5. Lundgren Subdivision 1 �CITYOF
I .
.ig CHANIIASSEN
1
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I :-. A., F` Z,": F
MEMORANDUM Ei94?'-V._.. 4)11"
IfI-y-t3 �d._ , - -----
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1: 1.;__10:-A9 /..
1 11.-4
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
DATE: October 22, 1991
SUBJ: Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren Subdivision
1 On October 14, 1991, the City Council reviewed the Ortenblad/Ersbo/
Lundgren proposal. After much . discussion, the City Council
recommended tabling action until further discussion could be made
I of acquisition of parkland. In addition, the representative from
Lundgren Brothers, Terry Forbord, still had issues with the road
width, the three trees per lot and provision of utilities to
iadjacent properties.
Road Width
F_
I The applicant is still requesting that the road width be 26 feet
throughout the whole development. As stated previously in the
report, staff is only willing to allow a 26 foot wide right-of-way
I in the areas where the road is located close to the Class A wetland
where reducing the width of the road will preserve environmental
features of the site will be preserved. Staff is not willing to
I recommend approval a 26 foot wide road width throughout the whole
development where there will be parking, pedestrian, and traffic
conflicts. If the City Council should approve the subdivision
with a 26 foot wide street throughout the whole subdivision, staff
I would recommend that it be conditioned upon a five foot wide
concrete sidewalk being located on one side of the street.
I _ Three Trees Per Lot M.
The Planned Unit Development will be removing several large caliper
I trees. To provide for the replacement of these trees and the fact
that this application is a PUD, staff is recommending that three
trees per lot be provided by the applicant. The applicant has
continued to be in disagreement with this condition and has stated
I that the condition is unreasonable. We acknowledge that the
pending landscaping ordinance has deleted the 3 tree requirement
• but believe that this is irrelevant. Staff does not feel the
I Pt
le PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
' Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren PUD
October 22, 1991
Page 2
condition is unreasonable given that this is a PUD and with the
number of trees that will be removed with the proposed street.
Cost of Providing Utilities
The applicant has objected to 'staff's position that they be liable
for costs associated with the extension of utilities to adjoining
lots. It has been the City's policy in the past where subdivisions
have been constructed by the developer, that utilities be extended
to the next adjacent parcel, i.e. Vineland Forest Addition,
Troendle Addition, Lake Susan Hills West PUD, etc. , The City in the
past has only participated with construction costs when there is
oversizing of the mains to provide adequate capacities to serve
' adjacent parcels in the future. Such is not the case in this
proposal. Therefore, it is recommended that the developer be
responsible for all costs for extending utilities to the Ravis and
Coey properties.
Off-Site Drainage
' There has continued to be questions about an existing drainage
problem in Greenwood Shores. It is always standard procedure for
a development to maintain pre-development flow and that off-site
' drainage is not increased. The proposed PUD is providing adequate
ponding throughout the site to accommodate drainage from the
proposed development. The rate of off-site drainage will not
' increase. A condition of approval has been added that off-site
drainage will not be increased as a result of the development of
the site as per city ordinance. If there is an existing downstream
problem, the developer for the proposed PUD is not responsible for
resolving it. If it is determined that a downstream problem
exists, the City should investigate resolving the matter as a
separate public works projects, possibly under the new Surface
Water Management Program.
It is the developer's desire to raise the normal water level
' elevation of the DNR wetland south of Lake Lucy Road to 976.5. It
is not known whether or not this will have an adverse impact on the
Lake Lucy Road subgrade. Staff recommends that appropriate
financial security be retained for a period of 3 years, if normal
level is to be raised above 975.5 to repair any related damage to
the road. In addition, the down stream elevation control structure
shall be of the type to allow manual adjustment to the water level
should the need arise or damage occur to Lake Lucy Road.
Revised Road Alignment Alternatives through Lot 14, Block 2 to
' Preserve Existing Vegetation
During the Planning Commission meeting, it was discussed whether or
• not the road should be located over the existing driveway to pull
II
Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren PUD II
October 22, 1991
Page 3
IIit away from the existing vegetation located in the northwest
corner of the site. Staff agreed that the alternative should be
further explored and the applicant has prepared two options. I
By locating the public street over the existing driveway, the road
is being pushed into the existing Class A wetland and will result
in filling of a portion of the northwest corner of the Class A II
wetland. Attachment #4 illustrates the alternatives. Staff has
spoken with the DNR of the possibility of locating the street over
the existing driveway where it would impact the northwest corner of
II
the wetland. The DNR has a policy of not permitting public roads
to impact a DNR protected wetland. Staff explained that the reason
for adjusting the location of the public street would be to
II
preserve some valuable trees and the wetland area that would be
filled was a finger of the wetland and not a major portion of the
wetland. The DNR commented that this may be considered a unique
situation and that if it can be proven that adjusting the location
of the public road to where it impacts the Class A wetland results
in the preservation of an extensive area of another natural
resource that they may be in favor of such a permit. I
Staff has compared the impact to the trees with the alternatives.
Alternate B is the current proposal, Alternate C and D move the II road over the driveway. Alternate B removes 31 trees, Alternate C
removes 35 trees and Alternate D removes 21 trees. Since Alternate
C removes more trees it was eliminated. Staff compared the type
and caliper inches of trees saved and removed between B and D (see
II
table) . Alternate D would save 162 caliper inches, but remove 121"
for a net gain of only 41" caliper inches. The trees lost with
Alternate D are fairly significant (27" and 30" oak) and this must
II
be added to the impact to the Class A wetland. Therefore, staff is
not recommending a different road alternative since there is little
ill
additional tree preservation that would occur and the DNR would be
unlikely to approve the resulting filling of the Class A wetland. II
PROPOSED ROAD ALTERNATE D VS. ALTERNATE B
Trees Saved Trees Lost II
1 36" Basswood 1 14" Poplar
2 6" Birch 2 6" Basswood II
1 10" Birch 2 10" Oak
1 8" Oak 1 22" Oak
1 12" Oak 1 27." Oak
1 16" Oak 1 30" Oak
1 26" Oak 1 6" Ironwood
1 28" Oak
•
1 10" Ironwood
II
1 12" Ironwood 1 10" Hickory
1 8" Cherry
Total 162" Total 121"
II
1
II
II Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren PUD
October 22, 1991
Page 4
IWetland Area Per Lot
I The applicant has submitted a table showing the total square
footage of each lot, the net upland area before the water level has
been raised by 2 feet and the net upland area after the water level
has been raised by 2 feet. The average lot area, including
I wetland, is 31,089 feet. The average lot area removing wetland
before raising the water level 2 feet is 21,705 square. The
average lot area after the water level has been raised 2 feet is
I 21, 157 square feet. Even after removing the wetland area, the
average lot area exceeds the 15,000 square foot minimum required
for a residential district and is comparable to the Curry Farms
II subdivision located directly north. The smallest lot area, after
removing the wetland and after the wetland has been raised 2 feet
(staff is currently recommending only a 1 foot increase in the
wetland elevation which will further increase lot areas) , is just
' over 14, 000 square feet. This provides adequate area for a house
pad, deck, etc. Therefore, staff is not concerned that the lots
adjacent to the wetlands do not have adequate buildable areas.
ICOMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE PUD
Lot Lot Lot Front Wetland Buffer Net Upland
IArea Width Depth Setback Setback Itp Area
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' 75' N/A _
I BLOCK 1
•
Lot 1 18,300 124' • 146' 25'-W N/A N/A 18,300
50'-N
IILot 2 18,200 135' 139' 25' N/A N/A 18,200
I Lot 3 93,100 450' 201' 25' N/A N/A 93,100
(Existing Home)
Lot 4 19,500 135' 216' 25' N/A N/A 19,500
ILot 5 15,080 11-8' 156' 25' N/A N/A 15,800
Lot 6 16,800 80'** 142' 25' N/A N/A 16,800
ILot 7 54,400 50'**- 245' 25' 75' 25' 31,100
Lot 8 42,400 80'** 363' 25' 65' 25' 17,600
ILot 9 36,400 89'** 378' 25' 75' 25' 17,800
Lot 10 36,100 91' 385' 25' 40' 10' 14,200
ILot 11 20,900 178' 248' 25' 40' 10' 17,400
Lot 12 28,200 90' 289' 25' 45' 10' 14,053
I
I
Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren PUD
I
October 22, 1991
Page 5
•
Lot 13 27,500 92' 303' 25' 40' 10' 17,000
Lot 14 22,700 111' 220' 25' 40' 10' 22,700
Lot 15 17,800 61'** 162' 25' N/A 25' 17,800
Lot 16 24,100 80'** 152' 25' N/A 25' 24,100
Lot 17 23,400 90' 172' 25' 40' 10' 17,200
Lot 18 19,600 97' 179' 25' 40' 10' 16,000
Lot 19 31,400 103' 223' 25' 100' N/A 31,400 I
(Existing Home)
Lot 20 18,200 110' 242' 25' 75' 20' 16,100
1
Lot 21 26,000 94' 265' 25' 75' 25' 17,500
Lot 22 17,200 87'** 209' 25' 90' 20' 17,050 1
Lot 23 32,800 628' 129' 25' 75' * 31,300
BLOCK 2 1
Lot 1 54,500 138' 375' 25'-E 50' 15' 24,100
50'-W
Lot 2 35,800 105' 384' 25' 65' 20' 16,300
1
Lot 3 75,000 465' 300' 25' 60' 25' 28,000
Lot 4 29,200 432' 204' 25' 40' 10' 22,600
1
Lot 5 21,200 140' 227' 25' 40' 10' 17,100
Lot 6 20,800 80'** 269' 25' 75' 25' 16,500 1
Lot 7 23,600 87'** 301' 25' 75' 25' 16,000
Lot8 23,100 91' 326' 25' 75' 25' 15,100 I
Lot 9 23,600 95' 343' 25' 75' 25' 15,000
Lot 10 23,600 106' 353' 25' 75' 25' 15,700 1
Lot 11 25,700 94' 359' 25' 75' 25' 15,200
Lot 12 22,500 111' 267' 25' 75' 25' 15,600
I
Lot 13 27,100 88'** 371' 25' 75' 25' 14,100
Lot 14 83,900 268' 335' 25' 50' 15'* 29,500 I
* See Tree Survey for Preservation Area
** Below 90'Requirement
*** Normal RSF side yard and non-wetland.rear yard setbacks shall apply where applicable. All lots subject to normal RSF
accessory structure standards.
I
I
1
Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren PUD
October 22, 1991
Page 6
Parkland Issues
In regards to this issue, the reason for requesting full park and
trail dedication fees instead of parkland dedication, are as
follows:
1. The recommendation made by Park and Recreation Commission,
2 . The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan; and,
3. The resulting loss of revenue and increased park
development costs.
IPark and Recreation Commission Recommendation
The Commission reviewed the item July 23, 1991. A copy of the
' report presented to the Commission and the resulting minutes are
attached. During the discussion that evening, Commissioners Lash
and Erhart expressed concern over not acquiring a piece of park
property which could be developed to serve future occupants of 37
proposed lots. Commissioner Lash then requested staff to readdress
reasons cited by staff for not recommending park property be
acquired. The issues of being in a position to acquire less than
2 acres of parkland, 1.4 acres to be precise and the resulting loss
of park fee revenue were then re-emphasized. Lastly, Mr. Terry
Forbord of Lundgren Developers offered his opinion of the
1 -circumstances.
Upon Vice-Chairperson Andrews calling the question, Robinson moved
and Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council accept park and trail fees in lieu
of parkland dedication and/or trail construction for the
' Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren Brothers. Subdivision. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
Comprehensive Plan
' - The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan identifies the standard
for a neighborhood park as five (5) acres and states that
neighborhood parks/playgrounds are recreational facilities intended
to serve populations residing within a 1/2 mile radius of the site.
These facilities typically contain playfield areas which
accommodate such uses as field games, court games, ice skating,
picnicking, and play apparatus. It is efficient to establish a
neighborhood park system in this manner for a number of reasons.
One of the most important being the economics of maintenance
duties. This proposed development lies within the service area of
four parks; Pheasant Hill Park (currently undeveloped) , Curry
Farms Park, Carver Beach Playground and Greenwood Shores Park.
Access to all but Greenwood Shores Park is available via city
•
11
1
Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren PUD
October 22, 1991
Page 7 I
•
streets. Access to Greenwood Shores Park and the Lake Ann Park
Trail is limited, but may occur vis an unofficial route at Utica
Circle. The Comprehensive Plan contains these guidelines to ensure
that all areas of the city are equally served with access to a
park. Establishing another park in an area of the city reasonably
served by 3 (three) or potentially 4 (four) parks may send a
negative message to residents of the city residing in a park
deficient area.
Resulting Loss of Revenue and Increased Park Development Costs I
If full parkland dedication (1.4 acres) was required of this
subdivision, the resulting loss in revenue for the park acquisition
and development fund would be $18,500. This loss in revenue would
offset the equilibrium established in following the guidelines in
the Comprehensive Plan. What has occurred in this area of the
city, as -in others, is that .the park acquisition and development
fund has in essence floated a loan for a portion of the development
of Curry Farms Park and the acquisition of Pheasant Hill Park.
This can be done in anticipation of the future revenue generated by
other development within the service areas of these two parks.
