1f. Final Plat, Trappers Pass at Near Mtn 3rd Addition 1
1 , ,
i , ,
CITY OF .......___
k •
i; CHANHASSEN
t 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
"? -7'.,T '. (612) 937-1900 "`n Py c',^+n t*
MEMORANDUM :'c!,1r(r.,_ �______�
II T0: Don Ashworth, City Manager , -
_ Je-Er M
FROM Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
II diLa
JZ.v CI, to ouu ;I
DATE: August 18, 1988 g . , •2. —ZR,
I SUBJ: Final Plat Approval for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain
3rd Addition
II The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Trappers Pass
at Near Mountain 3rd Addition on April 25 , 1988 (Attachment #1) .
The preliminary plat was approved with the following conditions :
I 1 . A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building
permit application for Lots 1-5 , Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2,
Lot 1 , Block 3 , and Lots 7-14 , Block 4 .
II2 . The applicant shall construct off street trails along Trappers
Pass, Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted
and trail fees waived.
II3 . Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit.
II 4 . The developer shall enter into a development contract with
the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee the proper installation of these improvements.
I5 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit and the permit from the
Department of Natural Resources.
I6 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading, and once in place shall remain in
II place throughout the duration of construction. All of the
erosion control measures shall remain intact until an
established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time
;: removal shall be the responsiblity of the developer.
— 7 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi-
lize slopes greater than 3 : 1.
8 . All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City' s standards for urban construction.
t E II
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 18 , 1988
Page 2
9 . The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer ,
details for the construction of the barricade on the dead end
of Trappers Pass between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4
with the plans and specifications . '
10 . Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side
of the Class B wetland along the rear of Lots 1 through 9 of
Block 4 . The City' s standard detail for the installation of
Type II erosion control ( staked bales and snow fence) shall
be placed on the grading plan.
11. Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall
along both sides of Trappers Pass dead end shall be submitted
as a part of the plans and specifications review for
approval by the City Engineer.
12 . Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4 , as depicted on Sheet No. 1 of the
plan set dated February 18 , 1988 , shall be revised to show the
correct property boundaries.
13 . The driveway for Lot 16 , Block 4 shall be constructed such
that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
14 . The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along 1
the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which
site of Lot 2 , Block 3 . I
15 . All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the
side, front and rear of the lots in addition to all
appropriate drainage and utility easements for ponding sites
and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on the final plat.
16 . All private drives shall access internal streets to the sub- ,
division. No driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant
View Road.
17 . The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the
time of plans and specifications submittal and design adjust-
ments made accordingly, if necessary, to facilitate proper
conveyance of stormwater under Pleasant View Road.
The submitted final plat plats eleven of the 34 single family
lots . Attachment #2 illustrates which lots are being platted at
this time. The remaining lots are being maintained as outlots
for future development. The proposed final plat is consistent
with the approved preliminary plat. I
I
I
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 18, 1988
Page 3
The final plat is providing the required easements along the
front, rear and side lots lines and the required drainage ease-
ments for the ponding areas . Condition #11 of preliminary plat
' approval stated that Lots 15 and 16 , Block 4 had to be revised to
remove the lot lines from the road right-of-way. Lots 15 and 16 ,
Block 4 of the preliminary plat are being final platted as Lot 1,
Block 5 and Lot 1 , Block 4 as shown on sheet 2 of the final plat.
The lots still are within the street right-of-way and an amended
final plat needs to be provided which removes the lots lines from
the right-of-way. Condition #12 requires that the driveway for
Lot 16 , Block 4 , which is now Lot 1 , Block 4 , shall be
constructed such that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla
and Iroquois Avenue. Condition #1 requires that a tree removal
plan shall be provided at the time of building permit applica-
tions for Lots 1-5 , Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2 , Lot 1, Block 3
and Lots 7-14, Block 4 . Currently, the proposed lots to be
platted which are affected by condition #1 are Lots 1-3 , Block 1
and Lot 1, Block 2 . On sheet 4 of the final plat, the lots in
Block 1 are numbered 3-2-3 . The most northerly lot shall become
Lot 1 , and this shall be shown on an amended final plat.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council recommends approval of the final plat for
Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition with the following
conditions :
1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract
agreement with the city and provide necessary financial
sureties .
2 . Lots 1-3 , Block 1 and Lot 1 , Block 2 , shall provide a tree
removal plan at time of building permit application.
3 . Lot 1 , Block 4 , and Lot 1 , Block 5 shall be amended on the
final plat so that the lot lines are no longer within the
street right-of-way.
4 . The driveway for Lot 1 , Block 4 , shall be constructed so that
' it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
5 . The most northerly lot of Block 3 ( shown as Lot 3 ) should
become Lot 1 and shown on an amended final plat.
ATTACHMENTS
1 . City Council minutes dated April 25 , 1988 .
2 . Reduced copy showing the proposed plat.
3 . Final plat dated August 11 , 1988 .
r
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 II
Mayor Hamilton: So now we have before us, we voted to reconsider item 1.
We're on 8(b) but item 1 of the conditions. We have striken approval of the
} final plat of the Reed property and at the last line, and alignment of 64th
Street to TH 41.
Councilman Horn: Unless I misunderstand something, our choices are we can have
64th go through or we can have the main entrance to this development. '
Barbara Dacy: 64th realigned.
Gary Warren: One or the other. 11
Councilman Horn: Realigned to go through or?
Gary Warren: 64th 1,100 feet south.
Councilman Horn: 1,100 feet south of the Reed property or farther south? '
Gary Warren: 1,100 feet south of the center line of TH 7 which puts you into
the Reed property. I
Councilman Horn: So if people really want that to go through to TH 41, then
they don't want to approve this cul-de-sac?
Barbara Dacy: Right. That's the issue. Either the cul-de-sac or you
reconnect to TH 41.
Mayor Hamilton: And that's why I'm saying their option is we should start
condemnation process if those are our choices.
Councilman Boyt: And that's why we tabled it is because we don't know, so '
let's vote on this.
Councilman Geving: I think we're still alright with condition 1. '
Councilman Boyt: All condition 1 says is the whole thing falls apart if we
don't vacate 64th Street. Does anybody have trouble living with that? 1
Councilman Geving: No, because it's going to happen.
Councilman Johnson: Because we're really not saying how they going to 1
cul-de-sac...
4_, TRAPPERS PASS ADDITION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF PLEASANT VIEW
ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF HWY 101, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION:
A. SUBDIVISION OF 32.5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. ,
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND
AND DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET.
