4 Rezoning Lake Lucy Estates
CITY 0 F
CHANHASSEH
t..f
PC DATE: 5/20/98
CC DATE: (;/g/9g
7/13/98
CASE #: 95-3 SUB 95-1 REZ
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: 1)
,
-
z
:::{
:..>
J
1-
1-
::(
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Rezoning of 16.40 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF,
Residential Single Family
2)
Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 16.40 Acres into 17 single family lots, Lake
Lucy Estates
3)
A Variance to Allow a 20 Foot Front Yard Setback. a 10% street grade, and
a 50 Foot Wide Right-of-Way, a 10 foot side yard setback on a flag Jot. and
five homes to be served via a private street.
South of Lake Lucy Road and NOlth of Lake Lucy
Loscheider Custom Homes, Inc.
1607 Florida Ave. N.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
V'l _)"4"'-00""
Robert Christiansen
1511 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen. MN 55317
Brian and Nancy Tichy
1471 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
~ ,.-.
RR, Rural Residential District
16.40 acres
1.04 Units per Acre-Gross 1.87 Units per Acre-Net
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF, Shadow Ridge Subdivision
S - Lake Lucy
E - RR, Rural Residential District
W - RR, Rural Residential District
t:
-
~
J
WATER AND SEWER:
A vailahle to the site.
-
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains two single family residences. The majority of
the site is wooded. It contains two wetlands. The topography
varies significantly throughout the site.
-
)
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density
.......> '
~'i.ri:i
-"~d..i.1..::..:..::~..:.~~'~'''~;L.'''''''"'-::.:''':2'..~<oo-'-''~' ",~'.L''''' ...:>. u .....
?~;(:.~1b7':~:-':' ",
'~'~~?:~':".:".: ' :
.' .-. ,~-... "-".. - ~_.r -+'". ~.:"__ _\ .~..'.
<.J
~'.
"f.
~; ~.. .:.".
,",,'
"
.......-..,...:.
.. ~ 'r
.,'"
....r.
I....
~<I' : . .' ..,;....
~ ,
.- .
...t,_ _..'
'8"
Co -,".;,~';{~_'",-.:~
:i~'.,\ __ }~,~. ~'<
_";'~A """~'" :
.<:~4;,;,
?~~;?~.~.
0 .0 0 0 0 .0,
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 .... ~ N ~
t' \D an ~ ,-t ',-t ,-t
... ... ,-t
o
.0
o
,-t
o
o.
en
o
'0
CD
o
'0
t'
o.
o
\D
l
. ~i
~~
i-lilac lane
o . ......- .wi".
J ".po- - ~. ,....-,
-r:.-- ',." :",~' .t:.=~,~. Z~~~i
.-l~nenCi~~ ~','~ "~
1 - :{ 7' A' 1.... :
. U - -1' .:=~ ~'1 .
2; _~ I t- ---::: _4
_~ ___ :-~ :.:::::.:::_ ~'.~_r_.-
-
..~ I .
I: !
-~._... ...
. '" -~ --
~-:~ ~~:r=:::;-~Ti
...-.-- ...;' C\ 1
, ':::i ,---
..._~_. ,;" ~......-..i
---..:;
:'.'~:
" . ...-.~ ..-
....i ..-......::::...._.-.~-
./ <'ov,I",.
.1." ..
, ,
\ /
" l
~
\,
\.
.
\"
.
. GreeJSWOod
Sbores
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 16.40 acres into 17 single family lots. The property is
zoned RR, Rural Residential and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential Single
Family.
The average lot size is 31,986 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.04 units per acre. All
lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance as relates to the area, width and
depth. The site is located south of Lake Lucy Road and north of Lake Lucy. Access to the
subdivision will be provided via a public street/cul-de-sac south of Lake Lucy Road to service the
proposed lots, as well as internal private streets.
The majority of the site is wooded with a diverse range of species and ages. According to the
proposed plans, the minimum tree canopy to be maintained is 43% or 4.84 acres. Additional tree
replacement will be required. Some of the parcels are shown as custom graded lots. The type of
future home is not shown on the plat. This will result in additional tree removal and staff can not
assess the extent of grading impact on the trees without this information.
This application appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council in 1995 under a
different applicant (Mr. Michael 1. Byrne). The 1995 plan reflected 23 homes and, after numerous
revisions, resulted in 18 home sites, massive retaining walls, mass grading in some areas, and
excessive tree removal. The applicant eventually withdrew his application. Loscheider Custom
Homes, Inc. decided to purchase and subdivide the property. The new proposal contains an in
depth analysis and comprehensive forest management plan for the site. This plan does not attempt
to preserve any more or less canopy than the previous plan, however, the applicant has invested
time and effort in preparing a forest management plan for the site and the future development.
The overall number oflots has been reduced from 18 to 17 single family lots. Staff must point
out that Lot 6, Block 2, has enough area to be further subdivided in the future and the
development could result in 18 lots. This will also translate into additional grading and tree loss.
Due to the topography and tree coverage on the site, staff recommended the applicant utilize
private driveways, increased number of homes to be served via private driveways, reduced front
yard setbacks, narrower right-of-way and steeper grades on the street to minimize impact on the
site. The 20 foot front yard setback variances on three of the lots is promoting the preservation of
trees and wetlands. The ordinance requires a 30 foot front yard setback. We believe it is
warranted. The 10 foot side yard setback on Lot 6, Block 2, will minimize impact on trees located
to the west of the lot. The zoning ordinance requires a 20 foot side yard setback on flag lots. The
street grade on Lakeway Drive is 10%. The ordinance allows a maximum grade of 7%. The
public right-of-way is 50 feet wide and the ordinance requires a minimum of 60 feet. This
variance will minimize grading. The last variance deals with the number of lots served via a
private driveway. Currently, there are three lots proposed to be served via Lakeway Court. The
property located to the east of the subject site has the potential for subdivision and could result in
two additional lots. The only access to the two potential lots is via Lakeway Court. The total
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 3
number of lots that will be served via the private driveway is five. Requiring the applicant to
build a City Street will result in excessive grading and loss of mature trees. To date, the City has
not approved such a variance, and though staff is cautious not to set a precedent, we believe in this
case the variance is warranted. It is highly unlikely that we will encounter a second request
similar to this one.
The property to the west of the subject site has the potential for subdivision also. The only access
to this property will be via the subject site. The applicant is stubbing Lakeway Lane to the edge of
the westerly property line.
The rezoning of the property from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family District is in
compliance with the comprehensive plan and staff is recommending approval of it.
Utilities must be extended over the property located to the west of the subject site. The applicant
must acquire all necessary easements from the owners of the property. The development contains
two existing home sites (Tichy and Christensen). Both of these home sites are currently on their
own well and septic system. The existing home on the westerly portion of the site is proposed to
be removed. The other home (Tichy) is proposed to remain on Lot 4, Block 3. Both on-site well
and septic systems will have to be abandoned in accordance with the city and sate health codes in
conjunction with this development. The well and septic on the Christensen site will have to be
abandoned in conjunction with site grading. The well and septic system on the Tichy property
(Lot 4, Block 3) may be delayed since the construction activities appear not to impact the systems.
However, city ordinance requires properties within 150 feet of a municipal sewer system must be
connected to the City's system within 12 months after the system becomes operational.
Connection to city water is not required until the well fails.
Staff is recommending approval of this application with variances and conditions outlined in the
. 'staffreport.
BACKGROUND
This application first appeared before the Planning Commission on April 5, 1995. The
subdivision included 23 single family lots but through work with the applicant, the total number
of lots dropped to 18 single family lots (copy attached). The application included the following
requests:
1. Rezoning of 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential
Single Family
2. Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 14.53 Acres into 18 single family lots and two outlots, Lake
Lucy Estates
3. A Variance to Allow a 20 Foot Front Yard Setback, a 10% street grade, and a 50 Foot
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 4
Wide Right-of-Way, a 10 foot side yard setback, and five homes to be served via a private
street.
Numerous issues were raised by the Planning Commission, residents, and staff. These issues
included excessive grading, tree loss, environmental concerns, and variances. The applicant
listened to the issues and attempted to address them through a revised plan.
The application reappeared before the Planning Commission on May 3, 1995. At that meeting,
staff prepared a sketch plan to act as a guideline to improve the plat. The recommendation in the
report was based on the layout prepared by staff rather than the plan prepared by the applicant.
The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the plan was not ready to be sent to City
Council. Action on the application was tabled and the applicant was directed to modify the plans
and incorporate recommendations made by staff.
On May 17, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed a plan that incorporated most of staffs
recommendations. The proposal was approved with conditions.
On June 12, 1995, the application appeared before the City Council. After discussion and
listening to residents and comments from the City Council, the applicant withdrew his application
prior to the City Council's vote.
REZONING
The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential
Single Family. The area to the north is zoned Residential Single Family to the east and west is
zoned Rural Residential and is guided for Residential Low Density.
The 2000 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential,
1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.04 units per acre and
1.87 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out.
This area is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending approval for rezoning to RSF consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide an 16.40 acre site into 17 single family lots. The density
of the proposed subdivision is 1.87 units per acre net after removing the roads (2.08 acres) and
wetlands (3.39 acres). AHlots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average
lot size of 31 ,986 square feet. The width and depth of the lots meets ordinance requirements.
There are a total of three lake lots shown on the plan. However, Lot 6, Block 2 has an area of
101,372 square feet and a width of303 feet. The ordinance requires a minimum lot area of
20,000 square feet for riparian lots. This parcel has the potential for future subdivision. There is
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 5
a side yard variance associated with this lot. The ordinance requires all riparian lot to maintain a
20 foot side yard setback. The majority of mature trees are located along the east side of the
property. Allowing a 10 foot side yard setback will maximize the distance between the house pad
on the subject lot and the trees. Staff is supporting a 10 foot side yard setback on the westerly lot
line of Lot 6, Block 2.
The 20 foot front yard setback variances on some of the lots is promoting the preservation of trees
and wetlands. We believe it is warranted. There are a total of three 20 foot front yard setback
variances as was shown on the plan (Lot 7 and 10, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3). The street
alignment could be modified slightly to the east, closer to Lot 7, and the retention pond moved to
the west bct'Ncen Lots 3 and 1, Block 2, to minimize impact to trees located on Lot 7, Bloclc 2.
Lots 5, and 6, Block 2, located to the south of the cul-de-sac, are proposed to be served via a
private street, as well as homes proposed on Lots 9 and 10, Block 2 and Lot I, Block 3. The
lower portion of the property located to the east of the subject property (Marins) can only gain
access to a public street through the subject property. The adjacent property has the potential to
subdivide into three lots. Two of those lots will utilize the same driveway as proposed Lots 9 and
10, Block 2 and Lot I, Block 3. The ordinance allows a maximum of 4 homes to be served via a
private drive. The plan proposes 5 lots to be served via a private street. This will minimize
grading and preserve trees in that area. Staff supports granting a variance to allow up to five lots
accessing a private street.
Although the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and generally consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance, we believe that revisions as recommended within this staff report should
be made to minimize impacts to the natural features of the site.
GRADING
; The plans have incorporated many design changes that staff had proposed previously. Those
changes include custom grading wooded lots, increasing the street grade (Lakeway Drive) up to
10% to conform better with the existing ground contours which results in less grading, adjusting
building pad locations and/or changing dwelling types to conform with existing ground.
However, staff believes there still are modifications that can be completed to improve the overall
site and reduce grading and tree loss. One such change would be to shorten the cul-de-sac and
shift it easterly approximately 20 feet. In addition, relocate the proposed stormwater pond to the
west side of the cuI de sac and lower the cul-de-sac grade a minimum of one foot. This will result
in saving significant oak trees which lie on the easterly side of the proposed cul-de-sac within the
proposed stormwater basin. The west of the cul-de-sac is basically void of vegetation and may add
an amenity to the proposed dwelling. One draYlback of relocating the stormv+,ater pond would be
the lov/est floor elevation on Lot 1, Block 2 would be aff-eeted. The City and Watershed both
have a restriction that requires a lowest floor elevation of a building adjacent to a storm water
pond or wetland be two feet above the high water level. The grading plan also proposes custom-
graded lots in the wooded areas with the exception of Lots 7 through 10, Block 2 where mass
grading will occur to prepare house pads and Lakeway Court. The sanitary sewer is proposed
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 6
along Lakeway Court which would take a swath a minimum of 40 feet wide due to the depth of
the sewer regardless. Staff has learned from previous developments that front yard trees over time
eventually die due to construction impacts. Therefore, staff is comfortable with the proposed
grading of these lots in an effort to minimize tree impacts on the back portion of these lots. As
you will note, the grading plan incorporates grading outside of the 50-foot wide right-of-way.
City Ordinance requires a subdivision to dedicate 60-foot wide right-of-ways and 60-foot wide
radius in a cul-de-sac. The plans are proposing a 50-foot wide right-of-way and 50-foot wide
radius cul-de-sac. Staff believes that a 60-foot wide right-of-way could be dedicated without
impacting too many of the lots; however, given the very steep terrain on the northerly half of the
project, the additional right-of-way would increase the setbacks for the homes thus creating
additional fill for driveways and dwellings which, in turn, would affect existing tree canopy
coverage. Therefore, staff is comfortable with permitting a 50-foot wide right-of-way; however,
the cul-de-sac will need to be 60-foot radius to provide adequate room for snow storage and utility
improvements.
Acc.ording to the grading plan it appears the site will be short on material. Staff anticipates the
applicant will need to import material to develop the site. The applicant will need to supply the
City with a haul route and traffic control plan for review and approval prior to site grading
commencing. In an effort to reduce grading and tree loss, staff is recommending that a retaining
wall be incorporated in the northwest comer of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane. In addition,
retaining walls could be further extended along private driveways to minimize grading and tree
loss as well.
Lakeway Court also needs to provide for a temporary turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire
Marshal. The temporary turnaround could be created on one of the lots (Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 10,
Block 2) until the Morin's subdivide when a permanent would then be required.
The southerly private street (Lakeway Drive at the end of the cul-de-sac) is proposed to serve Lots
5 and 6, Block 2. However, Lot 6 is a very large lot and has the potential for further subdivision.
The Fire Marshal may also require an acceptable turnaround if the driveway exceeds 150 feet in
length. This will require additional grading and tree loss on Lot 6 if it is further subdivided in the
future. The plans propose to fill up to four feet of material in this area to prepare the house pads
and private driveway (Lakeway Drive). This is also necessary to provide adequate cover for the
sanitary sewer to service these lots. In addition, fill material will give the ability to create lookout
or walkout-type dwellings without further grading towards the wetland.
The grading plan needs to incorporate dwelling types along with garage and first floor and lowest
floor elevations for staff to review. Without this information it is relatively difficult to determine
full grading impacts on the project. Custom-graded lots will require detailed grading (with two-
foot existing and proposed contours), drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans at time of
building permit application for City staff to review and approve. Building pad locations
designated on the custom-graded lots are seldom used. The house configuration and soil factors
will govern the location. Therefore, tree canopy loss mayor may not be accurate and in most
instances it is not. Tree loss is generally 10% to 15% higher due to construction activities outside
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 7
of the home and generally impacts trees 20 feet away from the foundation. Retaining walls are a
practical way of minimizing grading and tree loss. The applicant should be aware that retaining
walls in excess of four feet in height will required building permits and engineered drawings.
A soils report was prepared for the applicant by Braun Intertec. A summary of the results of the
soils evaluation indicated soil borings typically encountered a one to four-foot layer of topsoil at
the surface. Below the topsoil most of the borings encountered glacially deposited soils. Layers
of alluvial deposits were encountered above the glacial till into the boring. Groundwater was
encountered at four of the six boring locations. At these locations groundwater was encountered 4
to 11 feet below the surface or above elevation 950.5 to 965.5. The soil report also supplied
recommendations which indicated the topsoil, the alluvial soil and some soft glacial soils found in
the borings are considered unsuitable for supportive proposed loads due to high organic content
and/or associated compressibility under fill and building loads. To prepare for construction the
report recommended removal of these soils and any existing fill in the building or oversized area.
In the streets, the soil should be removed at least three feet below the proposed roadway subgrade
elevation. The excavations would then be backfilled with engineered fill as needed to achieve the
building and/or street subgrade elevation. The report also indicated the natural clays on the site
will be suitable for reuse as fill but will require drying to achieve compaction requirements. The
City's typical street section requires a two-foot sand subcut underneath the standard pavement
section in order to prepare the street in accordance with the City's typical urban street section.
Typically, with the soil conditions on hilly terrain, ground water may be of concern. The City
requires a drain tile system behind the curb and gutter for homes which are not adjacent to a
wetland/pond. The drain tile system provides an acceptable means of controlling sump pump
discharge from the homes as well as improve the street subgrade.
Storm sewer and tree fencing needs to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to
final plat approval.
Typically, in a development like this the developer is also the builder. However, in this case staff
is unsure whether the actual developer will be building the homes. Past experience has educated
staff to make things as clear as possible with regards to grading and tree removal limits in the
conditions of approval. Apparently, communication is lost between the developer and builder and
prospective home buyer at time of building permit application. The City has envisioned one way
of constructing a home on the lot; however, the prospective home buyer has another and seldom
do they correspond. Therefore, staff is recommending that tree removal grading limits should be
specifically addressed on each of the custom-graded lots so as any prospective home buyers will
know exactly what they are able to do to the lot.
EROSION CONTROL
Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion
control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for maximum
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 8
protection. The final grading plan shall incorporate erosion control fence around the perimeter of
the grading limits. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the grading and
drainage plan as well.
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the Coey parcel which was
subdivided into Point Lake Lucy. The Coey parcel is located approximately 200 feet east of this
site. The sewer line to date has not been extended to service this parcel. The sanitary sewer has
been extended through the Pointe Lake Lucy development and deadended at the property just east
of the development (Morin's). The exact alignment of the sewer line has been staked in the field
up to the Morin's property previously by staff and the property owner. The alignment minimizes
tree loss and impacts to the wetlands and Morin's property. The applicant will need to adjust their
plans to incorporate this alignment. In addition, the necessary utility easement for this extension
needs to be acquired in order to proceed with the project. Without the sewer, this project should
be considered premature for development. A condition has been added in the staff report that
preliminary and final plat approval will be contingent upon sanitary sewer being extended through
the Morin's property. At the time the Morins subdivide their parcel and connections are made to
the sewer line, the applicant will be entitled to a refund of a portion of the connection charge the
City will impose at time of building permit. Staff recommends that the individual sewer and
water service be field verified prior to construction to determine a location on each lot which
minimizes tree loss. The applicant should also be advised that, based on the soils report, there
may be some areas of unsuitable material where the pipe will need to be place on pilings or
significant subgrade correction performed prior to installation of the pipe.
Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose on
extending water service throughout the development. Detailed street and utility construction
plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction
plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of the
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will need to
be submitted to the City a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff
review and City Council formal approval. The applicant will be required as a part of final plat
and construction plan approval to enter into a development contract and provide the City with
financial securities to guarantee final plat conditions of approval and installation of the public
improvements.
The development contains two existing home sites (Tichy and Christensen). Both of these home
sites are currently on their own well and septic system. The existing home on the westerly portion
of the site (Lot 1, Block 2 - Christensen's) is proposed to be removed. The other home (Tichy) is
proposed to remain on Lot 4, Block 3. Both have on-site well and septic systems that will need to
be abandoned in accordance with the City and State building codes in conjunction with this
development. The well and septic on Lot 1, Block 2 will have to be abandoned in conjunction
with demolition of the home. The well and septic system on the Tichy property (Lot 1, Block 1)
may be delayed since the construction activities appear not to impact the systems. However, city
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 9
ordinance requires properties within 150 feet of a municipal sewer system must be connected to
the City's system within 12 months after the system becomes operational. Connection to City
water is not required until the well fails.
The sanitary sewer to serve this development will need to be designed and constructed to service
the Morin's property as well as the properties to the west of the site and north of Lake Lucy Road.
The applicant has not provided sewer and water extension west of the development. Staff will be
reviewing the need for providing utility service to the adjacent parcels. The applicant shall be
responsible for extending sanitary sewer service west of the site and north of Lake Lucy Road in a
location determined by staff.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. This road is classified in the City's
Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. The applicant is proposing to dedicate on the final plat
an additional 7 feet of right-of-way to meet the City's design criteria along Lake Lucy Road.
Street right-of-way on the public street within the plat has been reduced from the 60-foot
requirement to 50 feet wide in an effort to reduce grading and tree loss. Staff has evaluated this
compromise and believes the reduced right-of-way may be warranted except for the cul-de-sac
diameter. The plans are also incorporating the use of private driveways to service portions of the
development and adjacent parcels. City ordinance provides for up to four homes to be serviced
off a private driveway. A turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal will also have to be
provided. The private driveways will reduce impacts to the wetlands and minimize tree loss
versus a public street. Staff believes the use of a private driveway to service Lots 5 and 6, Block 2
may be warranted to reduce impacts to the area. The construction of a public street in this area
would destroy the natural features. In addition, Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 would be marginal lots due
to setback requirements from wetlands and the street. Staff believes the applicant has followed
the layout prepared by staff to minimize the environmental concerns. If a public street was
. 'required to serve Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 there would be only two lots created at the end on Lot 6,
Block 2 due to setbacks from the street and wetlands. Lot 5, Block 2 would not meet code
requirements. Therefore, an argument could be made for not allowing Lot 6, Block 2 to future
subdivide.
Another private street is proposed to service three lots (Lots 9 and 10, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3)
and the Morin's parcel to the east. The Morin's and staff have previously reviewed the
development potential of the Morin's parcel and it appears that the site may be further subdivided
into two additional lots. Therefore the private street (Lakeway Court) as proposed would be
serving up to five homes which exceeds the City's ordinance. Staff believes there is no other way
to create a street system to serve these lots which would minimize impacts and therefore
recommends a variance be granted for up to five (5) homes accessing Lakeway Court. A
turnaround which meets the City Fire Marshal's requirements will be necessary at the end of
Lakeway Court. If the Morin's are not in favor of the turnaround at this time, a temporary
turnaround could be developed on Lot 10, Block 2 or Lot 1, Block 3 until the Morin's are ready to
subdivide.
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 10
Future access was also considered for the parcel west of the development (Randall). The
Randall's parcel currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road via a long gravel driveway. Part of
the driveway is actually located within the proposed subdivision through Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1.
The Randall's driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road is across from Yosemite. This intersection
has substandard sight distance which makes it difficult to safely turn to and from the property.
Eventually, when the Randall parcel further subdivides, staff will recommend that the driveway
access onto Lake Lucy Road be eliminated and the driveway be relocated to access Lakeway
Lane. It appears the Randall property has ability to further subdivide into more than four lots.
The applicant has proposed a 3 I-foot wide City street and 50-foot wide public right-of-way
between Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 3, Block 1 to provide future access to the site. Lot 1, Block 2 will
also be accessed from this street. A sign will be required on the barricades as wells as a condition
in the development contract indicating that "Lakeway Lane may be extended in the future".
Staff has reviewed the street grades and alignment and believes, with the exception of the cul-de-
sac, no further modifications are available to minimize tree loss and grading. These changes were
also discussed in the grading portion of this report, i.e. retaining wall in the northeast comer of
Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane and revise cul-de-sac configuration and relocation of
stormwater pond.
All lots are proposed to access the interior streets and not directly onto Lake Lucy Road. The
existing driveway to Lot 4, Block 3 is proposed to be relocated to Lakeway Drive. This will result
in the necessity to change their street address. Private driveway maintenance and access
agreements will need to be incorporated into covenants to permit access to the lots adjacent to
private driveways as well as the Morin parcel.
Street grades range from 1 % to 10% which exceeds City Ordinance. City Ordinance requires
street grades to be between 0.75% and 7%. Staff believes that a 10% street grade may be
warranted in this situation to better conform to existing terrain and minimize grading and tree
loss. However, staff is recommending that a 3% or less landing minimum length of75 feet be
designed at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Lakeway Drive to provide adequate sight lines
and acceleration onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff believes that this can be easily accomplished.
MISCELLANEOUS
The final plat will need to dedicate a 60-foot radius on the cul-de-sac. In addition, drainage and
utility easements shall be dedicated over the stormwater pond and any utility improvements which
lie outside the City's road right-of-way. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide
depending on the depth and location of the utility or storm water pond basin.
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 11
WETLANDS
There are 2 wetlands delineated on-site and they are as follows:
Wetland A is a natural wetland located on the property just east of Lots 8 through 11 along the
southeastern portion of the property. The wetland is approximately 5.3 acres and is characterized as
an inland shallow fresh marsh. Approximately 1.7 acres of the wetland is located on the property.
Wetland B is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland is
above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR
jurisdiction. Approximately 1.4 acres of the wetland is located on the property.
Since both of the wetlands are classified as natural, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet
wide with an average width of20 feet. It is recommended that any disturbed areas of the buffer strip
be seeded with a mixed variety of natural upland vegetation. Although these wetlands will not be
filled or excavated as a result of the development, erosion control and maintenance on the erosion
control is a key factor in protecting wetlands. Type ill erosion control shall be provided around the
wetland at the start of construction and maintained until vegetation is fully re-established.
Wetland Buffers
The City wetland ordinances requires a buffer strip and buffer strip monumentation along wetlands.
The buffer strip width required for natural wetlands is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width
of 20 feet. The principal structure setback for these wetlands is 40 feet measured from the outside
edge of the buffer strip. The applicant has proposed a buffer strip of 10 feet along Lots 10,9,8,7 and
4. Lot 6 is shown with a thirty foot buffer to accomplish the 20 ft. average and lot 5 has a sharp
transition from 30 to 10 feet. City staff would recommend that the lot 5 buffer be adjusted so that
there is a smoother transition along the Lot 5 property line. Such sharp transitions in buffer zones
; J;1~ve resulted in buffer removal in the past.
Lake Access
There are three lots on this site that would meet the 90 foot width requirement for access to Lake
Lucy. However, to access the lake, each of these properties must impact the wetland to get to the
Lake. In the extreme case Lot 6 must go through 350 feet of wetland to reach the ordinary high
water level. Staff recommends that all of these lots access the lake at the point of least impact to the
wetland on a shared dock. The location of this dock would be on Lot 6.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
Storm Water Quality Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on
land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the
phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu ofland and pond construction
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 12
shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using market values ofland in the City ofChanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic
yard for excavation of the pond. The City has had discussions with the applicant's engineer on the
water quality ponding. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800/acre, (or $9,184 for the
11.48 acres) for single-family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides
water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. To receive this credit the applicant
must provide the City with plans for a stormwater quality pond designed to retain up to 75%
phosphorus according to the Walker Pondnet model.
Storm 'Vater Quantity Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-
wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single
family residential developments will have a connection charge of $1 ,980 per developable acre. The
total gross area of the property is 16.34 acres; however, 4.86 acres is wetland. Therefore, the
proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a water quantity
connection charge of$22,730. This fee will be due payable to the city at time of final plat recording.
PARK DEDICATION
Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail
construction. The existing house located on Lot 4, Block 3, is exempt from these fees. If the
home is demolished and a new residence is built, the site would then be subject to these fees.
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Lake Lucy Estates development are as
follows:
Total upland area
Total canopy area (excluding wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed tree removal
Proposed tree preservation
11.17 ac or 486,565 SF
9.51 ac or 414,256 SF
85%
55% or 6.14 ac/267,610 SF
42% or 4.67 ac/203,425 SF
43% or 4.84 ac/210,830 SF
Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is
multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage
Multiplier
Total replacement
Total number of trees to be planted
56,780 SF
1.2
68,136 SF
63 trees
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 13
A replacement planting plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall
be location, species and size of replacements. All replacements must meet minimum size
requirements. The applicant has requested that replacement plantings vary in size, from seedling
to the 2 Y2 minimum required by ordinance. Staff supports the request for trees planted in excess
of the 63 required. Of the 63 trees required, staff recommends the minimum required size is
upheld.
The applicant's tree canopy preservation and replacement calculations stated that 19 trees were to
be replaced. This erroneous calculation was based on incorrect removal and preservation
percentages.
The applicant has prepared a solid and comprehensive forest management plan for the site. Tree
survey results, woodland condition and replacement plantings plans are all covered in detail. The
applicant appears prepared to properly handle the development of the property and its woodlands.
The plan states that trees will be and have been assessed for preservation based on their
condition, location, age, and species. This technique will serve to avoid the mistakes made by
developers in wooded areas in the past where inappropriate trees are preserved only to die once
construction has finished.
Staff recommends tree removal limits for each lot be established as shown on the grading and
tree preservation plans submitted by the applicant. It appears a 20 foot removal limit from the
building pad would be coincide with tree removal shown on the applicants' plans.
Tree loss/preservation for the development is comparable to the loss associated with the previous
Byrne application. The current applicant has not preserved significantly any more or less of the
woodlands than the previous proposal. What this applicant has done, however, is invested time
and effort into preparing a forest management plan for the site and the future development.
The Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required
when a subdivision plat is contiguous to a collector street. Required buffering shall include berms
and landscape materials consisting ofa mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area.
The plan must identify plant material locations along Lake Lucy Road as well as planting within
each front yard. Appropriate financial security will be required. This plan should show the type
and size of trees proposed to be planted as well as the location of any berms along Lake Lucy
Road.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot
Area
Lot
Width
Lot
Depth
Home
Setback
Wetland&Buffer
Setback
Ordinance
15,000
90'
125'
30' front/rear 60' Average
10' sides
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 14
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 25,890 115' 229' 30'/30'
Comer lot 243' 10'
Lot 2 17,663 97' 197' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 3 1 7,746 122' 163 30'/30'
Comer lot 148' 10'
Block 2
Lot 1 21,905 165' 125' 30'/30'
Comer lot 142' 10'
Lot 2 15,000 120' 125' 30/30
10
Lot 3 19,298 193' 125' 30/30
10
Lot 4 56,715 95' 420' 30'/50'**40'/10'
10'
Lot 5 55,473 18' 332' 30'/50'**40'/1 0'
10'
Lot 6 101 ,372 10' 336' 30'170'**40'/30'
10'
Lot 7 39,278 204' 324' 20'*/50'**40'/1 0'
10'
Lot 8 24,220 137' 339' 30'/50'**40'/10'
10'
Lot 9 27,144 140' 295' 30'/50'**40'/10'
10'
Lot 10 20,091 140' 245' 20'*/50'**40'/1 0'
10'
Block 3
Lot 1 16,777 105' 160' 30'/30'
10'
Lot 2 25,307 243 180 30'/30'
Comer Lot 235 10'
Lot 3 19,660 132 158' 20'*/30'
10'
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 15
Lot 4
Comer Lot
40,231
185'
164
242'
30'/30'
10'
*
Side yard and/or front yard variance required.
**
Wetland & Buffer setback supersedes typical setbacks.
FINDINGS
SUBDIVISION
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision requires variances to meet the requirements of the RSF,
Residential Single Family District.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan
density designation.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site has a significant tree coverage and rolling topography.
; ,.', The applicant is attempting to minimize impact on the property and staff is making
recommendations that should be incorporated into the plan.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by a public street and
infrastructures contingent upon acquiring an easement through the Morin's parcel.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will need to be revised as discussed in the staff
report and in the conditions of approval. Grading and tree removal must be
minimized.
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 16
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will be provided with adequate public
infrastructure with the extension of the sanitary sewer from the east.
VARIANCE
As part of this plat approval, a variance to allow 20 foot front yard setbacks, a 10 percent street
grade, five homes accessing via a private street, and a 50 foot wide right-of-way is requested. The
City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part
of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist:
1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience.
2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the land.
3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property.
4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is
in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
Finding:
Staff recommends the variances be approved as shown in plans dated April 24,
1998, for the following:
a.
b.
A 20 foot front yard setback for Lot 7 and 10, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 4.
A 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way.
Five homes accessing via a private drive.
A 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 6, Block 2.
c.
d.
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 17
PRIV A TE STREETS
As part of this subdivision, the applicant is requesting the use of private streets to service portions
of the site. The subdivision ordinance allows up to four lots to be served by a private street if the
city finds the following conditions to exist:
1. The prevailing development pattern makes it not feasible or inappropriate to construct a
public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing
prope11y lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and existence of wetlands.
2. After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the public street
system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a
street system consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees.
Finding:
The applicant is utilizing two private streets to access Lots 5, 6, 9, and 10, Block 2,
and Lot 1, Block 3. Private streets will minimize impact on the vegetation and
preserve site grades. Lakeway Court will serve 5 lots, however, we believe in this
case a variance is appropriate.
BUILDING OFFICIAL COMMENTS
Dwelling Types. The type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and
Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building
permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevation, entry floor elevation
(not top of block) and garage floor elevation is required to be indicated on the proposed pad location.
Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TV, WO) must be shown for proposed
'dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review
process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed.
Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require a
demolition permit. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic
system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a
demolition permit. A house moving permit is required if a structure is to be moved to another
location within the City. House moving permits must be approved by the City Council. A road use
permit is required to move a structure over City roads.
Retaining 'Valls. Retaining walls over 48" high from the base of their footings require a building
permit and inspections.