Without this flexibility, the city would be forced to wait until an
entire service area was developed prior to constructing the park
which services the area.
If parkland was taken, the expenditures necessary to develop the
land even minimally would further offset this equilibrium.
Lastly, it must be noted that this proposed housing development
would not lie on a flat parcel of land void of interesting natural I
features. The small wetland, treed areas, and the large, open
water wetland which provide, in of themselves one of the key
ingredients of a neighborhood park; open space. In conclusion,
after a review of the facts, the Park and Recreation Commission and
staff continue to recommend that the City Council approve taking a
cash dedication in lieu of land on the Lundgren subdivision
proposal.
It should also be noted that 12.4 acres of permanent open space
will be maintained on the site. The 12.4 acres of permanent open
space is 41% of the site and does not include open space found in
lawn and yard areas. Thus, the clustering offered by this PUD will
greatly increase open space preservation over what is normally
achieved in a typical subdivision.
I
1
I
Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren PUD
October 22, 1991
I Page 8
RECOMMENDATION
REZONING
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
' "The City Council approves Rezoning #91-2 property RSF and RR to
PUD-R with the following conditions:
Ii. 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.
3 . The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision
t #91-9 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-4."
PRELIMINARY PLAT
' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
' "The City Council approves 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
1 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
' m.p.h. 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 be required per lot. (Credit for each tree over 6
inches in caliper on the lot shall be granted. For the
Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren PUD '
October 22, 1991
Page 9
lot, however, a minimum of 1 tree per lot shall be
provided. )
e. A landscaped berm shall be provided on the north right- I
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. 1
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
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 975.5. Should a higher normal water
level be approved, the applicant shall provide appropriate
financial security for a period of three years to repay any
related damage to Lake Lucy Road. In addition, the down
stream control structure shall be of the type to allow manual
control of the water level, should the 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.
8. Provide the following easements:
a. Dedication of all street right-of-way.
b. Conservation and drainage easements over all P rotected
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.
1
' Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren PUD
October 22, 1991
Page 10
e. Conservation easements over all designated tree
preservation areas.
tf. 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.
1 • 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.
' 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.
' 12. The applicant shall provide proper 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 adequat outlet
channel to allow the draw donw 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.
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. "
1
1
Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren PUD '
October 22, 1991
Page 11
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: I
"The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #91-4 as shown
on the plans dated July 29, 1991, with the 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. I
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 must 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 11#91-9 and Rezoning #91-2. "
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated October 14, 1991.
2. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated October 21, 1991.
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
IIof the smoking policy they seem to have and that's why I don't think these
stores are taking it that seriously. That's my final comment.
IICouncilman Wing: If the majority of the country is non-smoking at this point?
Northwest Airlines got incredible publicity when they went non-smoking and it
II increased their passenger load at that point.- I can't believe that the non-
smokers aren't going to support the stores that choose to make these moves.
•
I think it's just another plus move. Mr. Mayor, I didn't bring this up but I
think there's enough of us concerned that I'd like to move passage of the second
I reading of the ordinance amending Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by
adding provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products.
IICouncilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Workman: And if we could maybe make that effective January 1, 1992.
' Councilman Wing: Effective January 1st. Mr. Mayor, you've met with the
retailers. Is that an appropriate date or is that a fair date?
IIMayor Chmiel: It 's the date I'm throwing up thinking that gives them time.
Councilman Wing: So I'll take the friendly amendment as such.
ICouncilman Mason: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler: Third.
II ,
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the second reading j
of an Ordinance Amendment Chapter 10 of the Chanhassen City Code by adding I
I provisions regulating the sale of tobacco products to become effective January j
1, 1992. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
II LUNDGREN/ORTENBLAT/ERSBO SUBDIVISION REQUEST. WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH
OF LAKE LUCY ROAD:
A. REZONING REQUEST FROM RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND RSF (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
IFAMILY) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 30+ ACRES INTO 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
IIC. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALTER A CLASS A AND B WETLANDS.
Public Present:
II
Name Address
II Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros.
Rick Sathre Sathre & Berquist Engineers
Frank Svoboda Wetland Consultant for Lundgren Bros.
Joan Ahrens 6601 Charing Bend
Gary & Ann O'Neill 6830 Utica Circle
Brian Nokleby 6800 Utica Circle
Ken Earhart 6880 Utica Lane i
I
46
I •
II____________ -
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
1
Name Address
Ed Jannusch 6831 Utica Terrace
Joe Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road
Ted Coey 1381 Lake Lucy Road
Brian Humphrey
Paul Krauss: In view of the late hour and my rapidly failing health I'll be
brief. You last discussed this on September 9th and there was a variety of
issues that were raised. A lot of them were discussed and I think largely in
view of the fact that you ran out of time, it was continued. Staff wasn't given
a tremendous amount of direction for new things to be done at that time but we
did hopefully resolve a couple of things. Councilwoman Dimler asked what, you
know sometimes a trade off viewed for PUD and we had that way back in an earlier
report but there's so much paper in here it's kind of hard to find. So I
updated that and tried to put into perspective I think what the City gets out of
this being a PUD. Again I stress that this is not a small lot residential
development and those are the ones we've had the problems with in the past where
the city basically got nothing but a roomfull of headaches on variances and what
not. All these lots are far in excess of normal ordinance standards. Just to
touch on the items we thought were part of the trade-off, we've got greatly
improved pre-treatment of storm water. We're going, this is kind of our test
case. We're doing a job on this that we've never done before and going in with
a lot of new techniques and improvements that we think may become the norm but
are not an ordinance yet. We've got a significantly improved package for
existing wetlands. Some are being, there's some trade-offs in there but we
think the net result is more wetland acreage. Better wetland quality. We
created a buffer strip around the wetlands. Another new concept that we hadn't
done before but we think gives a lot better result than just a simple setback.
We've increased landscaping standards. There's very good protection for mature
trees. Again, being somewhat innovative on this project, the larger stands of
mature trees will be protected by permanent easement. That should avoid the
problems we've had in the past where we ask a builder to come in with a tree
protection plan and when they come in for their building permit, what they tell
us is I have to take down all these trees because that's the kind of house that
may client wants. When it's protected by an easement, they can't touch them.
You've got control over the easement. Permanently locked up. We've gotten some
improvement in architectural standards. One of the important things about this
PUO is it 's used reductions in some internal lot setbacks. Not where they're
going to be visible from Lake Lucy Road but from internal streets and street
widths themselves to basically promote clustering. The houses are clustered to
the pavement on the street freeing up more greenspace and bringing them further
away from the wetlands. So we think that's a benefit and that's really one of
the primary uses of a PUD. To allow you more flexibility in how you lay -
projects out on a land mass. Councilman Wing asked us to look into alternative
development. What could happen here if this didn't come in as a PUD. We didn't
spend the time to do a whole separate subdivision like that but we took some
attempt, we made some attempts at defining what the differences might be. There
probably would be slightly fewer lots if it came in as a straight subdivision. I
But you've got to weigh that against the impact and the quality. We think that
the impact would be greater because you have a more difficult time managing
impact reduction on wetlands and tree protection under straight subdivisions.
47
I
_ _ • 1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Lake Susan Hills is a straight subdivision. I mean you plat out a cornfield and
lay it out and it works pretty good on flat ground. It doesn't work very well
on difficult sites. Impact on tree cover. I think clearly we're doing a better
job with the PUD than we would have with straight zoning. We've used for
example flexibility in the PUD to reduce road widths and acquire easements that
we couldn't have done under the straight zoning. Quality of development.
That's a little difficult to get a handle on. However, we have an existing plat
that's being consumed in this, the Ersbo Addition. The Ersbo Addition has never
been one of our favorite plats. It's legitimate. It met the guidelines of a
I straight subdivision in the City. It was approved twice but frankly it's a
fairly low quality subdivision would result, because of the way the lots are
laid out and. . .next to Lake Lucy Road, would probably result in less desireable
' homes because they're less desireable homesites. This project results in a lot
of higher quality lots. Clearly we have an advantage of knowing what Lundgren
wants to do here which we think is pretty good but we think this is a much
' better quality project than we would have had with many little Ersbo's occurring
in that area, if that's what were to occur. We've got a street loop coming
through there which we think is advantageous from a public safety standpoint. If
we didn't use a PUD, we couldn't get that street loop. We could get it but we'd
' be running the street through the wetland so that'd be the trade-off and clearly
I think it's an advantage not to do it that way. The last commentary was on the
impact on wetlands with a straight subdivision. This site is extraordinarily
' difficult to develop because it has many small scattered wetlands. It's
difficult to guess but I've got to believe that anybody coming in to plat this,
whether PUD or subdivision, straight subdivision is going to have the same
' problems. I think the bottom line for us is what are the solutions and under
the PUD we were able to develop a pretty good package of solutions here that we
think make for better wetlands and better... There were a couple other issues
that we worked on resolving in the meantime and Charles can throw his two cents
in if he wishes. One of the concerns that we had was information seemed to
indicate that, well information clearly indicated that the main pond, the DNR
pond that we all see from Lake Lucy Road had been damaged before any development
' had been done on this_property. It was damaged because of old farm activity. It
was damaged because of what's. running off of Lake Lucy Road into it. And a lot
of people, including us asked the basic question, well if we're doing our best
to improve water quality from this project but we don't respond to the stuff
' flowing into it, we're not going to fix the problem. So what we wanted to do is
intercept the water or as much water as we can from Lake Lucy Road and run it
through the storm water, the water quality improvement ponds. The applicant
' initially objected to the cost for doing that and the cost originally, if you
could flip on that graphic. The cost originally stemmed from the fact that
there are two catch basins over here and the cost to run a pipe from here over
' to .this pond was fairly significant but probably more important to us, it
probably would have damaged the wetland. What we came up with was a way of
intercepting the water. There's a hill coming down this way. A hill coming
down that way. What we did is we're going to play around with these catch
basins here and here and intercept the rain water that's running down the street
before it ever gets down to there and pick it up and run it into those catch
basins. It's almost a. ..at that point. It really doesn't cost much additional
' at all and it's really resolving the problem for us. What we're going to be
doing is treating all the water that falls on the south side of Lake Lucy Road. -
You may recall that there's a question. with Lake Lucy Road is the division
between two watershed districts and the only reasonable way we could think of
48
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
doing this and we've bounced it off the watershed districts, is to split the
flow at the crown of the road. So basically what we'd be doing is intercepting
all the water on the south side. All the water on the north side would continue
to flow out to the north through Curry Farms. We also had a gentleman here on
another matter, drainage matter who's name escapes me Mayor but he lives in your
subdivision who raised some questions on drainage last time. We pet with him. 11 He came into the office. We pulled out all our maps and explained the policies
to him and the information that we had and how we regulate development. I hope
that put his mind at ease. I haven't heard from him since but basically we
explained that we do regulate the flow coming out of projects and we always do
insure that flood impacts are never made any worse downstream. Charles, was
there anything else you wanted to add on that?
Charles Folch: No, I think we just made it clear that the pre-developed runoff 1
rate would be maintained and he had expressed that his property had survived the
storm of '87 and we basically told him if it's operated, functioned correctly
during that storm, all he would experience possibly in the future with
development is just having a longer period of time that you'd have flow through
that area. But no more increase volume per se. Actually not volume. It's
actually the rate. ,
Paul Krauss: So with that Mr. Mayor- I hope we've responded to the questions
that were raised. We're continuing to recommend approval. We've revised some
of the conditions to reflect the current planning and current plans we had. We
did receive a new landscaping plan from the applicant. It does a better job.
We still have a couple of revisions to make. I also noticed that we had an
omission under the Preliminary Plat, condition 2(e) relative tq a landscape berm
off site. We wanted to make sure that, it's right up in here, where it will
protect an existing home from headlight glare. We wanted to make sure that this
plan is acceptable to those homeowners so if we could have some language in II
there that the applicant work with staff and the property owners to gain final
concurrence on that. If I could sketch that in. The landscape berm will be
right over here. There's a home right there. Or there abouts. ,
Mayor Chmiel: That's coming from the east going west out onto Lake Lucy Road?
Paul Krauss: Right. That does it for me. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Terry, is there anything you'd like to say in
addition to what Paul has said? '
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Terry
Forbord. 935 East Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata, Minnesota. I'm with Lundgren Bros..
At the September 9th meeting, because of the lateness, we didn't have an
opportunity to really respond to many of the concerns that the City Council had.
