Loading...
1k. Final Plat Trappers Pass at Near Mtn, 3rd Addition 1 1k. , 1 _ . CITYOF ' 1 V1 • ;-j• - 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 - A"` 1 MEMORANDUM Y _-_— TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager °2.21'i ,__. 1 FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director DATE: February 17, 1989 L5L � � ISUBJ: Revised Final Plat Approval for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition 1 The final plat for this area was approved by City Council on August 22, 1988. At that time, the plat was approved with six conditions as follows : I1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract agreement with the city and provide necessary financial sure- 1 ties . 2 . Lots 1-3, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2 shall provide a tree Iremoval 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 1 street right-of-way. 4 . The driveway for Lot 1, Block 4 , shall be constructed so as I that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois Avenue. I 5 . The most northerly lot of Block 3 ( shown as Lot 3 ) should become Lot 1 and shown on an amended final plat. 6 . The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of approval Iof the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. At this time the applicants are requesting approval of a revised I final plat to clarify confusion regarding one of the outlots. The intent is to correctly show the outlots with regard to pre- sent ownership. On the previous plat one outlot was noted with this correction it would show as two outlots corresponding with 1 the existing ownership of those areas . In addition to the con- ditions mentioned in the approval of the final plat previously, the following additional condition needs to be added: I 11 Mr. Don Ashworth February 17, 1989 Page 2 = Notes on the plat refer to five sheets and in the final plat ' packet there are a total of only four sheets and references on the plat need to be changed to reflect the correct number of sheets within the subdivision. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: I "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 sure- ties . 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 as ' 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 the amended final plat. 6 . The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit. 7 . The applicant will revise notes on the plan referring to the sheets within the final plan documents so that the references are correct as to the number of sheets in the plans. ATTACHMENTS 1 . Letter from Lundgren Brothers Construction dated January 31, 1989. 2 . City Council minutes dated August 22, 1988 . 3 . Staff report dated August 18, 1988. 4 . Final plat dated January 30, 1989 and stamped "Received February 6, 1989" . I I • 1 tG a En CONSTRUCTION t�s✓ • • INC. 935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231 January 31, 1989 ' Mr. Steve Hanson Chanhassen City Planner 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition ' Dear Steve: - Subject plat received final approval from the Chanhassen City Council on August 22, 1988. Unfortunately, the version which was approved did not contain the required number of outlots. Where there was one large outlot adjacent to the inset area, there should have been two: The portion of the large outlot south of the north line of Government Lot 4 presently belongs to the Rojina family; the portion north of the north line of ' Government Lot 4 belongs to Near Mountain Properties. These parcels will continue to have different owners after the plat is recorded. ' Our attorney, Hugh Maynard, has discussed this problem with Chanhassen's attorney, and they have concurred that for clarification and to avoid confusion an appropriately revised final plat should be submitted. We ' have accordingly made the necessary changes and are herewith providing 10 prints for review and action by the City Council at its earliest opportunity. If you have questions or further requirements regarding this, please contact me at once. ' Very truly yours, LUNDGREN BROS. CO STRUCTION, INC. II ichael A. Pflaum MAP:bf Enclosures FEB 0 2 1989 CITY OF CHANHASSEN City Council Meeti.ndr, August 22, 1988 (FL—FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION. Councilman Boyt: On the map I didn't see the trails. Barbara Dacy: That is shown on the final plat. ' Councilman Boyt: How did we go from 17 conditions down to 5 leaving out compliance with the Wetland Alteration Permit, compliance with all erosion control measures? Jo Ann Olsen: They would still have to comply with all those conditions. I was just pointing out specific conditions that we're applying to this phase. It's pointing out to staff, when it does come through that they still have to do these specific things before we can sign off on the final plat. Councilman Boyt: So what you're recommending and what we would be approving are all 17 conditions? Jo Ann Olsen: Those are already conditions that have been passed. , Councilman Boyt: Okay, I just didn't want to see us change it. Councilman Johnson: I did remember why I did this. It's a little disturbing that such simple conditions as to redraw a lot line out of the street right-of- way and some of these conditions that were previously said, do these before final plat, have to be repeated. I just wanted to make kind of a comment on this. This is ludicrous to me that, a couple of these are very simple things that should have been done and we should have just given our final plat back and never reached us with this kind of sloppiness in work. That's an editorial comment. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Final Plat for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. I (G) FINAL PLAT EXTENSION, ROBERTA BUCHHEIT. Councilman Horn: Just a quick question. This extension on this plat has no effect on the replatting of the lake property does it? This is strictly just the people on the side of the road? ' Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We have separate subdivisions. Councilman Horn: So this has no effect on that. That's the only question 1 I have. Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Final Plat Extension for Roberta Buchheit as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. , 7 I/ • ■ 1 - i = CITYOF t„, CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 ter A•;.,i;,;s17 st.r MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager • FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner DATE: August 18, 1988 1 SUBJ: Final Plat Approval for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition 1 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: 1 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, 1 Lot 1 , Block 3 , and Lots 7-14 , Block 4 . 2 . The applicant shall construct of: street trails along Trappers Pass , Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted 1 and trail fees waived. 3 . Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit. 1 4 . The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to 1 guarantee the proper installation of these improvements . 5 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit and the permit from the Department of Natural Resources. 6 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the 1 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 intact until an established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time 1 removal shall be the responsiblity of the developer. 7 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi- 1 lize slopes greater than 3 : 1 . 8 . All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City' s standards for urban construction. I 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 I 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 the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which site of Lot 2 , Block 3 . 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. 1 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. 1 I II ' 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. 11 ' City Council Meeting - )ril 25, 1988 C Mayor Hamilton: So now we have before us, we voted to reconsider item 1. 1-1 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. 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. 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? Councilman Geving: No, because it's going to happen. Councilman Johnson: Because we're really not saying how they going to ' 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 57 1 ■ 10 City Council Meeting - A 1 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 70o done and now all of a sudden we're adding just a little portion of the project, some 16 lots really and 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 eg 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 [7.7. 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 I 1 II' City Council Meeting pri.l 25, 1988 }Lr 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. i Barbara Dacy: I guess I'll eat all my words. Mayor Hamilton: I guess from my standpoint, as far as the trees are concerned, 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 i.t'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 i.t's access right in the corner. , 59 , ■ x . 12 City Council Meeting - Ap, 1 25, 1988 Councilman Boyt: 16 doesn't have frontage? ' Rick Sayther: Yes it does. [- IICouncilman 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. r 60 ' City Council Meeting - )ri.l 25, 1988 e- ,L0 Councilman Boyt: So what we're doing is we're taking, let's take the property 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? Barbara Dacy: That appears to have frontage on Pleasant View Road. Councilman Boyt: It's a rather large lot isn't it? 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 , 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 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 I 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 ' 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 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 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 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 11 because they can't walk on people's grass so they're out there with those cars. 