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 18
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On May 20, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application
unanimously. A number of issues were discussed. They are as follows:
The applicant stated that it would be difficult for them to provide home types and elevations on
custom graded lots. Staff explained that it is imperative that this information is provided. It will
help determine the grading impact on existing vegetation. Furthermore, as part of the installation
of the sanitary sewer lines, there is a need to determine the elevation of the home in order to
extend the sanitary sewer service at the proper depth.
Staff recommended all lake lots share one dock over Lot 6, Block 2. The applicant explained that
this parcel has an existing dock and they wish to work with staff on Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, to
share a dock. Staffs intent was to minimize impact on the wetlands. The wetland is fairly narrow
in the area immediately south of Lot 6, Block 2. The ordinance does not prevent lake shore lots
froTD having an individual dock, therefore, the City has no legal means of forcing this issue.
However, we would strongly recommend and urge the applicant to provide a shared dock for Lots
4 and 5, Block 2.
Staff originally recommended the applicant relocate the storm pond west of the cul-de-sac. Since
then, the City's and applicant's foresters met on the site to evaluate the impact on trees. It appears
the trees that will be lost are diseased with the exception of a couple of significant oak trees. It is
staffs belief that the pond can be reconfigured on the east side to maintain these significant oaks.
Therefore, the condition addressing the relocation of the pond to the west has been deleted.
Staff recommended the applicant provide 63 trees as replacement/reforestation planting. The
applicant requested that they work with staff on a reforestation management plan that would
provide a variety of sizes. The Planning Commission suggested that since the overall inch
calipers required is approximately 168 inches, staff and the applicant can work out some type of
formula that would require a minimum of 40 or 50 trees with a total caliper inch to be not less
than 168 inches.
The property owners west of the development (Randalls) expressed concern over future sanitary
sewer and public street service. Staff has reviewed and met with the Randalls regarding the street
configuration and believes the proposed development will provide adequate public street access
for future subdivision of the Randall property. It is possible to terminate the street (Lakeway
Lane) 10 to 15 feet short of the property line to provide a buffer. Sanitary sewer service is still
being evaluated and will be resolved before final plat consideration. Another concern they had
was the side yard setback for Lot 4, Block 2. The applicant is showing a 10 foot side yard setback
which is in keeping with the zoning ordinance.
All of the neighbors that spoke during the public hearing explained that they were not against the
development; however, they wished to see fewer lots. Staff explained that fewer lots could
minimize grading; however, the proposed subdivision is in keeping with the ordinance
requirements.
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 19
There is a large cluster of trees on Lot 6, Block 2. This parcel is also large enough to be further
subdivided. The neighbors requested some type of restriction. The Planning Commission
recommended the applicant dedicate a tree conservation easement over the easterly half of Lot 6,
Block 2 with the understanding that the applicant can appear before the City at a future date and
request vacation of the easement and request a subdivision.
On June 25,1998, staff received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Tichy, the future owners of Lot 6,
Block 2, who are opposed to the dedication of this easement as it restricts the future subdivision
of this parcel. The intent of a preservation easement is to preserve trees and not to prohibit a
landowner from further subdividing a property. Also, in this case, it is clear that should Mr. Tichy
decide to subdivide the property, he will need to vacate the preservation easement which is an
added obstacle. Therefore, staff is recommending against a preservation easement over Lot 6,
Block 2.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves rezoning 16.40 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to
RSF, Residential Single Family (95-1 REZ); Preliminary plat (95-3 SUB) to subdivide 16.40 acres
into I? single family lots, with variances (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lots? and 10, Block 2,
and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way, five homes
accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 6, Block 2),
Lake Lucy Estates, as shown on plans dated April 24, 1998, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall plant 63 trees as replacement/reforestation plantings. Trees shall be
selected from the city's Approved Tree List and meet minimum size requirements. A
landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be
location, species and size of replacements. The applicant and staff work further to
present possibly reforestation options to the City Council.
2. Tree removal limits shall be established 20 feet from the building pad for all custom
graded lots, once the type of home is designated. Tree protection fencing must be installed
at the limits and maintained throughout construction.
3. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. The applicant shall
work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along
Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the
development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement
shall permit removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4'
height shall not be permitted to be removed.
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 20
4. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to
grading.
5. Building Department conditions:
a. Revise the preliminary grading & erosion control plan to show the proposed dwelling
pads with standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor
and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
b. Obtain demolition pem1its. This should be done prior to any grading on the propeJ1y.
c. Obtain building permits from the Inspections Division for retaining walls over 48"
high. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation,
top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior
to final plat approval.
6. Fire Marshal conditions:
a At the east end of Lake Way Court provide an approved tumaround for fire
apparatus. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.204 (D).
b. Relocate the existing hydrant that is located on block 8 on the south side of Lake
Way Court to the north side of Lake Way Court on block 2.
c. With reference to block 2, lot 6, if structure is not visible from the street, additional
address numbers will be required at driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen
Fire Permit Policy Premise Identification No. 29-1992.
7. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu ofland acquisition
and/or trail construction.
8. The buffer on Lot 5, Block 2, shall be adjusted so that there is a smoother transition along
the Lot 5 property line.
9. All repairian lots shall access the lake at the point of least impact to the wetland on a shared
dock The location of this dock would be on lot 6. Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 are encouraged
to share a dock to minimize impact on the wetlands.
10. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800/acre, (or $9,184 for the 11.48 acres) for
single- family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides water quality
treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. To receive this credit the applicant must
provide the City with plans for a stormwater quality pond designed to retain up to 75%
phosphorus according to the Walker Pondnet model.
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 21
11. The proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a water
quantity connection charge of $22,730. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of
final plat recording.
12 The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan
requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review
and fom1al approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands
and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent the grading limits.
13. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval
three weeks prior to final plat consideration.
15. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will
charge the applicant $20 per sign.
16. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with
the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve
prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post
developed storm water calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and
. " , high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
17. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 22
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of
the ponding areas. A 40-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be required over the
utilities located within Lakeway Court.
20 The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands or storm water ponds
shall be a minimum of2 feet above the 100-year high water level.
21 . A water quality pond shall be provided on the v:est side of the cuI de sac to pretreat nmoff
prior to discharging into the '.vetlands. The proposed storm water pond must have side
slopes of 10: 1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3: 1
thereafter or 4: 1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond shall be redesigned in an
effort to minimize tree loss east of the cul-de-sac. The storm water pond shall be
designed and constructed with a 75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan
providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is
recommended.
22. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in
accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing
home (Tichy) on Lot 4, Block 3 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system
within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to City water is not
required unless the well on Lot 4, Block 3 fails.
23. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
The construction plans shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs and gutters on
those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond.
24. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. Lot
4, Block 3 shall relocate their driveway from Lake Lucy Road to Lakeway Drive. In
addition, the street address for this lot shall be changed accordingly.
25. Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 shall
be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading (with two-foot
contours), drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the
building permit application for review and approval by the City engineer prior to issuance
of a building permit for the lot.
26. The grading, drainage, and construction plans shall be revised incorporating the following
changes that conform better with the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss:
a) Tree protection fencing.
b) Consider the use of retaining walls along the northeast comer of Lakeway Lane
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 23
27.
28.
. . ~ . ~
29.
30.
and Lakeway Drive to reduce grading and minimize tree loss.
c) Shorten and lower cul-de-sac and increase radius to 60 feet.
d) Relocate stormv.ater pond to '.vest side of cui de sac.
e) Provide "Y" or "T" temporary turnaround on Lakeway Court.
f) Denote dwelling type on all lots including garage, first and lowest floor elevation.
g) Label height of retaining walls.
h) Provide drain tile behind the curb for those lots not adjacent to wetlands or
stormwater pond.
i) Design private driveway (Lakeway Drive) to drain partially back to cul-de-sac.
j) Add outlet control structure to pond.
k) Revise sanitary sewer alignment through Morin's parcel and provide sanitary sewer
service to parcel to the west per staff.
Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being
extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the
applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins.
All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No.
209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance
agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private
street(s). A temporary turnaround may be permitted on Lot 10, Block 2 or Lot I, Block 3
until the Morin's parcel further subdivides.
The applicant shall extend utilities to the parcel to the west through a location determined
by staff. Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall
be placed on the barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future". A
condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners in
Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension. The property to the west may continue to utilize
the existing private driveway, until such time when the property further subdivides. It will
then gain access via Lakeway Lane only and the existing private driveway shall be
abandoned.
The applicant or their assignee shall submit a haul route and traffic control plan to the City
Engineer for review and approval prior to site grading commencing.
Lake Lucy Estates
July 13, 1998
Page 24
31. Individual sewer and water services to the lots shall be field verified to determine the path
of least impact to the trees.
32. The applicant shall be entitled to a refund (up to 90% depending on construction costs) of
a portion of future sewer connection charges collected from Morin's parcel when building
permits are issued.
33. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared for use of the private
driveway including the Morin's parcel.
34. That there would be a cross access easement agreement prepared for the use of the
private driveway including the Randall parcel."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Copy of Lake Lucy Estates plan dated April 2, 1995.
2. Memo from Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer dated May 14, 1998.
3. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated May 4, 1998.
4. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official, dated May 6, 1998.
5. Application.
6. Narrative.
7. Notice of Public Hearing.
8. Forest Management Plan prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
9. Letter from The Lake Lucy Environment Preservation Committee.
10. Reduced Plans dated April 24, 1998.
11. Planning Commission minutes dated May 20, 1998.
12. Letter from Brian and Nancy Tichy, dated June 24, 1998.
13. Preliminary plat dated April 24, 1998.
\\cfs I \voI2\plan\sa\lklucy.contractors.doc
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
':i0' Cellter Drii'e, PO Box 147
,1J/hilis(IJ, Milllwota 55317
Pholle 612.937.1900
;f!leral Fax 612.937.5739
(illeerillg Fax 612.937.9152
,:'it' S,d:!: 1:1.\' 61 2934.252~
b
:::MORAND~:nnin AI-laCC. Planner II ..,r
FROM: Dave Hempel. Assistant City Engineer~' '
DATE:
May 14, 1998"
SUBJ:
Review of Preliminary Plat for Lake Lucy Estates
Project No. 95-12
Upon review of the preliminary plans dated April 24, 1998, prepared by Westwood
Engineering, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
GRADING
The plans have incorporated many design changes that staff had proposed
previously. Those changes include custom grading wooded lots, increasing the
street grade (Lakeway Drive) up to 10% to conform better with the existing
ground contours which results in less grading, adjusting building pad locations
and/or changing dwelling types to conform with existing ground. However, staff
believes there still are modifications that can be completed to improve the overall
site and reduce grading and tree loss. One such change would be to shorten the
cul-de-sac and shift it easterly approximately 20 feet. In addition, relocate the
proposed stormwater pond to the west side of the cul-de-sac and lower the cul-de-
sac grade a minimum of one foot This will result in saving significant oak trees
which lie on the easterly side of the proposed cul-de-sac within the proposed
stormwater basin. The west of the cul-de-sac is basically void of vegetation and
may add an amenity to the proposed dwelling. One drawback of relocating the
stormwater pond would be the lowest floor elevation on Lot 4, Block 2 would be
affected. The City and Watershed both have a restriction that requires a lowest
floor elevation of a building adjacent to a stormwater pond or wetland be two feet
above the high water level. The grading plan also proposes custom-graded lots in
the wooded areas with the exception of Lots 7 through 10, Block 2 where mass
grading will occur to prepare house pads and Lakeway Court. The sanitary sewer
is proposed along Lakeway Court which would take a swath a minimum of 40 feet
wide due to the depth of the sewer regardless. Staff has learned from previous
developments that front yard trees over time eventually die due to construction
impacts. Therefore, staff is comfortable with the proposed grading of these lots in
Cit)' ofChallhflSsfII. A frozl'illl[ cOlI/lI/ullin' lI'ith c!cilIllilkes, {fIlI1lin'sc/>ool;, a chanllillfl dOll'lltOIl'II, t/>ril'ilw busillesses, alld beautiful pilIk;. A m't1t Plla to lil'c. Il'OIk //1/(/ aliI'
Ii
j
.
~
:I
Illtl
>I:I,~
311: I ~
W II
j !!
.
.\On, JlfY'1
..,.,--.....
--
-...
- ---
,
,
,
"
--
-----
'.
.f----::', '\
r--- ",
,
,
1 /.
-::::0}
--......
2 ~
~;
~
! ~
. ~
:l . i
< .
iI( ~
'"
en ....
~ ~ Iii
> I "ll~
31 Q ~ ~I
w ~)c
~ ~i
I
,
i
I
Sharmin AI-Jaff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 2
an effort to minimize tree impacts on the back portion of these lots. As you will
note, the grading plan incorporates grading outside of the 50-foot wide right-of-
way. City Ordinance requires a subdivision to dedicate 60-foot wide right-of-ways
and 60-foot wide radius in a cul-de-sac. The plans are proposing a 50-foot wide
right-of-way and 50-foot wide radius cul-de-sac. Staff believes that a 60-foot wide
right-of-way could be dedicated without impacting too many of the lots; however,
given the very steep terrain on the northerly half of the project, the additional
right-of-way would increase the setbacks for the homes thus creating additional fill
for driveways and dwellings which, in turn, would affect existing tree canopy
coverage. Therefore, staff is comfortable with permitting a 50-foot wide right-of-
way; however, the cul-de-sac will need to be 60-foot radius to provide adequate
room for snow storage and utility improvements.
According to the grading plan it appears the site will be short on material. Staff
anticipates the applicant will need to import material to develop the site. The
applicant will need to supply the City with a haul route and traffic control plan for
review and approval prior to site grading commencing. In an effort to reduce
grading and tree loss, staff is recommending that a retaining wall be incorporated
in the northwest corner of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane. In addition,
retaining walls could be further extended along private driveways to minimize
grading and tree loss as well.
; .
..,. .
Lakeway Court also needs to provide for a temporary turnaround acceptable to the
City's Fire Marshal. The temporary turnaround could be created on one of the lots
(Lot 1, Block 3 or Lot 10, Block 2) until the Morin's subdivide when a permanent
would then be required.
The southerly private street (Lakeway Drive at the end of the cul-de-sac) is
proposed to serve Lots 5 and 6, Block 2. However, Lot 6 is a very large lot and
has the potential for further subdivision. The Fire Marshal may also require an
acceptable turnaround if the driveway exceeds 150 feet in length. This will require
additional grading and tree loss on Lot 6 if it is further subdivided in the future.
The plans propose to fill up to four feet of material in this area to prepare the
house pads and private driveway (Lakeway Drive). This is also necessary to
provide adequate cover for the sanitary sewer to service these lots. In addition, fill
material will give the ability to create lookout or walkout-type dwellings without
further grading towards the wetland.
Sharmin AI-J aff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 3
The grading plan needs to incorporate dwelling types along with garage and first
floor and lowest floor elevations for staff to review. Without this information it is
relatively difficult to determine full grading impacts on the project. Custom-
graded lots will require detailed grading (with two-foot existing and proposed
contours), drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans at time of building
permit application for City staff to review and approve. Building pad locations
designated on the custom-graded lots are seldom used. The house configuration
and soil factors will govern the location. Therefore, tree canopy loss mayor may
not be accurate and in most instances it is not. Tree loss is generally 10% to 15%
higher due to construction activities outside of the home and generally impacts
trees 20 feet away from the foundation. Retaining walls are a practical way of
minimizing grading and tree loss. The applicant should be aware that retaining
walls in excess of four feet in height will required building permits and engineered
drawings.
A soils report was prepared for the applicant by Braun Intertec. A summary of the
results of the soils evaluation indicated soil borings typically encountered a one to
four-foot layer of topsoil at the surface. Below the topsoil most of the borings
encountered glacially deposited soils. Layers of alluvial deposits were encountered
above the glacial till into the boring. Groundwater was encountered at four of the
six boring locations. At these locations groundwater was encountered 4 to 11 feet
below the surface or above elevation 950.5 to 965.5. The soil report also supplied
recommendations which indicated the topsoil, the alluvial soil and some soft glacial
soils found in the borings are considered unsuitable for supportive proposed loads
due to high organic content and/or associated compressibility under fill and
building loads. To prepare for construction the report recommended removal of
these soils and any existing fill in the building or oversized area. In the streets, the
soil should be removed at least three feet below the proposed roadway subgrade
elevation. The excavations would then be backfilled with engineered fill as needed
to achieve the building and/or street subgrade elevation. The report also indicated
the natural clays on the site will be suitable for reuse as fill but will require drying
to achieve compaction requirements. The City's typical street section requires a
two-foot sand subcut underneath the standard pavement section in order to
prepare the street in accordance with the City's typical urban street section.
Typically, with the soil conditions on hilly terrain, ground water may be of
concern. The City requires a drain tile system behind the curb and gutter for
homes which are not adjacent to a wetland/pond. The drain tile system provides
Sharmin Al-laff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 4
an acceptable means of controlling sump pump discharge from the homes as well
as improve the street subgrade.
Storm sewer and tree fencing needs to be denoted on the final grading and
drainage plans prior to final plat approval.
Typically, in a development like this the developer is also the builder. However, in
this case staff is unsure whether the actual developer will be building the homes.
Past experience has educated staff to make things as clear as possible with regards
to grading and tree removal limits in the conditions of approval. Apparently,
communication is lost between the developer and builder and prospective home
buyer at time of building permit application. The City has envisioned one way of
constructing a home on the lot; however, the prospective home buyer has another
and seldom do they correspond. Therefore, staff is recommending that tree
removal grading limits should be specifically addressed on each of the custom-
graded lots so as any prospective home buyers will know exactly what they are
able to do to the lot.
EROSION CONTROL
; ....
Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the
City's Type III erosion control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used
around the wetlands for maximum protection. The final grading plan shall
incorporate erosion control fence around the perimeter of the grading limits. In
addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the grading and drainage
plan as well.
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the Coey parcel
which was subdivided into Point Lake Lucy. The Coey parcel is located
approximately 200 feet east of this site. The sewer line to date has not been
extended to service this parcel. The sanitary sewer has been extended through the
Pointe Lake Lucy development and deadended at the property just east of the
development (Morin's). The exact alignment of the sewer line has been staked in
the field up to the Morin's property previously by staff and the property owner.
The alignment minimizes tree loss and impacts to the wetlands and Morin's
property. The applicant will need to adjust their plans to incorporate this
Sharmin Al-laff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 5
alignment. In addition, the necessary utility easement for this extension needs to
be acquired in order to proceed with the project. Without the sewer, this project
should be considered premature for development. A condition has been added in
the staff report that preliminary and final plat approval will be contingent upon
sanitary sewer being extended through the Morin's property. At the time the
Morins subdivide their parcel and connections are made to the sewer line, the
applicant will be entitled to a refund of a portion of the connection charge the City
will impose at time of building permit. Staff recommends that the individual sewer
and water service be field verified prior to construction to determine a location on
each lot which minimizes tree loss. The applicant should also be advised that,
based on the soils report, there may be some areas of unsuitable material where the
pipe will need to be place on pilings or significant subgrade correction performed
prior to installation of the pipe.
Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The plans
propose on extending water service throughout the development. Detailed street
and utility construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction
with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications shall be
prepared in accordance with the City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications
and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will need to be
submitted to the City a minimum of three weeks prior to final plat consideration
for staff review and City Council formal approval. The applicant will be required
as a part of final plat and construction plan approval to enter into a development
contract and provide the City with financial securities to guarantee final plat
conditions of approval and installation of the public improvements.
The development contains two existing home sites (Tichy and Christensen). Both
of these home sites are currently on their own well and septic system. The existing
home on the westerly portion of the site (Lot 1, Block 2 - Christensen's) is
proposed to be removed. The other home (Tichy) is proposed to remain on Lot 4,
Block 3. Both have on-site well and septic systems that will need to be abandoned
in accordance with the City and State building codes in conjunction with this
development. The well and septic on Lot 1, Block 2 will have to be abandoned in
conjunction with demolition of the home. The well and septic system on the Tichy
property (Lot 1, Block 1) may be delayed since the construction activities appear
not to impact the systems. However, city ordinance requires properties within 150
feet of a municipal sewer system must be connected to the City's system within 12
months after the system becomes operational. Connection to City water is not
required until the well fails.
Sharmin AI-Jaff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 6
The sanitary sewer to serve this development will need to be designed and
constructed to service the Morin's property as well as the properties to the west of
the site and north of Lake Lucy Road. The applicant has not provided sewer and
water extension west of the development. Staff will be reviewing the need for
providing utility service to the adjacent parcels. The applicant shall be responsible
for extending sanitary sewer service west of the site and north of Lake Lucy Road
in a location determined by staff.
STREETS
Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. This road is
classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. The applicant is
proposing to dedicate on the final plat an additional 7 feet of right-of-way to meet
the City's design criteria along Lake Lucy Road. Street right-of-way on the public
street within the plat has been reduced from the 60-foot requirement to 50 feet
wide in an effort to reduce grading and tree loss. Staff has evaluated this
compromise and believes the reduced right-of-way may be warranted except for
the cul-de-sac diameter. The plans are also incorporating the use of private
driveways to service portions of the development and adjacent parcels. City
ordinance provides for up to four homes to be serviced off a private driveway. A
turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal will also have to be provided.
The private driveways will reduce impacts to the wetlands and minimize tree loss
versus a public street. Staff believes the use of a private driveway to service Lots
5 and 6, Block 2 may be warranted to reduce impacts to the area. The
construction of a public street in this area would destroy the natural features. In
addition, Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 would be marginal lots due to setback
requirements from wetlands and the street. Staff believes the applicant has
followed the layout prepared by staff to minimize the environmental concerns. If a
public street was required to serve Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 there would be only two
lots created at the end on Lot 6, Block 2 due to setbacks from the street and
wetlands. Lot 5, Block 2 would not meet code requirements. Therefore, an
argument could be made for not allowing Lot 6, Block 2 to future subdivide.
Another private street is proposed to service three lots (Lots 9 and 10, Block 2
and Lot 1, Block 3) and the Morin's parcel to the east. The Morin's and staff have
previously reviewed the development potential of the Morin's parcel and it appears
that the site may be further subdivided into two additional lots. Therefore the
private street (Lakeway Court) as proposed would be serving up to five homes
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 7
which exceeds the City's ordinance. Staff believes there is no other way to create a
street system to serve these lots which would minimize impacts and therefore
recommends a variance be granted for up to five (5) homes accessing Lakeway
Court. A turnaround which meets the City Fire Marshal's requirements will be
necessary at the end of Lakeway Court. If the Morin's are not in favor of the
turnaround at this time, a temporary turnaround could be developed on Lot 10,
Block 2 or Lot 1, Block 3 until the Morin's are ready to subdivide.
Future access was also considered for the parcel west of the development
(Randall). The Randall's parcel currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road via a
long gravel driveway. Part of the driveway is actually located within the proposed
subdivision through Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 1. The Randall's driveway access onto
Lake Lucy Road is across from Yosemite. This intersection has substandard sight
distance which makes it difficult to safely turn to and from the property.
Eventually, when the Randall parcel further subdivides, staff will recommend that
the driveway access onto Lake Lucy Road be eliminated and the driveway be
relocated to access Lakeway Lane. It appears the Randall property has ability to
further subdivide into more than four lots. The applicant has proposed a 31-foot
wide City street and 50-foot wide public right-of-way between Lot 1, Block 2 and
Lot 3, Block 1 to provide future access to the site. Lot 1, Block 2 will also be
accessed from this street. A sign will be required on the barricades as wells as a
condition in the development contract indicating that "Lakeway Lane may be
extended in the future".
Staff has reviewed the street grades and alignment and believes, with the exception
of the cul-de-sac, no further modifications are available to minimize tree loss and
grading. These changes were also discussed in the grading portion of this report,
i.e. retaining wall in the northeast comer of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane and
revise cul-de-sac configuration and relocation of stormwater pond.
All lots are proposed to access the interior streets and not directly onto Lake Lucy
Road. The existing driveway to Lot 4, Block 3 is proposed to be relocated to
Lakeway Drive. This will result in the necessity to change their street address.
Private driveway maintenance and access agreements will need to be incorporated
into covenants to permit access to the lots adjacent to private driveways as well as
the Morin parcel.
Street grades range from 1 % to 10% which exceeds City Ordinance. City
Ordinance requires street grades to be between 0.75% and 7%. Staff believes that
Sharmin Al-laff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 8
a 10% street grade may be warranted in this situation to better conform to existing
terrain and minimize grading and tree loss. However, staff is recommending that a
3% or less landing minimum length of 75 feet be designed at the intersection of
Lake Lucy Road and Lakeway Drive to provide adequate sight lines and
acceleration onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff believes that this can be easily
accomplished.
MISCELLANEOUS
The final plat will need to dedicate a 60-foot radius on the cul-de-sac. In addition,
drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the stormwater pond and
any utility improvements which lie outside the City's road right-of-way. The
minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide depending on the depth and
location of the utility or stormwater pond basin.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the
Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The
plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type
III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands and Type I
erosion control fence shall be used adjacent the grading limits.
2.
All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately
restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within
two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook.
~. ,..
3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with
the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for
staff review and City Council approval three weeks prior to final plat
consideration.
4. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs
before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign.
Sharmin AI-Jaff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 9
5. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for lO-year
and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for
stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water
Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to
final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and
post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and
normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins,
created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between
each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient
catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design
calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the
terms of the development contract.
7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate
regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army
Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
8. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the
final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way.
The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration
shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. A 40-
foot wide drainage and utility easement will be required over the utilities
located within Lakeway Court.
9. No berming, retaining walls or landscaping will be allowed within the right-
of-way.
10. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands or
storm water ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high
water level.
11. A water quality pond shall be provided on the west side of the cul-de-sac
to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The proposed
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 10
stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10: 1 for the first ten feet at the
normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for
safety purposes. The stormwater pond shall be designed and constructed
with a 75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing
upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings
is recommended.
12. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly
abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health
codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 4, Block 3 shall be
connected to the City's sanitary sewer system within 30 days after the
system becomes operational. Connection to City water is not required
unless the well on Lot 4, Block 3 fails.
13. The proposed single-family residential development of 11.48 developable
acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730.
These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The
water quality fees will be waived if the applicant provides for on-site
stormwater treatment.
14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain
tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile
as directed by the City Engineer. The construction plans shall include a
drain tile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not
adjacent to a wetland or storm pond.
15. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake
Lucy Road. Lot 4, Block 3 shall relocate their driveway from Lake Lucy
Road to Lakeway Drive. In addition, the street address for this lot shall be
changed accordingly.
16. Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, and Lots 1 through
3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A
detailed grading (with two-foot contours), drainage, tree removal and
erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application
for review and approval by the City engineer prior to issuance of a building
permit for the lot.
Sharmin Al-Jaff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 11
17. The grading, drainage, and construction plans shall be revised
incorporating the following changes that conform better with the existing
grades and minimize grading and tree loss:
a) Tree protection fencing.
b) Retaining wall along the northeast corner of Lakeway Lane and
Lakeway Drive to reduce grading and minimize tree loss.
c) Shorten and lower cul-de-sac and increase radius to 60 feet.
d) Relocate stormwater pond to west side of cul-de-sac.
e) Provide "Y" or "T" temporary turnaround on Lakeway Court.
f) Denote dwelling type on all lots including garage, first and lowest
floor elevation.
g) Label height of retaining walls.
h) Provide drain tile behind the curb for those lots not adjacent to
wetlands or stormwater pond.
i) Design private driveway (Lakeway Drive) to drain partially back to
cul-de-sac.
j) Add outlet control structure to pond.
k) Revise sanitary sewer alignment through Morin's parcel and provide
sanitary sewer service to parcel to the west per staff.
18. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer
service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake
Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility
easement from the Morins.
19. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City
Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal.
A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided
Sharmin AI-Jaff
Lake Lucy Estates Preliminary Plat Review
May 14, 1998
Page 12
for all parcels served by a private street(s). A temporary turnaround may
be permitted on Lot 10, Block 2 or Lot 1, Block 3 until the Morin's parcel
further subdivides.
20. The applicant shall extend utilities to the parcel to the west through a
location determined by staff. Temporary barricades shall be placed at the
end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be placed on the barricades indicating
"this street shall be extended in the future", A condition will also be placed
in the development contract to inform all property owners in Lake Lucy
Estates of this street extension.
21. The applicant shall obtain a variance to the City's private street ordinance
to allow up to 5 homes to access Lakeway Court, 10% street grade on
Lakeway Drive and 50-foot right-of-way throughout except for the cul-de-
sac is recommended.
22. The applicant or their assignee shall submit a haul route and traffic control
plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to site grading
commencing.
23. Individual sewer and water services to the lots shall be field verified to
determine the path of least impact to the trees.
24. The applicant shall be entitled to a refund (up to 90% depending on
construction costs) of a portion of future sewer connection charges
collected from Morin's parcel when building permits are issued.
25. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared for use
of the private driveway including the Morin's parcel.
c: Anita Benson, City Engineer
g:'cng'projects\lake lucy estates\ppr memo.doc
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
I Ci0' Cfiller Drire, PO Box 147
f,dllhil.'SfII, MillIIesolil 55317
Pho!!e 612.9371900
Gmeml FilX 612.937.5739
hlx 612.937.9152
FI\ 6129JIl'l!
.(.,..(./1,>:./:....
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin AI-Jaffe, Planner II
FROM:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE:
May 4, 1998
SUBJ:
Request for rezoning of 16.4 acres from RR, Rural Residential to
RSF, Residential Single Family. Preliminary Plat of 16.4 acres into
17 single family lots with variances. Property is located on the
south side of Lake Lucy Road just north of Lake Lucy, Lake Lucy
Estates, contractor Property Developers Company.
Planning Case; 95-3 SUB & 95-1 Rezoning (File 2).
I have reviewed the site plans for the above project. In order to comply with the
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire
code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available
information submitted at this time period. If additional plans or changes are
submitted, the appropriate code or policy will be addressed.
1. At the east end of Lake Way Court provide an approved turnaround for fire
apparatus. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.204 (D).
2. Relocate the existing hydrant that is located on block 8 on the south side of
Lake Way Court to the north side of Lake Way Court on block 2.
3. With reference to block 2, lot 6, if structure is not visible from the street,
additional address numbers will be required at driveway entrance. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Permit Policy Premise Identification No. 29-1992.
ML:ebb
g:/safety/ml/case9 5.3
Ci(l' ofClJiIll/JilSSm. A growillg COlllllllllli0' leit/; ele.1II I.IA-(S, q:lilli(l sc/ooo!s, iI clliIIJllillg dowlltown, thril'illg bl/Sinesses, and beillltiful pmks. A gmIt pllt,/, to lil'/', Ii 'orA" i/lld pL~):
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 CiO' Cellter Drive, PO Box 147
Chlllhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General Fax 6]2.937.5739
Eilgineering Fax 612.937.9152
l'z:/;fj( S4m h\ 612.9342524
\L'b E"li'i.c.(i.thlU"'U.,til.Jnil.li)"
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II
FROM:
Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE:
May 6, 1998
SUBJECT:
95-3 SUB and 95-1 REZ , file 2 (Lake Lucy Estates, Contractor Property
Developers Company)
I was asked to review the subdivision proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN,
RECEIVED, APR 24 1998, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above
referenced project.
Analvsis:
Dwelling Types. The type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections Division and
Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of
building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevation, entry floor
elevation (not top of block) and garage floor elevation is required to be indicated on the proposed
pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TV, WO) must be shown for
proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan
review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed.
Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require a
demolition permit. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for
septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of
a demolition permit. A house moving permit is required if a structure is to be moved to another
location within the City. House moving permits must be approved by the City Council. A road
llse permit is required to move a structure over City roads.
Retaining Walls. Retaining walls over 48" high from the base of their footings require a building
permit and inspections.
Recommendations:
The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval.
1. Revise the preliminary grading & erosion control plan to show the proposed dwelling pads
with standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage
floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
2. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property.
3. Obtain building permits from the Inspections Division for retaining walls over 48" high.
enclosure:
January 29,1993 memorandum
g:\safetylsak\memos\plan\lkelcyest 1
The Cit)' ofCIJIlJlIJlISSCIl. A growing cOllllllunity with clean lakes, qualit)' school<, a channing dOWlltowll, thriving businesses, and beautiful parks. A great place to lire, lI'ork, and J
C ITV OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P:O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, I'VlINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
TO:
Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official .11.
f\f-q ~ _
FROM:
DATE:
January 29, 1993
SUBJ:
Dwelling Type Designation
\Ve have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoI1Jng
behind the requirements.
Fill or RW
Designates Pront Lookout or Rear Lookoul This includes dwellings with lile basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4'
above the basement floor level.
R
Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This wvuld include two story's and many 4 level dwellings.
SE
Designates Split Bolly. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SEWO
Designates Split Bolly Walk Oul This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
1lJ
Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
wo
Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
,
I
r - --
_I
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
ft
t., PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
U.'~J/~~ t~! u~:~u fAX 612 93i 9152
CITY CHA~ E~GI~EERI~G
fa] 00
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPUCANT: Loscheider Custom Homes, Inc.
