5. Adopt Ord Amend Chpt 18CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard
PO Box 147
Cha~hassen MN 553! ?
Administration
Phone 9522271100
Fax: 95222711!0
Phone 9522271180
Fax~ 9522271190
Engineering
Phone: 952227 1160
Fax~ 952 227 1170
Finance
Phone: 9522271140
Fax: 9522271110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 9522271120
Fax: 952 22/1110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Bouievard
Phone: 9522271400
Fax 9522271404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone 9522271130
Fax 9522271110
Public Works
1591 Park Red
?'one: 952 227 1300
Fax: 952 2271310
Senior Center
R'one: 952.227 1125
Fax 952 ',!271110
Web Site
www ci cha~O~assen nxl us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manger
Bob Generous, Senior Planner
February 23, 2004
SUB J:
Adoption of Ordinance amending Chapter 18, Chanhassen City
Code, Subdivisions; Approval of Summary Ordinance for
Publication Purposes
ACTION REQUIRED
A simple majority vote of City Council members present is required to adopt the
amendment; however, a 4/5ths vote is required for approval of the summary
ordinance for publication purposes.
BACKGROUND
The proposed changes to Chapter 18 have been reviewed previously by the
Chanhassen Planning Commission as public hearings on December 2, 2003 and
continued on January 20, 2004. City Council reviewed the draft changes during
the summer of 2003.
SUMMARY
Staff believes that the majority of the amendments are administrative in nature,
clarifying submittal requirements and timing. The following areas which
generated additional issues at the previous Planning Commission and City
Council discussions of the ordinance amendments:
Section 18-37 Exemptions. The city attorney advised staff that the
exemption requirement was both confusing and redundant, since
such issues are guided by state statute and the definition of a
subdivision. The city only certifies that such changes are not
governed by the city's subdivision requirements. However, at least
one member of the Planning Commission felt that the language
should remain and voted against recommending approval of the
ordinance amendment.
Also, the distinction between metes and bounds subdivisions in the
urban service area was deleted.
The City ct Chanhassen · A oro'~,'~n,~ cgm:T~un~ty with clean lakes qua!i~? schools a charming ¢towntown [hri;' qg businesses winding t ails, a ~¢! beautiful parks A great pace to ive ;*,,',)rk snd play
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
February 23, 2004
Amendment Chapter 18
Page 2
Section 18-57 streets. The Planning Commission previously wanted
to require the maximum street width for minor arterial and local
street pavement widths. Staff proposed using our existing detail
plate pavement width. The attached ordinance, which was
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, is
consistent with the city's detail plates.
Section 18-61 (c) landscaping and tree preservation. The
Planning Commission had wanted to void the application and make
the applicant start over. Staff has prepared language halting the
process to get revised plans, but not voiding the application.
Section 18-61 (d) (4) landscaping and tree preservation. This
item deals with the calculation of the amount of tree removal. Staff
has proposed using the front 105 feet of the lot to estimate the area of
tree removal for a subdivision. The 105 feet includes the 30-foot
front setback (an area where small utility installation takes place,
where building materials are stored, and where vehicles and access to
the site is taken), a 47-foot house (the average building envelope
depth), a 12-foot deck and a 15-foot grading area, plus one foot to
round up to the nearest five feet.
Staff sampled surveys from the building department to determine if
there is an average building envelope that should be used to
determine adequate building area. The average building envelope is
2,226 square feet with a range of 1,833 square feet to 2,971 square
feet. These building envelopes range in length from 56 to 80 feet
with a depth from 31 to 55 feet with an average dimension of 68 feet
by 47 feet.
Section 18-61 (d) (5) landscaping and tree preservation. Staff and
the Planning Commission are recommending a financial penalty for
the damage or removal of protected trees in addition to the
replacement of the tree(s). The original proposal was for $500. The
Planning Commission recommended $300 per diameter inch for
"protected" trees that are removed as part of the construction process.
Section 18-78 (b) (5) Required improvements. Staff had originally
proposed that sidewalks be included on all local streets. The
Planning Commission had previously agreed with the requirement.
However, City Council was not comfortable with the blanket
requirement and directed that staff develop criteria for the inclusion
of sidewalks in a subdivision. The Planning Commission concurred
on the criteria and added clarifications.
Mr. Todd Gerhardt
February 23, 2004
Amendment Chapter 18
Page 3
Staff is recommending approval of the amendments.
Attached are the proposed revisions to Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code
in a strikethrough and bold format as well as the ordinance amending Chapter
18.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission voted four for and one against a motion
recommending adoption of the ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions, of
the City Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the
following motion:
"The Chanhassen City Council approves the attached ordinance amending
Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code and approves the summary ordinance
for publication purposes."
ATTACHMENT
1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions, Chanhassen City Code.
2. Summary Ordinance.
3. Code Amendments in stike-through and bold format.
4. Planning Commission Minutes of January 20, 2004.
5. Planning Commission Minutes of December 2, 2003.
6. Tree Removal Calculations Sample 1, Burlwood.
7. Tree Removal Calculations Sample 2, Ashling Meadows.
8. Survey Results, City Tree Removal Calculations.
9. Average Building Envelopes and Surveys.
g:\plan\bg\city code\cc memo ch 18 subdivisions.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCENO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18
CHANHASSEN C1TY CODE,
SUBDIVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 18, Article I, Section 18-1 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota, is hereby repealed.
Section 2. Chapter 18, Section 18-37 (a) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota, is hereby repealed.
Section 3. Section 18-37 (b) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
The city council may approve a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot into two (2) lots if
both resulting lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance and abut a
public or private street. To the extent possible, the new boundary line shall be parallel to
a previously existing lot line. The city council shall hold a public hearing on the
proposed subdivision after notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing has
been published once in the official newspaper, and a proposed development notification
sign has been erected on the subject property by the applicant, both at least ten (10) days
before the date of hearing. Written notice shall also be mailed by the city to the applicant
and all owners of record within five hundred (500) feet of the outer boundaries of the
subdivision. Failure to post a proposed development notification sign or to give notice or
defects in the notice shall not affect the validity of the proceedings. At least three (3)
weeks prior to the hearing the applicant shall submit to the city:
a. A survey (prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor);
b. A list of property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the boundaries of the
parcel to be subdivided;
c. Except as waived by the city, all information required for plats.
Section 4. Section 18-39 (a) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
After the pre-application consultation and at least thirty (30) days prior to the meeting of
the planning commission at which action is desired, the applicant may file with the city,
an application for preliminary plat approval. The application shall be accompanied by
copies of the plat in such number as required by the city, an eight and one-half-by-eleven-
inch reduction of each sheet, proof of ownership satisfactory to the city, and a list of
property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the property certified by an abstract
company. The applicant shall pay the application fee established by city council
resolution. All required data, documentation plans, copies and fees must be submitted
before the application will be considered complete. Rejection of the plat by the city
council, or abandonment or withdrawal of the proposed plat by the subdivider, shall not
entitle the applicant to the return of all or any part of the application fee.
Section 5. Section 18-39 (f) (7) c. of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems or no ISTS (individual sewage treatment
system).
Section 6. Section 18-40 (2) f. of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Topographic data within the property to be subdivided and one hundred (100) feet
beyond the property boundary, showing contours as follows: two foot intervals
where slope is ten (10) percent or less; five foot intervals where slope is ten (10) to
fifteen (15) percent; ten-foot intervals where slope is greater than fifteen (15) percent.
All areas of the subdivision to be platted with a slope greater than twenty-five percent
must be clearly indicated. However, on undevelopable sections or larger acre lots
topographic data may be reduced to significant physical characteristics, such as top
and toe of slope, if in the opinion of the city the area is viewed as unsuitable for
future subdivision. Location and elevations of on-site and abutting water courses,
lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, and marshes at date of survey and their ordinary high
water mark plus approximate high and normal water elevations shall also be shown.
A wetland delineation report and surveyed wetland line for all jurisdictional wetlands
on or within one hundred (100) feet of the property boundary shall be submitted. The
delineation shall be no more than three (3) years old, unless accompanied by
documentation demonstrating the delineation has been reviewed in the past three (3)
years and is accurate or revised to reflect changes on-site. Flood plain areas, location
of wooded areas, rocky outcrops, power transmission poles and lines and other
significant physical features shall also be shown.
Section 7. Section 18-40 (4) c. of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
A drainage plan for the area indicating the direction and rate of natural storm water
runoff and those unaltered areas where storm water collects and percolates into the
ground. A proposed drainage plan for the developed site indicating the direction and
rate of runoff, the path of all storm water discharge to the public storm water
infrastructure and those areas where storm water will collect and percolate into the
ground shall also be included. Storm water management shall be consistent with the
city's surface water management plan.
Section 8. Section 18-41 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(a) Unless otherwise provided in the development contract for phased development,
within one (1) year after the date of the city council approval of the preliminary plat,
the subdivider shall file an application for approval of the final plat. In addition to the
application the subdivider shall submit:
(1) Copies of the plat in such quantities as is required by the city;
(2) Two (2) mylar copies of the plat;
(3) One (1) two hundred (200) scale copy of the plat.
(4) 1"=200' scale mylar reductions of the final plat with just street names and lot and
block numbers.digital copy in .dxf format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current
county coordinate system) and a digital copy in .tif format of the final plat shall be
submitted. If the final plat application is not filed within this period, the
preliminary plat will be considered void unless for good cause shown an extension is
requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by the city council prior to the
one-year anniversary date of the preliminary plat approval. The application for final
plat approval shall be filed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the meeting of the
city council at which action is desired.
(b) The final plat shall conform to the requirements of this chapter and to all conditions
set forth in the approval of the preliminary plat as modified during final plat approval.
(c) The city council shall review the final plat and shall approve or disapprove it within
sixty (60) days of receipt of the completed application.
(d) No final plat shall be recorded by the city until the plat is in a form acceptable for
recording with the county, the proper filing fees have been paid to the city, a
development contract has been signed, appropriate security has been furnished, and
no other payments to the city related to the development are outstanding.
(e)
Upon approval of the final plat by the city council, the city shall notify the applicant
of the approval and within thirty (30) days thereafter, the applicant or the city
attorney shall file the final plat with the county recorder and furnish the city evidence
of such recording. Failure of the applicant to comply shall be cause for revoking the
city's approval.
The developer shall pay the city a fee established by city council to reimburse the city
for the cost of updating the city's base maps and geographic information systems
(GIS) data base files and converting the plat and record drawings into an electronic
format.
Section 9. Section 18-56 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
The proposed subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive plan, the design standards,
and Chapter 20 of the City Code. The design standards set forth in this article are
minimum requirements. The city may impose additional or more stringent requirements
concerning lot size, streets and overall design as deemed appropriate considering the
property being subdivided.
Section 10. Section 18-57 (b) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
b) Street right-of-way widths shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan and
official map, and shall conform to county and state standards for trunk highways. If no
such plans or standards are applicable, right-of-way and pavement widths shall not be
less than the following:
Street Right-of-Way Roadway/Pavement
Classifications Widths (feet) Width (feet)
Minor arterial 100 36
Collector 80 36
Local street (rural residential) 60 24
Local street (urban residential) 60 31
Local street 60 36
commercial/industrial)
Cul-de-sac, turnaround radius 60 45.5
urbm~/residential)
Cul-de-sac, turnaround 60 40
radius(rural residential)
Cul-de-sac, turnaround 60 48
radius(commercial/industrial)
Private Street (Residential Serving 30 20
A-2, RR, RSF, R-4)
Private Street (Residential Serving 40 24
R-8, R-12, R-16)
40 26
Private Street
(commercial/industrial)
Section 11. Section 18-61 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(a) Required landscaping/residential subdivision.
4
Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) deciduous or conifer tree to
be placed in the front yard. The type of tree shall be subject to city approval.
Coniferous trees must be at least six (6) feet high and deciduous trees must be at
least two and one-half (21/2) inches in diameter at the time of installation. This
requirement may be waived by the city where the applicant can demonstrate that a
suitable tree having a minimum diameter of two and one-half (21/2) inches for
deciduous and six-foot height for evergreen is located in an appropriate location
on the lot. The following trees may be used to meet planting requirements:
Scientific Name
Deciduous Trees
Common Name
Acer saccharunl Maple, Sugar or hard
Cazva ovata Shagbark Hickory
Celtis occide~italis Hackberry
Juglans nigra Black Walnut
Quercus rubra Oak, Red
Quercus alba Oak, White
Quercus bicolor Oak, Bicolor
Quercus macrocarpa Oak, Bur
Tilia americana Linden, American
Acer rubrutn spp. Maple, Red, all varieties
Acer xfreema.ii, spp. Maple, Freeman, all varieties
Acer sacc~d~arint.n 'Silver Quee.' Maple, Silver Queen
Aesclthts glabra Ohio Buckeye
Bet.la t~igra Birch, River
Betlda papyrifera Birch, paper
Bet.la pendula 'Dalecarlica' Birch, cut leaf weeping
Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa
Fraxin.s spp. Ash, all varieties
Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo
Gleditsia triaca.thos i~ermi& spp. Honeylocust, thornless - all varieties
Gymnocladus dioic.s Coffeetree, Kentucky
Tilia spp.
Ul.l.S spp.
Linden, all varieties
ELM, DED-resistant varieties
Ornamental
Acer ginnala Maple, Amur
Amelanchier spp. Serviceberry or Juneberry
Crataegus spp. Hawthorn, all varieties
Malus spp. Crabapple, assorted flowering-Varieties,
Ostrya virginiana Ironwood
Populus tremuloides Aspen
Sorbus spp. Ash, Mountain, all varieties
Phellodendron amurense Amur Corktree
Prunus cerasifera 'Newport' Plum, Newport
Prunus triloba Plum, flowering or Rose Tree of China
Prunus virginiana 'Schubert' Chokeberry, Schubert
Syringa reticulata Lilac, Japanese tree
Conifers
Abies balsamea Fir, Balsam
Abies coucolor Fir, Concolor
Larix lariciua Tamarack
Picea abies Spruce, Norway
Picea glauca Spruce, White
Picea glauca densata Spruce, Black Hills
Picea pungens Spruce, Colorado Green
Pinus nigra Pine, Austrian
Pinus ponderosa Pine, Ponderosa
Pinus resinosa Pine, Norway
Pinus strobus Pine, White
Pinus syh, estris Pine, Scotch
Pseudotsuga menziesii Fir, Douglas
Thuja occidentalis Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' Techny Arborvitae
(2) The tree(s) must be installed prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy or
financial guarantees acceptable to the city must be provided to ensure timely
installation.
(3)
All areas disturbed by site grading and/or construction must be seeded or sodded
immediately upon completion of work to minimize erosion. When certificates of
occupancy are requested prior to the satisfaction of this requirement, financial
guarantees acceptable to the city, must be provided.
(4) No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after development. On-site burial
or burning is not permitted.
(5)
Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the
city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined in the
comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses.
Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a
mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree preservation areas. No fences will be
permitted between the required buffer and the collector or arterial street. Where
appropriate, the city may require additional lot depth and area on lots containing
the buffer so that it can be adequately accommodated and the homes protected
from impacts. Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty-five (25) percent
over zoning district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the
preliminary and final plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial
guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required.
(b) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and
with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree
stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
(c) No tree removal shall be permitted except as approved in a subdivision, planned unit
development or site plan application. Removal of trees prior to city approval will
result in the issuance of a citation. The cleared area shall be replanted at a rate of two
(2) times the DBH inches (DBH means diameter measured at breast height, 4.5 feet
above the ground) of trees removed, if known, or one (1) tree per 1,089 square feet of
replacement area with the required replacement area calculated at 1.5 times the
canopy coverage area that was removed. Additionally, the development review
process shall be halted and the developer shall be required to resubmit revised
existing site condition and tree inventory plans and new landscaping plans
incorporating the additional planting requirements.
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
(1)
It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity of the natural
environment through the preservation, protection, and planting of trees. The city
finds that trees provide many benefits including: stabilization of the soil by the
prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm water runoff and the
costs associated therewith, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise
pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection and increase of property
values, protection of privacy, energy conservation through natural insulation,
control of drainage and restoration of denuded soil subsequent to construction and
grading, protection from severe weather, providing habitat for birds and other
wildlife, conservation and enhancement of city's physical and aesthetic
environment, reforestation of open lands, and general protection and enhancement
of the quality of life and general welfare of the city. It is therefore the purpose of
this section to provide regulations related to the cutting, removal, or killing of
trees on construction and development sites and to ensure the protection and
preservation of the natural environment and beauty of the City of Chanhassen.
(2)
Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be
prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other
professional approved by the city. This survey shall include the species, DBH
size (DBH means diameter measured at breast height, 4.5 feet above the ground),
condition, location of all, trees over six inches in diameter and any damaged or
diseased trees on site. All significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be
tagged and identified by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing
canopy coverage area(s) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be
included as part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees shall
be cataloged with the nature and extent of any damage or disease specified.
Based on this survey and either site observation and measurement or a current
aerial photograph (taken within one (1) year of the date of plan submittal)
interpretation, the following shall be calculated:
1. Base line canopy coverage.
2. Minimum canopy coverage requirements.
The following table shall be used to determine the minimum amount of
canopy coverage that must be maintained or provided on-site as part of the
development. It shall represent the minimum canopy coverage, consisting of
existing tree canopy and/or additional trees required for the site. Existing
wetland and bluff areas located on site shall be excluded from the calculation
of site area in the determination of site coverage. If a forested area is to be
dedicated to the city for park land, then this area shall not be included in the
base line canopy coverage area calculation nor shall it count towards the
minimum canopy coverage for the site.
Base Line Canopy Coverage Per Acre
Comprehensive Plan Designation 80-- 60--79% 40--59% 20--39% 19% or
100% less
Commercial/industrial/institutional 28% 25% 20% 14% 10%
High density residential 35% 30% 25% 20% 15%
Medium density residential 40% 35% 30% 25% 20%
Low density residential 55% 46% 35% 30% 25%
Large lot residential
Base line canopy coverage is the canopy coverage existing at the time the
development application is filed with the city. Minimum canopy coverage is
determined by using the matrix.
Priority shall be given to retaining stands of trees and undisturbed wooded
lands over individual specimen trees that will be incorporated into the
development. No more than ten (10) percent of the canopy retention
requirement may be met by an individual tree that is not included within a
designated woodland area.
For developments that do not meet the minimum canopy coverage, the
developer shall be required to develop a forestation plan to bring the total
canopy coverage up to the minimum requirement. Where existing woodlands
are removed or there is a loss of trees that would otherwise be used to meet
the canopy coverage retention requirement, the developer shall develop a
woodland replacement plan. The replacement plan must designate an area at
least one and two-tenths (1.2) times the removed canopy coverage area that
shall be planted with replacement trees for those removed. These plans shall
locate additional trees either as a continuation of existing stands of trees that
are to be preserved or create new stands of trees in desirable locations such as
along roadway corridors, on the north and west perimeters of the
development, in common open areas, or adjacent to park facilities.
The following criteria shall be followed in establishing minimum canopy
coverage:
1. When planting trees, one (1) tree shall be deemed to provide one
thousand eighty-nine (1,089) square feet of required canopy coverage;
2. Trees must be from the approved list of desirable species (preference
given for trees designated as native);
3. No more than one-third (~/3) of the trees may be fi'om any one (1) tree
species;
4. Trees shall average at least two-and-one-half-inch caliper and may be
a minimum of one-and-one-half-inch caliper;
5. Not less than twenty (20) percent of the trees shall be conifers;
6. Conifer trees shall average seven (7) feet and shall be a minimum of
six (6) feet in height;
7. Plant materials used for the reforestation shall be of a similar species
as vegetation found on site;
8. Trees shall be used that are appropriate to the soil conditions found on
site; and
9. Trees shall be from certified nursery stock as defined and controlled
by Minnesota Statute sections 18.44 through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act.
(3)
In order to calculate the tree removal area of the single-family detached
development, the applicant must include the front 105 feet of the each lot within
the tree removal area of the development.
(4) Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the following:
a. Realignment of streets, utilities and lot lines.
b. Consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of ejector
pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize grading.
c. Reductions in roadway width and right-of-way and increase in street grade up
to ten (10) percent when the applicant can demonstrate that significant tree
preservation is directly related to the modification.
d. Use of private streets in lieu of public streets.
e. Variation in street radius and design speed.
f. Modified grading plans.
g. Within PUDs, the city council may consider waiving minimum lot area
requirements and/or density transfers as long as it can be demonstrated by the
applicant, that tree preservation can be enhanced. In no case shall overall
project densities exceed what is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. The
greater the level of preservation, the greater flexibility will be considered by
the city.
h. Within PUDs, variations to building setback lines provided a minimum twenty
(20) foot building separation is maintained between buildings on adjacent lots.
The setback variations shall be established and recorded as part of the plat
approval.
