9. Trappers Pass, Subdivision of 32.5 acres and Wetland Permit ,() i,
I • CITY 4F
P.C. DATE: April 6 , 1988
\Q ,' , , C11A1I1AIT_ C.C. DATE: April 25 , 1988
---.._\-----.._\-- Y CASE NO: 79-2 PUD/88-2 WAP
IPrepared by: Olsen/v
I STAFF REPORT
1
' PROPOSAL: 1 . Subdivide 321 Acres into 34 Single Family Lots
1... 2 . Receive a Wetland Alteration Permit Create
Iz a Pond within a Class B Wetland
d
0
I =NM LOCATION: Extension of the Near Mountain Subdivision - North
and adjacent to Pleasant View Road, approximately 1
Cl. West of Hwy. 101
14 APPLICANT: Lundgren Brothers Construction
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
I
I
I PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development
RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 321 acres (Net-23 acres )
IDENSITY: 1 .5 units/acre ( net)
t�/
ADJACENT ZONING •;,;;,• . _
I Q AND LAND USE: N- PUD-R; Near Mountain ;2it,, _
E.I 8 S- RSF; single family s.
E- PUD-R; Near Mountain
IIL-L2 W- RSF; single family __ .2J - h-
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site contains a large Class B wetland
and wooded areas.
I2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
I
J
0 0 0 0 0 0
o o 0 0 0 O 0 0- 0 O
Qt f"- O CASTLE'
I I I I CASCADE RIDGE 7 CASCADE
COURT CIRCLE
'/ TAMS r� I - NE-IN COUNTY _-_
C `�J 7e. I PIEDMONT '�/ 11110 I� t SHASTA CIRCLE '
te_ /��� M f\ COURT . �=1. WEST
�/ �`-• �' '�-la ',�`�i%I SHASTA CIRCLE EAST
p f a µ+l.� )—R ! `Sr-li OLYMPIC Lx .�� ��i. : s�, c /�� 63001
TRAPLINE
CIRCLE. ■ • .WA IN I 1`v, CASTLE ;HOOE 4 (Am COURT
��- MOUNT •COURT IE w`.11� 1%. t• ',`
64001
; I ,I:* -.`\ . Y' S 111.,-1, y BLUFF : .. I!HUNTERS
`.\ '�� �j _ FOX HOLLOW
:: irv&-ai., ~� ,,-�. iv..arem �� DRIVE 1 3rop. � i_Ri,�� •. ��I 1 :.��1►�A RSA
�• �� � I. FOXTAIL - 1C i f. - t 6600
��'*�•' IE �� i j COURT :r,', 10 I
'111LtN 44 ' - N PL"P*‘- ' . ;: eN .
i dit5-ra.a I
-Al ma tw 41..w /■ �1�/
Air / ,�/ " —----- 6700,.
7
,,, 1�,6='=��, ■��_�r�s�- � / I � �. . •-680 ai
1= l ' C h Lc LS'�a ii �.� *•,111 -._ 700)- -*IF: 4:14:461411 kr t? tAlloosi
:„, kiitert ,- \ los . I Oft )0 L. or u...,rsimpt-,..„,„/ .
• 4 _.... ob..1 dui 1.. \ ♦ ' r �: :
1 , .o,,,. r - _ 1
! • •Q�of 7100
%► 1 ! �� .< I
1 _—. F ?11b� 7200 P ter 10'` I �� L A K E \
i. I � = - 730,.......
A,� ■111114, �44 �
• R M OEN 1 l IMY � } • `I 7aoo 1
f R1 , :to VINOT--st 4.A1104111 A ei a' It a,
i -‘,7 .. -*a :"...",ig, . Ornii ' - . ... ; 0 40
.1,.._ .._..... ._ * ..*L'.weire0S; ■1
Ltil EV.W■!1_1&__Alg 010 ,0 ..1 i 47,
&0 *R12 _ : .. -w:. .F .., m.t / /
1.4C-f;r?!--.: --.0-I IC *- _ / . jt
• onto.' me. Muni 1111r; rra.s a 1 aralfill .
Trappers Pass
April 6 , 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-615 of the RSF District requires a minimum lot area of
15,000 square feet, a minimum lot frontage of 90 feet and a lot
depth of 125 feet (Attachment #1) .
Section 20-409 ( 1 & 2 ) requires a minimum lot area of 15 ,000
' square feet for lots adjacent to a wetland and a 75 foot setback
for structures from the ordinary high water mark of a wetland
(Attachment #2) .
REFERRAL AGENCIES
City Engineer Attachment #3
Building Department Attachment #4
Public Safety Attachment #5
Park and Recreation Commission Attachment #6
ANALYSIS
Preliminary Plat
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 321 acres of property
into 34 single family lots . The property is an extension of the
' Near Mountain and Trappers Pass subdivision. Page 4 of the plans
shows the property being added to the Near Mountain PUD. The
majority of the subject property is zoned RSF, and a small number
of lots are zoned PUD-R. The PUD lots are proposed to be
replatted to be consistent with the area to the south. Because
there are no changes in the number of lots in the existing PUD
' area and bcause a majority of land area is zoned RSF, and outside
of the original PUD area, this application has been processed as
a preliminary plat. All lots meet the RSF requirements .
Lot Layout
The gross acreage of the site is 32 . 5 acres and the net acreage
' (minus streets and wetland) is 23 acres . The net density is 1 . 5
units per acre.
' The lots are located along two roads extended from existing Near
Mountain roads, Trappers Pass and Oxbow Bend. The plat is also
providing a secondary access to Pleasant View Road from the sub-
division, Timberhill Road. The subdivision provides future
extension to Outlot D at the end of Trappers Pass which has been
designated as High Density as part of the PUD approval in 1980 .
The Fire Inspector recommends that Trappers Pass where it ends
' next to Outlot D should be provided with a temporary cul-de-sac.
Due to the steep slope at the end of Trappers Pass , the temporary
cul-de-sac would have to have a retaining wall installed. As a
compromise, staff has agreed to recommend barriers across the end
' extension of Trappers Pass to prevent cars entering the dead end
and not being able to turn around (Attachment #7 ) .
Trappers Pass II
April 6 , 1988
Page 3 I
Lots 15 and 16, Block 4 are separated from the Near Mountain
development. Lot 15 will be serviced by Indian Hill Road. Lot
16 abuts a 15 foot unimproved right-of-way and will be serviced
by a driveway at the corner of Indian Hill Road and Valhalla
Avenue. Lots 1 through 9 , Block 4 abut a Class B wetland and
contain the minimum requirement of 15 , 000 square feet of lot area
and provide adequate area beyond the 75 foot wetland setback for
the location of the single family residence. Lot 2 , Block 4 has
buildable area for a single family residence but is somewhat
restricted by the wetland setback. The developer must understand
that the proposed residence and any additions (porches ) must
maintain a 75 foot setback from the wetland. Lot 2 , Block 3 will
have similar restraints due to the proposed holding pond on the '
lot (Page 2 and 3 of plans) .
Portions of the proposed site are heavily vegetated. To prevent
clearcutting of the site staff recommends that a tree removal
plan 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 .
Streets, Utilities , and Grading and Drainage
In the attached memo, the City Engineer reviews the proposed
streets , utilities, and grading and drainage of the site.
Park and Recreation Commission I
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat
on March 22 , 1988 . The Commission recommended that the applicant
construct off street trails along Trappers Pass, Oxbow Bend and
Timberhill Road. Park dedication fees will be required and trail
dedication fees will be waived (Attachment #6) . 1
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed plat meets all of the requirements for an RSF '
District. Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission
adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #79-2
for 34 single family lots as shown on the plan stamped "Received
March 14, 1988" , and 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 . The applicant shall construct off street trails along Trappers
Pass, Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted
and trail fees waived.
3 . Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit.
Trappers Pass
April 6 , 1988
' Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
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 . The applicant shall construct off street trails along Trappers
Pass, Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted
and trail fees waived.
' 3 . Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit.
' 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.
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
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
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.
' 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.
II
Trappers Pass
April 6 , 1988
Page 5
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. 1
14. 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 .
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.
STAFF UPDATE
The applicant suggested an alterantive to the language of con-
dition
#1 regarding the necessity of tree removal plans:
1 . There shall be no clearcutting of lots .
This is acceptable to staff; however, the city has approved the '
tree removal plan condition on the Shadowmere, Kurver' s Point,
Eight Acre Woods , and Creek Run subdivisions . The Planning
Commission chose to maintain the condition as originally written.
The applicant will address the Council on this matter.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve Subdivision
Request #79-2 subject to the 17 conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
I
II
Trappers Pass
April 6 , 1988
' Page 6
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit to
construct a holding pond within a Class B wetland. The wetland
located in the southerly portion of the site is a Class B wetland
with approximately 4 . 9 acres of wetland within the proposed site.
The applicant has provided data on the wetland and the proposed
alteration to the wetland (Attachment #8) .
' The applicant is proposing to construct a holding pond within the
wetland area. The holding pond is required to maintain the
' predevelopment rate of stormwater runoff on site. The applicant
is also providing two other ponding areas which will collect
stormwater prior to it entering the wetland. As stated in the
' informational sheets provided by the applicant, the pond will be
developed to the six standards of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Staff visited the site with Dr. Rockwell ( in 1987 ) and recently
with Jim Leach from the Wildlife Service and it was determined
' that the Class B wetland was in marginal condition and that the
construction of a pond within a small portion of the wetland
would not be detrimental to the wetland. It was also pointed out
' by Dr. Rockwell that increased drainage of the wetland through
the outlet under Pleasant View Road would not be advised. The
applicant is not proposing to change the elevation of the
existing outlet and therefore the wetland will not be further
drained.
The edge of the wetland is at the 914 contour shown on page 3 of
' the plans and the low area of the wetland is at the 912 elevation.
The low elevation of the proposed pond is at the 908 elevation.
The invert of the outlet to permit drainage from the wetland is
at the 913 contour. Therefore, the pond will promote standing
water in the wetland.
The proposed lots along the Class B wetland meet the minimum
' requirement of 15 ,000 square feet of lot area and are providing
the 75 feet for the wetland setback. Staff is recommending that
the proposed erosion control around the wetland include Lots 7
and 8, Block 4 to completely protect the wetland during construc-
tion of the site.
' RECOMMENDATION
The proposed development within 200 feet of the wetland will not
directly impact the wetland through construction. The wetland
will be protected by erosion control and no construction will be
permitted beyond the erosion control fence into the wetland. The
proposed pond within the Class B wetland will increase the
l holding capacity and standing water within the wetland which is
beneficial to the wetland. The pond will be constructed to the
six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Trappers Pass II
April 6, 1988
Page 7 '
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #88-5 to permit development within 200 feet of
the Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be
constructed within the Class B wetland with the following
conditions: '
1 . The holding ponds must meet the following six conditions
established by the Fish and Wildlife Service:
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
feeding and resting birds .
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 basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for ,
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water ( 0 .5 - 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 pro-
vide 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.