Barbara Dacy: Briefly, I know the applicant has submitted a letter to each of
the Councilmembers objecting to three conditions on the plat. One of them
being the tree removal plan. Secondly, in regards to the Park and Recreation I
57 � r
# 10
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Commission's recommendation for trails and
third, the requirement to re-
establish the storm water retention pond as a wetland. Staff has no further
' comments.
Mayor Hamilton: Hello Peter. I see you guys have a lot of stuff here. Does
the Council need to see all of this?
Peter Pflaum: I'll just quickly talk about the three points. The biggest
issue is the sidewalk. We're opposed to the sidewalks because we don't think
it does anything for the project. As you know we have a PUD that's in two
communities. It was zoned I think in 1978-79. The 600 units, I suppose in
your project were almost 70% done and now all of a sudden we're adding just a
little portion of the project, some 16 lots really and
y now you have a new
provision in there. I don't think it's in the ordinance. It's a new policy
and I think it really serves no purpose in our planning of development and is
not consistent with the planning of our development and really isn't any
' benefit to the people living in the Planning Unit Development, your own
residents. I can see if we're doing a project from the start, we're starting
the project and that was a requirement. If the project was approved in 1978-79
' and had all the additional subdivisions we've done. What you're really doing
is causing us to put a sidewalk that's about a quarter mile in length. It goes
nowhere. It leads into our subdivision and stops so that's briefly, sort of
' common sense doesn't seem like. I don't mind putting the sidewalk in if the
residents want it and it serves some purpose but in a Planned Unit Development
such as this where everybody decided to be a member of that Planned Unit
Development because of the way it was set up, I think it really serves no
purpose and is really probably a detriment. The other two issues are smaller
in significance. One deals with the pond. All we're taking about doing, I
think we spent a lot of time at the Planning Commission talking about a pond.
' The wetlands is about 7 1/2 acres and we want to open up, Rick can show you
that red area, we want to open up a portion of it. The only reason we're doing
that is to try to make it a little more attractive. The reason we're buying
' this piece of property is to create another entrance to our project. So we
want to landscape it and we thought that this was a treatment that would look
aesthetically a lot better. The major issue at the Planning Commission was the
treatment of the edge of the marsh is on the east side next to Pleasant View.
What we would request is if we could just have an edge that goes graded right
down to the pond so you can see the pond. Your wetland ordinance I think says
it's got to be some kind of, what's the word Rick?
' Rick Sayther: A fair amount of shrubs and something to screen the water from
the people so the water fowl would have more privacy I think basically.
Peter Pflaum: We'd be willing to put some kind of vegetation that was low
profile around there as long as you could see it and was low maintenance so
that was a big issue there. The other one was one more of pride more than
anything else in that you passed a provision now I guess that requires the
developers who are working in the woods to submit some kind of plan for the
staff's approval before we take trees down and our point is, we've been on the
site and done some 170 homes in the woods, most of them in the woods and we
haven't had any problems and we think we take pretty good care of the woods and
that's the reason we bought the site. It troubles us to have to go to staff
and have them review anything more than is absolutely necessary. I can see if
we had caused some problems but I don't think we have and I think we've planted
58
da
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
far more vegetation than we've ever taken down from that site anyway so those
are the three issues. The first one is obviously of the greatest concern and
that is the sidewalks.
Mayor Hamilton: That meadow there, or whatever you want to call it, the wetland
area is really nothing but a meadow. There's hardly ever any water there.
There's a little bit there right now but normally that's just marsh grass isn't
it that grows in there Barb?
• Barbara Dacy: There is water standing there from time to time. '
Mayor Hamilton: I think there's a little bit in there right now but very
seldom do you see any water in there so I'm curious. I guess my question is
why are we requiring or wanting to put something around it.
Barbara Dacy: Something around it? Frankly I don't know what Mr. Sayther was
referring to. The intent of the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife
Service are to re-establish the pond as a wetland area. Slopes to foster
habitat and so on and recreation of wetland vegetation. I didn't get the point
from the Planning Commission that it was the intent to screen anything. It's
merely to keep the wetland appearance.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's fine. That sounds like what they're doing is to
do that.
Rick Sayther: I'm sorry if, I thought one of the six items in the Fish and
Wildlife Service guidelines was in effect to create a barrier so people '
wouldn't intrude on the waterfowl. I'm pretty sure it said that.
Councilman Boyt: Yes, item (f) says that. '
Barbara Dacy: I guess I'll eat all my words.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess from my standpoint, as far as the trees are concerned, 1
as I drive through Near Mountain, if there's been a tree that could stay, it
stayed. It only adds value to your property. I think as you drive up through
there, some of those houses, I don't know how you fit them in there with all
the trees on some of those lots. You have done a nice job of preserving the
trees.
Councilman Horn: Obviously that requirement wasn't put about because of the '
work you did but there are some areas we could show you to show you why we've
done that.
Councilman Boyt: Let's talk about access to Lots 15 and 16, Block 4. I'm not
sure I understand exactly how somebody is getting to Lot 15. Could someone
show me that. I'm curious as to where it's frontage comes from. ,
Rick Sayther: Lot 15 is this lot and it fronts on the existing road. As you
come up Pleasant View, this is the double right angle intersection. If you
turn and go up Valhalla and Iroquois, there are existing homes on these lots,
this one and this one, so Lot 15 would just becomes one of the neighborhood
area as would 16. 16 would take it's access right in the corner.
59 I
I12
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Councilman Boyt: 16 doesn't have frontage?
Rick Sayther: Yes it does.
Councilman Boyt: Where?
Rick Sayther: It has frontage on an unimproved right-of-way here but it also
would access right at the corner of the two.
Councilman Boyt: Don't we have a standard about the number of feet of
frontage?
Barbara Dacy: The standard is that you must abut 90 feet of lot width adjacent
to a public right-of-way. The ordinance does not state improved versus
unimproved. We interpret it as because there is access into the property,
given the existence of Pleasant View Road and Indian Hill Road, that that would
be adequate.
Councilman Boyt: How wide is that right-of-way?
■ Barbara Dacy: As shown on the plat here, it's shown as 30 feet wide, the
existing right-of-way and then the extension of Indian Hill is 15 feet.
' Councilman Boyt: Are there any other roads in the subdivision that are 30 feet
wide right-of-way?
' Barbara Dacy: In what subdivision?
Councilman Boyt: The one we're talking about here, Trapper's Pass.
■ Barbara Dacy: No. Everything is 50 feet.
' Councilman Boyt: Why are we making an exception here?
Barbara Dacy: Because that's an existing platted right-of-way as part of the
' Pleasant View Addition plat that was created in 1950.
Councilman Boyt: When they put in a development in an urban area, don't they
bring the roads up to urban standards?
' Barbara Dacy: Yes sir.