(5)
Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fences with clearly
marked signage specifying that the area is off limits for construction activities,
or other means acceptable to the city, prior to land preparation or construction
activities. Protective barriers in locations determined by the city must remain in
place until all construction activities are terminated. No equipment, chemicals,
soil deposits, or construction materials shall be placed within the protective
barriers. All understory trees and natural vegetation should be preserved within
the boundaries of the protective areas. Where this protection area cannot be
maintained or would otherwise render lots undevelopable, an alternate
protection, mitigation or tree replacement plan may be considered and approved
by the city. This plan may include the use of retaining walls, installation of
aeration systems, requirement for post construction deep root fertilization and
soil aeration, or construction vehicle ramp systems. Failure to properly protect
trees during construction will result in a fine of $300.00 per diameter inch of
tree(s) harmed, removed or destroyed in addition to the replacement planting of
subsection (9) below.
(6)
At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect
designated tree preservation areas. Such easements shall be permanently
marked and signed as a conservation area with low profile monumcntation
10
acceptable to the city. A monument is required for each three hundred (300)
linear feet of tree conservation area. Within designated woodland areas, the city
shall encourage the use of indigenous grasses and plant species to more closely
resemble a natural area. Home owners associations shall be responsible for the
maintenance of vegetation in common areas. Individual property owners shall
be responsible for the maintenance of vegetation on their property. The planting
of trees in excess of those required by this ordinance is permitted within the
designated woodland area.
(7) During the removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of
public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
(8)
The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot be
saved. These trees shall not be counted when computing the base line tree
canopy coverage.
(9)
If any protected significant trees are removed or killed or there is a loss of trees
as the result of construction activities, the city requires replacement at the rate
of two (2) diameter inches per each inch of DBH of the removed, killed, or lost
trees. The replacement trees shall be at least two and a half (2I/2) inches
diameter and will be species that conform to the List of Desirable Tree Species
for Planting in Chanhassen. No more than one-third (1/_0 of the trees may be
from any one (1) tree species. Other species or sizes may be used as
replacement trees subject to approval by the city. Alternately, at the city's
discretion, if a developer removes trees within a protected area, the canopy
coverage area shall be calculated for that area and a replacement area one and
one-half (1.5) times the canopy coverage area that was removed shall be
planted. One tree shall be planted for each one thousand eighty-nine (1,089)
square feet of required replacement area. Trees shall be from the list of
desirable tree species, no more than one-third (~/3) of trees fi'om any one (1) tree
species, average two-and-one-half-inch diameter with a minimum one-and-one-
half-inch diameter, a similar species as vegetation existing on site, and
appropriate to the soil conditions. Any replacement trees that cannot be planted
on the original site due to space restrictions shall be planted on city property at
locations to be determined by the city.
(10)Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required to ensure satisfactory
installation of landscaping requirements.
Section 12. Section 18-78 (b) (5) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sidewalks may be required. The following criteria shall be used in determining if
sidewalks are to be included in a development:
a. Sidewalks that connect to existing sidewalks within adjacent developed areas.
11
b. Sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to adjacent schools, parks and
neighborhood commercial areas.
c. Sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to existing, within adjacent developed
areas, and proposed trails as shown in the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive
plan.
d. Sidewalks that are located in residential areas with long blocks or many
dwelling units on the street(s), or commercial or industrial areas.
Section 13. Section 18-79 (f) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Land area conveyed or dedicated to the city shall not be used in calculating density
requirements of chapter 20 and shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open space
requirements for planned unit developments.
Section 14. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
,2004, bythe
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. __, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
SUBDIVSIONS.
The purpose of this code amendment is to delete definitions which are consolidated
in Chapter 1 of the City Code; delete confusing exemptions provisions; eliminate the
distinction between metes and bounds subdivisions in the urban service; require plan
submittals 30 days prior to the public hearing; require submittal of a wetland delineation
report with the preliminary plat and show the path of storm water discharge to public storm
water infrastructure; require submittal of 1"=200' mylar final plats and digital formatted
final plats; require final plat documents be submitted 21 days prior to the city council
hearing; specify street pavement widths that are consistent with the city's detail plates;
clarify minimum front yard landscaping requirements; prohibit the burning of trees on site;
specify sanctions for the removal of trees prior to city approval of the plans; require that
trees six inches and larger shall be located on the tree survey; add that bluff areas are
excluded from canopy coverage area calculations; delete woodland management plan
requirements; clarify that the tree removal calculations shall include the front 105 feet of a
lot; institute a fine of $300.00 per diameter inch for protected trees that are removed or
damage as part of site construction; and provide criteria for the inclusion of sidewalks as
part of a plat.
A printed copy of Ordinance No. __ is available for inspection by any person
dunng regular office hours at the office of the City Manager/Clerk.
PASSED, ADOPTED, AND APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION this
2004, by the City Council of the City of Chanhassen.
__day of
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
AND
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager/Clerk
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on .).
CODE AMENDMENTS
12/27/02
2/20/03
3/13/03
11/18/03
12/12/04
Chapter 18, Subdivisions
(Note: Changes are in bold and strike-through format. Comments are in italics.)
Sec. 18-1. Definitions.
All definitions shall be consolidated in chapter 1.
Wetland delineation means a boundary between jurisdictional wetland and
nonwetland based on the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Acceptable wetland delineations shall be no more than three (3) years old, unless
accompanied by documentation demonstrating: 1. The delineation has been
reviewed in the past three (3) years by a person trained and experienced in the
application of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual; and 2.
That the delineation is still accurate or has been revised to reflect existing site
conditions.
*This definition is necessary in order to specti~ what constitutes an acceptable wetland
delineation.
Wetland delineation report means a report containing a brief site narrative, maps of
the site and all pertinent data sheets that document the establishment of a wetland
delineation.
*This d~finition is necessary in order to specify what constitutes an acceptable wetland
delineation report. Definitions shall be incorporated in Chapter 1.
Sec. 18-37. Exemption.
~],**~,4 lot into
(b) The city council may approve a metes and bounds subdivision of a r' ......
two (2) lots in areas inside the urSan service area if both resulting lots meet the minimum
requirements of the zoning ordinance and abut a public or private street. To the extent
possible, the new boundary line shall be parallel to a previously existing lot line. The city
council shall hold a public hearing on the proposed subdivision after notice of the date,
time, place and purpose of the hearing has been published once in the official newspaper,
and a proposed development notification sign has been erected on the subject property by
the applicant, both at least ten (10) days before the date of hearing. Written notice shall
also be mailed by the city to the applicant and all owners of record within five hundred
(500) feet of the outer boundaries of the subdivision. Failure to post a proposed
development notification sign or to give notice or defects in the notice shall not affect the
validity of the proceedings. At least three (3) weeks prior to the hearing the applicant
shall submit to the city:
(1) A survey (prepared and signed by a registered land surveyor);
(2) A list of property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the boundaries of the
parcel to be subdivided;
(3) Except as waived by the city, all information required for plats.
(c) Upon approval of an administrative or metes and bounds subdivision, the city shall
notify the applicant of the approval and within thirty (30) days thereafter, the applicant or
the city attorney shall file the documents with the county recorder and furnish the city
evidence of such recording. Failure to comply shall be cause for revoking the city's
approval.
*Subsection(a) of the ordinance is co~[using and redundant, since by definition, the
change of a lot line is not a subdivision (parts 1 and 2) and part 3 is covered under
section 18-4. Subsection (b) is being amended to eliminate r~ference to the urban service
area, since these subdivisions, which must fully comply with the zoning ordinance and
are routine in nature, should not require the fidl blown review process. A public hearing
would be held at the City Council. These changes were recommended by the City
Attorney to eliminate coqfusion.
Sec. 18-39. Preliminary plat - Generally.
(a) After the pre-application consultation and at least ~,,,~,,~
~ thirty (30) days prior to the meeting of the planning commission at which action is
desired, the applicant may file with the city, an application for preliminary plat approval.
The application shall be accompanied by copies of the plat in such number as required by
the city, an eight and one-half-by-eleven-inch transparency reduction of each sheet, proof
of ownership satisfactory to the city, and a list of property owners within five hundred
(500) feet of the property certified by an abstract company. The applicant shall pay the
application fee established by city council resolution. All required data, documentation
plans, copies and fees must be submitted before the application will be considered
complete. Rejection of the plat by the city council, or abandonment or withdrawal of the
proposed plat by the subdivider, shall not entitle the applicant to the return of all or any
part of the application fee.
*Submittal o[preliminary plats 21 days prior to the Plannin.~ Commission date does not
provide sufficient time to notice the plat, nor distribute items for comments. The current
practice is to have submittal deadlines a month prior to the Planning Commission date.
(f) The findings necessary for city council approval of the preliminary plat and the final
plat shall be as follows:
(1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
(2 The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
(3) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
(4) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required
by this chapter;
(5) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
(6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
(7) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of dedicated and improved public streets.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems and not: ISTS (individual sewer treatment
system).
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
*This is a MCC recommendation. Sanitary sewer is required [or all suburban style
development. ISTS may be permitted in appropriate large lot developments and as
permitted in section 20-906.
Sec. 18-40. Same--Data required.
(2)
f. Topographic data within the property to be subdivided and one hundred (100)
feet beyond the property boundary, showing contours as follows: two foot
intervals where slope is ten (10) percent or less; five foot intervals where slope is
ten (10) to fifteen (15) percent; ten-foot intervals where slope is greater than
fifteen (15) percent. All areas of the subdivision to be platted with a slope greater
than twenty-five percent must be clearly indicated. However, on undevelopable
sections or larger acre lots topographic data may be reduced to significant
physical characteristics, such as top and toe of slope, if in the opinion of the city
the area is viewed as unsuitable for future subdivision. Location and elevations of
on-site and abutting water courses, lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, and marshes
at date of survey and their ordinary high water mark plus approximate high and
!ow normal water elevations shall also be shown. A wetland delineation report
and surveyed wetland line for all jurisdictional wetlands on or within one
hundred (100) feet of the property boundary shall be submitted. The
delineation shall be no more than three (3) years old, unless accompanied by
documentation demonstrating the delineation has been reviewed in the past
three (3) years and is accurate or revised to reflect changes on-site. ~aere
fiver or stream. Flood plain areas, location of wooded areas, rocky outcrops,
power transmission poles and lines and other significant physical features shall
also be shown.
*The change is to make this rule consistent with the in[ormation required {'or storm water
ponds The second change will ensure that sta[~'has an adequate amount of time in which
to review the wetland delineation prior to final review o{'the subdivision, h~clusion o[ the
wetland delineation is {'or clarification purposes, since these reports are required of
subdivisions. The requirement for a meauder line two {bet above the recorded high water
elevation is unnecessary.(7~8~03)
(4)
c. A drainage plan for the area indicating the direction and rate of natural storm
water runoff and those unaltered areas where storm water collects and percolates
into the ground. A proposed drainage plan for the developed site indicating the
direction and rate of runoff, the path of all storm water discharge to the public
storm water infrastructure and those areas where storm water will collect and
percolate into the ground shall also be included. Storm water management shall
be consistent with the city's stetro surface water management plan.
*The first change will ensure that staff is able to evaluate any inconsistencies in &ira or
problems that may occur as a result q['a subdivision's discharge through adjacent
properties. The second change will make the langttage consistent with the language used
throughout the rest qf the city code.(7/9/03)
Sec. 18-41. Final Plat
4
(a) Unless otherwise provided in the development contract for phased development,
within one (1) year after the date of the city council approval of the preliminary plat, the
subdivider shall file an application for approval of the final plat. In addition to the
application the subdivider shall submit:
(1) Copies of the plat in such quantities as is required by the city;
(2) Two (2) mylar copies of the plat;
(3) One (1) two hundred (200) scale copy of the plat.
(4) 1"=200' scale mylar reductions of the final plat with just street names and
lot and block numbers.digital copy in .dxf format (the .dxf file must be tied to the
current county coordinate system) and a digital copy in .tif format (pdf
compatible) of the final plat shall be submitted.If the final plat application is not
filed within this period, the preliminary plat will be considered void unless for good
cause shown an extension is requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by the
city council prior to the one-year anniversary date of the preliminary plat approval. The
application for final plat approval shall be filed at least f~ae, eemd4) twenty-one (21)
days prior to the meeting of the city council at which action is desired.
(b) The final plat shall conform to the requirements of this chapter and to all conditions
set forth in the approval of the preliminary plat as modified during final plat approval.
(c) The city council shall review the final plat and shall approve or disapprove it within
sixty (60) days of receipt of the completed application.
(d) No final plat shall be xpprv.'.'ca.d recorded by the city ...... ;~-,,M~ until the plat is in a form
acceptable for recording with the county, the proper filing fees have been paid to the city,
a development contract has been signed, appropriate security has been furnished, and no
other payments to the city related to the development are outstanding.
(e) Upon approval of the final plat by the city council, the city shall notify the applicant
of the approval and within thirty (30) days thereafter, the applicant or the city attorney
shall file the final plat with the county recorder and furnish the city evidence of such
recording. Failure of the applicant to comply shall be cause for revoking the city's
approval.
f) The developer shall pay the city a fee established by city council resolution to
reimburse the city for the cost of updating the city's base maps and geographic
information systems (GIS) data base files and converting the plat and record drawings
into an electronic format.
*This sentence lists the deadline fbr submitting a final plat for Council approval as 14
days prior to the Council meeting. Engineerin,~ staff'has always used a three ~veek (21
day) minimum for submitting a final plat prior to the Council meeting that it will be
considered. This is a more realistic deadline to ensure that staff has sufficient time to
process the final plat report, development contract, administration fee calculation, etc.
The city requires the 1 "=200' scale mylar reductions of the final plat with iust street
names and lot and block numbers for addressin~ purposes. The final plat documents and
fees are never £ully known at the time of final plat approval, rather these fees are
determined and paid and the development contract signed prior to recordin~ of the plat.
To facilitate the updating of the geographic information system, GIS, the city is requirin,~
that plats be included in electronic format. Fees are established in Chapter 4 of the City
Code, which is adopted by ordinance.
Sec. 18-56. Generally.
The proposed subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive plan, zening ordinance and
design kandboak standards, and Chapter 20 of the City Code. The design features set
forth in this article are minimum requirements. The city may impose additional or more
stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets and overall design as deemed
appropriate considering the property being subdivided.
*MCC recommendation.
Sec. 18-57, Streets. Subsection b:
b) Street right-of-way widths shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan and
official map, and shall conform to county and state standards for trunk highways, if no
such plans or standards are applicable, right-of-way and pavement widths shall not be
less than the following:
Street !Right-of-Way I Roadway/Pavement
Classifications Widths (feet) Width (feet)
Minor arterial I00 36 to ~,~,
Collector 80 36
Local street (rural 60 24
residential)
Local street (urban 60 '~ '" '~ 31
residential)
Local street 60 36
(commercial/industrial)
Cul-de-sac, turnaround 60 44_ 45.5
radius (urban/residential)
Cul-de-sac, turnaround 60 40
radius(rural residential)
Cul-de-sac, turnaround 60 48
6
radius(commercial/industrial)
Private Street (Residential 30 20
Serving A-2, RR, RSF, R-4)
Private Street (Residential ¢0 40 24
Serving R-8, R-12, R-16)
Private Street 30 40 26
(commercial/industrial)
* The table lists the allowable pavement widths for minor arterial streets as 36-44 feet.
The Planning Commission originallyrecommended that the minimum roadway width
.for minor arterials be 44 feet and the minimum local street width be 32 feet. However,
as part o.[ the public hearing, the Planning Commission accepted the roadway width as
outlined in the ordinance. Engineering staff has used a standard street width of 36 feet
for minor arterial streets, hz addition, the City's standard detail plate for urban streets
only shows a 36-foot wide street. The table lists the allowable pavement widths for local
(urban) streets as 28-32 feet. Engineering staff has used a standard street width of 31
feet for local (urban) streets. In addition, the City's standard detail plate for urban
streets only shows a 31-{hot wide street. Engineering would like to eliminate the range
and have 36 feet as the only listed pavement width for minor arterials and 31 feet as the
listed width for local urban streets. Ifa range of street widths is allowed, engineering
believes that developers will undoubtedly choose to build the least costly option, i.e., a
28-foot wide street. This is in direct conflict with what the City's standard has been in
the past. To avoid confusion, staff believes there should be one standard street width.
Any deviation from the stan&zrd would be approved as part of the subdivision review
process as conditions warrant. Section 18-56 (o) (7) requires a 40 foot easement for
multifamilv and commercial industrial private streets.
Sec. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements.
fa)
Required landscaping/residential subdivision.
(1) Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) deciduous or conifer
tree to be placed in the front yard. The type of tree shall be subject to city
approval. (The~.~.,~';' ..... -,,,~ ~,,~, ,~,~;'4~ ~" .,o~ ~.~r spedes). Coniferous trees must be at
least six (6) feet high and deciduous trees must be at least two and one-half
(2~/2) inches in diameter at the time of installation. This requirement may be
waived by the city where the applicant can demonstrate that a suitable tree
having a minimum diameter of two and one-half (2~/2) inches for deciduous
and six-foot height for evergreen '~ rou~ (~) r~, ~ .... ~ ........~
.................... s ....... is located
in an appropriate location on the lot. The following trees may be used to meet
planting requirements:
*This distinction is confitsing and unnecessary. Deciduous or conifer addedJbr
clarification purposes. The landscaping is provided as part of the landscaping plan for
the project. The ordinance contains the list of species. (7/15/03)
D.4 ...... ~;~ Common Name
Deciduous Trees
Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar or hard
Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory.
Celtis occidentalis Hackberry
Juglans nigra Black Walnut
~uercus rubra Oak, Red
Ouercus alba Oak, White
~uercus bicolor Oak, Bicolor
Ouercus macrocarpa Oak, Bur
Tilia americana Linden, American
.......... ~m--~- M~i~,' ~'..,t ...........
Acer rllbr~ull $pp. Maple, Red, all uarieties
Acer x freemanii, spp. Maple, Freeman, all varieties
Acer saccsharJnum 'Silver Queen' Maple, Silver Oueen
Aexctllzis glabra Ohio Buckeye
Betula nigra Birch, River
Betula papyr~J~ra Birch, paper
Betula pendula 'Dalecarlica' Birch, cut lea.{'weeping
Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa
Fraxinus ~mcric~:m, spp. Ash, Whkc all varieties
Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo
Gleditsia triacanthos inermi& spp. Honeylocust, thomless - all varieties
Gymnocladus dioicus Co~fleetree Kentucky
Tilia spp. Linden, all varieties
Ulm~s spp. EL~, DEP-resista~l varieties
Ornamental
Acer ~innala Map[c, Amur
Ame[anchier spp. Sen, iceberry or Juneberry
Crataegus ,~p. tlawthon~e, all varieties
Malus (varioux ...... ; ....
~,~ ...... /spp. Crabapple, assorted flowering- Varieties~
t?ud:~'/vc r. Red c,.
Ost~a virginiana Ironwood
Populus tremuloides Aspen
Sorbus spp. Ash, Mountain, all varieties
Phellodendron amurense Amur Corktree
Prunus ceraMJ~ra 'Newport' Plum, Newport
Prunus triloba Plum, flowering or Rose Tree qfl China
Prunus virginiana 'Scht~bert' Chokeberry, Schubert~
Syringa reticulata Lilac, Japanese tree
Conifers
Abies balsamea Fir, Balsam
Abies concolor Fir, Concolor
Larix laricina Tamarack
Picea abies Spruce, No~ay
Picea glauca Spruce, White
Picea glauca densata Sprt~ce, Black Hills
Picea pungens Spruce, Colorado Gree~
Pi~zus nigra Pi~e, Austrian
Pint~s ponderosa Pine, Ponderosa
Pinus resinosa Pine, Nonvay
Pinus strobus Pine, White
Pinus s?lvestris Pine, Scotch
Pseudotsuga menziesii Fir, Douglas
Tht~ja occ'identalis Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' Tec'ln~y A rbo~itae
*Changes denote spelling corrections and clarification ot'species. Deletions include
redundant mentions and poor selections.
(2) The tree(s) must be installed prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy or
financial guarantees acceptable to the city must be provided to ensure timely
installation.
*Grammatical correction.
10
(3) All areas disturbed by site grading and/or construction must be seeded or
sodded immediately upon completion of work to minimize erosion. When
certificates of occupancy are requested prior to the satisfaction of this
requirement, financial guarantees acceptable to the city, must be provided.
(4) No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after development. On-site
burial or burning is not permitted.
*Bun~inR orRanic waste, such as wood, is a waste of resources. A variety of other
disposal options are available.
(5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required
by the city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as
defined in the comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more
intensive land uses. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape
material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree preservation
areas. No fences will be permitted between the required buffer and the
collector or arterial street. Where appropriate, the city may require
additional lot depth and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be
adequately accommodated and the homes protected from impacts. Lot
depths and areas may be increased by twenty-five (25) percent over zoning
district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the
preliminary and final plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial
guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required.
