina: Okay. And I just had a general question regarding the flag
lots. Is that a common driveway on those two flags? So there's two
II driveways side by side?
Olsen: Yeah. We hadn't provided for a common driveway. I don't know if
1 it shows that well on that map but the lot, the trees that you can that
are going to be removed would most likely have been removed with 2
driveways versus 1 so we just went ahead and blocked those out with the
I driveways. The trees that we're losing in those parts.
Ledvina: Right. Well, if you've got one driveway for those two flags, •
they can split and you've got whatever, a 15 foot. I mean it's much less
II pavement.
Olsen: Oh yeah, no question about that.
II
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 12
Ledvina: Can we require that that be, that there be one lot servicing
those adjacent flag lots? Or one driveway servicing those adjacent flag
lots.
Olsen: I don't see why we couldn't. We'd have to, does it have to be a
20 foot? Is it a shared driveway then? And then you get into a 20 foot II
width. Has to be 7 ton design where you have 2 lots on a driveway. I
mean we can make any condition we want. That's a general. The general
condition for the city is if you have a shared driveway, two homes on a
private drive, it has to be 20 foot wide, 7 ton design.
Batzli: Didn't we just do, I thought we did an amendment to our flag lot,
driveway ordinance and we didn't require that.
Olsen: For shared driveways?
Krauss: No, that's the way it was written 2 or 3 years ago. That hasn't,
changed.
Batzli: Boy, time flies. Really? Oh, okay.
Olsen: But we can look at that. We can look again but I think when Dave
and I worked on this, I don't think we saw that shared driveways was goin,
to be saving any trees. We either placed the driveways where there were
no trees going to be removed or else where the trees were going to be
removed with 1 or 2. '
Ledvina: Is that your understanding Dave? That a shared driveway won't
really help the situation?
Hempel: That and the combination of the sewer and water service
extensions to each home.
Ledvina: Okay. I just thought there might be an opportunity there but. II
Batzli: So we'll require rain barrels and an outdoor...
Olsen: Right. Well actually we want a cart path and when we were walking
through the site we were going, can't they just be accessed by a golf car
and a cart path.
Ledvina: Let's see. He talked about a variance being required for the
street grade and I may have missed it in here but I didn't find it in the
conditions.
Olsen: I took it out because it's a PUD so technically it doesn't have t'
get a variance.
Ledvina: Okay. We don't have to worry about that? Alright. Dave, is I
that going to present any problems at all? It's near the outlet, south
outlet by Powers Boulevard. Is that 10% grade a concern for the city?
Hempel: We're still going to require that there's a landing at the top s'
there is a gentle gradient onto Powers Boulevard providing for adequate
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 13
stopping and acceleration onto Powers Boulevard. I would imagine there'd
' be approximately 100 to 150 foot landing on top required.
Ledvina: But other than that, a 3% increase is not real significant?
Hempel: Not in this stretch we didn't feel it would be.
Ledvina: Okay. It's a pretty short stretch. What is it, 100 feet or so?
Hempel: It's actually a little longer than that...250.
' Ledvina: Okay. Well I think if you don't go above 10 %, you're generally
okay for any type of vehicle. And then Jo Ann, on the agenda it
identified a wetland alteration permit. That's not part of this?
' Olsen: No, that shouldn't be on there. I never even looked at that.
Ledvina: I didn't think so but I just.
Olsen: ...no, that's correct. They're not touching a wetland.
Ledvina: Okay, that's all I have for my comments.
' Batzli: Okay, thank you. You know I really thought you were going to ask
about the stockpiled material in condition 19. I don't know why.
' Ledvina: I thought I'd forego it this time.
' Batzli: Okay. Joe.
Scott: Jo Ann, on the corrected tree survey, how many trees are
identified?
Olsen: How many, you mean out of the whole list?
Scott: No. I mean out of the, on the list. When you went through it.
Olsen: How many do we identify?
Scott: Yeah, how many did you identify?
Olsen: We went through the whole, pretty much all the list.
Scott: Like 1,500 or?
' Olsen: Oh no, no. There's, well the number's about 900 or so and we
didn't do all 900 but we went in the area.
Scott: I was thinking as far as the count, because I'm trying to get in
' my mind is some sort of a numeric difference between, so out of the 900
the initial proposal as we saw about a month ago had a tree loss of.
Olsen: Oh, I don't have those numbers.