• I'm not even sure if at that meeting the Council had an opportunity to even
state what all of their concerns were. However, at that time I did present on
the overhead to the City Council some items that we were concerned with with a
resolution and since that time we have met with staff. Corresponded with staff
and many of those items we have come to some agreement on. There are just a few
other items that, the resolution has been changed since the September '9th
meeting. The first opportunity we had to see it was today and so there's just a
couple items we would like clarification on. And again there will probably be
49
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
IIa couple items we'd ask you to reconsider. However, because of this late time,
again I can talk for 3 hours when we have our consultants here but I'm sure
IIyou'd rather not do that.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
' Terry Forbord: Maybe it would be better if I was able to respond to some of
your questions. But before I do that I would like to say just a couple things. •
Lundgren Bros. is close to not developing this site because the costs that we
II keep incurring because what we're trying to do and trying to do a good job are
almost to the point where it's no longer worth it. Now I know you may think
that economics aren't important but I know each you just enough, and I've
learned a little bit about each of you from watching you at meetings that I
think you all really care about how the city develops. Well, in order the city
to develop in the way that I have perceived it, that this Council wants it
developed, things have to make some kind of economic feasibility. This project
II is very •close to not making any sense because of what we have had to do to get
to this point. So I would ask you to consider this evening this item on the
agenda and we would hope that you wouldn't get into things like removing lots
II because the proposal isn't going to work that way. I wanted to tell you that up
front because I haven't had a chance to talk to any of you and I don't know what
anybody's thinking. There's been a lot of discussion that one, this project is
too dense. This project is not dense. Just compare it with any city anywhere
around here or even this city. There's been questions that the lot sizes are
too small. The lot sizes are not too small. They meet the guiding in the
comprehensive plan. There's been a lot of discussion that it's not sensitive to
II wetlands. We've done everything that can be possibly done to answer those
questions. In fact we're doing things that have never been done in the city of
Chanhassen. At this time maybe it'd be best if I just would respond to the j
II questions of the City Council. We do have our wetland consultant Mr. Frank
Svoboda and our consulting engineer, Mr. Rick Sathre here if there are any
questions. If there aren't going to be any questions, I would like to just
II discuss the items on the resolution that we would hope to clarify and maybe gain
some reconsideration.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe we could come back to that. We have some residents who
II live within the area to state their issues. I'd like to ask them to limit your
time because of-time fleeting. We know what was said last time because they are
in the Minutes and we have reviewed those. If there's something new and
II additional that you may have, we'd be more than happy to listen to that. So at
this time I'd like to take people who have some concerns with the project and
we'll go with that first.
IITerry Forbord: Is this the public hearing? -
Mayor Chmiel: No, but I have open meetings. Is there anyone who really wanted
IIto restate something differently, and if so, please come forward.
Gary O'Neill: Mayor and City Council. Gary O'Neill. I live at 6830 Utica
II Circle. My property adjoins the wetlands that we're talking about here. ' I
tried to digest a little bit of what was in the reports before and I'm just
wondering if somebody with some expertise in the area could tell me, help me
understand it. Do I understand that there will be the same amount of water
I
50
111—
__ -
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
flowing through the wetlands behind my property that currently exists or will
there be actually more water but spaced out over a longer period of time? Here's
my concern. It's pretty saturated in my back yard right now. If more water
comes in, it will be saturated longer and my fear is worse than it is now. So
somebody please alleve my fear that it's going to be worse.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe Rick, the engineer can actually explain the amount. I
would anticipate that the volume would certainly be more than what you have now
. but the actual discharge rate would not increase. Correct me if I'm wrong on
that Rick. ,
Rick Sathre: That's correct. I'm Rick Sathre from Sathre-Berquist, the project
engineer. I think in that the ONR wetland is such a large area, we may have
potential to actually decrease the rate of flow off the property. We certainly
wouldn't increase it. We would control it at the current rate but anytime you
get more homes with roofs and more driveways, you always get an increase of
runoff volume and we can't get around that. There's going to be increasing
volume but we can control rate. So Mr. O'Neill would see water run for a longer
period of time but not any faster than it has in the past.
Mayor Chmiel: Or come up any higher than is existing? I
Rick Sathre:" Correct.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Ken Earhart: Ken Earhart. I live at 6880 Utica Lane. I'm also with this
wetland any my question is to the engineer. Is how are they going to take the
water out of this wetlands that does lie behind us?
Rick Sathre: Mr. Earhart, I'm not sure which street is Utica Lane and which is
Utica Circle. Are you on the east side?
Mayor Chmiel: As you come directly off of 'CR 17, that's Utica Lane. Utica I
Circle goes back in.
Rick Sathre: Alright. So that's the east/west street. The water from the
wetland that 's between your home and the Ortenblat property, the water that runs
out of there goes out pretty much the southwest portion of the wetland under I
think it's Utica Circle and into the lake. If there are isolated low spots that
are too low for the water to get out the existing ditch, nothing would change
with that.
Ken Earhart: Nothing would change? ,
Rick Sathre: I mean the elevations of the basin of the wetland down behind you
home, there's nothing proposed in that wetland area. If there's standing water
there now, there would continue to be. There wouldn't be a change in the
condition of the wetland basin.
Ken Earhart: Well, where I'm at I have a corner, I'm right at the corner that ,
goes into my neighbors property, the pond and then underneath the road. I'm
okay except on a 10 inch rain and then it comes up to my storage shed. I'm
51
c.i.ty Luuncli neeting=-u-c- ouer 14, 19y1
okay. The people behind me, the other neighbors, they are going to have even
more water end up in there because the land is lower on that end.. .and unless
you do something in that wetland, they are definitely going to have more water
and that is my concern.
Rick Sathre: All I can say again is that we can control the rate of runoff so
it doesn't increase. Specific concerns over specific areas and how they'll
work, I think what would make the most sense is if we can find out what exactly
the concern is and maybe meet and talk about it and figure out if there's
' anything to do.
Ken Earhart: The whole upper end of Greenwood Shores, the water all comes down
through it because you've already got Greenwood Shores two drainage that come on
' through and on into the area and down south on the north end of that pond...
until it finally seeks it's way out. Now we're going to put more in. That's my
concern is. . .
Rick Sathre: Your honor, members of the Council. I think we engineers benefit
very greatly from people telling us what they perceive is wrong. I think any
complaints that you get from the citizens about things that don't work well now,
' I know from my standpoint I'd try to solve their problems. I don't know, if
they're not on our site or we can't really relate to them, it's hard for us but
I think it 's real important that we understand what the problems are and be sure
' not to make them worse.
Mayor Chmiel: I guess that basically would be the Council's concern too. At
least not making it worse because I've been in a predictament like that as well
where, not in this community but in another community where I had water come
back into my back yard and right up to the back door. Never was that way before
until another home was built. Because of a swale not being there, it just
' filled in. And here of course, this is restriction of water flowing back from
there through the culverts and back into Lake Lucy. Now the size of that-
culvert that's existing, will that accommodate those additional flows and will
II that accommodate a 100 year flood or 1,000 year flood as we had in the State
just not too long ago. I guess that would be some of the concerns.
Rick Sathre: Indeed. In the past the improvements that have, or the hard
surfacing that happened in cities, there wasn't nearly as much concern over
downstream volumes. I think Mr. Folch and the rest of the engineers out there,
myself included are all much more sensitive these days to making sure that we
' preserve drainage rates. We're doing a much better job these days. And again,
all I can say is that we're committed to the idea that we will not increase the
rate so there should not be a perceptible change in downstream drainage
conditions other than the increased volume of water which will help to flush the
wetlands out for a longer period of time but would help to increase the clarity
of the water perhaps. You know increased flow is good. Stagnation is bad. So
volume can be a help. Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Did you want to say something Paul?
' Paul Krauss: Well Mr. Mayor, it's not by way of providing an answer but the
city, you know we've developed up until now without having a comprehensive storm
water plan and as you're all aware, that's one of the products that we're
' 52
•
1
_
�rzr ivuiic.i , 1,71
working on 'right now. In lieu of that, we've had a policy whereby every ,
project's required to design in retention so they discharge at pre-development
rate. So we're assured that we're not making anything any worse. We're not
sure that we're resolving any problems that may already exist downstream. We
don't know that. We probably won't know how the system functions until that
plan is completed in it's entirety. If there's an existing problem with that
discharge from there into Lake Lucy, there's going to continue to be a problem
and that's probably something that we should address. I'm not sure that we can
ask the developer somewhat further removed to address it but I think the City
Council can direct staff to take that into account.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I guess all it's doing is potentially could create a
problem for those existing property owners and that I look at from a concern for
that. That's why I bring that up. Ursula? 1
Councilwoman Dimler: Do you want me to start?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. I don't know if there's someone else that wants? Ed. ,
Ed Jannusch: My name is Ed Jannusch. I live at 6831 Utica Terrace. I'm the
person that spoke with Paul Krauss after the meeting last month. In talking
with Paul he stated that the watershed had been dictated. That the line be on
Lake Lucy Road. All I'm asking I guess is that you would, or with this project
we would continue to drain some of that water to the north. Mr. Sathre had said
that we could, or that they could calculate the amount of water that is
collected on that northern area and what presently drains south I have no
problem with any of that. But the water that is currently draining to the north
I wish that we could continue that to drain to the north and that would
alleviate any problems that might arise because of this development. I don't
think that would be that difficult to do since the culvert's already in place.
Perhaps it needs to be cleaned out. However, the gauging of the sizing of the
culvert that would run in that direction I think could be calculated as was said
earlier.
Rick Sathre: I guess Ed, I can design things to work in any way. Or not any, 1
way but I can make water run downhill. You just have to decide which way is
downhill or which downhill is better.
Ed Jannusch: Well after the meeting I went to that area and I walked through
that area that was the hand dug ditch and it has filled in with sediment and
vegetation. So currently there is no water running through that from that area
draining to the south except what naturally flows from the elevations further to
the east. Southeast. However, I guess since that water now is flowing to the
.north, I just ask that it continue to flow that way. So if the Planning
Commission could look into that, I would certainly appreciate that. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
Joe Morin: Hi. I'm Joe Morin, 1441 Lake Lucy Road. My basic concerns are
outlined in the letter July 18th to the Planning Commission. I'm not going to
talk about that. I am going to say however that I don't believe that .these
concerns have been adequate addressed with the concept that's being proposed. I
would hope that with the PUD concept that some of the concepts, some of the
53 I
•
1
Lill ‘VUlit.o1X FieeL1119 uCLOOeT 14, 1771
points that I addressed in this letter could have better addressed. I think
there's been attempts 10 do it. I think previous concepts have come a little
closer than where we're at now. I guess the main points that I have are concern
with the blending of this concept with existing neighborhoods, both to the south
and to the west. The concern about the oak trees on the knoll on the northwest
corner. They're 150 year oak trees there and I still believe that some effort
should be made to move that road further to the east. Work with the DNR. Impact
the Class A wetlands and save that beautiful knoll and some of those trees. I
really believe that more work could be done in that area. The trees that are to
the east, Paul pointed out there are trees there but they're scurb. They're pop
ups. They're trees that aren't nearly as valuable as the trees on the knoll.
And the last point I'd like to make is, I really think a lot of good work has
been done in controlling the flow from Lake Lucy Road into the holding pond
' areas. That I think is a benefit to the wetland area. I wish that we could
more in terms of the flow that's going to run off from all of the developed lots
that are going to be around that Class A wetlands and what I had hoped and kind
' of saw as a promise for what we could do here is perhaps put a holding pond at
the south end of that Class A wetland so that those nutrients could settle out
before they flowed into the drainage system into Lake Lucy. And that these
nutrients then could be periodically removed from all of the holding ponds on an
as required basis. Those are the three points I'd like to make. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Joe. Anyone else?
Ted Coey: Ted Coey, 1381 Lake Lucy Road. Besides all the comments I made at
the last meeting and the ones that were made this meeting, the major thing I
wanted to get across was I'm the one most effected because I'm right next door.
I've got 18 to 20 acres and I want to make sure that the project, at least for
the comments I made last time, is going to be done tastefully so it blends in
with what I've got now and what I may want to develop 20 years from now. 10
' years from now. Whatever. I think with me being obviously the most affected, I
think the points I made, also the points Joe made who lives right next door to
me, are taken with some heavy thought because of the fact that the people that
I are closest to this project are the ones who are going to have to work with this
as far as if they subdivide of sell down the road. Besides the fact the
wetland, you have a problem with runoff and I haven't looked at the proposal
that closely to see how it impacts me but I've got a pond right next to the pond
' now that drains from the north and it goes from there into the lake and I don't
know how that's going to be affected as far as if more water goes into there.
That issue was never even brought up with all the flow of water and whatever.
I'm right next door and obviously being, there's going to be lots along the
line. I don't know if there's going to be more water at all running into the
west of the project. None at all?
Rick Sathre: No. We're not directing any overland flow towards that.
Ted Coey: That's good. Also the other thing was, what kind of impact or what
kind of look I would have as far as with all the houses that are going to be
backing up to my property. If there's going to be trees left or any berms there
or that type of thing too would be a factor as far as if I could look at all
these roofs. I'm on a hill so thank you.
- i
1 i
54
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else? Okay. If not, maybe we can pursue with some
questions. Who would like to start with this? I will start with Mike. '
. Councilman Mason: Oh thanks. On the one hand this has been going on for a long
time but on the other hand, all the questions keep getting answered and things I
think keep getting closer and closer. What's going on with the total drainine
of that wetland and revegetating it? I mean really making an attempt to get the
phospherous out of that. Where are we at with that?
Paul Krauss: A couple things. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that I
we've asked everybody in the State of Minnesota with any interest in wetlands
about this project. ,
Councilman Mason: Yeah.
Paul Krauss: There appears to be, the information that we have is that there is
some nutrient saturated muck at the bottom of the thing. The ONR will not
consider going in and dredging it out. They don't think that's a particular
good idea. The proposal here is to increase the depth of the water. Make sure
that the water running into that wetland is of much higher quality than it is
today and that what will come out will be better quality than there is today.
I don't know if that gets, I think it gets it as much of that question as we
possibly can. Where the urbanized, most of the urbanized area of this project.