(b) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout
the city and with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical,
substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
(c) No ~ .......,,~. ~ ~' ..... a~
............ ~, .............. areas tree removal shall be permitted except
as approved in a subdivision, planned unit development or site plan application.
Removal of trees prior to city approval will result in the issuance of a citation. The
cleared area shall be replanted at a rate of two (2) times the DBH inches (DBH
means diameter measured at breast height, 4.5 feet above the ground) of trees
removed, if known, or one (1) tree per 1,089 square feet of replacement area with
the required replacement area calculated at 1.5 times the canopy coverage area that
was removed. Additionally, the development review process shall be halted and the
developer shall be required to resubmit revised existing site condition and tree
inventory plans and new landscaping plans incorporating the additional planting
requirements.
*There have been several cases in which a developer has be,gun clearin,g bel%re final
approval. This is a problem in case the subdivision isn't approved by the cit~,. The
Planning Commission has previously stated that it would like to make the application
void and have the developer restart the process. Star. f has added the lan!gua!~e that the
development review process be halted and the developer resubmit plans recognizing the
ehan!~ed conditions. Our concern is that the review deadline may be exceeded. The
City Attorney's o,f, fiee concurred with staff's concern.
II
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site
plans:
(1) It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity of the natural
environment through the preservation, protection, and planting of trees. The
city finds that trees provide many benefits including: stabilization of the soil
by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm water
runoff and the costs associated therewith, improvement of air quality,
reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection
and increase of property values, protection of privacy, energy conservation
through natural insulation, control of drainage and restoration of denuded
soil subsequent to construction and grading, protection from severe weather,
providing habitat for birds and other wildlife, conservation and enhancement
of city's physical and aesthetic environment, reforestation of open lands, and
general protection and enhancement of the quality of life and general
welfare of the city. It is therefore the purpose of this section to provide
regulations related to the cutting, removal, or killing of trees on construction
and development sites and to ensure the protection and preservation of the
natural environment and beauty of the City of Chanhassen.
(2) Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be
prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other
professional approved by the city. This survey shall include the species,
DBH size (DBH means diameter measured at breast height, 4.5 feet
above the ground), condition, location of all o~r~,
o,~, .......... , o~, ..... , trees over
six inches in diameter and any damaged or diseased trees on site. All
significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified
by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy coverage
area(s) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be included as
part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees shall be
cataloged with the nature and extent of any damage or disease specified.
*Locating all trees over six inches in diameter is consistent with the survey requirements
for building permits.
a. Based on this survey and either site observation and measurement or a
current aerial photograph (taken within one (1) year of the date of plan
submittal) interpretation, the following shall be calculated:
1. Base line canopy coverage.
2. Minimum canopy coverage requirements.
The following table shall be used to determine the minimum amount of
canopy coverage that must be maintained or provided on-site as part of the
development. It shall represent the minimum canopy coverage, consisting of
existing tree canopy and/or additional trees required fol' the site. Existing
wetland and bluff areas located on site shall be excluded from the
calculation of site area in the determination of site coverage. If a forested
area is to be dedicated to the city roi' park land, then this area shall not be
12
included in the base line canopy coverage area calculation nor shall it
eoumy count towards the minimum canopy coverage for the site.
Base Line Canopy Coverage Per Acre
Comprehensive Plan Designation 80-- 60--79% 40--59% 20--39% 19% or
100% less
Commercial/industrial/institutional 28% 25% 20% 14% 10%
High density residential 35% 30% 25% 20% 15%
Medium density residential 40% 35% 30% 25% 20%
Low density residential 55% 46% 35% 30% 25%
Large lot residential 68% 56% 43% 35% 25%
Base line canopy coverage is the canopy coverage existing at the time the development
application is filed with the city. Minimum canopy coverage is determined by using the
matrix.
Priority shall be given to retaining stands of trees and undisturbed wooded lands over
individual specimen trees that will be incorporated into the development. No more than
ten (10) percent of the canopy retention requirement may be met by an individual tree
that is not included within a designated woodland area.
For developments that do not meet the minimum canopy coverage, the developer shall be
required to develop a forestation plan to bring the total canopy coverage up to the
minimum requirement. Where existing woodlands are removed or there is a loss of trees
that would otherwise be used to meet the canopy coverage retention requirement, the
developer shall develop a woodland replacement plan. The replacement plan must
designate an area at least one and two-tenths (1.2) times the removed canopy coverage
area that shall be planted with replacement trees for those removed. These plans shall
locate additional trees either as a continuation of existing stands of trees that are to be
preserved or create new stands of trees in desirable locations such as along roadway
corridors, on the north and west perimeters of the development, in common open areas,
or adjacent to park facilities.
The following criteria shall be followed in establishing minimum canopy coverage:
1. When planting trees, one (1) tree shall be deemed to provide one thousand
eighty-nine (1,089) square feet of required canopy coverage;
2. Trees must be from the approved list of desirable species (preference given
for trees designated as native);
3. No more than one-third (~/.~) of the trees may be fi'om any one (1) tree
species;
4. Trees shall average at least two-and-one-half-inch caliper and may be a
minimum of one-and-one-half-inch caliper;
5. Not less than twenty (20) percent of the trees shall be conifers;
6. Conifer trees shall average seven (7) feet and shall be a minimum of six (6)
feet in height;
7. Plant materials used for the reforestation shall be of a similar species as
vegetation found on site;
13
(3)
8. Trees shall be used that are appropriate to the soil conditions found on site;
and
9. Trees shall be fi'om certified nursery stock as defined and controlled by
Minnesota Statute sections 18.44 through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act.
Tree survey;
Loca ............ ~,
L ........... v ......... fencing;
Location Ac ~,, .~,.,;.;~ walls;
*The Woodland Management Plan does not facilitate i,lproved l%restry nlanagement
procedures or increased awareness of building in wooded areas. It has not served the
purpose intended and should be eliminated.
(4)
reqaJred set~acks and easements. In order to calculate the tree removal area
the single-family detached development ~, the applicant must include the
front 105 feet of the each lot within the tree removal area of the development.
the ~ulldlng
* Grading and tree removal is usuallv misrepresented and underestinlated o11 wooded
lots. This chan,qe would help tninitni~e t/lat proble,1. The intent is to recognire t/lat the
tree impact area extends beyond the actual l?uildin,~.
(5) Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the following:
14
(6)
a. Realignment of streets, utilities and lot lines.
b. Consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of ejector
pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize grading.
c. Reductions in street roadway width and right-of-way and increase in street
grade up to ten (10) percent when the applicant can demonstrate that
significant tree preservation is directly related to the modification.
d. Use of private d~veg streets in lieu of public streets.
e. Variation in street radius and design speed.
f. Modified grading plans.
g. Within PUDs, the city council may consider waiving minimum lot area
requirements and/or density transfers as long as it can be demonstrated by
the applicant, that tree preservation can be enhanced. In no case shall overall
project densities exceed what is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. The
greater the level of preservation, the greater flexibility will be considered by
the city.
h. Within PUDs, variations to building setback lines provided a minimum
twenty (20) foot building separation is maintained between buildings on
adjacent lots. The setback variations shall be established and recorded as
part of the plat approval.
Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fences with clearly
marked signage specifying that the area is off limits for construction activities, or
other means acceptable to the city, prior to land preparation or construction
activities. Protective barriers in locations determined by the city must be located
~^~,,~ ~.,~, ...... ,,..,~,4 .... ,,,~,o~* remain in place until all construction activities are terminated.
No equipment, chemicals, soil deposits, or construction materials shall be placed
within the protective barriers. All understory trees and natural vegetation should
be preserved within the boundaries of the protective areas. Where this protection
area cannot be maintained or would otherwise render lots undevelopable, an
alternate protection, mitigation or tree replacement plan may be considered and
approved by the city. This plan may include the use of retaining walls, installation
of aeration systems, requirement fox' post construction deep root fertilization and
soil aeration, or construction vehicle ramp systems. Failure to properly protect
trees during construction will result in a fine of $~ $I~.~ $300.00 per
diameter inch of tree(s) harmed, removed or destroyed in addition to the
replacement planting of subsection (9) below.
*h is unreasonable to require tree protection fencing located 12x the diameter of the
tree. This generally ,takes wooded lots tmbuildable. Tree protection should be required,
but it's location should be t}'eld located at each site. While the city may be serious about
protecting trees during construction, many developers and builders are not. A penalty
/hr failing to protect trees is needed to quickly and eff'ectivelv remedy the situation. Staff'
had originally proposed $500 per diamenter inch. City Council felt that this was too
ornerous and not fair or equitable. There is a diff'erence between whether trees are
removed accidentiallv or purposely, and proving the diff'erence would be very diff}'cult if
not impossible. Staff'reviewed the City of Plymouths requirement which is $100 per
15
diameter inch and is proposing that amou~tt as part o[ the code. The Planning
Commission.[elt stongly that $100.00 was not su[ficient to deter tree removal and
recommended that at least $300.00 be required. (1/20/04)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect
designated tree preservation areas. Such easements shall be permanently marked
and signed as a conservation area with low profile monumentation acceptable to
the city. A monument is required for each three hundred (300) linear feet of tree
conservation area. Within designated woodland areas, the city shall encourage the
use of indigenous grasses and plant species to more closely resemble a natural
area. Home owners associations shall be responsible for the maintenance of
vegetation in common areas. Individual property owners shall be responsible for
the maintenance of vegetation on their property. The planting of trees in excess of
those required by this ordinance is permitted within the designated woodland area.
During the removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of
public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot be
saved. These trees shall not be counted when computing the base line tree canopy
coverage.
If any protected significant trees are removed or killed or there is a loss of trees as
the result of construction activities, the city requires replacement at the rate of two
(2) ~ diameter inches per each inch of DBH of the removed, killed, or lost
trees. The replacement trees shall be at least two and a half (21/2) inches c-atipe-F
diameter and will be species that conform to the List of Desirable Tree Species
for Planting in Chanhassen. No more than one-third (~/_0 of the trees may be from
any one (1) tree species. Other species or sizes may be used as replacement trees
subject to approval by the city. Alternately, at the city's discretion, if a developer
removes trees within a protected area, the canopy coverage area shall be
calculated for that area and a replacement area one and one-half (1.5) times the
canopy coverage area that was removed shall be planted. One tree shall be planted
for each one thousand eighty-nine (1,089) square feet of required replacement
area. Trees shall be from the list of desirable tree species, no more than one-third
(~/3) of trees from any one (1) tree species, average two-and-one-half-inch c-ahpe,
diameter with a minimum one-and-one-half-inch eahpe~ diameter, a similar
species as vegetation existing on site, and appropriate to the soil conditions. Any
replacement trees that cannot be planted on the original site due to space
restrictions shall be planted on city property at locations to be determined by the
city.
with this section.
Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required to ensure
satisfactory installation of landscaping requirements.
*The city only requires guarantee o{'the landscaping inxtallatio~. Stati~tj4 it tTvice was
redundant.
16
Sec. 18-63. Surface water management.
(b)
In accordance with the city's surface water management plan as a condition of
subdivision approval, subdividers shall pay a water quality and water quantity
connection charge. The charge shall be based upon the gross area of the
subdivision less the area to be dedicated to the city for ponding, parks and
wetland, and right-of-way for state highways, county roads, and local arterial
roadways. The subdivision will be given a credit for any on site stormwater
improvement which has been oversized to serve property outside the subdivision.
The charge for lots oversized due to individual on site sewage disposal and water
systems will be reduced to the charge that would be imposed on a one-half (1/2)
acre lot. An additional charge will then be imposed if the lot is further subdivided
less a credit for the charge previously paid. The charge shall be paid in cash
before the subdivision is approved by the city unless the city and subdivider agree
that the charge may be assessed against the property. Property being subdivided
shall be exempt from the water quality and water quantity connection charges
imposed by this section if the charges were paid or assessed in conjunction with a
previous subdivision of the property and if the property is not being zoned to a
classification with a higher charge. T~'e ...... t .-.r th~ ~ ..... ~. ~
*This change will allow the charge to be adjusted automatically based on changes to a
standard cost index. A change is state statute requires adoption o[nzost tees by
ordinance. The City has incorporated all the {'ees in Chapter 4. h~clusion of language
such as this would be appropriately located in Chapter 4.
Sec. 18-78. Required improvements. Subsection(b) (5)
Sidewalks ma5'o,~k"". ,, ., be required an~* least ,. .... .. .. ·, .:'4'~,.,. ,,,"r ,~""., ~"~"~,,.~. o-~t~to~o. The
following criteria shall be used in determining if sidewalks are to be included
in a development:
17
a. Sidewalks that connect to existing sidewalks within adjacent developed
areas.
b. Sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to adjacent schools, parks and
neighborhood commercial areas.
c. Sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to existing, within adjacent
developed areas, and proposed trails as shown in the City of Chanhassen
Comprehensive plan.
d. Sidewalks that are located in residential areas with long blocks or many
dwelling units on the street(s), or commercial or industrial areas.
*Staff is proposing that standards be established for sidewalks and trails. The Planning
Commission recommended that sidewalks be mandatory. The Parks and Recreation
Commission recomtnends that references to trails be deleted. City Council did not
want to require sidewalks outright~ but rather, develop criteria to determine when
sidewalks should be included in a development.
Sec. 18-79. Park land dedication requirements.
(f)
Land area conveyed or dedicated to the city shall not be used in calculating
density requirements of ~,~,.,~ ,~.,:';~ ..... -~-'.....~,; .... ,,.,~...~..~'~ ...... chapter 20 and shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of open space requirements for planned unit
developments.
* MCC recom~nendation.
Minnesota Statutes
462.358 Procedure to ejJbct plan: subdivisio~ regulations.
Subdivision 1. Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35
Subd. la. Authority. To protect a,d promole the public health, safety, at~d ge~eral
welfare, to provide.~br the orderly, economic, and sqfe developme~t of land, to preserve
agricultural lan&, to promote the availabili(v of hot,sing a, ffbrdable to persons and
families of all income levels, and to fitcilitate adequate provision Jbr transportatio~z,
water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrotmds, azzd other public services
and facilities, a mt~nicipality may by ordi,ance adop! subdivision, regulations
establishing standards, requirements, and procedures,Iht the review and approval or
disapproval of subdivisions. The regulations may co,tain wzried provisio~zs respecting,
and be made applicable only to, certain classes or kinds r~f subdivisions. The regulations
shall be uniJbrm for each class or ki,d ¢'sltbdivisio~.
18
A municipality may by resolution extend the application of its subdivision regulations
to unincorporated territory located within two miles qf its limits in any direction but not
in a town which has adopted subdivision regulations; provided that where two or more
noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less thane{bur miles apart, each is
authorized to control the subdivision of land equal distance from its boundaries within
this area.
Subd. 2. Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35
Subd. 2a. Terms of regulations. Tile standards and requirements in the regulations
may address without limitation: the size, location, grading, and improvement of lots,
structures, public areas, streets, roads, trails, walkways, curbs and gutters, water supply,
storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas, and other utilities; the planning and
design of sites; access to solar energy; and the protection and conservation o.(flood
plains, shore lands, soils, water, vegetation, energy, air quality, and geologic and
ecologic features. The regulations shall require that subdivisions be consistent with the
municipality's official map if one exists and its zoning ordinance, and may require
consistency with other official controls and the comprehensive plan. The regulations
may prohibit certain classes or kinds of subdivisions in areas where prohibition is
consistent with the comprehensive plan and the purposes of this section, particularly the
preservation of agricultural lands. The regulations may prohibit, restrict or control
development.tbr the purpose of protecting and assuring access to direct sunlight for solar
energy systems. The regulations may prohibit the issuance of permits or approvals for
any tracts, lots, or parcels.tbr which required subdivision approval has not been
obtained.
The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on the
construction and installation of sewers, streets, electric, gas, drainage, and water
facilities, and similar utilities and improvements or, in lieu thereof, on the receipt by the
municipali(;' of a cash deposit, certified check, irrevocable letter e[ credit, or bond in an
amount and with surety and conditions s~(ffi'c'ient to assure the municipality that the
utilities and improvements will be constructed or installed according to tile specifications
of the municipality. Sections 471.345 and 574.26 do not apply to improvements made by
a subdivider or a subdivider's contractor.
The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on compliance
with other requirements reasonably related to the provisions of the regulations and to
execute development contracts embodying the terms and conditions of approval. The
municipality may enforce such agreements and conditions by appropriate legal and
equitable remedies.
Subd. 2b. Dedication. Tile regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any
proposed subdivision be dedicated to the ptiblic or preserved for public use as streets,
roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas
or ponds and similar utilities and improvements.
19
In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed
subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or[or
public use as parks, recreational facilities as de. IS'ned and outlined in section 471.191,
playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may
choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash frown the applicant Jbr part or all of the
portion required to be dedicated to such public t~ses or purposes based on the fair market
value of the land no later than at the time o.({i'nal approval, (b) any cash payments
received shall be placed in a special fimd by the municipali(v used only for the purposes
jbr which the money was obtained, (c) in establishi~g the reasonable portion to be
dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common
areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d)
the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land
for the purposes stated in this paragraph ax a result of approval of the subdivision.
2O
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 20, 2004
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, Kurt Papke, and
Craig Claybaugh
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rich Slagle and Bethany Tjomhom
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob
Generous, Senior Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Janet & Jerry Paulsen
7305 Laredo Drive
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 OF CITY CODE; SUBDIVISION.
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. We've had this several times
before you in the past. I did hand out tonight a couple revised sheets and I'll just quickly
run through those for you. They're both the strike through bold format so you can see the
change and also then it would be the revised ordinance. But in discussions with the city
attorney's office, under Section 18.37 we have exemptions from the platting
requirements. The attorney's office felt that this section of the code was confusing and
redundant. If a lot change, which is sections 1 and 2 lot line changes are not considered
subdivision so they are not required by state statute to go through the process and so he
said take it out. The second part is for areas outside the urban service area, that you could
subdivide property without going through the platting process.
Sacchet: Which one is that?
Generous: Page 2, it's subsection 3. Right at the top.
Sacchet: Okay, yep. Yep.
Generous: We're proposing that that be deleted. Section 18-4 has a criteria for when the
creation of lots does not create a subdivision and that's for commercial and industrial
properties where you create 5 acre or larger parcels, or for residential or agricultural
properties that create 20 acre parcels or larger. So we're going to rely on that section and
just take it all out here, so anytime, otherwise if you don't meet those criteria you have to
go through a subdivision process. The only exemption is if it's a, they want to plat a lot
on, or parcel into 2 lots and both lots meet the requirements, then they can skip the
Planning Commission review and just have the public hearing at City Council. Those are
very you know standard subdivisions. There's no variances involved. Generally there's
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
no public improvements involved and so we thought a public hearing would be adequate
at the council level, so that's what Section B would do. It would take out the word
platted and then, in areas outside the urban service area. And then the other change that
shows up on page 18 of the strike through bold format, which are on the new sheets that I
gave you, is one of the commissioners said that we should provide, maybe some criteria
that based on either the intensity or density of development, that that would be another
area that we would look at having sidewalks involved so we came up with the wording
and under D, sidewalks that are located in residential areas with long blocks or many
units on the streets or commercial industrial uses.
Sacchet: Do you have another one of these for Craig please?
Claybaugh: Thank you very much.
Generous: So that's the only additional changes that we've made to the ordinance. And
then of course we've amended the ordinance to correspond with that and that's what I
just recently reprinted the entire ordinance for everyone because there's
some...questions. Previously in our review the issues that came up was the tree removal,
tree protection portion of the ordinance and we looked at some other communities, what
they had. Our Forester actually compared our existing ordinance with requirements that
we have these ordinances in places. The net result is that our ordinance required more
tree planting. It's not necessarily protection. A lot of the other ordinances permit a
percentage of the total trees on site to be removed, and so we believe staying with our
target is a good way to do it. It's been working. We've actually expanded the tree
removal area. Previously it was a 3,600 square foot building envelope. Now we're
saying the first 105 feet of the lot, just estimate that all of that will be removed. If they
can save the trees at the time of building permit, then we would be able to credit them for
those actually those trees that are actually saved rather than having a blanket thing up
front so we'll have all the plantings for the subdivision calculated with the final plat, but
not, they wouldn't get any credit for saving anything in fl'ont until they actually came into
construct an individual lot and at that time you say, yes you saved 3 trees up here so
you're credited against your 3 or 4 trees that are shown in the landscaping plan.
Aanenson: ... you're not saving trees up fi'ont.
Papke: Are we going to run through the whole thing and then ask questions or do you
want questions as we go?
Sacchet: Let's interrupt when you have questions because.
Papke: Okay. I do have a question or comment on the 105 width restriction. One
question and one concern. How do we know it states that it's 105 feet of each lot within
the removal area of the development. Is the removal area of the development, is the
width and the placement of that 105 foot strip well defined in your mind? If you have a
very wide lot, do we know what that piece is?