II
Trappers Pass
April 6 , 1988
Page 8
' 5 . The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting
alteration of the wetland area on Lots 1 through 9 , Block 4 ,
beyond the 914 elevation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetland
' alteration permit with the following changes to the motion:
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.
' 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.
STAFF UPDATE
The applicant requested the Planning Commission consider
approving the wetland alteration permit without the requirements
of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The applicant wants to create
the pond as an aesthetic feature near the entrance of the sub-
division ( similar to existing entrance) . The applicant pointed
out that a small area will be altered in comparison to the total
' wetland area. The Planning Commission made a minor change to the
conditions of approval but maintained the requirement that it be
developed to promote wetland vegetation and habitat.
The applicant may address the Council on this issue as well.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
' It is recommended that the City Council approve Wetland
Alteration Permit Request #88-2 subject to the conditions as
' recommended by the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
' 1 . Section 20-615 of City Code.
2 . Section 20-409 of City Code.
3 . Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated March 31, 1988 .
' 4 . Memo from Building Department dated March 28, 1988.
5 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated March 30, 1988 .
6 . Park and Recreation Commission March 31, 1988 .
' 7 . Location of Trappers Pass Barrier.
8 . Wetland data
9 . Application
10 . Planning Commission minutes dated April 6 , 1988.
' 11. Preliminary plat stamped "Received March 14 , 1988" .
1
ZONING § 20-631
I
Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses. I
The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District:
(1) Churches.
I
(2) Private stables, subject to provisions of chapter 5, article III.
(3) Recreational beach lots. I
(4) Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of five(5)acres.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-4), 12-15-86)
II
State law reference—Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
I
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
I
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety(90)feet,except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac I
shall be ninety(90)feet in width at the building setback line.
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty(150)feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) I
percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
I
a. For front yards, thirty(30)feet.
b. For rear yards, thirty(30)feet.
I
c. For side yards, ten(10)feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
Ia. For the principal structure, three(3)stories/forty(40)feet.
b. For accessory structures, three(3)stories/forty(40)feet.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86)
I
Secs. 20-616-20-630. Reserved.
ARTICLE XIII. "R-4"MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
I
Sec. 20-631. Intent.
(-- The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential
I
development at a maximum net density of four(4)dwelling units per acre.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86)
1209 i
0.1
' § 20-407 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(4) Sedimentation basins for construction projects.
' (5) Open storage.
' (6) Animal feedlots.
(7) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
' (8) Operation of motorized craft of all sizes and classifications.
(Ord. No. 80,Art. V, § 24(5-24-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-408. Prohibited uses in class B wetlands.
' The following uses are prohibited in class B wetlands:
(1) Disposal of waste material including, but not limited to, sewage, demolition debris,
hazardous and toxic substances,and all waste that would normally be disposed of at a
solid waste disposal site or into a sewage disposal system or sanitary sewer.
(2) Solid waste disposal sites, sludge ash disposal sites, hazardous waste transfer or
disposal sites.
(3) Animal feedlots.
(4) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-6), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20409. General development regulations.
Within wetland areas and for lands abutting or adjacent to a horizontal distance of two
hundred(200)feet, the following minimum provisions are applicable:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet.
(2) The minimum structure setback is seventy-five(75)feet from the ordinary high water
' mark.
(3) Septic and soil absorption system setbacks are two hundred(200)feet from ordinary
' high water mark.
(4) The lowest ground floor elevation is three(3)feet above ordinary high water mark.
' (5) No development shall be allowed which may result in unusual road maintenance
costs or utility line breakages due to soil limitation, including high frost action.
' (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-13), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20410-20420. Reserved.
1190
QL-
• . 1
CITY OF
1
, i 1
..� '' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
` (612) 937-1900 1
MEMORANDUM
II
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer d_/e
II
DATE: March 31, 1988
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Trappers Pass 3rd Addition II
Planning File No. 79-2 PUD, Lundgren Bros . Construction
This 34-lot subdivision is located along the west side of II
Pleasant View Road approximately one-fourth mile west of
State Trunk Highway 101. The 32.5-acre site is comprised of II rolling hills along the north half of the site and a low-lying
area on the south half of the site which contains a Class B
wetland in the southeast corner.
II
Sanitary Sewer
The proposed sanitary sewer plan connects to the existing sani- 1
tary sewer mains along Trappers Pass, Oxbow Bend and Pleasant
View Road. The proposed sewer mains have been adequately sized
to accommodate the 34 lots as well as subsequent subdivisions II
located to the west of Near Mountain 3rd Addition.
Water Service
IISimilarly, the plans propose a looped network of the watermains
through this site by the extension of the watermains along
Trappers Pass, Oxbow Bend and Pleasant View Road. The proposed
II
watermains have also been sized at an 8-inch diameter pipe to
accommodate future phases of the PUD. Specific valve require-
ments will be reviewed with submital of the design plans and
II
specifications .
Roadway
The applicant has provided for a 50-foot right-of-way which is II
consistent with the City' s standards for urban construction.
A 10% street grade is proposed for the dead end extension of II
Trappers Pass between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4.
The City' s recommended maximum street grade is 7 . 0% . However,
due to the extreme topography in this area and lack of alter- II
natives, the 10% grade is acceptable.
ATTAGH1fleNr /43 1
1
Planning Commission
March 31, 1988
Page 2
' Normally, it is required that a temporary cul-de-sac be
constructed on a dead end such as the one referenced above. The
' construction of this cul-de-sac would necessitate extreme lengths
of retaining wall around the temporary cul-de-sac, only to be
removed upon the extension of Trappers Pass to the west in the
future. Since the lots abutting this dead end have access to the
1 thru portion of Trappers Pass, this dead end shall be barricaded
at its easterly intersection thus eliminating the need for the
temporary cul-de-sac.
Sheet No. 1 of the plan set shows Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4
extending beyond the existing right-of-way noted as Iroquois.
These should be revised to coincide with Sheets 2 and 3 of
the plan set.
The extension of Iroquois Avenue to the east of Valhalla is not
' practical due to the existing road patterns, topography, and the
location of Pleasant View Road to Lots 4 , 5 and 6 of Pleasant
View. Therefore, additional right-of-way along Lot 16 of Block 4
' is not necessary.
Adequate sight distance is available for the safe connection of
Trappers Pass with Pleasant View Road. Normally it is preferred
1 to match intersections , however, matching this intersection with
Fox Hollow Drive would basically obliterate the wetland area for
little or no gain.
' Grading and Erosion Control
The majority of the grading is within the proposed right-of-way
with the exception of the three ponding sites and side slope
construction along the north side of the Class B wetland.
' It is recommended that a drainage swale be constructed along or
near the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which would
serve as an emergency overflow swale for the ponding site of Lot
2 , Block 3 .
The proposed side slopes are within the recommended standards of
1 a 3 : 1 slope.
Additional erosion control should be shown adjacent to the
wetland along Lots 7 and 8 of Block 4 . The City' s standard
detail for Type II erosion control ( staked bales and snow fence)
should be shown on the grading and erosion control plan.
' Drainage
The applicant has provided for three ponding sites and a storm
sewer system which maintains a pre-developed runoff rate and pro-
vides adequate storage for a 100-year
II
Planning Commission
March 31, 1988
Page 3
The applicant' s engineer has provided calculations to verify '
that the volume of natural runoff to the Class B wetland has been
maintained. The ponding and outlet configuration as it relates
to the 6" diameter outlet pipe under Pleasant View Road will be
further reviewed as a part of the detailed design.
Driveways
It is recommended that the future driveway for Lot 16, Block 4
intersect Valhalla Drive at right angles to form a "T" inter-
setion with Valhalla and Iroquois . No driveway access shall be
allowed to Pleasant View Road.
Recommended Conditions
1. 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 .
2 . The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit and the permit from the
Department of Natural Resources .
3 . 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 intact until an
established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time
removal shall be the responsiblity of the developer.
4 . Wood-fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi-
lize slopes greater than 3 : 1.
5 . All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City' s standards for urban construction.
6 . 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 .
7 . 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.
8 . 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
' Planning Commission
March 31, 1988
Page 4
9 . 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.
10 . The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such
' that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
11. 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 .
12. 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.
13 . All private drives shall access internal streets to the sub-
division. No driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant
View Road.
14. 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.
1
1
t
CITY OF
1
1
\. ‘f; CHANHASSEN
1
\ , , .
_ ..,, _ _.
.„,, .,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
FROM: Building Department , 1
DATE: March 28, 1988 1
SUBJ: Trappers Pass Third Addition
#79-2 PUD and 88-5 WAP 1
Due to the grade of the proposed lots, it may be necessary to
install and maintain effective erosion control on some of the
lots before any construction begins. It should be made clear at
I
this point who will be responsible for this added erosion
control. Arrangements should also be made for removal of the
erosion control once permanent cover is established.
II
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
Wat 1
CITY OF
I a '
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM
1 TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector,,/
DATE: March 30, 1988
SUBJ: Trappers Pass
' 79-2 PUD, 88-5 WAP
Upon review of the site plan concerning Trappers Pass Third
Addition, I am requesting that a temporary cul-de-sac be
installed on the street Trappers Pass. This is from the Uniform
Fire Code 10 .207 (A) .
If you have any questions, please ask.
1
1
1
1
1
45
I
10.206-10.208 UNIFORM FIRE CODE 1982 EDITION
Obstruction of Fire Protection Equipment Key Box
Sec. 10.206.No person shall place or keep any post,fence,vehicle,growth, Sec.10.209.When access to or within a struct c
trash, storage or other material or thing near any fire hydrant, fire department because of secured openings or where immediate ac
connection or fire protection system control valve that would prevent such saving or fire-fighting purposes,the chief may re re
equipment or hydrant from being immediately discernible or in any other manner an accessible location.The key box shall be a ty g
deter or hinder the fire department from gaining immediate access to said contain keys to gain necessary access as required t
equipment or hydrant.A minimum 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around
the circumference of the fire hydrants except as otherwise required or approved by
the chief. Division III
Access Roadways for Fire Apparatus INSTALLATION AND MAINTE A
Sec. 10.207. (a) Required Construction. Every building hereafter con- PROTECTION, LIFE-SAFET
structed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of access road- APPLIANCE
ways with all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed
width,with adequate roadway turning radius capable of supporting the imposed Installation
loads of fire apparatus and having a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical Sec 10.301.(a)Type Required.The chief sha e
clearance.Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall of fire appliances to be installed and maintaine n
I be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire department premises in the jurisdiction other than private e
apparatus.
according to the relative severity of probable fire,
EXCEPTION:When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or M which it may spread.Such appliances shall be o t)
Occupancies as defined in the Building Code,the requirement of this section may be class of fire associated with such building or pre e
modified when,in the opinion of the chief,fire-fighting or rescue operations would the chief.
not be impaired. Portable fire extinguishers shall be in accordance
(b) Obstructing. The required width of access roadways shall not be 10-1.
