1f-1 Final Plat for Willowridge 2nd Addition w I -r. - i
CITYOF .._,........_.
CHANHASSEN
.t
1
I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1 MIIII It Q9elDt
MEMORANDUM Mimi ✓ - Pui l
1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager >
N ni. - /g -q 3
I FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner ate
Subrnftted to'
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Date Submitt to Cou�o
I DATE: February 18, 1993
SUBJ: Final Plat for Willowridge 2nd Addition
1 On October 28, 1991, the City Council approved a PUD designation for the subject property and
approved the preliminary plat which created 37 single family lots and a wetland alteration permit.
I The first phase of the site was final platted on March 23, 1992. The first phase platted 25 of
the 37 lots. The applicant has submitted the final phase for City Council approval. The second
phase is creating the remaining 12 lots. The final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary
1 plat.
The rezoning, preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit were approved with the following
1 conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a Planned Unit Development Agreement containing all of
1 the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial
guarantees. The PUD Agreement shall be recorded against the property.
1 The applicant shall have to enter into a PUD Agreement containing all conditions of
approval for Phase II and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The PUD
I Agreement shall be recorded against the property.
2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table.
1 This condition still remains and will be part of the PUD/Development contract.
I 3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91 -9 and Wetland Alteration
Permit #91 -4.
1 This condition still remains and will be part of the PUD/Development contract.
Ilt
1 to IT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
Don Ashworth
February 18, 1993
1 Page 2
1. Where the proposed street is reduced to 26 feet, there shall be "no parking" signs posted
I and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided over the boulevard. The sharp
curves located in the loop street shall be limited to a 10 m.p.h. speed limit and shall have
"sharp curve" signage.
The applicant has designed the street in accordance to the city's typical 31 foot wide
I street section. Therefore, "No parking" signs and a 6 foot wide sidewalk is no
longer applicable. The sharp curves located in the loop street shall be posted with
speed advisory signs and shall have "sharp curve" signage. The applicant shall
I provide an added degree of safety by installing guard rail or other acceptable means
of preventing vehicles from sliding off the street.
1 2. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing the following:
a. One additional quaking aspen clump shall be provided directly north of the Class
1 A wetland and east of the proposed quaking aspen clumps
b. Landscaping, acceptable to staff, shall be added to the area between the public
1 road and the Class A wetland.
c. The berm and landscaping on Lot 4, Block 3 (per Willowridge 2nd) shall be
I extended to the edge of the wetland and the westerly access area directly north of
the proposed pond area shall have increased landscaping to replace existing
vegetation that is being removed, if appropriate.
I d. Three trees (2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen or ornamental) shall be required per lot.
(Credit for each tree over 6 increases in caliper on the lot shall be granted. For
1 the lot, however, a minimum of 1 tree per lot shall be provided.)
e. A landscaped berm shall be provided on the north right -of -way of Lake Lucy
I Road across from the westerly access to provide screening from traffic to existing
homes.
1 Conditions c. and d. still apply to this phase and shall remain as a condition of final
plat approval.
1 3. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive drainage and erosion control plan prior to
final plat review. Wood fiber blankets shall be required for all slopes steeper than 3:1.
1 This condition shall read, "The applicant shall provide wood fiber blankets on all
slopes steeper than 3:1 for the second phase."
1
1
1
w
Don Ashworth
February 18, 1993 1
Page 3
4. Drainage plans are to be revised as recommended by staff. Calculations shall be provided
demonstrating that the revised Walker Ponds are sufficiently sized to provided acceptable
1
nutrient removal. Drainage calculations must be provided demonstrating that runoff from
the site maintains predevelopment rates. The applicant shall submit final road, drainage
I and utility plans and specifications for review prior to final plat review. The normal
water level in the DNR wetland lying south of Lake Lucy Road should be maintained at
a level not to exceed 976.5. Should a higher normal water level be approved, the
I applicant shall provide appropriate financial security for a period of five years to repay
any related damage to Lake Lucy Road. In addition, the downstream control structure
shall be of the type to allow manual control of the water level, should the need arise. I
The developer shall modify the existing storm sewer outlet/inlet, located on the south side
of Lake Lucy Road, to become a flood control structure constructed at the 100 year flood
elevation. The proposed development will not increase off -site drainage to surrounding I
properties.
This condition was met with phase I.
I
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial
security.
1
This condition is addressed with condition #1.
6. The applicant shall acquire all necessary agency permits. I
This condition shall remain.
1
7. The applicant shall provide full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication and trail
construction.
1
This condition shall remain.
8. Provide the following easements:
a. Dedication of all street right -of -way. 1
Completed with Phase I.
b. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding areas.
This condition shall remain. 1
c. Access easements as required to service the "Walker ponds."
0
I Don Ashworth
February 18, 1993
1 Page 4
This condition shall remain.
I d. Utility easements over all sewer, water and storm sewer lines located outside
public right -of -way.
I Is being provided with the Phase II.
1 e. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas.
This condition shall remain.
I f. Standard drainage and utility easements.
1 Is being provided with the Phase II.
g. Provide a conservation easement over all established wetland buffer areas. Such
' easements shall be marked with permanent visible monuments and the location of
such easements shall be provided to city staff for approval.
1 This condition shall remain.
I h. The final plat shall convey an additional seven feet of right -of -way on the south
side of Lake Lucy Road to provide the total width of 40 feet lying south of the
centerline.
1 Completed with Phase I.
I 9. The applicant shall indicate the allowable type of dwelling, the house pads and the lowest
floor elevation on the grading plan.
1 Is being provided with the Phase II.
10. The existing hydrant between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, shall be relocated 75 feet to the
1 south. The Fire Department must approve street names and a 10 foot clear space must
be provided around fire hydrants. Additional hydrants are needed at the intersections of
Lake Lucy Road and the proposed public road.
I Is being provided with the Phase II.
1 11. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit #91 -4 and
Rezoning #91 -2.
1
1
II
1
Don Ashworth
February 18, 1993
Page 5
This condition is a repeat of Condition #3 and the conditions of the rezoning have I
been incorporated into the final conditions.
12. The applicant shall provide proper restrictions (subject to city staff approval) on those lots
I
having entrance monuments and /or landscaping.
This condition shall remain.
13. The outlet on the south end of the Class A wetland shall be a variable crest structure with
stop logs and adequate outlet channel to allow the draw down of water levels to or below
present outlet elevation (974.5'). The developer be required to remove existing purple
loosestrife from the basin and to monitor those sites and sites disturbed by construction
for loosestrife invasion. 1
The first part of this condition has been met but the portion concerning the purple
1
loosestrife shall remain a condition.
14. Municipal sanitary sewer and water service should be extended easterly to the west line
I
of the Ravis parcel and sanitary sewer shall be extended to the Coey property.
Staff has determined that water service may be extended through the Ravis property 1
via Powers Boulevard, therefore, this condition should be modified to require only
sanitary sewer service be extended to the west line of the Ravis parcel. The
applicant has met this condition with Phase II.
1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control. The
erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas are
stabilized.
This condition shall remain. 1
2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance table for each I
lot will be recorded as part of the PUD agreement. No wetland setback less than 40 feet
will be permitted and the buffer strip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip
will be preserved by an easement.
1
This condition shall remain.
3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to the wetland I
and not during the migratory waterfowl breeding season.
1
Don Ashworth
February 18, 1993
1 Page 6
This condition shall remain.
4. The "Walker pond" and wildlife wetland areas must be designed to the standards proposed
in the applicant's submittal packet dated July 30, 1991.
' This condition has been met with Phase I.
5. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers.
This condition has been met with Phase I.
6. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91 -9 and Rezoning #91 -2.
This condition is a repeat from Condition #3.
SITE GRADING
The applicant is proposing to divert an existing drainage swale which intersects through Lots 3
and 4, Block 2. The new drainage swale will be along the easterly property line of said lots.
' It is recommended that the final plat dedicate the easterly 15 feet of Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 to
preserve this drainage swale. Mulberry Circle is proposed to be extended from the existing
temporary cul -de -sac back out to Lake Lucy Road. Grading for the new street will involved
substantial cutting into the hillside on Lots 1, Block 1, Willowridge Phase I and Lot 2, Block 3,
Willowridge 2nd Addition. Side slopes adjacent to the street will be fairly steep at 2:1 slopes.
It is recommended that erosion control blanket be used to secure and revegetate the slopes. The
applicant is also proposing a boulder retaining wall on Lot 2, Block 3 which should be
constructed outside of the City's right -of -way. The applicant should notify property owners of
their maintenance responsibilities and ownership of the boulder retaining wall by means of
covenants and verbiage in the chain of title.
UTILITIES
As required by the development contract and PUD agreement for Phase I, the applicant is
required to provided sanitary sewer and water service to the Ravis parcel which is located
directly east of Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. Staff has reviewed extension of utilities to this site and
determined that water service is available through the Ravis property from Powers Boulevard and
should not be required as a part of this development. The applicant is proposing with this phase
to extend sanitary sewer to the Ravis parcel as required.
This phase of the development will be extending sanitary sewer service within 15 feet of an
existing home (Ersbo residence). Pursuant to city ordinance, the property owner must connect
1
1
1
1
Don Ashworth
February 18, 1993
Page 7
to the sewer system within one year from the date the line becomes operational. The sewer line 1
will become operational once the utility improvements are formally accepted by the city.
STREETS
1
As previously mentioned, the extension of Mulberry Circle back out to Lake Lucy Road will
require excessive cutting of the hillside to extend the street. The proposed street grades for this
section of roadway between Lot 2, Block 3 and Lot 1, Block 1 of Willowridge 1st Addition
(Ersbo property) will require street grades in excess of the City's guidelines (8 %). This issue
was previously discussed during the preliminary plat review process. Options to reduce filling
along the west side of Mulberry Circle adjacent to the wetlands near Walker Pond No. 3 included
reducing the street width to 26 feet wide. However, this scenario also required construction of
a sidewalk which also would involve some filling of the wetlands. The applicant's engineer was
not able to design Mulberry Circle with street grade in compliance with City guidelines for both
vertical curve lengths and street grade; however, as a result has minimized impacts to the
wetlands and tree loss. In addition, the existing driveway to the Ersbo residence has been made
compatible with the new street. Staff is comfortable with the proposed alignment and grades,
however, has concerns that the sharp curve combined with steep grade on the southbound lane
of Mulberry Circle adjacent to Lot 2, Block 3 will result in a traffic safety issue for vehicles
sliding off the street during inclement weather conditions. Staff has contacted the applicant and
requested some alternatives be explored such as guard rail, superelevation of the street, or
berming to provide an added degree of safety along the curb.