Planning Commission Meeting II
April 21, 1993 - Page 14
Scott: I mean this helps a lot from a visual standpoint.
11 P P
Olsen: I'd say at least they're saving 50% of what was being lost the II
first time.
Scott: And where the creativity come from to, because obviously there's
some ideas that came out of this process to reduce tree loss. Where did II
those ideas come from? Did they come primarily from city staff?
Primarily from the developer?
Olsen: Well, the staff is where we're, we saw that it was sanitary sewer
that was causing a lot of the tree removal and that's where I said to
Dave, are there other options. Then so yes and then the developer also II
agreed that yes, there are other things that they could do. I mean they,
what this is is additional cost to them in changes and they agreed yes, we
could do it. It was either a lift station or this ejector pump so that's,
where that one came from. But their Crane Circle, Crane, I forget what
that was. That was just saying we want to preserve that stand and so do
whatever you can to preserve that. And actually we had proposed flag lot
in there and they're the ones who came back with the whole, taking it out
completely.
Scott: Is there a bituminous trail that's still proposed to go from Lake,
Susan Hills Drive out to Lake Susan? Is that what that?
Olsen: Yeah. Up on the northern one, on that area from Mallard?
Scott: It's looking on, at least what I have here. I don't know if it's
yeah. It would be from Mallard.
Olsen: Yeah, there's still going to be a trail.
Scott: Okay. What's the tree loss associated with putting that?
1
Olsen: Well we, I think we're also putting sewer down there or something.
Isn't it going where the line is going? The trail going down to Lake
Susan Dave? 1
Hempel: Below the lake?
Scott: No. It connects Lake Susan Hills Drive to the bituminous trail II
that goes around Lake Susan. Is that going to be laid over storm sewer or
something like that?
Hempel: That's where the sanitary sewer is being extended up from along
the lake.
Olsen: Yeah, originally it was going to be removing trees and that's
where we said let's move that.
Scott: Okay. And then I'd like to see too, condition 21. That damage 1
for lost trees would follow the ordinance and that's Section 20 -1178 and
especially C(3) and C(7). It talks specifically about caliper inch per
caliper inch replacement and then also the trees that are designated for 11
1 Planning Commission Meeting
. April 21, 1993 - Page 15
preservation that are lost will be replaced by compatible trees approved
P Y P PP
by the city and the city will require the developer to replace these trees
' with the largest comparable trees that are commercial available for
transportation so, but I'd like to see that tree preservation ordinance as
part of the development agreement. No further comments.
1 Batzli: Joe, are you suggesting that the, and maybe I missed something.
That the applicant is going to replace all the trees that are being taken
' out?
Scott: Oh no. No. Trees that are designated for preservation that are
lost due to construction. Not everything.
1 Batzli: But C(3) of that section discusses replacing trees approved for
removal.
Scott: I'm mostly concerned with the trees that are designated for
preservation. If some of those are damaged.
Olsen: So C(7).
Scott: So that would be C(7) instead of (3) . Thanks.
Batzli: Okay, thank you.
' Farmakes: I had several things I already talked about so I'm not going to
cover those. I too agree that this is a good compromise to this problem.
Fortunately we're working with the long term solution here and I know
that...but certainly for the aesthetic value that they provide us, we do
' have such little tree cover left in Chanhassen, I think its worth it to
try and save these resources to let them live out their natural lives and
pass on. They also provide us with wildlife, food for wildlife,
' particularly the nut trees and so on. So I'd like to see us continue to
be aggressive in trying to save these trees. On the other hand, we have
people with millions of dollars of property who have invested, who are
' selling these parcels of property who are moving out here. These people,
and of course in time move in, they plant trees and over the years an
urban forest begins to develop. I think the DNR said approximately 95% of
Chanhassen denuded of forest cover. That this has been a farm area for
over 100 years. Trees and farming don't mix particularly well. So
consequently the areas that are left are for wood, for game purposes or
simply weren't farmable land. Minimal farmable land. And I think that
this is a reasonable compromise to this. Maybe Dick Wing will disagree
and ask for 3 more but I don't know how else this problem can be solved
short of, as Ladd said, that 20 years ago they made a forest out of this
' thing and turned it into a park. That wasn't done and time has marched on
now and as I said before, I think there's a pragmatic solution. I would
like to back up just a little bit and touch before I forget on the PUD
part that is not covered by the trees. I still feel that 1, 2 and 8 are
' pretty cramped. Particularly 8 and 1 in comparison to the surrounding
properties and although I'm not going to not vote on this because of
that, I would like to pass on that comment to the City Council and have
them review that.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
II
April 21, 1993 - Page 16
Batzli: Those are all in Block 1?