Councilman Boyt: Are they bringing this road up to urban standard?
Barbara Dacy: The existing section that's out there now will provide access to
the property. There would be no need to create an urban section road along the
' front of Lot 16.
Larry Brown: We had looked at possibly getting a roadway easement on Lot 16
' should the need accomodate the extension of that road to the south. Being that
that road essentially, to borrow a statement, goes nowhere and ends nowhere, we
felt it wasn't necessary.
[E7
■
■
60
i/
a it-,�
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Councilman Boyt: So what we're doing is we're taking, let's take the property II
that's to the right of that which isn't currently posed for development. Is
that property also going to be developed off the unimproved roadway? I
Barbara Dacy: That appears to have frontage on Pleasant View Road.
Councilman Boyt: It's a rather large lot isn't it?
I
Rick Sayther: The backs of all these parcels in here have frontage on the 7
1/2 acre wetland. You can see on that overhead the corner of that same right-
of-way.
Michael Pflaum: Councilman Boyt, perhaps I could shed a little bit of light on II this situation. It's a little odd. This lot here and this lot here are to be
retained by the seller. They're not incorporated with any subdivision. It is
the requirement of the County that all of the property be platted but these two
lots are not part in the truest sense of.. . As a matter of fact this lot is
II
built upon right now with a house on it.
Councilman Boyt; Well, my concern is that when we accept it as a lot, we're
II
saying someone can build on it and I'm not sure that I want to encourage people
to build on an unimproved road with a 30 foot wide possible road surface
unless.. .trail system is to lead into this park, is that right? Now the Park II and Rec people spent a fair amount of time talking about this. We have in the
Near Mountain area, which I believe is part of this development, people putting
together a request for stripping their road. That they're having problems with
the road that we call a road/trail combination. They're hoping that when it's II striped they'll have a little protection out there so I think there is a
concern in your neighborhood. There's another concern, the neighborhood would
like to have 20 mph speed limit signs so they apparently think that there is
I
some hazard in being out there on our trail which is right on the road.
I think that the City Council has changed it's philosophy about what's a safe
trail. From my part, I'll never vote to put a trail on the road. It's II cheaper. Maybe it looks nicer for the person who lives in that house but it's
definitely not safer and I wouldn't want my kids out there riding around on
that road and that's all the kids have to do to get from one place to another
because they can't walk on people's grass so they're out there with those cars.
II
Dangerous. I agree that it is an inconvenience to have a trail in my frontyard
or anyone's frontyard but it's worse to have kids out in traffic. I have every
sympathy with the Park and Rec's determination. Removal of trees. All we're II asking you to do is get together with the DNR. It's a very easy thing to do. I
agree with your statement and in talking to some of the neighbors out there, I
think there's a sense that you're very reasonable here. I think the City is
very reasonable. On the third issue of the wetland, it is a wetland because '
there is water 6 inches below the surface all the time and there's a hard pan
underneath it that keeps that water up in there. What I see by way of a pond
entrance at the other side of the development, it's got a fountain in it, or at
I
least the water is going up a considerable distance. Is that how you perceive
of this development? This end of it?
[-- Peter Pflaum: It probably would be on the one there. There are two ponds on I
either side. The one on the north, if we're going to put a fountain in or
small one to pipe it over there where it's right near the entrance. Not the
II
61 I
MN
II++ f
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
one further south that's in the wetland so we don't intend to ut a fountain in one in the wetland.
p
' Councilman Boyt: I know that the City has taken the opportunity from time to "-
time to improve wetlands. This is a wetland that I gather is serving a pretty
' vital purpose in terms of holding water before it enters Lotus Lake and this
last summer it held water several feet deep so it has a purpose. You have an
opportunity to improve it. I think that as I read your comments in your letter
and to the Planning Commission, your concern was that you didn't want to run a
' shallow layer out from the shoreline on 30% of the shoreline and you wanted to
discourage weed growth by making it more than 4 feet deep. I can understand
that if we're creating a reflecting pool but I think we're dealing with a
' situation where we've got a wetland. I think wetlands are nice. I think we're
lucky to have as many as we do and I would like to see you improve this
wetland, not change it's whole character. I guess that covers it.
Councilman Horn: I guess I would like an explanation of where the requirement
for sidewalks came from with respect to this particular request.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this item on March
22nd. The trail plan that showed where all the trails are on the little map
does not show where they are on streets that have not been platted yet so there
is a statement within the trail plan packet that says that all streets that
aren't cul-de-saced, an off-street trail should be acquired. That's where that
came from. Based on that, they made the recommendation.
' Councilman Horn: So a cement sidewalk is what you call the off-street trail?
Lori Sietsema: Yes.
Councilman Horn: And that requirement wasn't in existence when the first part
of the development was platted?
Lori Sietsema: That's correct.
Councilman Horn: Are we asking for them to extend it any further from the
' particular area that they're asking for approval this evening?
Lori Sietsema: They will connect to on-street trails but they wouldn't
' necessarily be connected to where we don't have off-street trails. We don't
have that easement on those lots but we will be striping that street to connect
a trail that's connected to the street.
Councilman Horn: But are they confined to the area that they're asking for
approval? In other words, are we extending our trail method outside the area
that they're asking for approval on or just confining it to. this particular
' portion?
Lori Sietsema: There is on-street trails outside of this section that they're
proposing to develop.
Councilman Horn: Right but I mean, of what we're requiring tonight, is it
included just in this approval? In other words, what I'm asking is to put a
trail on any other portion of the development does not cover this approval.
62
. i5 IICity Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
II
Councilman Boyt: They already have a trail. It's on the street.
II
Lori Sietsema: It's on the street and they'll connect to those on-street
trails but they won't be constructing off-street trails.
Councilman Horn: Could you draw for me on this plan where that sidewalk would II
go? It's easier to visualize than to try and read through the description such
as meets and bounds description. I'd rather see a plat. I
Lori Sietsema: It would go along this road, along Timberhill Road, Oxbow and
then up to Trapper's Pass.
II
Councilman Horn: So it does go outside the area that they're asking approval
of tonight?
Lori Sietsema: It connects to the streets that are existing outside. II
Peter Pflaum: The area we're seeking approval for runs about 50% up into the II existing PUD. Some of the land from the existing PUD and add it to the land
we're acquiring down here.
Councilman Horn: What is your gold area there that you're defining? I
Peter Pflaum: The gold area is the land we're acquiring. That's the land
' that's being added to the land in the PUD. 1
Councilman Horn: Confusing. We've got so many different designations. I'm
just confused as to exactly what you're looking for. I got the impression from
Peter that said that we were going beyond the area of approval. II
Michael Pflaum: I think what Peter was referring to was an area north of this
line is the existing PUD in which there were no trail requirements. Because
II
we're combining some of the land up here and some land outside the PUD,
suddenly there's a trail up inside.