1
The Fire Marshal has requested that the street name be changed to help reduce response time.
The applicant will be working with the City's Fire Marshal to arrive at an acceptable street name.
1
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the final plat for Willowridge 2nd Addition as shown
on the final plat dated February 17, 1993, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall have to enter into a PUD Agreement containing all conditions of
approval for Phase II and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The PUD
Agreement shall be recorded against the property.
2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table.
3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91 -9 and Wetland Alteration
Permit #91 -4.
1
4. The sharp curves located in the loop street shall be posted with 10 mph speed advisory
signs and shall have "sharp curve" signage. The applicant shall work with staff in
1
Don Ashworth
February 18, 1993
1 Page 8
providing an added degree of safety along the curve on Mulberry Circle adjacent to Lot
2, Block 3. Such alternatives would be to provide a guard rail, berming or superelevation
on the street section.
5. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing the following:
a. The berm and landscaping on Lot 4, Block 3 (per Willowridge 2nd) shall be
1 extended to the edge of the wetland and the westerly access area directly north of
the proposed pond area shall have increased landscaping to replace existing
vegetation that is being removed, if appropriate.
I b. Three trees (2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen or ornamental) shall be required per lot.
(Credit for each tree over 6 increases in caliper on the lot shall be granted. For
the lot, however, a minimum of 1 tree per lot shall be provided.)
6. The applicant shall provide wood fiber blankets on all slopes steeper than 3:1 for the
1 second phase.
I 7. The applicant shall acquire all necessary agency permits.
8. The applicant shall provide full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication and trail
1 construction.
9. Provide the following easements:
1 a. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding areas.
1 b. Access easements as required to service the "Walker ponds."
c. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas.
d. Provide a conservation easement over all established wetland buffer areas. Such
easements shall be marked with permanent visible monuments and the location of
such easements shall be provided to city staff for approval.
10. The applicant shall provide proper restrictions (subject to city staff approval) on those lots
having entrance monuments and /or landscaping.
11. The developer be required to remove existing purple loosestrife from the basin and to
t monitor those sites and sites disturbed by construction for loosestrife invasion.
1
1
1
Don Ashworth
February 18, 1993
Page 9
12. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control. The
erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas are
stabilized.
13. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance table for each '
lot will be recorded as part of the PUD agreement. No wetland setback less than 40 feet
will be permitted and the buffer strip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip
will be preserved by an easement.
14. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to the wetland
and not during the migratory waterfowl breeding season.
15. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated on the final plat over the easterly 15
feet of Lots 3 and 4, Block 2.
16. All boulder retaining wall improvements shall be constructed outside the City's right-of-
way.
The applicant shall notify property owners of their maintenance responsibility and
ownership of the boulder retaining wall by means of covenants and verbiage in the chain
of title. ,
17. The applicant shall work with the City's Fire Marshal in changing the street name
(Mulberry Circle) to arrive at acceptable alternative."
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated october 28, 1991.
2. Final plat dated February 17, 1993.
1
1
City Council Meeting -- October 20, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Resolution #91 -105: Mayor Chmiel moved, Councilman Workman seconded to adopt
' the Assessment Roll for Frontier Trail Improvement Project No. 89 -10 based on a
front footage basis and with a 60/40 split. All voted in favor except
Councilwoman Dimler who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1.
' Mayor Chmiel: I think you've indicated your concerns.
Councilwoman Dimler: My position is well known.
LUNDGREN /ORTENBLAT /ERSBO SUBDIVISION REQUEST T _WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH
OF LAKE LUCY ROAD:
' A. REZONING REQUEST FROM RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) ANDRSF (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
1 B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 30+ ACRES INTO 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALTER CLASS A AND B WETLANDS.
Jo Ann Olsen: This was tabled after the last meeting after it was brought up
discussion of parkland on the site. There were also some issues with the
representative from Lundgren Bros. for the road width, 3 trees per lot and the
11 position of utilities on the properties. The size of road width...only be 26
feet width near the wetland areas. That the rest of it remain at the normal
width. The 3 trees per lot we feel...large caliper trees, that it justifies to
' have 3 trees per lot. Also for the cost of providing utilities. Typically the
developer does provide that and pay for that share of the cost... Another
concern was off site drainage. There's an existing off site drainage in the
Greenwood Shores area. We are convinced that what they're doing with the
ponding on the site will maintain the pre - development rate of the storm water
runoff. It will not increase any off site drainage at all. If there is an
existing problem we are recommending that that be a separate public works
project.
Mayor Chmiel: Jo Ann, when you say that should be a separate public works
project. Meaning the City should pick up those costs?
Jo Ann Olsen: It could be assessed back.
Paul Krauss: Mr. Mayor if I could respond to that briefly. I think the City
Engineer...some additional work on that drainage area but we're convinced that
we're... There is no problem coming from this development. We're not certain
there's an existing problem. We know there are some individuals who's
properties get real wet in very heavy rains but when you look at their yard
areas, a lot of their lawn area is former wetland. There is an elevation
established for the outlet for that ponding area. If that elevation was
established too high...evaluated in a comprehensive way...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
10
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
Jo Ann Olsen: ...so as far as this development itself, the pre development flow
will be maintained. We also added a couple sections from the old staff report
about the revised road alignment. Councilwoman Dimler and Councilman Wing were
concerend about that the road should go back over towards the wetland to
preserve the trees on the hill. So again we added where we did...the two
different alternatives for the road... There was also questions about the
wetland area for lot...net upland area is actually larger than what is
required. The final issue was the parkland. We added a memo from the Park and
Rec Director, Todd Hoffman who again stated that the reasons why they are not
requesting parkland...the area is not parkland deficient. They'd rather have
the money to support the existing parkland areas so they did not feel it was
necessary to provide parkland for this development... So we are recommending
approval as before with the conditions in the staff report.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Is there anything else Jo Ann? ,
Jo Ann Olsen: That's it for us.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Mr. Terry Lundgren. Is there anything you'd
like to add to what staff has indicated at this particular time?
Terry Forbord: Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the City Council. My name 11
is Terry Forbord, 935 East Wayzata Blvd..
Mayor Chmiel: Terry Lundgren. Thank you. I appreciate that correction. '
Terry Forbord: We've been before you before and presented our concerns and
staff has worked hard in an attempt to respond to the questions of the Council
and we are here in the capacity this evening to answer any questions that you
may have. The owners of the property are here if you have any questions for
them. Mr. and Mrs. Ortenblat and Mr. Ersbo in case there were anything about
the past or anything that maybe they could add that we aren't able to. So they
are in the audience if you have questions of them as well. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there any discussion that you'd like to carry ,
through? Ursula.
Councilwoman Dimler: I do have a question of Jo Ann. In you conditions I ,
didn't see the issue of the north watershed drainage addressed. They were
proposing to plug it up. Do you see anywhere where you've covered that? I
couldn't find it. 1
Paul Krauss: Condition #4 on the preliminary plat.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's also where it's discussing raising the water level of the
wetland.
Councilwoman Dimler: I see where you're talking about them raising the water
level of the wetland there and protecting the road but does it say anything
about shutting off the north?
Jo Ann Olsen: ...100 year flood elevation. That's the one.
11 1
II City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
Paul Krauss: Councilwoman Dimler, if I might. We're getting into, this is a
very complex issue. We sort of punt when we get to that.
Councilwoman Dimler: When you say modify, you're talking about shutting it
11 off? Is that the word you're using there?
Paul Krauss: We're saying we laid this out...we're saying that drainage plans
II have to be modified...there's a lot more that's in the staff report and we're
referring back to that.
Councilwoman Dimler: So that is the section that covers that? When you say
II modify it could mean close it off?
Paul Krauss: Could be closed off...
II Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Thank you.
I Mayor Chmiel: Was that?
Councilwoman Dimler: That was my question.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's move it right down that way.
Councilwoman Dimler: Did you want me to address all the concerns?
II Mayor Chmiel: Yes. That's what I thought you had at that particular time or
questions that you may have of the developer as well.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Okay I say yes to the PUD with the conditions as outlined
in the staff report. I do not favor the 26 foot road. For safety
considerations I think we should go with the standard street size except for in
II those areas where you felt it was necessary to preserve the environmental
conditions. I would like to see us get 3 trees per lot to replace the trees
being destroyed by the development. I think that the developer should pay for
II the utilities to be extended because they're benefitting from the utilities that
are there on Lake Lucy Road. So just to extend that further. And I do agree
that there should be no increased off site drainage to the Lake Lucy or
Greenwood Shores people south of there. And I do believe that their proposal
II with the Walker Pond will control the drainage and that yes, there was
definitely a problem down there in Greenwood Shores. Those people were allowed
by former Councils to build in a wetland basically and that needs to be
I addressed but I think it should be addressed as a separate project. I wouldn't
be opposed to the elevation of the water level in the Class A wetland to 976.5
to try to increase the water, the quality of the wetland as well as the wildlife
II and vegetation. However, I think it's a good idea to get a financial security
for a 3 year period of the amount that you determine in case it does do
something to the subgrade of Lake Lucy Road and then we're covered there.
Basically that's my comments.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Richard.
II Councilman Wing: This has been hashed over at length and I certainly go along
with other Councilmembers. Been out and toured the property and walked it and
11 12
II
City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991
talked to staff and worked this through. I see two options. Either move not to
develop and be illegal in doing so or approve what's basically a pretty good
project as I see it. In regards to the raising of the lake, it would be ideal
if we could dredge the depth we want, remove the nutrients at the same time. I
think that's the only really possible way to do it is to dredge the nutrients
out. Get the depth we want and go. With regards to raising, I kind of have to
go along with staff and Charles, our engineer in saying that it may be a 11 potential problem. He's concerned about the road. I don't have the expertise
to make that decision or even question this so if the engineer's recommendation
is not to exceed 975.5, then I have to assume that's a proper decision so I
would be quite pleased at anytime to move approval as is.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Tom.