obstructed in any manner,including parking of vehicles.NO PARKING signs or (b) Special Hazards. In occupancies of an pi
other appropriate notice,or both,prohibiting obstructions may be required and where special hazards exist in addition to the no 1
shall be maintained.
where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, ac
(c) Extent. The access roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all required consisting of additional fire applianc n
portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. Where the access appliance,or special systems suitable for the p c.
roadway cannot be provided,approved fire protection system or systems shall be Such devices or appliances may consist of auto
provided as required and approved by the chief. is sprinkler or water spray systems, standpipe and
(d)Fire-protection Alternate.Where fire-protection systems approved by the extinguishers, suitable asbestos blankets, breat g
chief are provided,the above required clearance may be modified. matic covers, carbon dioxide, foam, halogen
(e)Oversizing.The chief shall have the authority to require an increase in the special fire extinguishing systems.Where such st
minimum access widths where such width is not adequate for fire or rescue be in accordance with the applicable Uniform Fire Cc
operations. the National Fire Protection Association when ife
(f)Bridges.Where a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, not apply.
it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections (c)Water Supply. An approved water supp a
of the Building Code and using design live loading sufficient to carry the imposed fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all pre
loads of the fire apparatus. or portions of buildings are hereafter cons[ d
Premises Identification building protected is in excess of 150 feet from a
there shall be provided, when required by the it
Sec. 10.208.Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow.
existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the Water supply may consist of reservoirs,pres e
street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their mains or other fixed system capable of supplyin e
background.
the requirements for fire flow,the chief may be d
40
r '4 +. -
xzr
3A T
fey
2
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937-1900
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
' FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator '
DATE: March 31, 1988
SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission Action on Trappers Pass
' The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this site plan at
their March 22nd meeting. They felt it important to continue the
trail system within the existing development along Near Mountain
Boulevard and Trappers Pass. The trail plan, however, calls for
off-street trails rather than the existing on-street section.
As the proposed development will be served by North Lotus Lake
Park, additional parkland will not be needed.
It is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to
request that off-street pedestrian trails ( sidewalks ) be
constructed along Trappers Pass, Oxbow Bend, and Timberhill Road,
with 100% credit in trail dedication. It is also recommended
that park dedication fees be accepted in lieu of parkland.
I
I
' (
1
a chord of 55.64 ''+,`+"" 5t= \ i/ /c-'0 " `9
thence South 65 DM f t; thence South 25 /k- 60
D and said line z ry . �'2O0 O
0 Gl'v •
i
�o
urge 23, described N ��� 5 0\
I1rnment Lot 3 with \ //0
;terly along the 0 �,5Ob �`r ` �� 26,�1oe
line 558.50 feet 2 '9/�' /
Lot 3; thence on Y I
f said Government �� 0� 0 , 3�
19 minutes West,
a
/ 2
according to the F— I 29,3oosF
ieasterly line of 0
it 4; thence east J
of beginning. ~ ti ,�iOO Q , /QS
Q N
�C�p�3 2A-,600SF.
described line: r•thence east along �\S3 O 3
'.67 feet; thence 0., ./ \ I
thence deflecting '� �G \ &7 o `/Q \
ieasterly line of J �0
to the right and �j
/IEW, 350.18 feet Z ��y, `\ PQQ ` 36,aoo SF'
northeasterly to 760 \ ,c� /\ j>
1.34 feet east of Z 20/ \ �\ 4
sere terminating. 9 14 9s T Ex 4
0'ol lows: �S 31,000sF v2�-
; thence running S.Q �� - I
67 feet; thence Q Z� _ ' -
heasterly 353.8H !$,`joo sF
to be described; LU 97.60 45
z °54-�42"�,�/ Zi,tooSF u�; ' o 5 Ex�s-,r
last described / 13 p
:o the right and
he northeasterly \�`
_es to the right 28,`300 '
57 feet; thence 1 s5 '10�
:ht and runn i ng N ��� 27,9oa
nutes 12 seconds I i‘: 0311\11%7o? 2
to the point of 6 '
4-11 P1/41\1 �(3 f
.(1/ (2- 76-... -727-.S°/NO ' . __IF
-AN N 014. n• \ /
4/ N Q I I 32 S
0 10
a 36, � � 1
�� 2 ,2 0o sF
.e R �oP o �-
a
Igo -i5 / 57, s oo S�
N0 2SS.aa
\ N 87° 3'2. E �-
• . \ 15 it-1 I
\ \ 7406%
N /•4'� 5OO SF CA IN �u '. /t. . '.4
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
' EVALUATION WORKSHEET
To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted with Application
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
1 . WETLAND DESCRIPTION:
' Size:
Class: Type: TYPE B
' Location: Lakeside Streamside Upland X
Watershed District: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
' Area of Open Water: No Open Water
' Drainage Flows To: Lotus Lake
Vegetation Types: Reed Canary Grass, was commercially cut for hay in past.
Soil Types : Silty Clay, Clayey Loam
2 . DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Residential subdivision
constructed around wetland. No fill proposed within wetland. Pond
' would be excavated in eastern portion of wetland by Pleasant View Road.
3 . PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Construct single family
' development adjacent to the existing wetland.
' 4 . APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION: 28.9
5 . A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF NO
' ALTERATION IS MADE: If no direct alteration was made to the
wetland the proposed storm water pond would be eliminated. This would
not directly impact the proposed development. If no grading was done
within 200 feet of the wetland the site would have to be replanned with
fewer lots and not be cost effective.
. 1
5 . B. IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WETLAND
ALTERATION: 1
SEE ATTACHED
C. IDENTIFY THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED
ALTERATION: '
SEE ATTACHED
6 . USING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUIDE, DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE
AND PROPOSED ALTERATION: The proposed alteration would closely
conform to the Wetland Alteration Permit Guidelines as outlined in the
Ordinance. The area of inconsistency is the removal of some existing
wetland vegetation. This is a negative impact on the Class B Wetland
but the addition of the storm water control and sedimentation pond for
this drainage basin would be a benefit to down stream Lotus Lake. It is
the intent of this project to maintain and adhere to the allowable soil
discharge rates outlined in the ordinances through the use of silt fence,
hay bale dikesfsedimentation pending areas, and timely revegetation of ,
disturbed areas of the site.
-2-
1
II
WETLAND ALTERATION PERiMIT
EVALUATION WORKSHEET
5. B.
' An alternative to the proposed plan would be to eliminate the pond.
This would not directly affect the development of this land but would
' have a negative impact downstream. This still leaves the problem of
grading within 200 feet of the wetland. The alternative to this is to
replan the property staying 200 feet away and therefore having fewer
lots. This makes the project economically unfeasible and therefore the
' site would remain agricultural.
5. C.
The main disadvantage of the alteration is the loss of some existing
wetland vegetation through the construction of the pond. The pond would
be constructed in accordance with the guidelines set by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for construction of a Wetland for wildlife and
would eventually provide open water for various shallow water and open
water wildlife. It would also provide a sedimentation ponding area for
' the storm water to pass through prior to reaching Lotus Lake.
The construction of the single family development creates the
' possibility of soils being transported to the wetland during and after
grading operations. it is proposed to use siltation fence,
sedimentation ponds and timely revegetation to contain the soils and
keep them from entering the. wetland. Once the houses are built and
' yards are complete, fertilizer, oils and road salts will be introduced.
The storm drainage is designed to go through storm water ponds to
minimize the affects of these on the existing wetlands and Lotus Lake.
' It must be remembered that the development of this land will remove it
from agricultural and therefore eliminate the agricultural fertilizer,
animal wastes, and yearly cultivation of the land.
' The development of this area to single family is consistent with other
land uses on adjacent properties around this wetland and Lotus Lake.
° LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros . Construction, OWNER: Frances O'Brien, et al
Inc_
ADDRESS 935 E. Wayzata Boulevard ADDRESS 450 Indian Hills Road
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Zip Code Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 473-1231 TELEPHONE 474-8590
REQUEST:
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Develcoment
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment X Platting
Metes and Bounds
Conditional Use Permit
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review
Wetlands Permit
PROJECT NAME Trappers Pass at Near Mountai n 3rd Addition
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION (No change proposed) '
PRESENT ZONING RSF & PUD-R
REQUESTED ZONING (No change proposed. ) '
USES PROPOSED Single family detached housing
SIZE OF PROPERTY 32.5- acres
LOCATION West of Pleasant View Road, East of Indian Hills Road
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST Enlarge Trappers Pass neighborhood
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary ) Attached to property ownershi 1
list.
ICity of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
I Page 2
IFILING INSTRUCTIONS :
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or
I clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and
plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before
filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner
to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements
Iapplicable to your application .
FILING CERTIFICATION:
I ?'he rr3a]'s i rrr�a ?. }c.,r`c^^'- c
that he is familiar with�the vprocedural prequirementsbofc all
ifies
Iapplicable City Ordinances .
ISigned By Lundgren Bros , Construction, Inc. Date (�� p,�
Bc ' Applicant
�' teG
I The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described .
'I.3/� Signed By Ell . J , `tt �/ Date i
Fee Owner
r
IDate Application Received -114 ACi
Application Fee Paid 7S7
City Receipt No. - '
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting.
I
I _
Planning Commission Meeting
II
April 6, 1988 - Page 10
r
Erhart : That clears up a few things for me. I guess my feeling is that
it' s just too narrow to be acceptable for a beachlot. I would vote •
against it.
Emmings : Me too. Again , I think it' s too bad the way this matter was
handled by the developer but I think the ordinance is very clear . I
think the ordinance is good. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind
that it would depreciate the value of the neighboring homeowners and that
in itself is enough to kill it for me. It' s also one of the criteria in 1
our ordinance under granting conditional use permits is that it can not
depreciate surrounding property value. It would just, not only for the
adjoining neighbors but also from people don ' t live right next to it that II
they feel it would depreciate their property values and I don' t think we
could possibly grant it on that alone. I think from here then , given
those comments, I think it's pretty clear which way this will probably go
if we voted tonight. It probably isn' t going to change a lot but I think
we've got to hold the public hearing open so that notices can be sent out
to all the people who own lakeshore around the lake that are in
Chanhassen and give them an opportunity to speak and be heard on this
issue if they want to be. With that , I would ask that we have a motion
to table this and continue the public hearing until the appropriate
notice can be sent out. '
Erhart moved , Batzli seconded to table the request for the conditional
r. use permit for a recreational beachlot on Lot 37, Shore Acres, Sunny
Slope Homeowners Association , until the appropriate notices can be sent. II
All voted in favor and motion carried .
Dacy: Before the public leaves on this item, the variance request has
been scheduled in front of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
on Monday, April 25th. If we have not sent the notices out already, you I
will receive a notice on that issue. The next meeting that this will be
considered would be April 20th so we' ll be sending out notices on all of
the issues within the week.