As Joe Morin points out, there's back yards that fall down to that wetland that
we can't intercept that water. But virtually everything else, all the streets,
most of the front yards and a lot of the lots are going to be run through these
trevin ponds. We're pretty convinced that plus raising the elevation 1 foot,
I mean we keep bickering whether it should be 1 foot or 2 foot, to provide more
open water should do the trick. Again, we don't know who else to ask about
this. The latest revision that we had with this when we flipped around the
drainage on Lake Lucy Road, we had them go from 3 small Walker Ponds to 2 bigger
ones at the recommendation of Bonestroo Engineering who's our consultant on the
surface water plan. We did give them a copy of the final version of this plan
and they thought it was pretty good.
Councilman Mason: I'm just going to ask one more question for now and maybe
I'll try again later. No? This is my one shot? Oh geez. Paul, what's your
opinion of what we're doing by, if we rezone this to PUD, I believe it was Joe's
letter raised the issue about if this goes to a PUD and other people looked at
this and said this is a way for us to get out of wetland enforcement. I mean
we're not, I'm not saying that the changes we're making are bad or that are
proposed but there are some pretty drastic things going on in that area. Is
this a way down the road for developers not as reputable as Lundgren Bros. to
think ooh, we've got an out here? We can really go to town on this one.
Paul Krauss: If any less reputable developer wants to take On the cost that
Lundgren's taken on to do all the studies, develop all the plans for all the
mitigation and come up with a package like they did, we'd probably be supportive
of that. If that's a new policy, well we're looking at policies for the
wetlands now with our surface water task force anyway. We're relunctant to
change them kind of willy nilly but we think that this is one the things PUD is
designed to do. It's designed to be a little innovative. Be a little creative
55
•
11
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
and get yourself a better package for everybody than you would have otherwise.
We think this meets the goal. You know, they're not getting away with anything.
Councilman Mason: I guess my concern is whether they're getting away with
anything or not. . .
Terry Forbord: Mr. Mayor, Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros. Mr. Mason, maybe I
can just follow up with that a little bit more. The PUD is not for our benefit.
The PUD is as much for the city's benefit as anybody. If the city was smart,
11 every project would be a PUD because there's no other zoning tool that gives the
City as much control. Period. That's a fact. If this proposal, this site was
designed under the standard subdivision regulations, you wouldn't see any of the
things that we're proposing. You wouldn't have to because I could say, here's
the Code. Here's the ordinance. I'm meeting everything that's in it and that
would be it. So the PUD is a benefit to the City. It ends up that we can
benefit from it too and we end up with a better product for the community.
* I think Paul already mentioned that often times, certainly not always but often
times a developer will come to a city with a proposal for a planned unit
development and remember it's just a zoning tool. It's nothing really hocus
pocus about PUD's. Just a zoning tool but often times they'll be asking for
smaller lots, which I do not think is a bad thing by the way, but I think it's
important to look at this proposal of what we're not asking for because really
' what the City is getting here is they're having a site that is probably one of
the more delicate sites within the city. That's within your urban service area.
There's a few more over by CR 117 and TH 41. This is one of the more delicate
sites in the city. Because of the PUD, the City's going to be able to do a
balancing act and allow development to occur in a way they'd never be able to
without it. So it's a real advantage to the community. I would encourage the
City to do more of it.
Councilman Workman: Well it doesn't appear as though as we are as far off maybe
as I think we all thought. Ursula looks really tired. I think, and I always
tell Mike, we're always taking about where's the dang water going and that's our
job. Where's the water going and if we figure that out for everybody, then
.usually we don't have any problems. I think as part of the record there was a
gentleman and I'm sorry, it. was a Mr. Earhart? And everybody who's comments are
in the record, hopefully that's good enough for us to come back and say we have
a water problem now and Mr. Earhart or Mr. Coey or whoever and his concern about
his problem and come back and say, or make it part of our motion that there
shall not be a noticeable problem. And if there is, then we'll have to address
it and that rightfully so. So I don't think we have a problem. I don't know if
we have a problem or Paul if we're going to set ourselves up or maybe this has
been answered and I dosed off. Whether we're setting ourselves up for setback
problems with the wetlands. Are we setting ourselves up for problems with
that? Are we knock a metal sign in the back yard of every home so they know
that putting this white rock up to the shore is not permitted? -
' Paul Krauss: Actually we're going to do something like that. That's in the
package. There is going to be some sort, and we haven't agreed on what sort yet
but some sort of above ground signage or visible marker where your buffer yard
is which is 10 to 25 feet. It's variable, back from the wetland and what the
buffer yard is supposed to be is an area that's supposed to grow wild so you're 1
not supposed to sod on the water side of that at all. So it will be visible.
t
56
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Everybody will know where it is. The easements are clearly laid out in all
titles and we shouldn't have the kinds of problems that we've had in the past.
I'm not going to say somebody's not going to be creative and wind up coming
before the Board of Adjustments. I continue to be amazed at what people will
come up with but we think we've got as many bases covered as we can.
Councilman Mason: Can I just ask a quick question? Aren't you doing something I
about that in the packet that you develop too? I mean about the buffer strip
and all that? With homeowners. I thought you mentioned something and I might
be way off. If I am, I'm sorry. ,
Terry Forbord: Forgive me. Let me just try to clarify that. You said in the
packet that we would? I
Paul Krauss: The sales packet.
Councilman Mason: Yeah, in your sales packet you talked about things that you
do for people that buy into your area.
Terry Forbord: I think at some point in time, whether it was at the Planning
Commission. I don't believe it was on September 9th but maybe on the Planning
Commission, maybe you were here for one of those meetings. Maybe you and Mr.
Wing and the Mayor came to a couple of those. I'm not sure if they were for our
item but you were here. Let me back up a little bit. For some reason the
ordinance in Chanhassen states that no structure can be any closer than 75 feet
to what is designated as a wetland. There's no other city in the State of
Minnesota to my knowledge that has that requirement. Probably the closest would
be Minnetonka which is 30 feet or 35 feet. How the 70 foot number was developed
is a mystery to me and every other wetland specialist, scientist, limnologist
we've been able to talk to. Was there something magic about the 70 feet? We've
discovered that there is nothing. There is no set number that if you pace off
70 feet, for sure that wetland won't be contaminated if a building's built over
there. There is no such scientific data that supports that. However, what is
important, what we have discovered is that a wetland is only a product of the
watershed that's around it. And a lot of it would be put between that
structure and the wetland. And so in working with staff we discovered that what
- was important to the City or to the Council, the Planning Commission, whatever,
was to find a way to mitigate whatever impact development may have on the
wetland so we came up with the idea of a preservation zone that could be
untouched. Couldn't be mowed. That had a conservation easement with it that
gave the City powers that they never had before. To go in and tell the
homeowners no. You can't do this. It's not only in a sales brochure. It's
recorded on the deed as a deed restriction on the sale of every property so it's
entered into the title of the property. So then we were thinking well geez,
that's really neat and it sounds real wonderful but how about the guy then that
sells his house 4 years down the road and how many people really read the Title
and all that other stuff. I mean most people don't. Let's face it. It's kind
of boring stuff and that guy comes in unknowingly and says, gee. First week out
that he's in his new home he gets out the cycle and goes and just hacks off
everything that we've worked so hard to protect. Then I think it was either
Paul or Jo Ann said maybe there's a way we can monument this. And you know that
wasn't such a bad idea. At first it kind of, well geez. I've never done that.
I've never heard of it. Then we thought, well maybe that's not a bad idea
57
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
because every now and then you drive around the Regional Park and you see Y g Y e those
signs that say Hennepin County Regional Park. It's just a small little thing so
1 we're thinking maybe there's a way we can develop an inconspicuous. When I say
inconspicuous, I don't want it to be a 4 x 8 foot orange sign but something that
would just be marked at the boundaries along the lot lines that would delineate
that says preservation zone and maybe in small• print that it says something if
you have any questions you can call the City at 937-1900. Whatever. At least
then people can see it. It's not just something that's lost in the Title
somewhere. And then we started thinking about it. Well one thing that we
always do, if we're in an area where there's something controversial, what we
typically do is create a disclaimer or something because we don't want our
clients ever coming back, well you never told us this. So what we would more
than likely do, and we haven't gotten to that stage because we're not even at
preliminary plat approval. Is we would have something on the sales plat and for
those of you who have worked in our Near Mountain or seen the marking materials
' we have in Near Mountain, we have a sales plat that depicts a certain area and
certain things you can and can't do and there's disclaimers on there and they're
part of every item that gets handed perspective clients. So to answer your
question in a long answer, I think that's a good idea and we will be doing that
because it's something that we do in every project.
Mayor Chmiel: Anything more Tom?
' Councilman Workman: I don't know how to address Joe's concern. about the knoll
and trees. By having it encroach on the wetland or other, I don't know how to
address or place value on one or the other. So I guess I don't know how that
would.
Paul Krauss: If I could very briefly. We did a very lengthy investigation of
the alternatives for that and in fact counted up the caliper inches of trees
that would trade off and contacted the DNR to see if they would let us impact
the wetland. They said they've never done that kind of a filling, approved that
II kind of filling before but they would if, they'd consider it if we showed a very
substantial tree preservation- that resulted. I don't have the exact number in
front of me but I think when we tallied up the caliper inches that are lost
under each alternative, there was a 40 inch difference. You save 40 more inches
by shifting the road into the wetland. And really that doesn't sound like it's
substantial enough to be allowed to do the filling that the ONR talked to us
about.
Joe Morin: I think my point Paul was the quality of trees. You can have 40
caliper inches of...
Paul Krauss: Well, if we get that up. There's some, I don't know how you
compare quality trees but we did have some quality trees on both. There is a
list in the packet someplace that breaks that out.
' Terry Forbord: Your Honor?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Terry Forbord: If I may. I need to take issue. I'm going to take this time to
take issue with some of the allegations that we have not been sensitive to trees
58
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
or road alignments. I have not taken issue to this point
p in time because I've
attempted to be very patient. But within this packet of probably 100 some pages
there's an answer to each one of these questions. There's been at least a half
a dozen road alternatives in just that one corner of the site. Trees have been
measured per caliper inch. We've surveyed every tree. Measured how many
calipers are there. Put the roadway in that spot on paper. Looked at the
topography map. Determined what the grading limits of that road would be and
how many trees it would wipe out and we've done that for at least 5 or 6 road
alternatives. Additionally, in each instance because you can't, when you make
the decision on a site, whether it be trees or a pond or a hill, you can't just
look at the hill and make a decision because it might impact the wetland. You
can't just look at the wetland and make a decision because it might impact the
tree. You have to look at each one of those natrual resources when you make
your decision and just determine what the balancing act, what's the least impact
that decision will have. So then we had to go to the ONR with each one of the
road alignments and say, what do you think? Well obviously the DNR is trying to
protect their wetland and they don't want us to go into the wetland no matter
what and they're not going to give us the permit to fill it. To put that road
in when they say you can move it over here. So the juggling act that we had
then, we had these constraints. We were trying to satisfy the residents who
both lived across the street and 300,. 400, 600, 800 feet to the west. We are
trying to build a road that we know would meet city standards. We're trying to
meet staff's requests and so working with staff, not against them, we finally
found a road alignment that had the least impact on all these things. But it's
almost been suggested that nobody has taken any time to look into this. An
immense amount of time has gone. More than any project that I've ever been
involved with in 22 years. I don't mean to sound at this time that I'm
impatient but all these questions have been answered and they're all in this if
somebody would take the time to read it.
Councilman Wing: Terry, the question of the trees. It's been discussed in every
Planning Commission meeting that I've been at but the gentleman brought the
point up again and I will bring it up again. You've done work. I don't deny
that at all. You've put an enormous amount of time into this. We've discussed
• this with the DNR. It doesn't change the issue that to him and to myself the
saving of these trees and that clump of trees on the knoll to me aesthetically
and environmentally has a much greater impact than, is much more important to me
than filling a little bit of a wetland that's going to be altered anyway. The
minor impact on that wetland is a minimal concern to me considering what we're
losing environmentally on that clump of trees on that knoll. I mean that's a
major resource of the city. That crazy little question of wetland. I mean this
is just, wetlands are so over played in Chanhassen, I have to be very careful
because I support it but having a daughter doing graduate work in soil
Management and wetland conservation, she's sort of been prodding me saying gee,
how did this thing ever get going. Somebody must have a lobby on wetlands. I
don't want to diminish their importance but that wetland minor alteration. Minor
alteration that will occur versus the trees we're going to lose, I don't see any
comparison. It's not my turn to talk. I just commented. I appreciate your
work but this map you provided shows we're losing a lot. An awful lot.
Terry Forbord: Counciler Wing? You cannot have development without affecting I
the site. And I wish, what I prefer to do is I'll bring a cul-de-sac in from
the Ersbo property all the way around and I won't even enter onto Lake Lucy
59
1
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Road. That's what I'll propose becuase what can I do. If the DNR looks at me
and says we're not going to let you have a permit to fill the wetland to put the
road there, what am I suppose to do?
Councilman Wing: I understand.
Terry Forbord: That's what happens in development and I wish that I would not
have to cut one tree on this site. That would be my ultimate goal but I'm also
' rational enough to know that it can't happen without doing it.