Councilman Horn: As far as the tree issue, how much of a problem is that for 1
the developer? How long does that take?
Barbara Dacy: Up until this point, we have not had any problems at all with I
the tree removal plans. I wanted to make clear that we're not recommending
that the DNR would come out to the site. What would be submitted is along with
the Certificate of Survey for the construction of the individual single family
II
home, that they identify on the plan the construction zone and the area around
the house pad that they're going to be removing trees. We've been implementing
that with the Shadowmere Subdivision and other subdivisions that we've approved II in the last year and a half. It's more administrative for us.
Gary Warren: The building permits, that's when you're getting it in. Quite
IIhonestly, the homeowner and a builder wants to keep as many trees as they can.
I think the real purpose it served at Shadowmere was to do the DNR forestry
concept plan to give the developer some idea as he was laying out lots. Once
you get in the building phase, I guess I haven't observed that people have been I
going in and removing trees anymore than they really have to.
63 II
' , Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Councilman Horn: What I'm trying to get at is, it would appear that it's
something that the developer would have to do anyway for his own people when
they develop an area so they know the plan and layout of the lot. This tree
goes, this one doesn't.
Gary Warren: A lot of it will have to do with how the site grading balances
' out and whether he has to do any soil correction on the lots because they like
to do that with heavy equipment out there and then sometimes you're taking more
trees than you would with a select property.
' Councilman Horn: Is it normal that they come in with a plan anyway? To
develop a plan as to what trees go and what trees don't?
Gary Warren: Not unless we require it.
Councilman Horn: What's the problem in doing that in extra time or do you
think there would be a debate as to which ones you can take and which ones you
can't?
' Peter Pflaum: It's just another piece of paper that we have to submit. What
you're really telling us, us and the homeowners, is we don't know how to take
care of the trees in the area and it's really offensive to us and it's just
' another bureaucratic step, that's all. Of course we can do it but the thing
that sort of bothers us as developers, if any homeowner buys it, he can take
down any tree he wants and nobody cares. What I'm saying is, I think we've
demonstrated that we take care of the neighborhood. Take care of the trees and
we don't need somebody watching over us. That's all we're saying. I guess
it's just that simple. We think we're doing a good job. We haven't had any
complaints and we all have enough paperwork and enough people to check with,
why add another step?
Councilman Horn: It's like a lot of the laws. They don' t help the people that
aren't causing the problem but we had other people causing a problem
' unfortunately it creates a problem for you.
Peter Pflaum: But you have the power to waive it. It doesn't have to cross to
everyone.
Councilman Horn: I'm not sure our Attorney would allow us to be selective on
' this.
Pat Farrell: No. You have an obligation to enforce the ordinance across the
board.
Peter Pflaum: Is this an ordinance?
' Barbara Dacy: There is a section in the zoning ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: Nothing bigger than 6 inches.
Mayor Hamilton: When we went to using a forester to help us do it, that's not
part of an ordinance is it Barb?
' 64
7
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988 II
Barbara Dacy: The requirement for the forester, that's not part of the
ordinance. The issue is the removal plan.
Mayor Hamilton: That gets written into the development contract.
Councilman Boyt: While she's looking, I'd like to point out that the forester '
was put in there to protect the new home buyer and the City of Chanhassen in
that the forester went through and said that tree's going to die because of
where you put your road. That tree's going to die because of where you put
your house. It hasn't been six months ago that the paper talked about the
number of homeowners, not people who bought in your particular division, but a
number of homeowners who had bought houses with beautiful trees to have them
die within 6 months to a year after they moved in. The forester can prevent
that because he can tell the developer that tree will not make it, take it out
now. That's how the forester can help you and help the people move in.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you find the tree removal?
Barbara Dacy: Section 20-1179. Tree removal regulations. It goes on to list
several standards that are available to the Council to require during
subdivision approval.
Councilman Geving: I think it's important to apply our standards across the
board and it may be an inconvenience for you guys but it protects us. The big
thing about this particular extension of your development is that it follows
the phased approach that we started a long time ago. I see this as just a
continuation and I think we're probably into 'what? The third or fourth phase
or wherever you are, so I don't see anything major here as far as the
subdivision that we're looking at. The only thing I do want to question is
what is the cost for the sidewalks that are being proposed? What would be the
cost to you?
Michael Pflaum: About $25,000.00. ,
Councilman Geving: Over and above the striping and what had been required in
the past? Okay, this is a new requirement. You feel that the City has
changed it's way of doing business since we started this PUD and Lori, are we
doing this now across the board in all of our new subdivisions? Even
extensions of old PUD's where they're phasing out and finishing up the final
development?
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission has stuck very closely to
what they adopted as their trail plan so I would say yes. '
Councilman Geving: But in this particular case a developer has built out
probably 75% or 80% of the development and at the very last part of the
development now we're interjecting some new rules that says we're going to put
in some sidewalks. Is that correct?
Lori Sietsema: I think what the Park and Recreation Commission would say is '
they are able to make it safe for the people in this section of the subdivision
L of this PUD. It wasn't done at the beginning but at least in this section
there will be safe places for children and adults and people to walk and ride
bikes.
11 65
"Cxty Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
' Councilman Geving: From an Attorney's standpoint, are we on solid ground?
Pat Farrell: Yes.
!-
Councilman Geving: We are? Okay. The only other comment that I have to make
is in regard to the Fish and Wildlife recommendations for the ponding areas and
' I think they're right on track. These people are professionals in their field
and they've looked at the site. They've made these recommendations and I think
they're solid so I'd like to stay with them.
' Councilman Johnson: I'm totally in support of the sidewalks leading to the
park. The people in part of Near Mountain now don't have access. There should
have been a trail through the one place to arrive it down. I don't know if
there is a trail platted there. I'm not sure. There is a wide spot between
two homes that runs out to Pleasant View and the place disappears, the berm
disappears. Is that supposed to be a trail there?
Michael Pflaum: Yes, that was deeded to the City two years ago.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, we need to get a trail in there so that people can
get out there.
Lori Sietsema: It's scheduled for this summer.
' Councilman Johnson: Great. Just to go on and complete our trail system so
these trails inside the thing actually go someplace. Now we have trails that
start someplace and they end up at a park. How about that? I'm for doing a
few more things on the wetlands that aren't on here. I have condition 7 and 8
and I'm all for the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife people on the pond.
' I'd like to see on the west side of that pond, not necessarily on the east side
of the pond, your emergent vegetation. They talked about 30% of the edge of
the pond. That doesn't mean you have to put that on the east side of the pond.