2
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Generous: Well it would be the front 105 feet.
Papke: But what if it's a 200 foot wide lot?
Generous: Well it's be 105 by 205 would be the removal.
Papke: And you really want to specify that as the removal?
Generous: That's just what we're calculating for removal. Now they could, there's other
ways they can show that they're going to preserve that and then we can credit that.
Papke: Okay. The other.
Generous: Because generally we don't get 200 foot wide lots.
Papke: Right, but every once in a while you know you might get one like that. The other
question or concern I had with that one is kind of the law of unintended consequences
here. In that this, does this remove incentive to preserve any trees in that 105 foot strip?
Okay, if they're going to get dinged for 105 foot strip, you know as a developer I might
say well heck of it. I'll just mow down everything there. I don't have to be careful to
preserve trees.
Generous: Well they're still credited with those trees from the platting so they, when
they come in. Here's where as part of a subdivision we'll have them plant the buffer
areas. The perimeter of the site. Areas that we know won't be impacted by site
construction. That they're actually saving the trees in the front or side yards that they we
said they were moving out, then we would credit that against their total tree requirement.
Papke: But is that going to be clear to a developer up front?
Aanenson: Right, I think what the goal is is that they're obligated, if there's tree lost, to
replace so much. If they can save other trees, that's to their benefit because that would
go, and we're looking at it in a holistic, not whether it's an individual. They have to
come back with a plan so if they do save those trees that are on those lots, and that should
be the incentive that would be less replacement of trees. They're still obligated for that.
Feik: I have another question on that. We still don't make any distinction between what
I'll call a favorable tree and a, you know an 80 year old cottonwood that's hollow that's
going to fall down by itself, or some scrubby box elders that you know they're
volunteers. There's not a neighbor in town that would want those.
Papke: Versus the 24 inch maple and beautiful tree.
Feik: Right. Right, there's no distinction between trees. Do you guys have any
concerns? 1 mean there seems to be, I think there should be some fairness in that there's
some desire quite frankly to have some of those trees removed. I mean when you've got
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
a big old cottonwood like I had at my old house, you know that literally was hollow and
it shed branches and you just knew sooner or later it's going to fall on either something or
somebody.
Generous: Well the ordinance does permit you to exclude if they're hazard trees or sick
trees from the calculations.
Claybaugh: What about between deciduous and... Just classification of trees.
Aanenson: I think what you're looking at is a credit for higher value tree and the
question of value, at some point we looked at how we did wetlands. It would add another
layer of complexity so let's say you preserve something that's of higher value, then
maybe your replacement would even be greater. The replacement requirement might be
ever greater because you saved a higher value. I guess we can take a spin at looking at
that.
Claybaugh: Well as an example in the last development that came in, I forget the name
of the developer but the.
Feik: Where the wetland, needed to replace the wetland.
Claybaugh: Yeah, a lot of less desirable trees in the area and the developer as part of
making the presentation made no distinction between some of the more desirable trees
and the less desirous trees. With respect to the placement of the retention pond and other
things. And to me that would be a substantial factor in considering specifically which
type trees are being taken out and what value are they to the community.
Aanenson: I'm just trying to make it administratively less complex because we need to
work through it, so does the applicant. Certainly we've called out replacement trees that
are in the ordinance so somehow you need to get.
Claybaugh: But with respect to tree surveys that we've seen. They identify the species
of the tree. It wouldn't seem to be that great a stretch to determine by the forester
hardwood, softwoods and through a walk through on say trees larger diameter than say
15-16 trunk inches.
Aanenson: Those are generally all spelled out and the City Forester does review those
but.
Claybaugh: But with respect with the health of the tree.
Aanenson: Right, that's the one thing that might be missing. I think that's typically why
they are walked as part of the tree. We've got one going up that's already been walked as
part of the...
4
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Claybaugh: To dovetail that comment, the developers on numerous occasions have
identified when we've pointed out a tree on a tree survey, that tree's going to die
anyways. Well I'd like to know definitively from our staff if they concur with that
assessment or if that's a justified statement or not.
Feik: Or one of my thoughts was, could we give the City Forester some discretion.
Aanenson: That's where I was going.
Feik: You know to say you know, so whoever that person may be at the time, to be able
to go out and say okay, this group of trees is not only inconsequential, but if we get rid of
the canopy we're going to get more light and we're going to allow these other trees that
are more valuable. They're trying to get going a better shot and quite frankly it might be
a better deal in the long run.
Aanenson: I think that would probably be a good way to do it and make it less complex,
but put a caveat in there that's something, the plan will be replaced. We'll put some
language in there. Evaluated based on function or value of the trees with the goal trying
to save higher value. Have some findings in there which the city attorney would
appreciate and so we're qualifying it in some way. Let the City Forester just indicate, I
think that'd be...
Claybaugh: Well even if it's a commentary from the City Forester. Say I went through.
These particular trees caught my eye as being one foot in the grave so to speak or highly
desirable, whatever the case may be but any trees that strike her that need further
clarification.
Aanenson: Sure, and I think we've done that and we've tried to maybe put a tree wall or
a retaining wall and we say it's not going to survive you know, but I think that would be
an easy way to solve that problem.
Claybaugh: Mr. Chair I have another question on a little different vein.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Claybaugh: With respect to the 105 foot area that you're identifying, when they submit
our landscape plan in conjunction with their application, how is that going to work out
with respect. They're going to show us where their new trees are going to be and if any
of these existing trees are factored in, what comes out'? What is the final plan going to
look like when it comes in front of us? You know obviously it would strike me that
there'd be things that are subject to change. If you've ah'eady excluded that 105 foot
strip, and they show plantings here A, B and C, now all of a sudden they're able to save
half a dozen trees in that 105 foot setback area, what happened to the landscaping plan
that we approved?
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Generous: In place of some of the trees they're proposing, the existing trees would take
their place.
Claybaugh: Now let's put that into context of a buffer. Perhaps there's a lot of
discussion about a buffer area. Neighbors have some up and it's important to the
commissioners that that buffer is well vegetated. Now, how do we know that if they say
trees X, Y and Z over here, that some of those trees that were very important, discussed at
length aren't going to be subject to removal because they were able to save some of the
trees that were excluded in the 105 foot setback area.
Generous: Well a lot of times those specific areas would be designated as part of our
review, as part of a preservation area.
Aanenson: I think we can add some clarity by that by saying there'd be a priority ranking
on the subdivision that came in. Certainly if it seems to be critical a certain buffer, that
that would be the last place that tree replacement would be reduced, and like Bob said,
it's a conservation easement so I think it's our job as part of the forester section in the
report to clarify to you if additional trees can be saved, this is where they would come
out, the replacement would come out.
Claybaugh: Again the least desirous area, working backwards to.
Aanenson: Yep, we can put that ranking kind of in there so you know, and I think that's
a good point that the neighbors know that if they save more trees then I'm going to lose
my buffer because they might be asking for additional buffer as part of the process.
Sacchet: I'm not sure how far you got into this Bob.
Generous: Well just to the tree preservation. That was a big change.
Sacchet: That was a big piece of it, yeah.
Generous: And that, most of it and then as far as the listing of trees, we're trying to
combine them and make them flow a little easier in reviewing it. Tree removal. Page 10.
Of the strike through bold format.
Sacchet: Yeah, if we can go back on page 6. It talks about the required landscaping. 18-
61(a)(1). And I'm not sm'e whether what we're saying is clear enough. We say it
requires 1 deciduous tree.
Generous: A minimum yes.
Sacchet: But then it goes down and starts talking about coniferous trees. So are we
saying a coniferous tree would not fulfill the requirement? That part is not really clear to
me in that section. You see what I mean?
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Aanenson: Yeah, there's a conflict.
Sacchet: There is a conflict isn't it, so I was wondering whether I was stumbling over the
language. So if we could line that up because it's my understanding that a coniferous tree
could fill it too. It doesn't actually have to be a deciduous, right?
Aanenson: Yeah.
Sacchet: That's one thing. Okay, so you're on page 10 now?
Generous: So if we just added one deciduous or coniferous.
Sacchet: Something like that, yeah. So it's not conflicting.
Generous: Then we've got to keep going through the 6, 7, 8, 9 is the list. 10 is the
removal of trees. We're trying to come up with language that explains what happens if
they remove the trees and when they remove the trees. And also this is a time that they,
and this is what they'll call the developer removing trees or the part of our ordinance,
how we can stop the process and it says if after you have start this process you go in and
change the conditions, we want to know what the changed conditions are so that we can
count that into our tree removal requirement. And so there's two parts. If you don't
know what, if they have, the trees haven't been surveyed, we can estimate the area,
canopy area. If they are surveyed then we can use the caliper inches. So that's what that
Section C talks about.
Sacchet: The comment below that talks about the review deadline may be exceeded.
wasn't quite sure exactly what the context of that was.
Generous: Well this, at one time we were talking about just, they stopped the process and
they can start... We had to bring them through the process. We have.
Sacchet: Because of the 60 day type of thing?
Generous: Right, and under statute we have a total of 120 days to get a preliminary plat
done so we want to try to figure out a way to keep it going forward but let developers
know that if they change the game as that process is going forward, that we're going to
have to get new information.
Sacchet: Then they have to start over potentially?
Generous: Basically.
Feik: Do they start over or does the clock just stop? Does the clock stop or does it start
over?
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Aanenson: Well you've got a couple options. One, you can say we're going to make a
motion based on information, or you can give us a letter saying I'll give you as many
days as necessary to get the data that I need to get through the process, which we've done
on other applications. Figure out that information. You can ask for more than the 60
days. Say we don't think you can get it done with an additional 60 days and you have a
right to say, you know if you don't want to get it done, we're going to make a
recommendation now because we have to, or if you want to wait and put your best foot
forward, and you need another 100 days let's say, then they can give you a letter
extending that for whatever length they want to give you.
Generous: You know a lot of the information they can turn around rather quickly so you
can keep them on track.
Feik: But our only choice of recommendation would be recommend to deny, which
would still allow them to go to council and to keep the process going.
Aanenson: Correct. Correct, you have to do something. You can send it forward with an
unfavorable recommendation or request that they, if they want to put a better light on it,
then to ask for additional time.
Feik: You can determine that the application is null and void.
Aanenson: That's a 10 days when we get an application...
Feik: Okay. And you can't say that the process would be suspended until such time'?
Aanenson: I don't believe so. Once they're...
Generous: Submittal date has been found complete, we can find that they don't have
enough data and that's where the tabling comes in. We need more information or
whatever, and that's legitimate.
Sacchet: But that's within the limit of the. . .that's the issue. We can't table forever.
Aanenson: Right, and we may have let them go thinking we had enough and then when
we get to this level we find something out that we need more information on, and I would
think going through to the council, I don't want to speak for the council but i think that
would be high enough level that they would want to send it back, and we've had that.
Recommend that it come back to the Planning Commission.
Generous: On page 11, that change just defines what a DBH means. 12, we found out
that the woodland management plans don't really work. No one follows them once the
homeowners are in, so they have professional landscape people that are working on these
and they have staff that come in and when we get good plans and hopefully people will
come to our forester if they want to plant additional trees. So just take all that out. Page
13, Section 4. This is that one where we had the 60 by 60 building pad and then we came
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
in with the square footage and then finally, and I didn't get that change to this section.
We came up with that 105 foot, that depth of the lot. The front 105 foot, and this is just
as a means for calculating initially what the tree removal would be as part of the
subdivision.
Sacchet: So explain how this 105 and 8,500 square feet relate.
Generous: Well it's based partially on our survey of our average building envelopes and
we have that as the background data. If you took 10 different house plans within the
community and got an average of their rectangular building area, we took you know if the
garage is up here and the house is back here, we just sort of squared everything up and
we got an average. Actually we raised it a little bit so a 65 feet house, so you have 30
and 65 and then a deck on the back and then the removal area back there, and so we
figured with.
Sacchet: Isn't there a danger if we use an average here? I mean the ones that will come
in with a small house, they pay the price for the ones that come with the big house, and
ones that come with a big house, they don't really, see what I'm saying? I mean if we
would want to, we should be higher than the average to really represent the interest of the
city, shouldn't we?
Generous: Yes, it was based on all these.
Sacchet: Because, hum. This is tricky.
Lillehaug: Can we get a little revised point of clarification. Where are you showing the
revised?
Generous: It's in the ordinance. It's in that same section.
Aanenson: In the front part.
Lillehaug: in this that was handed out?
Generous: No. Well it's in where we have the entire ordinance, it would be section 18.
61, whatever the number. It's easier when I have the whole book open. It's a little
harder when they're broken out. So for this we took, yes you're right. If they have a
deeper house that would be built on it, that's more than 105 feet back...take out more
trees. So these are fairly significant. There's a range from like 1,800 to 2,900 square
foot building area and so after doing all the math, an average and I don't know what other
number we can use. You know you don't want to plan for the worst case and you don't
want to plan for the least case so we were someplace in the middle. What's a reasonable
expectation.
Feik: We're talking single family home still so.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Generous: Yeah, just for single family house. Other developments have site plans that
there are attached units, you'll see more grading plans and you'll have more specificity
on the final plan or final building. But on these it could be a range of things so we tried
an average range. That's a big house area.
Aanenson: And the variable is you never know what the home is until some, a buyer
picks that plan to go on that lot. So that's where we need flexibility.
Generous: So we did Lundgren was a lot only because they have the bigger houses, or
historically they have. In Stone Creek.
Lillehaug: What was the average for the houses you used there? That range from 56 to
79 feet, isn't that right?
Generous: 66 to 80 feet in length and 31 to 55, and that's what the average, 68 by 47.
And that would just be the total building area, including you know some of the yard.
And Jill's very pleased with the number that we have. She says that's reasonable. That's
what she has seen historically. Basically everything on the front gets moved out to where
they build the house and then like 15 feet beyond that.
Feik: And this covers where they're going to stockpile the dirt for back filling and you're
comfortable it covers all the different.
Generous: Right, because generally that has been in the front yard also. The contractor's
have put their materials up there. Now we still the case they can come in and they'll have
to do the tree preservation if they want to get credit for saving trees there.
Sacchet: We have to put a stake in somewhere. That's just the nature of it.
Claybaugh: Would there have been a scenario if there was a substantial tree in the front
of some of these areas, these lots, that would be reasonable to expect that could be saved
that I understand that the builder or the developer has a stake in saving that tree but is
there anything the city would do fi'om our perspective to further the survival of that trees,
rather than just saying if there's anything left in that first 105 feet, we'll credit it back.
Generous: Well you can always make a condition of approval that they try to save a tree
but you know.
Aanenson: We've gone down the slippery slope with that where we tried to save the tree.
We've made these such and through whatever, we're not aware of construction
techniques or negligence, you're down the road and the homeowner gets in there. The
tree's dying. You've made them save it. Now they come back to the city, you made us
save this. It's going to cost us X number of dollars to take it down so I think one thing
we've learned over time is to be better stewards of the trees that we're trying to save. Is
it reasonable, that's why we changed our calculations to say typically we found the
problems...as Bob indicated where there's loading and unloading of material. That
10
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
expectation is if they can and you've got a manager out there that's watching all the time.
Otherwise it causes hard feelings. Really hard feelings.
Claybaugh: We certainly don't want hard feelings.
Aanenson: No, well you know, how about...
Claybaugh: No, I understand what you're saying Kate. I just, there's a part of me that I
understand specifically where you're coming from but there's also a part of me that has
the feeling that once you identify that 105 feet, that anything within that, whether it's
worth saving or not, isn't necessarily treated with the degree of weight that maybe should
be assigned to it.
Aanenson: I agree and I think the one thing that we have learned over time is, as our
iteration of these ordinances has gone on, the first when we tried, the very first tree
ordinance is we tried to save individual trees and we learned that was a nightmare. The
best way to do it is in kind of conservation easements and bigger groups.
Claybaugh: I understand you're the ones left with administering these different codes
and trying to.
Aanenson: Well I think you know we raised everybody's expectations of can this tree
really be saved and how close is it to the house and you know we tried to do a better job
of evaluating how much damage is going to be through grading, and while we may think
a tree in the l¥ont can be saved, somehow the house placement gets in there and guess
what? Now we put the sewer line connection too close to it, you know and we just found
that's a tough area to try to save. Certainly we always want to save a significant tree.
Builders see the value of that too. It's just a tough call.
Claybaugh: Most of them do. We'd like to think most of them do, that's the problem is
that it's the ones who don't but, understood.
Aanenson: Right.
Lillehaug: One question on that? So really in essence this is going to save larger stands
of trees. It's going to maybe drive developments to maybe have lesser lots because
you're trying to get a, you're still trying to maintain the same tree canopy coverage.
Generous: Yeah, the same targets are in place.
Lillehaug: But you're clearing out the whole front of the lot and they still have to meet
that.
Generous: For calculating their tree removal.
Aanenson: Just for removal and replacement.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Lillehaug: Okay.
Aanenson: ...developers are willing to just replace trees.
Claybaugh: So this is kind of hope for the best plan for the worst scenario?
Aanenson: Again I think we've always, but that's how we've done this and I think for
the most part we've been successful. Again looking at comparing ourselves to how other
ordinances are administrated in surrounding communities.
Claybaugh: At least this way going in you know what you have.
Aanenson: Right, and again this is just fine tuning...pretty close to what we're doing is
fixing a few things that weren't working and we're having some problems with.
Sacchet: Okay.
Generous: Page 14 of the strike through bold. Number 6, this is the, once they said
they're going to protect something, this goes back to your issue. We finally designate
trees that are supposed to be saved and then they start taking them out. This is one of the
penalties that we're proposing. $100 per diameter inch. If it's a big tree, you know it's
some additional cost for them. I don't know what's the best. $500 council felt was too
much. You know $100 we have other communities that are doing it.
Sacchet: For the $1007 Excuse me Craig, go ahead.
Claybaugh: I'm sorry. Whether it's a conservation easement or whether it's saving trees
on a building lot, I think the greatest thing that the city can do, and I don't know that we
do it, is get the signage out to inform the people that come beyond these meetings. The
excavators that are out there on site. The materials delivery people. I don't know if
there's any requirement that, or if staff feels it makes sense that as part of the permit
process that there is some signage that's placed out there, that there is a fine in place.
And like we talked about before with people going to conservation easements and put in
fire pits and such, I know that we had talked about this, both in public and private about
possibly having signage put in place at that conservation line. Putting those owners
specifically on notice, just like when you go by a utility. You know there's a power line
here. There's a gas line here. Everybody's aware of it and I don't know if this would be
a good case for that to identify, require the builder, developer to put just a simple sign up
on site identifying that as part of the tree preservation there are fines in place so when a
truss company comes to deliver a load of trusses, they have an opportunity to see that
sign and rather than dropping it right at the trunk of a substantial tree, that maybe they'll
exercise a little more care.
Aanenson: Well I think there's a couple different areas of control points. One is during
construction, and before any, they're authorized to begin construction the sites are walked
t2
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
by the city engineer, or engineering staff and the City Forester, maybe the wetlands and it
has to be fenced. Everything has to be fenced so there's a pretty good control point there,
but that doesn't mean someone doesn't ignore a fence or whatever. But the biggest
control point is once the homeowner's in and sometimes you have 2 or 3 homeowners
down the road and that's where the education component comes in. Typically those are
discovered through neighbors who did buy a wooded lot and are concerned about it and
call us on that but they all know through the transaction but once it's moved down the
road, that's where it's a little bit harder to prevent people from trimming. That's an
ongoing, typically when that happens then the letter goes out to kind of that association
just a reminder, FYI there might have been new people moved in. That's a big part of
Jill's job, the City Forester's job is education. Just to remind people of what the goals
are, whether it's a fence or fire pit or what you can and cannot do, but that's ongoing.
That's a good point but it's not always at the construction end.
Feik: I want to talk about the fine amount for just a moment. I know City Council
thought $500 was a bit punitive but if you've got 12 foot, or 12 inch tree and it's a $1,200
penalty, that's not very much. I don't think, and I know I voiced my opinion on this
before but I think it should be punitive. I think that's the whole idea. It's supposed to be
a penalty. Not just the cost of the board feet.
Claybaugh: Yeah, it's liquidated damages.
Feik: Yeah, so I mean granted if council is really uncomfortable with the $500, I would
really like to see $300-350. I want to see something more than a slap. That's my
personal opinion here.
Sacchet: Yeah I support that. I think $100's not enough. You made a statement Bob that
other cities have $100.
Generous: No, that's what we found in the oncs that we could find that have financial
penalties.
Feik: Which cities?
Generous: Well it was Plymouth is one for sure and then there was one other and I don't
remember.
Feik: Because my thought, if you don't mind just for a moment. You know we don't
have that many trees. You like if it was Minnetonka, I used to live in Minnetonka.