OVVNER: Robert Christiansen
1511 Lake Lucy Road
ADDRESS: Chanhassen, MN 55331
Brian & Nancy Tichy
1471 Lake T,lIcy Roan
Chanhassen, MN 55331
TELEPHONE:
ADDRESS: 1607 Florida Ave. N.
Golden Valley, MN 55427
JEl.EPHONE(Daytime) (612) 546-8699
_ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_ Temporary Sales Permit
_ Condirional Use Permit - Vacation of ROW/Easements
_ Interim Use Permit X Variance $ 75
_ Non-confonning Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit
_ Planned Unit Development- _ Zoning Appeal
-L FlezDning $500 _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
_ Si,gn Permr.s
_ Sign PJan Review -X- Notification Sign $150
~ . ; ..-
_ Site Plan Revie~ _ Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost.-
. . . ($50 CUP/SPPJV ACN ARtW APIMetes
and Bounds, $490 Minor SUB)
~ Subcf/Visioo. $655 TOrALFEE$ 1380
A nst. of-a1t property owners within 500 teet of the boundaries of the property mtlsfbe included with the
application.
BuiIdinB rriaterial samples must b~submitted with site plan reviews,
~wenty-six full size ~ copies of the plans muSt be submitted, Including an BY%" X "" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet
- Escrow wnt be required for other applications through the development contract
NOTE - When muh:p!e applications 2re processed. the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
02/13/98 FRI 09:10 FAX 612 93i 9152
CITY CHA~ E~GI~EERI~G
laJ003
PROJECTNAtJlE Lake Lucy Estates
LOCATION South of Lake Lucy Road and North of Lake Lucy, Chanhassen
tEGAl.DESCRIPTION See Attached
TOTALACREAGE 16.40 Total, 14.56 above O.H.W.L.
WETI.ANDS PRESENT
X YES
NO
PRESENT ZONING RR, Rural Residential District
REQUESTED ZONING RSF. Residential Single Family District
PRESENT lAND USE DESIGNATION Low Density Residential
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Low Density Residential
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST Create Residential Lots
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by api)licable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Depanment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A detennination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
110tice of application defi:iencies shal1 be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
ThiS is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should COniact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (e~her
copy of O....ner.s Duplicate Certificate of Tjtle, Abstract of Tille or purchase agreement). or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
S will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees. feasibility studies. etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowf€dga
The ci1y hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
rnquirements and agency review. Therefore. the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
13~ A / 1 'J
~;;p~J;I ~L-~ 4/24/98
~.~~coG,~ Date
1dL.e.fJ.. 7V l /J-t.~~.;lc~~ 4/24/98
Date
\pprJCa!ion Received on
tI1 ~
Fee Paid 13g 0
Receipt No.
'"he appTIcam should contact staff for a copy of the 51aft report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
The following Legal Description is from Coffin & Gronberg, Inc.' s
Proposed Subdivision Plan for Michael J. Byrne, dated 7-12-94:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
That part of Government Lot 5, Section 2, Township 116, North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal
Meridian, described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast comer of said Government Lot 5; thence on an assumed bearing of North 87
degrees 50 minutes 47 seconds West, along the north line of said Government Lot 5, a distance of 488.42
feet, to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing North 87 degrees 50 minutes
47 seconds West, along said north line, a distance of205.56 feet, to a point distant 647.29 feet easterly
from the northwest comer of said Government Lot 5; thence South 0 degrees 24 minutes 23 seconds West,
parallel with the west line of Section 2, about 1342 feet to the shoreline of Lake Lucy; thence easterly,
along said shoreline, to the intersection with a line drawn South 0 degrees 24 minutes 23 seconds West,
parallel with the west line of Section 2, from the point of beginning; thence North 0 degrees 24 minutes 23
seconds East, about 1247 feet, to the point of beginning, Carver County, Minnesota.
ALSO
That part of Government Lot 5, Section 2, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal
Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Government Lot 5 distant
375.00 feet East of the Northwest corner of said Lot 5; thence east along said North line a distance of
272.29 feet; thence south parallel with the West line of said Government Lot 5 a distance of 1320.00 feet;
thence southerly, deflecting right 22 degrees 37 minutes a distance of214.50 feet; thence south parallel
with said west line a distance of 132.00 feet; thence southeasterly, deflecting left 51 degrees 53 minutes a
distance of 107.00 feet; thence west parallel with with said north line to its intersection with a line drawn
southerly parallel with said west line; thence northerly along said parallel line to the point of beginning.
(Note: this legal is preliminary, and is subject to a title search for proper wording.)
LAKE LUCY ESTATES
Chanhassen, Minnesota
by
Contractor Property Developers Company
April 24, 1998
PROPOSAL
This project is proposing to develop 17 single family lots on 16.40 acres. The project requires
the following approvals:
1. Rezoning of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family.
2. Preliminary Plat/Subdivision of the property.
3. Variances to allow 20 foot front yard setbacks on 3 lots, a 10% street grade, a 50' wide right-
of-way, a 50' radius cul-de-sac R.O.W. width, and five homes to be served via a private
street.
SITE CONDITIONS
Land Use
The 16.40 acre site (14.56 acres located above the OHW level) is located south of Lake Lucy
Road, north of Lake Lucy: and southeast of the intersection of Yosemite Avenue and Lake Lucy
Road. The site currently is made up of two lots with two existing single family homes.
Surrounding land uses include the Shadow Ridge Subdivision to the north (RSF, Residential
Single Family), Lake Lucy to the south, and RR, Rural Residential land use to the east and west.
The City ofChanhassen 2000 land use plan has identified the subject property as well as the
properties located to the east and west as Residential - Low density (net density range 1.2 - 4
units per acre).
Natural Environment
Site topography ranges from elevation 956.1 at Lake Lucy to a high point of 1036, adjacent to
Lake Lucy Road. Much of the change in elevation and steep slopes occur on the northern half of
the site. The southern half of the site gradually slopes to Lake Lucy.
The site contains two wetlands that have a combined total of approximately 3.39 acres that are
located on the site. The wetland that is located along the east property line is characterized as an
inland shallow fresh marsh. Approximately 1.79 acres of the wetland is located on the property.
The second wetland that is found to the south is part of the natural wetland complex that borders
the Lake Lucy shoreline, above the OHWL of Lake Lucy. Approximately 1.60 acres of the
wetland is located on the property.
The majority of the site is wooded. The most prevalent tree species found on the site is Ash
which makes up approximately 30% of the total tree canopy. The next most prevalent tree
species is the Box Elder (16.3%) followed by Oak (13.7%), Linden (8.4%), Elm (7.2%), Hickory
(5.8%), Aspen (5.5%), and Pin Cherry (5.3%). Apple, Cottonwood, Hackberry, Ironwood and
Willow percentages are below 5% of the total tree inventory.
CITY OF CH~NHASSEN
DC............ ..-'"
APR 241998
CHAI\C1r__. _ .. . .Jut:PT
There is a significant area made up of invasive Buckthorn! Amur maple that is found on the lower
portion of the site that is included in the tree canopy (9.51 acres - April 7, 1998) that has been
determined by the City. In addition, there are areas of diseased Oak and other canopy areas that
have been impacted by part use of off-road recreation vehicles. These areas reduce the quality of
the forested area and are discussed in greater detail an attached forest management plan prepared
for the development.
Site Access and Utilities
The proposed site access is from Lake Lucy Road. Lake Lucy Road is classified as a collector
street in the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The existing two properties that make up the site are currently unsewered and have private septic
sewer systems. An 8" sanitary sewer stub exists approximately 200' a\vay from the eastern
property line of the subject site. Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy
Road. No storm sewer system currents exists on site. The majority of the storm water drains
naturally from Lake Lucy Drive to the wetland on the eastern border of the proposed
development.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Rezoning
The proponent is requesting a rezoning to RSF, Residential Single Family District and subdivide
the property into 17 lots. As previously stated, this request for rezoning is in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan and the City ofChanhassen 2000 Land Use Plan which identifies the
property as Residential Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4 units per acre). The subdivision of 17
lots will establish a density of 1.16 units per acre.
Variances
The proponent is requesting variances to allow 20' front yard setbacks on 3 lots, 10% street
grade, a 50' wide R.O.W. and 50' cul-de-sac R.O.W. width and 5 homes to be served by a
private street. These variances are requested to reduce grading and subsequent tree lots, due to
the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land.
SITE ACCESS
Site access will come from Lake Lucy Drive. All of the proposed lots will be served by
Lakeway Drive and private drives that access it. None of the lots will have direct lot access to
Lake Lucy Drive.
Lakeway Drive is proposed as an :t850' long cul-de-sac with a 50' wide right-of-way and a 50'
radius for the right-of-way at the turnaround. A 50' public street right-of-way and roadway stub
will be established by this development which allows for future development of the property to
the west (Willis Property). One of the lots (Lot 1, Block 2) will have lot access from this stub
which is to be named Lakeway Lane.
UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE
Sanitary sewer is available at the west boundary of the Point Lake Lucy subdivision. This will
be extended weterly across the Morin property to the site. An 18 inch watermain is located in
Lake Lucy Road. A lateral line will extend into the site and provide opportunity for future
looping to the west. Storm water runoff will be collected into a storm sewer system and be
directed to a stormwater treatment pond at the end of the cul-de-sac and next to a wetland
The proposed development utilizes private streets that access Lakeway Drive and serve 5 lots.
The private drive will have a right-of-way width 0[30', and pavement width of20'. Lakeway
Drive will serve Lots 5, 6 of Block 2, and Lakeway Court serves Lots 9, 10 of Block 2 and Lot I
of Block 3. The Moran parcel to the east of the development may be further subdivided in the
future by others into 2 additional lots and be served by Lakeway Court.
The site grading is intended to minimize site alteration, preserve the natural features of the site
and yet allow for the creation of lots. Use of retaining walls has been minimized to the greatest
extent possible yet used in a few key areas. Tree preservation was a prime concern. Canopy
removal has been minimized when possible and prudent to do so. Areas at quality, healthy trees
were given the greatest priority. Areas of invasive, exotic species and older, diseased trees were
considered expendable. The attached Forestry Manage Program explains the existing forest
condition, plan to reverse the current forest degradation and intent to help re-establish a healthy,
native forest environment.
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Total Site Area
Site Area Above Lake Lucy OHWL
Wetland Area
Net Site Upland Area
Land Use Plan Designation
Existing Zoning
Proposed Units
Proposed Density (17 Lots 16.40 Acre)
(17 Lots 14.56 Acre)
Lake Lucy Road (40' ROW)
Internal Public Row (50' ROW;100'dia sac)
Private Streets (30' ROW)
Lot Standards
Minimum Width
Minimum Depth
Minimum Lot Area
A verage Lot Area
Yard Setbacks
Front - Typical
- Variance request
Side
Rear
Lakeshore Setback - Lake Lucy
Wetland Setbacks
Buffer
Structure Setback from Buffer
~ ,.-
- 16.40 Acres
- 14.56 Acres
- 3.39 Acres
- 11.17 Acres
- Low Density Residential (1.2-4 units per acre)
- RR - Rural Residential
- RSF - Single Family Residential
- 17
- 1.04 Units/Acre
- 1.16 Units/Acre
- 0.44 Acres
- 1.26 Acres
- .038 Acres
- 90 feet
- 125 feet
- 15,000 sq. ft.
- 31 ,986:t sq. ft.
- 30 feet
- 20 feet
- 10 feet
- 30 feet
- 75 feet
- 10 to 30 feet
- 10' minimum
- 20 minimum average
- 40 feet
.
~ \ .\.......
)6\~ .,V
:\ .(~\
) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 20, 1998
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 City Center Drive
ilke
Lake Lucy
;UBJECT: Rezoning and Preliminary Plat
Lake Lucy Estates
~PPLlCANT: Contractor Property
Developers Company
.OCATION: South side of Lake lucy Road
just north of lake lucy
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The
applicant, Request for a rezoning of 16.4 acres from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential
Single Family; preliminary plat of 16.4 acres into 17 single family lots with variances. The
property is located on the south side of Lake Lucy Road just north of Lake Lucy, Lake Lucy
Estates, Contractor Property Developers Company.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The commission will then
make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to
submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 7, 1998.
/-lJ.J(fL ~y
JUDITH A DIRKS
1205 ASH STREET WEST
OLIVIA, MN 56277
DALE CARLSON
6900 UTICA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RONALDKNUDTEN
6850 UTICA TERRACE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JOSEPH & D GAYLE MORIN
1441 LAKE LUCY ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
EDWIN NEWINSKI
6930 UTICA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PATRICK MOHR
6890 UTICA TERRACE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
BRIAN TICHY
1471 LAKE LUCY ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
WILLIAM WARD
6960 UTICA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT CHRISTENSEN
1511 LAKE LUCY ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
WILLIAM D LAMBRECHT
6990 UTICA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JACK RANDALL
1571 LAKE LUCY ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
HEIDI JO CARISCH
7000 UTICA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ALAN WEINGART
1685 STELLER COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
DICK & ALICE FOWLER
7050 UTICA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
PAISLEY PRK ENTERPRISES
ATTN:ACCOUNTANTS
7801 AUDUBON ROAD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ANN BUTCHER
7090 UTICA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT MASON
14201 EXCELSIOR BLVD
MINNETONKA, MN 55345
JUDY CHRISTENSEN
7100 UTICA LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ALAN WEINGART
1685 STELLER COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
JAMES SCHLUCK
6800 UTICA TERRACE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ERIC RIVKIN
1695 STELLER COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
GERALD HOFFMAN
6830 UTICA TERRACE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DRY & JULIE CARTER
CHARING BEND
HASSEN, MN 55317
SANDRA/ROBERT KENDALL
1645 LAKE LUCY ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
MICHAEL & AMY PETERSON
6550 SHADOW LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
INE NAVICKAS
LAKE LUCY ROAD
~SSEN, MN 55317
MARK & TRACY WILLIAMS
1655 LAKE LUCY ROAD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
LECY CONSTRUCTION INC
10340 VIKING DRIVE
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344
O:D HARVEY
LAKE LUCY ROAD
:'SIOR, MN 55331
COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CO.
7409 W 112TH STREET
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55438
WILLIAM & PAMELA PAULSEN
6560 SHADOW LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
'H & D GAYLE MORIN
LAKE LUCY ROAD
lASSEN, MN 55317
ROBERT MASON
14201 EXCELSIOR BLVD
MINNETONKA, MN 55345
DANIEL MCGRAW
6573 SHADOW LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
1 TICHY
LAKE LUCY ROAD
,SIOR, MN 55331
ANDREW AGEE
6629 POINTE LAKE LUCY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DANIEL & RANEA HAIGHT
6587 SHADOW LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
.BETH A GLACCUM
LAKE LUCY ROAD
,SIOR, MN 55331
CRAIG MANDERY
6670 POINTE LAKE LUCY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
WILLIAM & PAMELA ASPLIN
1665 STELLER COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
.T CHRISTENSEN
LAKE LUCY ROAD
,SIOR, MN 55331
JOHN & CAROL GOODMAN
6686 POINTE LAKE LUCY
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
P THIESSE/KIM TERNING
1675 STELLER COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
RANDALL
LAKE LUCY ROAD
SIOR, MN 55331
PAUL LUNSFORD
6511 SHADOW LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ALAN WEINGART
1685 STELLER COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
D L KRUEGER
LAKE LUCY ROAD
SIOR, MN 55331
ALLEN SATTER
6515 SHADOW LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ERIC RIVKIN
1695 STELLER COURT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331
& DEANNA CLAYBAUGH
"AKE LUCY ROAD
lIOR, MN 55331
WILLIAM SCH.;BEL
6545 SHADOW LANE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
Forest Management Plan
Lake Lucy Estates
S Y2 of Section 2, T 116 N, R 23 W
Chanhassen, Minnesota
April,1998
.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
(612) 937-1900
Project Proposer
~
-----.':"
Contractor Property Developers Company
9110 83rd Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55445
(612) 627-0823
; .
"
Consultant
'"
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
7599 Anagrqm Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
(612) 937-5150
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
r""'I-.....r-...'~n
APR 241998
'~HI\I~H"",Jc;l' r"1.f'I"""'" uc;PT
FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
LAKE LUCY ESTATES, CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
April, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PROJECT PURPOSE, DESCRIPTION, AND WOODLAND IMPACTS...........................................:!
WOODLAND OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................1..
Tree Survey Resu Its...................................................................................................................:1..
DESIG NA TED WOODLAN 0 AREAS.................... .... .................... ............ .......... ...... ........... ...........2.
Location and size of Replacement/Forestation tree planting areas.......................................2
List of all replacement trees including species, caliper, and planting method.....................3
M ETH 0 OS OF TREE P ROTECTI ON ...................................................... ........................................6.
Location of all protective fencing..............................................................................................6..
Special construction methods to be utilized ............................................................................6.
Location of all retain i ng walls.............................................................. ......................................6..
Statement explaining why replacement trees are necessary..................................................6
Rationale for selection of replacement/forestation trees.........................................................6
CO NTRO L 0 F EXOTI C SPEC I ES................................................................................................... 7..
(Q Westwood Professional Services, Inc. January, 1998
Westwood Professional Services, Inc. considers the information contained in this document and any attachments to be proprietary.
This document and any information contained or referenced herein shall not be disclosed, duplicated, our used in whole or in part
for any purpose other than processing the permit applications referred to herein without written permission from Westwood and the
Applicant.
'" Westwood Professional Services. Inc. (612) 937-5150
FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
LAKE LUCY ESTATES, CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
April, 1998
PROJECT PURPOSE, DESCRIPTION, AND WOODLAND IMPACTS
The Lake Lucy Estates is a proposed single family residential development located on approximately 14.56 acres
with 11.17 acres of upland in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The development proposes to provide 17 single family
residences.
The site is located in the S 1;2 of Section 2, T 116 N, R 23 W, City ofChanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota
(Exhibit 1). The property is bordered on the south by Lake Lucy, on the north by Lake Lucy Road and on the east
and west by private residences.
The total area of canopy on the property is approximately 9.51 acres (per City calculation 4/22/98) or 85% of the
site. The baseline canopy coverage (minimum coverage to remain after development) is 55% or 5.23 acres. The
proposed impacts are 4.67 acres (49%) canopy removal and 4.84 acres (51 %) of canopy remaining. This results in
0.39 acres of canopy that need to be replaced. Replacement requirements are calculated by multiplying the
replacement acres by 1.2. This results in 0.78 acres of canopy to be replaced. Replacement trees are required at a
rate of 40 trees per 1 acre of removed canopy; therefore, the required number of replacement trees for the proposed
impact is 19 trees. However, the project proposes to actually provide more trees and shrubs in association with
forest under-planting and landscaping efforts. We propose a variety of sizes from seedlings (underplanting) to 2 1;2
inch diameter. The quantity and/or value will be at least equivalent to the required replacement.
WOODLAND OVERVIEW
The woodland on this property is quite diverse in terms of species, size, and condition. The forest is comprised of
approximately 30% ash, 16% box elder, 14% oak, 8% linden, 7% elm, 6% hickory, 6% aspen, 5% cherry, and
scattered ironwood, cottonwood, apple, willow, spruce, cedar and hackberry. In general, the oaks represent the trees
of largest diameter and apparent canopy dominance; however, the ash and box elder appear better suited for larger
areas of the site which experience periods of wet conditions. Significant areas of recent ash and box elder
establishment exist on the property. There is a moderate buckthorn problem in the understory of the forest and
shrubs and saplings dominate in areas adjacent to Lake Lucy in the southern part of the property.
. ,..
Tree Survey Results
Woodland areas were inventoried in connection with a previous project proposal. This data was evaluated and
additional site visits were made to collect more information and confirm the accuracy of the available tree survey.
As the survey and subsequent site visits indicate, the woodland on this property is in a stage of transition. A large
portion of the oaks in the dominant canopy are in a declining state of health due to over maturity, wet conditions,
and Armillaria root rot. The dieback of the oaks is slowly opening up the forest establishment of ash, box elder and
buckthorn. Ash and box elder are better suited for the wet conditions occurring on portions of the site and
buckthorn is a very aggressive, invasive exotic. There are two pockets of oaks occurring on the property. One
pocket is located in the southeast corner of the site and is comprised of small diameter (<10") oaks. The second
pocket is located in the central portion of the site and is comprised of large diameter (> 18") oaks. The small
diameter oak pocket is in fairly good health while the large diameter pocket shows significant signs of decline and
dieback due to various pathogens including Armillaria root rot.
'" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937-5150
Lake Lucy Estates
Forest Management Plan
Page 2
April 1998
These observations suggest that preservation efforts within this woodland developed in support of activities such as
construction be focused on the small diameter pocket of oaks as well as any individual large diameter oaks not
exhibiting serious dieback symptoms. It is also suggested that restoration efforts be focused on establishing
desirable tree regeneration and understory composition in the area of oak and canopy dieback.
DESIGNATED WOODLAND AREAS
Location and size of Replacement/Forestation tree planting areas
The required number of replacement trees for the proposed 0.39 acres of excess impact is 19 trees. However, the
project proposes to actually provide more trees and shrubs in association with forest under-planting and landscaping
efforts
This site represents a unique opportunity for the developer, the City of Chanhassen, and the neighborhood
surrounding Lucy Lake. The woodland on this property sho\vs a history of productive hardwood growth and
development. The level of productivity has declined in recent years dues to dieback of the overstory due to disease
and decadence and a lack of desirable, viable tree regeneration in the understory to fill the resulting gaps. Other
minor impacts have combined to start a transitional trend in this woodland. Impacts such as moderate to heavy
recreation use and trail development, historic orchard management, and moderately wet conditions in association
with Lake Lucy and the wetland have created conditions less suitable for oak dominance and which facilitate
buc~thorn invasion. Ifleft to develop without disturbance, it is highly probably that this woodland would slowly
transform from a mature oak woodland to a mixed lowland hardwood stand to a ash and box elder dominated forest
with significant areas of buckthorn brush and a understory consisting almost exclusively of invasive exotic species.
The opportunity for the parties involved is to restore this woodland and reverse the transition. It is requested that
the City support the developer's proposal to do reforestation and replacement planting on the site using planting
materials averaging less than 2.5 inches in diameter. The developer proposes to do some understory planting using
small diameter seedlings and saplings. These understory plantings will consist of native trees and shrubs that
represent high quality species suited to the site and providing more of the natural diversity of a Minnesota forest
with greater ecosystem functionality. It is the desire of the developer that they understory plantings be established
as advanced regeneration to help insure that oak and other hardwoods will remain a part of the forest canopy even
as the current specimens dieback. It is also the intention of the developer to reestablish shrub diversity on this site
as desirable understory material, wildlife habitat, water quality protection, and competition for the invading
common buckthorn.
By properly designing, planting, protecting, maintaining, and managing the proposed understory planting, it is the
intention of the developer to help restore this woodland to a more functional example of a native Minnesota
hardwood forest.
'" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937-5150
Lake Lucy Estates
Forest Management Plan
Page 3
April 1998
List of all replacement trees including species, caliper, and planting method
Replacement tree species, quantity and size
Primary Specimen Deciduous Trees
Sugar Maple/Acer saccharum
Red Oak/Quercus rubra
White Oak/Quercus alba
Bicolor Oak/Quercus bicolor
Bur Oak/Quercus macrocarpa
Basswood/Tilia americana
Hackberry/Celtis occidentalis
Conifers
Tamarack/Larix laricina
Balsam fir/Abies balsamea
Picea glauca/White spruce
White Pine/Pinus strobus
Trees/Shrubs not listed in City Tree Ordinance
Paper Birch/Betula papyrifera
Black Cherry/Prunus serotina
Pagoda Dogwood/Cornus alternifolia
Ironwood/Ostrya virginiana
Allegheny Serviceberry/Amelanchier laevis
Nannyberry/Viburnum lentago
Silver Maple/Acer saccharinum
WilIow/Salix discolor
Black Spruce
The trees and shrubs listed above were selected following recommendations contained within the City of
Chanhassen Ordinances and Recommended Trees For: Southeast Minnesota, An Ecosystem Approach (Fo-6574-s,
1996).
Proposed tree sizes will range from seedlings (understory planting) up to 2 Yz inch diameter (e.g., seedlings, 3-6'
whips, 1", 1 W', 2", 2 W', etc.). Materials will be potted, balled and/or bareroot as seasonal availability and
situation requires. The intent is to provide an equivalent quantity and or value to the required replacement trees.
'" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937-5150
Lake Lucy Estates
Forest Management Plan
Page 4
April 1998
Planting notes for trees planted in yards and as landscaping:
1. Contractor shall provide one year guarantee of all planting materials. The guarantee begins on the date of the
Landscape Architect's written acceptance of the initial planting. Replacement plant materials shall also have a
one year guarantee commencing upon planting.
2. All plants to be Minnesota-grown and/or hardy.
3. Plants to be installed as per standard AAN planting practices.
4. Use minimum 12" loam planting soil on trees and 6" on shrubs (sides and bottom of hole).
5. Staking of trees optional; reposition is not plumb after one year.
6. Wrap all smooth-barked trees - fasten top and bottom. Remove by April!.
7. Open top of burlap on BB materials; remove pot on potted plants; split and break apart peat pots.
8. Prune plants as necessary - per standard nursery practice and to correct poor branching.
9. Owner shall be responsible for maintenance after initial watering by Contractor.
10. Plants shall be immediately planted upon arrival at site. Properly heel-in materials if necessary, temporary
only.
II. All disturbed areas to be sodded unless otherwise noted; sod to be standard Minnesota-gro\vTI and hardy
bluegrass mix.
12. Shredded hardwood bark mulch shall be used around all trees.
13. Contractor shall contact Gopher State "One Call" (454-0002) to verify underground utility locations.
14. Areas to be watered, adjacent to residential lots, by homeowner. Other open areas to be watered by natural
rainfall.
Planting notes for trees and shrubs used in understory restoration:
I. Contractor will guarantee survival rates off 40% in areas of at least 50% crown closure and 50% in areas with
crown closures less than 50%. These expectations are consistent with data presented by D. Zastrow and T.
Marty. (Tree Shelter Experience, The Oak Resource in the Upper Midwest, 1991).
2. All plants to be Minnesota-grown and/or hardy.
3. Plants to be installed as per standard AAN planting practices.
4. 1.2 meter plastic shelters of rigid plastic mesh will be used to shelter seedlings if it is determined that animal
browse is a substantial threat.
5. Planting material will selected per recommendations in Inspection and Contract Administration Guidelines for
Mn/DOT Landscape Projects (1993).
6. Planting sites may be flagged to facilitate easy relocation for survival survey.
'" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937-5150
Lake Lucy Estates
Forest Management Plan
Page 5
April 1998
Tree planting methods:
EVERGREEN PLANTING METHOD:
~ Prvne out mi3dtreeted branches
L.o.... I.ad." intact
Cu>'ng and ,toking is optional:
Top of nok.. 5' _ ground ("",x.) << to tint brandl.
8<rtt<<n at noko ,;(mn.) below IJ"aund
Stoking poot> t. b<o 2")(2' ot""'~ wood << ponted
....001 OoInO<rtcr poot&.
Ploco 3 pccta ~ant around and ouUJd. root bol.
s.o.xo tr.. to pootJI .Hl1 16' Ion9 pd)9l'op)MM of
pd)'Oth)lono. 40 ml, 1 1/2' wldo alrop.
TREE PLANTING METHOD:
~<<'. wrappi'lg II ealled for. wrap from
groundln. upward to flrlt branch..
Place 6' depth at woad mulch owr
plQ'11 pi I, - do not pile agaW,,1 wnk
Scarify sides and l>altom of holo
Sol root boI on undlsturWd aub.oI Q(
eQt1'l9OCted sci mound matching trws
netural qrounclin. with finished sit. qrodt
F' arm S' deep watering ba,in
Boeklill plont pit with speeifJtd boekfill soil
P"",. aut ",;$dlrected branches
loeve leader, inteet
Cu)lng and Iteklng Is optional:
Top of .~ 5' _ IJ"ouM (..-.) << to tint br_.
Bottom of _0 J"(mln.) bolow IJ"OUl'4
Stal<tlg poato to k 2"x:2' atoinod wood or polnted
at... dolO-tor poata.
PIoco 3 pootJI """ldlotant cround and Olltslda root bCIII.
Socuna It.. to poota w"" 18- Ioftg pd)9l'OP~ of
pd)'OIh)l_ 40 ml, 1 1/2" _ _ap.
'IIh<<". wrapping b ealled fer. wrop from
qroundlin. upword to first bronch.1
Plac. 4' cHplh of II*'lfted mulch 0_
plant pit, - do not pl. lI90lnst tNnk
Scarify lid.. and bottom of hol.
Set root boll on undistl.ri>ed subsoi or
eompoctod tal mound matching It..
notural 9'oundin. with finished sit. qrade
form S' deep woterlng bo....
BeeltfiJl plont pit with apecified boekfiJl lai
'" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937-5150
Lake Lucy Estates
Forest Management Plan
Page 6
April 1998
METHODS OF TREE PROTECTION
Tree protection methods to be implemented on the Lake Lucy Estates site follow recommendations and guidelines
set forth in Protecting Trees from Construction Damage, Minnesota Extension Service Publication # FO-6135-S
(Miller, et.al. 1995,).
As grading limits are staked in the field, the trees anticipated to be impacted by these activities will be assessed and
marked for removal or preservation as determined by their location, general health, condition, and potential to
present a hazard in an area with increased levels of human occupation.
Location of all protective fencing
Protective fencing will be installed as recommended per Minnesota Extension Service Publication # FO-6135-S
(Miller, et.al. 1995) or as deemed necessary by contractors and site developers.
Protective fencing will be established in accordance with the above cited recommendations for all trees in proximity
to disturbance activities and marked in the field as feasible and desirable to preserve.
Special construction methods to be utilized
Special construction methods are not anticipated at this time. However, if situations develop recommendations will
be followed as outlined in Minnesota Extension Service Publication # FO-6135-S (Miller, et.al. 1995) or as deemed
necessary by contractors and site developers.
Location of all retaining walls
Retaining walls to be established on the property will be identified on site plans and built in such a manner as to
reliably protect the tree resource by protecting as much of the critical root radius as is feasible.
Statement explaining why replacement trees are necessary
Site development plans will include activities which necessitate the removal of some trees. These development
activities are necessary to meet project goals and provide housing to meet local market demands. The establishment
ofponding on the site will protect the quality of the local water resource and help prevent any water level increases
on the site which would further reduce the suitability of the site as oak woodland habitat.
Rationale for selection of replacemenUforestation trees
Trees to be used in replacement and forestation were selected primarily on the basis of suitability to site conditions.
Only native species will be used and predominantly species already present on the site to help retain and restore the
historic forest composition on the site. High quality hardwoods such as hackberry, basswood, cherry, and ironwood
were selected for their superior growth form and desirability as both forest and boulevard trees. Bicolor oak were
selected in addition to other oak species already occurring on the site because of their reduced susceptibility to oak
wilt and their greater tolerance of the moderately wet habitat occurring in planting areas adjacent to Lake Lucy. By
maintaining a variety of oak species on the site there is a reduced likelihood of any single pathogen causing an
epidemic in the forest. Sugar maple and birch are both native species which are a natural component of mature oak
woodlands with moderately wet pockets. The coniferous species, including black spruce and white pine, were
selected to be used in areas were higher levels of screening and view preservation are required.
It is suggested that some of the replacement requirements be met through the use of innovative planting designs and
materials. One of the desires of the project proposer is to design a planting plan which actual improves the current
woodland in terms of regenerative capacity, dominance of high-quality species in both the canopy and understory,
'" Westwood Professional Services. Inc. (612) 937-5150
Lake Lucy Estates
Forest Management Plan
Page 7
April 1998
and overall canopy health. It is suggested that these goals can be met by removal of diseased oaks during
construction, and establishing replacement trees to consist in part of understory plantings of tree seedlings. The goal
of project designers is to establish tree species such as various oaks, maples and ironwood in the understory to help
combat the buckthorn invasion and provide replacement canopy for future oak dieback. Installation design would
include the establishment of protective measures such as plastic tubing or mesh to prevent rodent, rabbit and deer
damage to the seedlings; however, seedlings would be planted in such numbers as to allow some loss without
significantly impacting the ability of surviving seedlings to meet project goals.
CONTROL OF EXOTIC SPECIES
It is recognized that buckthorn occurs on the property in such a degree as to limit the establishment and regeneration
of desirable, native shrub and tree species. It is the desire of the developer to determine a method of effective and
economic control of buckthorn. At this time such a method has not been identified for the property. It will be
difficult to effectively, efficiently, and economically control buckthorn on this site because of the fairly large area of
woodland that would need to be treated, proximity to water resources, and the abundance of a buckthorn seed
source in the immediate vicinity. It is not recommended that buckthorn controls be initiated until all or the vast
majority of site disturbance and proposed landscaping has been completed. Attempts to control buckthorn before
project completion have a reduced likelihood of success due to the presence of appropriate seedbeds for buckthorn
invasion. Project developers will continue to investigate new buckthorn controls that are being developed and their
applicability for treatment of this property. It is anticipated that development of some areas will remove buckthorn
from these areas and quick establishment of sod and other ground covers will limit buckthorn reestablishment. It is
also anticipated the understory restoration efforts will establish some more desirable seed sources in the area for
native species and also provide competition to slow the invasion of common buckthorn. The extent of buckthorn on
the site will be reinvestigated during and following the various phases of development.