Councilman Wing: But I want the ONR to tell me to my face that those trees are
less important that a slight notion to that wetland. That concerns me a lot
that that's their reasoning.
Terry Forbord: Well they have done that. They've responded to us and say you
just can't.
Councilman Wing: I won't belabor that.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Can I just piggyback onto that? I wanted to ask Paul, are
those trees really over a 100 years old? And if they are, aren't they protected
under an ordinance that we passed? A tree protection ordinance if they're 100
'
yeras old. And if that's the case then we could not be violating our own city
ordinance.
Paul Krauss: Boy, that one throws a new one at me. I'm not sure that we do.,
I'd have to check.
•
Councilwoman Dimler: I know we have one.
Paul Krauss: I know there's been talk about a significant tree or whatever the
terminology was but I don't think it's ever been put.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Trees that are over 100 years old. Do you remember
. that? We passed that when Bill Boyt was on the Council.
Mayor Chmiel: Long time ago. 100 years.
Councilwoman Dimler: Look it up because if that's the case, we cannot do it.
Or we'd be violating our own ordinance.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor. We have no idea how old those trees are. That's
pure speculation.
Councilman Wing: We could count the rings Terry.
t Terry Forbord: That's true but there's been a number thrown around this evening
and there's no verification.
•
' Councilman Workman: Let me wrap up my comments and then maybe Richard Lumberman
Wing. I'm going to wrap my comments up very quickly. I think that we're
dealing with some very reputable developers here. I think we have a very
difficult piece of land here and the points about you're going to lose a few
60
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
trees and move a little water and things to get these in I think holds true. At
least over in my experience and so I don't tend to like to get too much into the
details of every bush and you know we got into some of the things that staff was
working ONR Forester to verify the appropriate landscaping. It doesn't seem to
be appropriate. We're kind of getting nit picky and I get back to my thing
about the requirement from 1 tree now going to 3 trees. We're going to talk
about that tomorrow might but somewhere we've got to allow these people to kind
of.
Councilwoman Dimler: But a 100 year old tree is protected.
Paul Krauss: No, Ursula. Roger and I were just talking about that. Both he
and I recall Bill Boyt talking about doing that but we're pretty convinced it's
not in the ordinance. I look up 20-1179 which is tree removal regulations and
that's not in there. That's the Code that we go by. i
Councilwoman Dimler: Don, do you remember that?
Don Ashworth: I recall the discussion but I do not remember the passage of that
ordinance.
Mayor Chmiel: The adoption of it?
Roger Knutson: We'll double check...but we'll double check it for you.
Councilwoman Dimler: Well check the Minutes too to get back there because I'm 1
pretty sure it passed.
Roger Knutson: I recall the discussion. 1
Councilman Workman: So I tend to and mabye that's to my disadvantage but I know
that, I know staff and everybody has tried to do as sound, ecological job with
this thing as we can and I don't know where to pull 2 lots out of. I don't know
what that will fix. But I have confidence in this process being able to work
out. Like I said, the wetland issue is, the water drainage issues will have to
be addressed as stated for the record and I know that we can get that fixed.
We've done that in the past. We've had a problem. So I don't know, I guess I
don't know what we're getting at except we're getting down to some very nit
picky. Well I don't know if it's nit picky for a 100 year old tree but it seems
• like we're getting into some detail that we're rehashing an awful lot. I move
my discussion.
Councilman Wing: Well real quickly. We sit underneath this emblem all the time
and almost 100% of the color in the city right now, fall foliage is the sugar
maple because there's densities of them. Why are we going with ash, honey
locust, linden...and there's no broad leafed, very aesthetically pleasing sugar
maples going into the landscaping? Terry, was there any reason to avoid those?
Terry Forbord: Excuse me. Just to make sure I understand the question. You're
asking about the type of tree species that the landscape architect is proposing?
Is that correct?
•
61 '
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Wing: Yeah. I'm just very partial to the shape and color and what
' the maples give the city.
Terry Forbord: Sure. I think trees, colors, materials, textures are all
subjective things. You can talk to 100 people and 100 people will have
different opinions of what they like. We use three different landscape
' architects.
Councilman Wing: Okay, I'm the only one that's going to answer this question. I
get your drift.
Terry Forbord: I mean each one has a different theme. Let me just tell you the
' theme we adopted with this proposed site. It's a very natural looking site. If
you drive by it and you look at it, you see a wetland. There's types of
landscaping that look real manicured and formal. We've specifically designed
' the landscaping for this site so it does not look formal. That's why we use
quaking aspen along Lake Lucy Road. If you've ever been up north, especially at
this time. Well a lot of them may be up but the quaking aspens are in clumps
' and they kind of look like birch trees and they're typically around marshy areas
and real natural. They don't look formal at all. And so each species that
we've selected was specifically for that. We're trying to make it blend in. We
don't want somebody to go by and go, geez. Look at all the nice landscaping
' they did there. We don't want that. We want people to say God, that's a nice
site. We don't want it to stand out. That's why.
Councilman Wing: See I like trees but I'm flexible. I have no more questions.
But my big issue here, I have no trouble with the PUD, which is item (a).
I have no trouble with the wetland alteration which is item (c). The only one
that I want to offer as a Council member for discussion is one specific item and
that's the natural aspects of the land plus Lundgren Bros., Paul to me says
parkland. And I am not willing to accept park fees in lieu of parkland. It is
my recommendation, my intent to support the taking of the parkland versus park
II . fees for this development. I would like to see a lot available for the
community. Picnic table, play area. Whatever the case is. Left natural, I
don't know but I would tend .to oppose park fees in lieu of parkland. That's the
only comment I have.
Councilwoman Dimler: Due to the lateness of the hour, I guess I just have a few
concerns. I'm still a little bit concerned about the density. I'm not sure yet
' that we're getting, the City is benefitting as much as is being said here. Also
I'm in agreement with the neighbors on their concerns about the increase in
water in their back yards and possibly in their basements. This reminds me of
the case of Mr. Borchardt and his neighbor and they came to every meeting and
they expressed their concerns and when the development was started, there was a
definite increase and it was not properly addressed and there's a lawsuit that
' resulted. I don't want to see that pattern repeated. Therefore I suggest that
we document what the water is right now so that an increase can be detected and
that there will be no argument about it. And that then the developer would then
take responsibility for causing that and improving the drainage. Also, I agree
' that this housing development, if there's 37 homes there, would stand to 'have at
least that many kids and maybe 2 per household. I know what Curry Farms went
through in not having, they didn't have the neighborhood park although it was
proposed. They didn't have it for a while. They couldn't get it fast enough
62
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
because they had so many children in the development. I cannot see putting in
this development without putting in a park for those neighbors. For that
neighborhood. They have no other place to go. They're going to go to Greenwood
Shores or they're going to cross the street and go to Curry Farms. I don't
• think that's a safe situation. I think they have to have a park. I think they
will demand a park. '
Councilman Wing: Do you want a second?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. Those are the basic concerns right now. I guess I
want to say I don't want to be rushed into this and I think if you were to
threaten that the development will go away if I don't approve this tonight, I'll
say good-bye. '
Mayor Chmiel: I guess in listening to what everyone has said here tonight, 'I
• think some of my comments are said there with each of the suggestions. One of
the concerns I have is for those neighbors to the south in making sure that that
flow is not going to affect them. I'm not sure whether in reading the reports
that I saw that that would definitely indicate that that would not affect them.
I guess some of the other things that were said, rather than reiterate them I
would yield to those discussions previously mentioned. Other than just one.
Correspondence.. .agreed to that portion of it. I guess that was answered before
so I guess I'll just drop mine right now. Is there anything else you wanted to
say? Oh, I know. You mentioned the fact about some of the conditions and I'd
be concerned as to the conditions that you had mentioned that you'd like to
discuss. Maybe we can discuss those..
Terry Forbord: Your Honor, members of the City Council. If you could refer to
page 16 of your most recent staff report. Under the section of recommendations
referring to preliminary plat. If you recall at the last meeting, I just asked
you to reconsider the issue of street width. It doesn't make or break the deal
for Lundgren Bros. if you have a variable street width but I'm just asking you
to reconsider. I'm sure you thought about it because it was brought up before.
We think it would make a nicer development• if it had a 26 foot street throughout
the entire development. We think that that's what the City's going to be doing
in the future is reducing the road right-of-way of city streets. I think for
sure it will happen. There's no doubt in my mind. It's happening all over the
country. You may not be ready for it now but you may want to look at this as
just a test project and try it here and see it. I'd ask you just to consider
it. 1
Mayor Chmiel: Can I just respond to that? I have some concerns with 26 foot
roads. I've seen problems existing within our community right now and I think
I'd like an opinion from our engineer regarding a 26 foot road because there are
parking problems, accessibility of getting onto that street and can- cause a lot
of congestion.
Terry Forbord: I agree. I think that if parking is a normal feature on a
street that's 26 feet wide, that it would pose a problem. However, most homes
today and lots and driveway sizes have stacking features. Obviously there's room
for at least 3 cars or 2 cars in every garage and there's typically the
capability to stack at least another 4 of them in the driveway, if people would
have that many cars. Rarely in a local suburban streetscape, if you drive
63 '•
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
IIthrough many of the newer developments in town do you see cars parked on the
street. The only occasion you may see them it if somebody was entertaining or
I holidays. So it certainly isn't uncommon. I don't think that it's uncommon to
see streets of 26 foot widths. I mean other cities have been doing it for a
long time and I'm just suggesting from a streetscape standpoint, you'll see less
blacktop and more green and I think that's in step or in spirit with what I hear • I
the Council doing on many other things from an environmental standpoint within
the city. And I realize, totally understand this is a new thing. It's a tough
thing to accept because you're not used to it. We think it would make a bigger
Iproject. I don't want to make a big issue. Excuse me a better project. I
don't want to make a big issue about it because it's not going to make or break
the deal but I would say that if you had a chance to get into your car or get
lout of your car and walk down that street when it was done, you'd say boy, this
really feels a lot better than if it was the other way. So again, I just ask
for your consideration on it.
1 Councilman Wing: That would be my preference. This is as you said, a delicate
piece of land and it gives it a little more of a closed effect than wide streets
so I guess I'd, in deference to the Mayor's concern.
IMayor Chmiel: Yeah, I'd like to get Charles' opinion.
ICharles Folch: I touched upon this issue in a staff report prepared for the
first Planning Commission meeting that this issue came up. In my opinion, you
have a street such as this, typically you are going to have people parking on a
street. Oftentimes there may be guests, entertaining people. It may be cars,
1 older cars that drop oil and they don't want the oil dripping in their driveway
so they park their car on the street. But the thing that concerns me is you do
have a lot of beautiful environmental aesthetics associated with this
Isubdivision. I think it's likely that you could expect people to be walking and
biking around that neighborhood. There's not a trail for them to walk on so
they're going to have to walk on the street. And when you have a 26 foot wide
IIstreet and you may have cars parked, it does take away any remaining room that
you have with these pedestrians and bikers competing with cars on the roads.
Additional I could go on and on as far as snowplowing and sight lines on curves
and things like that but you know, I could belabor the point but in my opinion,
1 from a safety standpoint, 31 feet, going with the city standard would be my
recommendation.
IDon Ashworth: Mr. Mayor, may I?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes Don.
' Don Ashworth: I guess I would prefer the 31 feet and I think it's a compromise
that, the way it's already been presented that half of the time you can't get up
my street. Many of the streets in Western Hills area I really wonder if we can
1 get a fire truck through many of them just with the vehicles on the street. You
start getting into that 26 foot area and especially wintertime. Cars don't
really know where curbs are and they get further out in the street and it just
Ireally becomes difficult trying to get through in some of these areas. 2 feet
makes a lot of difference. I wish we had 2 more feet downtown.
64
•
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Mason: For what it's worth, the roads are a whole lot narrower in
Carver Beach than 26 feet. And we have. ,
Councilwoman Dimler: It's a wonderful area though.
Councilman Mason: It is. It's a very nice area. I like the narrower streets I
•
and we also have no parking on one side of the street now. On Yuma and
Woodhill. I understand the safety issue. I guess I'd kind of like to explore
the 26 feet a little bit more. I think that's an interesting concept for, I
mean that's essential. I mean it's not a closed loop but my guess is there
won't be a whole lot of traffic in there except for people who live there.
I mean it's not like a Kerber Blvd. or even a Nez Perce in Carver Beach that
gets a lot of traffic now. I'll look at it some more.
Councilman Workman: I agree. I
Councilman Wing: Let's move on.
Terry Forbord: Your Honor. Page 17. I'm going to be very brief on this and I
this is item (d) and I hate to talk about it because I support Richard's quest,
excuse me. Councilman Wing's quest so much for the tree ordinance but I believe
that the proposed tree ordinance is prohibitive and not in the best interest of
housing in America because it puts •a burden at the closing of extra cost on
somebody trying to buy a home. I think if you ask an individual who's closing
on their home what their priorities are. The first one is to be able to close
the loan. The second one may be to be able to put food on the table. Make
their house payment. Somewhere down that priority list comes landscaping of -
their lot. And you will find that most people who buy new homes today all want
to landscape their lot but they want to do it sometime within the next couple of
years. The cost of 2 additional trees, bagged and burlapped, guaranteed from a
nursery is $500.00. And $500.00 may seem like a small amount but it's a lot to
somebody's who trying to get into a new home. And so if, I don't know what the
Council's going to be doing tomorrow night and I realize this is a PUD and it's
not subject to some of the same things but we would like you to reconsider that.