There's trees everywhere and quite frankly honestly if you lose a couple trees here or
there, it's not a big deal. But with our developments and what we've got on, where we're
developing primarily ex-agricultural land, the trees we've got I see that are left are
significant. Assuming they're a quality tree. And so I would just like to see, I'd like to
see the fine have some teeth to it.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Sacchet: How does everybody else feel? I think $100 is way too low. Now I can
understand $500 is considered too high. Somewhere inbetween.
Claybaugh: At least $400. Somewhere inbetween there. I'd settle for half of that
myself.
Generous: Our discussion before is the intent of it, are they doing this maliciously or is it
an accidental and then trying to figure that out was a nightmare so.
Lillehaug: It doesn't really matter though. Does it matter?
Generous: Well yes.
Sacchet: Tree dies, tree dies.
Generous: But that was sort of the discussion that people had. There should be a
difference.
Claybaugh: But see a lot of those accidents are due to lack of education. Lack of
communication with subcontractors, material suppliers, so on, so on and so forth. And
without that accountability up front, and the people coming behind knowing that there's
something at stake, that there's a penalty in force, I don't think they're going to treat it
with the due diligence that they would if they see a sign or they're made aware that it's
$200 or $250 a diameter inch.
Papke: I think there is an argument that we are different than Minnetonka but we're
actually, from my observations, pretty close to Plymouth. If you look at how Plymouth is
developing, it's pretty similar and I think we would be hard pressed to justify saying we
are in that much of a different situation than the City of Plymouth. Now one can argue
that Plymouth is not being punitive enough.
Feik: I'll argue that.
Papke: But I think the council, we will have to deal with that argument. That this is not
dissimilar to Chanhassen and that is what they're using so there's a precedent there.
Feik: You know I'm envisioning a commercial lot. We save a couple of trees. Next
thing you know we've got trucks parked on the grass and over the curb and other stuff'
going on and it's a multi-tenant deal. The tenants don't own it. They don't care. They
come and go. Ultimately the trees die. I don't know, I think $100 is just way too light.
Papke: Different approach. Rather than a fine I think I've been pretty consistent in
arguing for a more aggressive replacement policy. That all trees are not equal, both in
kind and in size.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Feik: Well I think the fine should go to a city fund for forestation. I think it should go to
earmarked city fund to be used in the discretion of the city forester and wherever, as to
where it would make most sense to spend those dollars.
Papke: Perhaps I'm making an assumption but I suspect that the City Council is
concerned with the reputation of Chanhassle, okay from a contractor's perspective.
Sacchet: There's nothing wrong with the reputation that we value the trees.
Papke: But my point is, is rather than a punitive fine, if we're more aggressive from a
replacement policy standpoint, it doesn't appear to be punitive but would we get the net
effect that we're looking for by doing that?
Claybaugh: I personally don't feel we're going to get the effect on any penalty that was
in place, replacement and the rest of it until the message trickles down to all the parties
involved. Whatever vehicle communicates from the builder to developer to
subcontractors to suppliers, that's where you're going to get the greatest bang for your
buck. No matter what policy's in place, if they're not aware of it and they don't assign
the property weight to the policy that we've established, it's going to have no bearing.
To me communication is key.
Feik: ...for signs. For paper signs that could go up during construction to be posted that
the City provides...
Aanenson: I personally think we do all that. I mean for some people if you're trying to
get something, it's...
Claybaugh: Then if we've done all that, then I think the punitive aspect is more than
justified.
Aanenson: In my opinion, we've done all that. You've got some guy that's going to
unload some trusses and the sup's not sitting out there, who you going to blame'? They're
going to go back and then it's finger pointing and we've been through that so I think what
we were trying to say is, either the replacement policy, so we're not trying to discern who
is at fault here. It's the property owner, whoever's got the letter of credit in place. Either
it's a replacement policy or it's a fine.
Sacchet: I really think it's good to put some teeth in it. Do the replace, we do have
replacement policy and I think it will get more complicated than to put like a dollar figure
on it is probably simpler, in my opinion. And yeah, because $500 would be a little bit of
a stretch, but somewhere inbetween $100 and $500. $300?
Aanenson: I think what we can do is .just communicate up to the council that your feeling
was it should be closer to the 5 than the 1. That wasn't enough.
Sacchet: I mean $300 would be something to settle but it's only $100.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Feik: I think we should recommend a dollar figure myself. They'll say you guys, take
you out of the hot seat to say Planning Commission recommends X. And then you don't
have to.
Sacchet: 300? How much Bruce?
Feik: I say $350 myself.
Sacchet: Steve?
Lillehaug: $300 minimum.
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: I'm satisfied with $250.
Sacchet: So I guess the average is $300. We've got $350's. We have $250's.
Papke: But there were two votes for $250's.
Generous: So we'll present that they...with the $300 in there. Page 15, this is the caliper
versus diameter. We had financial guarantees in their place. Changing that out. Fees are
in another spot, and then finally in 18-78, I know one time we were all recommending
that sidewalks should be automatic. Council was hesitant. They directed us to come up
with some criteria that we look at. Still make it permissive, and then up to the city to
make that determination. And so we came up with these three and then tonight I gave
you that fourth one depending on, and it was trying to be open language about it really
depends on the density or intensity of development without coming up with a specific
number. What do we mean by many'? Is that more than 20 units or more than 107 Is a
few under 7 you know, it's all in semantics.
Feik: Same thing with long blocks.
Generous: Yes, long block.
Feik: What's a long block?
Sacchet: Yeah, I'm not quite sure I understand actually then...that image.
Papke: I have a question on (c) here, and maybe this is what's confusing. If you look at
page 11 of the first section where it's complete and page 16 of the strike through, and
Section (c) you have sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to existing. In the first one
on page 11 you just have sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to existing. Existing
what? You know it's incomplete whereas in the strike through section it says existing
and proposed trails.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Aanenson: That's what it should be.
Papke: So there seems to be a discrepancy between the two copies.
Generous: Yeah, thank you for catching that.
Papke: So which one's right?
Generous: The what you said.
Feik: Existing and proposed trails?
Generous: Right, between existing and proposed trails.
Papke: I don't know if that was related to your question Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah it does because I don't see the whole picture yet. I'm still not sure
whether I see the picture that the condition (d) that was added. I mean I understand you
want to have some flexibility so it's a little bit fuzzy math but.
Aanenson: Well I think, you know actually this comment came from Rich and I think it's
a good comment because depending on the lot size, you could have a long block that, if
it's a cul-de-sac there's not a lot of traffic. Depending on that, but if you had a street that
was higher density, and had more traffic. More people living on it, you might want to
provide a sidewalk on that for people to get to the bus. To get to a bus stop. To get out
to the trail. So you know a lot of that you look at is setting. And you're see an example
of a long cul-de-sac in the next subdivision that comes forward, it will be a good
example of does that merit, based on the, you know kind of the surrounding, you know
what's around it. Whether the connections are there. What's the flavor of that kind of
neighborhood, and that's what we're trying to put some kind of flags to consider a criteria
and this was one that we had looked at. Because we do have some that are going to be
long cul-de-sacs.
Generous: And you didn't want to base it on land use because would you exclude all low
density? Well no, that's not the idea and is it a specific number of units?
Aanenson: Maybe, maybe not.
Feik: Let me ask you a question regarding the verbiage on the beginning of Section 5
where we strike shall and put in may. In my opinion once you put in may it leaves it way
up to the discretion of the developer whereas if you leave shall, then they're always
asking for a favor not to have to put it in. If you say shall, you got to do it and then they
come back and say well you know this block doesn't really warrant it, then you've got
some discretion. But if you say may, then they're going to come in with no sidewalks
and we've got to fight tooth and nail for every sidewalk going forward.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Generous: Then the city may require it. You know it's really the city's discretion
whether or not a sidewalk goes in.
Aanenson: I understand what you're saying. If we can just maybe get a legal opinion on
that because since we built the criteria.
Feik: Yeah, but it's easier to give them some leeway versus to ask them to conform to
what is maybe in their mind gray.
Aanenson: Because ultimately you're still going through the same criteria to find out if
it's a shall, so if you don't meet any of those criteria, then we can make the assumption
that you probably wouldn't put it in. But we can get a legal opinion on that...
Sacchet: That'd be good. And we're not going into the width of sidewalks anymore.
We took that out.
Aanenson: Yeah. Yep, I think that's, depending if it's a trail or sidewalk and in some.
Generous: If it's a sidewalk you know.
Lillehaug: I have a question. Looking at (a), (b) and (c), with exception to the width of
the sidewalk, was it at the direction of the Planning Commission that we strike (a), (b)
and (c) out? The original (a), (b) and (c) that are struck out. Well, not the original but
the bold. The bold strike out, because in my opinion ! would prefer to have the (a), (b)
and (c) that are bold and struck out in there because it is specific. It tells us we want a
sidewalk basically on every street. And then we deviate downward fi'om there. We see
exceptions from there.
Aanenson: That was actually the City Council that wanted the criteria built in. You
reviewed this once. It went back up and now it's coming back down. So that was kind of
their direction. Kind of just put that, and that's where we're struggling with shall, may,
kind of get some guidance.
Lillehaug: That's why in my opinion I think we go back with the (a), (b) and (c) that are
struck out. I mean it's clear. If there's certain cases out there where we want to deviate
downward from not having a sidewalk, then that's when staff uses their judgment or the
review procedure process will delete a sidewalk.
Feik: Well (b) is the same, con'ect? There's no change in (b). Is that cmTect? And (c),
minor so I'm trying to find what the difference. Really only (a) is shorten, right?
Aanenson: I think he's talking about the (a) above, con'ect?
Feik: Oh, you're talking about the paragraph. I thought you were talking about, I
apologize. I see. I thought you were talking about the adjustment.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Sacchet: Well you say council didn't like that wording? Is that basically what I hear you
saying?
Aanenson: Yeah. I don't think they're really required on a collector street, sidewalk on
both sides. Now. Depending on the type of development that came in, you might make
that a requirement based on the uniqueness of that development pattern. Whether it
might be a commercial subdivision that you think this merits a sidewalk. We had that
discussion on both sides, but as a general statement that shall be on both sides, they felt
that was maybe onerous.
Sacchet: Too strong.
Aanenson: Correct.
Feik: So for example, let me put it into a framework here. If Lyman were rebuilt next
year, it would need a sidewalk on both sides under what we had recommended, even
though one side's strictly agricultural, and one side.
Generous: It's getting a trail on.
Feik: Yeah, you would have to do it on both, okay.
Aanenson: Right, so that's incorporated already.
Feik: Yeah, ! can see that.
Aanenson: We're not saying, there might be a development pattern that it might fit that it
ends up on both sides, but having a carte blanche, it's going to be on both sides, they said
that probably wouldn't work. And some side you might want it 8 foot tying into a trail.
Like i say, Lyman is going to be a trail. And more likely be 8 or 10 feet. So we don't
want to eliminate it. We want to put people on notice that as each project comes in,
depending on how it merits, where it fits in. What's around it? What is an easy connect
to? What's the development pattern, and we kind of put our best judgment together with
your guidance to say what should those sidewalks be. Actually it kind of gives you carte
blanche to do what you want to recommend up to the council.
Sacchet: I can see some value in, because if it's too literal it becomes restrictive on
everybody's side, including our's.
Claybaugh: Right, we just want enough of a foundation so it's not a stretch for us to be
requesting it.
Aanenson: Right, because there's a park next to you or there's a school. We think it's
important to put a sidewalk there.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Sacchet: It should go somewhere. There's no point to build a sidewalk for sidewalk's
sake. I mean like you just said, if you have something along an agricultural field, what's
the point.
Claybaugh: When, if a developer comes in and you look over the developer and the
preliminary stuff to get ready for their application. The developer's going to, or the
builder's going to take their cue from staff because you're going to identify in your
opinion if there's a sidewalk required or not. So by the time it gets to us, it's kind of the
decision's already been made.
Aanenson: No, I think we're relying on you to also give input on that because sometimes
we may see a different development pattern and you may be closer to a neighborhood or
see something a little bit different. And also the park commission's also looking at this
and they may have a different, they'll make a recommendation. They have a little bit
different twist on it too depending on some things that they see.
Sacchet: Well then that's another caveat here too. I mean how much agricultural land
are we going to have in this city before too long? It's all going to be gone.
Aanenson: Right. I guess what we're saying on the other side of Lyman, as I understood
what you're saying Bruce, is probably more large lot you know. But ultimately if there's
a school on that side.
Feik: Well you want it on one side. You wouldn't necessarily want it on both sides.
Aanenson: Correct.
Feik: The way we had it was both sides and you've got sidewalks on both sides and one
would never be used.
Aanenson: Right.
Sacchet: Well the more the better with sidewalks.
Aanenson: Right, but I would bet that that still gives you a lot of, you know as part of
your comments, whether they all make it through, just like when we put some pieces in,
sometimes you take... I think it's important if you feel strongly about a development
pattern that you add that.
Claybaugh: Yeah, that was my concern about the perception and the mind set of the
developer or the builder when they came in front of us. How it had all been approached
up to that point and it left at least a certain degree of open mindedness with respect to the
developer's prepared to hear that maybe staff doesn't feel strongly about it and there's a
possibility that the commission will.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Aanenson: No, I think the subdivision you tabled last time is going to actually add a
sidewalk. Sometimes in commercial ones you see a development pattern a little bit
different. I don't think we've had too much reluctance on that. One that felt strongly
about not doing it...
Papke: I have concern with the verbiage that we... It's kind of swung from the initial
verbiage was extremely specific. And now we have something that's very much open to
interpretation. Sidewalks that connect to existing sidewalks. What existing sidewalks?
Where'? On the other side of the city? I mean one could.
Sacchet: There's always one if you only go far enough.
Papke: It's so vague that if I put myself in the role of you know, in the seat of a
developer and I look at this and I go, what do they mean? What's it going to take to
make these people happy? So I think we may have introduced a little too much.
Aanenson: If you go back to the original one Bob did clarify that. If you go back to 11.
Generous: Within adjacent developed areas. If you look at the ordinance, I tried to pick
up all of those. I didn't get all the strike through's.
Sacchet: Maybe you should say sidewalk that connect to existing or planned sidewalks.
Otherwise we're never going to be able to start in an area where we want sidewalks
because there are no existing ones.
Claybaugh: That was my concern.
Sacchet: So if we say existing or planned, then we have that covered.
Aanenson: Right, and that would be in our official street map...or something, that's a
good point. That's a good clarification.
Claybaugh: Yeah, because if you have leapfrog developments and you've got pockets
undeveloped inbetween. It's reasonable to expect that they'll get sidewalks in the future.
Generous: And we would add that language under (c), proposed trails and the (d) as.
Aanenson: A perfect example is that we know there will be a park over here but that
subdivision hasn't gone in but we still want to connect a sidewalk to get to that, right. I
think those are good comments.
Claybaugh: That provides a greater degree of comfort.
Lillehaug: Now if I could ask a question.
Sacchet: Go ahead Steve.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Lillehaug: You threw this at us at the final hour here. Your handout here and it's way
back at the beginning. Section 18-37. I disagree with crossing out what you're doing
there.
Aanenson: Which one?
Sacchet: Steve, which page is it?
Lillehaug: Very first one on the handout that they gave us. Section 18-37. And my
question would be, is if you get rid of Section (a), (a)(1) and (a)(2), then in essence the
ordinance does not cover in anywhere that | know of, divide a platted lots to add a portion
of a lot to an abutting lot. This is the only area in the ordinance that covers that.
Generous: Under the definitions of a subdivision, that's where that exemption comes
from.
Aanenson: So if you sell a portion of your lot to somebody else, that can be done
administratively. It's not considered a subdivision. Subdivision is only when you create
a new lot. If you're just moving a property line, it doesn't meet the definition of a
subdivision and that's why the city attorney provides a solution...
Generous: It's confusing.
Feik: Because it's administrative anyway.
Aanenson: CoiTect.
Claybaugh: Where's that addressed?
Generous: It's under the definition of what a subdivision is, and it's under state statute.
Claybaugh: Right, I understand this is in there but is administratively what Kate just
spoke to, where is that located'?
Aanenson: I think it's just a definition of a subdivision.
Lillehaug: Okay, I think you're missing the point of my question though is, if you take
this out referencing if you're trying to split a lot and add a portion of that lot to another
lot, that's not covered anywhere. You don't cover it under Section (b) in your revised.
You simply don't have it covered under definition or anything. So then what is it
covered under? If it's nowhere addressed in the ordinance is what I'm saying. When you
take this out it's not addressed in the ordinances.
22
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Generous: Well the splitting is, it's addressed by the one that's a definition of a
subdivision and under state statute. If you look under the definition of subdivision it
would say adding a portion of a lot to, or changing a lot line is what it actually is.
Claybaugh: If I can interject. 18-37, you're speaking in context of the subdivision codes.
Generous: Right.
Claybaugh: Now what Kate's speaking to is an individual lot if someone wanted to
expand the boundary line, that doesn't meet the criteria or the definition of subdivision.
What I was asking is on an individual parcel, not as part of a subdivision, why that was
addressed. I understand that you're speaking about 18-37 in the context of subdivision,
but what you're commenting on is an individual lot, not defined as a subdivision wanting
to adjust the boundary.
Aanenson: Right. Just to be clear on how this happens. If someone wants to sell a
portion of their lot to the neighboring property, they would go down to the county and
record it. The county won't record it until the City of Chanhassen's reviewed it. What I
stamp on there, or someone in the planning office that says, it says this is exempt from
the subdivision ordinance. That means nobody reviewed it because it's exempt. If
you're just moving a property line. You can create a non-conforming lot.
Claybaugh: I'll re-state my question. Where is the exemption stated? Anywhere in our,
I'm just curious.
Aanenson: I don't know that it is.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Aanenson: Currently at Section 18-377 Is there somewhere else in the code?
Claybaugh: Right. How would someone know that that would be exempt.
Feik: Or legal.
Claybaugh: Right. And that that would be the follow-up question. And legal.
Generous: Well except for knowing the definition of a subdivision which is defined.
Claybaugh: So what I'm saying is if Kate got, heaven forbid but hit by a bus, okay. She
was the only one that knew that that existed, okay, what happens'? What I'm asking is
where do we find that? How does someone become aware of that, that that is in fact
exempt.
Aanenson: People come every day and do it so, 1 mean realtors.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Claybaugh: So word of mouth.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Generous: Or reading state statute. That's where.
Claybaugh: Okay, so it's a state statute.
Generous: It's in the state statute.
Okay, alright. There we go. That's all I was asking. I'm just looking to be
Claybaugh:
educated.
Aanenson: Sure, sure. It has come up before where we've had people file that create a
non-conforming situation where it gives us a lot of consternation but legally someone can
do that. Now it may affect their mortgage on their property, but usually we advise people
that that may cause them, because if they're going to refinance, typically we get a letter
that says is this lot in conformance and then we advise them if they needed that if it was
not.
Generous: And it's a self-created hardship if you give away the property and create that
situation too so, you don't meet the criteria for granting.
Aanenson: We would advise on that but it' someone wants to move a property line, they
are exempt.
Claybaugh: Okay. Commissioner Lillehaug, are you satisfied?
Lillehaug: I'm not because.
Feik: What's your concern?
Lillehaug: Where is the city verifying that it meets all the requirements of the current
subdivision codes? Under the current PUD codes.
Aanenson: We don't have the authority. That's what I'm trying to say, we do not have
the authority.
Lillehaug: Certainly we have the authority. Certainly you do.
Generous: On a lot line change, no.
Aanenson: On a lot line change, no we don't.
24
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Lillehaug: You're telling me that if you have a city PUD and you change a lot line on a
parcel in that PUD that the city doesn't have any backbone to reinforce any of the zones
that apply to that PUD'?
Generous: We have no legal authority to stop that change of lot line.
Lillehaug: You have no enforcement of enforcing the PUD is what you're telling me
then.
Aanenson: On moving a lot line. We have enforcement of a PUD but no. This question
has come up several times and we do not. If you would like something from the city
attorney to come and talk to you about that... That says it's exempt from the subdivision,
we always try to advise the person that you're creating a non-conforming situation. It's a
self created hardship. There's notes in the file...
Sacchet: So you do look at it and you would inform the people that they're creating a
problem but you can't tell them they're not allowed to do it.
Aanenson: We can't stop them, right. It's a lot line.
Sacchet: But you can make them aware. Is it, you try to make them aware of it. I mean
that's kind of your responsibility.
Aanenson: ...subdivision is creating a new lot. They're just moving the lot line.
There's not a new lot being created. It's conveyance of property which they are exempt
from so, again the stop gap measure of control is that the county wants us to see that it's
happening, so we put something in the file. We inform the property owner. This may
cause problems. You see it when variances come up when people want to say can I buy 3
feet from my property. They find out that the property owner next door is right at the
margin and it would cause a setback problem or a square footage requirement problem so
they may not want, but it happens when they have the excess, they're willing to work it
out and they just do that.