PUBLIC HEARING:
TRAPPERS PASS ADDITION, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND II
PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL, 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.
Public Present :
Name Address
Greg and Deb Cray 320 Pleasant View Road
Frances O'Brien 450 Indian Hill Road
.- �,...
Planning Commission on Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 11
147,
James and Esther Holte 330 Pleasant View Road
' R.D. Stevens
Jim Wehrle 6614 Horseshoe Curve
241 Mountain Way
Michael A. Pflaum Lundgren Bros. Construction
Peter Pflaum Lundgren Bros . Construction
Rick Sayther Applicant's Engineer
Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on ' this item.
' Emmings: Does the developer want to make a presentation?
' Peter Pflaum: If you want a presentation.
Emmings: If you have anything that you want to present in reaction to
what. . .
Peter Pflaum: There ' s only three issues . It' s a ret
p ty simple deal . No
point taking your time unless you have questions. There are three issues
' that we are concerned with . My name is Peter Pflaum and I 'm the
president of Lundgren Brothers . The three issues , I have to go from
memory but that I remember that we are concerned with. One dealt with
' the tree issue. It' s sort of hard for me, we' ve had such a good
relationship with your community, I don ' t know how to state this without
offending people, but to us it really was an insult to put restrictions
on us in taking trees down or your concern about it and let me explain
Fwhy. We bought this site or controlled the site since 1979. The only
reason we were interested in the site really was because of the trees .
On top of that , we planted probably more trees on that site than any of
' your developments in your community and we plan to plant more. First of
all that ' s why we feel it' s an insult. The reason we' re there is because
of the trees and we planted a hell of a lot of trees out there. In
' addition to that, as a developer I ' ve always been a little bit incensed
when you require something of a developer you don ' t require of the other
citizens. I mean, after all , we are a property owner and we should be
treated , you really discriminate . I 'm not saying you, because it happens
' in other communities but it really bothers me as a developer when you
tell a developer he' s got certain requirements he has to do with regards
to taking trees down yet the average citizen doesn' t have any. To me
' that ' s discrimination.
Emmings : Well , it isn ' t discrimination but let me just explain what I
think is going on here because I don ' t think it ' s anybody' s intent.
' I don ' t know what you ' re doing out there and maybe none of the rest of
the people do either. That ' s sitting up here, I don ' t know who does or
doesn ' t but the point is , that ' s something that I see on every one of
' these that comes through on every development . It 's one of those boiler
plate type conditions that we see in all of them and it certainly isn ' t
directed at you or your company personally, I 'm positive of that.
Secondly, we ' ve had experiences with developers who come in who have said
we bought this property because of the trees , why the hell would we want
to take the trees down? The next morning they' re all gone. That would
probably seem stupid to you as a developer maybe who knows what he' s
doing and maybe those others didn ' t but we' ve had that experience. Don' t
take offense. Just understand it as an item of boiler plate.
Planning Commission Meeting
I
April 6 , 1988 - Page 12
1
Peter Pflaum: But the other side of it is , it is a major inconvenience I
to us to have to go to some city official and take an inventory and
something we object to violently. Not only that, I don' t believe it' s
been a standard procedure because in the first two additions _of Trapper 's I
Pass , to my knowledge, we've never had it. I would ask your Planning
Commission, I will object to the Council also, have them go out there and
see if they've got any objections . I haven' t heard one objective from
the residents or from the City. As a matter of fact, I 've heard
compliments . Just the opposite and so I object and we will object. Why
should we have to do that? I do think if you' re going to require us to
do it, you should have it in your ordinance. You should require every I
citizen who buys a house in your community, that you want to review his
backyard because why should we be treated any different?
Wildermuth: There is a difference though. The residents lives on the
property. You don' t live on the property. You' re a developer . You
develop and you move on.
Emmings: I don ' t want to get into an argument here . We' re not going to t
get into individual arguments here. You have to understand that this is,
I see development after development . '
Peter Pflaum: Is this part of your ordinance?
Emmings : I don ' t think it' s in the ordinance but it' s been a condition I
on every one of these over the last year or so and all that we ' re doing
is saying , we don ' t intend to insult you . That ' s not what ' s going on
here. It' s just boiler plate and I would differ with you too. There is I
a difference between one person developing one lot for his own home than
there is a developer coming in and doing a really huge development like
you' ve done here. There is a difference . But anyway, go ahead.
Peter Pflaum: That was one point. The second point deals with the
sidewalk. There' s a requirement that we put a sidewalk. First of all we
had, as you know, done quite a bit of developing in your community with I
no sidewalk in this project. Now you ' re coming to us and telling us you
want us to put a sidewalk in a part of the subdivision that leads to
nowhere. Maybe you should show them what we' re talking about. '
Rick Sayther : On this street and on Oxbow Bend.
Peter Pflaum: I have two concerns . First of all , I don ' t think we
should be required to put a sidewalk in that leads to nowhere and
benefits nobody. It just costs us money. Second of all , a portion of
that street was already approved before under an additional plat with no
sidewalk. I 'm sure what ' s happened is you have a new ordinance or
concern about getting sidewalks in the community but in a planned unit
development such as ours , which is in it ' s sixth year of development , I
which is 80% done, it doesn' t seem to make much sense to take one portion
of it and put a sidewalk in that leads nowhere. Really, the reason we
developed out here, and I think the reason a lot of the residents are out
here, is they didn' t want sidewalks . Certainly in our project it' s '
inconsistent with everything we've done. So that' s why we object to that
1
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 6 , 1988 - Page 13
because we don' t think it serves any purpose and it' s' Y P P t a needless cost and
we don ' t think our residents want it. The other issue deals with the
wetland . The only reason we thought we wanted to dredge a portion of the
wetland to create a pond just to create an amenity to that end of the
site that really needs some help. The only reason I wanted to acquire
this piece of property was to develop another entrance to our site. Our
site has a serious problem and really I think a health and hazardous
condition in that there ' s only one street that serves I don' t know how
' many units. 150 or some incredible number and they were in the flood, if
you talk to residents , one of the big ponds there flooded and they didn' t
have access. Most of you weren ' t around when we bought this property and
got it zoned originally but there was concern then , when we did the
project about how much access there should be on Pleasant View. If you
looked at our original plat, the original planned unit development that
was approved and it was always planned that there would be connection
from our project through this piece of property now. Maybe you could
show them where that is .
Rick Sayther : It may not be clear to the people back here but this is TH
101, Pleasant View Road. The site that we ' re looking at now is over
here. The only access from Pleasant View now is near TH 101 and it feeds
back into this big area to the west. When this was approved, there was
approved a stub street that deadended into the piece , the O'Brien parcel
that we ' re dealing with tonight with the idea that there would be some
if: sort of a looped street system to that property.
Emmzngs : Where does that road go to the north?
' Rick Sayther : This is the Shorewood/Chanhassen boundary and in the other
Galpin/Near Mountain PUD there ' s another road that comes down.
Emmings : That Trapper ' s Pass that stubs , that little stub they' re
talking about putting a barricade across and that goes into, when that
land to the west of that is developed , will there be more entrances still
out into the existing roads?
' Peter Pflaum: The point I was trying to get to and I got off the subject
a little bit, the reason we wanted this site and the only reason we ct
wanted it was to develop another access to our property that was
originally intended as a way to have access to our property. The
reason I was concerned about doing something with the pond is I wanted to
' dress up the entrance to the property. We had a private meeting with the
neighbors and I asked the neighbors , there are some of them here, if they
would object or what their feeling was if we created a pond there because
if they didn ' t want it , we wouldn ' t do it . My understanding was the
' neighbors felt it was a good idea . One of the neighbors was concerned
whether , maybe more than one , if we did something to that pond it would
somehow affect flooding on their property. Rick studied that and he can
show that that is not a factor . All we really wanted to do was just open
up a corner of the property so we can have some open water so we can
landscape around it and just enhance the property. We also want to do
quite an intensive landscaping around the entrance because at that point
in time, just like we did in the Near Mountain entrance. There' s no
vegetation so we wanted to put some trees in. So that 's all we' re
r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 14
il
talking about but the reason is just to improve the property. I think
our concern was, the way the condition is put on it by the staff, we
II
couldn' t live with it because of the way that it was written would not
allow us to really improve it with the idea of opening up some water .
That ' s the only intent was to do that . So those are the three issues .
II
The trees, opening up some water in the marsh and the sidewalks. Those
are the three issues between us and the staff . Everything else I think
we' re in agreement.
II
Emmings : Just so I 'm sure I understand , are you saying that you 've got
an application here for a wetland alteration permit and the staff is
recommending approval of that permit . Now, if you get the permit with
the conditions that are on it, will that give you what you want there or II
are you saying. . .
Peter Pflaum: No , we' re saying the conditions placed on it will not II
allow us to do what we want.
Emmings : What specific condition? I
Dacy: Number 1.
Michael Pflaum: Let me try to explain . I don' t have the Fish and II
Wildlife Guidelines before me but basically as I understand it, by
- , reading it, the objectives that these standards serve are to establish
A beneficial habitat for wildlife creatures and marsh vegetation. Produce
a nice ecosystem that will be beneficial to wildlife in general . What we
are attempting to do here is take a small piece of that wetland . It ' s
about 6% of that and make a hole there . Open water so we don ' t have
I
vegetation growing up through the water. There' s going to be I think 7
1/2 acres of wetlands undisturbed. Actually it' s going to be a little
less than that because we are building our pond, our pothole, on a
portion of that 7 1/2 acres . Basically about 7 1/2 acres remain II
undisturbed. A 1/2 acre is dredged to form an open water pond without
the shallow slopes and ungladdy bottom and so forth because really that ' s
not the aesthetic that we ' re trying to make. I
Emmings : And then real specifically, how does that first condition cause
you problem with what you want to do?
I
Michael Pflaum: It ' s so small to begin with that having an irregular
shape is almost impossible to create. The second one has to do with side
slopes . Side slopes are too shallow. You have very abundant weed growth
coming up to the surface which does not create an open water pond. If
you have an uneven bottom, where it' s rising and falling , you have
irregular weed growth throughout and basically, we' re not trying to II create a rice paddy. We want to create a pond and leave the rest of the
land as it is .
Mr. Stevens : What constitutes as wetland is all that I want to know and 1
how is this 7 acres a wetland? This was farmground.
Dacy: Yes , it' s to my understanding that many years ago it was farmland. I
. . . in any case, a wetland exists our there today. It is on the DNR' s map
II
r ,
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 6, 1988 - Page 15
C
and we had a gentleman from the U. S . Fish and Wildlife come out and
' evaluate the site. He confirmed that it is in fact a wetland. There are
three things that determine a wetland . Vegetation, soils and if it
supports wildlife habitat. In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife person' s
' opinion, those three tests were met .
Mr . Stevens: I have test borings here from 1978 where at 15 feet it
impacted 8,000 pounds and no water appeared in the hole in -four hours on
' the adjacent property. The first lot just south of this one and that was
the wetest spot on the area . We had horses down on that for about 5
years. We pastured horses in there. Mr. Hoyt has two evergreens in his
' yard about 50 feet tall that came out of that same sewer area you' re
talking about and I think O'Brien' s farmed it for many years.