I think you can have a nice clear water pond on the east side with the cattails
' or whatever on the west side so we meet both requirements. I'd like to see a
conservation easement all the way around this wetland to enable the City in the
future to provide more wildlife habitat on there without having to go to each
individual homeowner and say, if we looked in the future to taking this meadows
wetland and further developing it, we can make it into a little prettier area
that wetland habitat. It's kind of an old farm field type habitat right now
and I'd like to see it maintained for future generations that we have a wetland
here. I'd like to see all homeowners be informed in writing and deed
restrictions that the lots contain a city protected wetland and further
alterations of said wetland will require a wetland alteration permit from the
City. Did you write that down? What I'm trying to do protect that wetland for
the future. On the clearcutting of the trees, cutting of trees, I'm
absolutely, you've got to have that plan. Go over to Pheasant Hills. There's
' a new home that was built. The homeowner said I don't want any trees so the
builder took them all out. We've got this nice little stand of trees, they
took all the trees right down to a swamp. They filled dirt in right down to
the wetland area. No wetland alteration permit that I ever heard of. No
clearcutting plan or anything. All of a sudden I went driving by there and
where there used to be trees, there's now sod. The entire back. He sodded his
entire yard. Pushed it right down to the wetlands and that's what we're trying
to prevent. Those cases, those abuses. I've seen what you've done and you've
66
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
done an excellent job. I applaud you completely but there's other people I
P Y pe p out
there we have to protect ourselves from and you're not one but we be lax on you
and the next guy comes in and says, well you did it for him, do it for me. I'm
II
a good guy too. If that homeowner comes in and says I don't want any trees,
I'm working on some ordinances to help protect that later. So anyway, when we
get to vote on this, I'd like to see two items added. One is a conservation II easement 25 horizontal feet from the edge of the wetlands, approximately. That
we can then preserve that wetlands and that will be right in the people's deeds
so they know that they can't mess with that wetlands. Let the people be
informed of that. That's the range of my comments.
II
Mayor Hamilton: I'm still not in favor of putting in sidewalks. I don't think
they're needed. They haven't been in the rest of the subdivision. I see no I
reason to start now. You put in a sidewalk, where are the kids going to ride
their bikes? They'll be in the street. They'll probably walk in the street
too so I think it's fine in a new subdivision. It's just as well when you II start it, you might as well put them in. It's not needed here. You do a
really good job with the trees. I think commented on that before. Somebody
owns a piece of property and they wanted to cut all the dang trees down, I
guess that's their business. If they like grass more than they do trees, it's
II
up to them to do what they want with their own land.
Councilman Johnson moved to approve the Subdivision Request #79-2 for 32.5 II
acres into 34 single family lots with the 17 conditions outlined by the
Planning Commission with condition 18 as follows: II 18. That a conservation easement be established around the wetlands in Block 4,
Lots 1-9, extending 25 horizontal feet upland from the edge of the wetlands
and that the homeowners be informed in writing of the conservation easement
II
and the restrictions of their activities within the conservation easement.
There was no second and motion failed for lack of second. I
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision II Request #79-2 subject to the following conditions:
1. A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building permit
application for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3, and
I
Lots 7-14, Block 4.
2. Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit. I
3. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper
installation of these improvements.
I
4. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit and the permit from the Department of Natural Resources.
II
5. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of
any grading, and once in place shall remain in place throughout the
duration of construction. All of the erosion control measures shall remain 11
67 II
. y Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Iintact until an estalbished vegetative cover has been produced, at which
time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer.
II6. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stablize slopes
greater than 3:1.
II 7. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards
for urban construction.
I 8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer details for
the construction of the barricade on the dead end of Trappers Pass
between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4 with the plans and
specifications.
II9. Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side of the Class B
wetland along the rear of Lots 1-9 of Block 4. The City's standard detail
I for the installation of Type II erosion control (staked bales and snow
fence) shall be placed on the grading plan.
II 10. Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall along both
sides of Trappers Pass dead end shall be submitted as a part of the plans
and specifications review for approval by the City Engineer.
II11. Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4, as depicted on Sheet No. 1 of the plan set dated
February 18, 1988 shall be revised to show the correct property boundaries.
I 12. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such that it forms a
"T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois Avenue.
I 13. The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along the common
lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which will serve as an emergency
overflow swale for the ponding site of Lot 2, Block 3.
I 14. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front and
rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility
•
easements for ponding sites and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on
II the final plat.
15. All private drives shall access internal streets to the subdivision. No
Idriveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant View Road.
. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the time of plans and
specifications submittal and design adjustments made accordingly, if
II necessary, to facilitiate proper conveyance of stormwater under Pleasant
View Road.
1 Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Mayor Hamilton voted in favor;
Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition and the motion
passed with a vote of 3 to 2.
ICouncilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit Request #88-5 to permit development within 200 feet of the
[77
Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within the Class
IIB wetland with the following conditions:
II 68
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
II
1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must meet the
following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service: I
a. The basin will have free form.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for I
at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent
vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The bain will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water II
depth to (a0 provide foraging-areas for species of wildlife feeding in
shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent
I
vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland I
being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for
aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to II
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to II
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the pond I
within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details on area of
construction for the pond within the wetland and how the remaining wetland
will be preserved. 1
3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8, Block 4
to completely protect the wetland from any construction activity.
II
4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4) must meet the 75
foot setback from the edge of the wetland.
5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration of the II
wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4 beyond the 914 elevation.
6. The developer shall make every effort in it's pond design to improve the II
wetland and make the wetland an attractive useful wildlife habitat.
7. That a conservation easement be established around the wetlands in Block 4, I
Lots 1-9, extending 25' horizontal feet upland from the edge of the wetlands
and that the homeowners be informed in writing of the conservation easement
and the restrictions of their activities within the conservation easement. .,
All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: As I gather this wetland, a conservation easement may not
accomplish very much if the wetland isn't very noticeable in it's location. I II
can see where we want to say to the people that the wetland itself should not
II
69 II
I 22
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
be disturbed. I can support that. I have a little difficulty telling them
that we really need this 25 foot extension out from the wetland if in fact the
' wetland is very marginal and you're telling me it's very marginal.
Councilman Johnson: The 25 is kind of a buffer area because you don't know
' exactly where it is. It's a pretty flat area and it's plus or minus 10 or 20
feet on where somebody would interpret it is so that's why I wanted the extra
feet in there.