Councilman Workman: This is a unique parcel with a unique wetland. I guess I'm
concerned that what we've done is, it used to be if there was a Class 8 wetland
and it just had maybe something that resembled a piece of wetland vegetation in
it and there was no water there, it was sacred ground. I think we're doing, I
think we're moving an entrance here by, I think you guys are all going with the
filling of the wetland rather than, no?
Councilman Wing: No, because we've been out and walked it and there's a list of 11
what you're going to lose and you don't gain or lose anything.
Councilman Workman: So we're going to leave the entrance where they want it?
The developers want it. We're not going to be filling the wetland?
Mayor Chmiel: I would say not to. I don't like filling the wetlands myself. 1
Councilman Workman: It just sounded like we were kind of, somehow trees got
ahead of wetlands and I didn't want to think about filling and moving. I'd like
to try with a development and I know that Terry and Lundgren have done, I'm
impressed by what they've done up north. I don't have any reason not to trust
that they're going to do a good job here. I don't know how the question of road
width should be addressed. I guess I'd be willing to go along with it. It's
going to be their neighborhood. Those people are going to be driving through
it. Have we answered the question on the cost of providing utilities to the
next parcels? No?
Mayor Chmiel: Not at this particular time but Ursula indicated.
Councilwoman Dimler: I said being that they're benefitting from what's already
there, that they could pass that benefit on and the next developer would be
required to pass it on.
Councilman Workman: Yeah and if that's the way we've done it in the past, I
don't know how we can deviate from that.
Mayor Chmiel: That has been precedent previously. '
Councilman Workman: I would assume they're tapping into what Charles?
Underneath from Curry or from Lake Lucy?
13
II City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
11 Charles Folch: From Lake Lucy, that's correct.
Councilman Workman: But we put that in? Okay. So I guess I don't really have
1 a whole lot of problems with it. I guess I keep thinking that we're, I don't
know if up in the eight additions up there for Near Mountain if we had all of
this stuff, revised landscaping and all the different things that we're
II requiring from them that I think they already know they would like to have and
the future homeowners are going to want to put in and we've gone over this
discussion as part of our discussion on the landscaping ordinance. I think our
discussions about requiring 3 trees per lot or one or none is relevant to this
' question too. 3ust because it's a PUD you know, I think it's some of the same
questions about what should be required and what shouldn't be. I don't really
have any further questions.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Mike.
Councilman Mason: 1 don't have any trouble with the 26 foot width road with no
I
parking on one side. It seems to me that's kind of a compromise there. I
understand I think what Terry's saying about 26 feet there and I also understand
the safety issue. I know the street I live on certainly isn't 26 feet wide and
I it is an issue but that's essentially a closed loop there. I mean it isn't
going to be getting the Carver Beach, Nez Perce kind of traffic, I would guess.
So I think if we're going to have parking on both sides of the street, I'd go
II along with what you're saying. I think if we would say no parking, I wouldn't
have any trouble with it. I'm concerned about the pond. If the nutrients
aren't going to be removed from it, what will the City's liability be 10 years
from now as the nutrient level increases and the runoff increases and it has to
II be cleaned up? It seems to me if we're not going to take the nutrients out of
that pond.
1 Paul Krauss asked a question that wasn't picked up on the tape.
Councilman Mason: Well the big one. I mean the one that we're saving.
II Paul Krauss: The big one is a wetland. It's not going to be a managed water
body. We did investigate the possibility through the DNR of going in there and
scooping out the muck on the bottom...and they were adament that they wouldn't
II let us mess around with a Class A wetland... So we're doing what we think is
the reasonable thing to do. There's an existing nutrient rich bottom in that
thing but the bigger problem seems to be coming from off site. It's drainage
II from the road. It's the phosphate rich salt and whatever else is going into
there and what we're going to be doing is intercepting all that. The water
that's being introduced to flow through that system from here on out is going to
II be a lot cleaner than it was. I'm not sure if ultimately that means the wetland
will purge itself but that's basically the limits of what we're able to do with
what the DNR allows... We think we're going to get a much better system for it.
Now those Walker ponds that we're constructing will have to be maintained and
II managed by the City. As we have to maintain storm drainage ponds...we're going
to have to go out there every 5 years or 10 years...and clean out the muck.
That's where the active management comes in.
1 Councilman Mason: Council kind of seems, this financial security thing I guess .
I'm also concerned about. If we do go along with raising, letting them raise i
II 14
II
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
the water, who will be held accountable and I know we can't do it indefinitely. 1
I'm not suggesting that but if something goes wrong with Lake Lucy in a year and
we can prove it's related to raising it, I don't know.
Councilwoman Dimler: I believe they had a mechanism in there where we reverse
it then. Did I read that in the report?
Charles Folch: That's correct. I guess that was the thought I had. Given
there appears to be differences if you will on what will or potentially could or
could not happen to the road. There's nothing cut in stone that says the road
will receive no impact if we raise it up the full 2 feet. R compromise to that
would be if the developer's willing to provide some sort of cash escrow or
letter of credit which would have to be in effect for let's say 3 years which is
certainly ample amount of time to see some sort of impact. Detrimental impact
to that portion of the road segment. Now we're looking at probably only about
100 -150 feet of that road that would be impacted. Potentially impacted by that
high water so it's not a significant length along the road if you will.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor I just had one question. We're assuming this is a
Class A wetland and where I live on Lake Minnewashta we're at an all time high.
Fall of the year and we're at an all time high. We're assuming this is a Class
A wetland with normal rainfall. Would there be anything in this lake that,
we're talking about raising it a foot or two. In fact in normal rainfall years,
would we be raising anything or would it just be a dry wheatfield?
Charles Folch: Well currently, well the normal water level is estimated to be
at 974.5. Currently it's at about 975.5 and it's been that way throughout most
of the summer. It's been a foot higher than normal and that's related to a
couple of things. One being the downstream canal which is probably silted over
and is holding the water back and the other is the culvert to the north. So
there is the difference that the developer's proposing to raise it to above
what's currently out there is only a foot but after the development occurs, the
man made control structures if you will that will be in place on the north and
south end here will do a better, will serve to better function and control the
water level and keep it at a more stable level throughout the year.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I think the water level in this lake is an issue
and if more water would provide in actual water surface more of the year,
I guess I would support raising that if you were in fact comfortable, which you
haven't been to this point, that it's not going to take care of Lake Lucy or
this dollar amount being set aside. I've got to feel comfortable Charles that
the decision we make is going to be a reasonable decision in regards to that
road. Ideally I'd prefer to raise the water level just to provide open water
more of the year. During more years. That'd be the first thing. Then the
other thing is the 26 foot road. If there's a majority of Council that would
favor that, I think this is a delightful neighborhood and I'd like to see a 26
foot road. I don't see a safety issue on a loop like this. I think it would
tend to make the neighborhood quaint and it's worth looking at in this
particular development.
Councilman Mason: Just one more question. Terry, refresh my memory. It seems
to me I read way back when when this all came up that you people were proposing
putting, planting cattails in or am I just off somewhere right now? I guess the
15 1
11
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991.
reason I'm asking that is with that water depth, I'd be concerned that cattails
would take that whole thing over in 3 to 5 years or whatever.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. Terry Forbord with
Lundgren Bros.. We were not proposing to implant different types of species of
plant types into the wetland. The consultant that we used, Mr. Frank Svoboda
who's here this evening and he can answer specific questions certainly better
than I. He prefers to let things naturally occur in their own manner and the
way that he believes that can be done is if we establish the water level. That
things naturally will occur on their own and different types of aquatic plant
material will develop there. Right now because the water level is so shallow,
the only type of plant type that's really predominant there is what is called a
duck weed. What typically has is it creates a mat because it lives and then it
has a dying cycle and it kind of keeps covering the water. The way I
understand it the sunlight can't break through the mat that's created by the
duck weed so it's our intent that cattails would grow around certain parts of
' the perimeter of that open water area. But I know Frank would be glad to speak
eloquently about this because I'm not qualified to do so and he can tell you how
that all works. If you'd like because he's here and I'm sure he'd be happy to
tell you.
Mayor Chmiel: Being that you have him here and he's sat here for such a long
time and he hasn't had the opportunity, I think you'd better get your money's
11 worth.
Frank Svoboda: My name's Frank Svoboda. In response to your question. As far
' as the growth of cattails. One way to limit the intrusion of cattails into
areas is to increase the water depth. The deepest that cattails generally will
grow is in about 3 feet of water. So if you can maintain certain parts of a
wetland with water depths greater than 3 feet, you're almost virtually insured
of no cattail invasion into that. In response to your other question or inquiry
about whether or not we were going to do any planting. What I've learned over
the years and in fact there's two schools of thought here. One school believes
that in order to re- establish aquatic vegetation, you plant. I prefer to
subscribe to the other school of thought which is you allow natural conditions
to occur. And the reason I believe that is that aquatic plants respond to the
forces of the environment. Soil chemistry. Water chemistry and hydrology. And
so it's, you can make moss grow in the desert if you want but if you don't
maintain those conditions, then after you quit creating that manipulated
environment, eventually nature's going to re- establish some sort of balance and
that's what I see happening in wetland environments is that sure, you can force
some sort of plans to grow in there but what the research has found is
eventually it's going to achieve it's own balance and that's balance is going to
be in response to those three things that I mentioned. Hydrology, soil
chemistry and water chemistry.
Councilman Mason: How will the purple loosestrife fit into that?
Frank Svoboda: Well the purple loosestrife will, when an area is initially
disturbed that's when you're most apt to get purple loosestrife showing up. So
one of the ways that you control that is to maintain a fair amount of diligence
the first couple of years and then certainly there's ongoing, because of the
growth habits of purple loosestrife. It's very prolific so you still need to
16
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
maintain, well it's just like controlling any noxious weed. So you just
basically have to monitor it from one year to the next and if you can keep it
under control when there's only 1 or 2 plants, it's a lot easier than when a
clone get.; established and starts going to seed. So what we would do is the
first couple of years is monitor the site for any growth of new plants and spot
control.