-. ; ,"
"T Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937-5150
Lake Lucy Estates
Forest Management Plan
Page 8
April 1998
Replacement Requirement Calculations
(The first row represents values referred to throughout the Forest Management Plan.)
Canopy %of Baseline Proposed Proposed Canopy Total
Coverage total Canopy Canopy to Canopy to be to Replacement
(acres) areal Coverageii Remain Removed Replace Trees (40/acre)
9.5111I 85% 55% 51% 49% 0.39 191v
(5.23 (4.84 acres) (4.67 acres) acres
acres)
8.35v 75% 46% 45% 55% 0 0
(3.84 acres) (4.84 acres) (4.67 acres)
8.34v; 75% 46% 52% 48% 0 0
(3.84 acres) (4.32 acres) (4.02 acres)
i 11.17 acres
ii City ofChanhassen Tree Ordinance requirements
iii Calculated from canopy outlined provided by the City 4/22/98 and based on 1989 Aerial Photography.
iv 0.39 X 1.2 X 40 trees/acre = 19 replacement trees
v Calculated by City as recorded in a memo dated March 23, 1995.
vi Calculated by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. on April 23, 1998 using the canopy outline provided by the City less the area of low
stocking and shrub dominance along Lake Lucy (I .17 acres)
'" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937-5150
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
'"
7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
612/937-5150
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 6, 1998
TO: Greg Kopischke, Westwood Professional Services
FROM: Kathryn Fernholz, Westwood Professional Services
RE: Evaluation of Wetland and Woodland Resources on the Lake Lucy Estates Site
At your request, on March 31 and April 1, 1998 a review was made of the site referred to as the Lake Lucy
Estates and located in the South Y2 of Section 2, TII6N, R23W, City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota. The intention of this visit was to assess the accuracy and acceptability of the wetland
delineation and assess the condition and composition of the wooded portion of the property.
A wetland delineation was prepared for the property by Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. The final
wetland report submitted to the City ofChanhassen is dated March 22, 1995. The project manager was
Scott Krych. Conversations \vith the Water Resources Coordinator for the City of Chanhassen indicate that
the City still accepts this delineation and will not require a new delineation be performed at this time.
During the site review on April 1, 1998, several wetland delineation flags were observed and appeared to
correspond consistently and correctly with the wetland edge as was evidenced by distinct contrasts in
vegetation types, topography, and hydrology.
Before examining the woodland resource on the property, several sources of information were reviewed. In
1995, a tree survey was completed for the property. The survey recorded a diverse mix of tree species
including willow, ash, linden (basswood), box elder, red oak, red cedar, elm, hackberry, hickory, black oak,
scotch pine, and ironwood. Conversations with the forester for the City of Chanhassen and a memo dated
March 23, 1995 dispute the accuracy of the black oak observations.
Previous documentation concerning the woodland on this property disagrees on the extent of canopy
coverage. The various calculations are as follows:
Canopy Percent of Total Canopy to Canopy Total Canopy Total Date/Author of
Coverage Upland 1 be Removed Remaining to Replace Replacement Calculation
(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Trees
9.11 79% 5.28 3.83 1.74 70 Applicant, 3/23/95
8.35 73% 5.89 2.46 3.38 135 City, 3/23/95
7.45 N/A 3.58 3.87 1.63 65 Unknown, 5/17/95
Observations on the property indicate that the density of the canopy varies greatly throughout the property.
Also, the forest is criss-crossed with trails which reduces the amount of area effectively covered by tree
I Upland Area was calculated as 11.48 acres (Applicant, March 23,1995).
Memorandum - CPDC
April 6, 1998
Page 2
canopy. Rough estimates indicate that the basal area in the well-stocked areas of the woodland ranges from
about 100 square feet per acre in a small pocket of mature oak to as high as 130 square feet in another area
with smaller diameter ash. Previous observations of these woods, as reported in the various documents,
appear to have neglected mention of the condition of these woods in terms of disease or insect stress.
The general condition of this woodland is difficult to access because it varies greatly throughout. The
"best" area in terms of desirable species which are healthy and presumably vigorously growing is located in
a narrowing between the wetland to the north and Lake Lucy to the south, in the southeast comer of the
property. Another pocket of woodland located in a diagonal band between the wetland and the
southernmost residence on the property exhibits characteristics of a mature oak woodland; however, this
pocket also shows signs of disease and insect stress. Areas between and surrounding these two pockets are
largely populated with small diameter box elder, ash, and aspen.
The woodland situated between the wetland and Lake Lucy is of primary importance because it consists
generally of oak and basswood of moderately small diameter (6-12"). There is less indication of the
diseases evidenced in other parts of the property. These trees are presumably vigorously growing and
healthy enough to withstand moderate disturbance.
The woodland located between the wetland and the residence is of interest because it is the one area on the
site containing large diameter oaks. Most canopy trees in this area are over 20" in diameter. If one just
looks at this area of woodland in a horizontal fashion, it is aesthetically pleasing. However, by looking over
one's head, it is quickly noted that the crowns of many ofthese majestic oaks are plagued with dead
branches and broken limbs. The oaks in this area vary greatly in their condition and degree of health. There
are some individuals which have little or no crown dieback, but the majority have significant decay and low
probability oflong-term survival or successful regeneration. The selection of viable trees to be preserved in
this area will be difficult.
The woodlands located between these two pockets are an indication of what the entire forested area may
convert to if or when the oak canopy thins due to decadence and disease. It is feasible to presume that this
forest is currently in a state of transition.
Ecologically speaking, there are several scenarios to consider about the history and potential future of this
woodland. Firstly, this is a mesic site with abundant water and clayey soils. These are atypical conditions
for an oak dominated forest. Secondly, oak on the site is highly unlikely to remain a major component in
the canopy through the next generation of trees. Thirdly, the most likely successors to oak in the canopy are
ash, box elder and aspen. Lastly, it is likely that buckthorn will continue to increase its presence in the
understory. Therefore, ifleft alone this woodland will slowly but surely convert from a oak forest to a
shrubby ash and box elder woods with a buckthorn understory.
Observations were made of several diseases and other damaging agents operating in this woodland. These
agents and the species most affected are listed below:
· Armillaria mellea (shoestring root rot) (oak)
· termites (oak, large diameter trees)
· Eutypella canker (maple)
· bacterial wetwood (elm)
· Rhizosphaera needlecast (spruce)
· smooth patch (oak)
· white pine blister rust (white pine)
'" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937-5150
Memorandum - CPDC
April 6, 1998
Page 3
Some of these diseases, such as smooth patch and bacterial wetwood, are highly unlikely to cause tree
mortality and are generally undesirable only because of the aesthetic degradation they cause. Rhizosphaera
needlecast observed on the property was occurring on large spruce in the front yards of current residences.
Through properly applied and timed pruning and spraying, this problem can also be limited to the loss of
only a few lower branches. The white pine blister rust was observed on yard trees of the adjacent property.
This observation does not directly affect the trees currently occurring on the property, but is important to
note when selecting new species to be planted in the area.
The most serious indications of forest decline in this woodlot are the termites and shoestring root rot. The
termites were observed in the base of a large, nearly dead oak tree. The presence of these insects indicates
that some ofthe trees on the property that may appear structurally sound and stable may in fact have
severely degraded support in the main stem and base. These trees may be highly susceptible to wind throw
and pose a hazard in a setting with high levels of human activity. These trees also have large, dead limbs in
their crowns which could cause damage or be hazardous to prune. Trees infested with termites arc unlikely
to survive even low or moderate levels of disturbance within the critical root zone.
Evidence of shoestring root rot (Armillaria mellea) was found throughout the wooded portion of the
property. Shoestring root rot is a fungus that attacks the "circulatory system" of the tree. Outbreaks are
most common on both red and white oaks, but ash and maple can also be infected. The fungus grows
through the soil and attacks the roots of stressed trees. The fungus causes girdling of the stem, root and
shoot dieback, and even death if site conditions are not changed.
The oak species on the property show the most signs of root rot infection. There is extensive crown dieback
occurring. Large, dead branches are in the crowns of most large diameter (>20") oaks on the property. It is
probably that these oaks are succumbing to root rot because they are being stressed by the flooded or
waterlogged conditions on much of the property. The fact that the oaks are being so heavily affected by a
stress related fungus is an indication that this species is ill-suited for the conditions occurring on this
property. Conversations with the pathology professor at the University of Minnesota indicate that it is
unlikely that the oaks will survive the root rot if the stress factor is not alleviated.
Conversations with the DNR Area Hydrologist indicate that the recent development in the Lake Lucy area
may be increasing runoff levels to the wetland and lake and causing water levels to slowly increase. These
possible changes in water table could be closely related to the stress exhibited by the oaks on the property
, ; ,.~nd the appearance of woodland transition. If a trend of water level increase is suspected, it expected that
the site will continue to become less suitable for continuation as oak habitat. The continuing and increasing
water stress will keep the remaining oaks in a state of stress and highly susceptible to two-lined chestnut
borers and root rot.
It is evidenced that this area was once grazed. This landuse facilitated the invasion of exotic, noxious plants
such as common buckthorn. Also the criss-crossing trails through the woodland have probably assisted the
introduction of buckthorn and exposure of viable seedbeds. The invasion of buckthorn in the understory
functions to limit the viability of tree regeneration in the forest floor.
'" Westwood Professional Services, Inc. (612) 937-5150
Species Abundance
Lake Lucy Estates
April 7, 1998
cottonwood spruce cedar
2% 1% 0%
applewillow hackbeny
ironwood 1% 1% 1%
cheny 2% ash
5% 30%
elm
7%
aspen
6'l6
linden
8%
oak
14%
box elder
16%
species count percent
ash 174 29.8%
box elder 95 16.3%
oak 80 13.7%
linden 49 8.4%
elm 42 7.2%
hickory 34 5.8%
aspen 32 5.5%
cherry 31 5.3%
ironwood 11 1.9%
cottonwood 10 1.7%
apple 8 1.4%
willow 7 1.2%
spruce 3 0.5%
hackberry 3 0.5%
cedar 2 0.3%
scotch 2 0.3%
TOTAL 583 100.0%
). "
"
/.
'. .
. ,
. .
~
.-
-
lAlceLucy
N
W+E
~
Box Elder and Ash Distribution (N=95; N=174)
Lake Lucy Estates
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Legend
Diameter (dbh)
Box Elder
. 0 - 7 Inches
.. 8 -14 Inches
. lS - 21 Inches
C> 22 - 28 Inches
o 29 - 36 inches
Ash
0- 7 Inches
8 - 14 Inches
lS - 21 Inches
22 - 28 inches
29 - 36 inches
'" West1NOOd Professional Services, Inc
/.":,:..(,..~/ 'f - '{J:'("
-, .; '.' /. . ,. J. "
,. .",': />'>!'~.~_'..'. (I.
, I Ji ,.. I -.--/ . . - .
'.:)-:~~,: </'
. . ,/,',:j ;, . '/
: " ~/ .~. ~,: :. /"/' ,/
x/. . ../ ./. .
, <>//<>t
- . ~ . ~,/ .
./'" /' / .- .,.;./ .... '>/
..' ,/'" //
. . '/. ,./
" /. /.
,. '!
./'/ '. ~<'//
'/~" / .
. I
f .0/ ////
/
/
L
"-'.J".
. .
,.'.' .
.
~
~'~""'" -
"- ........
. ,
I' ..
'./'/..,
", '. '
.~.-..,..,(,....,
. " .
, .
, : .
/
./
I)...
"
,.
.
.--
.,
.
.
.
Lake Lucy Estates
Chanhassen, Minnesota
Oak Distribution (N=80)
f
.
.. .
. '..
:.
. .
'-~~0
-.' .,' -....... .... . '.
...~ ~'" -
~ ." ;'." ~." .".'. .',.
," -," . -~ .' -'. "'...
::~:/-. ,
. .
..' ;/" ....... " /
'," " .
- ~ t:
.
f
\
\.,
"-""-,
""\,
)
I
~.j/
Wetland
tlo:
/....--.........
lAke Luey
Legend
Diameter (dbh)
. 0 - 7 inches
. 8 - 14 inches
. 15 - 21 inches
. 22 - 28 inches
. 29 - 36 inches
t dead/diseased tree
N
w+,
,/
s
"y Westwood Professional Services. Inc
,:~:~~~?,-::~
, ,
-...~"''.\\: '-y'
?:~:~:~~ \~~~,~:~;,~\:'\<; :~>', . 'l'~~: ,'.' --:: .... .,"
,_ - - '_'.. /-' . /, 0,''-:'.' - -..
.\'\~ ..., ,..... . -,..
,. .."' .~:~ .; :; ,::'f ~~,..: ~~
',\~,;, :J;'i:'\\".}'~ ..
I /....~ ~
?/, / i/ .J',- .' \. ..
;// 'i.'T~ ~,': '. ._",
, . r . ~). \ ,.! /." ,,~- '}O'!' \. .. 1
/ ! f( ~ OJ' : '... ~ ~~ ;' ./ ..(/: .---> r.~~ :~:7r".,'\:.".'{' ~ '/\_..
. ':~ i\ \ ,';8.' !(,~:;;~. ;~&iqJy /;:: .
,\ ".. '_ / ) i~'i', '-"~.J::0:.:~~ .. i ~ , L;..
:i)r07;~~fi~~~(
~0{PJ;/{I~:'1 ~:: ::;:4 '. \: '\
I~<:~j:/ /:>::;...;., ~y 'y'~ .~:~-,? ...1 "'\ ' ":~""':"
-<>/: ,:.- ,;...~~:. >/''; .." \. . .-.......,
//:>....-~ ">/. ('~ //..'"il l. . .....
;,,/' ":'..;;/<,,/:'(';'~:>~' -}': :.~. // '\ ~. "..........,.,.
.. .////- . /' 1, \"
'iF:,/. '.,'.\ ~
\l( / I
,~, '" /
,. .. ..' '\.,J'
;>
...
....~ .
// ,"
- ./
.-
.-'
" ,
~ ~
Wetland
.'
~~:'
~
'l,.......
/--
/
. -
,.
(:.
.,." ..
lAkz Lucy
N
w+e
Lake Lucy Estates
Chanhassen, Minnesota
5
'" Westwood Professional Services. Inc.
Tree Diameter Distribution
Legend
Diameter (dbh)
o - 1 inches
8 -14 inches
15.. 21 inches
, 22 - 28 inches
29 - 36 inches
Legend
/-----...... (; apple
ash
. aspen
box
cheny
<:1 cottonwood
G elm
hackbeny
hickory
ironwood
l;; linden
. oak
willow
1 dead
~. -2)'- .'
, , ,....
, - '. .,' "'/-
. / -
~. "......~
- - .....
/
'- " '/', / , .
\ 0-\0". ....",.: (. /... ':',
. '. \ ~ ~ . '" ". "-, .
· : /f I, i ' J.
" , :... ~~ .-<~,.
· a...:" !:: _(,'.......
. .,. J' .'; lei . ~ ,J... " 1'___..' (
ii,.! //><... .... f"\'~ .
~:\ \,. t, "n/ /j" ,/-,~;;:: '/}j'/,
[J. .' ...... . .' . ·
.'. ". '/._. ,. ~~,. ')(. ......:.....:.: ,I ,; .'
.,.',' '*'"". '/ "I ...
, .., ,', ','.... :;,.';...-.' ..\ '. '"
. . ~..':> 'Z""/",,. \ .-- .."
.' j! : ,-: ~_. -",,' ~/',.~.. ; /' 0,1,,;/'/ ~..,~
" ,. , .> '/ ~':'X . . /' -\" .
,':,'- .'; I .y......:':i ..~~:. ~,:, ..,.........'=- . ,-
f>~;>'; '.. ./~;.' j.(: . '/I';;~:'~ ' :- ~. ~ -.. - ~ -
;,/'...-" -' .' J.' . ~
I :'. . '/ '. /,-',/,;;. ':,. /~
/,' . . //
/,',' f.
/",/ '
'::/" "
/' ..' ~. J/
.. ..
. ..:
.,
'0:,( /
'-----
W,tI.lld
;/-:,>/
....~ ~ ,,''/
..' J:'
(- l.'
--~, . (.,.,.
- . '\ .
\ ..
\ \':'"
. ", "'.
\"\"'
..... .'.................
. .,..........
....~;"'. /
./' "
,/,,/
/'
/
/
\
"\)
/
-~ /
" ('
-,J
.-... .
. ~
f
.
'-
.
..
.
.
.
. .
. ~ -",
..... :... -'
So... "'. ..
-w
. ..
"
. .
lAM Lucy
Loke Lucy Estates
Chanhassen, Minnesota
N
W*E
Tree Canopy Composition
s
"y Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
'"
7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
6121937.5150
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 8, 1998
TO: Greg Kopischke, Westwood Professional Services
FROM: Kathryn Fernholz, Westwood Professional Service
RE: Suggestions for Successful Tree Preservation n the
At your request, a review was made of the site plan for the project referred to as the Lake Lucy Estates and
located in the South Y2 of Section 2, TII6N, R23W, City ofChanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The
intention of this review was to assess the grading limits and tree preservation potential for the project
There are several rules of thumb when selecting trees to be preserved during construction1;
1. Favor preservation of smaller diameter trees;
2. Favor preservation of species best suited to site;
3. Favor species less susceptible to any diseases or insect problems on the site;
4. Favor a variety of species; and
5. Favor groups rather than individuals.
In short, "Favor the best; Remove the rest", There is little point to making extravagant efforts to protect
trees during construction if actual tree survival is highly unlikely. The money would be better spent
purchasing high quality planting material to be established following construction.
Because the woodland on this site has a diverse mix of species, it is important to note that not all trees have
the same level oftolerance for disturbance in the root zone. For open grow trees, such as those located in
the front lawns or backyards of the current residences, the dripline or edge of the tree canopy is a fair
, ; indication of the "protected root zone". For trees grown in a forested or closed canopy condition, the
protected root zone is best calculated on the basis of diameter (dbh). The protected root zone for forest trees
is equal to the dbh, in inches, multiplied by 1.5 which gives an answer which should be interpreted as a
radius in feet. Examples include:
Protected Root Zones for Example DBHs.
dbh (inches) Protected Root Zone (feet)
6 9
12 18
18 27
24 36
36 54
I Much of the information in this memo is taken from the Minnesota Extension Service publication FO-6135-S, entitled
Protecting Trees from Constnlction Damage (Miller, et al. 1995).
Memorandum - CPDC
April 8, 1998
Page 2
The protected root zone is the area where disturbance should be minimized to the extent possible. The
amount of disturbance that a tree will tolerate before becoming stressed and increasingly susceptible to
pathogens varies by species and condition. Some trees are highly sensitive to disturbance while some
healthy trees of disturbance tolerant species have been lmown to survive after losing up to 50% of their root
systems. Examples of tolerance levels for tree species occurring on this site include;
Root Severance Tolerance levels for Various Tree Species.
Tolerant Intermediate Sensitive
cedar spruce ironwood
ash hickory white oak
aspen basswood black oak
box elder cherry
cottonwood
elm
hackberry
maple
red oak
CompactionlFlooding Tolerance levels for Various Tree Species.
Tolerant Intermediate Sensitive
cedar elm aspen
spruce hackberry cherry
ash hickory ironwood
box elder basswood
cottonwood red oak
maple white oak
black oak
If a species is considered "tolerant" it may be possible to disturb up to 25% of the area within the protected
root zone. For "intermediate" species, it is recommended that no disturbance occur within the protected root
zone, and for "sensitive" species, it may be necessary to restrict construction levels and activities even
beyond the protected root zone. Another thing to consider during construction is relocation of smaller
diameter trees. Healthy, small trees of intermediate or tolerant species may survive transplanting.
On this site, it is not recommended that excessive efforts be made to preserve large diameter oaks located in
low lying areas adjacent to the wetland. This is the area of the site with the most evidence of root rot
infection of the oaks. Also, oak is ill-suited for the wet conditions along the wetland.
Beyond simply selecting trees to be preserved during and following construction, it will be important to
minimize all activities in the areas of selected trees. Driving and parking heavy machinery within the
protected root zone of these trees can not be allowed. The soil compaction that would result from such
activities would increase root stress to the point of negating any preservation efforts. The rule of thumb on
this site during construction will have to be "if the machine is in the shade, it's in the wrong place". Up to
95% of a tree's root system is located in the upper three feet of soil. Any rutting, compaction, excavation,
or trenching in this area has a large, negative impact on the likelihood of tree survival.
'" Westwood Professional Services. Inc. (612) 937-5150
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II
FROM:
Jill Kimsal, Forestry Intern
DATE: March 23,1995
SUBJ:
Tree Inventory and Preservation, Point Lake Lucy West, Michael Byrne
The applicant submitted a tree inventory survey and canopy coverage calculations for the
development. The inventory failed to list all trees 12 inches in diameter and larger. Upon
inspection of the site, staff found many trees that failed to be shown on the inventory. Therefore,
the submitted inventory does not present the true image of the woodlands on site. Before
approval of the development is granted, a revised tree inventory denoting all trees 12 inches and
larger on site must be submitted.
T~e site is heavily wooded with a wide range of species and age classes. Large, mature oaks
eXist throughout the site as well as thick stands of young ironwoods, aspens, ash, elms, and
cottonwoods. There is a range of ages in all species on site implying that the woodlands are
fertile and productive. One interesting find on the tree survey is the existence of a 24" Black
Oak. While this tree is the most common upland oak in the eastern United States, its presence in
Chanhassen is unique since the range of this species only extends to the three most southeastern
counties in Minnesota. The tree is nearly identical in appearance to red and pin oaks, common to
this area, but differs from them in the shape of the acorn. On inspection of the site, no acorns
could be found to support or refute the claim. In the absence of the City's verification, however,
the benefit of the doubt should be granted and measures taken to plan the preservation of such a
rare and unique tree. Development in the southern portion as specified in plans would not be an
option. Alternatives must be considered that would not allow development within a distance of 1
; .1/2 times the dripline from the tree.
According to applicant, existing tree canopy covers 9.11 acres out of the total 11.48 of upland
acr~s. Therefore the existing canopy coverage would be 79%. The City's tree protection
ordma~ce states that 46% of the existing canopy remain or 4.19 acres. The developer plans on
removmg 5. 28 acres of canopy during construction which would leave only 3.83 acres. The 1.45
acres that are lost are multiplied by 1.2 as specified in the tree preservation ordinance to calculate
the reforestation requirements. A total of 1.74 acres or approximately 70 trees would have to be
planted to meet city standards.
Staff calculation of the site figured canopy coverage at 73%, or 8.35 acres. The developer is
required to maintain 46%, 5.28 acres, canopy coverage after development. Canopy removal due
to development was calculated to be 5.89 acres, leaving only 2.46 acres remaining. Replacement
requirements would be for 1.2 times 2.82 acres for a total reforestation of3.38 acres, or 135
trees. Since calculations of canopy coverage and removal differ significantly, applicant will need
to verify calculations.
Alignment of the city sewer lines is recommended along the northern edge of the wetland on the
east side of the development. This route can be aligned so as to avoid a number ofIarge trees
and to take advantage of an existing cleared path.
The site will be irrevocably changed by development. Because of extensive grading few, if any,
trees will be able to be saved within the grading limits. Only those on the outer edges will be left
relatively unaffected. The applicant has proposed boulder walls to preserve some of the larger
trees on site. Applicant will need to show elevations of all trees that are planned to be preserved.
Mature trees with grade changes of more than 4 feet inside 50% or more of their dripline will not
be recommended for preservation. So little of the original grades and environment will be
retained that the future health of the remaining trees within grading limits must be carefully
planned.
Lake Lucy Estates
May 17,1995
Page 12
TREE PRESERV ATION/lANDSCAPING
The revised development plan for Lake Lucy Estates has been submitted by the applicant.
Custom grading on home sites should help preserve wooded areas on each lot. Changes have
been made in the positioning of homes and streets although removal of canopy coverage has
not changed significantly. Where applicable, homes have been moved either closer or farther
from the street in order to avoid individual or stands of trees. Accommodations such as this
could be applied to additional lots. In Lot 2, Block 3, pulling the home a minimum of five
feet closer to the road would give the ash trees in the rear at least 15 feet from the grading
limits. On Lots 9 and lOin Block 2, moving the building pads closer to the roadway would
give additional distance from the grading limits to the very large oaks that exist on the lots.
The same is true for the 32 inch oak on Lot 11, Block 2. Sliding the building pad to the east
would insure a reasonable amount of space between the grading limits and the tree.
To assume that the shaded areas on the tree inventory denote the extent of tree loss in the
development is unrealistic. Additional trees that are near the grading limits will have
questionable survival possibilities. At least ten trees on the survey appear to be near enough
to the grading limits that preserving them will be difficult, although they are shown as being
saved. Case in point is a 30 inch Linden that will sit on a corner approximately 7 feet from a
12 foot retaining wall and 10 feet from a 10 foot retaining wall. Severance of roots that close
to such a large tree are usually fatal. Shifting the entrance of Lakeway Lane to the south
may help the tree's odds. Twenty feet from the base to the retaining wall would give the tree
the extra distance it may need. Whether or not it will live because of the shift depends on
the treatment it receives during construction, as is the case with all preserved trees in the
development.
I t's important that preservation of trees in the development does not become a tree by tree
issue at the time of construction. Trees in front yards are much more difficult to protect
during construction as well as trees near cuts or fills. To avoid tree conflicts and attempt to
save as many trees as possible, a tree removal plan must be clearly identified. Preservation
areas are one alternative, they provide coverage of large wooded areas, but also allow for
significant removal and prove difficult to regulate after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
Another alternative is a numbered inventory which authorizes tree removal by number prior to
construction. This is valuable for saving trees that would otherwise fall outside of a
preservation area but are not within the construction limits. An encumbrance is that excellent
judgement and foresight must be used in order to realistically decide which trees should be
saved. This can be a difficult task.
Canopy coverage on the site is 7.45 acres. Removal of the canopy due to grading and
construction will be 3.58 acres, leaving 3.87 acres on site. The minimum requirement of
canopy coverage to maintain is 5.23 acres. The applicant exceeds the minimum by 1.36 acres
rIDL - Oak Decline
Page 1 of ()
Forest Insect
& Disease
Leaflet 165
U.S. Department
of Agriculture
Forest Service
Oak Decline
Philip M. Wargo,l David R Houston,2and Leon A. LaMadeleine3
IResearch Plant Pathologlst:-U.S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Expen~ent-St.atTonJ Harnden, Conn.
2Research Work Unit Leader, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Harnden, Conn.
3Plant Pathologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry, Broomall, Pa.
_._---_.--_._...~---~.._..._..._-.... ---------...---.-----.-
Periodic occurrences of decline and death of oaks over widespread
areas have been rccorded since 1900. These outbreaks, variously
named Oak decline, Oak dieback, or oak mortality, are caused by a
complex interaction of environmental stresses and pests and given the
name oak decline.
'.
Hosts
Although the most frequent outbreaks of oak decline have been in
southern New England, the Middle Atlantic States, and the
Southeastern States, the disease has occurred throughout the range of
oak in both forest and urban situations (fig. 1). It is not limited to any
one species or species group. Outbreaks have been most frequent and
severe among red (Quercus rllbra), scarlet (Q. coccinea), pin (Q.
palustris), and black oak (Q. vellltina) in the red oak group and
among white (Q. alba)and chestnut oak (Q. prilllls) in the white oak
group.
Other important tree species that have suffered serious declines include ash, birch, beech, and
maple.
http://\\"iIIo\\".ncres.lImn.edLl/fidI-oakdcline'oakdec line .htm
1130/98
FIDL - Oak Decline
Page 2 of6
Figure 1 - Range of oak -the oak-hickory
and oak-pine forest types.
'-",
\
Disease Progression
Trees are weakened by environmental stresses such as drought, waterlogging, or frost or by
pests such as defoliating or sucking insects. Weakened trees are then invaded and killed by
insects and diseases that cannot successfully attack healthy trees. Usually the progression of
decline is slow, occurring over several years.
Trees affected by oak decline show a general and progressive dying back from the tips of the
branches. (See cover.) Other symptoms include production of chlorotic, dwarfed, and sparse
foliage; development of sprouts on main branches and stem; and premature autumn leaf color
and leaf drop. Often, growth is reduced before the appearance of symptoms. The amount of
food stored as starch is reduced, especially in the roots.
The Initiating stress factors associated most frequently with oak decline are drought, frost
injury, or insect defoliation. Trees on ridge tops and in wet areas suffer most severely from
drought. Frost often affects trees growing in valleys and frost pockets. Defoliated trees that
refoliate the same season may exhibit dieback symptoms the next year. Other factors such as
,. leaf diseases and soils that are waterlogged, compacted, or shallow have occasionally been
,,'. implicated in oak decline. Waterlogging is especally important in the heavier clay soils of the
Midwest. Stress facton may be more frequent and severe in urban forests, where trees are
often subjected to disturbances assoiated with human activities.
These stress factors often weaken trees so much that they succumb, sometimes suddenly, to
the root killing and girdling actions of insects and diseases. The two major pests associated
with oak decline are Armillaria mellea (Vahl: Fr.), a root disease commonly called annillaria
root rot, and Agrillls bililleatlls (Weber), the twolined chestnut borer.
http://willo\\".ncfes.umn.edulfidl-oakdclineloakdecline.htm
1/30/98
FIDL - Oak Decline
The common forest fungus A. mellea usually lives on stumps and
roots of dead trees, but can attack the roots of stressed oaks. It
produces rootlike structures -rhizomorphs- which grow through the
soil and over the surface of healthy tree roots (fig.2). When trees are
stressed, chemical changes occurring in the roots allow the fungus to
infect and kill them. Continued infection will eventually result in
girdling of the large buttress roots and root collar (fig. 3).This,in
turn, kills the tree. The roots of these killed trees serve as food
sources for the fungus. In the autumn, clustus of honey-colored
mushrooms may form at the base of invaded trees (fig. 4).
. ....~ ..::,.- ..~ ....'':
~ -~
. .~ ~ . ..~ l~-. Figure 4 - Clusters of
. ~ -. ~:~~."'~. .'. '. mushrooms of A. melIeaform
.1.7;',;~.~~ ~n autumn at the base of
".t . -;,.... ~~. mvadedtrees.
~'''''' ..
A. bililleatlls (fig. 5) attacks the crowns and stems of weakened trees.
The larvae bore into the inner bark, begin feeding and Conn
meandering galleries in the inner bark and outer wood (fig. 6). The
larvae molt three times (fig. 7); and as they grow, they form larger
galleries, which cause more damage. The meandering and
overlapping feeding galleries of many larvae effectively block
mo\.ement of food to the roots and water to the shoots. These borers
first infest the upper crown; later infestations are lower down and
often reach the base of the tree. The combined actions of the borer in
the stem and the fungus in the roots can bring about rapid decline
and death.
Page 3 of.
. Figure 3 - White mycelial
alls of A. melIea growing
between the bark and
wood at the root collar 011
a declinillg chestnut oak
indicate that the tree is
being girdled.
Figure 5 - Adult of the
tlrolined chestnut borer, A.
bilineatus.
As dieback and reduced growth continue, larger branches die and form the characteristic
stag-headed crown (fig. 8). Foliage is mainly limited to sprouts on the larger branches and
main stem.
hap: \'.i I k)\\, .ne t"c-s.umn.edulfidl-oakdc line/oakd~c line .htm
1/30/98
FIDL - Oak Decline
Page 4 of6
~:~~. ~..:-',::"::'t:~~:G.:t::::.7:"~;:"....,. :;.
Figure 7 - Four
larval stages of A.
bilineatus.
:-.:;~~~~=.:::r_.;;!.:;.
..
-- '--- ~..~
Diagnosing Oak Decline
Dieback symptoms can result from the effects of stress alone. Indeed, stress, if sufficiently
severe or prolonged, can result in tree mortality. However, the continued decline and death of
stressed oaks usually results from lethal attacks by armillaria root rot and twolined chestnut
borers. Final symptoms of oak decline primarily reflect the root killing and girdling effects of
these organisms. In attacked trees, leaves sometimes fail to develop in the spring or wilt
short~y alter budbreak; sometimes they wilt or brown suddenly in the latter part of the
growmg season.
A characteristic of Oak decline is that it may develop suddenly on many trees in the area
affected by the initiating stress factor. Within the affected areas. however, decline and
mortality occur in patterns, which my reflect the intensity and seveity of the stress, the
distribution of the hosts, the aggressiveness of armillaria root rot, and the abundance of
two lined chestnut borers, coupled with site features such as poor or excessive soil drainage
and frost pockets (fig. 9).
In many instances, the species that are affected and their location can provide dues to the
cause of oak decline. For example, symptoms only on white oaks or only on red oaks might
suggest that preferential insect defoliation was the cause. Frost may be implicated if damage
is limited to trees growing in depressions or valley bottoms.