Farmakes: Correct. ,
Batzli: The ones up in the northern most part of the development?
Farmakes: Correct. I think 8 in particular because of the angle of the II
house is at a different angle than the property. It's sort of a pie.
They seem to be areas within the PUD that are sort of left over land
trying to work in a housepad. I'm concerned about the properties next toll
them. The discrepancy difference between their size of lots and so on and
the available area there. I also agree with you and the idea of having all
conservation easement following the property. It will be a mistake, all
this work could be undone with a happy chainsaw so I'd like to see that
put in.
Olsen: Okay. With the individual trees and all of them saved?
Farmakes: Yeah. That's possible per lot. ,
Olsen: Yeah, we have to have a legal description around' each one of those
trees. is that correct Elliott?
Knetsch: Yes.
Olsen: Do you see another way of preserving these after they're, the
ownership of the lot owner other than by having a legal description?
Knetsch: Well, whether you have the conservation easement or the II management plan, it's just a piece of paper filed at the courthouse. If
someone gets their chainsaw out, the trees are going to go whether it's a
conservation easement or a management plan.
Farmakes: Well we have the setback from the lake edge and the same type II
of reasoning applies. If you have an area of property that's overviewing
the lake people often, when they build their house want to see the lake sil
they go down and start cutting trees out. If that's allowed to happen, ill
seems to me it's a moot issue what we're doing here. But if there's a way
to solve that problem, I'd like to see that follow. Whether or not
somebody's going to break the law, I suppose we don't have any guarantee II
of that but we can always enforce it at a later date. I don't know else
to deal with that. That's the end of my comments other than, with this
type of tree cover, I'd like to see us come up with or establish a
criteria of what we need, when we need to see this type of thing. And
with this type of overview. What bothered me the last time is that we
didn't see this up front and it really was the basis of what we're making
a decision here. And certainly if there's that stand of trees or whateve ,
criteria you were going to use, that there's a significant stand that we
should know specifically what we're losing or we're gaining.
Olsen: Agreed, yeah.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. In the past from time to time Jo Ann we've
narrowed the roadway in a PUD in order to, at least in one instance I
1
' Planning Commission Meeting
. April 21, 1993 - Page 17
think we have, narrowed the roadway. Did we take a look at doing that at
all in here?
Olsen: We've done that.
II Batzli: Well, by how much did we do that though?
Olsen: Well down to 50. I mean we've never gone below 50 right -of -way.
' Batzli: But that's the right -of -way. I mean have we ever gone lower in
the actual curb to curb?
' Olsen: We've talked about doing that but that should be, Dave can address
that but there's other implications.
' Hempel: Right. Mr. Chairman. The major disruption out there again is
not the street pavement. It's the initial utility installation. Sanitary
sewer. The watermain. The storm sewer. Each one of those are placed
approximately 10 feet apart. The State health codes for the watermain and
' sanitary sewer to be 10 feet apart in separation so that has the most
impact on the site. Not the final street pavement out there. It's the
initial utility installation.
' Batzli: Okay. I guess like Matt I'd like to see condition 1 changed so
that if there is going to be a pulling back, it will be approved by city
staff. I would like to see us look into a few more of these lots having a
conservation easement on them. I don't want to do it for the onesies,
twoies trees I guess but it seems to me Block, I think it's 3 where a lot
of the homes have trees in the back. Significant numbers and I don't know
' that from your condition I don't know that, it looks like those, on that
block, those lots will not have a conservation easement on them.
Olsen: That's where we were just going with the management plan and
listing what was there. Yeah, we will definitely go back and where
there's a stand of trees we'll come up with a legal description and work
' out some way where we have the little one and two, how to. I mean ideally
we would love to have them all in conservation easements with just is not
feasible when you have individual ones. So yeah, we will do that. We'll
add to that.
' Batzli: I'd like to see a new condition 21 and as Joe stated, for
replacement of, for those trees which are damaged in construction. I
' really appreciate the presentation by Mr. Smithburg. That was nice.