' Barbara Dacy: Maybe I can resolve some of your concerns. Number one, we would
retain a drainage easement over the edge of the wetland area. Nulmer two, the
intent of condition 5 on the deed restrictions, that's consistent with what we
did on Kurver's Point. That the deed restrictions be recorded on those lots to
make them aware that they can't alter that wetland without a wetland alteration
permit. Third, we do have that 75 foot structure setback anyway so I think you
' can achieve the same intent that you're after with basically, (1) make sure
that they don't touch it without authorization and (2) that area around the
wetland to be preserved. You can't put any structures in that setback.
' Councilman Johnson: The conservation easement does one more thing. It gives
us access to it for conservation purposes where utilities easement gives us
access to it for utility purposes.
' Barbara Dacy: Right. The most recent version of the conservation easement,
that is correct. It just depends on how much control the Council actually
wants to take on this particular area.
' Michael Pflaum: Excuse me, what was the motion?
Councilman Johnson: I think we added the conservation easement.
Barbara Dacy: The six recommendations from the Planning Commission plus a 7th,
' a conservation easement.
Michael Pflaum: And where does the conservation end?
Councilman Geving: 25 feet.
Barbara Dacy: From the edge of the wetland.
' Michael Pflaum: What is the definition of a conservation easement?
1 Councilman Boyt: You can't mow it. You can't plant grass. You can't do
anything in there really.
Michael Pflaum: With all due respect, I guess this issue is a dead one because
we have met all of them.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. But they can't go in and sod. Homeowners
' will do strange things.
Peter Pflaum: Is this something you require of all wetlands? A conservation
easement all around them?
70
."::::3 ,
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Quite a few II.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we've been pretty consistent on that. I
Peter Pflaum: Have you extended the easement outside of the wetland?
Councilman Johnson: In many cases, the Chan Vista down here, it's up the side II
of the hill some 40 feet or so. Vertically up the hill. It's almost three-
fourths the way into the property there. Of course, that's a city park too.
Councilman Geving: We have it on the north end of Lotus Lake where the II
Pleasant View Road runs along the lake. On the lake side, that's a
conservation easement. Property lines do not extend across the road and down
II
to the lake.
Michael Pflaum: It seems a little harsh on the homeowner. They're already
II
giving up a significant portion of their property to wetlands. To tack onto
that 25 feet that isn't wetland...
Peter Pflaum: •It's argumentative whether it's a city created wetland.
II
Mayor Hamilton: I can't disagree with you.
Councilman Boyt: Why 25 feet? II
Councilman Johnson: I'm willing to reconsider 25 foot and go right with the II utility easement. To make it a lot easier on the platting, they only have to
draw one line. The marginal side of this.
Barbara Dacy: I think that would be good if the Council took that direction I
because the Chan Vista example versus this example, they are totally different.
Mayor Hamilton: That was the intent of your motion was to actually go with the
II
utility easement. That was your intent. Let the record show that that's what
the motion was.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to have the motion reconsidered. 1
Councilman Johnson: Let's do it the right way.
II
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to reconsider the motion
on the Wetland Alteration Permit for the Trappers Pass Addition. All voted in
II
favor and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: The question I'm asking is, granted that the distance is I
think excessive, although I voted for it but have we clearly got this meadow '
protected?
Barbara Dacy: Yes. I
Councilman Boyt: You can't build within 75 feet of it?
Barbara Dacy: Yes. '
71 II
24
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
II
Councilman Boyt: Can you put a shed up within 20 feet of it?
IBarbara Dacy: No. You have a 75 foot setback.
ICouncilman Boyt: You can't put anything in. What about a fence?
Barbara Dacy: A fence, yes. You can go along the lot lines down to the edge
II of the wetland. You can't go into the wetland because that would be protected
by the easement.
Councilman Boyt: This is a meadow. It's going to be hard to tell where the
I grass stops and the meadow starts right or this is a low grade wetland. What
kind of steps is the City going to take to show people where it is?
II Barbara Dacy: It is defineable out in the field. It's fairly clear from going
out there that you can observe it. And you could have the developers stake the
edge of the wetland, the contour elevation.
I Councilman Boyt: If we give up the 25 feet, will you go out and stake the edge
of the wetland so people know where it is?
I Barbara Dacy: As a matter of fact, isn't there erosion control being proposed
around certain portions of it also that defines it.
IGary Warren: Put the erosion control barrier right down to the edge.
Councilman Johnson: The survey on the Chan Vista, they put permanent stakes in
at the conservation easement along the lot lines.
IIGary Warren: Well, temporary stakes.
I Rick Sayther: We would actually set the lot corners on the lot lines at the
easement line. It'd be kind of needless to go out in the wetland and pound
irons in the ground. That's where the lot line would be. At the easement
line.
II
Councilman Boyt: So you'd be willing to take responsibility for notifying the
owners as to where the wetland actually existed? The 25 feet gives us a
II cushion Tom. If nothing else it says you can't do anything within 25 feet of
it so you're probably not going to cut down into it and if you would help us
establish that same limit, than maybe we don't have the need for the 25 feet.
IIRick Sayther: We could help you establish it but on the one hand we're saying,
put something out there that people can see. On the other hand we're saying
keep it natural so the vegetation can grow on it.
IICouncilman Boyt: Well, the people don't have to see it forever. It's the
idea, if they're never told, if it appears on the deed, they're going to miss
II it. If they go out there and there's a stake, I've got confidence that it
will. . .
67
Rick Sayther: I think a combination of the documentation and the stakes being
IIup and the fact that you show the people on the survey that the homeowners have
II 72
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
should be adequate for them to know where it is.
Gary Warren: Restrictive Covenants would serve the same purpose.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit Request #88-5 to permit development with 200 feet of the
Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within a Class B
wetland with the following conditions:
1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must meet the '
following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service:
a. The basin will have free form. '
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for
at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent
vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The bain will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water
depth to (a0 provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in
shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent
vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation. '
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland
being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for
aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. '
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. ,
2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the pond
within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details on area of
construction for the pond within the wetland and how the remaining wetland
will be preserved.
3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8, Block 4 ,
to completely protect the wetland from any construction activity.
4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4) must meet the 75
foot setback from the edge of the wetland.
5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration of the
wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4 beyond the 914 elevation.
6. The developer shall make every effort in it's pond design to improve the
wetland and make the wetland an attractive useful wildlife habitat.
All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried.
11
73 ,
I .0
£�`ty Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
' Councilman Johnson: I'm going to vote against it because I'd like to see the
conservation easement put over the top of the utility easement to give the
City.. .
Councilman Geving: You can vote against it but that's not my motion.
Councilman Boyt: I think you're accepting the conditions that the developer
just agreed to Dale?
' Councilman Geving: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: The conservation easement gives us rights for conservation
purposes to that area where a utility easement, which you're asking for, does
not give us those rights. We still have a wetland alteration but I'm just
trying to give a little more extra rights.