Councilman Mason: You will be doing that? 1
Frank Svoboda: Right.
Councilman Mason: Okay. Thanks. '
Mayor Chmiel: Any other questions? Okay, thank you.
Frank Svoboda: Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel.: I guess I'm still looking at it from the water quality and the ,
nutrient loading analysis that's going to be on the site. I don't know, when
you increase in the activity within the wetland, usually results in the
acceleration of the aging process thereby causing changes within the area.
Tropic status, which is part of it. Of course development can cause an increase
in the two major" nutrients which is nitrogen phospherous in the system and these
two nutrients in excess amounts can accelerate aquatic plant and algae growth
and cause some problems within that wetland. Eutrophication which would
probably be part of it. And of course there again nitrogen coming back in can
be transported in what's termed as the gaseous phase within. And across the
air /water interface or fixed transport to a biological useable form by blue
green algae. That blue green algae in itself creates that and bacteria within
it. The nitrogen environment is usually in the form of a nitrate and of course
nitrate sources include the fertilizers that will be put on those lawns and I
don't know what varying effect that's going to be with 37 homes within that
respective area. I think that's correct. That could cause some problems within
and I guess I'm wondering what reaction really occurs with it and how it sort of
how this ammonia binds to the soil itself and gets into the wetland area as well
as the pond. As you mentioned Paul we can't, the DNR won't allow us to get in
there to take out what we feel we want to do. They're just saying no. Is that
right? 1
Paul Krauss: That's what we've been told, yeah.
Jo Ann Olsen: I believe that if you wanted to dredge they would allow it but 1
again it's one of those things...
Mayor Chmiel: Eric? ,
Eric Rivkin: I have a question.
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't you come up to the podium. I/
Eric Rivkin: I got here late. Is this still a public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: Well it's not a public hearing but we're open for some comments.
17 1
1
II City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
Eric Rivkin: Okay. I have a question for Jo Ann here. Related to your
question here to the ONR. Did the ONR measure what's in the bottom sediments as
far as nutrients are concerned or was it iust a guess?
Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant made a study of the wetland.
Eric Rivkin: Were the bottom sediments measured for nutrients? Terry, were the
II bottom sediments measured for nutrients?
Terry Forbord: Your Honor. I think we should let our wetland consultant answer
II that.
Frank Svoboda: Frank Svoboda. We had Braun Intertec Environmental go out and
collect water samples and the water samples were analyzed for nutrients but we
II did not collect the bottom sediments because we felt that, our concern was more
with the quality of the water. That if we could improve the quality of the
water, then we would be able to re- establish some of the more desireable plant
II species that we wanted out there. The other aspect of the project history is
that, and one of the property owners could address this better than I could, but
as recently as I believe 1974 and perhaps more recently than that, that wetland
was actually cropped as agricultural field and there was corn planted out there.
II Mayor - Chmiel: But the question that I've alwa had and no one's answered, what
was it prior to that time as well? To it being corn. Being productive land.
It could have been in a wetland stage as well.
Frank Svoboda: Right. We looking at the topographic features, it probably as a
depressional area within the landscape. It probably did not look as it looks
today with that much standing water in it but it was probably seasonally flooded
just based on the drainage area that's feeding this depressional area. The fact
that there is now a shallow ditch to the south. That ditch was not there so I
II think it was basically at a high point in the landscape and it collected very
localized runoff.
II Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
Eric Rivkin: Is there going to be a public hearing?
Mayor Chmiel: No. We've already gone through that particular process. This is
beyond the public hearing stage but if you wanted to make an additional comment.
II Eric Rivkin: Okay. Would this be a good time or after you're done?
Mayor Chmiel: Well, either now or later. Whatever you feel comfortable with.
II If you'd like to wait for a little bit until we finish some more of this, that
I'm at least addressing, then I can have you put something into it if you'd
like.
II Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. Terry Forbord with
Lundgren Bros.. Your Honor, one of the difficult aspects of the drainage issue
or this drainage basin is that, how many acres of land Charles do you know that
II is part of the watershed that goes into that ONR wetland? Do you have any idea?
•
I 18
II
City Council Fleeting - October 28, 1991 1
Charles Folch: I don't have an exact number but it is a fairly significant area
that does contribute,
Terry Forbord: Is it maybe 100 acres? 200 acres?
Charles Folch: I couldn't even venture a guess actually.
Terry Forbord: Rick, would you know? 1
Rick Sathre: Right now before development occurs, it's about 20 acres drains
into that basin. After development it will be about 25. 1
Terry Forbord: Okay, but how much of the surrounding area that is off site?
Rick Sathre: About 4 1/2 acres. i
Terry Forbord: Okay, so that ONR wetland I believe, are you saying that the
watershed just for that wetland is just site specific because I don't believe 1
that's true. The point I'm making I think is that a large part, because a lot
of the water flow comes down Lake Lucy Road, and that's been addressed by staff.
And the point is that I'm trying to make is that as much of the contamination or
the nutrient loading that is in that pond has not come from the site. And the
existing problem that has occurred prior to development, the contamination or
what's killed the wetland is not necessarily just from the site. And so
obviously this wetland we believe shouldn't be treated any differently than any
other wetland in the city. If a watershed, let's say there's 60 acres or 100
acres that have contributed to the decline of this wetland, maybe the fair way
to deal with that would be that wherever the City adopts their storm water plan,
is that everyone within the drainage basin of a wetland is assessed for what
they did to the wetland so it can be fixed. But for somebody new coming in to
develop it to be required to fix what somebody did prior to us coming here, we
don't think that's really fair whether the problem exists or not because the I/
problem was there long before Lundgren Bros, came and probably certainly longer
than the people who have even lived there on the property because it's not just
their property that's been loading the nutrients in there. It would be like if
you had a little pond in the backyards of your homes and it was determined that
the nutrient level was a little higher than what is probably perfect and that
you were required to fix it and pay for it yourself when it was determined that
a lot of people had watershed into that. What we've done is we've tried to find
out what was wrong with it and then we've tried to figure out, being that a lot
of it comes from off our site, how do we establish a mechanism to try and
control it so it doesn't get any worse than it is. And the way I've been
explained by our consultant is that over time through the continual flushing of
this, that the water quality will improve. However, the sedimentation that is
in the bottom that exists there now will probably stay for perpetuity and I'm
not trying to suggest that it's going to change that. But the point I'm trying
to make is it really fair or equitable for us to repair damage that's been done
by all the neighbors who live in the area? We don't think that that's really a
fair situation and besides, we have not been given any indication by the ONR
that they would allow us to do it. It's a lengthy permit process and we don't
know if they'd even allow it.
19 1
1
City Counci]. Meeting - October 28, 1991
Councilman tiling: I guess I tend to agree with Lundgren Bros. only because if
we're going to discuss water quality, and that's our real issue and choose to
raise it to protect it, then I guess we ought to be buying that parcel and
turning it into an experiment on the park and guard the land around it because
j not only are 37 homes going to go in here, that's not going to improve water
quality in my opinion. But there's property to the east and the west that is
soon to be developed. We'll assume it and this little pond is in the middle of
a very large area of development. Whether Lundgren Bros. increases that water
quality or the properties on the east or west, we're going to be draining a lot
of homes and pollutants in there whether we like it or not. So this wetland
thing gets beyond me because you can't have a wetland and surround it with high
density homes and people and improve water quality and go hand in hand.
Mayor Chmiel: That's very true. That was one of the other points I was going
11 to make as well...because of movement within a particular area, the roadway
itself is going to increase those concentrations of flourides and salts and oil
from the roadway which is also going to be going in there. That I have some
real concerns with as well. But it is, it's a very complex situation and it
seems to me that I like basically what's being proposed. I'm not overly excited
with total numbers of lots that are there but nonetheless the project doesn't
seem that bad. I still have some real concerns within the areas of the
Greenwood Shores area. Making sure that there is not flooding that takes place
for those people. They've not really had that problem but is it going to
increase it with additional flows or more water? That's one of the other
concerns that I still have with it. And if I could be assured that that's not
going to cause that problem, then I think I'd go along with it because I was in
the same particular position, and I mentioned this before when I lived in
another city. Water came into the backyard and just kept coming and coming and
coming until it got to the door. And it's just because those concerns weren't
taken into consideration at that time by the City and I guess I don't want to
cause that problem for the people as well. I know what I went through. It's
not a fury thing. I've seen those situations happen within our community here.
The water has come into the back door and people have flooded because of some
considerations were not given. Two, I don't know what the City's liabilities
are on this. I don't know if you have any answer for that either. Because I
want to make sure whatever happens that we're not going to cause an encumbrance
on someone else's property and for them to have that right to come back against
the City to make that correction of whatever it is.
Roger Knutson: That isn't exactly what happens but generally when the City
floods someone's property because of what they do, the City's responsible...
Mayor Chmiel: That's one of my other concerns.
11 Councilman Wing: I kind of feel Mr. Mayor that in this case, having walked each
of those yards, I'm assuming that the engineer, City and developer have reviewed
that liability. It seems to me the very worst that could happen here is
accelerate necessary evil. If the backyards and the basements are at or below
the wetland level, there's going to be a problem. The houses are on substandard
soils. In a drainage area. When I looked at them I was startled to see them
there and then when I hear that a neighbor is blocking the outlet to boot, I
sort of can't put a lot on Lundgren Bros. for this issue. I think they've been
very responsible and responsive to that problem. And if there should
20
1
11
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
inadvertently beyond the engineer's control increase the flow rate, I think the
City's going to have to acclerate a public works project that's really in the
light into doing anyway. I don't see that being avoidable. Hopefully not on my
term on Council because I don't want to go through the assessment hearing but
certainly a real likelihood I believe.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah. I guess I wanted to, you know Richard and I were
out there and that was the conclusion I came up with. Those people should have
never built their homes there but we can't change that now. A former Council
allowed them to do that and those are existing problems. I'm quite satisfied
that this may not add to it and if it does, a lot of the neighbors felt that it
would only be in the length of the duration that their property was wet. Not
necessarily increased level that the water would come closer to their basements.