The next item, item 4. This part of the resolution was changed from the
resolution on September 9th. You probably will see on your packet the changed
items are darkened or bolder type. All I'm asking for is a clarification
because we are not exactly sure what it means. That would be the first
sentence and then we'd like a clarification on the last sentence. We also would
like you to reconsider once again in that paragraph allowing us to raise the
level of that pond to 976.5 like we had requested. I'm going to let Rick Sathre
tell you what it is that we don't understand about the items in bold print. And
- it may not be a big deal but we're not sure what it entirely means. .
Rick Sathre: I should apologize. I haven't had a chance to ask Charles about
it and I'm not sure if more information is needed or not. The second sentence I
of number 4 is calculations shall be provided demonstrating that the revised
Walker Ponds are sufficiently sized to provide acceptable nutrient removal.
We've submitted calculations. Are there more required?
Paul Krauss: Since we drafted that we did have opportunity to bounce this off
of Bonestroo and they were satisfied with it so we think that's been taken care
of. '
65 '•
1
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
IIMayor Chmiel: What's the other?
I Rick Sathre: Then the other one, other than what Terry said about, we think
it's important that the DNR pond or DNR wetland elevation be allowed to go up to
976.5 and so we can get diversity of depths or variation or a good range of
II depth in the wetland so we don't have the whole wetland fill in with vegetation.
Anyway, then the sentence that's been added at the end, the bold one. The
developer shall modify existing storm sewer outlet/inlet to become a flood
control structure. Really the question is, which way does the city want the
I water to run? You -know into the pond, off of the street or out of the wetland
to the north. Maybe we can't answer that now but I'm just not sure which way
the engineering staff was going with their thoughts. Whether we would continue
II to have the water run into the wetland off the road or we wouldn't allow that to
happen.
I Charles Folch: I believe the intent on that was to basically follow watershed
lines as far as determining the direction of drainage. However, we felt that it
probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have basically a relief valve in that
structure which would allow under a 100 year flood condition, if that pond would
I rise, that there'd be a release valve if you will so that the flow could go to
the north under those extreme circumstances.
II Paul Krauss: I think we came up with that in part in response to Mr. Jannusch's
concerns.
II Rick Sathre: And we'd have to talk about how we could make that work. But oky,
I understand. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: As we keep progressing with time, hopefully you can sort of move
II this a little quicker. Maybe for every 10 more minutes that you talk we'll have
to knock off one lot.
ICouncilman Workman: I think Terry's fillibustering anyway.
Terry Forbord: The issue on the elevation of the pond, if you recall, there was
some concern about the stability of the roadbed of Lake Lucy Road. Just to
1 refresh memory. There's a reason why we were hoping to have a certain water
level there. And Frank Svoboda can elaborate more on that but rather than bring
him up here after what the Mayor just said, I think I'll just try to summarize
I it. But we're trying to increase the volume of water that's in the pond because
it will provide a greater habitat for the wildlife and because it will allow for
different types of aquatic plants type to grow there than what is there now. And
II the more volume of water moving through there helps cleanse it out as well. It
will look better and we feel that it will function better and the other wildlife
specialists, other than our own, concur with that. We share the concern that
the engineering staff has. We don't want to disrupts the road bed of Lake Lucy
I either so we went to another soil scientist, GME Consultants in Plymouth. Gave
them as the as-builts from the city. When the City did the project, we went to
the City's consultant's engineer at the time. Got the as-builts. Sent them out
I to a soil scientist and the opinion of the soil scientist was that the road ha
already settled. It's been settling for oh, I can't remember how many years •
it's been there but it's probably already settled as much as we thought that it
II I
would and that no continued settling would occur and it was in his opinion that
66
•
li____ __ _
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
the additional foot of water wouldn't impact it. So we would ask o
yuto
consider that. Page 18, number 14. I'd just like to.
Mayor Chmiel: Just a quick response.
Charles Foich: If I could just respond to that quickly. The information that
they had, as Terry mentioned was basically going off of plan information. There
is no actual official soil borings taken out there to verify that the granular
backfill for the road base was put in at certain depths and such. The key thing
to remember here is they were working with basically I would call limited
information in order to make the recommendation and they also, as a part of
their conclusion basically provide a disclaimer as to their recommendation based
on limited information. I'm not going to disagree with what Terry's trying to
do. I think that would be a benefit to the pond but my first priority is to
protect the facility infrastructure that we have with the roadway. We certainly
would be amenable to having some sort of a security or a guarantee provided over
maybe a 3 to 5 year period that no damaging effect has occurred on the roadway.
Terry Forbord: Maybe that's something we can research with the engineering
staff. On the next page, the bottom of the page. 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. We do not have a
problem with that. However, we think the expense of extending those should be
born by the people who receive the benefit and that would be Mr. Ravis and Mr.
Coey. In discussing this with staff, we've been told it's a city policy. That
the developer paid for the extending of services that benefit the other property
owners adjacent to. I don't know if that's a written policy or not. I've not
been able to find that out. I question the legality of that policy if so but we
are opposed to it. We don't think that it's right for somebody who has a
platted piece of property asking us to extend services to them so they can
develop their site but require me to pay for it. There's many analogies that I
could give you as examples but in other cities we're not faced with this so we
think that it's only fair that those benefitting property owners, that they pay
for the extension of services to their property so they can develop.
Mayor Chmiel: Charles, do you have anything?
Charles Folch: I guess in short, this is not uncommon that development extends
utilities to their borders to provide for future extension. If the sewer wasn't
along, constructed along Lake Lucy Road they wouldn't have a facility to tie ,
into either. In short.
Mayor Chmiel: Alright. I
Terry Forbord: I could talk eloquently on that for a long time but I'll move
on.
Councilwoman Dimler: You've already lost one lot.
Terry Forbord: Our position remains the same. On page 19. Item 3, under
wetland alteration permit. I think it's important for us to define this because
the way this is written, there's no time that we could develop the property.
And we want to be as sensitive to, we understand what the concerns are. Totally
67
•
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
but the way this was written, we couldn't go in and do it so what I would
propose would be that the alteration to the wetlands must not occur between
April 1st and June 15th because then we've allowed for the water fowl migratory
and nesting things to occur. But at least, remember there's only 6 months
during the year in which we can do anything in Minnesota because the rest of
it's winter so we would ask to modify that so we would protect the water fowl
during the times when it's most important. That's the only items we have.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you. Any other discussion?
Terry Forbord: Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: In relationship to the concerns of those specific items. And if
not, what's your pleasure?
1 Councilman Workman: Are you ready for a motion?
Mayor Chmiel: Well.
Brian Humphrey: I'd like to say one thing. My name is Brian Humphrey. I live
at 6800 Utica Circle. I guess my concern is the wildlife. We're talking about
the wetlands but the runoff, the water could end up coming into my back yard...
' but what's going to happen along with that is we're going to take away some of
the dry land for the wildlife that's there at this time. The pheasants and the
deer. Take away the trees. Put in houses. You're going to take away homes
from wildlife. That's my biggest concern. Thank you.
Councilman Mason: I think the issues that Lundgren Bros. have raised certainly
need some discussion and my guess is it's not going to happen tonight.
Mayor Chmiel: You're right.
Councilman Mason: I mean sharp. Sharp as a tack. But they sound on the
' surface of it, I think they're legitimate concerns. I think we need to get
•moving on this and I wonder-if, can we approve some things without other things
tonight?
Councilman Wing: Carry it over to tomorrow night Don?
Mayor Chmiel: We're going to be pretty well.
Councilman Mason: Originally we were going to be done at 6:00 and now we're
going to 8:00 or 9:00 tomorrow.
Councilman Wing: I would be available for an extra meeting to get this off the
agenda. Of course I have a more flexible schedule than yours.
' Terry Forbord: Your Honor, are there any of the items that we, these are the
exact same items that we raised on September 9th so if there's any of those
' items that I could clarify to make it easier.
Councilman Mason: Okay, I'll take a shot at this. What the heck. Okay?
68
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilwoman Dimler: Well the park issue. I'm still not II t happy with the park
issue anyway.
Councilman Mason: Okay. How about if we see if we can take care of everything
else but. Possible or not?
Councilwoman Dimler: I think it's too much.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't think so.
Councilwoman Dimler: At this hour we may make decisions we wish we hadn't.
Councilman Wing: We've got the 26 foot road to discuss. Level of the pond. I
Trees.
Councilwoman Dimler: There's too much there.
Councilman Mason: Well the trees, hopefully we're going to take care of
tomorrow night.
Councilman Wing: Not necessarily to the PUD. This is irrelevant. I'm assuming
we'll go with the same direction.
Mayor Chmiel: What's it going to be?
Councilwoman Dimler: I make a motion to table and send the park issue back to
Park and Rec and then we'll consider the remainder on our next meeting and put
it first on the agenda.
Mayor Chmiel: First item on the 28th. ,
Councilman Wing: I don't feel comfortable sending it back to Park and Rec. I
was there for the discussion. I think we should make the discussion if we want
a park.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, I don't think they would probably object to that.. Todd's
here now.
Todd Hoffman: In taking it back to the Park Commission, their recommendation
was to accept fees in lieu of parkland. I
Councilwoman Dimler: That's correct but I talked to two of the park
commissioners who said they were uncomfortable with how they voted. I
Councilman Wing: We'll vote for them then.
Todd Hoffman: Correct. It would be going above the comprehensive plan which '
identifies the park service areas. This area just happens to lie within the
service area for 4 different parks and that is somewhat unusual. Typically a
development lies only within 1 or 2. The site would only allow us to take an
area of 1.5 acres which would be a very minimal neighborhood park. In fact the
smallest that was ever developed within the city so those are additional things
to consider. I
69
City Council Meeting - October 14, 1991
Councilman Mason: Quick question. How far does somebody have to walk to get to
a park?
Councilwoman Dimler: And how safe is it?
Todd Hoffman: Curry Farms Park is across the street which would be a block and
a half. •
Councilman Mason: Well I don't know. I've got to walk 4 blocks to get to a
park for my kids to play in. I mean at some point.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Do they have to cross a busy road?
Councilman Mason: Well, they've got to go down Nez Perce which is getting
busier and busier every day. I don't let them go by themselves but we walk down
' there together. I mean Lake Lucy and it's advantages is a very open and wide
road which Carver Beach and a lot of others aren't.
Councilman Wing: This is a very delicate piece of property which I think is
best served by keeping the land open as much as possible.
Mayor Chmiel: I might make a suggestion that all these items be addressed by
' staff and to come up with a conclusion and then finally leave those things again
as a recommendation and discussions that we've had this evening. Got it Paul?
11 Paul Krauss: No, but I'll read the Minutes.
Councilman Workman: I guess I'd move to table.
Councilman Wing: Second.
Councilwoman Dimler: Third.
II . Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Wing seconded to table the Lundgren/
Ortenblat/Ersbo Subdivision request until the October 28, 1991 City Council
Imeeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A 3 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A PORCH. 410 WEST 76TH STREET. ADELINE SKLUZACEK.
Mayor Chmiel: Tom, you were there and Paul, do you have something to add to
that?
' Councilman Workman: On number 9 under New Business, the Minutes have been
amended. I was in favor of the variance and it was reported that I was not.
Mayor Chmiel: They're looking for strictly a 3 foot variance on this from the
front yard setback and give me your decision as to why you thought.
' Councilman Workman: Staff said no because, and the other two members said no
because the issue simple of nobody else was doing it. I found in this
neighborhood to i think for what Mrs. Skluzacek was going to get and be able to
do for what I considered a minimal amount of footage for various problems that
' 70
1
CITYOF
il
otii , CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I
I
MEMORANDUM I
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator I
DATE: October 21, 1991
SUBJ: Lundgren/Ortenblad/Ersbo Subdivision Request, Parkland II
Issue
In regards to this issue, the reason for requesting full park and I
trail dedication fees instead of parkland dedication, are as
follows:
1. The recommendation made Park and Recreation Commission II
s
2. The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan; and, I
3 . The resulting loss of revenue and increased park
development costs.
II
PARR AND RECREATION •COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
{
The commission reviewed the item July 23, 1991. A copy of the
II
report presented to the Commission and the resulting minutes are
attached. During the discussion that evening, Commissioners Lash
and Erhart expressed concern over not acquiring a piece of park
II
property which could be developed to serve future occupants of 37
proposed lots. Commissioner Lash then requested staff to readdress
reasons cited by staff for not recommending park property be
acquired. The issues of being in a position to acquire less than II
2 acres of parkland, 1.4 acres to be precise and the resulting loss
of park fee revenue were then re-emphasized. Lastly, Mr. Terry
Forbord of Lundgren Developers offered his opinion of the
II
circumstances.
Upon Vice-Chairperson Andrews calling the question, Robinson moved
II
and Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council accept park and trail fees in lieu
of parkland dedication and/or trail construction for the II Ortenblad/Ersbo/Lundgren Brothers. Subdivision. All voted in favor
and the motion carried.