' AWARD OF BIDS, DOWNTOWN ENTRY MONUMENT.
Don Ashworth: The ,Housing and Redevelopment Authority agreed on this past
Thursday to approve the bids for the clock tower and the one entry monument.
The other entry monument is an assessable cost back against the Bloomberg
Companies. Accordingly, only the City Council can make that award. Staff is
' recommending that the award be made for that one item realizing that the bid
again is for three items. You are only approving one of those three.
' Councilman Johnson: Which one?
Mayor Hamilton: That's for the entry monuments. Entry monuments are
assessable back to...
Don Ashworth: Really only the one of those and that is the gazebo and the cost
on that is the $70,900.00.
' Councilman Johnson: Has Bloomberg Companies who's going to be assessed back
and pay for this construction on their property basically, have they looked and
have they said that they would like this construction company, the low bidder,
to do this? Have they reviewed the construction company and they don't have a
problem with it? They believe they'll get a quality product from them?
' Don Ashworth: They reviewed it. They did have an opportunity themselves to
take a bid on it. They're concern with the price, because they were hoping it
would be less. They were informed at the beginning of the project that the
' cost was estimated to be in excess of $60,000.00 so they're not overly
surprised and if they would be, I would anticipate that them being present
tonight.
Resolution #88-37: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded and ec ed to approve
the award of the bid of $70,900.00 to Morcon Construction for the gazebo entry
' monument with the provision of assessing the $70,900.00 back to the Bloomberg
Companies. All voted in favor and motion carried.
I
' 74
TKAAPPE -S ?F ,S AT NEAK- W►ovnU Par tAi 3K-t ADD`t10t i
A rAt_ Q�. c
,� � .
v
♦ • .
.•a+ Y • ' ..e\/\"
r
.v.
.
0 1
411/3 y yy•
0071/7.u TRAPPERS PA ES AT NEAR i 04.6.;* /ofs onl...00107 2107 .N 10211011,! 0rtu b W Wrt.r r ft.... 200 on W.(b r W 0.0. or 710. MOUNTAIN 2 D ADOITION / "\'NF'Nit/
mo
°° �' ; �;ww`W� r' : "" .•
2001 : W .a .r . : a;: : 1 .0.0,01•01102041 o0TlO-T °\�. :� ; 0t ` • I /MO .n I Nrva N W yrarc. Tlr,44 .r.u..a W .r.y W.r.u. 0 110 ,.w % Ay...in .• \;
ill. °• ... n y \�,r,,.. u•.440■m.. • tr... . ..r a
0200 33 000 10 omos •017 l enr as sarsA u,.• 0r W,aloof No i•
■M .. t fl//. ' b /•,w '� \9 \ 700 r" '� � •° 4 R � m wr...a.. r .: 0.. •.l , 4400 4\./>'" r` :•• ♦ P e%,ow -- a.. 11' ` • r ; .a • a _ ' � -w:0 `,0r n `'u. .. m �y T- PEE BAT NEA MOUNTAIN 1 . i1.l +•. r b w 0000 000.rb foot.0 w b 10 Y.w �M /3 ( 0 A��e 1°.▪ 5'm '' 4 I TflAPPER$PO A4 NEAR C a-o 0 C got 200 1 1 o 00.00 la.a.r 1,40tt.,1,i u 101.10.xa,6001 ' /: !N EXISTINePOND W. Z( ' I =L= \ ' FMD�,^1 ND 1 yDDI LA / 32 4L N f[Ei~"^ .�,<Lot a f 7{•eo... 'b�^' ( ' • III / ..V / _I.. r o�� 1 _Jr� y . - a' \� / /' / I • °i r" � � . � qr ~ N N • ...././..../rrr. u W cu lw a .ew. O •,� ,„.2. _2• 000 0, •■•••■• ar 4 J S 7 633.60 00 r i s a V �• � I meaa�` w 0 . i Yh°.o eF' !�.oua 0N re. ,� rnI ra a ..a log mot .Lo I// VI,1 �� M� . __L-,.4 W a W.b W f.n.( yuy f 1,1 /-... r\�w 1 7°• r . r1r...l of W 14100 ..6 74 a / ▪ <N ` M WAY 33 000
too SO oo
Lot 3 4. NTAN a_ a <s.w ' << r • 6.W...a r ra w�,a •s�w in.at foot;u.. \EX.TIN. O I o� Q i f,f,.v� _ J m n�r. r. . 0... Lot �� ` , c y f :46\ \ , IO/ f. P/ • ,� T `g TN4T DOE NEAR t e .. n 07.0 313.0 07 0 n 13 I QP� ` `�o ��i�iw'0•ni w < ` .600 �... l• 4M1 • . . ' / �,.a . s...W 74470. n. r rt rm 350.111 fort 2 ai t. �P P ^\b\ .�Z ' % ty ioe' I ' •
• •
.6 lMOUNAIN . TON W o s ry r W lane b b ec. 00 0.. .100 b• <a ••, / `•.6 u \r.l u• ew P a 0 210 .new 4000,v Lot.000 1.31.33 l...of - n V14 \•'� 4 EXISTING'• ING PUD \ **70.0 X < ,-:, �1• 7 0 . ."•n"•�. 2 $W err b .0 lr<w�r u... ' �00 0.01.r• . a r 01 ab .� W P. r .17: 2' 1 o /,me✓ \` a7.m 9 j ..F '.s ��"fi=., 7es x� F-
c7.. r W•••000 w.. <.. of 01... Lot. 0. .aa i\ J/ :K: , s1 W.64TH ST. Q N�ar w too W.ua 000. 10 1,07.67 E«l:soma . 1• -j.- i�_•_r - + \ ,, --01000 c 1p a}. r b W Hem ma 1. ..w.c.wl.367,0 z - y(ra b a. y..1ry. W . . l ti 0 d a. b. •'fib " 8 s 5 EXIST' ZONING ± . a �► �°'_ _r 000 0.0000 of W 101.r
r�t1 W a •00.01 3640 ia7•0�w.rls 1...an✓ -t�
03 0.00 001 D \,.c.----'n / , 4 `-`,y` E•, .9 ;�"�.'