And I feel badly about having a wet yard for a longer period of time because
they'd like to use their backyards too but again I think that this is too big of
a problem that we can't expect them to fix it. The City has to fix that.
Roger Knutson: I should just point out that in our standard development
contract we do provide that as a result of development of the property, other
property is flooded or damaged or whatever, that the developer, in this case 1
Lundgren Bros. would have to hold the City harmless... They're asking you to
approve the project and if you decide yes...
Councilwoman Dimler: Would they have to prove it's as a result of their 1
development?
Roger Knutson: Sure. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah.
Councilman Workman: I'm ready to make a motion.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I just address one more? One more issue here. Real
quick. I'm going to put in a plug for why I believe we need the 3 trees. I
agree with Tom that in general I wouldn't but since this is a PUD. When I went
out and looked at it and saw that probably using the existing driveway and going
towards the trees was the better proposal than filling in the wetland, although
from my perspective as I get more enjoyment out of those trees when they turn
color in the Fall than I would out of that little corner of the wetland that
does absolutely nothing for me. However, the DNR has certain requirements for
the wetland and they also have a tree preservation ordinance and I think in this
case their own rules and regulations are giving us something that is probably
less desireable but I'm not going to argue with that. I was told that we would
lose some of the trees anyway even if we filled in the wetland so I didn't feel
that we were saving significantly. Again I felt that because this is a PUD and
the City should get something back for the removal of those trees that I would
in this case support the 3 trees per lot.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, good.
Councilman Wing: Do we have to do the individual motions? 1
1
21
11 City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Yes we have to do that but I did say to Eric that if he wanted to
have something to say. Hopefully it's not going to be a long discertation.
1 Eric Rivkin: Response is based on what I've heard here and I have a couple of
comments about some things that you've said. I like what I hear so far. From
what I'm hearing there's a lot of talk about water nutrients and water quality
and that's great to hear that. If the City really wants to put water quality in
the front seat, it would make sure that water quality predictions are sound.
This is most important since that I've heard is that the City's going to be left
holding the bag is water quality decreases even over a 3 year period. And to
determine whether or not this project will increase or decrease the water
quality, you need a good base to start from. That includes water chemistry and
bottom sediment data outlined in the PCA's Class 26 handbook for water quality
1 parameters. I didn't see, get a chance to review the proposal as it has been
revised up to this point but you know water quality experts will tell you that
most of the nutrients that are tied up in a muck type of water basin are tied up
in the muck. I'd like to see some kind of second opinion here as to what
proportions are tied up in the muck and which is in the water and which is going
to end up in the predicted water runoff. It's especially important. They
should be measured, the certain water quality parameters we're talking about.
The nitrogen. The nitrates. The bottom sediment data as well as the water
quality from top to bottom and the vegetation. As you said, past history
revealed that this body of water seemed to me more like a water filled cornfield
11 than a real bonafide wetland that would cause it to be classified as an A type
wetland. It seems to me since somebody put a dam over it, it's an artificial
wetland. Well you can do it artificially right or you can do it artificially
wrong. I think we have a chance here to do it artificially right. If we're
going to go ahead and approve it, I agree with what some of you have said and
find out what proportion of nutrients are in the muck. If most of it's in
there, the best chances Lake Lucy has, and I speak from Co -Chair of the Lake
Lucy Homeowners Association. The best chances they have of keeping the water
quality improved in all our watersheds and this particular watershed is to
remove nutrients at the source. If they're in the muck, get the muck out. You
have of course as you mentioned, some benefits to that. The water level stays
the same and not jeopardize the roadbed and the 4 foot depth can be maintained
without having to as well. I think this solution will be acceptable to the Lake
Association. I'm sure the DNR can be made to understand this approach because
there's many similar statewide wetland re- creation projects that fall under the
RIM program and about a dozen other kinds of programs that are funded by public
monies. It's possible that the developer wouldn't even have to or the City
would not have to foot any of the bill at all to recreate this wetland. Or make
it into a real good wetland. I think that should be looked at very seriously
and maybe with a different tact. With this 3 year liability window. I don't
think that's enough. You could have 3 years of drought or 3 years of completely
super wet years and really not tell much. I think you ought to go to 5 to 7
years on that. With regard to the tree replacement. Since you are removing
valuable native trees, I talked to the, I think you should replace, the
replacement condition should be of native species and the list is free of native
species. They should not be exotic species. Anything over the 3 trees limit is
up to the owner's discretion. I talked to Bonnie Harper Lohr who's a Resource
Director of the National Resource Wildflower Center. She is really resource for
the native plant information clearinghouse for this region of the country and
she would recommend to the City, free of charge, any advice to lead to resources
22
1
City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991
for the developer or to the City in this matter and what natural vegetation
should be planted.
Councilman Wing: That's been done. It's part of the Landscape Ordinance. The
University of Minnesota Arboretum supplied a native tree list. Specimen trees
on down through hardwoods.
Eric Rivkin: This could be listed then in the conditions. And I didn't review
whether or not there would be any wetlands being filled in for lots but true to
Mr. Forbord's statements in one of the first presentations he made back in July
that they're not shoe horning in houses just for the sake of, without
sacrificing wetlands, I believe true to that statement that there should be no
lots or houses permitted to be filled. Wetlands filled just for putting in
houses. I think they'll be making plenty of money without having to do that.
Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Any other discussion?
Councilman Workman: Well Don you know, we've talked about this an awful long
time and I think we've talked about this issue it seems like longer than any
other development we've talked about all because there's this pond in the middle
of it. I think we can sometimes get so extreme that it does, and maybe we're
not as advanced in the treatment of wetlands. I think we are, I think the City
is above it. Ahead of it's time in sensitivity to these issues and I think
that's why it's taken so long. I think there can be a point where we get so
extreme that it becomes almost impossible to develop this site. I'm afraid
that's kind of where we're getting to the point where if I had to concern myself
with every snail in this pond, I would sleep at night and there's going to be a
few trees knocked over and there's probably going to be some impact to the pond.
I think the sooner we get it over with the better because it's going to happen
here sooner or later. I don't know how much more advance the City needs to be
and I think we're learning and growing with the rest of the world on how to do I/
this.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess I have just those kinds of concerns yet. The density
within this bothers me and that has some of my concerns. Putting in this
development, is it the best thing for the City? What are we really getting from
it and I haven't really found out what are we getting from this? Or would it be
best to have those two individual property owners develop it accordingly to how
they'd like to see them and do something as they so choose as well. I think
working with Lundgren Bros. is a lot simpler because they know what they're
doing and they do stand behind what they've done. I'm not trying to talk out of
both sides of my mouth but I still have those concerns. Is this going to be the
best thing for us and what are we getting from this? Maybe Paul can tell me.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't know that we're always trying to, we stamp
PUD on it and then what are they going to give us? Well I think they're going
to give us a nice development and some more tax base. I'm building a home
currently in a PUD and I have probably one of the larger lots and I don't think
it makes 15,000 square feet. The upland areas on these, if they're correct, I
don't know what the average is but I mean it looks like it's probably around 17,
16, maybe higher. Just on the average so there's some rather large ones. That
doesn't say anything about what the lot areas south of the pond and everything
23 1
1
II City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
II else. I guess I just feel like we're getting down to, like I said before, we're
getting down to additional quaking aspen clumps and things that I know that this
developer wants to take care of. I think we have plenty of examples from this
developer about how they choose to do things. I don't think he's ignored, they
have ignored either the wetland issues or the neighboring or surrounding areas.
I think the City's full, or there's a whole area that's full of how they've done
that and it does look nice I think. I just think we've gone on and on here and
II I think with the proper securities like protecting the road into the future. I
don't know how long that should be done but if we can protect the neighbors to
the south of the wetland or high water conditions, I think we've done that with
II other neighborhoods and we can protect the road with security, I don't see what
other.
Mayor Chmiel: If we had that hold harmless clause in there. I don't want this
I to be put back onto the City. I think if we have that hold harmless clause
contained in there, then I'd feel a lot more comfortable with it as well.
II Councilman Workman: Well, we've got an engineering staff that's supposed to
tell us whether there's going to be a wetland or a water problem downstream I
would assume based on the...
Mayor Chmiel: You may have a 100 year flood or 1,000 year flood such as is
happening all over and that's what I'm concerned about. And that's what we
still have to address. And to come up with that, sure they can do the
II calculations and come up with it but is it going to eliminate the problem.
Councilman Workman: I don't think anybody's got assurances against 1,000 year
II floods. That I know of. I'd like to.
Mayor Chmiel: Have your rowboat ready.
Councilman Workman: I'll run that insurance company.
Councilman Wing: But there's no controls now.
I Councilman Workman: I know what you're saying. I'm saying if we get the proper
securities in there, then there's no problem. I just think we're kind of going
II on with this thing and when we're trying to get somthing from the developer, I
mean they've. He. Terry Lundgren. I think they've provided. I don't know how
many developers show up with a hydrologist and I think they've gone and tried to
provide for us maybe some unique ways of handling this thing but I think what
II we're getting from them. This is not that pretty of an area or wetland right
now. This is not.
II Councilman Wing: Whoa.
Mayor Chmiel: Eyes of the beholder.
II Councilman Workman: I mean it's a lowland. A wetland that I've driven by for 4
years that until this year has been a mucky, duck weed infested whatever. I did
pick up a big mud turtle and throw it back in there one day off the road. But
11 groceries were tight. I thought about bringing it home. But this is a unique
area and that's why it's a PUD. That's why the lots are changing. I just think
II 24
11
City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991 1
we've gone on and we're probably going to go on until midnight tonight talking
about some of these points. Let's either defeat them or get on with them
because 1 think we've spent so much time on this it's gotten.
Councilwoman Dimler: T do think we should take it point by point though i
because I hear many different things.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and i agree. I think what we should do is go through the 1
process of this and take each one separately making sure that everything that's
contained in here is as to what the Council is looking for. Let's take that one
by one. The rezoning portion. And if there's anything in addition to what you
see or what should be there, this is the time to put it in.
Councilman Workman: Can 1 make a motion to approve the rezoning?