Lillehaug: I'm still confused about, you have a PUD, a subdivision that is not fully
developed yet. It's not fully complete. Not a house, not every house is on one of these
parcels. You're telling me that the city cannot enforce.
Generous: The lot lines.
Lillehaug: The lot lines.
Aanenson: The lot lines, correct.
Lillehaug: Even though it's not fully developed.
Aanenson: Correct. Even if it was fully developed. They move a lot line.
25
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Generous: Well if it's undeveloped and they create a non-conforming lot...
Claybaugh: So then that lot to be developed can no longer be developed.
Generous: ...need a variance, and then you don't have to approve the variance. That's
what we're saying, we try to inform them that this problem is going to come up. But we
can't, we've been advised by the attorney's office, we can't stop it.
Lillehaug: How come this wasn't in the original discussion that we started back
whenever we started it? I mean this is coming in at us right when we get this.
Generous: Because recently there was a change of lot line and the question could they do
this and the attorney's office says yes and we said, we tried to show them the ordinance.
Claybaugh: So you struggled with it at one point in time as well.
Aanenson: Right...take it out because it's confusing because when we were citing this,
he said that doesn't apply so we think it's confusing and he recommended we take it out.
Claybaugh: I'm still struggling with what. I believe I understand what you told me but I
still on a personal level are struggling with it.
Aanenson: It doesn't seem right.
Claybaugh: No, it does not.
Aanenson: i would agree with you. We would agree, and it just doesn't seem right that
someone could just move a lot line. But I also want to say, it's a rare exception that
somebody creates a problem like that. It's pretty rare. We've had 1 or 2.
Lillehaug: It happens though, right?
Aanenson: It happens. It always happens but it's, is it less than I percent? Yeah.
Feik: Makes sense to me.
Sacchet: Okay, thanks for explaining that.
Generous: Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission move this forward to City
Council. We believe that the changes are, will improve our subdivision review.
Sacchet: Well, are there any comments'? Do we have want to invite our visitors if they
have a comment. Are with us. Any comments from the Paulsen's? It's not a public
hearing but if you want to say something, you're certainly very familiar with the code. I
think it'd be appropriate. If you want to speak up.
26
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. Just the recent discussion here. I
guess our concern was if there is no administrative subdivision, if there's no need to go
through the Planning Commission, there's also no need to notify neighbors, and that's
one of our concerns that the neighbors may not be aware of this property change line is
occurring, which may affect them. One other comment that, using Plymouth as a
benchmark, they have the same attorney as we do so it might be fair to go out to other
cities when you're doing comparisons. They have the same firm.
Sacchet: Thank you Jerry. Comments here from the commission. Any comments?
Claybaugh: No further comments then what previously stated.
Feik: No further comments from me.
Lillehaug: My comments, I wouldn't be supporting modifying Section 18-37 as
proposed. I'm not totally clear on it and ! don't support it until I guess I'd be fully versed
on the true meaning and intent of it and really the city's position on reviewing PUD's. It
seems like there is no enforcement if this is deleted, in my mind.
Aanenson: Can I answer Mr. Paulsen's question?
Sacchet: Yes, please.
Aanenson: Typically if you're moving a lot line, there's two parties involved. So the
two properties affected, it'd just be two new descriptions. Those are verified internally
by the city staff to make sure that they both still close. When they go down to the county,
they also have to be verified with two new legal descriptions so those are evaluated so
whoever's involved, the neighborhood would be notified in that process. So to say that
the neighbor wouldn't know.
Sacchet: How would they, how do we notify them'?
Generous: Anyone outside is not because it's ah'eady under the existing ordinance it's
exempted fi-om the subdivision requirements.
Feik: Right, so if I want to convey 2 feet to my neighbor, big deal.
Generous: Yeah, you come in and we stamp the deed. It gets recorded at the county.
Lillehaug: How about 10 feet and then it leaves only a 35 foot lot.
Claybaugh: Non-conforming lot.
Sacchet: It's non-conforming.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004
Claybaugh: It's not a function for you to deny it...correct.'?
Generous: It's a lot line change.
Claybaugh: It's an acknowledgement.
Aanenson: Right...non-conforming. Anything you come back...
Claybaugh: Okay, it's an administrative acknowledgement is what it is.
Aanenson: So let's say these are the two homes. They currently both meet the setback.
This person decides to sell off 3 feet over here, okay so now both parties would be
involved in a new legal description. They have to do that so somebody needs to review
before it goes down to the county. So that would be part of the review process. We'd
also advise the other person that they're creating a non-conforming situation. That will
be in the records. Also if you're going for a re-financing, typically we're called to see if
the house is in compliance and that show up and stuff like that. Sometimes you have a
mortgage...mortgage company tends to sign off on those too. That's another catch. So
that's why I say it's very, very rare that... We have administrative all the time. We do
maybe 10-15 of those a year. As far as creating a non-conforming situation, for all the
years I've been here, maybe 2. At best.
Claybaugh: But the process that we've been discussing is dictated by state statute.
Generous: COlTeCt.
Aanenson: That's how it's done, right.
Sacchet: It seems like the framework is relatively crisp. What I'm hearing you explain
to us, it's not...
Aanenson: I think there's ...would you be notified'? No because you're exempt from the
subdivision you're not creating.
Sacchet: So yeah, isn't it a requirement for the city, we don't have jurisdiction so we
can't really have a notification requirement either.
Claybaugh: No other questions or comments.
Sacchet: Alright, I'd like a motion. On the inside of the cover.
Feik: I move that the Planning Commission approve the following motion. The Planning
Commission recommend the approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the
Chanhassen City Code as presented and discussed tonight.
Claybaugh: Second.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
3. The applicant shall show the location of the existing driveway on the survey.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 OF CITY CODE~ SUBDIVISIONS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Feik: You know Bob can we, just let everybody know, let's just do this as sort of an
open comment as you would. Otherwise if everybody saves our comments to the end.
Papke: What page are you on again?
Generous: Unfortunately I was looking at the ordinance and I was on page 2 of the
ordinance but it was Section number 4 of the ordinance. I don't know if that's the best
way to proceed with that. Maybe I should just go over areas of contention or if you have
questions.
Feik: Yeah, the reason I want to mention that because I had a question regarding that 500
feet. You know 500 feet has come up numerous times over the years, whether 500 feet's
adequate. Is it adequate for all applications? Is it applicant for a bakery? It's going to be
a different notice I would think requirement for a bakery for somebody else putting up a
fence. I'm wondering, and maybe this isn't the time but, I'm not sure that's adequate.
Slagle: Can I ask, where are you seeing?
Feik: The 500 feet, I'm still on page I.
Generous: Page 1 of the ordinance, Section 18-39(a).
Feik: I know that is our ordinance and I know we've got to address what we've got in
front of us but.
Generous: And we have been trying to go beyond in instances. I know like when I did
the hotel I went up into the new neighborhood in Arboretum Village because the 500 feet
didn't go past West 78m Street so we tried to get everyone on Century Boulevard. Yeah,
it's, our ordinance provides more distance in it than state statute requires it.
Slagle: Do you have any sense as to how our compares to other communities?
Generous: I think we have, the ones that I've seen, we have more, the distance required
in the notice.
Lillehaug: I think when we sat down to discuss this before and we did discuss this 500
feet, I think we kind of looked at it as a balance cost wise too. I mean if we go 1,000 feet,
33
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
I mean is that reasonable to send out, I mean 1,000 feet might, 1,000 feet just straight
across the board might encompass quite a few.
Papke: Yeah, because it's surface area. When you double it, you quadruple the number
of potential residents you're contacting so.
Slagle: I think what I would just throw out to fellow commissioners is again we just ask
staff to be, oh what's the word. Be aware of in certain situations because to be quite
honest with you, little disappointed in the last meeting's review of that business. The
landscape, snow removal and then today's bakery, that we didn't think to go to the
neighborhood just on the other side of that...by the apartments. And I know that's an
oversight so I'm not being critical but I just think, if we have, if I have your trust that,
trust you that you'll.
Generous: And this is something we could also bring up at our work session.
Feik: Well I don't even think the landscaper got to the apartment building. Tonight's did
but the landscaper was outside of that. I don't believe it was. Alright.
Generous: I would skip to page 3. It's Section 8 of the ordinance. It starts there. Under
the existing ordinance we have a range for the arterial and local streets. The Planning
Commission last time had stated a preference for going with the maximum. Staff is
recommending that we go with what our detail plates show. We're recommending that
everyone come in for a variance on it. Well that was the previous city engineer. So
that's one of the discussion items if we want to go forward on that. Go with the detail
plate. Would you like to reaffirm your recommendation that we go with the maximum
under our ordinance?
Lillehaug: I would like to throw out 31 feet. I guess when I'm working with other cities
I see 32 feet because you have two standard 12 foot lanes and then you have two standard
4 foot shoulders so that's 32 feet, and that would meet state aid standards. 31 feet, you're
cutting it by one foot. I mean we're splitting hairs here but do you see an issue with that
Matt at the 31 feet and is that a standard that the city's been using for years and years?
Saam: The 31 is yeah. At least since l've been here and previous year's plans that I've
seen. But I guess from an engineering standpoint we don't have a problem with 32. Now
developers may have a problem with 32 and it might impact environmental features, what
have you but yeah we just, like Bob said, we're trying to stick with what our standard has
been, at least in the recent past per our detail plates. So I do want to point out the only
thing that we varied on page 4 fi'om what you previously recommended was that local
street width of 31. I think you had recommended 32. You as a Planning Commission
and we have 31 in there so everything else we've gone with your previous
recommendations on. I just want to point that out.
Lillehaug: And the only reason you switched is because so 31 meets the standard plates.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Saam: Yeah.
Lillehaug: You didn't want to switch the standard plate?
Saam: We sure can but it's, I guess that's what we arrived at after internal discussions.
Lillehaug: I guess I'm okay with 31 feet.
Slagle: I am too.
Generous: While there was a lot of.
Feik: Excuse me, go ahead.
Generous: I'm sorry. Next is under the landscaping section. We took out a lot of the
redundant requirements and some trees that weren't, we don't like to see anymore. We
had some invasive species. We had some maple trees that were, or conifer trees that
while they grow fast here don't live long and so Jill said let's slim down this and get rid
of a lot of the redundancies. If we're going to say a species and a lot of varieties, let's
just list it once. All of the subdividers that come in have landscape professionals that
help them create those plans so we're trying to get out of the being too prescriptive there.
And so the significant change would be on Section 18-61(c).
Slagle: 7. Top of page 7.
Generous: Top of page 7, right.
Lillehaug: Can we hit on that quick like?
Generous: Yes.
Lillehaug: So really what that says is if they're beyond the development review process,
then you're going to enforce basically the replacement ratio there?
Generous: Yes, and they'll have to resubmit plans to show those changes so that
basically it tells you that the Planning Commission would table it at that point when they
found out that they can't go with those.
Slagle: If I may though Bob, we table it. It comes back to tls. You remind tls that it's on
a timeline. And you know basically you know we need to approve it or reject it, and as
we found out two meetings ago, an applicant can tear down all the trees they want and
then have to replace it at a ratio that we show here, but it could be in a city park. Or it
could be anywhere in the city.
Generous: If they don't fit on the site. And if they're tearing down that many trees we
would require to be on site.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Slagle: I guess you know, my question is this. Simply put we have an applicant, and !
don't need to go into names, tears down a bunch of trees north of Lake Minnewashta and
you know they pay a fine or who knows. I haven't heard exactly what happened, but
they're replacing trees and it could be beautiful, mature trees are now gone and we have
trees that I can't even tell you for sure that we maintain some periodic inventory to see if
they're still growing. And I just don't see any penalties other than replace. Why not a
citation? Why not a stopping of the process and a resubmittal of an application?
Feik: Why not forfeiture of a portion of the escrow or the.
Generous: Well at this stage we wouldn't have any of that.
Slagle: Well why wouldn't we have landscaping escrow?
Feik: Well because the application is incomplete so he doesn't have the, either the bond
or an escrow or a letter of credit posted yet. Correct?
Generous: There's no conditions that he has to comply with.
Feik: But you could change it and say that the application must, a new application must
be completed or submitted with a revised tree condition. I mean start the process from
zero.
Generous: But the clock doesn't start fi'om zero is what the city attorney's office...
Feik: We can't say the application is deemed incomplete at that time?
Generous: Well you could recommend, instead of tabling it they'll deny it or approve
without a condition. That they do something. Here we're saying if you go in and you
have a site that's wooded and you go and you start removing trees while you're in this
process, you're going to have to give us new information because our tree preservation
calculations are based on what they submit originally and if they're changing that original
submittal information then we need to get that data. So at least you'd have more accurate
data information.
Slagle: If you listen to what you're saying Bob, 1 mean so 1 come to you with a tree
survey that shows 120 mature trees. And in the course of working through staff and what
not, I then go and cut down 110 of them illegally, or however you want to phrase it.
Prematurely. Whatever the word is. So what you're saying is, oops. I'm sorry. Now 1
just have to give you a survey that shows 10 trees. And now you're going to tell me
where to replace them or how many I have to replace.
Generous: But we'd have the previous information so they'd have to show the trees
being removed.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 9,2003
Feik: From where?
Generous: Because the original submittal would have that 100 and whatever, 60 trees.
The new submittal would show that they have 50 trees, or so much canopy area less and
so we're already counting that as being removed.
Feik: All this does to me is ensure that the developer knocks the trees down before they
pull, start the application.
Generous: Well and that's something we need to clarify...
Feik: Knock them down 2 months before any discussion of an application and then they
don't ever have to count them.
Slagle: And what if they do that? What's the penalty? What do they suffer?
Feik: Nothing.
Generous: Well no clear cutting is permitted without, except through the site plan,
subdivision or building permit process. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor.
Feik: Yeah but we had one in fl'ont of us a year and a half ago that was on a hillside with
lots of trees, that was actually, it was an outlot. Next to an outlot and was actually zoned
agricultural. The owner could knock all the trees down and say he's going to plant corn,
and then decide not to. You know, there's nothing you can do about that stuff. Alright. I
don't know, any suggestions'? Gentlemen?
Slagle: Well if I could say, I would hope, if I may, the city attorney and planning, I mean
I would hope that we'd be able to come up with some measure of, what's the word I'm
thinking of. To create some penalty, phase, action, that would prevent any of us from
going and clear cutting trees if we were going to be requesting some action on the city for
a development or something.
Feik: Well is there no letter of credit posted with the application?
Generous: No, because those are based on compliance with certain criteria.
Slagle: So it's a misdemeanor threat if you will of clear cutting I guess.
Generous: Yes. Also there's economic self interest for developers. There's a premium
paid for wooded lots. You would hope that they would use that as part of their reasoning
when they do the development.
Slagle: Depends on where you want the woods.
Generous: Well that's.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: What's your next item Bob?
Slagle: What page are we jumping to Bob?
Generous: Section 18-61(d)(4). It's page 9. Now this is one that Jill recommended. The
previous ordinance said show a 60 by 60 pad to estimate tree removal. She said 8,400
square feet. Just say that 8,400 square feet of this site is going to have tree removal if
there's trees within that 8,400 square feet development.
Slagle: Is that easy for people to understand?
Lillehaug: I read it about 10 times and I don't understand it.
Generous: We took a look at it and she said maybe the first 100, she wanted to go 110
feet. 115 feet of the lot, say that you're going to clear everything out of there to estimate
the tree removal.
Lillehaug: I just don't understand how it's written there. I mean I can't, without the stuff
that's crossed out before and after it, I wouldn't know what that means. I really
wouldn't.
Feik: But if you just put comma, after 8,400 square feet comma, or 60 by 60. That'd
give you some grounds to interpret how that 8,400 came up with. 60 by 60 isn't 8,400.
Lillehaug: 8,400 square feet, that's over a 90 by 90 foot pad.
Feik: Well that would include obviously all the excavation for foundation and stuff.
Generous: Everything in front of the structure.
Feik: You have 60 by 60 plus 15 feet all the way around?
Generous: No, it's even more. She just said the first, well in here it's 105 feet. Actually
she came up with 9,200 and I dropped it down because she was double counting within
the 60 foot pad you have supposedly you would have a deck area.
Slagle: Bob, can I ask you a question? Again getting back to neighboring communities.
What do other communities use? Can we find out'?
Generous: They're all over the place but yeah, we can find out.
Slagle: I mean I'm just thinking, if you did Eden Prairie. You know, I mean you pick the
communities, it'd just be interesting to see what they do. Half a dozen.
Generous: Sure.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: Is this section only referring to tree removal so somewhere, I can't remember
off the top of my head but somewhere else in the ordinances we're saying they have to
demonstrate that they can still place a 60 by 60 foot?
Generous: No.
Lillehaug: This is it right here?
Generous: This is it.
Lillehaug: This is only for tree removal that we state that.
Generous: Right. That's to calculation, unless you know what the actual building
footprints that are going on this site. We had to come up with the mechanism for
estimating what tree removal would be.
Lillehaug: So nowhere else do we say that an applicant has to demonstrate that they can
place a 60 by 60 foot pad?
Generous: No.
Lillehaug: Separate from tree removal.
Generous: So as part of this we wanted, You know | suggested that alternatively we look
at just saying the first 105 feet of the lot, but Jill was trying to come up with an area
calculation and I don't know if it's a combination of the two that we need for that, and
how to make it understandable for people.
Papke: Yeah, just don't word it like the dock you know.
Generous: Yes, the greater of.
Feik: What's the next one?
Lillehaug: Did we have problems with how it was worded before?
Generous: Well it just said the 60 by 60, and Jill, we had a problem because we thought
that was under estimating tree removal because usually they have the house pad and then
you have 15 feet beyond that where the grading equipment goes in and the little Bobcats
and so.
Lillehaug: So actually this 8,400 is actually more conservative if you really look at it.
Generous: Yeah, it's closer to what we would think would actually happen.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: Okay. Yeah.
Slagle: Are we to page 10 yet'?
Generous: The financial penalty, yes. You've got on page number 5, as part of your
previous recommendation we have $500 in there. Council felt that was punitive. I didn't
check, this came from Plymouth. They had $100. Per diameter inch of trees being
removed. Theoretically you know a 28 inch tree that goes out, that's $2,800.
Feik: Well that would be in addition to replacement though.
Generous: Yes. They would have to pay.
Feik: Do we still have the replacement in here?
Generous: Yes. The replacement in there is probably not changed. And this is only
after, if they, once they get through the process, preliminary plat approval to final plat
and they say we're going to save these trees and then they don't do that.
Feik: So we should put there, then at the end of that sentence then, you know comma, in
addition to the 2:1 replacement as indicated in whatever other section it is. So they
understand it's both. It's because you know what, at $100 a diameter inch, there's not a
developer in town that wouldn't rather just knock them down. And not replace them. I
mean to be construed like the dock.
Lillehaug: Probably I mean, you talk about over adjacent to the Legion over here.
They've got 3 oaks they're trying to preserve. Well, just cut them down if it's causing
too much confusion. You know they're only going to get fined $2,800 bucks per tree.
Big deal in their pockets.
Feik: Right, right. But if it's that and replacement.
Slagle: They have that much money?
Lillehaug: I don't know but, it's a big deal to me.
Papke: What are we really trying to achieve here? I mean because this is really going to
protect small trees, saplings and is it really the old growth oaks in town that we're trying
to preserve here'? Is that kind of what we're getting to or what? Because we may take a
different strategy if we want to protect a few big old trees versus every tree in the city.
Feik: Sure. You could do $500 per inch for any tree over 12 feet. 12 inches. Something
like that.
Papke: I mean what do we want as a Planning Commission I guess is the question I'm
asking. What's our goal? What do we want to try to achieve with this?
40
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Slagle: Well if I can throw out. I remember, and Steve I don't know if you were here but
there was an application for a building just south of the church. The old historic church.
It's now a Remax building. And there was an old oak that the claim was that they would
rock wall around it and Craig was pretty involved in that one and I think basically the
concern was that they said they would do this and be being a construction expert if you
will, was just sort of, it's just not going to work the way you're thinking and the question
came up well, what happens if they say they're going to protect it and it doesn't. And
that's what I remember at least personally with the involvement and awareness of these
trees, so I think your question's great and I would be an advocate to say that after a
certain diameter width we increase the value. And I would hope the council wouldn't
feel that large, large trees, by adding that would be punitive. Who knows.
Papke: What's the nature of the council's concern from a punitive standpoint? Are they
concerned that some guy who's putting up 4 houses is going to get unnecessarily dinged
if he cuts down a couple small trees or what, can you give us any context where the
punitive.
Generous: I think they were just concerned that a developer comes in and he's following
the rules and his subcontractors don't and so then he's penalized because he's the
responsible party under DC when it's a subcontractor that is storing materials over thc
root zones and killing trees or whatever the case may be.
Slagle: Wouldn't they just put...subcontractor.
Generous: Well it depends on their contractual arrangement I suppose.
Papke: isn't that the general contractor's job'?