+c. a. 1r,r.r0 b W .Wt IT .1/� A,1m.s • 'lu N_e_Y J7' + ``-M!! / 4 •J•
_""r:;.:'_....... 0 `1 -04.... r0°• •• 12 p Wp 6 " 5 '? �.`r /� / /
w _
:..:,.. w IAH�'�� 0 ♦ 704.,7 ', .l le' ' p�.. 001\4.at i Ali•
a. zceaae �• 0707+. s ' n��\ _ S �fll '-. . Z• R.
fin ' up \/�� . /�?k\ SCE ' ` Z ••
, /. \` "akmcwrf ra y0
( css pf:i=7,w qJ ,�.O `�WETLAND SOW IN 1 !�
-a F T; V
•
/ \ •w,,,i '''',.k. I Nb•G e/ CHANH' �. a W S ►-
\ R.LS.NO,l3 Y / • N :v...s,...s ' C•"yyTr�: yQ F Z O }
\x/ _M ' y�/ LOCATION MAP i(n a q
�\ / �„ J W
/ / /// T=�Y,` . I6. .��" '~\ �J ¢ c..,rCIwY,.P.ARK,., Q o.Q ¢ u
PLE T VIEW �� a" / PROJECT DATA n y G z
\\\ /\� _ s n f\� \ s...,u 7,1201.71. EXISTING ZONING RSF 8 PUD-R w Q t,CI 0
\ 'i/ /�/ '>:)\ \ )` 4 32.3=ACRES a
_7 \\\ �//�. ar....E/ ` Z IONS ter' ` / SITE AREA Q•
\/ PROPOSED USE 31 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
■
.Z ,~ \ , / \\ u.... \\ ( / / I TO COMPLY WITH RSF STANDARDS
s. � �/ `\\ ,.•wra \\ / // / FRONT YARD SETBACK 30 FEET •
`/ 7,4.� y REAR YARD SETBACK 30 FEET 1"`°�
LOTUS LAKE / f`,, / \\ \\ // •..•/war..«1 two 4...c.....," �\/ / SIDE YARD SETBACK 10 FEET Y al.1\we•
\\ ` 'yG' / / .. .
• �O\ / E br.M Cxt.ty W<u.. l.n.••Ri.r.!W r 0.vo-..•
�\ ` \ x War b 010.00.Prr.Um.___ ww 4444
/ aw,.a.r.e 1w a....,«
•
•
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
V10S3NND4'NNNSVNHYHO
'3M1 MOI13Otl1SN09•SOtl9 N3tl00N07 E o !
000,-rn •l 0000'NVI'Y1VLAYM • AVMOVOHS winos L01 Alb P „ S 3 '
I 3NI '1S1f10'JH39-3UH1VS � (O I HV1lI NOILSY MC :i , s .qoE .
1 •Y�$ NIVIMOW HV3N 1V SSVd Sl33ddVHi a;
` lYld AtlYNIW113dd . I.
1■ H
W Ilj,i,V 1 ! i
oZ , °
I
Q tr �1 L' 11 : y a
o a�1 ° W> W i
U '
mi f p a ° u s SIDI
I•_ / G O i W w ill
O Zoe i'!, 2__ W N a 3•
�' I T = 3 0 W
A j $.�-�� i�l V ¢ z W o i x' 13
1 N gII 51 51
o r
-
LADE; ve' /(I:5
.S ; }'"�d J,W/
" `\ ofI 1! �� 4�N P. /a`/
tg I— IZ I 0 y l^ Ili N / $ \/ �� � 3
E\ \\ o "551 ' z / 1
3 g ` o
w o .l V .o.t ki ---r '�/ " �
ON3g MpBxr-,:-------;‘,:s..`fit,.\ �^ i/
Zl may 3 � .� / M�`ea �° e o ...\
\
—1-
N4 W lip? •"Q r`'.'. N �_ I D, \
04 41-- 1,, fl— I 4 i •'':i'.91 ''.i'if;',-4 A,',.:: ..-I I • frl, 1,,,ri\ \Y 9 �\ Na w \
i `3. .U-:,•I-- p - I' \ d 3 it i
1."--. m o i,-;,:c,',2--:_•o y T� \\! 2� yi.,.. Y °a k4i:o. \ti \ \
la /
3+d /Ja/ < .,� x ww^'a 1` -F'\ 1 / j_. 4a. .
/>4,4.',---,,.,:-__--1.,;� V?• ) •� a y N g > ' F ro g( / r$ .
a
tie .4w NV __,i, r/ f' /
---., rF a u �* d q ± `�JdT 1 g _\ /
uyi-Z .•G oSl •p ,,,,.%
. i Y \ f /P,(/
','4 n F , / 6 " "Y \3 4y' \
I 3 °161 a �' 0 - 'r '-7 tea �. �� ": \,a//
= 7 5Y♦ y M O '\ 1 �1�• OY'��N 9 \- yy JJ;y' \
~ .. i9 $ A ��� '+=R s I �h}a ti In a / \�11 '24�r\ )/ \
I 3 .„...,i.,,,, a AOiLno NIY1NflO .03N �� �+ . D} \ rI•P‘
+ \
s:,Y 1 > \\
3 v �L = ^saa; 11,t s3is"'32l. e3p3=Eps2i 11'''11111t �'' \ \ / 'V \,
3 _ �11e• slA= d 'Pit E4 ; _, Ili,51s € Ri .s. I e Kd l 1
1.011 44s bd L_t1 1j 1102:4 iii 3, N /
s 40 eEaa_b13E ^ i'111g0 �p rFi 3 !Hsi" .:31 �i^ ?;i33 V
3 g a E Is• y 9s°I $°3]a� x� .: a39j55 `es �t/ " ,.\ it /" \ v /�
•e ;i .3,sLi sa" _ 1. E osg s 6 ] Stasea_3 s N I.
I; �.a i i g� 3[3 ,3 pp s a[ s o
§j 333- a ,161 1'1 a L iliA! Slisi ,--E i ,, Wig 1 �o. \�/
E3 LE95 ixg i�iBt yyilSE° �^ '° �$ ?°"3 12 0 1!"1�zt 4°/
C ° jtgll 3,16`.i•S bY3_ Qpey° 5i" 9 5•° Er° Ya
I ° y, 'iip9f=Y1 �! 3es2?3' g' �'9s.;=; °°sLSL¢�fz``aa w
4;1 f%81,1113 �� 6i;i55��iE z6a 3i 1e�``3�apas6;p5 `\
` 11 1011 sr ^ ygdpii�a .^3 1L;s a"3?°s;T:wL 7 N/,/ ! o
I 918° 3 3"�iljsr §l�f93i1 '� �j { 5335; gi I;Q
/// �:.
ii V a.. az/3;�3j3e ,g r5l.yili3 3;s;; 5asI ILS;3 ip;iii J t /;
a3�73_ s_` i€ €fie E1`° ^S eY 3i 7Y9p La Y 3E , i/
,1 SVE: 5�L 3Y!Ei3 i� 73E sse it �3a` i a:3 °a )a!3�ISEa al //
Ia 3 € I X 0; F.fl