Mayor Chmiel: Certainly.
Councilman Wing: I'll second that. 1
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded for the rezoning portion. Any
discussion? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Where should the concern that you had with the disclaimer
go? Should that go under here?
Mayor Chmiel: That will be in the contract itself.
Councilwoman Rimier: Good. So yeah. I'm fine with the PUD. 1
Roger Knutson The one subiect to the conditions set forth in the planning
report? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. Each of those are contained within. Okay, we have a
motion on the floor with a second for the recommendation of approving the
rezoning. And that contains each of the three items as indicated in the staff
report.
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to approve Rezoning #91 -2
property zoned RSF and RR to PUD -R with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a Planned Unit Development Agreement
containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall `.
submit all required financial guarantees. The PUD Agreement shall be
recorded against the property.
2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table. 11
3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91 -9 and Wetland
Alteration Permit #91 -4.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously_
Mayor Chmiel: Preliminary plat.
25 I/
11
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
Councilman Mason: What about number 1? The parking. It's a biggee in here
isn't it? I mean the 26 foot.
II Mayor Chmiel: Well its either 26 or 28.
Councilman Wing: I would propose the 26 with no parking signs posted on one
side.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Can I just inject something on that? With no parking signs on
one side. Of course this is not going to just have them in and out. It's not
II going to be connected to anything that we're aware of at this time. The only
concerns I have about that is with children within the area. And you're going
to have a sidewalk. But still when kids play there's not a place for them to
II play. Lot depths is not going to be there because of the wetland. So
consequently they're going to be out there playing in that street. From a
safety aspect is 26 sufficient? And I guess I'm just throwing this out for
discussion more than anything else. I'm not comfortable with that. Where do
II the kids go?
Councilwoman Dimler: I have a question too and I don't know if this is even,
II will the curb be surmountable or insurmountable because that makes a lot of
difference on the parking. If it's surmountable the car can kind of pull up
onto the grass a little bit and provide more passage. If it's not surmountable,
that makes a huge difference because now Frontier Trail is not surmountable.
When people park there I notice a decrease in the road width even though we
widened it.
II Charles Folch: Our standard includes surmountable. However, I believe from the
section that was supplied by the developer, they are proposing a barrier type
curb. Correct me if I'm wrong on that Rick.
II Rick Sathre: We're proposing surmountable.
Charles Folch: Okay. It's shown on.
I/ Councilwoman Dimler: It would be surmountable? That's better.
II Rick Sathre: Because we don't know where the driveways will be...
Terry Forbord: I just have one comment. Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros.. I
I do not know which way the Council is going with this but I thought it might, at
least appear fruitful. Lundgren Bros., or home buyers that would like to live
in our neighborhoods based upon surveys that we take of everybody that comes
through. If the Council desires to have a 26 foot wide street and a sidewalk,
II then we would rather go to the full sized street and not have the sidewalk
because our home buyers do not want sidewalks on their property. They don't
want to maintain them. They don't want to be assessed to replace them. And so
II I'm not sure where you're going with that but I did want to let you know that
because this is something that we've probably talked about before. Our home
buyers do not want to have them. So I wanted to let you know that. If you're
thinking of putting the sidewalk in, we'd rather have the wider street.
Councilman Workman: Terry, could you stay there? '
II 26
II
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 1
Terry Forbord: Yes sir. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Just a second. I'd like to have Paul respond.
Paul Krauss: I guess I'd like to get a clarification...26 foot in the most
critical sections where we need to put the road between environmentall sensitive
areas. So those areas we've got a sidewalk... There's no other sidewalk we
propose here. I heard one of the options was going 26 foot throughout. Possibly
putting a sidewalk or possibly... The other alternative is to go the full width
street. But even if we go with a full width street, we still...26 foot sections
in those environmentally sensitive areas...
Terry Forbord: We wouldn't be opposed to what staff is recommending but I did
hear some other comment of a 26 foot street width. A circuitous sidewalk
through the entire.
Mayor Chmiel: As it reads here, it's a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be
provided over the boulevard in the staff recommendations. That's item 1 under 1
preliminary plat.
Paul Krauss: We should clarify that because in the text you find that only
occurs where we've narrowed the road width down. So yes it is where the street
is narrow.
Terry Forbord: Counseler, did you have a question? !
Councilman Workman: No. I just throught if we're going to go through these
individually, it might be easier for you to address them as we go through. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess my other comment would be, I agree with the Mayor
that we're not talking about big back yards here. We're not and what is, a lot
of it is wetland. I don't think kids play in wetlands. I don't know, maybe
they do but it's a danger. We're also talking about not having a park. So
where do the kids go to play in the street.
Mayor Chmiel: Across the street. 1
Councilman Wing: The same as Lake Lucy, Nez Perce, Minnewashta Heights.
Mayor Chmiel: It goes down to Greenwood Shores Park. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Those are wider roads.
Councilman Mason: But now Nez Perce, Carver Beach, that area is now only 26 11
feet.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the problem within that area. They've lived with it too
long and that's one of my concerns.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's something we can avoid here. That was something 1
done in the past.
27 1
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
Councilman Wing: Is there anyway to poll the Council on this issue? If the
majority says 28, let's move on.
Mayor Chmiel: That's the point I'm saying.
Councilman Workman: I would so move.
Councilwoman Dimler: I would be in favor of 28, without a sidewalk.
Councilman Mason: So condition number 1 as it stands then?
Councilwoman Dimler: No.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Condition 1 with the 28 foot wide road without a sidewalk.
Councilman Mason: Without a sidewalk except in these particular areas?
Paul Krauss: Condition 1...the way it is right now because the way it is right
now, we have a full width street everyplace except those two areas where the
curve is.
11 Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, you're saying only where it's reduced to 26 and it's
28 everywhere else.
Paul Krauss: So that condition is correct and it reflects what you.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: Does it make sense to have just small sections
of sidewalks?
Paul Krauss: That was always the discussion...They're around tight curves and
it makes it somewhat unique...
Councilman Mason: But hey. If I'm a 9 year old kid and I'm walking down the
street, I'm not going to hop on the sidewalk. You know.
I/ Paul Krauss: ...where that tight curve goes around the Ersbo property, a
sidewalk is kind of neat because it drops down...
Mayor Chmiel: 1 see that on Laredo right now. The sidewalk is there.
Councilman Workman: But the sidewalk would be on the wetlands side?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, but kids are on the street rather than the sidewalk as
well.
Councilman Workman: But 1 thought we were narrowing it to 26 feet because of
the sensitivity to the wetland?
Mayor Chmiel: Right.
Jo Ann Olsen: An the And th boulevard.
11 28
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
Paul Krauss: See you're not putting the sidewalk in the same elevation as the
street. It's going to come down the side slope...
Mayor Chmiel: Contours within the respective area is what 7ou're saying is
happening. Okay. So does everybody feel comfortable with it?
Councilman Workman: Not yet. So I guess I don't understand. So we're going
from 28 with it reduced to 26 feet and 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk in the
areas where it's 26 feet?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Workman: 1 guess I don't see where we're gaining anything with that. 1
Councilman Mason: Well isn't the whole point those are sharp curves? There
will be access to get onto the sidewalks there. That's fire.
Mayor Chmiel: You don't have any drawings showing anything like that?
Paul Krauss made a statement that wasn't picked up on the microphone. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. Because I see some confusion here and not really
understanding. 1
Paul Krauss: It did work and it did work without impacting the wetland. The
critical thing was with that full 28 foot boulevard, you can't do your side
slope grading and you wind up pushing dirt into the wetland. The 26...fuTther
down the slope and it fits.
Councilman Mason: With the sidewalk will there be an access to get onto the
sidewalk or are they going to have to hop the curb with their strollers?
Paul Krauss: Well it...around the curve.
Mayor Chmiel: It's right there. Right adjacent.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so I move approval of condition 1 as is. ,1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 2. Revise landscape plan.
Councilman Workman: Are we going to vote on these separately?
Mayor Chmiel: I think you should go through them. If what you suggested at the
time, we'll be here all night. I don't see any problems with some of the ones
we have here. 5 was that the applicant shall enter into a development contract
and provide necessary financial security, which we had some concerns with.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, number 4. Did you decide to go with the raised
level?
29 1
11
I/ City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I think we should go with. I heard different
things from different people.
Mayor Chmiel: Each one that you have a concern with is the one that you pull
off and address. Those that you have a concern on, and I'm sure you've looked
at this. Just take each one that you have concern with and address it and then
go from there.
Councilwoman Dimler: Mr. Mayor, I move approval of condition 2(a), (b), (c),
(d) and (e).
Councilman Wing: Second.
11 Councilman Workman: For discussion. I guess I would.
Mayor Chmiel: Let's go through all of these and then we'll get done and approve
it with what has been added. Isn't that right Roger? We don't have to go
through each individually. Tom.
Councilman Workman' I guess maybe with 2(d), the 2 trees. I guess again you've
heard my discussions on that.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, except in this particular location with removal of the
trees that will be going, to make up for the loss of those. You get the 37 at
3, that brings you...
Councilman Workman: I guess my point here is, it's a development and to
develop.
Mayor Chmiel: That's one of the pluses you get out of a PUD then.
j Councilman Workman: I will vote against it.
Councilman Wing: I'm going to vote for it Mr. Mayor.
11 Councilwoman Dimler: I'm going to vote for it.
11 Councilman Wing: Thank you.
Councilman Mason: I'm going to vote for it.
Mayor Chmiel: Me too.
Councilman Wing: Any other discussion Mr. Workman?
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Let's keep going with it or we're going to be here all
night. Item 3?
Councilwoman Dimler: Approved.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, item 4. Someone had some concerns with this. Dick, you
did?
I
30
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
Councilman Wir:g: Well I'm relying on staff. I think I heard the Council being
content with the higher water level here. If it ever attains that level so I
would favor raising it if Charles would approve that recommendation to Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles.
Charles Folch: Well, as you mentioned before. I guess if I had my true choice
it would be to lower the, given the constraints with the road would be to lower.