Dacy: I 'm not disputing that. I just want to make clear that even
though there may not be standing water at consistent time periods
throughout the year , again, that there is wetland vegetation, canary
grass, sedge grass, if there is peat and muck soils or wetter soils than
' the typical hayden clay soils that you find in Chanhassen, then the Fish
and Wildlife people. . .
' Mr. Stevens : You probably have those conditions now but they were
created. It wasn ' t that way.
Dacy: Right , and we have to look at what exists today at this point and
not what was 10 or 15 years ago .
Mr . Stevens : How long ago did they determine this was wetland?
Dacy: It was in February.
Mr . Stevens : How about my lot next to this? Is it buildable next to
that pond?
Dacy: With a variance , potentially yes .
Mr . Stevens: A variance for what?
' Dacy: Depending on where you ' re going to place your house on the
property. . .
Mr. Stevens : I 'd like to split them into two lots . It ' s 9/10ths of an
acre.
Dacy: If you ' ve got 90 feet of lot frontage, 15 , 000 square feet of lot
area and you can meet the 75 foot setback . . .
Mr . Stevens : But we can put a road in along side and split it for two
lots can't we? Isn' t that in your ordinance?
Dacy: You' re talking about. . .
Mr . Stevens : We' re 150 feet wide or so on the front .
r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 16 ,
Dacy: You would have to create a full blown city street right-of-way.
With 150 foot lot width, you could not split that into two 90 foot lots II
running on Pleasant View Road.
Mr. Stevens : We' re planning on putting it this way. . . '
Emmings : Sir , I 'm going to have to ask you to address the issue that' s
in front of the Commission.
Mr. Stevens : I think it is the issue because if they put in that pond
and then I have to set back 75 feet from a wetland and they' re calling
that a wetland now, then the condition is changed . '
Emmings: But you' re asking our staff to tell you whether or not you' ll
be able to divide your property and until you put in an application and I
they have a chance to look at it in detail , it' s unfair for them to put
them on the spot. If you have questions like how far do I have to be set
back from that pond or something , that would be appropriate but don ' t ask
us to do a review of your property here tonight. It just can' t be done . 11
It ' s not fair to you or to us .
Dacy: With or without this pond, this boundary represents the limits of II
the wetland today so even if they didn' t create this pond, their pond
isn ' t creating your issue . You have to deal with this pink boundary in
here as it goes through your site.
Mr . Stevens : My question I guess was when did it become a wetland
because it certainly wasn ' t when I bought the property? It was called
buildable lots by the City and the sewer and water is in on them. We' re
paying taxes and assessed for it and I certainly would like to be able to
build on it.
Jim Wehrle : I 'm the President of the Near Mountain Homeowners '
Association. I guess there's just a few key points that we 'd like to
communicate . Those of us who live in that immediate area , especially
such as myself and my neighbors. Obviously as far as the trees go, we ' re
pleased with the apparent resolution that ' s been reached with the
agreement. To put something in writing to protect the trees. We' re in
favor of that but I ' ll second the thoughts that Lundgren Brothers have
passed along that they have done a pretty good job in saving the trees ,
even though they haven ' t been required to. Secondly, I think my primary
concern, speaking to you as an individual from this point, that there
under no circumstances be, hopefully any resistence to allowing another
exit out of our development for safety purposes . We found ourselves in a
situation last July of not being able to get the Life Squad back into
that area and it is still the exactly the same exact situation today as
it was at that point in time. We could not , if a flood came up out of
our ponds across the streets, the one real access street that comes back
into the area where I live, we can ' t get any first aid as needed. I had II
a life squad truck stall out under 3 feet of water in front of my house
on July 21st , or whenever it was and I think there are getting to be so
many homes back in there and there's such limited access right now, that
that ' s an absolute necessity for health and safety if nothing else, as
well as traffic flow. As far as the pond, I think all of us who built or
1
Planning Commission n Meetzng
April 6, 1988 - Page 17
bought in Near Mountain did so because it was a very nice planned unit
' development. It has a lot of nice ponds in it. I think Lundgrens did a
great job in putting in the ponds that are there now and I think this is
comparable to, my understanding of how they went about putting in the
' pond that are in there now. Dredged out an area
g perhaps 6 feet deep.
I would think if they were allowed to do what they' re proposing here,
that it would be a great enhancement to the vegetation and/or wildlife
that may want to live in that ecosystem because it is dry, 'as has been
' discussed here , a considerable part of the year . That would see to it
that there was some wetland available throughout certain parts of the
year . So not only aesthetically would it be nice but I think it would
' enhance whatever necessities the wildlife had for that wetland. Lastly,
I ' ll just concur that we do not have sidewalks throughout the rest of
that planned unit and there wouldn' t be any consistency with what is
' there now. It ' s not a big deal to the homeowners association one way or
the other but I will concur that it seems to be a needless expense that' s
non-conforming with the whole atmosphere of the existing development .
' Emmings: Is what they' re calling sidewalks here, is that the trail?
Dacy: Off-street trails.
' Emmings : The portion of the trail system that ' s been recommended by the
Park and Recreation Commission. Is there anybody else who wants to
f comment on this item?
Greg Cray: I live on the second lot down from where that pond is there.
I really like the development as it ' s laid out but there again, the one
problem that I have is the pond in general . That whole wetland area ,
there ' s no drainage out of there except for one very small tile line that
was put in by the City when they put the park in which is just to the
southeast of that area. Right in there. The end of that tile line would
end up approximately in the middle of that pond the way it ' s drawn there.
I want to make sure that there ' s some means for getting water out of that
area . Like during that large storm last year , we got a tremendous amount
' of water back in that area . Probably, I would guess 8 feet deep on a
site over that wetlands area . The tile itself that was put in was put in
quite high in my thinking. It really would have to be extremely deep out
' there before it would ever be of any kind of use for draining that area
out. I 'd just like the City to take into consideration the possibility
of that tile being changed and enhanced to make sure that there ' s no
drainage problems and so on especially since I ' ll commission the hillside
' could have an impact as far as the watershed and so on.
Emmings : How long have you lived out there?
Greg Cray: Approximately 6 years now.
' Emmings : And we've been hearing that it ' s typically dry in there. Is
that your experience?
Greg Cray:' It depends on the time of year . It generally has water . At
' the time we bought, it was dry. When I bought the lot. The next spring
during the time where I was building the house , it got quite a bit of
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 18
water in there and it ' s gone anywhere from so dry you can walk across it
to 6 to 8 feet deep, depending on the weather . ,
Batzli : How does it impact your lot?
Greg Cray: The big impact it has on my lot is that my sump pump never
quits running when it gets high. It just raises the water table of the
whole area because there' s no outlet.
Emmings : Do you have anything further?
Greg Cray: No. '
Emmings : Do you want to address this outlet question?
Brown: Yes. I ' ll address part of it and then I 'm going to defer this
question to the applicant ' s engineer , Rick Sayther . We' ve discussed this
6 inch tile line quite extensively being that the public has been quite
concerned about it. Upon submission of the storm sewer calculations for
the plat, I raised the question to the engineer, Rick Sayther, what
happens to this 6 inch line once the development is in? Are we
overloading that line and Rick explained to me that in their
calculations, and I went through and verified this , they completely
disregarded that line. The reason for that, in the event of a 100 year
storm, they have provided enough storage in the ponding area to take care
of their development alone without any run-off from the 6 inch line that
now exists out there . So they' ve provided more than adequate storage for
it. This 6 inch line will adequately drain it off obviously at a slower
rate than an 18 inch pipe would but the storage issue, I think they have II
addressed quite well . As far as the neighboring structures, I ' ll have
Rick discuss that .
Rick Sayther : I 'm Rick Sayther with Sayther-Berquist . We' re the '
planners and engineers for Lundgrens . After we had our neighborhood
meeting or at our neighborhood meeting this gentleman came and was
concerned and I was too, not knowing what the elevations were out there
so I sent my survey crew out to do a couple things. One was to locate
the edge of the wetland and the other was to shoot the elevation of the
tile line so we could see how high the water would get before it ran out. II
We also went onto his lot and I hope he isn' t mad at us for it but we
went out and shot elevations around his house and shot the garage floor
elevation. It ' s not a walkout so we couldn 't shoot the basement floor
but I would guess it' s probably an 8 foot difference between the garage
and the basement. Something like that?
Greg Cray: Yes , it would be about that . 1
Rick Sayther: Okay, we shot the garage floor at 923. 98 which is about
924 . The tile line right now would outlet the wetland at 912. 7 so from
the garage floor down to the tile is about 11 feet. The basement would
be at about 915 or 916 so the basement level is 2 or 3 feet above the
tile line. In the 100 year storm, we expect the water to rise in the
wetland up to the 914 contour which is that pink line on the drawing .
The theoretical 100 year storm which we got way more than last year .
Planning Commission Meeting
' April 6, 1988 - Page 19
Ar
Emmings : Is that with or without the pond or doesn' t it matter?
Rick Sayther: That pond together with the other ponds will serve to
' reduce the run-off rate to what ' s there now. We' re proposing a couple of
other ponds that aren ' t colored that are the stuff on the top of the
drawing .
•
' Emmings : So if you didn ' t have the pond , would the water be higher in
the 100 year storm?
' Rick Sayther : I 'd say yes because we' re increasing the total amount of
run-off through the development process . If the tile line wasn' t there
at all , then that marsh would continue to fill and there would probably
' be a problem someday but even with that small 6 inch pipe, it will have
adequate capacity to drain the water down. Water will drop down to at
least the pipe elevation and then it may evaporate out and go dry like it
has in the past . The wetland . Or it may stay up at that elevation of
' the pipe. It just depends on the season and the wetness. It ' s a good
thing the pipe is there and our calculations show that it would be
adequate for the future.
' Emmings : If that is dry so much of the time, how will the pond have
water in it all year round or all summer long?
11 Rick Sayther : We believe that although the surface gets dry sometimes ,
below the ground level 6 inches or less, there ' s water so if we dig down
4 feet, we 'd have 4 feet of water in that excavation. That' s really what
' we ' re doing. We dig below the surface level to have open water where now
the water is just standing in the soil .
Emmings: So you ' re digging down into the water table and have you dome
something out there to test that notion?
Rick Sayther : There' s water there most of the time just at the surface.
' Just below. Our experience in the area with all the ponds that we ' ve
done have shown that that ' s a real practical way to create a pond .
' Brown: If I may address one other thing . Prior to me coming aboard on
staff here at the City, as I understand it, there ' s been a great debate
over the 6 inch tile line that was placed out there by the City. Being
' that it is now, at the present classified as a wetland and at the time
that the tile line was installed, we could not drain the wetland dry so
the intent of putting the 6 inch tile line at a certain elevation was to
maintain some moisture in that wetland so that wouldn ' t be a
' euthification of a wetland .