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 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 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 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 61 1 ■ II City Council .Meeting - 1 25, 1988 1 one further south that's in the wetland so we don't intend to put a fountain in the one in the wetland. 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 30o 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? 1 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 Y g approval? In other words, are we extending our trail method outside the area 1 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 1 [E7 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. 1 62 r 15 1 City Council Meeting April 25, 1988 1 Councilman Boyt: They already have a trail. It's on the street. 1 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. 1 Councilman Horn: Could you draw for me on this plan where that sidewalk would 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. Lori Sietsema: It would go along this road, along Timberhi_ll Road, Oxbow and then up to Trapper's Pass. 1 Councilman Horn: So it does go outside the area that they're asking approval of tonight? 1 Lori Sietsema: It connects to the streets that are existing outside. Peter Pflaum: The area we're seeking approval for runs about 50% up into the 1 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? 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. 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. 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 we're combining some of the land up here and some land outside the PUD, suddenly there's a trail up inside. 1 Councilman Horn: As far as the tree issue, how much of a problem is that for the developer? How long does that take? Barbara Dacy: Up until this point, we have not had any problems at all with 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 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 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 I E__ honestly, 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 going in and removing trees anymore than they really have to. 63 ' z�y Council Meeting - Ap 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 came 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? 1 Barbara Dacy: There is a section in the zoning ordinance. Councilman Boyt: Nothing bigger than 6 inches. rMayor Hamilton: When we went to using a forester to help us do it, that's not part of an ordinance is it Barb? I [77 64 1 7 1 City Council Meeting -April 25, 1988 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 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. 65 II 't ty Council Meeting - Apt _ 25, 1988 f 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 11 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 [7.7 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 L ,, 1 City Council Meeting -_ .,pri.l 25, 1988 done an excellent job. I applaud you completely but there's other people 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 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 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. 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 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 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 up to them to do what they want with their own land. Councilman ' loran Johnson moved to approve the Subdivision Request #79-2 for 32.5 acres into 34 single family lots with the 17 conditions outlined by the Planning Commission with condition 18 as follows: 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 and the restrictions of their activities within the conservation easement. There was no second and motion failed for lack of second. ' Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision ' 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 Lots 7-14, Block 4. 2. Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit. , 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. 4. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District permit and the permit from the Department of Natural Resources. 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 67 II ' ,- y Council Meeting - Apia 25, 1988 1 r intact until an estalbished vegetative cover has been produced, at which 1 time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer. 6. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stablize slopes [- greater than 3:1. 1 7. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards for urban construction. II8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer details for the construction of the barricade on the dead end of Trappers Pass il between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4 with the plans and specifications. 9. Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side of the Class B 1 wetland along the rear of Lots 1-9 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. II10. 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. 1 11. 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. 11 12. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois Avenue. 1 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. 1 14. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front and rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility I • easements for ponding sites and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on the final plat. 15. All private drives shall access internal streets to the subdivision. No 1 driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant View Road. 16. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the time of plans and 1 specifications submittal and design adjustments made accordingly, if 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. 1 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Wetland Alteration Permit Request #88-5 to permit development within 200 feet of the [7: 1 Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within the Class B wetland with the following conditions: 1 68 City Council Meeting 4 :ri.l 25, 1988 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. I 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. I 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. ' 7. 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 and the restrictions of their activities within the conservation easement. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried. I 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 can see where we want to say to the people that the wetland itself should not 69 122 City Council Meeting - Api 25, 1988 1 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. Nuhner 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 g ives us access to it for conservation purposes where utilities easement gives 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? ' 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 City Council Meeting ,pri.l 25, 1988 Councilman Johnson: Quite a few. Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we've been pretty consistent on that. 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 of the hill some 40 feet or so. Vertically up the hill. It's almost three- 11 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 Pleasant View Road runs along the lake. On the lake side, that's a I conservation easement. Property lines do not extend across the road and down to the lake. Michael Pflaum: It seems a little harsh on the homeowner. They're already 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. Mayor Hamilton: I can't disagree with you. ' Councilman Boyt: Why 25 feet? Councilman Johnson: I'm willing to reconsider 25 foot and go right with the 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 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 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. Councilman Johnson: Let's do it the right way. I Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to reconsider the motion on the Wetland Alteration Permit for the Trappers Pass Addition. All voted in favor and motion carried. Councilman Boyt: The question I'm asking is, granted that the distance is I I think excessive, although I voted for it but have we clearly got this meadow protected? Barbara Dacy: Yes. ' Councilman Boyt: You can't build within 75 feet of it? Barbara Dacy: Yes. 71 I 1 24 City Council Meeting - ApLA.l 25, 1988 I . 1 Councilman Boyt: Can you put a shed up within 20 feet of it? Barbara Dacy: No. You have a 75 foot setback. 1 Councilman Boyt: You can't put anything in. What about a fence? 1 Barbara Dacy: A fence, yes. You can go along the lot lines down to the edge of the wetland. You can't go into the wetland because that would be protected by the easement. 1 Councilman Boyt: This is a meadow. It's going to be hard to tell where the 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? 1 Barbara Dacy: It is defineable out in the field. It's fairly clear from going out there that you can observe i.t. And you could have the developers stake the edge of the wetland, the contour elevation. 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? Barbara Dacy: As a matter of fact, isn't there erosion control being proposed around certain portions of it also that defines it. Gary 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. Gary Warren: Well, temporary stakes. 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. 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 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. Rick 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 1 keep it natural so the vegetation can grow on it. Councilman Boyt: Well, the people don't have to see it forever. It's the 1 idea, if they're never told, if it appears on the deed, they're going to miss it. If they go out there and there's a stake, I've got confidence that it wi.11. . . Rick Sayther: I think a combination of the documentation and the stakes being 67 up and the fact that you show the people on the survey that the homeowners have 72 I :_,� i City Council Meeting -',April 25, 1988 ' . , ' • Il should be adequate for them to know where it is. Gary Warren: Restrictive Covenants would serve the same