Symptom development can also indicate the stage of decline and approximate beginning of
the problem. The age of bole sprouts and patterns of radial and terminal growth can be used to
estimate the date of the events that tricrcrered their development. Although some trees die soon
after being stresed, others may not su;;umb for 5 years or more. The timng of peak mortality,
ifknown, can gIve some indication of when the stress may have occurred. For example,
mortaity is usually highest 2 years after heavy insect defoliation. Such tree growth
information, when coupled with an analysis of weather and forest records, can be used to
develop a composite picture of the cause and stage of the oak decline problem.
http::,'willo\\'.nc res. umn. edlll fidl-oakdc line' oakdec line.htm
1/30/98
FIDL - Oak Decline
Page 5 of6
In the diagnosis of oak decline. it is important to determine if stress factors are associated with
the specific problem and. at the same time. to rule out the involvement of primary pathogenic
organisms such as the oak wilt fungus.
Oak wilt caused by the fungus Ceratocystis fagaceanlm (Bretz) Hunt has been reported from
the Lake States east to Pennsylvania and south to Terxas. It has not been found in New
England. New York. or New Jersey. All oak species are susceptible to the fungus. Red oaks
are more susceptible than white oaks.
Differences Between Oak Decline and Oak 'Yilt
Oak Decline. Within both red and white oak groups. oak decline is characterined by (1)
progressive terminal branch dieback; (2) branch and bole sprout and staghead development;
(3) sudden foliage wilt and browning, but no leaf drop; (4) fans and rhizomorphs of A. mellea
often present beneath bark of roots and root collars on dying trees; (5) galleries and exit holes
of A. bilineatlls often present in stems of dying or dead trees (6) decline found throughout the
range of oak; (7) mortality related to site features, tree stress, and affects of insets and
diseases; and (8) tree mortality peaking 2 to 5 years following stress.
Oak wilt in the red oak group. In the red oak group, oak wilt is characterized by (1) leaf wilt
and drop over entire crown, (2) leaf portions bronzing or browning, (3) rapid tree mortality,
(4) no progressive branch dieback, (5) formation and then death of short-lived sprouts in the
season after infection, and (6) vascular streakikg (dark longitudinal streaks) found
occasionally in outer growth ring.
Oak wilt in the white oak group. In the white oak group, oak wilt is characterized by (1) leaf
wilt on scattered branches that die back and form sprouts and (2) vascular streaking common
in outer growth ring. Some trees may continue to wilt and die back until all branches and
sprouts are dead, yet other trees may survive.
In both red and white oaks. armillaria root rot and twolined chestnut borers are not usually
associated with trees dying of oak wilt In oak wilt, unlike oak decline, isolated trees or small
pockets of trees can be diseased with no history of environmental stress. The infection centers
are not related to site features. Laboratory diagnosis is usually required to conclusively
identify oak wilt-diseased trees.
-.
Control
The unique relationship of cause and affect and patterns of distribution of oak decline must be
considered, and control efforts should focus on reducing or preventing the predisposing stree
factors.
In the forest, factors such as drought and frost cannot be controlled. However, management
can reduce their effects. Thinning can reduce competition for moisture and nutrients and
promote better physiological condition of the remaining trees. Silvicultural practices designed
to encourage species best adapted to the site can help reduce the effects of drought or frost.
Removal of weak and dying trees may also reduce or delay population buildup of the twolined
chestnut borer. Stress from insect defoliation can be reduced or eliminated in high-value forest
stands by spraying the trees with insecticides.
Landowners can get specific information on insecticides available for control from
cooperative extension agents or local forestry officials.
In urban sites, additional control measures are feasible. Moisture shortages can be alleviated
by watering, mulching to reduce competition from sod, and reducing or avoiding soil
compaction. Trees can also be treated to control sucking and defoliating insects and disease
http://willow.ncfes.lImn.edw.fidl-oakdcline/oakdecline.htm
1/30/98
FIDL - Oak Decline
Page 6 of6
organisms that cause defoliation. Nutritional deficiencies can be corrected by fertilizing.
These practices eliminate some forms of stress and promote good physiological condition.
Oak dellne is Initiated by stresses, which can disappear before effects are manifested. A
systematic evaluation ofthe problem can usually reveal the initiating factors and the agents
responsible for mortality. Practices to promote good tree health can reduce the potential
impacts of damage by oak decline.
References
Dunbar, Dennis M.; Stephens, George R. Association of two lined chestnut borer and shoestring fungus with
mortality of defoliated oak in Connecticut. For. Sci. 21: 169-174; 1975.
Houston, David R. Diebacks and declines: diseases initiated by stress, including defoliation. Int. Shade Tree
Conf. Proc. 49: 73-76; 1973.
Houston, David R. Classifying forest susceptibility to gypsy moth defoliation. Agric. Handb.542. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1979.23 p.
Houston, David R. Spreading tree diseases: the hand of man. The Ecol. 4/5:120-124; 1979.
Jones, Bill F.; Barnes, Gordon; McDaniel, M.C. Arkansas Forest Pest Report. Little Rock, AR: University of
Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service; 1975.2 p.
Nichols, James O. Oak mortality in Pennsylvania-a ten year study. J. For. 66: 681-694; 1968.
Sinclair, W. A. Comparisons of recent declines of white ash, oaks and sugar maple in Northeastern woodlands.
Cornell Plant. 20: 62-67; 1965.
Skelly, 1. M. Oak decline. Bull, MR-FTDA. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Cooperative
Extension Service; 1967.4 p.
Skelly, J. M. Growth loss of scarlet oak due to oak decline in Virginia. Plant Dis. Rep. 58: 396-399; 1974.
Staley, John M. Decline and mortality of red and scarlet oaks. For. Sci. 11: 2-17; 1965.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Oak symposium proceedings. Broomall, PA: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station; 1971.161 p.
Ware, George H. Decline in oaks associated with urbanization. In: Proceedings, Urban and suburban trees: pest
problems, needs, prospects, and solutions; 1982 April 18-20; East Lansing, MI. East Lansing, MI: Department of
Resource Development, Department of Entomology, Michigan State University; 1982: 61-64.
Wargo, Philip M. Armillariella mellea and Agrillls bilineatlls and mortality of defoliated oak. For. Sci. 23:
485492; 1977.
Wargo, Philip M. Defoliation by gypsy moth: how it hurts your trees. Home and Gard. Bull. 223. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1978. 15 p.
Wargo, Philip M. Judging vigor or deciduous hardwoods. Agric. Info. Bull. 418. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture; 1978. 15 p.
Issued August 1983
Return-to FOresTand Tree Health Publications
http://vvillow.ncfes.umn.edu!fidl-oakdcline/oakdecline .htm
1/30/98
"-: . ,."
",'. "
r'
..'a~:l/~
I t}i4f:.
~ Biii
"0-6135-5
~evised 7995
Nancy L. Miller
David M. Rathke
Gary R. Johnson
...... - ..
-
'"
C on tents.
The Root of tHe Matter .::.......:..........1
Plan Ahead! :........~..........:........:;;.;;.;..... 2
Minimize the Impact of
Construction Activities .....~,............. 6
. -
SITE CLEARING ---=.:..-_ ': /._ 6
SOIL DAMAGE -____~---_ 6
GRADE CHANGES ~'______"--""-"_' 6 .
EX CA VA TlON ----..:-........---...-::-._-.-:_._.7
PA VEMENT ---------:;---.-...__._._7
. - . "
Symptoms of Construction'
Damage .................................................9
Treatment of
Damaged Plants ................................10 .
YIA TER ----.:._......:..__.__..._......._._._. 70
EXCAVATION OF
BACK-FILLED TREES_~._____.......:::'._....._70
AERA TlON ---:.-_____..._;~___.__ 70
FERTILIZER ---...----........-...--.-....-__.17
PRUNING AND WOUND REPAIR __.._.._____. 17
OAK WIL T __.___._.._.._.____.._ 17
OTHER INSECT AND
DISEASE PROBLEMS.,-_...__._.___.._._.___.17
TREE REMOVAL -__....__.._.._._.__............._..... 72
Cone fusion .......................................... 12
..
To order additional copies of this
publication, fax or write:
Minnesota Extension Service
Distribution Cent.er
20 Coffey Hall
1420 Eckles Avenue
Saint Paul MN 55108-6064 .
FAX Number (612) 625-2207
-
~-
'.
'.
:::.
..;
\. .
-.
-:::
-: '
'.-:-
-'
-'
,
'-
Are you planning to .
build or remodel a home?
Before you start, 'consider the
impact of construction, on
plants.
, Trees and shrubs contribute
to property values ,by enhancing
appearance, reducing noise!
,:utting energy costs, screening.
tmsightly views, and. attracting
50ngbirds and other wildlife.
'Jnfortzmately, plants meant to
Je part of a ho:ne's permanent -,
andscape often are needlessly
lamaged or killed during
'onstruction. Careful planning
:nd coordination with a tree-
'are specialist and your bililder
an r~duce damage and save you
he trouble. and expense of
reating or removing injured
'lants.
This publication explains
'Jme things that landowners
1n do to minimize the impact
f construction on trees. It
escribes landscape protection
lans, special construction
~chniqlles, symptoms of dam-
se, and treatment strategies.
,!though the information
resented focuses on trees, it
'so can be applied to protecting
zrubs.
~ 'J). The Root
1111. of the
Matter. . .
Trees can be damaged or killed by
a wide variety of construction activi-
ties. Some practices lead to obvious
injuries such as broken branches or
tom bark. Open wounds of this type .
deplete a plant's energy resources and
provide entry points for insects, or for
diseases such as oak wilt.
Figure 1. One common method used to
define a tree's protected root zone (PRZ)
is to consider it to be the part of the
roots that lie directly below its branches
within an area known as the drlpllne.
The worst damage, however, often
remains hidden underground. Roots
are one of the most vital parts of a tree.
They are responsible for nutrient and
water uptake, store energy, and
anchor the plant. Because they are so
important, it is critical that you protect
roots that lie in the path of construc-
tion.
Trees are never the same shape
below ground as they are above, so it
is difficult to predict the length or
location of their roots. However,
approximately 90-95 percent of a tree's
,,\1;l~~~;i{~l~~~;15il
Each,cOnStritctiorisite'haS itS'dWIl ;:\:
~: ~~q~E: ~:9"f~~/~!I:~e.'~p'e<ies;:~h1F
'<b~~gJ?ioc~'i::q~~itiRns;~F9~';;'~
> ,Ws re~~o~~W~~e.~ori:iln~d thaet~;
. ':ypu:.get a'4yice'fi.o~ra-:prbfei~lQ~~
, :~ tirb'ar(fqres't~;:or,'cU~diiS't tiJith~'f~~~l-{
..; .,. .......,. k ....:.". ....~ '",It ......... .~ '.. "...;J- a~......~.
--:. ~xpm,{1lqellJ prpt~cting"tr~e~'f;oiri:;\:~;
. ; constrU.c~!o~; dfimqge::, :rfNS 'perso~)~
~,\vill b~. fa~P.i'~\Yi~'th~. ;gr~\vtg~~.~t _
_ cparaCt~ris~cs and coritm,on"~'< >",~,:,':
.... . ,. .' ,'.^ """ . . '.',.. "J'..
.pro]:>leins f.aced bi t.i'ee~Pecies'm:;-:"
. yot.i~ai~a:~ 'Heor ~h~ c~n.help-y'~.<<\
evaluate pla'nt health arid the .::-:i(:
'~k~lyimpacts"of c~hstit.iction~>;;;'~:; -
"aCri~~:..s.:){.~..> ';:'~~!.,;,:::'.'...)~;~'/:' -
.For yot.i~o~ protection:' ~!. :'.:~ :.~.~.
. : ", . .", . - , ~ . . ".' '". . -_. :... .~~.
V, ~ire ~inly prof~sionalhvh(f~e':~. .
'. part'cfan esta~JiShed husirieSs}~
'list~? in' th~phone'book~:.:.:/./~:,
, , . . '", . . - . I '. _. ,..... .
V asldor refeninces '. '.' " ~-,~::c~.
. '.~"" ......' .: ~ ;-".. . ...: .;'~.:";:'.;"~:
V. make sure the person you' Me' .;::
; , carries ~ur~nce foi prope~.~,:::
. damage, persona.l liability, and :':
workers c.ompen~atiori. , .,
Memb~rship iritheNatidnal :' :", "
:Arborist Association, Minnesota. '.
Society of Arboriculture, 'or ,'~' :~~ ' ,.-
Intemational,~ociety.of . -.... .~.
Arboriculture or certification (rom,'
the International SOciety of .~':: : :~ -'
Arboriculture are'g~od indicators:-'
of reputable businesses.' .-", >
'" . .
root system is in the top three feet of
soil, and more than half is in the top
one foot. The part of this root system
in ..\'hich construction damage shquld
be avoided is called the Protected Root
Zone (PRZ).
One common method used to
identify the PRZ is to define it as the
"dripline"-the area directly below
the branches of the tree (Figure 1).
Ho\vever, many roots extend beyond
the longest branches a distance equal
to two or more times the height of the
tree. For this reason you should
protect as much of the area beyond the
dripline as possible.
Figure 2. Approximate a tree's .
protected root zone by calculating the
critical root radius (eRR). First,
measure the tree diameter in inches at
breast height(DBH). Then multiply that
number by IS. Express the result in
feet.
Example:
DBH = 8 inches
8XIS=12
eRR = 12 feet
Measure
diameter (width)
=dbh
dbh x 15
= critical root radius
2
-
-- [-------,
,....,..--. '. ~~--
..,.,.", , I .: .r; _,.----......
Root Zone /. . .; . .".:----- ~-.-:-:.:,..:-..,..:...:.......
(PRZ) ~/."_:"'--.';~-:':-:"';' '- II ~':"/".':'-'-'~';'.-~;': ('.' '- . 4.5 feet
1';-' ..,;/;..-;.,-/.: ~"". ,{ (....15<..".~;-;':J.}'(j\..':-..l
/'. ':":"::"~:-~~.::i~ :'ii.:'~ .~<'. '.. . ~\~ \~crittca;(oot;adi~S-!.:
\ .~::'~. :.:,~::~'.'.~>/..'.~. ". ~ ". t c- /,~~</, {.:';'. \~/ ';'~7.'r::.. :)
\. . '\ . .' - . 'J" 1 . ~'."" ~ -J,', , ..\ '''V'''" <'';
" .- '.' ~'~~~:>: .~ ~...; ":~~/;:'?).. ~ ~'":;>\::::~;-::;7 .
...... :....... .-~'- - dnplme --.- - -. .. .'. ~;..." ;/
'<" ': '.,.:"" ':".':;../
..........~.--.~ -.- ;.;..-----.,..,.
-- ---
Protected
Unfortunately, on most sites space
is limited and this rule must be bent
Just how close an activity can come
without seriously threatening the
survival of a tree depends upon the
species, the extent of damage, and the
plant's he,~ltJt:..Some healthy trees can
survive after losing SO percent of their
roots. However, other species are
extremely sensitive to root cutting,
even outside the drip line.
Table 1 shows the relative sensi-
tivity of various tree species to root
disturbance. If possible, disturb no
more than 25 percent of the roots
within the dripline for any tree,
protect intermediate species to the
dripline, and allow extra space beyond
the drip line for sensitive species. For
all trees, a\'oid needless or excessive
damage. A qualified tree-care spe-
cialist can help you determine how
much root interference a particular
tree can tolerate.
When dealing with trees that have
been growing in the forest or that
naturally have a narrow growth habit,
an approach called the "critical root
radius" is more accurate than the
dripline method for determining the
PRZ. This is particularly true for
columnar trees and for those where
competition has reduced the canopy
spread.
To calculate critical root radius,
begin by measuring the diameter at
breast height (dbh). This is done by
measuring the tree's trunk diameter
(thickness) at a point 4.5 feet above the
ground. The measurement should be
done in inches. For each inch of dbh,
allow for 1.5 feet of critical root radius.
For example, if a tree's dbh is ten
inches, then its critical root radius is 15
feet (10 x 1.5 = 15). The PRZ is an area
around the tree with a diameter of 30
feet (2 x radius), and is the area in
which a critical amount of the tree's
roots may be found. Whenever
possible, isolate this area from con-
struction disturbance (see Figure 2
above).
_r=:; l'l
l~""~
~~
)l! ~,
Plan
Ahead!
You'll save time and money if you
develop a landscape protection plan
before construction begins. . Careful
planning will help you avoid the
expense and heartache of later repair-
ing or removing trees located too close
to construction activities.
These steps will help you creafe a
successful landscape protection plan:
7. Mark construct/on zone
boundaries.
Obtain a complete set of site
development plans, including the
proposed location of buildings,
driveways, si~ewalks, and utility
lines. Ask the builder or architect to
mark areas where heavy equipment
will be used, where soil will be
permanently added or removed and to
what depth, and where fill and
building materials will be temporarily
stockpiled. Use a measuring tape,
stakes, and string to temporarily mark
the boundaries of construction activi-
ties on the site.
2. Inventory trees
on the site.
Record the location, size, and
health of each tree. Wilted leaves,
broken or dead limbs, trunk rot, and
thin tops are all signs of stress. Trees
that are overmature, display poor
form, lean heavily over future build-
ings, or have severe insect or disease
problems (Figure 3) should be marked
for removal prior to construction.
Also mark trees that need pnming to
make room for future structures and
construction equipment. .
3. Select the trees
to be saved.
Examine the site carefully and
note how each tree fits into the future
landscape. Keep in mind that the
builder may be able to shift the
location of a building, utility line, or
driveway. Although local ordinances
Table 7. Tree Characteristics
Species Root Soil Soil pH Mature Mature Hazard Damage- landscape
Severance6 Compaction Preference8 Tree Crown Tree Causing Value'"
& Flooding6 Height Spread Rating*7 Roots
(feet)8 (feet)8
Northern white cedar Tolerant Tolerant 6.0-8.0 40-50 10-20 (ow - High
Balsam fir ., Tolerant Tolerant. 4.0-6.0 40-60 20~35 Me~ium - , Medium.
.
White fir Tolerant Sensitive 4.0-6.5 50-75 10-20 Medium - - High
Tamarack. . '. Tolerant Toleranf 4.0-7.5 , 50-75 .15- 25 Medium I-!igh
-
White pine Tolerant Sensitive 4.5-6.5 80-100 50-80 Medium - High
Jack pine Tolerant Sensitive 4.5-6.5 30-80 . 20-30 High , - low
Red pine Tolerant Sensitive 4.5-6.0 50-80 20-40 (Medium) - Medium
Scotch pil]e (Tolerant) (Sensitive) 4.0-6.5 6Q-l00 30-50 Medium, ~ Medium, .
Eastern redcedar Tolerant " Sensitive 4.7-7.8 40-50 10-20 low low
-
Black spruce '" Tolerant ToleraQt 3.5-7.0 "30-70 - 15-39 (Medium) , - low'-
Colorado spruce Intermediate Tolerant 4.6-6.5 50-100 20- 30 Medium - High
\
White spruce - Tolerant Intermediate 4.5-7.5 . 40-80 20-30 ,Medium - Medium
Black ash Tolerant Tolerant 4.1-6.5 40-70 30-60 (Medium) - Medium
Green ash Tolerant Tolerant 6.0-7.5 - , 30-60 30:50 Medium - low
White a5h Tolerant Intermediate 5.0-7.5 70-80 50+ (Medium) - Medium
Bigtoot~ aspen Tolerant Sensitive 4.8-6.3 50-75 20-35 Medium Yes low
Quaking aspen Tolerant Sensitive 4.8-6.5 40-60 20-35 Medium Yes low
Blue beech Sensitive Sensitive 6.5-7.5 20-30 15-20 low .. - High
-
Paper birch Intermediate Sensitive 5.0-8.0 50-70 30-50 Medium - Medium
River birch - Tolerant Tolerant 4.0-6.5 . 40:70 30-50 low " High,
Yellow birch Intermediate Sensitive 4.5-8.0 50-70 25-50 Medium - Medium
Boxelder ~ Tolerant Tolerant 6.5-7.5 40-60 35-50 High Yes - low
Ohio buckeye Intermediate Intermediate 6.1-6.5 30-50 30-40 Medium Yes Medium
Butternut Sensitive Intermediate 6.6-8.0 40'60 50-60 (Medium), - Medium
Catalpa Intermediate Tolerant 6.1-8.0 50-80 30-50 Medium - Medium
Black cherry Intermediate Sensitive 6.0-7.5 50-70 40-50 low '. low
/ -
Kentucky coffeetree Intermediate Intermediate 6.5-7.5 50-80 40-50 low - High
Eastern cottonwood Tolerant Tolerant 5.5-8.0 80-100 80-100 High . Yes low
qed-osier dogwood Tolerant Intermediate 6.1-8.5 8-10 10-12 (low) - Medium
<\merican elm Tolerant Intermediate 5.5-8.0 70-100 70-150 Medium Yes low
Slippery elm (Tolerant) (Intermediate) 6.6-8.0 60-70 40-60 Medium Yes low
;ackberry Tolerant Intermediate 30-130 50+ low. "- High
6.6-8.0 -
;awthorn Intermediate Intermediate 6.0-7.5 20-40 20- 30 low - High
3itternut hickory Intermediate Intermediate 6.0-6.5 40-75 30+ (Medium) - Medium
;oneylocust Tolerant Intermediate 6.0-8.0 50-75 50-75 Medium Yes Medium
ronwood Sensitive Sensitive 6.1-8.0 25-50 20-30 (low) . - High
lasswood (Intermediate) Sensitive 5.5-7.3 70-100 50-75 (High) - Medium
II ack locus t Tolerant Sensitive 4.6-8.2 30-60 20-50 (Medium) - low
:ed maple Tolerant Tolerant 4.5-7.5 50-70 40-60 Medium Yes High
;ilver maple Tolerant 75.100 High ., Yes low
Tolerant 5.5-6.5 60-90
;ugar maple (Intermediate) Sensitive 5.5-7.3 60.80 60-80 Medium Yes High
t10untain ash Tolerant Intermediate 4.0-7.0 15.25 15.25 Medium - .High
lack oak Sensitive Sensitive 6.0-6.5 50-80 50-70 (Medium) - High
ur oak (Tolerant) Intermediate 4.0-8.0 70-80 40-80 low - High
lorthern pin oak Sensitive Sensitive 5.5'7.5 50.75 30-50 (Medium) - Medium
ed oak Tolerant Sensitive 4.5-7.0 60.80 40-50 (Medium) - High ,-
icolor oak (Intermediate) Tolerant 6.0-6.5 60.70 40-50 low - High
'hite oak Sensitive Sensitive 6.5-7.5 60-100 50-90 low. - High
Iild plum Tolerant Sensitive 6.5-6.6 20-25 15-25 low - Medium
erviceberry Intermediate Sensitive 6.1-8.5 6-35 6.15 (low) - High
ack walnut Sensitive Intermediate 6.6-8.0 70-100 60-100+ Medium - Medium
ack willow Tolerant Tolerant 6.5-8.0 30-60 20.40 High Yes low
,bers in column headings correspond to numbered Sources in the
'rence section.
Jes in parentheses reflect the authors' or technical advisors'
lions.
zard Tree Rating refers to the relative potential for a tree to
ome hazardous. For a tree to be considered hazardous. a potential
.target.(e.g., a house, a sidewalk: or other trees) must. be present: A
high hazard tree rating does not Imply that the tree Will always fail.
"landscape Value refers to the relative value of each species in
Minnesota based on hardiness, form, color. growth habits. flowering
and fruiting characteri.stics, structura.1 strength. longevity, inse.ct a!"l.d
disease resistance, maIntenance requirements. a,.,d general deSIrability.
driveway, Although local ordinances
differ, drive\....ays and utility lines
don't always have to be straight, and
homes don't always have to be in the
center of the lot (Figure 4), If the PRZ
of a tree falls inside the construction
zone, you should seriously consider
changing the original design, adding
protection measures, or removing the
tree before construction begins, .
, .... ......'r; ..;......;. ".. ,"',;"~~~...~~'_!...
, :~:, TREE jiiicTlqil"TIPj" ~:::i:~;;:j;.:'i1:g~'
'.::' -~.:L:tr~.'.~~'~~~:? ;::;:~; .'; >:'i~~1%1~!t
.&1: Say.e:plUy ~~beS!;:r~iij6Ye...tJi~~f..t
":;rest::It.is e~hsive for the~(~ft.:~~
-~-." . r...l.....r-..... - ..,.r....-~.;.."...'j:".
.';:: biilldeit6 WP'rk aroUnd tTees}~i'.(
:: :-ind it ~c&o. ~.~e~#Sive ~o.~ ~~i~~~l
, ~':rernovi ~:iamaged' trees a1ter~:~:~;~.
~;;ff~~~l~~*~.
. V~Undets'tartd t1ie~cliaiad:ensfia;.~ft
~:'7 olid~eet.6t.'.:~t' ih~.aavfdggi~J~?:
,.-y...., :' . -' . g......,. ... . ,..., 'k","~'
""":;someolii'wlld dqes~.:.If . 'oi.i'l9low~'.
. ". '" .... - ; ...,. .. .". ~ _. .:t\, ..Y... ........,.~~_...
~'~.'a1ioti~~oudreer~ O.U 'caniler '~-s--,i'~
."1..... .....:;J .""i.~:'.'.".&: Y,: ~._. .:",.i: .~~Y..,
; '::.' i.nSure theii'5unrivaI ana ~.:. .~?{\:.,
.' . - - ..... ".....~ .... -. ..- .. ..'- .-.~. , t:~.. .... :.
.... prq'y'~ ~h~~~~'.~~te :appe~~ce:~
-~. -. :~.:-. .~~:~.~.;..~..~.~: :;i~)' ~~{ 0 :.. -~:~':. -':.J~,~~~:~ii~~;~~/.~
'" seleCt tree-s . '. 'es that fif'the;".-~.'f:-
"". . ....:....,'" ...(~ '.:,":' ..~;.: :,\,-:.\...~
i ~ ~.sp~ti~, ~o~~tS,o~. ~e ~1!~:,5: ~~~
. :.'(Table l);rememl:>ehng that fr~' .
':-;::gr()\~:thrl?ugh~U~ih.ejr ~v~~'a{\
: sure to consider. overhead: -".-'::~ :
. . fui.".... /. .. [. f ......: ":':.. ."~ .<....
power es__ :~'_"..':-- _:.,: ~ "".
-....~..:..:.t.~~:<.. :>.;~'~ ~ ~:'.::::.~~;:-\~:,
. '" Y6i.uii:smaIl trees lend to.'.J/~:.),:,
'. :. surVive"dlstui-bance.better .than/:
: ,oldl~iafgep:ees: i.argEj!~~:~;(;)::~:
:.. ,'almost never'.st.irVive Withinfive'.J'
I' .' - _ - . ~. ..,. "" .
! ._';--.fee.~_9~.~ ne~b~~in.g"ff;:.~'""'::::~:
I' --.sJ:lOuld.not ~ kept.. ..t . "~:;'\),j ::.
j.< '-f~; :'.:3-):~::\..~:.::,: .--:'~/:,:l~~;
. ~ 'H&'p'ihfypungir~es. that (all ~'.:;:;'
. '~~l]~~~o,;iS~~op~ohe maz:~;~~
. .~:sav.eQ by ~laJlting.,: }:~~.:~~~~~
'-.--;~::.:':(~~.~';:~,:'::/.~".:-.:. .>/.!.~;;}~;::
II: pon~tput all foUr ~gs in!>ne~~(;,
~~. basket! Save it IrWctuIe Bf tree"'+'{'
~'~;~~'to's~~~ar~ 'you.! :':{\~:p;;?
._: lan~s~~pe.agaips.~ ~6n~gi~.us-. ::::.
cpsea~s or. insects: . ,
-,;..~~~. .:-~ f"Olo"o .. ...... _. .. .: _::. .:~
'" Imprqve. tr~ s~lval,by saviI}gj
groups of trees rather th.an~' .. -.; :':
indiVidu~ijs. ~. -'
.',
4
-
.. ---.-...--
-, .
~,t;{2?:~~i[~f~g~~~;if~~?~f%l~~~Flelt~i~~fj
Figure 3. Careful planning may avoid the
creation of hazardous tree situations such
as damaged trees located too close to the
house or dangerous overhanging limbs,
Figure 4. You may be able to save
some trees by siting the new
construction away from the center
of the lot.
J. Protect the trees
. you plan to s~ve.
Develop a map with the builder or
:ch:tect showing the location of trees
I be protected and the safest route for
:ce: ; to the building zone. Then.
sta:: bright orange polypropylene .f\. () ~
ncing and post "Off Limits" signs at ~
e PRZ of the trees you plan to save
igure 5). Your primary objective is ~ ~ if
protect delicate root systems, so ~. ':: J
ovide your trees with as much space /f\. ~ n
possible. Make sure all construction Y--iY..}l I
)rkers know that nothing inside this /jG\ I. .~
~a is to be raked, cut, stored, or
1erwise disturbed. A landscape .
Jtection contract signed by the
ilder and all contractors will help
jure compliance. Take several
otographs of the site before Con-
uction begins to document the
ltection methods used and the
Idition of individual trees.
Prepare the trees
for construction
disturbance.
You'll boost your trees' chance for
vival if you make sure they're as
Jrous as possible before construc-
I begins. Regularly water the trees
linfaIl is not adequate. Fertilize
n if soil tests or deficiency symp-
s indicate they are nutrient
ssed. (I:~r soil test information,
:act your county extension agent or
the University of Minnesota's Soil
ing Lab at 612-625-3101.) Prune
Iches that are dead, diseased,
lrdous or detrimental to the
.t's na tural form.
Monitor the
construction pN;Jcess.
visit the site regularly and inspect
rees. Your presence alerts work-
f your concern for the careful
:nent of the trees. Should damage
:, begin repairs as Soon as pos-
Immediately inform the builder
r violations in the landscape
ction contract and photograph
5
-
FIgure S. Put up fences and signs around
trees you want to save to alert construc-
tion workers to damage potential.
1.0;
the damage. Damage penalties should
be based on the appraised value of
each plant as described in Landscapt?
Tree Valuation (Minnesota Extension
Service publication NR-FO-7026).
Insist that protective fences remain in
place until all construction workers
have left the site.
7. Make a final
inspection of the site.
After construction has been
completed, evaluate the condition of
the remaining trees. Look for signs of
damage or stress. It may take several
years for severe problems .to appear.
Careful monitoring and preventive
treatment (e.g., watering) may help
minimize damage.
)~ ~fl Minimize the
~G Impact of
Construction
Activities
In addition to protecting the PRZ,
there are other ways in which you can
reduce the impact of construction
activities on your trees'- Some of these
are relatively simple; others can be
extremely expensive. Carefully
consider the importance of each tree to
the future appearance of the site and
consult a tree-care specialist before
deciding "'whether protective measures
are worth the cost.
SITE CLEARING
When you remove a large number
of trees, you expose the remaining
plants to new conditions. Sudden
increases in amounts of sunlight and
wind will shock many of your trees. It
is not uncommon to find scorched
leaves, broken branches, and uprooted
trees after a site is cleared. Although
some of these problems are tempo-
rary, they may compromise tree health
when coupled with additional con-
struction damage.
You can avoid sun and wind
stress by saving groups of trees rather
FIgure 6. ,A r:opt system bridge will help
protect trees in the path of construction
vehicles.
-'" ",
. -...- .
"-.. . .
... "'-
. :. ........ .'
..~~:.'~:~~~};:;.':V'-. '.'.
...~~~, ~./' ~ .-
.. ...:.
6
-
than individuals. When possible, '.
remove the unwanted plants in winter
after the leaves have fallen. Dormant
plants are less susceptible to damage,
and frozen ground helps protect roots.
Bulldozers should not be used to
remove trees near plants to be pre-
served. Heavily wooded sites.should
be gradually thinned over two to three
years to reduce removal shock on
remaining plants. This is especially
important in dense pine, spruce, or fir
forests.
SOIL DAMAGE
Soil compaction is the single
largest killer of urban trees. Tree roots
need loose soil to grow, obtain oxy-
gen, and absorb water and nutrients.
Stockpiled building materials, heavy
machinery, and excessive foot traffic
all damage soil structure. Lacking
good soil aeration, roots suffocate and
. tree health declines.
Prevent soil compaction by
carefully selecting storage areas and
traffic routes (the future driveway is a
good choice for both) and installing
protective fences and signs. If you
can't reroute traffic, install root system
bridges (Figure 6) or spread several
inches of wood chips on the soil
within the PRZ. Heavy mixing trucks
can be kept off tree roots by transport-
steel
plate ..
.:.. ,- " . ~ : '-;.; . ; :
. ".,.: ...;".,
,..
~.......':.;._- :"'
.t~.:.:::(... r-:';:~\'~;'~
.... ":"\\:1[~;,.,,;.;,> .::,' ~. ..
. -
" ,
. ,
.- .....
"
~ I . .. - ._
. c: ~
'- ,
'. .
. ~ - .:
, (
ing concrete from the truck through
conveyor pipes.
Improper handling or disposal of
materials used during construction
also can harm roots. For example,
\vood products treated with penta-
chlorophenol and creosote can be
deadly to tree roots; CCA-treated
timber (greenish color) is a better
alternative. Ask the builder about the
materials to be used on the site and
read product labels. Chenucalspill
damage can be prevented by filling
gas tanks, cleaning paintbrushes and
tools, and repairing mechanical.'
equipment well outside tree PRZs.