Emmings : Anybody else have any comments on this?
Mr . Stevens: Are you also aware that there ' s a culver that drains the
parkland back over into that slew?
' Brown: Yes we are.
Plannin g Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 20
47
Mr. Stevens : Although the contour of the park has changed quite a bit. I
It used to drain the run-off into that area .
Conrad moved , Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing . All voted
in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart : You stated that ou planted trees in this area .
Y P ea . Are you
referring to when you developed the other areas in there you planted
trees to landscape after you did the subdivision or you planted trees in I
this particular area?
Peter Pflaum: We didn' t do any of this in this particular site . What I I
was really referring to is, if you were to drive in Near Mountain, this
whole area didn' t have any trees on it. Every tree in that subdivision.
If you went into this area right down here you 'd probably find, I don't
know 70-80 15 to 20 foot evergreens . I was talking about this area . I
Just driving you can see. That 's what I was referring to. When I was
talking about woods, from this area where my hand is all this area is
woods. What I was saying, we developed all this land in here in the
woods. We went out there and working with backyards, there wasn' t any
requirement, it was never a problem. It ' s a real hardship for a
developer to have to come in and bring the city out there and show them
what trees you' re going to take down. I can see your concern if somebody
has abused something and I can also see if it was an ordinance that
required to every development.
Erhart : This is something that started after . . .The condition number 1
there Barb, what does it exactly involve? It says tree removal plan
shall be provided at the time of building permit application for Lots
1. . .?
Dacy: Basically what that means is that when the Certificate of Survey
is submitted for each building permit application. At the time of
building permit application for individual homes .
Erhart: What does that have to do with the subdivision? '
Dacy: I ' ll finish . A Certificate of Survey will show where the proposed
house pad is going to be and the finished floor elevation of that as
compared to what the existing contours are out there on the property. So
what we would be asking the builders to do would be to label on that plan
where the construction area would extend to . How much of the lot would
they be grading out during construction of the single family home so we
have a record that they are not going to be clear cutting the entire lot .
Erhart: In our clear cutting ordinance, we have a clear cutting section
in our subdivision ordinance right?
Dacy: Right. It' s tree removal and conservation of vegetation in the
subdivision ordinance.
Planning Commission Meeting
IApril 6 , 1988 - Page 21
' Erhart : It states that they will all be 3 inches or something , that are
removed for streets . . .
' Dacy: No , I think what you might be referring to is shoreland
requirements for tree removal but that specific diameter size is not
identified anywhere.
' Erhart: In the subdivision ordinance?
Dacy: Right.
' Erhart : We do have it as clear cutting provision in the subdivision
ordinance?
Dacy: The term clearcut is not stated in the ordinance but there are six
provisions in this section which allows the City to require these types
of removal plans .
Erhart : In the subdivision ordinance?
' Dacy: Yes .
Erhart : Is there anything else in the process that requires the
Ir developer to identify house location?
Dacy: No , the Certificate of Survey is the best method to do that
because the surveyor has gone out to the lot. Again, the developer has
' suggested an alternative condition that would be acceptable to staff .
Erhart: What I 'm driving at is, this particular paragraph just started
showing up in the subdivision proposals about a year and a half ago and
you' re the first person who ' s really objected to it. I don ' t remember
being on the Commission where we ever actually discussed this particular
thing. I think we just accepted it. Do you remember Ladd?
Conrad : Yes . It was like a policy.
' Erhart: Yes, we kind of accepted it but I don ' t know if it was ever
really clear what we were asking.
' Conrad : The detailed requirement of the developer , we base it on staff ' s
opinion of what is necessary for a landscape plan or clearcutting plan .
Erhart : Without spending a lot of time on it , if we thought it through
' and this is what we want to do , that ' s fine. If we haven ' t, I guess I
would suggest perhaps at a later meeting we do think through this
particular requirement and really understand the ramifications to
subdevelopers to see if there ' s a possibility to accomplish the same
thing without placing much effort into it. That ' s enough of that. The
other thing is , the sidewalks , the trail system. Again , unless I 'm
wrong, this is the first time that I can recall seeing a subdivision come
in here where there was actually a request of the subdevelopers to
actually put in the surface for the trail system. Am I wrong on that?
II
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 22 '
a
Dacy: Yes. There have been other subdivisions where off-street trails
have been required.
Erhart : Where they've actually been required to put them in? The
asphalt surface?
Dacy: Right . '
Erhart : Recently or a long time ago?
Dacy: Lake Susan Hills West. Curry Farms. Kurvers Point. Again, the
Park and Rec Commission adopted their trail plan within the last year so
they' re just following through on those requirements .
Erhart : So we' re to understand that it is now city policy here that now
that we've got a trail plan, that we' re expecting developers to do that
as a part of the subdivision? If that ' s the case , then I think that ' s
something new.
Dacy: I guess I would even go one step farther with the Commission and
say that that recommendation is from the Park and Rec Commission and
certainly the Planning Commission is welcome to comment on that
particular condition. However , the final disposition of that
p particular
condition should be up to the Council . I would feel uncomfortable having
the Planning Commission acting on what the Park and Rec Commission did.
Erhart : I 'm not suggesting to do that . Again , I 'm bringing up, we ' re
acting on policy for a program in the City to do that so it' s probably
worth our while to have Lori come in here and tell us what is the grand
scheme of these things. On the other hand, if this is something that' s
been going for a long time and we just missed it , then you can just
ignore than. What was the purpose, are we requiring the developer to
extend the Trapper ' s Pass up to the end of the property or is that their
idea?
Rick Sayther : I don' t think the staff has required that we run the
street up here but we found that the buyers of the lots, the builder or II the home buyer can ' t really fully appreciate how that will look after the
street' s built unless the street gets built so it ' s just been the policy
of Lundgren Brothers to build the street adjacent to any lot that ' s
platted whether it' s going to be used right at that time or not.
Erhart : Alright, we appreciate that . Lastly, do you want to defer the
wetland questions until we get to that or just go? 1
Emmings : You didn' t really present your report on that did you?
Dacy: Between the discussion of the developer and Larry, I think staff ' s II
presentation is fine .
Emmings : Okay, then let' s just talk about the whole thing now. ,
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 23
A
' Erhart : There' s simply not enough run-off there to make essentially a
wildlife wetland. It ' s seem the proposal is simply an aesthetic pond
which I 'm all in favor of. There simply isn' t enough drainage there to
' take the 912 or the 911 and create and improve a combination an aesthetic
area and wildlife .
Rick Sayther : I believe that through time, after the development is
' finished, since there will be more water going into the basin, that water
will stand in there more often for longer periods and you ' ll probably get
more aquatic vegetation than you've got. The base of it is a big, flat
' bottom basin. The water stands in a couple spots and the water has to
get 1 1/2 to 2 feet deep before it can run out. I think through time
you' re going to have that position where the water is standing there 1
' 1/2 to 2 feet deep over quite a big area. I think the wetlands will
become more viable.
Erhart : That being the case, could we resolve , the real problem with
' ponding is your slope. You said in a small pond you can' t make the
increase of water with a 10: 1 slope around the whole perimeter , correct?
What about, let' s assume the area does become more ponded as time goes
on, could we increase the size of the pond slightly to the west? Forego
the requirement for the 10: 1 slope on the east half of the pond but
slightly increase the size on the west size to get the 10: 1 slope toward
the center of the bowl as an alternative.
Rick Sayther : That ' s a creative idea . I think what ' s really going to
happen though is , it slopes all around that basin. The whole basin has
slopes of 10 : 1 and 20: 1. As the water fills in there and it gets to get
1 1/2 feet to 2 feet deep, I think exactly what the Fish and Wildlife is
hoping for would happen with most of the wetland . Whether we do the pond
' at all , that condition will come to be. There will be a better habitat.
What we really want to do with that little half acre piece there is to
create a permanent open water area for the attractiveness of it.
Erhart : I think you can accomplish both simply by expanding the size.
Maintain your open area because you want 3 feet of water there to keep
open and just expand your grade off towards the center . I understand
' you ' re limited by road and you have lot constraints . I just suggest that
as a compromise solution on this but again, certainly a pond is better
than nothing at all. That is the real problem isn ' t it? The slope.
' There' s really no other problem. It ' s uneven to me. It ' s too small to
have a rolling bottom. Muck, you ' re going to have it whether you want it
or not . That ' s the real problem.
' Rick Sayther : The intent is to dig it to be 4 feet deep from the pipe
down.
' Erhart : I 'd say it' s pretty straight forward beyond that so I ' ll pass .
Conrad: Larry, on the streets when we have a 10% slope on Trapper ' s
Pass , what does that create? What kind of drainage g problems does that
create when we have a slope that' s a little bit steeper? Is that a
concern of yours?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 24 ,
17
Brown: At 10% grade, no. '
Conrad : You' re worried more about safety and access than you are with
drainage? '
Brown: Correct . The reason that you see the type of storm sewer casting
that is speced out, that you see commonly around the City is for that
very reason. At a 10% grade the water does not go shooting past the
grate but falls down into the curb box so that' s not a concern of mine.
Conrad : For drainage specifications , you've considered the grade and you II
feel comfortable that they can deal with that?
Brown: Correct. '
Conrad : As far as the pond is concerned , my only concern on the pond is
that it does dry out and we end up with something that' s not always the
most attractive thing . I think Peter you had some problems last year
when we have the semi-drought before we had the semi-floods. I can't
think of a solution for that. I guess I would not ask for an expanded
ponding site simply because when it does go dry, a pond can look II negative. In terms of how to keep it full all the time, I guess I don ' t
have a solution for that particular concern. Because of the developer ' s
good track record in Chanhassen and the fact that they have to a degree
reforested and have been really pretty sensitive to the environment, I
think they should follow our policies but I 'd sure encourage the staff to
make it a very easy review with the developer . I don' t know what kind of
guidelines that ' s sending and I guess I ' ll ask Barbara . When somebody
submits a tree removal plan, what does that entail? What is that? Is
that specifically detailing which trees are cut or is that a review, a
walk through of the site with people from the developer ' s company. How
do you do that?
Dacy: It basically shows what trees are going to be removed in the area
of the construction for the grading and the construction of the home. We I
do not require a detailed inventory of each lot and each tree . Just a
plan to show us the area that trees are going to be removed and
basically, it means kind of a circle on the site or around the proposed
building pad.
Conrad : So it ' s a document that is submitted?