II
n
NE Or PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
JoAnn Olsen
October 21, 1991
Page 2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan identifies the standard
for a neighborhood park as five (5) acres and states that
neighborhood parks/playgrounds are recreational facilities intended
' to serve populations residing within a 1/2 mile radius of the site.
These facilities typically contain playfield areas which
accommodate such uses as field games, court games, ice skating,
picnicking, and play apparatus. It is efficient to establish a
neighborhood park system in this manner for a number of reasons.
One of the most important being the economics of maintenance
duties. This proposed development lies within the service area of
' four parks; Pheasant Hill Park (currently undeveloped) , Curry
Farms Park, Carver Beach Playground and Greenwood Shores Park.
Access to all but Greenwood Shores Park is available via city
' streets. Access to Greenwood Shores Park and the Lake Ann Park
Trail is limited, but may occur vis an unofficial route at Utica
Circle. The Comprehensive Plan contains these guidelines to ensure
that all areas of the city are equally served with access to a
' park. Establishing another park in an area of the city reasonably
served by 3 (three) or potentially 4 (four) parks may send a
negative message to residents of the city residing in a park
' deficient area.
RESULTING LOSS OF REVENUE AND INCREASED PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS
' If full parkland dedication (1.4 acres) was required of this
subdivision, the resulting loss in revenue for the park acquisition
and development fund would be $18,500. This loss in revenue would
offset the equilibrium established in following the guidelines in
the Comprehensive Plan. What has occurred in this area of the
city, as in others, is that the park acquisition and development
' fund has in essence floated a loan for a portion of the development
of Curry Farms Park and the acquisition of Pheasant Hill Park.
This can be done in anticipation of the future revenue generated by
other development within the service areas of these two parks.
' Without this flexibility, the city would be forced to wait until an
entire service area was developed prior to constructing the park
which services the area.
If parkland was taken, the expenditures necessary to develop the
land even minimally would further offset this equilibrium.
Lastly, it must be noted that this proposed housing development
would not lie on a flat parcel of land void of interesting natural
features. The small wetland, treed areas, and the large, open
' water wetland which provide, in of themselves one of the key
ingredients of a neighborhood park; open space.
' Attachments: 1. Staff report dated July 23, 1991.
2. Commission Minutes dated July 23, 1991.
3 . Service Area Map
C 1 T O F PRC DATE: 7-23-91
• CHAIHAEN CC DATE:
' Y • HOFFMAN:k I�/
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat and wetland alteration to create 37
single family lots on 30+ acres and altering/filling of
. Class B wetlands on property zoned RSF and RR, located
east of Powers Boulevard and south of Lake Lucy Road,
�..� Lundgren Brothers/Ortenblad/Ersbo .
Z
Q LOCATION: See location map
U
APPLICANT: Ortenblad and Ersbo Properties
Lundgren Brothers Construction, Inc.
4
PRESENT ZONING: Ortenblad: RSF
Ersbo: RSF
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - Curry Farms Subdivision Zoned RSF
8 - Existing Single Family Zoned RSF
E - Existing Single Family Zoned RSF
W - Platted Large Undeveloped Lots Zoned RR
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This property lies within the service areas of
Curry Farms Park, Pheasant Hill Park and
Q Carver Beach Playground.
117 COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN:
(, The on-street trail that exists along Lake Lucy Road is currently
identified in the Comprehensive Plan. This trail abuts the northerly
W border of the subject property. No trail links or loops are identified
in the Comprehensive Plan in relation to this property. A trail
connection to the south allowing access to Greenwood Shores Park and
(f) Lake Ann Park is desirable, but cannot easily be accommodated due to the
absence of an easement at Utica Terrace, Greenwood Shores. Si.:: ficient
right-of-way adjacent to Lake Lucy Road is available to allow
construction of an off-street trail if deemed necessary in .the future.
•
I .
.
, "ee'/4"fie'.11 Ir/M77
1 .
••
' •
I . • .
1
I .
. .
- . •
. . -
•
100 50 0
aBa. i■..i
.. .. .. 50 100 200
aI...■'"''''''"%...........m.. -
SCALE IN FEET
I ._,.,. ; I 4114■Me e.•
3•••••••••• ;-• t• •
••*We`60 l' $' ; ;; ..
•70 ;i.4 i
I t. , • t ..4••.4 4.t
0. •10 6 410 I**,.' ‘1;
t .
I ■ 1(. a t :,-.4,;.1_..- i
. •k I ..•
._..- W001) ' •1.1111 0•11.0
11.0•MM.
•.
/-•'. r "1:• "7-.11.1:111 / : ';:'s\.. ... e ......... .. y (
■•••■•••••• • ii. c•t
• ° ...item I .
'±•• i i't e c ‘...
i ti. tica•ta.....„.....
I s•• ". . 4•.`"'• ' •:,.....,......r..t.1!„” "-7
7 ••\ ..,1 I
#.• h'71;t4.........t ••• .1.
....,.,.•,,,,,.. ............_,II. .. g.a=i .e A*:... t 4:t * •
IOW"' Oilt•.... \b‘i
S•
'''. 41.• ' ‘ P wore" :
.I I
I 1 I....
i. et..1,•. „=„Got. ..■;1:1( al. •3 i I . •g ".
Cm 6■•o•t.. ...:••■•• IG...c• ., h_.._._,, : • : 4., ,...,. .
,. ..;:711:7 --'' I •4'7 • .....1
•' ft f s :. s• -
.11
I •, 1
:: l'Et ii t• .
L. 0
...?" 0 ...
i „
GSM • 0_
__ta .__..., . .. .
-_..., .
. - i
. tonta of e
I
. ..J : go0 *to.'NI.',: ;"j• a. ...ogor:a Lotus ..,
• 9 -- ; I - - take 1.ney • . •••11: ' vk rap. .. .. .;:."
. ..,
: :• i 1 1 '. ..,..1. itr7...... L.....:...
ft-4
c,...• •
.. . , ..„.
. J I
I
, I
i , ....,. re"...:„ g •% .....•••••••••3 4k
1-
iir. ....,...
totir.s; Friirt,• , Luke
(
, take Ann Vf-a i .j :d ,,,. lb
- - ---io -- -
I .
Pork . Go 41
r r
m $ i I , .......
.. i„I — --- .
... -I,? $.%„, las
to ' .1? '.44: : •1`
• •''''...W.I 1 a i i i i r 1 i I Illi
I tomamosso•o.II s.•IIII!' AI I I,
0 . X 12Iff 101111 ill li
I I "CFIANHASSEN.1' .7 I
I
I = N
II I ILI "
I IN a I 6, rld alp
I ....77 .
'1/4 4.** 1 1 ,
- q
.
. .... ,
„......‘ G.
1°*1 UM 11 V D
ii s! .-
I
'soon
1 4.
t* 1
I .0'4* gorl
‘ ..:..,,,• um ..‘ ,.. 1
z. ts...... Er
..._ ,-'-. - 14 -...._ .. „...
.,
• — ...c,--
la"
7100•41
rt
. 7ft i .AoggliSSI
•016: .....1"""..... :\ ••■•••II,
0.4' .4 1 Gra010 I
I LOCATION MAP . .
it.
• • v
I ,
. • .
• V ;1914X3
•
•
1
■
I
• H •
III
I
I 1
•
•
fir♦a...
6 A \0\l i mot. ! 'rte. g.'
,{
= t e
•` iv — s
z - t �A\\&/\;447; ,: a e t� • i i :. �.
oil I v
i
• , I til ir
de il 'II
p5 ..1."±" -ti_____HO , fa I 4 ............. I
,•
Pe y
I
\ w �` i i�— •
s t f —
--AL__ G , � ••\• \ '
t D y/te tn
COURT- t• �-=_ i \
I
P
- _ �-,.
...
rtrstt••• I
I 1 i 1
•
I
I ! !
it ; as _
eta. I
Tap P r.""I a
tEk: z ..i.;.Y: ..-"1.•
N.
if PRELIMINARY PLAT ~ -
i =P=�:El�� ORTENBLAD i ERSBO PROPERTIES \ SATHRE•BERGOUIST. INC. t
i - !R . ! .V
LUNDGREN BROS.CONSTRUCTION NC. ® as tarn.s+o•u...•• °••:•u w ss„.••rs*WO
I. ••••tNr 1Mt10.• -
' Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23 , 1991 - Page 3
' Robinson: Yeah , you notice that one in the corner is ,there 's 95 foot of
frontage there . I think that 's what they said .
Lash: Or a small swimming beach or whatever . I would agree with Curt 's
comments in investigating why it wasn 't done in initially . Then after the
14th we 'll have more information. Maybe after the 14th you could contact
the developer and see if you could sort of feel him out on his position .
Hoffman: Sure .
' Lash: Personally I don't see that we 've got $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 to
spend on that . We need to have the background to let the residents know .
Is there a specific date Jim that you think that we wanted to try to
schedule this on the agenda?
Andrews: This is set to go up, the Court review date is when , the 14th of
' August?
Hoffman: As stated on here .
Andrews: Okay , why don 't we put this on the August agenda then for review
and see what progress , if any has been made in Court . I think until the
Court situation is done with , we 're going to make no progress on this at
all . It has to be settled . I guess I personally , I feel that there might
be a real opportunity here to sort of , I hate to call it arm twisting but
I 'm sure that the developer could see the benefit of having parkland in
this development . I would think that perhaps the land price could be
' reduced because of that mutual advantage of that park . So let 's put it on
the agenda for next month . Do we need a motion for that?
' Hoffman: Yes . To go ahead and investigate it.
Lash: Okay , I would move that we direct staff to investigate the history
' regarding this development of the park property and also to contact the
developer , Jim Fenning in regard to the status of Lot 11 in Shadowmere .
Robinson: I 'd second it .
Lash: And that would go onto the August agenda .
' Lash moved, Robinson seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
direct staff to investigate the history pertaining to the Shadowmere
development; contact the developer , Jim Fenning in regard to the status of
' Lot 11 , Shadowmere; and to bring the item back on the August agenda. All
voted in favor and the motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW: LUNDGREN BROS/ORTENBLAT/ERSBO.
Hoffman: The location of the proposed development as shown is in the
vicinity of Powers .Blvd . . .and across from Lake Lucy Road. Encircled by
this dark boxed area . Just north of the Greenwood Shores neighborhood and
just south of Curry Farms . The proposed layout of that particular
development is in this configuration. There is a large wetland in this
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23 , 1991 - Page 4
area . . .up in this area of the development . Mr . Terry Forbord with Lundgren
Bros . is here . Give him an opportunity to speak if you wish. He 's here to
answer questions that the Commission would have. Surrounding this
• development is classified for single family residential . The adjacent
zoning currently includes Curry Farms again to the north , existing single II
family to the south and east and then some large unplatted land to the
west . The property does currently lie within the service areas of the II Curry Farms Park directly across the street , Pheasant Hill Park which has
yet to be developed and Carver Beach Playground. So it is served well by
park property currently within the City . The trail plan identifies the on
street trail that exists along Lake Lucy Road. This trail abuts the
northerly border of this subject property . No trail links or loops are
identified in the Comprehensive Plan in relation to this particular piece
of property . A trail connection to the south allowing access to Greenwood II
Shores Park and Lake Ann Park would potentially be desireable because it
allows a quick and easy access to get into both Greenwood Shores and the
trail system down to Lake Ann. However , accommodating that would be I
difficult due to the lack of a current easement there at Utica Terrace and
Greenwood Shores area . So sufficient right-of-way via Lake Lucy Road is
available to allow the future construction of an off street trail if that
was deemed necessary as Lake Lucy became increasingly busy from the future II
development in that particular area . It is recommended that the Park and
Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept full park and trail
fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction for the
Ortenblat and Ersbo subdivision due to the reasons I stated previously .
Andrews: Terry , do you have anything more you 'd like to add about the
development? ,
Terry Forbord: I 'm just here to answer any questions that anybody has .
Andrews: Okay , are there? 1
Lash: I happen to live in Greenwood Shores so I 'm familiar with this and I
guess I 'm a little bit interested in the lots that will be backing directly
up to Greenwood Shores on that cul-de-sac shown there. Is that , is it not
swampy up in that area?
Terry Forbord: If I may , we have some exhibits over here unless they were I
removed in the last 48 hours .
Lash: I 'm pretty sure from looking at this that 7, 8, 9 and 10 would all 1
be pretty wet . But I 'm not up on the other end and I 'm not quite sure .
And will that cul-de-sac then come out very close to Utica Terrace? I mean
am I looking at this straight?
Terry Forbord: I 'll try to address all your questions. This is an aerial
topography map . It was done for the City of Chanhassen I believe in the ,
last 24 months the City did the entire city so they would have aerial
photos for topography . I 'lliturn this around so north will be up . This is
Lake Lucy Road . This is the Ortenblat property. This is the Ersbo
property . Some of you may have been on the Park Commission long enough to
remember the Ersbo plat. We are replatting that property. It 's kind of an
unsightly plan . . . There are 6 or 7 wetlands on this property . Now
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23 , 1991 - Page 5
typically when you have a piece of property with wetlands , they 're usually
concentrated on one part of the property . This is a very unusual assembly
of land in that the wetland happen to be scattered here and there . Some of
them are very small . Some of .them are probably just as small as the area
we 're standing in . I mean just right in this area . But nonetheless
because of the vegetation , the type of vegetation . . .wetland certainly need
to be dealt with accordingly. There 's also steep slopes, vegetation and
' some larger wetlands , houses , things like that , roads' which make it a real
tough site to develop . . . .is certainly more challenging than others but
down in this area , you can see in this lighted area , I 'm going to switch
' exhibits here because this one is so difficult to see. I just wanted you
to see that . Same direction . This is north. This is the subject
property. This is the wetland down in the southeast corner and I believe
you were asking about this area?