Insist that all building debris and
chemical wastes be hauled away for
proper disposal, and not burned or
buried on the site.
Finally, avoid changes in soil pH
(acidity). Increases in pH are particu-
larly dangerous to many species
(Table 1). Alkaline clays or limestones
should not be used for fill or paving,
and concrete should be mixed on a
thick plastic tarp or outside the site.
Mixing trucks should never be rinsed
out on the site.
GRADE CHANGES
Moving large amounts of soil
within the PRZ usually kills a tree.
Except where absolutely necessary,
avoid disruptions to the natural
contour of the site or shift them well
outside the PRZ.
Soil additions compact the soil
around a tree and often raise the water
table. You may be able to protect
compaction-tolerant trees (Table 1)
from additions of six inches or less of
soil by using a porous fill within the
PRZ. Porous fill can be made by
mixing one part loam, one part coarse
sand, and one part shredded bark.
Deeper fills require more expen-
sive measures. A retaining wall
beyond the PRZ may protect some
trees (Figure 7a). These walls preserve
much of the original root system and
redirect excess water away from
sensitive plants. Your tree-care
specialist may suggest other, more
elaborate measures for protecting trees
3t must be covered with soil close to
~ trunk. However, as a general rule
.s best to remove trees that would be
ried by 24 inches or more of fill
)und the base.
Cutting the soil away from a tree
noves vital feeder roots, eliminates
trient-rich topsoil, and often lowers
~ water table. .Damage caused by
allow cuts (less than two inches) at
lst three feet away from the base of
~ tree may be minimal, but still can
a shock to a tree's vigor. If pos-
tle, avoid making the cut during hot,
y weather; water the tree (undis-
-bed portions) before and after soil
noval; and allow only hand digging
;ide the PRZ. A shallow layer of
llch (pine needles, wood chips, or
usely chopped twigs and bark) and
an root cuts will help wound
sure and regrowth. Deeper cuts
thin the root zone will require
'ure 7. If you change the grade within
he root zone, use retaining wall to keep
1S much of the original grade as possible.
1) backfilling; b) cutting.
;<---:- .,.
~ /.,: .,: . .' .,1.1
;//~, -. .
Soil removed
beyond
'etaining wall
EXCA VA TION
As much as 40 percent_of a tree's
root system could be'cut during the
installation of a nearby utility line.
This reduces water and nutrient
uptake, and may cqrnpromise the
stability of the tree. If it is not possible
to relocate the utility line outside the
tree's PRZ, you can reduce root-
damage by as much as 25 percent by
tunneling under the tree's root system
(Figure 8). When digging a trench
near a tree, begin tunneling when you
encounter roots larger than one inch in
diameter.
Trenching for building founda-
tions also poses a danger to nearby
trees. Although not often used in
construction of a retaining wall no
closer than the limit of the PRZ
(Figure 7b).
70. Backfilling
behind
retaining wall
'/ .,
/~ ~/
, /'
7
-
Trenching
kills
roots.
FIgure 8. Protect roots from damage
when laying utility lines by tunneling
rather than trenching.
Minnesota, posts, pilings or I-beams
sometimes can be substituted for
foundation walls and footers on
homes (Figure 9). Drilling single holes
as opposed to cutting deep trenches
saves many critical roots.
For all digging operations, insist
that exposed roots be cut cleanly to
promote quick wound closure and
regeneration. Vibratory plows, chain
trenchers, and hand tools do a better
job at this than bulldozers and back-
.>
',.
..
--: ;. '.\
I-beam
-.:
", .
. ....., .\-.
FIgure 9. You can minimize damage to
trees near foundations by using posts,
pillars, or I-beams rather than foundation
wal/s.
hoes. Minimize damage by avoiding
excavation during hot, dry weather;
keeping the plants well watered
before and after digging; and covering
exposed roots with soil, mulch, or
damp burlap as soon as possible.
PAVEMENT.
Sidewalks and driveways located
too dose to a tree endanger its health
and may threaten pavement stability.
Factors such as frost heaving, poor
drainage, and pavement flaws give . .
roots an opportunity to expand, gain a
foothold, and cause damage.
Homeowners are faced with costly
repair bills and potential liability for
the hazardous situation that develops.
These problems can be avoided if
you consider the spatial needs of a tree
and its root system when designing
the layout of new sidewalks and
driveways. Just how much space is
required depends upon a tree's
sensitivity to root cutting and its
future size (Table 1). It's best to locate
sidewalks and driveways outside the
anticipated PRZ. At a minimum,
walkways should be at least three feet
from the trunk of a tree; driveways
may cover up to half the distance from
the tree's PRZ to its trunk, as long as
no excavation Occurs. No tree should
be boxed into an area less than eight
feet by eight feet by three feet, with
larger trees receiving at least 300 cubic
feet of root/soil volume.
You can minimize disruption by
using alternatives to conventional
paving materials. In some communi-
ties, brick or flagstone walkways on
sand foundations can be substituted
for concrete (Figure 10). These materi-
als protect soil pH and allow water
and oxygen penetration. Preserve
natural contouring by spanning
uneven areas with wooden walkways
elevated on posts. Elevated decks are
excellent alternatives to concrete
porches. Where additional pavement
strength is needed (e.g., driveways),
concrete requires less excavation than
asphalt. Ask your builder about
raised pavement techniques near
valuable trees.
8
...
Figure 10. Paving materials such as brick
or flagstone over sand will produce less
disruption than poured concrete to the
roots of a nearby tree.
Figure 17. A "mini-ramp" can be used to
smooth the uneven surface caused by
root damage to pavement.
---...
concrete or
sidewalk
or '.
.,.
trench, backfilled
with sand
Figure 12. A vertical underground barrier
will help keep tree roots from damaging
concrete as they grow.
. \' 1
: :111
h ( . ,:~I
~jltl ,'\J'i,r,U,1
'! /1/ '. ,: ~
I}'/:.:>.... I;',{, ......,l...,_
,..'. \\~", . r......: .:.;,j:;.:.:..;.....:.~;:.....:;.... I I \' I -.:.~g:;:J'( ,
,. . \"';'~;.: .'.; '..<~ " . ::.~~~:~;/~
\ . .. ~~;~ :'i~::-:.:,: I' 1. f the. .
\' ", . i : ~) :,": ~" I <0. : _ _ ~re~.
" \ Ir\\' . \1" f. ..,.... . 1 .:....~:................~.'._
::;~...~{iJ;,~,~'!>< 't ~~;~l'!;;~t~;~l~$~J~l~~
.buttress - .....,.....- ._).. . ....,....1. ~. \.\;..""'"''
Fl~~;;e ~~:~e:~~::~~:;~:s ; :;:.jE[t~I._~~~~)~-t~:;:
on a newly built site, check for the .. .
presence of buttress flares at the
base of the trunk.
-s fj 5ymptoms of
~C Construction
Damage
Conspicuous symptoms of con-
roction damage may take years to
ppear. Tree decline from soil com-
action, for instance, may take three to
!ven years to appear as obvious'
rmptoms of distress. Because of this
2lay, landowners often attribute tree
sses to other causes. Carefully
onitor affected plants and keep
ritten records to help you recognize
e 1t:5s visible signs of tree stress.
!member, the most serious damage
mains hidden in the root system.
~
..~ ..
-. . . .
:(.. '.
>.'. ,-.,', ~. :-:.1' .:...~'\:::~~~::~
ure 13. Suckering is one symptom of
onstruction damage.
Wilted or scorched leaves and
oping branches usually are the first
1S of construction damage. In
iduous plants these symptoms
'I' be followed by early faU coloring
premature leaf drop. Damaged
ifers will drop excessive amounts
mer needles. In subsequent years
may notice yellowed or dwarfed
es, sparse leaf cover, or dead
lChes.
Other indicators might include
'ering out of season, excessive
:er formation on the trunk (Figure
or abnormally large amounts of
. These responses are defense
lanisms for ensuring species
~7~"'"
Ii' '~.ar's
: gro~h
:/:'
,.~
FIgure 14. Annualgrowth is the distance
between bud scale scars on twigs. The
twigs of healthy trees usually grow two
to six inches longer each year.
survival and commonly indicate that
the plant is experiencing extreme
stress.
In addition to observing a tree's
appearance, monitor its annual
growth. A slightly damaged plant
will grow more slowly and be less
resistant to insects, diseases, and
9
.-
weather~related stress. Examine the
annual shoot and branch growth .
(Figure 14). Healthy trees generally
will grow at least two to six inches at
the ends of the branches each year.
Photographs and records of the tree
prior to construction also can help
identify growth problems. '
If you purchased your home
following construction, you'can
identify deep fills around large trees
by looking for buttress flares at the
base of the trunk (Figure 15). Most
common shade trees in Minnesota .
have buttress flares, and their absence
usually indicates that the tree's base'
has been covered. It may be helpful to
examine the condition of trees on
other sites where your builder has
worked.
In many cases you would be wise
to have a tree-care specialist look for
early symptoms of tree stress. Dollars
invested in consultations with profes-
sionals before damage becomes
obvious may be repaid in coz:tsiderable
savings later on. .
z.
-:-
)~ f1 Treatment of
~G Damaged
Plants'
When a tree is injured by con-
struction activities, energy and
resources normally used for growth
must be redirected towards the
. process of wound closure and
regro\'rth. During this critical period
plants are particularly vulnerable to
additional stress, especially insects,
diseases, and severe weather. You can
minimize these problems by quickly
treating the damage.
WATER
Construction activities often alter
the amounts of water receiyed by
trees. Thoroughly water plants before
and immediately after they receive
any kind of direct damage (e.g.,
severed roots). Continue periodic
watering (four to five times per
summer) throughout the next growing
season. Be careful not to overwater
your trees. A one-inch depth of water
applied throughout the PRZ is a good
rule of thumb. A tin can or glass jar
can be used to measure the amount of
water applied if an overhead irrigation
system is used. Concentrate most of
the water on undamaged sections of
the root system.
Two to three inches of mulch
(wood chips or bark) spread over as
much of the root system as practical
will help the tree retain water and
stimulate root regeneration. Living
ground covers over the root system
will have a similar effect, and may be
more aesthetic. Apply these tech-
niques to any deciduous tree exhibit-
ing wilted leaves or any coniferous
tree dropping excessive amounts of
needles from the inner branches.
Drainage systems and grade
changes may cause some trees to
receive too much water. Species differ
in the amount of \,,'ater they can
tolerate (Table 1). Intolerant plants
will exhibit twig and branch death.
Don't ,..:ait for these symptoms to
appear. If you suspect your plant is
10
-
Figure 76. Before you remove fill that has
been added around trees, take vertical
samples to determine how deep you need
to go.
receiving too much water, contact a
tree-care specialist for an evaluation of
the problem. Treatment differs by tree
species and by the amount of time the
water remains on or close to the
surface. For some species, a retaining
wall or culvert may be needed to
redirect the flow of water.
EXCAVATION OF BACK-
FILLED TREES
If you or your tree-care specialist
has determined tha t excessive soil
additions have been made around
valuable trees, efforts should be made
to restore the original grade, at least
within t~e PRZ. '.
Approach this grade restoration:'
carefully. Determine how much fill
has been added by sampling depths at '.
several different points within the
PRZ (Figure 16). If the depth is great
(more than 12 inches), you may
remove most of the backfill with
mechanical equipment. 'Once"you are
within 10 to 12 inches of the original
grade, complete the fill excavation
carefully with shovels and rakes.
Make certain no soil is piled up
against the tree trunk, and aerify the
soil within the PRZ to complete the
operation. If the tree is already
exhibiting advanced symptoms of
decline, however, restoration to
original grade will probably be "
fruitless. In this case, remove the tree
and plant a new one.
AERA nON
Soil compaction around a tree's
roots may cause leaf wilt, early fall
coloring, top dieback, and slow
growth. Reduce the effects of compac-
tion by carefully drilling a series of
two-inch diameter holes in the soil to a
depth of 12 to 18 inches. Begin three
feet from the tree trunk and continue
drilling at two-foot intervals in
concentric rings around the tree out to
the PRZ (Figure 17). Each hole may be
refilled with sand, peat moss, or
~--
/.,;.
J' _ . .
I '...
I
i"..:>- , . j .,:' ,'~.\
... . .,' "I
\,. - ,'..,.. /-
'\ : . - . ,'" ..... ~ .
'\ -.; ';; ..'" ,- , (.... . ;I
", ' -. ...-' ... ::......, ' ./
~- .... ,~~
-..... -- -=---- - .:- - ~.:------
Figure 77. A series of two'inch holes 12 to
18 inches c-2ep ','Iii! help alleviate root
damo~-2 cC,J,ed bi' compaction.
DeaiJ branch
First, cut part way
through the branch
at A; then cut it off
at B. Make the final
cut at C.
Figure 18. Prune branches at the
branch collar.
mulch. A tree-care specialist may
recommend other alternatives, includ-
ng soil injections of air or pressurized
,vater, to improve soil aeration.
FERTILIZER
Injured trees may need additional
lutrients to replace damaged root
;ystems. Fertilizers containing
)hosphorous and nitrogen can help
;tressed plants recover since these
lutrients promote root and plant
;rowth. A.v:oid excessive nitrogen;
ncreased stem and foliage growth can
:ause stress, especially during hot, dry
\'eather or if the tree has been stressed
lue to construction activities. Because
)f this problem, many experts recom-
nend waiting two years after damage
las occurred before fertilizing the
rees. Specific guidelines for selecting
nd applying fertilizer are described
r1 Tree Fertilization (Minnesota
:xtension Service publication
"0-2421).
'RUNING AND WOUND
lEPAIR
Careful pruning and wound
?pair are important treatments for
amaged trees. Prune broken or dead
ranches cleanly at the branch collar
=igure 18). To test whether a branch
Live branch
\
,C
branch
collar
is dead, bend several twigs. Twigs on
live branches tend to be pliable, while
twigs on dead branches tend to break.
Buds also can be used to evaluate
branch condition. Live buds appear
full and normal in color while dead
ones appear shriveled or dry.
Pruning is commonly recom-
mended for large trees that have
suffered root damage. Opinions differ
over the merits of this practice.
Assuming that the tree has adequate
water and is not in severe decline,
some experts believe that retaining
maximum leaf cover is important for
root regeneration and only dead limbs
should be removed. Others argue that
pruning selected live limbs is neces-
sary to compensate for lost roots.
Generally, it is best to follow the
recommendation of your tree-care
specialist.
When properly done in modera-
tion by a skilled professional, pruning
may reduce wind resistance and limb
failure and improve tree health and
appearance. Except in extreme cases
(e.g., overhead powerlines), DO NOT
let anyone cut off all of the top
branches to the same height ("top-
ping").
The treatment of trunk wounds
11
-
depends on the extent of damage. If
the bark has been completely removed
around the entire trunk, the tree will
not survive and should be removed: . If
only a patch of bark has been removed.
leaving a few splinters, use a sharp
knife to cleanly cut off the loose bark
to a place on the stem where it is .
firmly attached. DO NOT make the
wound any larger than necessary.
You do not need to use pnming
paint or dressing to cover _exposed
wounds or pruned limbs. Except for
special cases involving disease control,
these products do little more than
improve appearance.
OAK WIL T
Oak wilt is a lethal fungal disease
normally spread through root grafts
between adjoining oak trees. The
disease also may be spread overland
by picnic beetles. In Minnesota,
construction activities that injure
roots, break branches, or otherwise
open a wound on an oak between May
1 and July 1 provide the beetles easy
access to transmit the fungus. (Some
studies have found the occurrence of
oak wilt to be four times more likely
within 160 feet of a construction site.)
Immediately cover all open wounds
with any latex paint during this
period. If you suspect oak wilt,
contact your city forester or private
tree-care specialist. If you have oaks
on your site, obtain a copy of Oak Wilt
in Minnesota (Minnesota Extension
Service publication MI-3174) for
additional information on identifying
the disease and protecting your trees.
OTHER INSECT AND DISEASE
PROBLEMS
Insects are attracted by distinctive
chemicals that are released by plants
recovering from injuries. Examples of
insect pests that can sense a tree under
stress include the pine bark beetle,
bronze birch borer, two-lined chestnut
borer, picnic beetle (transports oak
wilt fungus) and some scale insects.
These insects can kill a plant by their
feeding or boring or by transmitting
disease.
Likewise, some diseases multiply
Figure 79. Trees with ~xtensive dieback,
disease, or damage may pose a threat to
property and people. A tree-core
specialist should evaluate and if necessary
remove such trees.
Cankers. ~
I Lightning s.trlke.
Exit holes. Evidence of
mternalinsectdamag~
Deep trunk cracks.
Damaged or
broken roots.
Likewise, some diseases multiply
in plants experiencing stress. Verticil-
Iium wilt, ash yellows, and Armillaria
mellea are examples of diseases that
attack weakened trees.
Continually monitor the health of
your t'ree$; especially those near
construction activities, for insect and
disease problems. Proper treatment,
including corrective pruning, water-
ing, and pesticide or fungicide appli-
cations, can restore tree health.
Contact your county extension agent
or local forester for additional infor-
mation on specific tree pests.
TREE REMOVAL
Even the best protection plans
cannot guarantee plant survival.
Death may OCcur shortly after con-
struction or years later. Look for trees
with very few leaves and many dead
branches. If the tree does not leaf out
the following year it is dead. Large
trees that lean or exhibit rot, deep
12
-
Crown dleback. Broken limbs, dead
branches, thin crowns. .
trunk cracks, or extensive top dieback
are potentially hazardous (Figure 19).
They should be evaluated by a
tree-care specialist or be removed.
Dead trees are excellent for wildlife,
but dangerous to people and build-
ings. Large trees should be carefully
removed by professionals so as not to
damage the remaining plants.
Tree loss can have a dramatic
impact on site appearance. Prompt
replacement will minimize your grief.
Remember, the tree you plant is your
Own.
Pollards. Stub suckers
from poorP'Uning practices
("toppirig") .
Weak fork. V-shaped crotch
with decay. .
Pruning wound
cavities. .
~ Torn or missing bark. J
I~~ jlConclusion
;:,~
Ji,; ~.,
It's not always easy to save trees
during construction, but your efforts
are worth the trouble. Healthy,
well-placed trees can increase prop-
erty values by 9 to 27 percent. Protect-
ing tree health on a construction site is
a ma tter of recognizing the potential
impacts. Advance planning and
. simple steps to minimize damage
often can prevent future problems.
Many trees have a tremendous
capacity to survive disturbance, but in
an urban setting we continually test
them. Take the time to protect and
monitor the health of your investment.
Your home and our communities will
be healthier, more attractive places to
live.
-.,~ l~ References
I&!Q . -
~ ~ .
1. Baughman, M. J., D..W. French, C. 8. Minnesota Association of Soil and
G. Hard, K. Holman, and M. E. Water Conservation Districts
Zins. 1990. Landscape Tree Valiuz- Forestry Committee. 1986.
tion (-FO-0726). University of .. Minnesota Tree Handbook. Adven-
Minnesota, Minnesota Extension ture Publication, Staples, MN
Service, St. Paul, MN 5~108. P p. 56479. 408 p.
2 Fazio, J. R., ed. 1988. Resolving 9. Perry, T. O. 1982. "The ecology of
Tree-Sidewalk ConJIicts (No.3). tree roots and the practical signifi-
Tree City USA, National Arbor cance thereof," Journal of
Day Foundation, 100 Arbor Arboriculture 8(8):197-211.
Avenue, Nebraska City, NE
68410. 8 p. 10. Swanson, B. T. and C. Rosen.
1990. Tree Fertilization (FO-2421).
3. Fazio, J. R., ed. 1989. How to Save University of Minnesota, Minne-"
Trees During Construction (No.7). sota Extension Service, St. Pau~,
Tree City USA, National Arbor MN 55108. 4 p.
Day Foundation, 100 Arbor
Avenue, Nebraska City, NE 11. Maryland Department of Natural
68410. 8 p. Resources. October 30,1990.
Natural Design in Development...
4. French, D. W. 1989. Oak Wilt in Development Potential Through
Minnesota (MI-3174). University Forest Conservation. Maryland
of Minnesota, Minnesota Exten- Department of Natural Resources,
sion Service, St. Paul, lvL"J 55108. Annapolis, MD.
6p.
12. Cervelli, Janice A. 1984. "Con-
5. Harris, R. W. 1992. Arboriculture: tainer tree plantings in the city,"
Integrated Management of Landscape Journal of Arboriculture 10(3):83-86.
Trees, Shrubs, and Vines.
Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood 13. Moll, Gary A. ed. 1990. "Commu-
Cliffs, NJ 07632. 674 p. nity forests get a check up," Urban
Forest Forum 9(6):10-12.
6. Hightshoe, G. L. 1988. Native
Trees, Shrubs, and Vines for Urban 14. Miller, P.O. and D. Neely. "The
and Rural America. Van Nostrand Effect of Trenching on Growth
Reinhold, New York, l\ry 10003. and Plant Health of Selected
819 p. Species of Shade Trees," Journal of
Arboriculture 19(4):226-229.
7. Matheny, N. P., and J. R. Clark.
1991. Evaluation of Hazard Trees in
Urban Areas. International Society
of Arboriculture, Urbana, IL
61801. 72 p.
13
&ill
t~-'~ J1 Contribut(}rs
;:rtZ!!!J
~~, -
AUTHORS
Nancy L. Miller, Research Assistant,
Department of Forest Resources.
David M. Rathke,.Teaching Specialist- .
Forest Resources, Department of Forest
Resources.
Gary R. Johnson, Extension Educator and
Associate Professor, Urban and Commu-
nity Forestry.
TECHNICAL ADVISORS
Melvin!, Baughman, Extension Special-
ist-Forest Resources and Associate
Professor, University of Minnesota,
Department of Forest Resources.
David W. French, Professor Emeritus,
University of Minnesota, Department of
Plant Pathology.
Jonathan Stiegler, Urban Fores.try Coordi-
nator, Minn.esota Department of Natural
Resources.
Paul G. Walvatne, Senior Forestry Staff
Specialist, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Environmental Services.
The authors also wish to acknowledge
Scotty Scholten, Michael Zins, Charlie
Blinn and Carl Vogt of the University of
lvlinnesota for reviewing the manuscript
and providing valuable insights.
PRODUCTION
Produced by the Educational Development
System, Minnesota Extension Service.
Product Manager: Gail M. Tischler
Editor: Mary Hoff
Design & Illustration: Jim Kiehne
Copyright <!:l1995 by MiMesota Extensi~n .
Service, University of MiMesota. CopYright IS
claimed for all material in this publication
except the table on page 3.
The information in this publication is for
educational purposes only. Reference to
commercial products or trade names is made
with the understanding that no discrimination is
intended and no endorsement by the MiMesota
Extension Service is implied.
The University, including the MiMesota
Extension Service, is committed to the policy
that all persons shall have equal access to its
programs, facilities, and employment without
regard to race, color, creed, religion, national .
origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public
assistance status, veteran status, or sexual
orientation.
','
....
......:
~. .
"
'.
MINNESOTA EXTENSION SERVICE
~~
llNrvERsm OF MINNESOTA
CoLlEGE OF
NAnnw. RESOURCES
This publication was produced with the support
of the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area,
State'and Private Forestry; the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Forestry, Urban and Community Forestry
Program; the Minnesota Shade Tree Advisory
Committee; and the Minnesota Extension
Service,
Printed on recycled paper,
ft
t.~
It"~\
.l#"i
c....... c........1f7
F.....cr7 ~'"
NA-BU.5663-S
THE
IN THE UPPER MIDWEST
~&,;- Implications for Management
'~~~
. "~'-:;:",~'~F~~.
". :4~'\~~i~~ ,
. :":-:::-: ..,,~.
Edited by Steven B. Laursen and Joyce F. DeBoe
June 3 - 6, 1991
St. Mary's College
Winona, Minnesota
/
~.7'
/
/
~.
/'
/'
198
The Oak Resource in the Upper Midwest
TREE SHELTER EXPERIENCES
Darrell E. Zastrow and Trenten L. Marty1
ABSTRACT. In May 1987, ~O red oak (Quercus rubra) seedlings were planted in two
separate trials and protected with 1.2 meter plastic tree shelters on a variety of forested sites
and vegetative cover types. Additional 2-0 red oak seedlings with plastic tree shelters were
planted in similar fashion in May 1988. Initial survival of the planted stock was excellent,
but decreased dramatically over time as overhead competition increased.
In May 1989, 1-0 red oak seedlings were established in an old field situation. Three
treatments were compared; protection of the seedling with a 1.2 meter plastic tree shelter,
protection of the seedling with a rigid plastic mesh, and no protection of the seedling as a
control situation. After two years, survival is significantly higher in both of the protected
seedlings and height growth is significantly higher in the plastic tree shelters.
INTRODUCTION
The establishment and maintenance of red oak (Quercus rubra) on private and public lands
is vital for wildlife habitat and forest products. The specific ecological natural-regeneration
requirements of red oak has led to numerous research trials and stand prescriptions to
supplement natural regeneration of red oak (Johnson et. al. 1984; Johnson 1984; Johnson
1985; Lorimer 1989). The continual lack of consistent success in natural and artificial
regeneration of red oak has been attributed to slow initial seedling growth (Lorimer 1989),
acorn predation (Auchmoody 1990), seedling browse by deer and small mammals (Hannah
1987), and competition of surrounding vegetation (Johnson et. al. 1989). This lack of
regeneration success in red oak has provided emphasis for other artificial regeneration trials
in the Lake States. One of these alternatives is the use of plastic tree shelters.
The use of tree shelters by Tuley (1983) in Great Britain identified a technique to establish
and protect oak seedlings. Follow-up studies in Great Britain identified the following
benefits of tree shelters: increased survival and height growth, protection from browsing,
easy location of planted stock, effectiveness of herbicide application to target species, and
creation of a greenhouse effect within the shelter (Potter 1988). A disadvantage of tree
shelters is the cost associated with the purchase and establishment in forest plantings (Jamil
et. al. 1991). An applied Lake States study in Michigan documented an increased height
growth of red oak in shelters (Lantagne et. al. 1991).
lSlate Lands Management and Recreational Specialist and Tree Impro\'ement and l"urseries Specialist, Wisconsin
Department of l"atural Resources, Bureau of Forestry. 101 South Webster Street, Box 7921, Madison. WI 53707-7921.
Presented at The Oak Resource in the Upper ~fidwest Conference, Winona. M~, June 3-6. 1991.
The Oak Resource in the Upper Midwest
11)<)
Tree shelters are made of a translucent, polypropylene plastic, 1.2 m high and 8-12 cm wide
in diameter. These shelters are designed to last five to seven years under field conditions.
\Vooden stakes, preferably white oak (Quercus alba) approximately 1.2 meter long are
utilized to anchor the shelter. A plastic fastener is used to attach the shelter to the stake,
after the stake is driven in the ground next to a seedling. This paper presents observations
and results of tree shelter trials established on several public lands in central \Visconsin.
TRIAL #1
METHODS
In 1987, 240 2-0 red oak seedlings were hand planted in the Mead \Vildlife Area in central
\Visconsin. The intent of this trial was to observe red oak seedling responses in shelters
compared to nonsheltered seedlings in a variety of vegetative covertypes. Observational
plots of ten sheltered seedlings and ten nonsheltered seedlings were established on twelve
different sites within the property. The sites were generally Rietbrock silt loarns, and
Meadland loams, and habitat types were generally Acer-Hydrophyllum (Kotar et. al. 1988).
The twelve sites demonstrated a range of vegetative covertypes including a sod field, fresh
aspen (Populus grandidenta and Populus tremuloides) clearcuts, established one to two year
old aspen reproduction stands, and several brush openings created by older herbicide
treatments. Seedlings planted without a tree shelter were marked with a flagged metal
stake. Initial survival was measured after the first growing season in September 1987, and
in September 1990. .
TRIAL #2
0-:
In 1987, 196 2-0 red oak seedlings with tree shelters were hand planted on a site on the
Marathon County Forest, central \Visconsin. This trial was established as an underplanting
of a red oak stand. The intent of this trial was to observe sheltered trees under a high
shade crown controlled canopy. The stand was treated with a sheltef\l,'ood harvest in 1986
with a 70 percent crown closure residual. The site is a Mosinee sandy loam and the habitat
type is Acer-Quercus-Viburnum (Kotar et. al. 1988). Survival \vas measured during the third
,growing season of June 1989 and in September 1990.
TRIAL #3
In 1988, 200 sheltered 2-0 red oak seedlings were hand planted in the Mead \Vildlife Area
in fresh aspen clearcuts. The intent of this trial was to observe initial sheltered oak seedling
development with aspen competition. Incorporation of a future oak component within aspen
stands is desirable both from a forestry and wildlife management objective. A total of six
obser:ational plots were established with plots ranging in size from 24 planted sheltered
seedlmgs to 60 planted sheltered seedlings. The sites were primarily Rietbrock silt loams
and habitat types were Acer-Hydrophyllum, (Kotar et. al. 1988). In September 1990, after
the third growing season, survival was assessed.
.-.,.---
200
The Oak Resource in the UDDer Mid" ~'l
TRIAL #4
In May 1989, 450 1.:.0 red oak seedlings were hand planted in Council Grounds State Park,
in central Wisconsin. The intent of this trial was to compare survival and height growth of
sheltered seedlings and nonsheltered seedlings in an old field situation. The planting design
contained ten completely randomized replications with three treatments per replication, and
15 trees per treatment. The plots established were on a Newood-Pence sandy loam soil type
and Acer-Tsuga/Maianthemum habitat type (Note: habitat type adjacent to field reflective
of site.) Site preparation targeting grass control for all replications consisted of four pounds
a.i. per acre of Simazine in a spot application treatment. Further grass control in the second
growing season was accomplished with a spot application of Fusilade at a rate of 1/2 pound
a.i. per acre.
\Vithin each replicated plot, three treatments were compared including 1) protection of the
seedling with a plastic tree shelter, 2) protection of the seedling with a rigid plastic mesh,
and 3) a control where. seedlings had no protection. Survival and dieback of the seedlings
were measured and compared in April of 1990. Dieback was only measured on seedlings
that survived. Height growth was measured in September of 1990 after the second growing
season.
TRIAL # 1
RESULTS
Initial overall survival, after the first growing season in September 1987 for sheltered trees
was 89 percent while for nonsheltered trees survival was 86 percent (Table 1). Initial
browse damage occurred on 10 percent of the nonsheltered stock.
In September 1990 seedlings established utilizing tree shelters had overall survival decrease
to 37 percent (Table 1). Nonsheltered seedlings could generally not be relocated due to
mortality, heavy competition and the natural degradation of the flagged metal stakes that
marked their location. Those plots with a canopy of young trees or brush overtopping were
, ; ,.~enerally dead or dying. Competition for sunlight in these plots was very high. Individual
oak seedlings were noted to maintain their vigor only if sunlight was available. An example
of this was in a field plot where six out of ten trees in shelters were alive. Of the
nonsheltered trees on this plot only one tree was surviving. All of the nonsheltered trees
or remaining sterns had severe browse damage. It should be noted that as individual trees
grew out of the four foot shelter, browsing above shelters occurred.
c...~_..- ~~.. ~~._-~~'1:r''''''-''''''-_.~-~~!:s..~.''''''..J;_...&'I''Q~~~JL~'''''':~___ ~
~ . . -....C'C.r'" ~..-_~:...
The Oak Resource in the Uoper Midwest
201
1RIAL #2
Survival during the third growing season of June 1989 indicated a total of 87 percent were
alive (Table 1). It was noted that understory vegetation was becoming a significant
competitor at this time. Survival in September 1990 showed a decrease to 58 percent.
Understory competition of stump and stool sprout red maple (Acer rubrum), previously Cl,1t
in the shelterwood harvest, was overtopping many of the sheltered seedlings. Overtopped
seedlings predominantly reflected loss in vigor and mortality.
TRIAL #3
In September 1990, after the third growing season, total survival was 46 percent (Table 1).
Generally, with these plantings occurring in fresh clearcuts from 1988, vigorous aspen
sprouts and other woody vegetation [red maple, blackberries (Rubus spp.), etc.] overtopped
the red oak sheltered seedlings.
Table 1. Survival of 1987 and 1988 sheltered seedlings.
Trial #1 Mead 1987 Planting (various forest sites)
Date Survival
Checked
9-87
9-90
# Plan'ted
120
120
# Alive
107
37
# Dead
13
77
Not Found
or Damaged
o
6
% Survival
89%
37%
Trial #2 Marathon County 1987 Planting (underplanting of 70% crown closure shelterwood)
Date Survival Not Found
Checked # Planted # Alive # Dead or Damaaed % Survival
6-89 196 170 22 4 87%
9-90 196 114 78 4 58%
Trial #3 Mead 1988 Planting (fresh aspen c1earcuts)
Date Survival
Checked # Planted # Alive
9-90 200 97
# Dead
92
Not Found
or Damaged
5
% Survival
46%
TRIAL #4
Assessment of dieback and survival occurred in April 1990 after the first year of
establishment. Height growth was measured in September 1990 after the second growing
season. First year survival of seedlings with plastic tree shelters was 98.7 percent. The rigid
plastic mesh provided similar results with 94 percent survival, whereas the survival of the
control seedlings was only 64 percent. Survival was 34.7 percent greater in the plastic tree
shelters as compared to the control. There was no significant difference in survival of the
seedlings protected by plastic tree shelters or the rigid plastic mesh.