Thank you. I won't reiterate too many of the comments by my fellow
commissioners but I think we're doing a pretty decent job here given this
type of development and trying to accommodate a lot of different needs
' here. From the looks of it I think we're doing one of the best jobs we've
done on preserving trees and looking at it, it appears to me that Dave is.
he's right. We're losing them on the roadway and probably installation of
' the utilities and I don't see a way around that other than completely
saying, so. If someone has a motion, I'd be happy to listen to it.
' Conrad: I don't have a motion but I'd make a comment and then, I
appreciate the residents being here and following the issue. It's an
Planning Commission Meeting
II
April 21, 1993 - Page 18
issue that we care about. It doesn't look like it sometimes but we really
do care about it. We probably had something to do with the tree
preservation ordinance that's in here. But if you see, we're kind of
globally looking at things and maybe not always challenging a lot line
here or there so I think later on, in fact as it goes to City Council, if
you see some specifics that we've missed on here, its probably not a bad ll
idea to challenge the specifics. If there's a stand of trees that a lot
line could have saved or a bigger parcel could have preserved, but again I
thank everybody for showing up. It's best that you're following this
issue.
Batzli: Nicely said. I think we all appreciate it. Would someone like
to take a crack at a motion? •
Harberts: Well I guess I'll take a crack at it. I'll make a motion to
approve Case No. 87 -3, Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and approve the
recommendations presented by staff with the following changes, and I woulll
welcome assistance from the group. Number 1, that the staff will outline
which lots can be reduced to 25 feet. Number 12 I would like to see adde
that Lake Susan Hills Drive be renamed as supported by the Public Safety
Deparment. That we add 21. Basically what you'd lose in the developer'
agreement in the ordinance as specified by Commissioner Scott. I guess
that does it. '
Batzli: Is there a second?
Conrad: Second. 1
Batzli: Is there discussion?
Farmakes: Did that include your amendment?
Scott: Yeah. It included my amendment and also you wanted to make
greater use of conservation easements?
Batzli: Did you want to include language for staff to look at
incorporating additional conservation easements in your motion?
Harberts: Yes.
Batzli: Do you accept that as a friendly amendment?
Conrad: Certainly.
Batzli: Regarding your condition 12, was that eleminating the current
language or was that adding?
Harberts: Adding.
Batzli: Okay. And your motion was for the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition,
as shown on the plans dated April 12, 1993?
Harberts: Yes, thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 21, 1993 - Page 19
Harberts moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Preliminary Plat for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition as
shown on the plans dated April 12, 1993, with the following conditions:
1. The front yard setback can be reduced to 25' where it will preserve
natural features if approved by city staff.
2. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City
and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the
public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval.
3. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10
' year storm event and ponding calculations for the rentention ponds
(NURP standards) for the City Engineer to review and approve.
•
' 4. The applicant shall supply detailed construction plans for utility and
street improvements for the City to review and formally approve. All
utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance
' with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates.
•
5. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with
' all necessary permits such as MWCC, Health Department, Watershed
District, PCA and Carver County Highway Department.
' 7. All retention ponds shall include an outlet control structure to
control discharge rate pursuant to NURP standards.
' 8. The applicant shall provide maintenance access routes to the retention
pond areas and dedicate the appropriate easements on the final plat.
In addition, all utility lines outside the street right -of -way shall
be dedicated with a minimum of a 20 foot wide drainage and utility
easement.
9. Erosion control and turf restoration shall be in accordance with the
' City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
10. If feasible, the applicant shall work with the City and County in
oversizing the storm drainage improvements to include the future
' runoff from the upgrade of Powers Boulevard. The applicant would be
compensated for the associated oversizing costs.
11. The location of all fire hydrants shall be approved by the City's
Fire Marshal.
12. Mallard Court should be renamed to either Drake Court or some other
acceptable street name. Lake Susan Hills Drive shall also be renamed
as supported by the Public Safety Department.
' 13. Five foot concrete sidewalks should also be extended from Lake
Susan Hills Drive west to Dove Court.