Actually to dredge the pond but if that's not really something that would be
feasible of going through the permit process with the ONR, the next best thing
I guess in order to achieve the water quality aspects that they're trying to do
here which I think are a good idea, is to raise a level to what they need. But
we should protect the road with some financial guarantee if we're going to do
that. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, and I don't disagree with that.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. Shall we change that period of 3 years to 5 or 7?
Councilman Mason: I certainly wouldn't want to go any longer than 5.
Councilwoman Dimler: 5. 11
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I think 5 would probably be sufficient. If you're going to
see something that's going to take place by that particular time. Unless it's a
dry period of time.
Councilwoman Dimler: And who determiner the amount of financial security? 1
Mayor Chmiel: That's determined by staff what that should be. That should be
their responsibility. Okay? 1
Councilman Mason: So we're at 975.5 then?
Mayor Chmiel: We're at 975.5. Normal water level. 1
Paul Krauss: That should go up to...
Councilwoman Dimler: 976.5.
Councilman Mason: Right.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 5. I don't see any problem. 6. I don't see any problem.
7. Don't see any problem. 8. Those all look like they're in our interest.
All the way through (h). Number 9. I don't find that as any problem. 10.
Councilwoman Dimler: No problem.
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
31 1
1
II City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991
II Terry Forbord: I have a question about number 10. 10 foot clear space around
fire hydrants. If that's a 36 inch oak tree, would you like us to remove it?
I'm just curious.
II Mayor Chmiel: I think you know the answer
Terry Forbord: But I mean.
II Councilwoman Oimler: Place it where it doesn't.
II Terry Forbord: So it's our understanding for the record that you would like us
to put the fire hydrants in a location approved by the Fire Marshall however
that would be sensitive to the existing conditions?
11 Mayor Chmiel: Charles, are there any concerns or problems as far as rooting of
those trees and what problems they can cause to those hydrants? Of course you
have it all over anyway so if they're down deep enough, that shouldn't be a
II problem should it?
Charles Folch: No. Typically where you do have your problems is after the line
II is in and you plant a new tree above it and the roots then migrate down and put
pressure on it.
II Mayor Chmiel: Okay. 11. 12. 13. The outlet at the south end of the Class A
weltand. I don't see that as a problem. 14.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want to put in there at the cost of the developer?
11 Or is that understood?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, that's the norm. Okay, so we've gone through 1 thru 14
I with revision.
Councilwoman Dimler: Did you want to add a condition 15 here then for that?
II Mayor Chmiel: For what?
Councilwoman Dimler: That other one that we were talking about.
Mayor Chmiel: The hold harmless?
II Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah, the hold harmless.
Mayor Chmiel: That's going to be contained within the contract in itself. So
that's not necessary here.
Councilwoman Dimler: Oh, we don't have to approve that. Okay.
II Councilman Wing: I would make the motion then approving Subdivision #91 -9 as
shown with I believe the only change was in item 4 allowing the level to raise
to 976.5.
II Councilwoman Dimler: And for 5 years instead of 3 in the financial security.
;
II 32
II
City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991
Councilman Wing: That's right. 1
Councilwoman Dimler: 1 move approval of 2. No 3. Well whatever.
Mayor Chmiei: 4. 4 with those respective changes. Okay. But 1 still need the
full approval in acceptance of the balance of what's here with those additions
to it. There's a motion on the floor. Was there a second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Subdivision #91 -9 as
shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991 and subject to the following conditions:
1. Where the proposed street is reduced to 26 feet, there shall be "no
parking" signs posted and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided
over the boulevard. The sharp curves located in the loop street shall be
limited to a 10 mph speed limit and shall have "sharp curve" signage.
2. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing the following:
a. One additional quaking aspen clump shall be provided directly north of
the Class A wetland and east of the proposed quaking aspen clumps.
b. Landscaping, acceptable to staff, shall be added to the area between
the public road and the Class A wetland.
c. The berm and landscaping on Lot 1, Block 2 shall be extended to the
edge of the wetland and the westerly access area directly north of the
proposed pond area shall have increased landscaping to replace existing
vegetation that is being removed, if appropriate.
d. Three trees (2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen or ornamental) shall he
required per lot. (Credit for each tree over 6 inches in caliper on
the lot shall be granted. For the lot however, a minimum of 1 tree per
lot shall be provided.
e. A landscaped berm shall be provided on the north right -of -way Lake Lucy
Road across from the westerly access to provide screening from traffic
to existing homes.
3. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive drainage and erosion control
plan prior to final plat review. Wood fiber blankets shall be required for
all slopes steeper than 3 :1.
4. Drainage plans are to be revised as recommended by staff. Calculations 1
shall be provided demonstrating that the revised Walker Ponds are
sufficiently sized to provide acceptable nutrient removal. Drainage
calculations must be provided demonstrating that runoff from the site
maintains predevelopment rates. The applicant shall submit final road,
drainage and utility plans and specifications for review prior to final
plat review. The normal water level in the DNR wetland lying south of Lake
Lucy Road should be maintained at a level not to exceed 976.5. Should a
higher normal water level be approved, the applicant shall provide
33 1
11
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
11 appropriate financial security for a period of five (5) years to repay any
related damage to Lake Lucy Road. In addition, the downstream control
structure shall be of the type to allow manual control of the water level,
should tine need arise. The developer shall modify the existing storm sewer
outlet /inlet, located on the south side of Lake Lucy Road, to become a
flood control structure constructed at the 100 year flood elevation. The
proposed development will not increase off -site drainage to surrounding
properties.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the
necessary financial security.
6. The applicant shall acquire all necessary agency permits.
7. The applicant shall provide full park and trail fees in lieu of land
dedication and trail construction.
0. Provide the following easements:
a. Dedication of all street right -of -way.
11 b. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and
ponding areas.
c. Access easements as required to service the "Walker Ponds ".
d. Utility easements over all sewer, water and storm sewer lines located
outside public right -of -way.
11 e. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas.
f. Standard drainage and utility easements.
g. Provide a conservation easement over all established wetland buffer
areas. Such easements shall be marked with permanent visible monuments
and the location of such easements shall be provided to city staff for
approval.
h. The final plat shall convey an additional seven feet of right - -of -way on
the south side of Lake Lucy Road to provide the total width of 40 feet
lying south of the centerline.
9. The applicant shall indicate the allowable type of dwelling, the house pads
and the lowest floor elevation on the grading plan.
11 10. The existing hydrant between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be relocated 75
feet to the south. The Fire Department must approve street names and a 10
foot clear space must be provided around fire hydrants. Additional
hydrants are needed at the intersections of Lake Lucy Road and the proposed
public road.
11. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit
#91 -4 and Rezoning #91 -2.
11 34
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
12. The applicant shall provide propoer restrictions (subject to city staff
approval) on those lots having entrance monuments and /or landscaping.
13. The outlet on the south end of the Class A wetland shall be a variable
crest structure with stop logs and adequate outlet channel to allow the
draw down of water levels to or below present outlet elevation (974.5').
The developer be required to remove existing purple loosestrife from the
basin and to monitor those sites and sites distrubed by construction for
loosestrife invasion.
14. Municipal sanitary sewer and water service should be extended easterly to
the west line of the Ravis parcel and sanitary sewer shall be extended to
the Coey property.
All voted in favor except Councilman Workman who opposed and the motion carried 1
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councilman Workman: And the reason I am is because the developers aren't going
to pay for any of this stuff. Trees, water.
Mayor Chmiei: Property owner will.
I/
Councilman Workman: Property owner and the future neighbors are going to pay
for this.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, if Mr. Workman's going to continue on this
anti -tree state based on bottom line dollars, then I'm really upset that we're
requiring 1 tree. But more important, there are ways without impacting the
buyer. My intent with this whole tree Issue to begin with was that it would
impact as minimally as possible. Wholesale. Retail hurts the buyer. No
question about that. There are ways to go about this wholesale where the
developer has to provide chitz for a nursery. Pick up x trees. $1,500.00 for
three trees in 1 year or 2 years or 5 years. I couldn't put in a tree right now
if I had to with 3 kids in college. But if I could get 3 chitz up front on a
development that allowed me to go to a nursery and pick up those 3 trees and put
it on a 30 year mortgage, I'd approve that. I have got some comments if this is
going to continue. And Mr. Workman's got some very valid points and I don't
want to in any way put Tom down for his comments but the best time to plant a
tree was 20 years ago and I'm really environmentally concerned and I think my
position has some validity here.
Councilman Workman: Well, I voted against it so I could state why I didn't and 1
I did and I think my points are valid. It's not just the trees. It's every
little thing that goes in for developers. We need to keep an eye on developers
because there's bad developers out there. I don't consider Lundgren Bros. to be
one of them. They could end up to be on this project. I don't like the tone
that the city sets for not only the developer of a parcel but people who are
going to move into the parcel. When we start discussing where a skateboarder's
going to play and I think what we're doing is we're starting to get too far into
the process and we're worrying ourselves with things that are going to work
themselves out naturally. Whether it's planning bushes or trees or where a
kid's going to plan on their 20,000 square foot lot or other. I don't think
that kind of stuff is really our concern to an extent. The safety of new
35 11
1
II City Council Meeting -- October 28, 1991
II residents obviously is. But a yard is a yard is a yard and so they're going to
have to Figure that out. And I just, I love trees and I'll say it again and
I'll say it again but it does put another burden and the Mayor told me that he
talked with somebody that had a quarter million dollar home and he made a
comment that that tree thing tipped him over the edge. It can do that and I
just don't like the tone that we set that Chanhassen's going to be exclusive and
if you can't afford to play here then get out. It's not something we want to
II yell too loudly.
Mayor Chmiel: 1 think the point being here Tom, again as I mentioned before,
II this is a PUD. I don't think this goes for every other place that gets a new
home going into the city of Chanhassen. This is something that we're able to
get by having 3 trees within each of those lots and that's one of the pluses we
II get as a city.
Councilman Workman: But the developer, he's obtaining the PUD. He's not paying
for those trees.
I Mayor Chmiel: That's right. I'll agree.
I Councilman Wing: It's a difficult issue and I think we should address it.
Mayor Chmiel: Well unless you'd like to change the motion and say that the
developer is responsible for putting 3 trees in each of those lots? I don't
think you want to do that either.