Dacy: Yes, that we keep on file. It gives the inspection staff and when
the building permit is reviewed by all the departments , we can look at it
and say, okay they' re not clearcutting the lot , they' re not removing a •
substantial amount of vegetation . It appears to be okay. Now, to be
honest and totally frank , 5 years from now that property owner could go
down and one day at a time take a tree down at a time and put down new
sod and eventually clearcut the lot and we probably wouldn' t know about
it but we have gotten burned . There are subdivisions during building
''- permit review that it comes back to staff saying, why didn' t you catch
this and how could you allow such a thing .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 25
I:
C
' Conrad : There have been some real bad situations and I think we agree
that there should be review of that. I 'm trying to get a sense for, are
there degrees in this review because we know that the Near Mountain group
' has done a real fine job so to impose a burden is not the point of this
little exercise . To be consistent however , in how we treat people is to
a degree important. So I ask the question again, are there degrees in
how we work with the developer and we review that tree removal situation
' or is it just an absolute? Are there no degrees in the depth that we go
to in that plan?
' Dacy: We can work with Mr. Pflaum and work out some type of solution to
this. Yes, there are degrees available and we would be more than happy
to work with them.
Conrad: That' s all .
Brown: One clarification if I may. To address both Mr . Erhart ' s
' comments and Mr. Conrad ' s comments, the concerns about extending the
wetland out, I think I ' ve analyzed the flows that come down through this
storm sewer pipe and pond and eventually go out the 6 inch tile line. To
creat an open water pond you need at least 4 feet of water before the
cattails will not grow. The rates just would not really facilitate
extending this pond out . Being that you have a shallower pond , it
0- wouldn' t be an open water pond and it would be more inclinced for your
3 operaion . Again , you have the scenario that Commissioner Conrad talked
about, having the edges dry and having a barren surface out there which I
don' t think is desirable .
' Erhart : I have a point that the requirement is only a 10: 1 slope for 30%
of the shoreline so it ' s not the whole thing.
' Brown: My intention was not for the slope . That ' s an entirely different
issue, but extending it out. They' ve maintained a certain rate to keep
an open water pond out there .
Conrad : On the pond , I feel comfortable that the requirement of the Fish
and Wildlife Service, condition (a) , I don ' t have a real strong feeling
' for keeping it uneven and I think that condition can be slipped , in my
mind. I 'm not sure that the others, I haven ' t been persuaded yet that
the others can be slipped or sacrificed . Based on what I just said
' Larry, because I am saying that (b) through (f) for Fish and Wildlife is
important, did you just say that (b) should not be a requirement of their
ponding?
' Brown: No . I 'm saying that the total overall surface area of the pond ,
they are restricted in one sense as far as the slopes. I think it ' s a
whole other issue .
' Ellson : The tree removal plan , I wasn ' t here when I guess you ' ve had all
the abuse and I certainly understand it. Maybe you can put something in
there such as , unless it' s a developer we' ve worked with before who has
' proved himself. If you ' re new then you ' ve got to go through the . . .until
you ' ve proven yourself to our City, you don ' t have to do it. I 'm not
. 1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 26
4
a
necessary comfortable with clearcutting but if staff is comfortable with I
that clearcutting unless approved, then I would be fine. Also , I agree
with the rest . I think he' s been very good with the City and I 'd rather
not bring him any more work than he needs . The part about the sidewalk,
I think the Park and Rec Commission , as you stated before, are just
pretty much asking for this to be tagged along with everything from now
on but I don' t really see a point if this is part of the whole planned
unit development and it wasn' t done as a planned unit development then
it ' s no longer planned . It' s all of a sudden something that was stuck in
there. It takes away from the idea of being planned. I could see
eliminating the sidewalks . I share the same feelings with Tim about the I
wetlands thing. I would like to see them try to have grading like there
someplace . I 'd hate to eliminate all the major points that the Wildlife
Service has and then say, we think in a few years it will end up that way I
anyway. They have a certain intent and there ' s really good reasons for
it and they didn't just decide this for nothing. They've got these
points for really good reasons . I 'd like to see some sort of attempt at
a portion of it sloped like that if it could be. That ' s it.
Batzli : I had a couple of questions for Larry to start with . Is the
retaining wall only going along the deadend portion of Trappers Pass?
Rick Sayther : Yes .
Batzli : Is there a setback requirement on that or do they put that right I
up to the street? How are they proposing to do that and is that a
portion where the Park and Rec Commission has required the sidewalk?
Brown: The setback requirement for the retaining wall?
Batzli : Yes . That ' s something that you guys are going to have to
approve at any rate, correct?
Brown: Correct .
Batzli : Is that including if there would be a setback required? You
have in here that details for the construction of the retaining wall
shall be submitted . Are you comfortable with that? In case you need
some sort of setback from the road or something else that you ' re covered
there?
Brown: Yes . The plans propose that the wall be placed outside the
public right-of-way and that would address our concern .
Batzli : And the sidewalk, as it currently is being requested by the Park I
and Recreation Commission , doesn ' t go along right at that end?
Brown: It very well may be. I haven' t reviewed the Park and
Recreation ' s recommendations with that .
Batzli : On the barrier issue, are you talking about some sort of semi-
permanent barrier? What exactly are you thinking about installing right I
there?
Planning Commission g ss on Meeting
IApril 6 , 1988 - Page 27
C
' Brown: This issue has recently come up before the City Council with the
imfamous Teton Lane feasibility study and we are now gathering
specifications and trying to adopt a standard for a permanent breakaway
' barricade. You ' ll be seeing this possibly in the future where it' s
imbedded down in the ground . It' s a sturdy sturcture that wouldn ' t
allow a regular car to go through it. However, a fire truck could very
easily snap it off at the base and gain access .
' Batzli : Is aesthetics part of the study that we' re conducting on
something like that? g
' Brown: Definitely. There are several designs that are out there and
have been used for a very long time.
' Batzli : I have a general question and anybody can answer it. Is the
Fish and Wildlife Service, after having designated or Department of
Natural Resources , after having designated something as a Class B
wetlands , there are six conditions that we list. They' re established by
the Fish and Wildlife Service and how binding on us are those conditions?
' Dacy: We use the Fish and Wildlife Service as much as we do DNR or the
Watershed District. They make recommendations to the City. The City' s
wetland ordinance goes beyond the requirements of DNR or the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife . If that wetland was not on the DNR's maps , it is on the
t City's maps because we cover all types of wetlands. So city staff is
recommending that these conditions be a part of the wetland alteration
permit and a recommended condition of approval. If the Commission feels
that this is not appropriate in this case , that ' s fine . Then you can
remove all or some of the parts that you don ' t feel is appropriate in
this case .
Batzli : I think I heard you just say that our standards are tougher than
the DNR' s but we included here their standards .
Dacy: No, what I was saying is , our ordinance covers wetlands beyond
what the DNR covers .
' Batzli : That ' s all I have.
Wildermuth : I think most of the issues have been pretty well discussed .
I guess I 'm not persuaded that a tree removal plan doesn ' t have to be
submitted . I think Barbara , between you and the developer you can reach
some kind of an accomodation for a simplified plan in view of the track
record that the developer has . I think the Fish and Wildlife
' recommendations should be observed. I think in view of the investment
into the trail system that the City is going to be making , we should
definitely stay with the trail system. I like to see this kind of
development . I think it' s a real asset to the City. Large lot
development with nice homes. It ' s going to be a real asset. There is
one issue though that I would like to bring up and that is , at some point
I think we ' re going to need some help from these developers in giving our
highway system a little further developed there . TH 101 is a pain now
and it' s going to be even worse. I see this 32 home development, some of
I
r
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 28 ,
C
the other land that Lundgren has is zoned multi-family. That' s going to II
put even more pressure on Pleasant View and TH 101.
Emmings : In that regard , did I just see in the paper that the State and II
the County swapped some land and that the County is going to be taking
over TH 101. It looked like it didn' t come that far south.
Dacy: That was only north of Hwy. 12 was my understanding . ,
Emmings : But the article seemed to say that after some improvements are
made, south. It sounded like Hennepin County or both of them. 1
Dacy: South of Hwy. 12?
Emmings : Yes . Maybe I 'm wrong about that but I thought that was an
interesting piece of news that somebody was finally actually being forced
to take over responsibility for that thing .
Wildermuth: I think at some point we' re going to have to put the brakes
on development in that area because of what ' s happening or what ' s not
happening with TH 101. That' s all I have. I
Headla : Street lights are going to be required?
Dacy: Yes. They are part of the development contract . ,
Headla : Would you tell me again what you ' re going to do with that whole
wetland area . Just give me a quick shot at it. Are those bullrushes , is
that going to change?
Rick Sayther : I guess I 'm speculating a little on what nature will do
through time. Our intent was to put in a storm sewer pipe that would
drain the water from the streets and the frontyards and the driveways,
run the water down into a 4 foot deep open water pond and the water would
then drain out through the 6 inch tile line the City built through the
ditch and the park and eventually to Lotus Lake. The rest of the wetland
we wouldn ' t do anything to . This 7 acres plus the south there we
wouldn' t touch at all but I was saying that I thought through time it II would become a wetter wetland . I don ' t know if that makes a lot of sense
but right now it 's seasonally dry. In some seasons it 's dry. I think
through time, because all development generates more water than no
development, it will tend to be a wetter wetland.
Headla : Larry, do you think that pond would be filled up? What ' s your
guess? When would that propose pond be filled up? It holds roughly
100, 000 gallons . When would run-off fill that up? One spring? Five
springs?
Rick Sayther : Immediately. As soon as it was dug it would be full . As 1
soon as you start digging with a backhoe, there' s enough water in the
soil that it would fill immediately to the surface of the ground . Some
of the ponds that we did last year in Shorewood Near Mountain, we were
building ponds that were above the ground water level . Those we needed a
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 29
long time. We need the big rain to fill those up but this is a different
situation. We' re actually working in a perched water tabled.
' Headla : The reason I wanted to know that is , when I drove through there,
I really felt pretty much a sterile, naked area. Well manicured ponds
and I saw some geese in there . They were swimming period . You go look
' at that whole wetland area, that was teemin g with ducks , geese and a
muskrat or something at the far end but they were in there feeding and I
suspect they were getting ready for nesting. When you have just a well
manicured pond , outside of being a catch basin, it ' s worthless to
wildlife and I sure would hate to see that wildlife habitat disturbed or
lost. It almost sounds like, from what you said, if you put in that pond
you' re going to be draining the moisture back into that pond until it
gets filled up.
Rick Sayther : I don' t believe it would . The pond area that we ' re
talking about is about 5% of the wetland area. A pretty small
percentage.
Greg Cray: I 'd like to make a comment . I 'd say about 90% of that pond
' area is under water right now. It' s under water. The water level is
that high.
IF-
Rick Sayther : I don ' t think the water is up where you think it is .
Headla: It didn ' t seem like it. It just looks like that pond , on the
balance, that that whole area there . I don ' t have a comfortable feeling
' on it and I don ' t know enough about it to even say I 'm right. I haven ' t
seen anything here to give me any confidence that we' re not going to
upset that balance.
' Brown: If I may add a point . The water table at this point , I think
everyone will agree, in that area is fairly high. It ' s a perched water
table . Essentially what you ' re doing is just removing the soil . The
' water is already there. Right now it ' s not real evident because the soil
is there. You remove the soil and you have a ponding condition along
with that perched water table. It ' s not as though you ' re taking a dry
' area , digging it out and letting the runoff come into that dry area .