Generous: Well we have you know, same thing with like erosion control fencing.
Keeping that up.
Lillehaug: One more comment on that 1 guess is, in the ratings here they're, or the
council's justification was that they couldn't really distinguish between trees removed,
being removed accidentally or purposely. In my mind I guess it really wouldn't matter if
they were accidentally or purposely. It should be the contractor's responsibility to purely
protect them. So I guess I wouldn't go along with that justification.
Papke: ...accidental versus purposeful.
Lillehaug: Right, to me it doesn't matter though.
Feik: Would this go in the actual development contract as well'? Because if it doesn't go
in the contract you'd never know about it and it'd be that much tougher to enforce.
Would you include?
41
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Saam: Typically this stuff, if it's in the code already, there's no reason to also put it in
the development contract because it's ah'eady in ordinance.
Feik: Well I understand that but if the developer actually read it, and then he could go to
his excavator and say guys, you knocked these trees over. It's coming out of the sub's
pocket. Because I'm looking at it saying you know what, I'm not sure how collectable
it's going to be. If it's in the development contract and he's got to acknowledge it.
Slagle: Let me ask this. Again without mentioning names, what did we learn from the
incident on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta? I mean and some things you can
share, some things you can't but I mean something happened there. Clear violation of
whatever right, wrong, laws, ordinances we have and there was punitive action against
the perpetrator if you will. Was that sufficient in the city's mind? Do we wish we had
done more? I mean I just remember Lori being very upset and very disappointed, as was
Jill. And so I mean.
Generous: I can't answer for them.
Slagle: Is it your opinion that what you see here, $100 per diameter inch would be
enough of a deterrent to prevent that'?
Saam: You're asking me?
Slagle: You're my two staff people.
Saam: Maybe you meet council half way. If you wanted 500 before and now you don't
feel 100's enough, you come to 300. I don't really have an opinion on it.
Generous: It could get pretty expensive you know. Diameter inches add up. 28 inches
here, 10 there, 5 there. It could be a significant cost.
Slagle: We don't want to be negotiating with council.
Generous: No.
Saam: I guess the one thing I think you should keep in mind is, you know no matter how
much you set it, some people if they are bad per se or don't care, you know is it going to
matter? And how do you regulate that? So it's tough. I mean most developers that we
see aren't going to do what you're referring to up on Minnewashta. I mean we just don't
see that happening so.
Lillehaug: And then this punitive damage wouldn't have applied there anyways because
they weren't finished. Or would have been applied. Were they finished with their
approval process?
Generous: The replacement, this $100 wouldn't have applied, no.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: Right, because they were, yeah.
Generous: But the replacement stuff up fl'ont would have been delayed, their project was
delayed long enough anyways with the court.
Papke: I hate to let this just slide though because i think we're going to face this in the
AUAR area that we were looking at not long ago has a lot of old growth oaks and once
we start to look at proposals in that area, this is a potential issue.
Slagle: Can I make a recommendation to the commission here? Mr. Chair it looks like
there's at least two items, two areas. Tree preservation and sidewalks/trails that the
council and the commission are differing on. Is there any reason that they should be part
of the work session? And why wouldn't we have that dialogue amongst the two groups
versus talking to staff and you go back and.
Feik: I think that's a relevant comment but this still is a public hearing so we still have to
hear from everybody else too before we move on to what we're going to do with this. I
don't disagree.
Lillehaug: And maybe it's a point, it's at a point where we give our recommendation
again.
Feik: My opinion on this deal, you know what, it's supposed to be punitive. That's why
we put the dollars in there, and 1 guess I don't have a problem negotiating with council. I
don't know. Alright, well let's move on and see what else because we may not take
action on this tonight anyway and I want to make sure we get public comment in before it
gets too much later. What else do we have to look at here Bob?
Generous: Well the last one, significant item was on page 11 in Section I0. It's Section
18-78(b)(5) of the code. It was, right now the ordinance says sidewalks will be required.
Previously we had it on all local streets and on one side of collector and arterial and so
council said go away from that. Develop criteria where we would look at putting it in
and make it not permissive rather than mandatory.
Papke: When I read this, I couldn't figure out how you could possibly interpret this.
You know, what does it mean that you may be required to put a sidewalk in if there are
sidewalks that connect to existing sidewalks. Well connect to what existing sidewalks?
Where?
Generous: On adjacent developments is what we were looking at. We have subdivisions
that are in place. They have a sidewalk up to their property line. When the next
development comes in we would make them continue that sidewalk through their project.
Feik: Or access the trails.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Generous: Or to access the trail system, yes. And a good example of that is the Hidden
Creek development. Off of the north side of Highway 7.
Papke: Can you at least then put in here connect to existing sidewalks in adjacent
developments where the sidewalks abut the proposed development? Just so, because I
was concerned that we're going to see this at some point in time, you know in a proposal
and we're going to go well, how do we interpret that?
Feik: And then go back to shall. Drop the may and go back to shall.
Papke: May is just.
Generous: So something, and adjacent developments continuing those existing
sidewalks?
Feik: And trails.
Papke: And in the next one, you know to kind of carry out of that, sidewalks that connect
neighborhoods to schools, parks and neighborhood. Well where are these schools, parks
and neighborhood areas? Are they again on adjacent properties? Is that what you're
saying?
Generous: That's the intent. If you're in the neighborhood and if this would bring you to
that development. An example would be the Walnut Grove project. Had this been in
place we would have had a sidewalk.
Papke: It sounds like you need to put you know, at least adjacent property or something
like that on each of these or maybe in the preface area there, so that it's clear that we're
talking about a sidewalk in an adjacent development. Or a school or a park and a
neighborhood commercial area that is ac[jacent to the proposed development, or an
existing or proposed trail that you know terminates at the proposed development or
something like that where we can have some criteria for looking at ...that does or doesn't
meet the criteria.
Generous: I think that adjacent development would work for all three of these.
Papke: Right, except are we going to treat it, if adjacent development has sidewalks that
are 200 feet away from where these two things butt up, how do we interpret that one?
Okay. And then does that adjacent development that's ah'eady developed, do they have
to bring their sidewalks in so they connect with this new development? I don't know,
what's the intent?
Lillehaug: If I can ask fellow commissioners to look at page 16. What staff had drafted
up before, maybe we had discussed before was a, b, and c.
Feik: Which was struck by council. I'm assuming that's where that.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Generous: We wanted to show the progression of this.
Lillehaug: That's really more on the lines of what I'm still thinking anyways.
Generous: Well and maybe that's the recommendation.
Slagle: If I may.
Feik: Please.
Slagle: Since I I think probably of all have been the most vocal. I'm not suggesting I'm
the biggest supporter but at least the most vocal of this. And a bit of background. There
is a staff member who shared with me in the last year that neighboring communities were
enforcing and updating ordinances that required, it didn't matter, it didn't talk about
neighborhoods. It was street. This kind of street got either two sidewalks or one
sidewalk. Cul-de-sac got something, on and on and I remember asking staff to research
that. And that's where I would like this to go, is to research communities and Maple
Grove, Plymouth, Eden Prairie, Woodbury, you name it, but where are the communities
out there today going on this because the more and more I read, which is not all that
expansive on planning, is that there is a movement towards the community feel. More
sidewalks. You know the porches out fi'ont. That whole whatever you want to call it,
Americana if you will, but more importantly for me and why I've been such a proponent
for this is just the safety and to me to think that we would have may instead of shall,
when you look at some of the neighborhoods, and I'm talking within the last 10 years,
that we don't have a sidewalk and it mystifies me when I see mothers pushing kids on
strollers and if the issue according to Bob tonight was that there was some concern by
some about upkeep over time of sidewalks. Repairs. That would cost money and who
pays for it. I guess I would ask engineering to fm'ther research really what have we spent
on an annual basis to fix sidewalks. And maybe it's a lot more than I think it is, but I
would guess that the streets have been a major focus, not so much sidewalks. I haven't
seen many sidewalks repaired in my running, and I run a fair amount throughout the
cities. Heck the last time I remember I wanted Pillsbury to fix their sidewalk, if you
remember the one off Galpin and it still hasn't been fixed. It's call cracked up so, and
that was two years ago. So I'm just using that as a basis that I don't think there's a lot of
sidewalks being fixed these days.
Feik: You mean Audubon.
Slagle: Audubon, I'm sorry. Audubon.
Papke: Just to add to that, I think we've heard some pleas for trails in developments that
don't have sidewalks.
Slagle: Exactly.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: And now that brings me to a question, why did park and rec recommend deletion
of the references to trails?
Generous: They just wanted to be able to look at a project...
Slagle: And do their own thing.
Feik: But we're just saying access. If it has access to trails we want a sidewalk. We're
not trying to tell park and rec where to put the trails. I'm in one of those neighborhoods,
Bluff Creek Estates, top of the hill on Audubon. We have no sidewalks but we're hooked
up to a trail. We have no sidewalk on Audubon. We've got, and it's gravel shoulder.
We've got strollers on Audubon. We've got kids you know, we've got 5 year olds
Rollerblading on Audubon to go around the block. Anyway, anything else on this item?
Otherwise I want to move this to public comment period and then we can bring it back
and we can deal with it as we choose. So if there's no other comments for staff at this
point, I'd like to open this up for public comment. If you have a comment, now would be
the time.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I would like to
comment first on streets. On page 5. I noticed this mentioning that a private street has a
right-of-way, actually defined as right-of-way and as I recall, code have been changed
about a year and a half ago, and I don't. Bob would know this. Where the definition is
of right-of-way. It didn't include private street so I would like that to be covered. It's
pretty important because it affects our shoreland rule which means you have to be set
back 20 feet from the right-of-way of a private street. And then on page 13, where you're
talking about the 60 by 60. 60 by 60 is such a practical way to figure out if there's
enough room for a home on a lot. Just have this little square and you fit it on and you've
got it. Or you don't have it. The buildable area, where is that defined'? Bob would know
this too. What is replacing this? What is the buildable area required now?
Generous: What's the buildable required'?
Janet Paulsen: Yeah. And is there a certain width'?
Generous: Well you have the lot dimensions in the subdivision. It's any area within the
required setbacks. Buildable area.
Janet Paulsen: Well as I recall I think Minnetonka and some other cities have more
restrictive standards because they have to have a certain width before you can measure
the buildable area, otherwise you could have a really narrow triangle. That you shouldn't
really include that.
Lillehaug: I support you there.
Janet Paulsen: And then I was wondering, also on page 13. In the parenthesis 5.
Minimizing tree loss. I have to disagree that that would be accomplished by having a
46
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
private street. Private street causes more intensive development because it doesn't
require the same setbacks and the lot line is measured many times from the middle of the
private street, enclosing a private street. So it becomes more intensive. I don't think this
causes less tree loss. It causes more. And then ! have to agree, I think we should require
sidewalks. It should say shall, not may. Why would want to go back to a lesser
standard'? We should be improving things. Not lessening them. Okay, thanks.
Feik: Thank you.
Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I almost missed the meeting
tonight. I had to work late and I'm looking, oh my god. It's Tuesday. Hit the computer.
The agenda. Oh my god, Chapter 18. So I'm not very well prepared. But I have to say, I
don't think this report is very well cooked up either. I think there's a lot of improvements
that need to be made. I think if we're going to change the code, let's make it better. Not
make it more ambiguous. I really liked seeing that fight-of-way there for private streets.
That was a pleasant surprise seeing that documented. Boy, I don't want to have to page
through all this. Jan pretty much covered everything. The 60 by 60 is a real issue and
staff in the past has tried to say, well you don't build a square house. But you know I've
seen a lot of development plans come through and if you don't have adequate building
area, you could have a lot that met requirements 15,000 square feet, but it might not have
enough buildable area. It might have shoreland, wetlands, it might have too steep of an
incline. A bluff. I think that stamp has proven to be really a valuable tool when you see
the plats coming through. I'm not, this is not my area of expertise but I think it's really
important. That number very much surprised me to see 3,600 square feet because I've
defended that time and time again. In fact I wish I had everything I've said about it, but
I've seen that number go up to like 8,000 some. I mean what does that really mean, that
you can demonstrate that you can clear cut that much land or something? I don't quite
get what you're trying to do with using a number that that's big. That's like half of a
RSF lot. And our residential lot is like 15,000 square feet minimum. It's more than half
of a lot. I just don't get the logic there. I'd like to see some meat in this and I did do
some real quick research before I came and that's, I've been watching Dream House and
Portland, Oregon has some really strict codes about tree preservation because these
builders on this show were really concerned. We have to make sm'e that we do
everything correctly. So I pulled up something here. Construction fencing in their code.
The fence must be 6 foot high, orange plastic and must be secured to the ground with an
8 foot metal post. Or the fence must be 6 foot high steel on concrete blocks. Well, I saw
a project in our neighborhood, you know the orange fence goes up, and then it just slides.
And no one cares about where they drive, what they do. What they move over this area.
I think when you put meat in it like they did, it prevents that fence fi'om moving.
Development limitations. It says here, within the root protection zone o1' each tree, the
following development is not allowed. New buildings. Grade change or cut and fill
during or after construction. I have to say I observed fill, just huge tons of fill over areas
that should have been protected. No meat in our code for that. New impervious surfaces
so they can't create an impervious surface around the root zone. Utility or drainage fill
placement. Staging or storage of materials and equipment during construction. Huge
issue. Particularly when you're building like in our neighborhood, building, making and
47
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
creating a new lot because where would those construction materials go'? You know
they're not supposed to go in the street. If the lot is the minimum size, where do they go?
90 foot wide lot. 60 foot wide house basically. You know, and then you're supposed to
have some trees on this site. Where do they put these materials? And vehicle
maneuvering areas during construction. You know, someone brought up the contractor's
responsibility and the subcontractor's you know just kind of going and do what they
want. Well there has to be some controls. Someone has to be responsible. Enforcement
is not here. I mean I wish we had enforcement to protect the trees from being clear cut.
I'm all for steeper fines. It seems the pocketbook is the only place that hurts people. And
maybe yeah, you take down a tree and it adds up. Well maybe it's going to add up to a
number that they can't afford and they'll think twice about cutting out trees that they
shouldn't be cutting out. But you know, I think with the budget that we've just gone
through, the budget process, the one large gap that we could fill in the revenue stream
would be doing some enforcement. And I hope that you will table this tonight and give
serious consideration to doing things to really improve what we have, because our
resources for building are limited and your right about the AUAR. It's coming. There's
sensitive land down there. Sidewalks, huge thing. Let's plan. Let's do things right. Not
make things easier to get through but let's try to make what little we have left the best it
can be. Thanks.
Feik: Thank you. Alright. More comments from commission. I did hear, I did like the
idea of a different sort of tree preservation ban'ier that would, most people just see the
yellow, or the orange fence. Think it's a silt fence and that's as far as they go with it so
they don't know it's really necessarily protecting the trees. If there's no other comment
then, Rich you had to make some statements regarding you might want to table this or
something. You want to continue on your...from earlier.
Slagle: I'd like to table this and ask staff and get a firm commitment Bob, if I may, from
you that we will actually receive a written, for lack of a better term, research paper that
would address what different locales are doing. I mean I noticed as an example on the
tree removal at $100, there's use of reference to the City of Plymouth. That's what they
use so we suggest we adopt that. I mean I wonder if I called 7 other communities, I mean
I might have a listing of $200, $50, $400.
Generous: Zero.
Slagle: Yeah, zero. Yeah exactly so I mean I'm not advocating that it comes out one
way or the other. Just what's out there. And then I would ask for you to do the same
thing with the sidewalks and specifically what do communities, and those communities
I'll leave up to you, but what do they require for sidewalk criteria. For you know
collector streets, main arterial, you know, you give me the listings or give tls the listings.
Because it might turn out that 80 percent of the communities are where we are today and
suggest may. You know who knows.
Lillehaug: What does tabling really get us here'? You know the council's reviewed this
already. Is tabling going to help tls make them more aware that we have more concerns
48
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
with this? Is that our goal of tabling it'? Because I mean I have real distinct
recommendations how I would like to change this and recommend.
Feik: Well I don't think there's a hurry. I think what we want to do is we want to do it
right in concert with all the parties and we've only got 4 of the commission up here as
well to comment on this.
Papke: Uli often has a comment or two on trees.
Feik: Yes, yes.
Slagle: Just it adds to fact finding. I mean 1 think the council, if I may be bold enough to
say, similar to what we've been operating a little bit of a vacuum. I mean council says
boy you say shall and it's punitive. Well.
Papke: They may be coming to the conclusion it's punitive because they don't have
data... There's no justification for what we've proposed or what we think we should do.
Slagle: And vice versa. We feel, we operate in that same vacuum.
Feik: Does that answer your question?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Feik: With that I guess we need a motion.
Lillehaug: Can I make a couple comments?
Feik: Absolutely.
Lillehaug: As I see where our motion is heading, I would definitely like staff to look at
what Debbie brought to the table for item 6 there, about tree preservation during
construction. I think she had some very valid points and every one of them I think we
could include as I think they're all legitimate. That's it.
Feik: Anything else?
Papke: As a Planning Commission, do we ever look at other communities you know
guidelines and code books and so on? The example of Portland was brought up. Now
they are known to be extremely protective obviously. They're kind of on the outside of
the bell curve, but I think that provides an interesting data point to use as a reference.
And maybe some good ideas as to how you might be able to structure some of these
things, put some teeth into it. I don't know. As a group you know l'm fairly new to the
group, I don't know if periodically do we look at other community standards and codes
and guidelines and try to learn something from that?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: Bob, can you answer that?
Generous: We do and yes we can.
Papke: City staff does but does the Planning Commission do that?
Feik: Well I think what I hear is a desire to have some of that research that you do on a
regular basis, or in the process, brought back up here so that we can be made aware of
that. And everyone else so, versus just the recommendation based upon research. Give
us a little background of how you're making that recommendation.
Generous: Kind of the matrix that we showed you?
Feik: Yeah, or comment or whatever. Something.
Slagle: Summary, like there'd be a spreadsheet or something.
Generous: It's easy to do. It's, all it takes is a little staff time. Once you have it you can
keep it in our update.
Feik: Well if we deny enough permits you'll have lots of time. Just kidding.
Lillehaug: I have one more comment. Also | would like to really look at the 60 by 60
foot lot. I guess I didn't realize that this was the only place that we referred to a 60 by 60
foot building pad.
Generous: Under the PUD, they talk about a 60 by 40 pad.
Lillehaug: But that is strictly for tree removal.
Generous: Under this section.
Lillehaug: Under this section, but that's what I was getting at earlier. Is it under other
sections'?
Generous: The only other place that it's mentioned is in the PUD.
Lillehaug: Okay. Because I also have concerns regardless of trees, and a minimum and
maybe this isn't the chapter to be, I think it is the chapter to be addressing it in. We do
need to specify a minimum width because I have concerns with that obviously, and I
think it's a valid point that we should be establishing a minimum of a 60 by 60 foot pad.
Now I'm done.
Feik: Very good. Now you're done, alright.
Slagle: Well then make a motion'?
50
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: I wasn't 100 percent behind tabling.
Slagle: I can do it if you don't want to. I just have made most of them tonight.
Feik: Then you're on a roll, go ahead.
Slagle: You want to do it?
Feik: I can't make one so. It's up to you three.
Slagle: Here we go, alright. 1 recommend that the PLanning Commission table the
approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code as shown
through the attachments presented tonight, and ask that staff research per our prior
direction and report back within 60 days. Is that enough Bob?
Generous: Yes. We want to move, keep moving things forward.
Slagle: 30 days?
Feik: Well, do we need a time limit?
Slagle: No.
Generous: No, I don't know that we need a time limit because my boss is going to push
me.
Slagle: Oh, and I would add to that, if I may, in my request is that we consider for future
work session that if we still end up having some differences of opinion between council
and commission that, because I just think that's helpful face to face...
Feik: Or maybe our council liaison could be here. Do we still have liaisons? Oh we
don't. Never mind then. Alright, so did you make a motion?
Generous: Yes.
Feik: I'm sorry, do we have a second on that'? Any amendments to that motion'?
Slagle moved, Papke seconded to table the amendments to Chapter 18 of the City
Code, Subdivisions per Planning Commission discussion. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Feik: Would someone please note the minutes?
51
Tree Removal Calculations
Using total diameter inches
Sample 1
Burlwood
Maple Grove:
Total Diameter inches of trees 8" and larger:
Need to retain 70% of total: 846"
Inches lost: 342"
Inches saved: 866"
No replacement required
1208"
Existing Chanhassen ordinance:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 5.27 ac. or 229,583 SF
Baseline canopy coverage 35% or 80,941 SF
Minimum canopy coverage allowed 30% or 68,875 SF
Proposed tree preservation 13% or 30,142 SF
Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the
difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by
1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage (68,875 - 30,142) 38,733 SF
Multiplier 1.2
Total replacement 46,480 SF
Total number of trees to be planted 43 trees (46,480 + 1089)
Eden Prairie:
((A/B)x C) x A = D
Significant trees: 12" and greater deciduous, 8" and larger coniferous
A=Total inches of significant trees lost as a result of land alteration
B= Total inches of significant trees existing on site
C=Tree replacement constant (1.33)
D=Replacement trees (number of caliper inches)
A= 198
B= 902
((198/902) x 1.33) x 198 = 58 (29 two-inch trees)
Sample 2
Ashling Meadows
Maple Grove:
Total Diameter inches of trees 8" and larger:
Need to retain 70% of total: 967
Inches lost: 123
Inches saved: 1258
No replacements required
1381
Existing Chanhassen ordinance:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 35.2 ac.