•
Lash: Well , I know that that area down there is very wet and I was
wondering about around the cul-de-sac down there . That area .
Terry Forbord: There is an existing wetland right here and there is an
small little wetland right here and most of these wetlands , first of all
' these wetlands were created by man. . . I know you . . .I won't because it will
open up a can of worms and I can talk about this for 3 hours and it doesn't
have anything to do with planning parks but we are mitigating the wetlands
so wetlands that have to be removed because of roadway right-of-way , we 'll
be building new wetlands . And a lot of, we've hired the top people in the
region . Frank Svoboda who I believe is also being hired by the City of
Chanhassen to assist the City in their storm water management plan in
' protection of their own wetlands . . .Needless to say , all these wetlands are
being taken into very careful consideration because it is sensitive . Any
area that has any wetlands in Chanhassen certainly has more than. . . But on
1 the layout and everything else has been , all those things that you just
mentioned have been taken into consideration .
Lash: So the cul-de-sac down in the bottom left hand corner , that would be
close to Utica Terrace?
Terry Forbord: Utica Terrace actually . . .that shows where it is . This will
' probably be the best thing that I have here but there 's a hill right here .
Utica Terrace is down in this area . Some of the residents from your
neighborhood attended the informational meeting that I had and. . . They
expressed very clearly that they do not want to have any trails connected
through their property . But I would imagine that there 's a couple lots in
here . . .Utica Terrace I believe is a cul-de-sac that probably is somewhere
right in there . Approximately . Does anybody else have any questions?
ILash: My only other concern would be, and I realize that Curry Farms Park
is just going to be on the other side of Lake Lucy Road but if I lived in
I this development , I would not want my children to cross Lake Lucy Road to
get to a park alone . I don 't know if that 's something we want to , that 's
more of a public safety thing I guess .
I Terry Forbord: It 's a concern• though that I think anybody would have . In
any given situation . The other night I was at the City Council meeting
there was a lot of discussion about roads and safety and it 's very apparent
1
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23 , 1991 - Page 6
•
•
that those same concerns are felt by everybody everywhere . So I think I
those are the type of things that are always challenging whether it would
be in this neighborhood or an existing neighborhood and it 's one that
parents . . .to teach their children when riding on the street. I
Lash: I just don 't want that one to come back to haunt us in about 5 years
when the people who live there are upset because their kids have to cross I
Lake Lucy Road to get to a park .
Andrews: How many total lots are we plotting here?
Terry Forbord: There 's a total of 37 lots. Two of them have existing
homes on them . This area is guided residential single family . It is the
Land Use Guide Plan calls for that type of zoning. RSF zoning ranges from I
a density of 1 .4 dwelling units per acre . In this particular proposal
there 's 1 .24 dwelling units per acre so it's the very lowest . Now even if
you took the wetland out , it would be 1 .4 which is still low . . .
Andrews: These are larger than average?
Terry Forbord: The size required in the zoning district is 15 ,000 square '
feet minimum . The average lot size in here , if you incorporate all the
lots , and two of them have homes on there now , would be 30,000 square feet .
I think if you took those two existing homesteads out . One of them is II fairly large . The Ersbo property . The Ersbo property, the only way and I
don 't know if those of you are familiar with the current plat of the Ersbo
property but there 's just a cul-de-sac that comes in here . It's platted .
It 's of record . They can start building there as soon as they get a
building permit if they would like to . It 's an unsightly plat that has no
feel to it whatsoever and what we 've proposed to do , really we acquired it
to protect ourselves because we didn 't want something to go in there that II
- would hurt us . Plus the City, engineering and planning staff preferred to
have a loop road that would go like this so there was a connection versus
just two cul-de-sacs . But because . . .the Ersbo property, the only way that 11
he would do the transaction would be if he had a larger lot. So I think
even if you took that out , you would find that these lots are probably
22 ,000-23 ,000 square feet average . We 're not trying to get as many lots in
here as we could . If we wanted that , you 'd see more lots in here because II
we could -do them and do the zoning regulations.
Andrews: Any other questions or comments from this commission? Would
somebody like to put forward a motion please?
Robinson: Yeah I 'd make a motion that we'd recommend the City Council
accept full park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail,
construction for this subdivision.
Andrews: Do we have a second? Can I second it? Am I allowed to do that?
I 'll second the motion. Okay, any other discussion or questions or II
comments before we take a vote?
Lash: I guess I 'm just not comfortable with the. I realize it's within
the service area and usually I 'm not that greedy but I 'm afraid it 's going
to come back and haunt us if we don't acquire something.
•
•
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23 , 1991 - Page 7
Pemrick: That 's a lot of homes and a lot of potential .
Lash: What do you think? I mean I know it was your recommendation that we
not .
Hoffman: Based on the number of homes which would go in there , we would be
' able to acquire , if it was gone ahead and looked at , less than 2 acres of
property . Again then that would drain our financial means of gathering
financial support for our park acquisition and development fund at that
point and obviously it would reduce the number of lots in that development .
' For the developer and the owners of the property . It is across the street
from , on Lake Lucy Road which is a major road . It 's a major thoroughfare .
It 's a collector . It 's busy today . It will continue to get more busy .
' Curry Farms Park is just a stone 's throw away . It 's directly across the
street . If parents are concerned about their children , their families
crossing that street , this is a small enough loop road where potentially if
they want to send them there , they could walk them to the road such as they
do at a bus stop . Follow them across the street . That type of thing and
return home . But again , in 37 homes it 's not as large as Curry Farms but
again it is a good chunk of homes . There 's going to be many families there
and they 're going to be crossing the street to Lake Lucy if there is not a
park there .
Robinson: Could there be signage or some kind of a traffic control put on
Lake Lucy Road where they would be expected to cross which is at the
entrance there I suppose?
' Lash: And that was a concern with Pheasant Hills from the people who lived
on the south side of Lake Lucy Road too was their kids crossing to get over
to Pheasant Hills . And I don 't know the different options that are
available in the public safety area . If it 's something where they could
put up a crosswalk and a flashing light. or speed bumps . I don't know what
can happen . I think we 'd be kind of derelict in our responsibility to just
send this right through without giving that some thought because I think in
the future it 's going to be a problem .
Hoffman: We would need to take a look at that and address that with the
Public Safety Commission and with the engineering department . What kind of
signage would be able to go into that area . The accesses are directly
across from Arlington Court which is a court . Devonshire Drive happens to
I end up in the middle of the lot line there are you can see so it's not a
direct crossing from either the public street as it 's labeled there either .
Those egress points .
IIAndrews: Terry , you had a comment?
Terry Forbord: Mr . Chairman, members of the Commission. I didn't prepare
I a presentation for a number of reasons but I would like to keep a couple
things in perspective on this particular piece of property. There 's a
total of 30 acres . The upland area is probably close to about 21 acres , if
II that . I know you 've heard these types of statements because and I 'm not
telling you this . There 's no smoke in mirrors in this statement . If 2
acres were taken out of this piece of property to have some type of park ,
nobody would develop it . I would withdraw my application. The dynamics of
1 •
Park and Rec Commission Meeting
July 23 , 1991 - Page 8
a piece of property like this , when you have 30 total acres, gross acres , II
where only 2/3 of it are useable because of the type of , there 's so many
wetlands on the property , the dynamics , the reality of it is the fact that
you couldn 't put a park there and make it work. And there are a number ,
I 'm sure there are other parcels in this City that have a" similiar
circumstance . I know you all have studied the comprehensive plan and had
input in that . The Urban Service Area was just expanded to include all of
the land westerly along Lake Lucy Road and a great more acres of land that
is off Lake Lucy Road . There are some significant large parcels of
property in those areas that will be developed sooner rather than later . It
seems more appropriate to me for this city to be able to have a park that
more people in the area could use . This piece of property will not develop
if there 's a park on it . Not by Lundgren Bros. or ,anybody just because the
dynamics wouldn 't work and I think that the staff realizes that themselves ,
because they deal with this stuff- so often and I think that's probably why
they recommended that in lieu of a dedication of land , to be able to
approve the plat and take the money and apply it to a park somewhere where
they can utilize it . Now the safety issue I think is an issue that needs
to be dealt with whether there would be a park here or not . Or whether
there was a park at Curry Farms or not . My personal belief is that even if
there wasn 't a park in Curry Farms, that there's going to need to be from all
traffic safety standpoint some crosswalks on Lake Lucy Road for people to
be able to cross . I mean that 's going to be a given. I would certainly
think that as development occurs , and it will along Lake Lucy Road , that
that method of allowing people to cross in a safe zone so to speak , would II
be implemented .
Andrews: Can you read back the motion we have in front of us? I
Hoffman: The motion was made to approve the Ortenblat/Ersbo subdivision
recommending to City Council accept full park and trail fees in lieu of
parkland dedication and trail construction.
Andrews: Let 's call the vote. If it doesn't carry the vote, we 'll
entertain a new motion .
Robinson moved, Andrews seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
recommend that the City Council accept park and trail fees in lieu of
parkland dedication and/or trail construction'for the Ortenblat/Ersbo/
Lundren Bros. Subdivision. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Hoffman: To make one comment on the comment by Mr . Forbord.• Staff does I
not make recommendations based on the presumed hardship of developers so
that would not be a reason for us to make a recommendation.
Lash: Did you say that you would then contact Public Safety regarding
this?
Hoffman: ,Sure. We can run it through them to see as it moves through the 1
approval process what potential things we can be taking a look at to
potentially look to a crosswalk or some other type of safety signage . I
Lash: I would certainly like to see that be addressed before people have
to come forward.
I
I
I
I / l •:t�••�/r CMP/SfI1AS _I IIENNEPINI COUNTY 1.° .. _ /I
�r�-if!P� � Ilt■■■47•"�,y1�K,J �' !1f'✓' LAKE •1 y V/VI I/ail_11 r1�I IN evenwi
Iiiim-mow, :=."I',41p4011:At implaw. . • .am irr■,-___ _.-., irir,.,to*ark.-v•;.,„:1;,!..z1,,
ii A�tr'.E� ►i' ® ib- %` 1i a • t•�`1 . �:"...:*..4,41:11;'4I/ fir-' .
„h iam. r•I4j • .♦ /�;�/ i /dam �, 'k 1M7� r,.. i rir-.41.--:----.‘' :b..", fitt -'1"21-e kiji... .:#77.1
—, ,i ira.gEogiti4em Oil p 04 .4,‘Itudel.41- ■ „>fir. ^AIIIIIS�P Ao �.,'�IL7= _ � l� • ."1:::::7:1::i���li,I er
II:,1 ���. C■(ll�t�r._ff�•l BEACH .?j � i.�.���
1'® - • 1 .._ =YARrrt�imm---40,tal' /PARK ‘ 46' , �lfr•II •I;
I l �? S'Ft Y. ,'- � ..���1J� ,i..� .VIOLET I _ —
11 '�v� �� X11, �' : • ."�.7: � nwo ��lk.;,y. ;'S'! E �C i
i A ♦h��' :• .... 'vim- ��s ' LOT(/S
Tit 4,---- \-'r 46,74 tv
n..asor �. ��F LAKE WCY /�! -'is". `� •��14;1!r1n�V jt1' 611 A]�;11:1;f! .r �=Si 111 N�\ ��� n1 • \ i to : -��S c��1�51w/I�i ■urn►•�'� � �. � ��'• �cc•
MEADOW 4-14::4.1111 r- . "0" R �i\ VII
LAKE ANN GREEN PARK �1'�i � . `fir ∎a"'►�/�� !-� III 1_cli.\1P~ �i iu�n.�\I`�,
/ME Imo .�o 'unit ! :�/U e.r•,v■.t!�
,Ammo
) ill 14K o 4`,,� II�Q 4 i ci;.. Al�'-Flu � ;� ',��
ANN �` r •4� tit�.... ..i i'44 I
bIll 11 .40:, nJ 74 1:' ,,lK''?V....
::a4k`ii, nm mnu /No
.010111011/ 31,F-• lir Illks... i, .: o , Ion:Oil
mor'INOve4--- lilt -4,„,,-1,- ---44-lik----1111PIL: i ,„......-op
0 :.ca fad.
, flW ilal ' — 1101 -.-it ,, VsiNI .• 11s tV 4' .4::r.:moo,•,.. •
. If---- . .Iii,. .., . . : - 1„ViVi.--3•4_,,,itx;, . ti
. ■ t. AIARSYI
rail 011
t a �f/ I LAKE
V/ .3 L'1
-is ill �yj . �OZ..����EI/w� ��/►� \ "2•wul` PAR
:., . ,i 0.�.`�-� y4K w " LAKE SUSAN i1 ►� 1
1 pp j ILL9�{1E0 . lJ-g @,+a7. > rill • R, � � i1iilIr 'lF'
.iy r I i Lc# -' i,„
__________ liii i WA,