Headla: So on the map there, like where it has 7 . 5 acres, your feeling
is you aren ' t going to drop that water table maybe an inch or a couple of
inches at the most for the time being.
Brown: No , because the water table right here is perched already. If
' there was not a perched water table at that point , then I would say yes,
that is possible .
Emmings : What does perched mean?
Brown: Perched means that there is an impervious layer somewhere down
that will allow the water to go above normal , the lake bottom or any body
of water .
1
Planning ,
g Commxssxon Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 30
p
Headla : Barbara , I 'm pleased at item 5 . I just love to see that type of II
thing on the wetland. That' s going to give us more clout and help
everybody. When the builder starts applying for permits at Murray Hill ,
did you have any trouble there? Remember all the discussions we had
about the tree plan?
Dacy: Oh, the six lot subdivision down at the bottom of the street? I
was employed here. '
Headla : No , they' re just putting them in now.
Emmings: It's the one where they took out the house to create that
entrance into that Murray Hill?
Dacy: Okay, that' s called Eight Acre Wood . '
Headla : Did any problems develop, is the builder and you communicating
with what trees are going to be removed? 1
Dacy: They've gotten plans and specification approval . We haven ' t
received any building permits on any of those lots yet. They' re doing
what they have to do for the road and utility construction . Larry,
you've dealt directly with them.
_ Brown: For the first phase only they out in utilities . Right now that
project is being held up by the Watershed District but that' s not
relevant here . A point to note , we have and I will not mention the names
to protect the innocent but we have run into problems , serious problems
with not having tree removal plans . . .
Headla: I just got to support item 1 on that tree removal. I think
we' ve got to go all the way on that . We' ve asked the same thing and we
had the builder here, I think he 's outside now, who went through that
whole bit. We didn ' t , at least I 'm not aware of any problems with him. I
think we've got to be consistent and require that. I want to support the I
one on the trail system. I think we' ve just got to ask the same thing of
him that we ask of anybody else. That ' s all I have.
Emmings : I don' t have much additional . Brian has pointed out a section I
of the code under required standards for PUD' s. It does prohibit clear
cutting of woodland areas and prohibits cutting trees over 6 inches in
diameter unless it' s demonstrated there is no feasible way to develop the
site .
Dacy: That' s Section 20-1179? ,
Emmings: No, this is Section 20-504 (b) .
Dacy: Okay, Section 20-1179 is part of the landscaping ordinance and it 1
says the same thing. It would apply to the non-PUD areas also .
Emmings : And it talks about the number of trees per lot and what size
they have to be so there already are some things there. It doesn' t sound
1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 31
' to me like it' s a very formal requirement . I 'm a little torn on this
issue because I think a developer who' s done a good job and has proven
he ' s done a good job ought to get some credit for that but I don ' t think
' that means we relax our standards . It doesn ' t sound to me like it's that
big a deal to put in a tree removal plan . You want to know the general
areas of cutting and it sounds like they can take a plat and just circle
' on those lots that you' ve expressed concern about , circle a general area
of where there will be tree removal and that ' s all you really require.
It sounds like a pretty easy job to me. It ' s not like taking a complete
inventory of all the trees out there and then deciding tree by tree which
' are going to go and which are going to stay. I think we' ve got to leave
that in there. We put it in on all of them and I think we ought to stay
consistent on that so we don' t have problems like we've had in the past
' ever again. On the wetland question, I think it ' s a good thing to put,
if that pond wasn ' t sitting on a wetland I think we'd all be all for it
and I don' t think it makes any difference that it' s sitting there on a
wetland in this particular case . I think it' s a nice thing . I wouldn' t
' want to own Lot 1 however and worry about kids coming and falling down
into the pond but I don ' t have to buy a lot now so it' s not a problem.
Another thing on the pond is it just seems like such a differdnt kind of
' alteration . We've been real firm about forbidding alteration to wetlands
but it seems to me when we' ve done that it's been where they've wanted to
fill them or they wanted to put roads through them. Alterations of that
kind. This seems like a very different kind of thing. It would be nice
to hear what someone like Dr . Rockwell would have to say about this
particular one but it seems to me that some of these Fish and Wildlife
Service items can be a way to create what they want to create there in
' this particular case. That ' s all I have.
Erhart : Steve, I think we ' ve been doing a lot of these haven ' t we?
Where there are alterations of Class B wetlands where we've had holding
ponds and stuff .
Emmings : Where we' ve put ponds in them?
Dacy: The best example that I can draw for you to draw a similarity is
the City' s pond at the end of West 79th Street. Remember when the City
' went through it ' s wetland alteration permit. The basic purpose of that
pond was for storm water retention and we couldn ' t achieve some of these
six conditions because the HRA and the Council felt it should be more
' aesthetic and more appealing. They didn ' t want to see the wetland
vegetation around the rim of the pond .
Emmings: So that' s directly analagous .
' Dacy: Right , so you have a similar situation and the other point being
that it is a fairly portion of the total wetland.
Erhart : I think in this subdivision right up here, there ' s a lot of
ponds .
' Dacy: Right , there' s no question that we have on a regular basis
implemented these conditions.
Plannin g Commission Co iss ' ,
Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 32
I
Batzli : Would it be a reasonable condition to request that they get some II
sort of a DNR opinion that what they' re going to do won' t adversely
affect the wetland?
Dacy: Sure, that's fine.
Batzli : Is that the sort of opinion that a DNR official would give? '
Dacy: They may or may not need a DNR permit anyway.
Emmings : You went out there with somebody. From Fish and Wildlife?
What did they think?
Dacy: Right . Prior to Dr . Rockwell leaving , both Dr . Rockwell went out II
there with Jo Ann and Mr. Leech went out more recently in February and
they felt that the wetland was a marginal quality. It wasn' t extremely
good but it wasn' t extremely bad and they felt that the proposed
alteration could be achieved but as typically, they have always
recommended the implementation of those six conditions.
Emmings : Do you know if they were asked if this was just a pond like '
they' re proposing , if it would have any detrimental effect on the balance
of the wetland?
Dacy: To be honest , I know that Mr. Leech did not have the benefit of
this detailed plan when he went out to the site. His main purpose was to
tell us the quality of the wetland and where the edge of the wetland '
vegetation was to advise the developers .
Emmings : Could his opinion as to whether or not the pond , as it' s II proposed, would be detrimental to the balance of the wetland be obtained
before this gets to the City Council so they could take a look at that?
Dacy: Yes. '
Emmings : Okay. Anybody else have anything?
A motion was made at this point. Discussion followed .
Conrad : Point 1, you don ' t feel Dave that you want to simplify the tree II
removal plan at all? You ' re comfortable that the developer should go
through. . .
Headla : We' re saying a tree plan . A tree plan ' s a tree plan . Now the II people who work with the contractor , there' s going to be some repoire and
I 'm sure there' s going to be give and take as they develop a tree plan.
If somebody comes in and they really don' t know what he' s like, I 'm sure II
they' re going to look at it a lot more seriously what they' re doing than
somebody they've had repoire and worked with for a few years .
Conrad : So you don' t want to send a signal saying , in writing , a
simplified tree plan?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6 , 1988 - Page 33
' Headla : No .
Conrad : You think that staff can interrupt the words right now?
' Headla: I think right now it gives them enough leeway that they can work
with that person and do what they think is the spirit of the
recommendation.
Emmings : I agree with Dave on that , by the way. I don ' t think we should
change. That ' s a boiler plate condition and I think it ought to stay
' that way and let the staff work with the applicant, just like Dave says.
I think it' s very appropriate and it doesn' t sound to me like we' re
requiring that much anyway.
' Conrad : I don ' t know what simplified versus complex is and I think Tim' s
comment is we should probably talk about what this is because it' s really
good but we don ' t know what we' re asking .
' Dacy: And that's probably because you don' t work with it everyday. The
building inspectors and the planners , we' re out in the field all the time
' and we work with them and we can tell from the Certificate of Survey if
they' re really going to be needing to remove all those trees .
Conrad: Maybe Mr. Chairman you can have staff educate us in the weeks to
come on what ' s required .
Erhart : I 'd ask staff to come back at some time and help us understand
' this requirement and whether or not we ' re really putting a hardship and
we ' re not gaining anything but as far as this proposal , I think we ought
to move ahead .
Headla moved , Batzli seconded that the Planning
Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #79-2 for 34 single family lots as shown on the
' plan stamped "Received March 4, 1988" and 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.
t2. The applicant shall construct off street trails along Trappers Pass ,
Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted and trail fees
waived .
' 3. Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit .
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 .
' 5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit and the permit from the Department of
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 34
Natural Resources . '
6. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading, and once in place shall remain in place I
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 responsibility
of the developer.
7. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize
slopes greater than 3 : 1. '
8 . All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City' s
standards for urban construction. '
9. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer details
for the construction of the barricade on the deadend 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 I
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 deadend 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 I
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 will serve as an
emergency overflow swale for the ponding 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 easement for ponding site and storm sewer facilities shall be I
shown on the final plat .
16. All private drives shall access internal streets to the subdivision .
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 adjustments made
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 35
1
' accordingly, if necessary, to facilitate proper conveyance of
stormwater under Pleasant View Road.
All voted in favor and motion carried .
Conrad moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission °recommend
' approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-5 to permit development
within 200 feet of a Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be
constructed within the 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 to
20: 1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of
emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven , rolling bottom contour for variable
water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife
feeding in shallow water (0. 5 - 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 protec ;t the wetland from any construction
activity.
I/ 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 .
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 36
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 Batzli who opposed and motion carried .
Batzli : Is staff going to have out?
g g the Fish and Wildlife come back out.
Emmings : If you want to amend the motion, if you want to make that. '
Conrad: Would you like me to add that staff bring the Fish and Wildlife?
Emmings : Or get an opinion from them. Maybe they don' t have to come ,
back out.
Wildermuth : I don' t think DNR or Fish and Wildlife can do much with a
wetland that small .
Conrad : I 'm comfortable that they don' t need to be invited . '
Emmings: Brian, do you want to state your reasons for your vote?
Batzli : I guess I 'd prefer that we invite somebody out that actually '
knows what they' re doing to take a look at what we' re proposing.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE,
SPECIFICALLY LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BF, BUSINESS FRINGE
DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 608 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, JAMES FREEMAN AND
BRAMBILLA' S INC.
Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item.
Emmings: Has the applicant been asked if he 'd be willing to go along
with closing off one those?
Brown: The applicant , we received word that the applicant was
dissatisfied with closing off one of the accesses .
Jack Brambilla : In regards to your little diagram there, you brought up
the question about the speed going by there. If you back up to the east
about 100 yards , there' s a warning light there that will come on when the
traffic light when you go to the left there is lit red. That warning I
light will slow traffic down if the traffic light is for stopping . It' s
a little problem corner there. I don' t think the cars are going no 55
mph there . People do slow down.