Baseline canopy coverage .03% or 1.22 ac.
Minimum canopy coverage allowed 25% or 8.8 ac.
Proposed tree preservation .02% or 0.82 ac.
Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the
difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by
1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage 17,424 SF or .4 ac.
Multiplier 1.2
Total replacement 20,909 SF
Total number of trees to be planted 19 trees
In addition, the applicant must increase canopy coverage to meet the minimum
twenty-five percent required. The calculations are follows:
Total reforestation area (8.8 - 1.22 ac.) 7.6 ac. or 331,056 SF
Required canopy coverage 304 trees
Eden Prairie:
((A/B)x C) x A = D
Significant trees: 12" and greater deciduous, 8" and larger coniferous
A=Total inches of significant trees lost as a result of land alteration
B= Total inches of significant trees existing on site
C=Tree replacement constant (1.33)
D=Replacement trees (number of caliper inches)
A= 98
B= 1356
((98/1356)x 1.33) x 98 = 5 (Two 2 1/2" trees required)
Survey Results
City Tree Removal Calculations
City Policy Notes
Plymouth Residential developments may Significant trees: at least 8"
remove or disturb up to 50% of the DBH decidous,
total inches of significant trees.
Removal beyond 50% requires
replacement plantings at a rate of
1.25" for every 1" removed.
Chaska Wooded areas with slopes <18% can
be developed. Retention of
substantial tree stands encouraged.
Minnetonka Developer not responsible for Significant trees: at least 8"
replacing trees removed within ROW, DBH deciduous, at least 15'
within and 20' around building pad, coniferous
within and 10' around driveway.
Developers do not have to plant more
than 25 trees/acre. Signficant trees
removed outside of the areas listed
above are replace at a rate of tree-to-
tree. Significant trees removed on site
within two years prior to a
development application must be
replaced tree-for-tree.
Eden Prairie Replacements required for any Significant trees: 12" and
significant trees lost due to grading or greater deciduous, 8" and
land alteration. Replacement are larger coniferous
calculated by ((A/B)x C) x A = D A=Total inches of significant
trees lost as a result of land
alteration
B= Total inches of significant
trees existing on site
C--Tree replacement constant
(1.33)
D=Replacement trees (number
of caliper inches)
Maple Grove
Subdivisions: 70% of the total tree inches for
trees 8" and larger must be protected. If more
than 30% are removed, the excess shall be
replaced at a ratio of 1.5" for every inch
removed.
R-l, R-2, R-3: Builder shall replace trees
removed in building pad area, measured by
calculating the area from the lot line to a line
85' behind the front lot line and extending
across the width of the lot. The builder is
required to replace trees removed in that area
at a rate of ¥2" replacement for every inch
removed <8", 1.5" replacement for trees 8"-
11", 2" replacement for trees >11". Trees
protected within the area may count towards
replacement at a rate of 2" of replacement for
every inch preserved.
Attached single-family and apartments: 40%
of the total DBH inches must be retained after
construction. If more than 60% are removed,
the excess shall be replaced at a rate of 1.5"
for every 1" removed.
PUD: 70% of the total tree inches for trees 8"
and larger must be protected. If more than
30% are removed, the excess shall be replaced
at a ratio of 2" for every inch removed.
Industrial: 40% of the total tree inches for
trees 8" and larger must be protected. If more
than 60% are removed, the excess shall be
replaced at a ratio of 1.5" for every inch
removed.
Commercial: 30% of the total tree inches for
trees 8" and larger must be protected. If more
than 70% are removed, the excess shall be
replaced at a ratio of 1.5" for every inch
removed.
Commercial and Industrial PUDs: 40% of the
total tree inches for trees 8" and larger must be
protected. If more than 60% are removed, the
excess shall be replaced at a ratio of 2" for
every inch removed.
AVERAGE BUILDING ENVELOPES
ADDRESS SQUARE FEET BUILDING PAD
Bent Bow Trail 2019.28 62x51
Hallgren Lane 2013.91 56x46
Highover Drive 2055 70x42
Hunter Drive 2463.33 71x51
Majestic Way 1959.25 66x40.5
Point Lake Lucy 2970.66 79.5x50
Red Oak Lane 2018.5 66x51.5
Saphire Lane 2536.5 69x55
Springfield Drive 1848.46 60x45
Stone Creek Lane 1833.0 70x31
Topaz Drive 2803.98 79x53
White Oak Lane 2190.11 66x47
Average Size 2226.00
Average Length x Width 68x47
SURV~ FOR: LUNDGREN BROS.
· SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
This drawing has bejen checked and
reviewed this 9-9-"~a day of
~F'c-~,~-,~c~-~ , 200 1 ,
Top of
/ ",qoo
DRAINA~;E & UTID3¥
EASEMENT~ PER P~.AT'
APPROVED
60120-792 569/59
0 08-100)
0 30 60
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 8, Block `5, THE MEADOWS AT LONGACRES
4TH ADD1TION
BENCHMARK:·
Top of iron monument ,as shown
Elevation = 989.57 (NGVD-1929 Datum)
GENERAL NOTES:
1. Orientation of the bearings used for this
survey is based, on an assumed datum
2. I - Denotes iron monument.
3. 7890.0 -Denotes existing 'spot elevation.
4-. x(890.0) - Denotes proposed spot elevation.
5.,,~,,~-- - Denotes direction of surface drainage.
6.. Rroposed gora§e :floor = 990.5
7. Proposed ±Dp of foundation = 991.5
8. Propased basement floor = 98,5.5
I hereby certify that this survey, was
prepared under my supervision and that
I am e ·Licensed Land .Surveyor. under the
lows of the St(:te of Minnesota.
~ms Jr.
Dote:~. 2.2~, 2.oc~. License No. 19840
985.2
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
LEE L YN
· . BUILDERS
i
Drainage Easement ..~1
~0~
976.1
LE,G4L D.E. SCRIP ~]ON
Lot. 7, Block
OAK RIDGE OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA
...... CITY OF
973.3 x
97,3.4 x
976.7 xI
0
O.
984.9
984 6
(3
R=60. O0
L = 1 t. O0
R= JO. O0
(984.2) ,Cl, 986.0
tt~, LLG P,~N
/~ ~ % Proposed garage ,oar .l~v.= 986.0
~ O00.OO~oteS ox~sttng olay. *S/rT/~ * ~~~'~-~t,rft~= Pro;osea ~= 986.3J
(O00.O) D~otes proposed cloy; rep of f~,,-det?~ e~.= 978.33
' D~otes surface drainage Utilities ~ Services per Plan BENCHMARK~ Top of iron marked 'BM' on this
survey, Elev.=977.65.
' DEMARS-GABRIEL
SURVEYORS, INC.
3030 Harbor Lone No.
PI)mouth, MN 55447
Phone: (612) 559-0908
Re~ed~ ~--2~-97
Rev/eed: ~12-97
I hereby certify thut this is c~ true cLIdicorr~0t representotion of o survey of
the boundaries of' th~ dbovc~ <d~c_:~bod land und of th~ location of oll buildings,
If any, ther¢on, end o!I ,,'i~iblu ~r)crooch/n~¢d,% if any, hem or on said lend.
surveyed b)' me this ............ day of
David E. Crook ~ Minn. '~b9? No.~ 22414
File No.
9551
Book-Page
J57/?o
Scale
1"=$0'
HY-LAND
Proposed Top of ~31ock
Proposed Gor0ge Floor
Proposed Lowest Floor
T)~pe of Building -
-.~
COLSON CONSTRUCTION
SURVEYING,
LAND SURVEYORS
g700 Jefferson Highway
Osseo. Minnesota 55369
(763) 493-5761
~,nrur~lors
_ INSTALL TYPE-L-EROSION cONTROl' '
-FENCING' AS sHOWN ON THE pLAN AND/O~
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY pRIOR TO
EXCAVATIOIq AND MAINTAIN UN?IL LOT. IS.
FULLY VEGETAIED; DURING WINTER
coNSTRUCTION STAKED HAY_ BALES
BE USED IN LIEU OF FEI'ICING
INVOICE NO. 19,067-186
¢.B. NO.
SCALE I"= 30'
O Denotes Iron Monument
[] Denotes Wood Hub S;et
For Excavation Only
xO00.O Denotes Existing Elevoti6n
0 Denotes Pr~,posed Elevation
~ Denotes Surface Droinbge
jAPPROVED
Olo/ q$c/
/ b
X,
40 'Z-I, .
LOT 14. BLOCK 4. HIGHOVER
I hereby certify Ihol Ihis survey was prepored by me or undes-
rny direct superv~slon, or, d thol I om o duly Registered Lond
Surveyor under the lows of the Stole of Minnesota.
Surveyed by us this 21ST day of FEBRUARY , 20 O0
, REVISED; 3-6-00 '
Signed
60120-207
SURVEY FOR: LUNDGREN BROS. CONST.
('7~.~7)
. '/ \ '00 ~'~
~' . ~ '~. TREE: PRE:SER~A~ON E~k~£MENT
,~,- /
.- / \
·
988 PROTECTION
+'?~',., 18.5.00 ~ ~ ~ TO EXCAVATION. NO~C~U?.';i?;! '
--.-- .~ .~, 1.4 ~ "~ O~'R STOP, AGE'~)F'MATERIALS
~!~L~
S09' 12'54" W
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
(612) §46-760! FAX:546 9/~65
~ UTILITY. HOOKUP ELEVATIONS
,PJI~IO.R ][0 BA~F.J~ENT EXCAVATION DUE
D~ATION F~OM GRADING PLAN
40 0
i' £~:') FULLY
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
FEB:g d lggG
ENGIHEE~I~ DEPT'
40 §O'- 120 Feet
I I t
JMS COMPANIES
Esloblished in 1962
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC.
LiND SuRlr~YOIkq
REGISTERED UNDER L~AWS OF ~TATE OF MINNESOTA
3601 - 73rd Avenue North 560-3093
Minneai~li~0~ l~inn~o t~ 55428
Property located in Sec.tion~
10, Township 116, Range 23,
Carver County, Minnesota
INVOICE NO. 38971
F. B. NO. 657-6I
SCALE I":
0 Denotes Iron Monument
13 E)enoles 'Wood Hub
For Ex¢ovalion O~ly
xO00. O Denotes E~l~lln~ Elevation (~) .Denoles Proposed £1evallon
~ Denoles Surfac~ Drolnege
./~-~ Proposed Top ~t Block
~,~ ~opo~ed ~orage Floor .
Proposed Lo~e~t- Floor
Type of Building -
- ~/1 ~~/
· '. ~ ~~,..
~.
;.
P.rc, p~s~d
~.~ ~ ~,,
Lot 4, Block 1, ROYAL O~ ESTATES
Proposed building Information must be checked with approved building
plo~ before excovotion ond con3truction.
~ffil~ 9TH ~of Nove~er lg 94
/ . X
B~ \
Iron '
Z
APPROVED
145.00
NO1°44'50"W
~0
OO
'~o
0
u~ 0
'SCRIPTION:
PIONEER
enginee~,.g
Certificate of SurVey for: WESLEY
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-1914 FAX:681-9488
E-moil: PIONEER~PRESSENTER.COM
J 625 Highway 10 N.E.
Blaine, MN 55454
(612) 78.T-1880-FAX:783-1883
E-moil: PIONEER2~PRESSENTER.COM
CONSTRUCIION
4137 RED OAK LANE
9854. S88'23'11"E 73.93
~ ~ ~".~ ,'~
~.. [~ ' I ~ DRAINAGE & UTI Y
[]--- ~ ~ ~o~x ......
~ 0 ~l ~ I 13,00~ 'o~.00 M .
0 ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~
TOP OF PIPE --' ~15[ ~ I ~ I I J
S89'27'51 "E 100.00
RED OAK LANE
NOTE: PROPOSED GRADES ~IOWN PER GRADING PLAN BY: LOUCKS
NOTE: BUILDING DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE FOR HOf~IZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCA~)ON
Of- STRUC]URES ONL~ SEE ARCHITECTUAL PLANS FO~ BUILDING AND
RECEIVED
APR16
PROPOSED HOUSE ELEVATION
LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION:
TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION: ~>'E- ~'~
GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION:
TOD.- 0 .LOOKOUT ELEVATION:
WE HEREBY CERTIFY TO WESLEY CONSTRUCTION THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A
SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF:
LOT 20, BLOCK ,3, OAKS OF MINNEWASHTA-
CARVER COUNTY. MINNESOTA
IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCHROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, AS SU~RVEYED BY ME OR
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION THIS1ST DAY OF APRIL,1999. '
·
SIGN NEER ENGI P.A.
SCALE : 1 INCH = 30. FEET' BY: t .a" _ t'- ~
~ 99149.00 NJK ~hn C~ Lorson, L.S. Reg. No. 19828
SURVEY FOR: LUNDGREN BROS...
f
/
/Z
A
0 ~0 60
BM iRON /
/ ~",,,
Thls drawing has ,been checked and
reviewel¢ this ~'~'~ day of
60120-951
/
/ x EGRESS ~DRA
" ~.
: ".'L<;~I
,7 // /
' o~ ~... / / ~
: ...,.:. ,., ~.-'. x , /// ~
x ~//i~' :.."'
· ......'
/
GARAGE: 3 STALL, RIGHT
62o/5
(1 ~7-~6)
ADDRESS:
6875 Sapphire Lone
DESCRIPTION:
Lot 3, Block 2, ASHUNG MEADOWS,
Carver County, Minnesota.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
OCT 3 0 ZOOZ
ENGINEERING DEPT,
BENCHMARK:
Top of iron monument os shown
Elevation = 1013.43 (NGVD-1929)
SPECIAL NOTE:
Only easements shown on the recorded plat of
ASHLING MEADOWS ore shown' on this survey mop,
unless otherwise noted. The survey uoon which this
moo is based was performed without benefit of
either an attorney's title oplnlon or o title
commitment.
GENERAL NOTES:
1. Orientation of the bearings used for this
survey is based on on assumed datum
2. · -- Denotes 'on monument.
3. x890.0 - Denotes existing spot elevation.
4. x(890.0) - Denotes proposed spot elevation.
5.~...---- - Denotes direction of surface draindge.
6. Garage floor ~, 1016,05
7. Top of foundation = 1016.97
8, Basement floor = 1008.20
9. House is o riot lot unit,
10. X 1015.5- Denotes As-built elevations
on Oct. 25, 2002.
I hereoy certify that this survey was
prepared under my supervision and that
I om o Licensed Land Surveyor under the
lows of the State of Minneso~.¢..
Ri~rd J. ~lliams. ~
Date:~. E~[oo~ Ucense No. 19840
434
Certificote of Survey for: 7~1880 F~7~I~
_ ~at~ t~D DRIVE ~
914.0
916.0 t ) /
t PLAT(
N88'24'I3"E 71.58
2
-
NOTE:
LOWEST ~'LOOR ELEVATION:
TOP OF' BLOCK ELi/vA TION:
GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION:
No~: ~ ~0~ ~i B~D ~ ~ ASS~O DAVY
~ HEREBy CER~Fy TO LUNDGREN BROS. CONST.
~ ~ND~ M~M~T' ~w Ol~c~
CAR~RLOTS""VEY3,C N ,°F~E~LOc~BOUNDARiESMINNESOTA~ OF:sPRiNGFiELD. ~A2ND,~,~ ,SADDi~oNATRUE AND C~RECT REPRESENTA~ OF A
iT O~S NO~ ~RPORT TO SHOW tMPRO~MENTS oR ENCHROAc CO/~TA~ DEVELOPER FOR
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPER~ ~IS 7~ DAY OF ~- ..... HMfN~ EXCEp~ SANITARYsERVicESEWERLOCATioNAND WATER
SCA[~ : 1 INCH = 30 FEET -,~u~.
HANS HAGEN HOMES
FOR:
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: ~ ~ *.1'2, ~ / :""-'""
GARAGE FLOOR
TOP OF BLOCK
LOWEST FLOOR
TOP OF FOOTING
125.83
$88'34'20"W
·" .... 34.67 ~ ,1q6.~' ~'~A
DIAG: 92.00X31.30=97.,18 ~'/,F '
~ DENOTES PROPOSED /ATION.
x989.6 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION.
DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE.
[] DENOTES WOOD HUB AT 11 FOOT OFFSET.
Lot 6, Block 1, STONE CREEK SIXTH ADDITION, Carver Caunty; B nnesota
" ' ,J I I~,p. LMonument. Found- Job No. 8606;l'-:4L
Scale ~ = 50' 0 Denotes Iron Monument Set · Denotes
Bearings shown are on on assumed datum. J Drawn By: SJL
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct repres.entation of
a survey of the boundaries of the above described land and 'of the
location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments,
if any, from or on said ,and. E.G.~U~~C.
Dated this ~/%"~ay of ,/'~', 19g--~By:'
~ Minnesota License No. ,e~p~,
J Book __ Page I I Disk _
I UlD IKl _..
LAND
~I,~:~ I.E×IN~TON
6-1
SURVEY FOR: LUNDGREN BROS.
DESCRIPTION
Lot 1, 'Block 5, ASHUNG MEADOWS
2ND ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota.
ADDRESS
1920 Topaz Drive
CITY OF CNANHASSEN
NOV ?~ 5 Z003
ENGINEERING DEPT,
SETBACK
MiN. FRONT YARD SETBACK = 3OFT
MIN, SIDE YARD SETBACK = lOFT
MIN. REAR YARD SETBACK = 3OFT
30 0 15 3o
(sc~z~ m ~ )
IT hie drawing has been checked and
reviewed this 2_.~'~ day of
L)oU6~T~ , 20 o~,
by ~ ~
DRAINAGE & UTILITY '~: ~ ~
EASEMENT PER PLAT ~\~ /
/
o~~' ~ /
~ / / ~ 1022.5 v 1022.Bi
(102~.2) 20.00
~023.7
l~1027.
HYDRANT
60
1026/ x
/ 0- 20.00 -.L
i
~2 7.$8~06 '02 '
54
APPROVEd"!
' -
~ I
Jl
L.E]T
VA CA IV T
RISER
~ CONCR£T£
J 64000-116
BENCHMARK
Tap of iron monument as shown
Elevation = 1030.98 (NGVD-1929)
620/64.
(129-16)
C TY
COPY
GENERAL NOTES
1. Orientation of the bearings used for this
survey is based on an assumed datum
2. · -- Denotes iron monument.
;3. x890.0 - Denotes existing spot elevation.
4. x(890.0) - Denotes proposed spot elevation.
5..~-~-- Denotes direction of surface drainage,
6. Proposed garage floor = 1032.0
(Drop garage 1 course)
7. Proposed top of ¢oundatlon = 1033.0
8. Proposed basement floor = 1024.0
9. House is ~ walkout.
10. Date of lost field surve~ November 19, 2003
11. x(890.O)CP - Denotes critical point elevotion.
12. Revised October 24, 2003 per city comments.
15. Revised November 20, 2003 house moved
SPECIAL NOTE
Only easements shown on the recorded plat of
ASHUNG MEADOWS 2ND ADDIDON are shown on this
survey map, un/ess otherwise noted. The survey upon
~,hlch ~hls map Is based was performed without
boner/t: of either an attorney'~ title opinion or a t/tie
commitment. The proposed grades shown are /n
conformance with the gradlng plan for ASHLING
MEADOWS 2ND ADD/DON approved by the City of
Chanhassen.
NOTE
Denotes rear of Building
Pad per grading plan.
Prepared by
Sothre-Bergqulst. Inc.
dated 01/24-/03
m I
- AS BUILT SURVEY REQUIRED
BEFORE CIO WILL BE ISSUED
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared under
my supervision and that am o Licensed Land
Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Daniel G, c o s
Dote: J~ t~!0~ License No. 19839
Inv~971.05
~o I
Mev=9$3. 7!
as required .
[ NBO~6'P6'W I07.~.~
of bit
x .988. 55
988, 84
gBB. 18
found
hole
Building Permit Survey
on Lot 10, Block 5,
OAKS OF MINNEWASHTA,
Carver Countz Minnesota
Requested Ely:
Jan Haue
Date: Drawn By: Scale:
4/16/0~ D.N.M. I"=20'
.REOEIV6D
JuL 2 2 2003
OHAIVHA$SEN tNSPEOTJO&