202
The Oak Resource in the Upper Midwesl
Height growth after the second growing season of seedlings in plastic tree shelters was
44.3 cm compared to a height of 28.3 cm in the rigid plastic mesh and 24.9 cm in the control
seedlings. Height growth was significantly greater in the seedlings in plastic tree shelters
then in either of the other two treatments.
Dieback of surviving seedlings was on 3.4 percent in the plastic tree shelters, 10.6 percent
in the rigid plastic mesh and 60.4 percent in the control (Table 2 and Figures 2A and 2B).
Table 2. Survival, height growth, and dieback of planted red oak seedlings with three
treatments for seedling protection.
Survival (%) Heiqht Growth (cm) Dieback (%)
Plastic Tree Shelter 98.7 44.3 3.4
Rigid Plastic Mesh 94.0 28.3 10.6
Control 64.0 24.9 60.4
Percent Survival (Los~)
120
100
80
60
40
20
o
-20
-40
-60
-80
Plastic Tree Shelter Rigid Plastic Mesh
Control
_ Survival ~ Dieback
Figure 2A. Percent survival and dieback of planted red oak
seedlings with three treatments for seedling protection.
-~---~...
~
~-
-- -
---
-.-.-
The Oak Resource in the Upper Midwest
Height Growth <em>
60
20
%: :;.. :/
:/
:/
40
30
10
o
Plastic Tree Sheller Rigid Plastic Uesh
Method
Figure 2B. Second year height growth of planted red oak seedlings
with three treatments for seedling protection.
Control
DISCUSSION
The trials in this study have demonstrated several benefits in artificial regeneration of red
oak seedlings similar to other studies in England and the Lake States (Potter 1988;
Lantagne 1990; Teclaw and Isebrands 1991). These include increased initial survival,
increased initial height growth, vigor decline with increased overstozy competition for
sunlight, protection from animal browse, and an increased ability for seedling relocation.
Seedlings protected from browse with either the plastic tree shelter or the rigid plastic mesh
had similar survival, but the growth of the seedlings was significantly greater in the plastic
tree shelters. This is attributed to the enhanced microenvironment created by the plastic
tree shelter.
Although initial survival and growth of seedlings protected by a plastic tree shelter is
enc~uraging in forested sites,. subsequent overtopping competition must be controlled to
realIze future benefits. Survival over time in all of the forested situations decreased due to
competition. This scenario is similar to other natural and artificial regeneration studies,
indicating the need to' control competition (even when using tree shelters) to have a
significant number of red oak seedlinos survive and become established.
o
0- _ ........,.......s.
203
204
The Oak Resource in the Upper Mid~"C:st
One of the intriguing findings of the old field trial was the reduction of dieback of seedlings
protected with plastic tree shelters as compared to the control. In the spring of 1990 only
3.4 percent of the seedlings in the plastic tree shelters exhibited dieback, whereas 60.4
percent of the control seedlings had some dieback. This is quite the opposite of what was
expected, with the plastic tree shelters creating a greenhouse effect and prolonging the
growing season of the seedlings, theoretically making them more susceptible to fall frosts.
Reasons for this are unknown, but it could be postulated that the seedlings in the plastic
tree shelters had better growing conditions throughout the year, were more vigorous, were
less susceptible to desiccating winter winds, and less susceptible to a winter dieback ~f the
main stem.
CONCLUSION
Tree shelters improve height growth and survival in the initial years of red oak seedlings
when compared to nonsheltered seedlings. In the forest trials, survival consistently was
excellent after the first growing season, but decreased over time due to overtopping
competition. Planting oak seedlings with shelters in heavy competition for sunlight is not
recommended unless these seedlinC7s can be released. Protection from animal browse is a
benefit and dieback appears to be significantly less in sheltered seedlings. The use of plastic
~ree shelters can assist in the establishment of red oak seedlings.
LITERATURE CITED
Auchmoody, L. R. 1989. A study to determine the factors limiting natural establishment
and development of red oak seedlings. Presented at the Fourth Workshop on Seedling
Physiology and Growth Problems in Oak Plantings, Columbus, OH.
Hannah, P. R. 1987. Regeneration methods for oaks. No. J. Applied For. 4:97-101.
Jamil, A., T. L. Marty, and J. C. Stier. In press. Cost effectiveness of tree shelters. Staff
Paper Series #42. Department of Forestry, University of \Visconsin, Madison.
Johnson, P. S. 1984. Responses of planted red oak to three overstory treatments. Can. J.
For. Res. 14:536-542.
Johnson, P. S. 1985. Regenerating oaks in the Lake States. Proceedings, Challenges in
Oak Management and Utilization (ed.) J.E. Johnson). Coop. Extension Serv., University
of \Visconsin, Madison. pp. 98-109.
Joh~son, P. S., C. D. Dale, K. R. Davison, and J. R. Law. 1986. Planting northern red oak
In the Missouri Ozarks: A prescription. No. J. Appl. For. 3:66-68.
Johnson, P.S., R. D. Jacobs, A. J. Martin, and E. Godel. 1989. Regenerating northern red
oak: Three successful case histories. No. J. Appl. For. 6:174-178.
The Oak Resource in the Unoer Midwest
Kotar, J., J. A. Kovach and C. T. Locey. 1988. oField guide to forest habitat types of
northern Wisconsin. Department of Forestry, University of Wis., Madison and \Vis.
Dept. of Nat. Res.
~!):',
Lantagne, D.O., C. W. Ramm, and D. I. Dickmann. 1990. Tree shelters increase heights
of planted oaks in a Michigan c1earcut. No. J. Appl. For. 7:24-26.
Lorimer, C. G. 1989. The oak regeneration problem: New evidence and possible solutions.
Forest Resource Analyses No.8. Bull. R3484. Department of Forestry, University of
\Vis., Madison.
Potter, M. 1988. Tree shelters improve survival and increase early growth rates. J. For.
o 86:39-41.
TecIaw, R. M. and J. G. Isebrands. 1991. Artificial regeneration of northern red oak in the
Lake States. To be presented at the Oak Resource in the Upper Midwest, \Vinona,
Minn., June 3-6, 1991.
Tuley, G. 1985. The growth of young oak trees in shelters. For. 58:181-195.
, I
INSPECTION and CONTRACT
ADMINISTRATION GUIDELINES
for
....
-
I. .; ,"
MN/DOT
LANDSCAPE PROJECTS
MARCH 1, 1993 EDITION
-
j.. ;.l'.'~'-""... ......
Y -1" .,.,'
i ~..
~
DETERMINING PLANT STOCK ACCEPTANCE
WHAT
Prior to plant stock delivery, all plant stock documentation (licenses, certifications,
invoices), tests, and initial installation operations thus far must be acceptable. If there
have been problems with compliance and unacceptable work up to this point,
corrective measures shal.1 be taken prior to accepting plant stock.
HOW
A four step process is used in measuring obiective criteria to determine whether
or not plant stock is physically acceptable upon delivery, initial installation,
replacement installation, and upon final acceptance. The criteria are defined in the
four sets of guidelines which follow in this section.
1) ACCEPTING DELIVERY OF PLANT STOCK.
2) ACCEPTING PLANT TYPE AND FORM.
3) ACCEPTING PLANT SIZE.
4) ACCEPTING PLANT HEALTH AND VIGOR.
WHY
It is necessary to have clearly defined and objective standards and criteria which can
be measured as a basis for all landscape project work to ensure that:
Landscape Contractors, Material Suppliers and Mn/DOT Personnel know
exactly what the Project expectations and requirements are.
Inexperienced personnel can carry out their responsibilities and perform in a
consistent and satisfactory manner.
High levels of "quality" in materials and work are promoted and obtained.
The landscape design intent is satisfied.
78-1
ACCEPTING PLANT STOCK DELIVERY
WHAT
Prior to acceptance, the Contractor must provide:
A 3 dav notice prior to the expected date of plant material delivery.
A dated, current year Minnesota Nursery Stock Dealer or Grower
Certificate/Certificate of Nursery Inspection.
A final (revised if changes occurred) Certificate of Compliance.
Bill of lading or invoices to validate the Certificate of Compliance.
Plant stock with identification labels attached to all individually shipped
plants and/or all bundles, bales, flats, or boxes of plants.
The specified plant material (no substitutions unless authorized).
Good quality plant stock in good condition. Proper storage, transport,
and handling must be evident.
See Appendix D for the Minnesota Nursery Law[The Plant Pest Act for further
explanation of certification and plant care, storage, and handling requirements
prescribed by State law.
HOW
3 Day Notice
The 3-day notice must be written and it is recommended that the Contractor send the
notice by facsimile transmission and an accompanying phone call for verification with
the Project Engineer or Inspector.
Nursery Stock Dealer/Grower Certificate
A copy of the Dealer or Grower Certificate must be provided by the landscape
Contractor if the certificate was not provided at the Pre-Construction conference or
prior to plant delivery.
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
10 'IIUT PUTO IlOUUVAIIll. ST. 'All..Il_DOT.A$SIG7~
UCENS~ERnACAnONFOR
u..'CSCLPD. W2SZli,i:.:s.:r<<:i:Du:.D CD':'
..<..~~'\ ~-:~.I~;"'~'~;'...
ISSUED TO ". · .- ." .', .?1;-,,""
SAMPLEt.~:~ '~"'-~~"'~'"
.r:....... ,__;':'.
:.:r.r.,":L. :!:.:--. ';;- ....., .~~\.~~'~:~\
,!~ .:-~., -<;~:..~.,.. -..>.:._..'i!.
! .l:""1" . ~ U' \o....~.~~...~ .....::1
. ,-' .'!::... .........;-..:.:.......;~ =~t;
'"" ,.... "'-~'~~"""l" -r...:. .--'""
- ~ "", ..~.... - --
~ ","t .,00 ::...::;;~:.;.-=-:.. \ \~f'"' _ . ..... :~.';'
'..~~~'. ....Co::::.:.......... J ,'" ':: .. ..~~[]
,-..;,.;' ",/i.I ....) I i .:;;"....1 .'
....:...:;:.: /'~.'.. .":;~: ~.::: :.;:. rf:../~~
~..;.:t...~i-... ...: :::.~1~~,)"J
..' ;~.";;."". !~;;,;..~....: .:",' ,: '.'
Uc.ICm/lQ. Uc..tart.Fee~:'.:"~~I. ~ml.onDm
n-... tkr.. ..... be pcotod ill can..pa._ pilot and b nc( hutJrata
-
Sample nursery stock
Dealer/Grower Certificate
78-2
Certificate of Compliance
A final Certificate of Compliance must be submitted no later than one week prior to the
proposed beginning of planting to allow the Engineer sufficient time to review and
approve it. Preliminary Certificate of Compliance information must be provided at the
Pre-Construction conference. The Certificate of Compliance must be filled out as
shown in the example that follows. It must include:
Plant namefspecies/Variety.
Size.
Root type.
Quantity.
Name, location, and phone number of the oriainal plant source (nursery
growing range). .
Attached documentation from the "source". The documentation must
confirm that the seed source or root stock and graft stock of plants that
have not been grown inside the acceptable boundaries shown on the
Plant Hardiness Zone Map for the past 2 years are midwest or northern
source and Minnesota zone hardy.
Zoo.E 2
....
Z e>.E: 3
Acceptable hardiness ranges
include portions of zones 2: 3, 4
(and zoneS for only those plants
that will be planted in zone 4 in
Minnesota).
A plant source is considered
acceptable and nursery grown
when plant stock has been
consistently grown and cultivated
on State-inspected growing
ranges within the boundaries
shown on the attached U.S.D.A.
Hardiness Zone Map for a
minimum of 2 years. Plant~.k.
'1~J..g~oY~f.LLn~i~eJh.~ceptable ~
bounda.ri~_~.l~r .g. y'@~[~.!'i11 be
accepted only if the seedsource
or' root'stcid(ancfgYafi 'Stock' is
certifled"iirid'doclfrli:gmgd as --
. ori~iin ai.IY~iritch:Y~~CC?LD.oJ!t.lJio.
source and Minnesota zone hardy. This documentation and certification must be
-'provlded by the p'ropagaior'c;r'grower as a condition for plant stock acceptance and
shall be in the form of a letter. The letter must state the actual date of plant transport
back into the acceptable hardiness zones areas must also be documented. See the
following Certificate of Compliance for an enlarged U.S.D.A. Hardiness Zone 'Map.
Ze>.E: ,
n \ J- Lc:-~
01-_1 ~bl4fcEr A~LE \ ),J
'~~~
Acceptable growing range for Midwest &
northern grown plant stock as adapted to the
U.S.D.A. Hardiness Zone Map
78-3
STATE OF MINNESOTA
.DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
FOR PLANT STOCK
Project S.P. Number
1'2..?4 - 50
Date oz I Za / q:,
I /
Project Description ~O~c,~r,,..16\
) -r. H .
10.
Project Engineer
Jo i+tJ .:sM rr~
x..y-z (..oNr~kUfJ r-t6t
Prime Contractor
Landscape Contractor ~'O&
u...N D~~.bf I tJ ~
Landscape Contractor Address
1~10
o~
p.o PO I
I
c;sr. P~L.., HN
I
.%"1%
Authorized Representative ~ E?
Work Phone (h f~) ~ft;- ()(){)o
~N~
Home Phone
(& IZ,) t-1 (,p - 000 ,
, -
The Landscape Contractor acknowledges that the supply of plant stock specified on this project has been
thoroughly Investigated and firm commitments have been obtained from all growers/suppliers assuring
delivery of the specified plant stock as required for completion of the contract Each bundle, bale or
Individual plant delivered to the Project Site shall be accompanied by a Certificate of Nursery Inspection for
the grower, an Invoice and a securely attached, legibly marked label Identifying plant species, variety, size
and quantity. Failure to provide the Engineer this information upon delivery of the plant stock shall be
grounds for rejection of plant stock.
The Contractor shall furnish the Engineer this Certificate of Compliance for Plant Stock no later than one
week prior to the proposed planting date. As a condition for delivery and approval of plant stock, this
Certificate of Compliance states that all plant stock furnished by the Contractor on this project is In
conformance with the current edition of Mn/DOT Standard Specifications for Construction, the Supplemental
Specifications, the Plans and Special Provisions. This Certificate of Compliance shall state on the attached
Plant Stock Schedule the following Information for all plant stock specified: plant species, variety, size, root,
quantity and growing range name, address and phone number. This Certificate of Compliance states that
all plant stock furnished by the Contractor on this project has been consistently grown and cultivated on
State inspected growing ranges within the boundaries shown on the attached U.S.D.A. Plant Hardiness
Zone Map for a minimum of two years or that plant stock grown outside of the boundaries shown is
propagated from seed or is propagated on root stock and graft stock that can be certified and documented
as midwest or northern source and Minnesota zone hardy In accordance with the map.
The Landscape Contractor certifies that the information provided herein is accurate to the best of his or her
knowledge:
Signed:
4d~
Landscape Contractor
78-4
STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Certificate of Compliance for Plant Stock ~ Attachment
Plant Stock Schedule
Plant NamelSpeciesNariety Size Root Quantity Growing Range Name! Address! Phone
f4J. UMI{' l-to-.'iwArd ~Uf~'e-!;;.
51' ~ ~O P. ~ ,~'X' t:J07 ,
l-+ o.>-J IN tl-r"'d... W:r::: C;.u:/A..~ ~7~"511
p,(",.1 ~+iH~ <71?~ et>4 'flu} r=.M'"M~
I 4-( 17i7 Z$ ~t. ? E;o}( "U:A.
H I t'IdtJ&t H tJ. f59J37 ((,rv)~4-c.55:
"B\~ J-h.lt7 "70~ ~ :.0 r" k.. I 'If' UJ P o...r-W\. ~
Is;. II "
I S' ~e:>
Co M i'rI e'i"- ~~rv'-I r?a.,' ItAl N l,.I..("~ V:7
II' for ~ !'31.c;! ~'kN fZ-.J.
/ st. Pa..ul HtJ.5511 'J ( (,12-1491- 'i'74..{
; ......~rio.t I~~!ow~t 1?a.i I Co>{ '~r . ....
, ... I III t?~ S~ I. I II
H ~\J':' ll. - I (.0.
A 'r'Y\ l.A. r'" "'" A i"lL, ~ 2.1 '100 f.D. E3Jx- 1~6 !
J !?rz-,
Wtl..twloo.wr: S?>5'l4 (-414--)41~ -:z.I"L/
l-u, .r._ J
AO-.h1~ willOhJ Igll F-t 2.. Bo'X 241
BfL 3t.t; f~ie.HN SG,5..f.o (2.l8)S74-'Z..?.:~i
WoOdl,infJ,,/ ivY :J.. )"F- I e,M 'k: I k r. . "." .. or" e.r;;:.
65 II / II
/ ;;., E7~
WMLloi'/lt/ ivv z.. '1' ~ 6-0$7 Nv....r~.i..? Inc....
/ I f;7~ "tJ;; Iq71~ ~wMJ -r~l
ff( ~....ilk HN....e... . ((,Iz..)~.1.+t4
, ~
, .
NOTE: Separate entries are required when a plant species quantity is supplied by more than one source.
If additional space for entries is needed, make duplicate copies 01 this blank form and attach accordingly.
78-5
State of Minnesota Minnesota Department of Transportatiol
Certificate of Compliance for Plant Stock - Attachment
a.S.D.A. Plant Hardiness Zone Map
Limits of acceptable midwestern and northern source growing ranges.
~~
~ ~
.& &
.. ....
....:.. ... /fA ~
::" .. :::: ~
.::,:::"~
" .11" I,. ,.
,,' ."" .. ...... ~
' ow ". ..::: ':.:':: .."::'. ,::"', ..... ....'.::. /
~ ...u/& # ~ ~ '. . : . ,,' .: ': : :' .. . '. .""'..::..' /
~~,# ~ -:. '::. ; :,. ;',: :.:;: .: :'::, ..,:::::::::-:: /~
~~ ;# ,.:: . ': ;,,'::-:. ,:::::,: ':::::';:..:: d;~
,~~~;~ ~~}z "..' ~'~~:~J;~
~~ 7~7~ ~ ~'~.~ If ~ ~t~~. I I /s~.d'&.~ ~ ~,;;~~)~~.~~
.J~' ~ '/// ~.0~ '/ rr / / ~ , ~ Ji~' V . . ~Jj 1/1.1 :kX/'~ ,~.
() /~, / ~~ ,// ///////\ 1A.~ ' , r-: . 'lli~a
~'" :'%"' '<'A:/~' ~ '/%/' /~' /" / "ffff~/, / . ,', /'" ~/, . .
v' '/ :4 '/// :/(// ,r , , ~/:'~ ' . ' /. ' . ~'.~
r.</~, ~)'/.~", ,~ ~' ~'~ ,~,,/ , '%',' , / ,/~,~' ~<,~ - ij::.-1,~,,, ',' . :J:'.l '.I~' ..it..: .
[/,,; , if;;:": ///,e / / // / . , , './) ' , ',I,Yo.I I / :lJ1:l'd,!. [d' .'
~~,"/J# L'" 'I??>."': '.I" '/~' ,,/ ,,, ,,/~ . ,f,1 ' ~ I .'
~~;~ v;(~'~"/ I/:~'~~;~%~~: , ,::::~./ ,!'"w~~^J..<:.~ ~
~~ ~//(:0'l,'/ [///:'~"~'/;:'// ' ~ ~ ,/ '~I' I, , , ,:,1" ~~I(/:~::::';'::'.
\\'~' .', /~'!. [/>>Z'/:.~:' / ~ . l<y /l' I I, 1,1 I . I, I r:::~-" ... ~"
I"J.I,I /~/ . 'v', 1~['A"(1I",I... "I '~'I '.. ~., ~;:"""\I ...
~YL,,!....t ,/,//,f?"/~,I,I, 1":--1, ,I, ,-.r.." ,I,. ,I,. ,I, ,:::~ ~j.::.~~ ...
,,'.1.', /;..(/~/I,loI, , " . ,I, .. " I ....:" '. <.:..~ i=~;-;:" "
~,,:,:,:":\~~~,;~~~+!'I:::I ':I:~~: :,~: I::. :, :':; ":~~~6'<(//~' ~~~,~
c:8<"'<< ',' .1,1 ,I" ' I_....:.....a I ~ .',fl.'" ,I ~. .: ...:........ >..../.~~.:...=-~
."".":~"-'" / //, ,10101, .1, ~t.:-':":~":~"'" ~.I,~ ...... "::''''''0"'' y-A ---~
"'.::':::":'.';:".::.' .... I ' 1.1.1,1 ,I .:..:...:.....:.:......:-.:". ...;::.~..>.,.:~..:..:. "':..:'.:.,':.".:...::" :-::;;=;'J.\~
<......".... .:.~)~,L.l.1J":" ..;................,'.:......:.... . .. .~~........... ~'=-:- -'--.....LI)~
".:' :'.;:/t:~;<. ": ,:., . <r.' ~> ':, ~'''.:"'''::; ~<:.:~::.:v..:: :'.:.:. ~.:::~. '=r=- ..:....: S.t=: $:.~ . - ~7~
:.~:/::\\/..:.l'%6.</:0::-: ~:.:..::;.:.::..,:~~:i=~ .-::: =- ~ -= =--"'7-=~~ ~ ~
'::":'>H::";' f/.':":'~ ':':"H:"":':-" ,--~__-=== .-::::~ == _-~ ~ _~~ ~
." ........:.<;.:.: .,'.: ....::>:..... ._--~----_. --- --=. - ~( II T.,;
-. ...... . ..
~
-
~ ,
~
.. .' " ". I.,
" ,,'I :.,..
. .,:'., ,".,
.. +'" t...." . I
.. .., I..,., Ot. "1
." ., ,.., . ."
. ,I .."
" ,. -" ,. "', .,
., "'" ,"
. ", ,. ,,,
., ',.' "
I' ,,' I"" t.
~ ZONE 2: -50 to -40 L3 ZONE 6: -10 to 0
. .....
~ ZONE 3: -40 to -30 ~ ZONE 7: 0 to 10
~ ZONE 4: -30 to -20 rn ZONE 8: 10 to 20
. ,
till
I . ~ . ZONE 5: -20 to -10
.1."
Approximate Range of
Average Annual Minimum
Temperatures for Each Zone
Revised May 1992
78-6
Certificate of Nursery Inspection
(Q)
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF AGRlCl..'lTUflE
. W'WTru.!OtclLUYMD.8!.'AU...~~
UCENSE/CamF,\CAnOH fOR
=-~~..~~~..'-
SAMPLE'" '.:;~:4':::::'.
.. ~.' 0._ "'~C~~~
~.:. .:,.~. "-.. t\~S~7I:--
. i-t-Ji-:!..~\~V''F-1:~:;:::i'1
.:~~~?;<J.!}.~~~~.~:;~:/~J
.i~;;;:, ~;'i.,' (,~ it .~.....:g;."".
,.~'i;*/.: ;~:;?~W~~~.
LLo.t.... ~~~:.:::....~~;. ~c.
'!WI...........,....... '-.........,... "'11"----'
A current Certificate of Nursery
Inspection from the Department of
Agriculture must be provided from
each state of oriQin for each
separate grower providing plants
for the project. 'In Minnesota,
nurseries commonly duplicate
their Grower Certificate. This is
acceptable and serves as the
Certificate of Nursery Inspection.
Expect to see a tag similar to this on plants (lots or shipments but not each individual
plant) and note that there must be an effective date and an expiration date. Nursery
stock inspection reports may be obtained from the Chief of Nursery Inspection at the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture.
CERTifiCATE OF INSPECTION
! Th:o b 10 cotli(y tf.ct the plcnb _pGAled by ~c CO"
; tlflcal-o ccnsl..od to
I
I) '-e bHft caron.Uy .,.a"""ed by " d,,/y a~ ....pedor
.' an 19 _ and ra-f cppct"Ollrly
. (.... from clcng..""lly 1njuri0\ll Lu.cts and pant cts-.
. A"v lhJc cO<tif;cato is not \'Or'" anl_ hpodWc ~
~ "p, , below. ta.ofClt::a
~ 'If Dlyhlon Df PIClnt Induct,y
l~ ~ Department of A.ric.hur. .
-:) to! r lUTO 1<'tlI. It. I'oL:a, IlK !SIll'
Expect to see a tag similar to this on
plants "collected" (transplanted) as wild,
rather than nursery grown, if the Project
Special Provisions permit collected
stock. (Typically collected stock is not
permitted).
Bill of lading or Invoices
Compare all bills of lading (shipping papers) and/or invoices for plant stock against the
Certificate of Compliance to verify accuracy and validity of the Certificate. Accurate
and valid documentation must be provided for all plant stock before the stock can be
considered for acceptance, especially if the stock is not as stated on the Certificate of
Compliance.
78-7
Plant Stock Labels
Plant stock without identification labels on all individually shipped plants and on all
bundles, bales, flats, or boxes of plants must be reiected.
Plants are labeled by either a
common name or botanical name.
For example:
The common name is:
Marshall's seedless ash
The botanical name is:
Genus = Fraxinus
Species = pennsylvanica
Variety = 'Marshall's Seedless'
Plants must be labeled
Reject plants labeled differently from the plants specified unless a substitution
has been authorized. Plant stock substitutions should not be authorized unless
the Contractor has provided written documentation to the Engineer that the
plants cannot be obtained in full or split orders from MnjDOT's Partial List of
Nursery Stock Growers and Suppliers (Appendix E). If MnjDOT's Landscape
Unit verifies that the specified plant stock is not available, the Landscape Unit
will recommend substitutions or waiting until the next acceptable plant
installation period to obtain the specified plant stock.
Storage. transport. and handling
If all the plant stock documentation is acceptable, examine the plant stock for proper.
storage, transport, and handling in the truck before it is unloaded. Plant stock must
arrive in good condition. Plants are perishables and a perfectly acceptable plant can
become worthless in a short time through improper care.
Determine that bare root material was protected against drying out during transport.
To remain viable and healthy, roots must be kept covered with a suitable moisture-
holding material (moist mulch, straw, soil, etc.), or refrigerated (34 to 38 degrees F.)
and humidified (90 to 95% relative humidity). Feel the roots and scrape some with a
fingernail to ensure that the woody tissue is pliable and whitish colored rather than
dried out and darker colored.
Determine that plant material has been adequately protected against damaging
climatic conditions such as sun, wind, or freezing temperatures.
Some bare root plants require "sweating" before planting because they do not come
out of dormancy easily. For a list of the plants that require "sweating" and for
procedural information, see Initial Planting Operation Installation Requirements, section
7H.
78-8
Open vehicle--plants must
be covered
Closed vehicles
must be ventilated
Plants transported in an open vehicle must have a
protective covering over the plants.
Plants transported in closed vehicles must have adequate
ventilation to prevent overheating damage or sweating
which prematurely breaks their dormancy. Deciduous
plants must arrive in a dormant condition unless specified
otherwise. For example, in the case of approved
extended season planting, container grown plants or
.balled and burlapped plants that were previously dug in a
dormant condition may be planted after they have broken
dormancy.
Machine moved trees that have broken dormancy must be
protected. The foliage must be wrapped to prevent the
leaves from drying .during transport.
If storage, transport and handling of plant stock are
acceptable, inspect plants for compliance and acceptance
either in the delivery truck or as they are unloaded.
Protect leaves during
transport
Accept only specified plants that meet the
criteria for type, form, size, health and vigor following in this section of
the Guidelines.
Allow plenty of time to inspect the plants and do not rush since this is the most
important part of landscape proiect inspection. Often an entire semi-truck load of
plants is delivered at one time.
Begin by looking at individual plants or by opening bundles of bare root plants. Look
at a representative sampling. If you see numerous problems, examine all plants very
c1osely--many or all of the plants may be unacceptable.
Although the Contractor may be capable of bringing unhealthy, undersized, poorly
formed, or otherwise substandard plants into compliance by the end of a 2-year Plant
Establishment Period, these plants will not be accepted for initial plant installation.
7B-9
Store or heal-in plants so the
roots are always cool and moist
According to the Minnesota Nursery Law[fhe Plant
Pest Act. nursery stock held. shipped. and stored
for sale. until subsequently being planted. must be
watered and protected so the roots are moist at all
times. Roots must be kept moist and cool so that
they neyer drY out (whether bare root or in a soil
bal/). Plants with dry roots may fail to grow
normally or die. depending on the length of time.
extent of injury and species (See Appendix D).
A "reefer"or refrigerated truck is a good way to keep plants cool,
moist, and dormant until it is time to plant.
II ~I
vu .lC ,-
Closed refrigeration
Reject unacceptable plants as they arrive, and before they
are installed, whenever possible.
WHY
A 3 day notice is needed to allow the Engineer to schedule enough time and
personnel to properly inspect all plant materiaL
Contractors operating without a current Nursery Stock Dealer or Grower's Certificate
are in violation of State law and MnjDOT exposes itself to liability and punitive action
by permitting them to perform work. Accepting plants' without all acceptable plant
stock documentation poses serious and unacceptable risks that may not show up as
dead, dying, or diseased plants until after firial acceptance of the Contract.
Plants originating and grown outside acceptable hardiness zones and acceptable
Midwest and northern growing ranges will not reliably survive in Minnesota.
An EXCEPTION exists:
Plants, seed, or root and graft stock from the acceptable (midwest and
northern source) hardiness zones area, if they are Minnesota zone hardy,
can be grown or used for propagation outside the acceptable source and
hardiness zones area and can then be brought back and planted in our
area with reliable survival. Timing of transport may be critical to prevent
potential injury from cold weather to unacclimated plants being moved
through or between seasonally varied geographic areas.
Bills of lading or invoices must be checked to verify the accuracy of the Certificate of
Compliance since Contractors continually seek and often switch to different suppliers
to obtain better quality plants, cheaper plants, or better payment terms.
78-10
Potential problems wit~ uncertified plants may not show up as serious problems until
after the Contract period ends or they may show up as. serious disease and insect
p~oblems that endanger plants in the adjacent area. Therefore. un certified olants
cannot be accepted.
Without labels, it is difficult to properly identify many plants and their varieties,
especially when they are dormant, therefore unlabeled plant stock must not be
accepted.
Requiring written documentation and verification that specified plant stock is
unavailable before authorizing substitutions, provides fairness relative to unsuccessful
bidders who may have added extra costs for materials that are more expensive due to
limited availability. This procedure also makes every reasonable effort to obtain the
specified plants and to avoid compromising the design intent.
78-11
THE LAKE LUCY ENVIRONMENT
PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
April 24, 1998
Mr. Homer Tompkins
President
Contractors Property Developers Company
9110 83rd Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55445
,
Mr. Richard A. Loscheider
President
Loscheider Custom Homes
1607 Florida Avenue North
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Dear Mr. Tompkins & Mr. Loscheider,
Thank you for holding the neighborhood meeting on April 9th regarding the proposed
development for the north shore of Lake Lucy. Your presentation was well organized, and all
of you appeared to be truly interested in the input of the neighbors affected by this project.
Per your request, we would like to comment on the plan that you presented. We ask that you
consider our comments and serious concerns, and integrate them into the final plan that you
present to the Planning Commission, and ultimately to the City Council. If possible, we
would appreciate another presentation prior to any submission of your preliminary plat.
; We want you to understand that we are not opposed to this property being developed.
. "We acknowledge that, subject to city ordinances, a property owner has the right to
develop his/her property. We are, however, steadfast in our commitment that the
property be developed with an appreciation and sensitivity to the surrounding
neighborhood. This will make your project a success, and will also benefit the
adjacent property owners and the city as a whole.
The plan that you presented on April 9th appears to be quite similar to the final plan that was
withdrawn by Mike Byrne due to the neighbors' and the City Council's concerns about it. The
primary difference is that you appear to have the experience and financial wherewithal to
carry it through to completion. We were pleased to see that you had reviewed the
chronology surrounding the development of this project, and have thought about one of the
key issues, Le., the removal of existing, mature tree canopy. But let us briefly review our list
of major concerns and our suggestions to improve this plan:
1. Lot Size
A number of your proposed lots are only 15,000 to 20,000 square foot lots,
and most of these are backed up along the Randall's 12+ acre lot. This
density is inconsistent with not only the Randall's property, but also with all of
the surrounding properties. Apart from Pointe Lake Lucy, most, if not all,
other homesites along the east, west, north sides, and across from the south
shore are 5 or more acres. Even Pointe Lake Lucy (which had a much
different original terrain... ... high, wide, flat and relatively open) has a density
of 1.71 units per acre. Given the uniqueness of the parcel you are looking to
develop (as further discussed below), a minimum (not average) lot size of no
less than 44,000 square feet, or 1 acre, would be more consistent with the
surrounding lots in this neighborhood.