Councilman Wing: But I think that needs to be addressed. Even if we...
Mr. Mayor, I think that 1 tree should be addressed at that level because if
we're that worried about the bottom line, that's $250.00 may break someone's
back. I believe that should be with the developer. For future discussions.
il Mayor Chmiel: If you have someone that feels strong enough to make that into a
motion, we still have a position before we move on to the wetland.
I Councilwoman Dimler: When I ask about condition 14 at the cost of the
developer, it was assumed. I just assumed that (d). 2(d) was also at the cost
of the developer.
II Mayor Chmiel: Well of course they have different ways of covering that Ursula
and when you purchase a lot, the cost is there.
II Councilwoman Dimler: That's why I voted for it.
Mayor Chmiel: So if there is no other motion. There's no other discussion on
it. We have accepted the item 1 thru 14 under the preliminary plat. We voted
on that. Move on to the wetland alteration permit. All wetland areas protected
during construction with Type II erosion control. That's fine. 2, I don't see
any problem. 3, I don't see any problem. 4, the Walker Ponds that will go in.
II Does anyone have any concerns with that? 5, with the permits from DNR and Corps
of Engineers. 6, all conditions of the subdivision. Any discussion?
11 Councilman Mason: Number 2. Where was the figure of 10 feet picked out for the
buffer strip there? How was that arrived there?
I. 36
II
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
Paul Krauss: During the weigh out of the plat...shows a variable buffer 1
strip...
Councilman Mason: Okay, how was 10 feet decided upon though? I mean as opposed 1
to 5 feet or 20 feet.
Jo Ann Olsen: It was proposed by the applicant. 1
Paul Krauss: Based upon the recommendation of the Wildlife Biologist...visit
the area...to provide additional protection for water quality... 11
Councilman Mason: Right and I understand that. I'm not going to argue whether
it should be 5 feet, 10 feet or 20 feet tonight but I do have a concern in the
future, I wonder if we do at some point need to get second opinions on things
like this.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor? I think I could probably easily answer that
question. That's a good question. When we were looking at this, we were
working with staff and staff had come to us and said we have a concern on that
there isn't a universal agreement from the way I understand it. There is no set
number that if you're this far from a wetland you have the perfect situation
because a lot of, I think I talked about this before is determined by what is
between the wetland and the structure. The slope, etc.. And so being that
there was no perfect science to this, what we've tried to do is we went out on 1
our own to come up with a minimum. Now how did we get the 10 feet? If you look
at the wetland like Paul described, it meanders all over. The closest, the very
closest point on the entire site that have our setbacks so we did have backyards
a
I/
nd by the w4y, there are backyard spaces on these homes. We're not going to
have decks right up to a preservation area. We have sized each lot for the
largest home that Lundgren builds in it's repertoire. Okay? We don't do it the
other way. And there was one or two places in the entire development on all 37
lots that where the very closest part to a portion of the wetland, or excuse me
the preservation zone to the wetland was 10 feet. And so that's where we came
up with that number. Now there is no scientific evidence that says well 5
feet's better or 40 feet's better but I believe there's maybe 2 lots. And I'm
not talking the whole lot. I'm talking maybe where for 10 feet the preservation
zone is only 10 feet but then it will expand and get wider. So we decided that
we had to come up with a measurement for the city so we could put it in that
table that staff worked on. The majority, the vast majority are greater than
that. Some of them I think are as high as, pardon me. Oh they're even more
than some of them. I know some of them are, on some of those longer lots that
are around the west side. So that's how we came up with that. We thought we
should have a minimum and it was our suggestion.
Mayor Chmiel: I like some of the things you said but also you mentioned the 11
fact of decks. Hopefully when these homes go in there's going to be sufficient
amount of depth to the wetland so those decks can go in without them having to
come in here for variances.
Terry Forbord: Ursula and I spoke, excuse me. Counciler Dimler and I spoke
about that and we realized that the City oftentimes is put in a compromising 11
position where a future home buyer. Maybe not the initial home buyer but a
1 future home buyer comes in and says well nobody told me so. That's a difficult
37
11
II City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
II situation that I see oftentimes when I'm in the audience at various Council
meetings. Unfortunately the Council is in a position where they have to deal
with these things. I'm not sure if that will ever change ever. I think the
Council in every city is going to be in a position where people come in with
variances and periodically they're going to say well nobody told me that I
couldn't do this. What we do when we design our neighborhoods is that we design .
them, the homes are what we call the building envelope. That's what we call
II them. We design the envelope to accommodate decks and to accommodate a three
season porch under what are normal situations. Now that doesn't preclude a
future home buyer coming in and saying well geez I'm going to take the window
II out on the side of my house and put in a patio door and then want to put a deck
on the side of my house because that could happen maybe 20 years from now and
they go to City Hall and say well geez, you're not supposed to put it on the
side of your house. You're supposed to put it on the back of your house. Well
II those are the things that Councils typically end up having to deal with. See we
can't do that. So it's impossible to design a buiding envelope for every
possible situation, whether it be a swimming pool or something like that. It's
literally impossible. However, we do size all of our envelopes for the largest
home that we have in our repertoire of particular product line at that time.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussion? If not, let's call a question. All those
in favor.
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want me to make a motion?
II Mayor - Chmiel: I thought we had one.
II Councilwoman Dimler: Did we?
Mayor Chmiel: No.
1/
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay. I move approval of the wetland alteration permit
#91 -4 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991 with the following conditions 1,
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
II Councilman Mason. Second.
I/ Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Wetland
Alteration Permit #91 -4 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991 with the
11 following conditions:
1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion
control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until
the disturbed areas are stabilized.
2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the compliance table
for each lot will be recorded as part of the PUD agreement. No wetland
setback less than 40 feet will be permitted and the buffer strip may not be
less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be preserved by an easement.
II r .
II 38
II
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991 11
3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to
the wetland and not during the migratory waterfowl breeding season.
4. The "Walker Pond" and wildlife wetland areas roust be designed to the
standards proposed in the applicant's submittal packet dated July 30, 1991.
5. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers.
6. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91 -9 and
Rezoning #91 -2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor? Can I just make a quick addendum comment on this? 1
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I just wanted to mention something too Richard. The
reason I went through each of these as we did, it took a little more time. This
is a number one for us within the city and I wanted to make sure we were going
to follow accordingly to make sure we're going to get exactly what we were to
get with this. Making also sure that each of the conditions were described as
such and having the developer live up to that particular. So with that I think
that that pretty much takes care of this particular item and we'll move on.
Terry Forbord: Thank you Your Honor. I'd like to thank staff. The engineering
department and the planning department for their cooperation with us in trying
to help us solve many of the problems that we were faced with with this
proposal.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REGARDING THE FENCE SCREENING HEIGHT FROM 8
FEET TO 15 FEET, 7851 PARK DRIVE, LAKESHORE EQUIPMENT, STEVEN WILLETTE.
Paul Krauss: This has come up before you a couple times and it's been kicked
around in the city for almost a year now between Planning Commission and
Council. I think you're all familiar with this so I'll skip the background. The ;
last time it was on your agenda there was a desire to go out...some folks from
the Council went out with staff to meet with Mr. Willette at the site and try
and work out an accommodation that everybody could live with. One rainy day in
September or August we did get out there and look at the site. ...letter to Mr.
Willette September 13 outlining the conditions that would be... Basically the
fence section as it faces the public right -of -way to the west would be allowed
to remain the full height. It was a well designed section that looked good and 11
was screened from the lot. Around the south and east sides it was going to be
requested that that top section of fence be removed. There were some other
conditions that I put in that letter to Mr. Willette. I did ask him to take
down the section of fence that... It looks like, I've not been out there...but
I heard it was taken down several weeks ago.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Two different sections. 1
Paul Krauss: So what we're coming before you tonight with is to resolve this
matter. Hopefully finally resolve it and to go with a recommendation that
basically consisted with the, I believe the understandings that we developed on
the site that day.
3
11
39
1
City Council Meeting - October 28, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Very good. Steve. You had an opportunity to review the comments
that Paul indicated? Why don't you come on up here.
' Steve Willette: Yes I have. The only thing that I see as far as the fence goes
is that if we go from vertical to horizontal it's not going to look very good
and in my best interest I'm better off taking the lower boards and dropping down
the vertical part so the fence all looks alike and it holds to it all the way
around instead of it looking hodge podge like I just threw some boards on the
side over on the south side and on the east side. And the fence right now to
the west is higher than 8 feet. We do have to try to conform to the contour of
the land a little bit so what I would like is a little bit of flexibility there
to make it look appropriate. Maybe 10 feet. I just want to reiterate for
everybody's knowledge, if I do go down to those heights that you will be able to
see in from the highway because of the difference in the elevations as well as I
will conform to the 8 foot. Stacking of docks no higher than 8 feet. You will
be able to see some of them. I guess it's not much different than the lumber
yard down here or anything else so I do want it to look nice. And as far as
replacement of the trees that I had in there, I don't see any problem with that.
As far as the other landscaping that was proposed, when the height of the fence
was going to be at 15 feet, I do not feel that is necessary if we drop the
11 height down to 8 feet because I've already got more landscaping in there than
what was required by when we went through the initial building process.
11 Mayor Chmiel: That's where you come from your approach right at your parking
area?
11 Steve Willette: Right. Well, the additional landscaping was going to be to the
south and to the east when the height was at 15 feet. I don't see a need for
vines and everything on the fence and all kinds of additional landscaping. I do
have a few trees that did die and I do feel that those should be replaced.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you. Any discussion? We'll start with Mike.
Councilman Mason: I'm okay with it as it stands. I guess I'm inclined to agree
that I think if Mr. Willette's willing to replace what's dead, maybe we should
let it go with that.
Mayor Chmiel: Replace the existing trees that have died? Yeah. There's also
those piles of wood that's out the fence line. Has that been cleared?
11 Steve Willette: Those will be dealt with.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, because the last time I looked when I checked the 8 foot
height, it was still there. And that will be moved. Okay, good.
Steve Willette: I would like to ask one more thing. If I could have some time
to do this...
Mayor Chmiel: I don't see that as a problem.
Steve Willette: Mr. Mayor...
40
1