purpose. I Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Wetland II 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: 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: a. The basin will have free form. II b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for II at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. c. The barn will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water I 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 II of open water with emergent vegetation. d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland II 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 within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details on area of II 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 II 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 II 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. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried. il II 73 . I -ty Council Meeting - Apt 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. 1 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 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. 1 74 I U 1 t t! [ i17 11 , lc tl_ P►_I c f•c tarf ay et ee IF[ j F!!"!j "[! [ °it A 1F[A ji'61_� !;:p1,11!1 E" S 1 % zJj"i.lt!: F[F% ;II p0Ftj_ CIF:li3- ft if f" is s I it fc_ t%t ii.LF / / s :� if" A IIPIG x�fA` �F IA.t �.[ ![t = 1tSi I+ // ; IF 11Th if! ifjt,4 %F3 rleill=11 f !;017�[EF t 1B EE a 1/ \ FetS �% e3A � Fl ac � " !!! ;[ T ! v\ 9►�e 4aLFcf'33 �Fi 'z== �SC}F [ 66 i fdie! S%e 6 B �/\ / /` l7yci%Ylt: [cr=-FFic 6fe�i1TF[S F i�e�1p1(y% ��:9 %c a I /� illiiilliP i' Fit;ls� c" i-s o i ! T(r.V ET czic f6 c �\� i ;� !^[ (F_A[f [% gFi c S 3-c'• l Ff �6 // ` t� te4 4 EEF ef. f F" i9t e. t zT r 20 'I. \/.• �j T€yfl c�%(F*Fc Fe �� AS'i 111411:1; F If !" i L( ' cF e ei E fE C .p•• �x 0, fqc •Sz1=�FTF� j i�^ ic�� % i! F� I /7/, EE( / I} 'i[ Ftpl iT�Is,..41 ! ii "xcF Ai ,l Well F: " c �(�\ " \ \i'.o y ' ''f` ". f;Alai 1::6411i .(%!hill T i€:1'T l 1%144. f . ` t Y [ i''4, O' ik,.}~ 4 ..M NEAR MOUNTAIN OUTLOT D I"`="7"."" 'I: .I .. ' p - :. M4��\''.a [.;< f�� }�' 'Zil '0.'i=R r-'a` y s ill' c 4 ..e, • ib j 9 yN ( t Yoa f \` .9 T,` 3 x t (1a e i! N �\9 ` N` /— dy o ! \ J . ,... ,„, „.. ..s. , , VI 7/ � d — ♦ .,.e ---... 1 73 Aiiiii 1 / � \ g ( =�F2 A L \\ •4 [ /•r/ I / a iti � J ,• I ,, V" i (( Ir.) u (r O g `v" 1� f''`{A $ b •_. ± . Off` yA I t y�ji \ c ,nn ;^'aq S 6 /—\ N z a j •`j. '/ 0 `P/f{ : \ t"-�6/ m e L_._ I= o r iii d \( c N �I C m = ao L„ to t 1 41;.'i,tc o......„,__ . .543 -7,-- i \ \\ � I6 I*-p '•r" ` s. r' 7 •44.Jl • r,,,,\• -`l1_ \ !-----' � xe'l \\ \ 1 1 Zi4 A t: .- ',�-,e i 'T /'._ O —OW SEND ) Z tttt .1*._ E t, g. T FW J J• . O, `N.a.q '/toe f\\ ' • >• 3 O 4.. 4•.)• ,I, "• II!. z!*_ \ z S ��� \'-. "t— E• — I F -- I q i ,/,,3, 'T' .. ',,o a E t '4 1 g I LE i f , =z , 1 \--- r � S ` \ r� $id.' [.f m i e o' 71 F / / ��F fiF1 I T 4 > > -, H g s P .`�i III a NIV : y _ al ` a g g �$3� I " I �g C7 y ' o O 1 .4[ :-•i: (7 w ' g . _ r:t f a , 1 c .g t ` ,� }.74,0.-- fr 1 • g y l F ;II- III . • • • - PRELIMINARY PLAT 1 `s" P. TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN •, 6a tt;A i •3' •J♦i" SATHRE•BERGOUIST, INC. •! �;g; of 3RD ADDRION(REVISEDf �� 106 SOUTH BROADWAY • WAYZATA.DN.66391• 476-6000 I o t LUNDGREN BROS.CONSTRUCTION DIG. R-.6NNNEBOTA ) ♦ CROWBAR-.-ABM. • • . • • • - • 7 • --� i 3 I i'• m iF1eiil11lM5 fec t of g s illif �� flSi PUP L;iij i, """111 i,V. i 4t al f rt! tS>S� . e a 3 -3 _ ri f gfii!_! gp�@i Fe c�+�sif df�Qt Eicc 5 afr .cEr.i to ;e / / O i''' s til-fil ii:. 1.rs-1 ei +-'a(rp cf- sSo t i slii f gg 1!!i iii 3j f ff'f;f 5/////: 3 "'� ef1--' 10 l 1t. ?i] i ^}ifaiali '0. r-_ ` e' O O / \ w CE. V gg1:`4FVI e i t 1i :di! tli E"l e1 __11�35f:': i f!l•i3� 1r1; `S ' tic' \ �oa - iei ; ii f ijiiJjf! !Ii ir€wc i c "-9 ie e !! g 't --i Srf c. f�f,i_ 9!i Qii1x c\ / i- yia•V i. iii^° _/ - 6 f\ � c1"s'e �r vcl a°/g°tf:l 1 :F.yIlijD ;llfl N v/ F F( c f i} ri:fit` rfliKfc i !! C0-11!!: 1111 E: f1'! e ( N. / 11 N♦ /P/ 1 F$ -$!-7-p . EcsEl If 1lic�!'�cii 1 I f�% ,li[ i c f Ns‘', - \ zEliSci . Ei ?cclitiii! lafr•slfe cefcsf ttJt I \ i ♦>4A l iuci it r \ 4/..., N t 0� z� t NEA OUNTAIN '.a♦s♦.'�M �a f Donor o ! I Al a .� �• e� [t \ T9 �N1 oL��o. fib �° Y�oa ♦" r zS K 6 s tS 9A.o /•• ti° •♦, a /O� \ '!r:•� a J�t I_ N i i \• F.9 t i• ,,4A r > i // �, f .o t yg c01— e r �� \�o;a4t 9d�6 A� �� $ //‹ 1 / - G �—.J/_,rteI g L A :: e /7 `... �"� , ` " 7-a, 7 t x g _ [ x— �` dot' - ;- m' i m r C/ w• / / r( �$ \ .off 6% ;=.� Hai t 5 F /I.,/ ---------- - : --..**>>0.4 \I G r i \ ! 9i. z o•, b 2bI .W'7 . S r¢€ f / v. \ \ i / • �F�I ek Y •v /�,: BF �'.. =.r Ps"' u to,..c .--f,L31-----1 3 ° i °xe I• �/j* I1NO I :;� g' � B'i o° i =M o °- \ v_ : 3 _ _ y-E F. ! / 'ogR, .0 t.'S ° I I ' tf i2 / '•>a,� I II fa if m g g ° �" o l 1 \�1 ei 1.4:. " 1 —1; 0 6 vil I 1 �` a I mfr_-P/ ! PD rm CD g 1 w ! -101 J • • t II PRELIMINARY PLAT tr>I�„• f (0 TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN r ' ••I b';i';n 3i 3RD ADDITION(REVISED) ''ar`itw : SATHRE-BERGGUIST• INC. [q I sl - ; • Iv .sour.encaowA+ • WAi2ATA.MN 15301• ••t woo I f LUNDGREN BROS.CONSTRUCTION MC . • •• ♦ C.AMNASSAM WANE..