'
141. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will
be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement
1
II Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 20
1
shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and
underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not
be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows th#
location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide
the legal description. Generally the conservation easement shall be
on the following lots: Lots 1 -6, Block 2. 1
15. Lots 6 -16, Block 3, Lots 1 -10, Block 4, and Lots 20 -28, Block 5 shall
be custom graded lots and the following conditions shall apply: 1
a. Each of these lots shall conform to the approved custom graded
plans. Deviation from these plans which will result in more
removal of vegetation, will not be permitted.
b. Each of these lots shall have a woodland management plan developed •
by the developer prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 1
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 given to the homeowner.
c. Each of these lots shall only be permitted to have the following
trees remove (these numbers correspond to the tree survey numbers,
as shown on Sheets 8 and 9 of Plans dated April 12, 1993):
Block 3: 1
Lot 6 - 64
Lot 7 - 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91
Lot 8 - 100, 502, 503, 504, 507, 510, 511, 512
Lot 9 567, 575
Lot 10 - 582, 602
Lot 11 - 592, 593, 594, 559
Lot 12 - 598, 626, 633, 634, 635, 647, 648, 649
Lot 13 - 605, 624, 625, 652, 715
Lot 14 - 615 II Lot 15 - 606 *Lot line must be adjusted to save stand of trees.
Lot 16 - 573
Block 4: 1
Lot 1 - 870, 871, 872, 875 *House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50, must
save 863
Lot 2 - 817, 857, 861
Lot 3 - 828, 829, 840, 841, 519
Lot 4 - 985
Lot 5 - 532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 550, 990, 991, 994
Lot 6 - 587
Lot 7 - 563
Lot 8 - 528, 568, 569 1
Lot 9 - 616, 626, 627, 630, 637
Lot 10 - 619, 620, 621
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 21
11 Block 5:
Lot 20 - none
Lot 21 - none
Lot 22 - none
Lot 23 - 911, 914, 917
Lot 24 - 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, 878, 879
Lot 25 - 996, 997
' Lot 26 - 570, 571, 573, 578, 579, 580, 581
Lot 27 - 604 *House pad cannot exceed 50 x 50
Lot 28 612
16. The landscaping plan shall be amended to provide the following:
a. Increased landscaping along Powers Boulevard (CR 17) and internal
boulevard and entrance landscaping.
b. Improved landscaping materials, with at least 50% of the hardwoods
from the primary species list.
c. A plan providing $750.00 worth of landscaping /single family unit.
17. Park and Recreation Commission conditions:
a. Dedication of Outlot E to the city;
b. Construction of the following trails:
1. an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the west side of Lake
Susan as indicated on Attachment B, Segments D and E;
2. an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the east side of Powers
Boulevard (CR 17) as indicated on Attachment B, Segment 8;
3. Trail segments A, C and F;
' 4. Park fees are assessed at one -half the rate in force upon
building permit application. All trail fees have been waived
as a part of the development of Lake Susan Hills West.
' 5. The two trail easements identified allowing access to the
shoreland trail be consolidated into one 40 foot easement at
' the location of the northerly easement.
18. Building Official conditions:
' a. Indicate lowest floor elevations and garage floor elevations for
each house pad on the grading plan.
b. Submit details on corrected pads including compaction tests,
limits the pads and elevations of excavations to the Inspections
Division. A general soils report for the development should also
be submitted to the Inspections Division.
11
Planning Commission Meeting
April 21, 1993 - Page 22
c. Oversized street signs shall be placed at each of the four outlets
g p
of Lake Susan Hills Drive on Powers Boulevard. The signs shall
indicate the range of addresses on the street. 1
19. The applicant's engineer shall provide a final grading plan with
detailed house types, elevation and grading limits on all lots. The I
final grading plan shall also take into consideration existing
stockpiled material along County Road 17.
20. A condition shall be placed in the development contract regarding 1
maintenance responsibilities for homes with ejector pumps.
21. Any trees damaged during construction shall be replaced on a caliper II
inch basis per the ordinance, Section 20- 1178(c)(7).
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 68.53 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF II
2.25 ACRES AND 64.98 ACRES LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED A2, AGRICULTURAL
ESTATE AND LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL, JUST WEST OF PIONEER HILLS
SUBDIVISION, LAURENT ADDITION, PAUL LAURENT.
Public Present:
Name Address ,
Paul Laurent 16085 Delarma Drive
Gil Laurent 1370 Pioneer Trail, Chaska '
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Batzli
called the public hearing to order. ,
Batzli: Would the applicant like to address the Commission at this time?
No? You're happy with all of the conditions that are in the staff report
There's no problems?
Paul Laurent: Yeah, I guess other than the driveway...
Olsen: It's usually a condition that Carver County will have to give you'
an access permit and it's usually not a major issue.
Batzli: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would'
like to address the Commission on this matter?
Ledvina moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Batzli: Jeff, do you want to lead off? 1
Farmakes: I have no comments on this issue.
Batzli Okay, Joe? 1
1