We envision a development somewhat like "The Frontier", the Streeter and
Associates development on the East Side of Chanhassen. This development
utilizes the mature trees and natural rolling terrain to enhance its beauty and
value.
2. Homesites Along the Lakeshore
Our concerns with having four homes along the lake stem from the following
long-term impacts:
a. Up to 9' of fill is required for these homesites to be buildable,
thereby creating potential erosion and excessive runoff of water
and fertilizers into an already nutrient-rich bay. This would also
create an unsightly transition with the adjoining properties to
the east and west.
b. There appears to be a natural spring in this area which is quite
active particularly in the Spring (no pun intended).
c. Unlike the Pointe Lake Lucy development, there would be very
little setback of the homes from the wetland area, thereby
providing virtually no natural buffer for such runoff.
d. This area is an active and sensitive wildlife corridor. The
environmental impact of disturbing this area with 4 homesites
should be seriously considered.
3. Clearing and Grading of a Significant Portion of the Site
As you indicated at the neighborhood meeting, the unique topography of this
site makes it "very difficult to develop", According to your proposed plan, to
do so requires the removal of a significant amount of existing vegetation,
including many mature trees. Your forester, while quite thorough and
knowledgeable, said that many of the trees around the inland marsh were in
various stages of disease or instability. However, no real estimates could be
given for the ultimate life span of these "threatened" trees.
We are not attempting to "hug" every tree, but your plan (given that it is based
upon Mr. Byrne's old plan) would remove upwards of 72% of the existing tree
canopy! And this doesn't even account for the trees near the grading limits
that would have questionable survival possibilities. We don't think this
reasonable and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Also, due to
the difficulty of developing this parcel, shouldn't more thought and
consideration be given to minimizing the clearing and grading than would
otherwise be given to a typical developable property?
One unique characteristic of the property is the distinct "valley", or basin that
runs from Lake Lucy Road down towards the lake. This basin naturally
attracts the runoff of water from the parcel, and happens to be where the road
is being proposed. This, along with all of the other clearing and grading, will
likely cause the runoff of water to impact Lake Lucy quite dramatically. While
you have provided a Walker Pond for the retention of such runoff, we doubt
that it is adequate to handle downpours and snow melts. It will also not
handle the runoff from the homes along the lake. The excess water from
these properties will either flow directly into the lake or into the inland shallow
fresh marsh.... and then into Lake Lucy. Our concerns involve the fluctuations
in the water level of Lake Lucy when these events occur, together with the
impact of the nutrient runoff into the already nutrient-rich marsh and lake.
These are our maior concerns. Since you've reviewed the file on this property at City Hall,
you can see that these are not new concerns. Additionally, these concerns were not only
voiced by the neighbors immediately surrounding this property, but were also echoed by the
people who reside along the east shore of Lake Lucy, i.e., the Greenwood Shores residents
who are also affected.
Once again, we are not opposed to the property being developed. It will be developed! And
from what we've seen of your group and your product, we believe that your organizations are
qualified to do so. With consideration of our concerns, we will support your efforts to develop
it. We also desire a win-win situation and outcome.
Thank you again for soliciting our input upfront. With due consideration being given to our
concerns, we believe a new development can be created on this property which is consistent
with the type of natural, sensitive and sensible environment we sought in choosing this
neighborhood for our own families.
Sincerely,
The Lake Lucy E9vironment Preservation Committee
~~<9f~~f/
fj;l~~1 h:i4 li//
Jack & Betsy Randall
1571 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen 55331
9:l~~
~lI~(
Joe 8; Gayle Morin
1441 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen 55331
)~~
~ein~
1685 Steller Court
Chanhassen 55331
cc: Sharmin AI-Jaff
City Planner
iirffil!.
n If! 'd! ff"" r
,,~ii:;:fn! H fl"
f" ,tf ,II" r-t" 'f
I ,..H~:! .tH~ f~fl
I i:i~<~ ffff
..,.... fl'
~ :...:: l"'~
I ~ ~ & .
. ~ ~ I
! ,-'
! .
, :
!. ,l
If Ii
s .
~f - l"
I ,e.
i' I I ~
1 !! a
{ ?
I ! .
I : I I
I I I
I I
I I
i r-,I- -
S I , , . y I
. [f ! i · f
J r i
J t
~~~~ ~
I
S~~~.:~I'III
.' !!:~i~'i~~:'
~n~f'pr~H;
~}fl, H;,
dr
r i ~
i
f
!
l
!
r
f
i
p
~
Ii
p . .
'f~
. !
1 '
{ .
{. I
f
!
~ ~ ~ ~
II'
t ~
Ht'U"
j""l :;li~lrFH~iil !ljl ~t'lll ~
~ ~li't!'i!"l"lltl~l"'IIH~ F
~lii;ili~imil;!I!i!U~;~fHI~ if
'fll~!~=~:'l.tfO >=lrillllr" l;
}il~il!.flrtr~ lit i 'r'hr~ ,i
ll...i!i"JI..M'!"~f HI ~ i'
Hl~iIiMr}[fmH~!l!ii!J~! ~i
IJlit~~81f'lr ~"o!dilr..l~tr lj
~ Ifih.f';i~i'lifj'r[llim! l,
i l;!.fml:fc" ~lf~lJ:ll IJrtf ~!
. ,:.......,.11 1> 11:.t~I'''. fS ~
I lIP> tl! I ,-. .....i!l~. :1
i :p'mpf~ (~~H!IH~Vj; ·
, Jf~ H~!~:J ~l'!~ii~~,; J ~.
8 ! f.;1 ~ l[:iH;~f f f
." ~ ; ! i~",~'lj ~
~ . is
'"
"\
\
..
o
.:
...
~ ~
-
...............
.' ) "'~'"
"
t '
f
i
I
-J~4
_: . I
"'.: (I
I
II
\1
l ~ . /r
\ .~.j./ ,~-
\._~ \~ -_/' .
to. .--- & \ /~, ~
I--'~ . --------' ,
: ----, :
: ~~ :
I I~ '" : //
I~ ,,) ......-/
,,;:;,......
./
./
/
::l
..
~..-/'
-
.
_--.-. ..,._ ~...cr.
lI~i I'III~ I: e: ~m; ~ n; ; .; .~.
_ ~I' III~ " ftIoE'! , ~I' ; !
I Ii!' :s ih 'U~p il oil -.~
, m i' i!i ~ l I !d! : le~ ; !l
~ I" I~ Iii I lUlu, W ~ 2
I. 1'1 i Isl I . I~!~I ~ e;! ~ i .
'. _, . 0 .s., I .n' f
';, . i'l ~ I ;'~" , ~Ii {
I 'E I"i! I : :UI~ ! I';ii "
It ' .j ! I hl!i t ;! I -
i! ; I~ l dmi piii i
Ii i Ii I i ,;1(; ~ I!; ~ ~
II ! sf , ! ,,18& ~ Ii! r l
=1 i ~i ~ , i:11! 'iH a
!z ;; I: 1M,' Ii! I I
_I . 010- I .
..!'f~
f
~
J 1 r
II
w
1
/
....",
,'" ., '. '
;;.J'" ',; , ...
~~ i
./:
I
I
I
/;"j
, ,""/ ......:..~
_J
,-
. ("
_"_. _ \ i~
_::::::~.(:~:=-;::""
!~"
, \ :
<"'1 ., I
/~.. ;:'.'.
~ l I, r
DOG
~~~U~~ ~
~==aaa~
ia!EJ;~
D~O~~~~
! ~~~~~
;;l~!:~Q~A
~c:~clf~
:a 1Cl~~
2 ~~~In
o >>
~
c:
E
;;l
""''''''- ..,..... ,........ct_
~
~
~
. . . . . ~
'AUX; ~A ~l~3~H U ;
1 ' cV = . Xv 1~lfi~~ ~v 2
F Si i i Ii 01 ~ 0 5i
: · ai X ~~ a ! .al ~ ~
,i ~S *1 Xi z
: ~ 11 n i1 fl~~ih If ~
. I. R ~~ FX~'.~~ u n
V ! . 8 !iii~~F l!
~ -~ - ..
ii H ~ ~~ lC .F
I L=ii..i I"
':iiilI ;. ; I E ~a~t~~~ ~
'iil=: €; i a i @t~mv .X
:j/I/D .. . . ~ ~~ic~ ~
iiili u ~ I ~ oli9.l. .
I ~ '~.~i i
.0 ~: V ~ lVHe~ i
10 " ~ . i ~k~~" ~
,0. Ii S ~ F 1i~!e~l 0
. . ~ ~t~a~~~
. i
Ili ; .;il~iX
n1 s r .~l
III
'I'
'-1
Itl
!i!
'\'
II]
I'
"I
II
. .
II
n
I I
I
,
n
~
I If I J:;
e! ~
11 .
m
: .t
J'" r ,
rl "jH I
I i. . E
.~ .
" m. B
9 '1"
1 Iii
...
f ~
ri
i
S~
:1
x
~
I
;~!
!1~haU
--.......
--"0...
------
r
I
------f
.
'.
~
-_.
f
J
1
~ ..
...
~
(;)
R-
......
i~~!
... s~=
:;;!
.0
.oi
loa
"
/
/
I
Ii'
Ii
I.
Ii
I
I
I
II
( :
I
II
~
l ~ . -'"
. "'- -"
~-
R-
;-'-.
I
1
'\ )
'\ .
,-_/
'.
".
,
,
"
"
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
~~,I'\)
...
-.
.~
.'
'"
./
.'
. /" ;,-"'~~-~~
/-'" i
" ~;.._--..__/
/.. ;
.//"
/. ;-
, ./ .,/
",'. .,/
. /
...._~_.:..~../....
,
--..-. --"-...--..-
~f g
i~ ~
~. ",
:! %)
_0 lJl
~~ ;!
~, ;;j
:J~ 0
'I'" z
= ~
~
h'~
!~
01 i"
. ,.
~I ili
!.;
f"l /
'!l / /
. ~~ I
n If I
z :1-
0 Iii
I'
.,
~ J;
z
"
~
~
ill~
'110
"I'"
:J i
I rO
10
,e.
...."',.,... .-,....., _..,a_
~ lilll [2]
~~:.
I Clr: ~ ~~
J if ~ D.Ri ~E
So-C
00;'0 ",,0
J l r 'H If 6';
II o~
::Oll~ ""r:
e-.,- ~ a""
I i.~a. ~E
~ ~1i3:: a..g
~~ 3 ,'<
1 ~~ lil'i
.0"
rt~ [~
f ! r."" e ~
lJi H
r~ !. pO>
i ~G ~
i~ >
(\
!
~
sa
05"
""< X
,<"
::0 ~
bO'
g:~
......
f
~~i
-------------------------------------
:"-.t _ _"-- _ __~ ___
<<.j
, ,
/
/
t...:::::...:.:, ','.
- ''',
. . - . - ,.
-' ..: ''\,:,
" " ' ,
- L"~~
.- ,.
'" ... ,.'
, ,
~,," ,I""
" '-~
'J ..'" ~
.'-,.,
,,/,1"
".:;1
' ",'
\ ' "'"
'-: \.
/
. ::.:,.~. "
"'. '\
.......
'\. '.'
~ '.,
.'
" ....
" .. ,.. .
....~~
\'\ ..
{\ "-.'
,
.'\
,. ,
"
,
.-' ...:........
:.1/ .
I
)
.../
/
----
-..-. -.--.-_a__
-"~I.".-
.....-.
'~t ~ "'='
H)~
&~~~1Il
Q pl g.
Ii .~
~rQ<:z:l
: ~ .:ii It
~H, Eo
&Hil1
i'Q."
hi
.~ "
~Q~
2"":
~
~
i
!
-~-l
r
i
- -.'
,-
/..,
I-l ..
.
.,.-
~jHlla Jl~
g&~a~ ~.. ~>=l
~,~:c. ~~ ,~ll
~~n :z:l-lg ~!n
Qp:~ ~ ~R8-
Ii-&~!T & lJ~
~-q-8. .1 "is"
e':!" 'Il ~P.
gQr j i
i!i g i
l!.~ : ~
'Il ~Ii ~ ~
~ ~ 1 cr
, .
~
~
~:;l~pn
.ltfll".:c
J" -.,
=9 0 l::
2"g 11~!1.
111 h ~n
5 ~hg-
.E ~~ie:
-l Hjg"
~ jFP.
; l~~!
'Il . ~
& .
J ~li
~ H
<. Q-
;;
.
/
/
, ..0"
..'." .
~H~"'~ .
" U {Cl "q ~ ~ ~ nn
~f~"'2 ~'i It tcl-'c
. ".5 ~ .,E. { .. =l
iH~g.HI ~i~ill
~~pHRI1 .Hn
~~~"ll if H~8-
HPF.'.1 ~~"'e:
.H ~ Q2~g.
!P ~ j:~!!
&li1 ~ ~p
~H i ~H
: 2'.. < g'.} q
~r~ i fiG
ill If!!
1 .
li
~.
/
/"
......-/ ./
.. ,;.~o'-' -;;.' /:.. . -' -,,' ,,'
.._._./.~:..'.....o ~:_....~.~.:..
,/ ;;/
, :~:...~.....:.~;J
!f~ ~il~5" (\~-
-~! i"~~l '!~~ ~
[li~ fl&H ~~, ~
F~ hl!li . ~{e.
~i: ..-0,2' ~."
!&~ Hr~, P f
... ~:I !: I) ~J ... i ..
liq ,,~.,."f; 1!!"
fp e~:H ,,~..
l.il hill ;~
"gli ,.j{-q t?
&~.. g ~.~" !i~
~~5 lt~~ a:
R~~ "!.~;;~! ,~
t r. g H:1 J c;:
~ > Q Ii 2"~ c'
~E. f i
.1
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 20,1998
Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Alison Blackowiak, Allyson Brooks, and
Kevin Joyce
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Craig Peterson
ST AFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Planner II; and Dave
Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONTRACTOR PROPERTY DEVELOPERS COMPANY REQUEST FOR REZONING
OF 16.4 ACRES FROM RR. RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY: PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 16.4 ACRES INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
WITH VARIANCES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
LAKE LUCY ROAD. JUST NORTH OF LAKE LUCY. LAKE LUCY EST A TES.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Greg Kopischke
Dan Sjordal
Betsy & Jack Randall
Al Weingart
Joe & Gayle Morin
Kathryn Femholtz
Homer Tompkins
Richard A. Loscheider
Bill Lambrecht
Nancy Tichy
Bob Christensen
Westwood Professional Services
Westwood Professional Services
1571 Lake Lucy Road
1685 Steller Court
1441 Lake Lucy Road
Westwood Professional Services
CPDC
1607 Florida North, Golden Valley
6990 Utica Lane
1471 Lake Lucy Road
1511 Lake Lucy Road
Sharmin AI-Jaffpresented the staff report on this item.
(Audio on the tape was poor quality for this portion of the meeting.)
Homer Tompkins: My name is Homer Tompkins. I am President of the company called
Contractor Property Developers Company. We are a wholly owned subsidiary of Scherer
Brothers Lumber Company. A family owned business, third generation... Our primary business
function is to provide lumber material and services to.. .home builders. My division is in charge
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
ofland development. We develop land on our own. We also do joint ventures. We would be
developing in joint venture partner in this project is Nick Loscheider, who is.. .home builder.
We've developed 14 residential subdivisions throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area. We
have five more...
Greg Kopischke: .. .and tried to do our best to adjust grading. Work with retaining walls.
Eliminate retaining walls. Add retaining walls if necessary. Adjust roads here and there so that
we can minimize those impacts to the greatest extent, or even where necessary. . . so we tried to
take a conservative approach in terms of.. .and if we could talk about utilities for just a second.
As was mentioned.. . sanitary sewer comes from.. .in this vicinity.. .and routed down this way and
extending it through to service the lot. We do know that the city engineer asked if we'd extend it
to the property to the west where.. . storm water will be picked up within the street, routed down
and routed through a pond, or storm water quality treatment storage...nm through a few of the
staff report items that probably need some addressing. The first item would be number 1 where
the recommendation is to replace the 63 required trees... In talking with the city forester, in
developing our reforestation plan, we proposed something a little bit different than this. Utilizing
2 ~ inch trees. Certainly... want boulevards where you... visible perhaps the ponds and so forth
but we're also looking at reforestation of the site in terms of working with some smaller trees
and.. .leave that open to work more closely with the forester and staff on that particular item so
we do come up with something that's more appropriate for this particular site that we get the best
reforestation management. Something that's going to have.. .long term appropriate for this site.
We can certain, on item 2 we can certainly work with the staff on tree removal limits as
appropriate. On item 3 it talked about berming and landscaping along the right-of-way of Lake
Lucy Road and we're more than happy to do that but there are fairly minimal openings, if any, to
do that without removing existing tree cover. So we'd like to, when it comes to final plan stage,
work with staff on that particular item and we'll provide it where appropriate and without
destroying the existing tree cover in those locations. Item 5(a) talks about creating plans for
some of these custom lots and we can certainly do that but would prefer to do that with each
individual building permit that comes in. .. .how tight it may go in there so it may be a little bit
difficult to pre-conceive a grading plan for some of those. I think there's a later item that talks
about setting some elevations and identifying building sites, whether they're walkouts or tuck
unders and so forth. We can tentatively set some of those on the custom home lots, but it might
be a significant range of house types.. .anticipate custom homes. There could be any number of
sites.. .little bit more open ended and work with staff on those particular.. .at that particular time.
There was item 9 talked about dock access.. . riparian lots. Lot 6 in the southeast comer already
has a dock and it would remain in that location... we'll have to work with staff on Lots 4 and 5.
Some type of a plan to work with access there... What else do we have here? Actually that's all
our concerns and comments. There was one comment from the engineer about including drain
tile system behind the curb and gutters, along lots that are not adjacent to wetlands and storm
ponds. Just looking for a clarification as to why. I'm not opposed to it if it's a city requirement
but...a clarification on that particular item. Under item 26( c). Shorten and lower the cul-de-sac.
Certainly we can look at what those particular impacts would be. Elevationally it might be a
little bit easier to do the short.. .along with the shortening and increasing the radius to 60 feet, it
may have a bigger impact on proposed Lot 7 right here in terms of that.. . so we think that's an
item to work with staff a little bit more in detail on that. I think with that, oh one additional item.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
On the pond. This particular lot there was a note about minimum floor elevations relative to the
flood levels. I think we have a little bit. ..in that this pond actually overflows to the
wetland...there might be some type of slight deviation from the norm but I think it's one that's
probably appropriate. With that I'd like to Katie Fernholtz to come up and just talk a bit about
her investigation... with the city forester and how that...
Joyce: Are there any questions for the applicant? Did you want to talk about, well I'll ask.
About the builder, the developer. Who's the builder? Who's the developer?..
Greg Kopischke: CPDC is the developer. Mr. Loscheider is the builder.
Nick Loscheider: My name's Nick Loscheider from Loscheider Custom Homes and I became
aware of this property and asked Homer Tompkins. . .
Joyce: You're going to build all the homes?
Nick Loscheider: Actually we're probably going to most likely pull in one other builder.
Joyce: So you've got two builders. Yourself and one other builder.
Nick Loscheider: Correct.
Joyce: You have a question?
Brooks: Yeah, I have another quick question. You said you might need a Corps permit. What
would you need a Corps permit for?
Greg Kopischke: I think that was a condition of the approval I believe. Is that correct? And I
would say that's probably just a laundry list. Certainly we wilL..
Brooks: What else do you need a Corps permit for? Usually it's the amount of runoff from the
road.
Hempel: To be perfectly honest, it is a boiler plate condition.
Brooks: Yeah, okay.
Greg Kopischke: I'm not seeing anything. ..
Hempel: The City has a water quality requirement. This particular pond has to meet...
phosphorous removal of 75% and their initial design.. .appears to meet that. We have not had
formal quality numbers, calculations... We are comfortable with where the pond is proposed, on
the east side of the cul-de-sac. Condition 21 I believe it is...
Greg Kopischke:. . .
3
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
Aanenson: ... we've had problems in the past where.. .domino effect. So we feel strongly that
we need to have that in order to... the trees so we would not recommend you change that...
Hempel: If! could just add to that as well. ...as part of the installation for sanitary sewer, there
will be minimal. . . based on the sewer...
Joyce: What about the situation...
Aanenson: I think we'd like to work with the applicant and... And that's what we're saying...
We have custom lots in this city that. . .
Greg Kopischke: Right. We'll provide that...
Katie Femholtz from Westwood Professional Services, presented the woodland preservation plan
to the Planning Commission.
Joyce: Does anybody have any questions for Kate?
Brooks: I have some for the staff about the trees. Do you guys know the Autumn Woods
subdivision that's across from where I am. Just at the beginning of Chaska. Is that sort of the
percent of the trees we're going to have left? I'm trying to visualize what it's going to look like.
They did a pretty good job leaving most of the trees in there. If you drive through, that's pretty, I
mean you still feel like you're in a forested area.
Aanenson: Well just to be clear, we don't allow them to stick 63 trees in. They are required to
do a woodland management plan so that's what we're working towards. What those 63 trees are
and where they go is what they're trying to resolve with the staff.
Brooks: I'm trying to get a visual idea of what this is going to look like and like what I'm saying
is, even though it's just over the border in Chaska, that Autumn Woods, when I drive through it,
'those houses still look like they're in forested area and I'm trying to get a feeling if on this one,
when you drive through it, are you still going to get the feeling that you're in a forested area. Or
are we losing so much that we're just losing the whole feel of the property. Are you following
me?
AI-Jaff: You're losing 50% of what's out there. I mean you'll drive through and there will be an
open swath in the middle, which is something that you'll find with most wooded parcels that are
subdivided...in the middle to provide for access, for the street.
Brooks: The homes themselves, are you still going to get the feel that you're in some woods?
Aanenson: That's why we're saying we want the elevations of where the homes are going so you
can custom grade those... but there will be tree loss. It's unavoidable in order to do something
like this.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
Greg Kopischke: ... we're trying to do our due diligence. We want to keep the cost of tree
removal down and maintain that value that people want. . .
Brooks: Well I was just trying to make a comparison in a sense that when I drive through that
subdivision, I still feel like I'm definitely in a wooded area. I mean they did a good job of
making you feel like you're still in the woods and I'm trying to get, understand if I drive through
your proposed subdivision, ifI'm going to get the same feel or is the tree loss is so great that it's
going to be lost.
Greg Kopischke: That's what we're trying to maintain here is.. .due diligence in trying to figure
out what it is that we have and how...
Joyce: I did have one question regarding the trees. We're saying a minimum of 42% of the
canopy will be lost but then there's a suggestion of the possibility for another 15% could be lost.
Is that taking into account the 63 trees? Ifwe lose more trees, do they.
AI-Jaff: They have to replace more. And right now the 63 trees are.
Joyce: That's for the 42% loss. About a tree per a thousand square feet...
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Joyce: Okay, thank you. All right. Can I get a motion to open this up for a public hearing.
Sidney moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was
opened.
Joyce: Public hearing on this issue. Anybody like to address the Planning Commission at this
time, please step forward to state your name and address please.
" . Jack Randall: I'm Jack Randall on Lake Lucy, just west of the property. I'm probably the most
affected by what we're talking about here. There is a number of concerns I've got. Number one
I want to say I think these people are quality people. They're doing a good job and we're not
trying to stop the development of the property. We're just trying to shape it to where we think
it's fits with the neighborhood. Lot size, number one, is probably a concern, and I think in the
letter you have in front of you that they started out with 16.4 acres, but... take out the wetland
and the roads and stuff like that, you're down to really .64 acres per lot. Half acre lots. That's
pretty small in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. I'm on 12 Y2 plus acres. The rest of
my neighbors to the west of me are dealing with 2-3 acres a lot. Of land. And I think this
doesn't quite fit the neighborhood. I'd rather see the larger lots to kind of blend more with
what's happening around the area. Obviously it affects the value of my property, there's no
question about that. And then from a canopy standpoint, yeah. They're talking about 64% but by
the time you get down building the houses and having individual preferences and stuff like that,
that canopy area is, I'm afraid is really going to shrink and I understand the forester's concept
5
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
and ideas that the tree are old, diseased and stufflike that but you know we've got some 100 year
old oaks in our property that are diseased but they're probably going to be.. .20-30 years. They'll
out live me probably. So what's the definition of disease? What does that mean? If it's still
there, it's still part of what's going on and I hate to see those beautiful old trees come down.
Unnecessarily. You know if Mother Nature takes them out, that's fine. Then... the lot sizes,
we're dealing with them pushing for this 10 foot side yard setback. Well, that's even pushing
more trees out because you've got 20 foot between houses. There's no room for a tree to live
there. It's not going to happen. So how are we going to, how are you going to replace that and
how do you replace, that doesn't fit. And then more specifically on the farther, I want to say, the
southern, southeastern most part of my lot, which is where we had thought they are supposedly. . .
10 foot side yard setback on the house they're building down there next to the lake. So they're
going to, and what they're using for a buffer zone there is basically what's on my property are the
trees and the shrubs and stuff, the undergrowth that's on my property. Well if they build
something 10 feet away, that stuffs going to die because they're going to cut the woods out. I
mean you've got to give me more room there. I don't think that's realistic in consideration of the
area. I have some general concern, and I read the proposal that Sharmin that did, which I think is
great, about the driveway. The stub that they're going to build to put in to service what might
happen to my property. I'm not saying I have any. ..subdividing today or tomorrow. I don't
know if 10 years or 20 years or 30 years from now what's going to happen, but I don't want to be
restricted, and as it's kind of laid out, that if I would ever even divide off one lot, that I would
have to use that side road and I don't want to do that. I want to be able to use my driveway for
access for me or whomever. I want to have my options open. I have no idea what my plans are
or what, if we were to develop that property, how it would look and so.. .coming out of this, a
conclusion where...I don't know. I want to keep my options open.... And finally, I understand
you're going to run the utilities across, specifically the sewer. I have to say it's got to make more
sense to do it on the lower end, otherwise you're going to have a bunch of houses down in the
low side that's got to be pumped up... And I want, the concern I have is I built my house, and
you may not realize it. We've only been there for a couple years and we took an old, 1900's
farmhouse and kept it and built around it and created a nice spot there. And at the time I was
forced to put in a whole new septic system and stuff like that and they promised that I would not
have, if sewer came in the next day, I'm not going to be forced to hook up to it.. . sewer
assessments. I want to make sure that that's not going to happen. And finally, I don't know if
it's up to you or between us and the developer. I would like to have some sort of written
documentation, easement for my driveway that I'm not going to be fighting with individual land
owners in the future to use my driveway because that's, I can see that happening once somebody
buys a house and says...driving through my back yard. Well yeah, I will. That's it for me.
Thank you.
Joyce: Yeah, I want to address a couple. I had 2 or 3 questions that.. .no, not for you... I thought
you brought up a couple good points that I actually had a couple concerns on. The 20 foot side
yard setback. The reasoning behind that is to save some of the trees, isn't it? Is that how I'm
reading this?
Al-Jaff: That's on Lot 6.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
Joyce: Okay. Yeah, Lot 4. Is there a 10 foot setback on Lot 4?
AI-Jaff: Yes. Mr. Randall is referring to Lot 4.
Joyce: And why are we doing that?
AI-Jaff: Lot 4 has just meets ordinance requirements and the ordinance says 10 feet. Lot 6 has a
10 foot variance to save trees.
Joyce: I got that now. I understand... My question, and I'm a little confused, is do we need a
variance for that 10 foot setback?
AI-Jaff: No. That's the ordinance.
Joyce: That's standard?
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Joyce: Okay. Did I miss something in here about that easement situation Mr. Randall brought
up? Was that in our packet?
Aanenson: Are you talking about the access?
Joyce: Yeah.
Aanenson: Well we can address that and Dave may want to comment on that but we have to
look at adjoining properties, how they'll subdivide. Whether it happens today or 20 years from
now.
Joyce: I understand that.
Aanenson: Right, so we were looking at what's the best way for that to be subdivided in the
future and we're saying that it comes out.. .the topography is such that it makes sense to... The
Council and the Planning Commission have chosen not to provide future access, then we've had
problems later when we've...I don't know if you want to comment more on that.
Hempel: Sure. Mr. Randall's driveway currently goes through these back yards... We looked at
Mr. Randall's property... We left the options open for utilities...
Joyce: Okay. We'll continue with the open discussion here.
Joe Morin: My name is Joe Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. I'm the landowner just to
the east of the proposed development. I'd like to thank Sharmin and the staff for their diligence
in addressing this issue and also the members of the Planning Commission for your service to the
community. My major concern I think is the number oflots. I personally would like to see fewer
7
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
lots on the pond area in an attempt to preserve some of the natural beauty of the area and
minimize the tree loss. One of the I think good examples of a development over on Lotus Lake
is the Frontier Development. I realize that that's, there are some differences between our
topography but driving through there I think gives you, at least gives me an idea of what could be
in our area and I think the developer could realize the economic value from this development
with fewer lots and preserve more of the natural beauty of the area. One of the things that also
concerns me is the location of the Walker Pond and the reason for my concern is the precedent
that was set with the Willow Ridge development to the east of our property. The Lundgren home
development just to the east ofPointe Lake Lucy. There we had, I think it was Barr Engineering
coming in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council assuring us that the Walker
Pond would in fact retain the water but what we have seen, what the residents have seen in
Greenwood Shores is that the Walker pond and the natural ponds all flow together and the
resulting storm sewer drainage goes directly into the lake, polluting the lake. And I'm very
concerned about it being on the west side for that reason, and also for the fact that there is at least
one significant oak tree in that area that could be saved by moving it to the other side of the
street. Now on the other side of the street there may be a problem \'lith natural springs, because I
don't want to dump storm water into a natural spring and we've located one of those springs. I
don't think it would be in the area. Eric Rivkin knows where the other one is so we can locate
that one also. I think also that it would kind of improve the aesthetic beauty of the area to have
the Walker pond on the other side of the street. So you'd have the pond. You'd have the cul-de-
sac with a nice you know vegetated area in the center. Then you'd have the natural pond in the
lake. I think it's a much, it would look a lot nicer too. The other thing is with the Walker pond
on the other side of the lake, we have the insurance of if it did overflow, then the vegetation in
the area would absorb the nutrients before the water would reach the lake and I think that would,
I think that's a good insurance to have. Now I'm working with Mr. Tompkins on some of the
details. I think that he had mentioned that we have not yet come to an agreement on the sewer
easement. He's working on some issues with me but you know, that needs to be resolved. Also,
once I see a plan here that I can support, I don't see any reason why I would not grant that
easement but I think we're pretty far from that right now. At least we're a little bit far. When he
met with the neighborhood he talked about the deed restrictions on the properties on the lake and
also the one that has potential for subdivision and I like that idea of the deed restrictions and with
that I think we might be moving in the right direction so I think what I'd like the Planning
Commission to do is think about maybe a conservation easement.. .since the private restrictions
are not, seem to be not the way to go. I think that you're moving in the right direction. We
certainly made some progress from the initial plan that was presented, I don't know a couple
years ago where there were 23 lots. This plan that's being presented before you now is not a
whole lot different. There are some improvements but it's not a whole lot different from the one
that was rejected by, or not rejected but almost rejected by the City Council. And although we
are making movement in the right direction, I don't think we're quite there. I don't think we're
quite ready yet to present a plan to the City Council. It's my hope that myself and Mr. Randall
and Mr. Weingart, the Tichy's and the other neighbors could come to the City Council with a
plan that you've approved. That we all endorse. That returns a good economic value to the
developer and I think we can get there but I don't think we're there yet. Thank you.
Joyce: Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission at this time?
8
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
Al Weingart: My name's Al Weingart. I live on 1685 Steller Court and my self interest in this is
also that I own that island, that 10 acre parcel just outside, off of the, across the lake from where
the development is proposed. And I've got to say that I would like these guys to develop this
property. I like Dick and Homer and they've got their tree people as organized as I've ever seen
anybody, particularly relative to the prior experience we had a couple years ago. None of you,
Ladd Conrad I think was the only one on the Planning Commission at that time that went through
that brutal sort of affair but this was, this is a property that's been quite controversial. The points
of course we all sort of tried to allocate what we were going to chat about here and frankly Joe
and Jack stole my show a little bit but there's a couple of things, and I certainly endorse the lot
size and the number of lots on the property. We would like to see that more consistent with the
surrounding development and the surrounding parcel sizes. My acreage on my homestead is 6
acres. Jack's got 12. Joe's got, I don't know, 5 or 6 there. 7 or 8, something like that. And so
we'd like to keep it somewhat consistent. We realize of course that Pointe Lake Lucy, next door
to it is on a smaller scale. That is a much more open landscape kind of design. Not nearly as
undulating with the land. It's much more flat and frankly, you know if we had to do that over
again, I'm sure the neighbors would be a bit more concerned about how that particular parcel was
developed, particularly the Greenwood Shores folks who got you know that parcel was relatively
scraped clean. So we are a bit sensitive to how this is being developed. We are not opposed to
the development of it. A couple of things. The impact on Lake Lucy, that particular bay out
between the development and the island in there where the Randall's house sits. Very sensitive.
Very shallow bay subject to a lot of growth and any kind of runoff that goes into there, I think
you saw in the letter that was presented to you. You may not have had a chance to read it but I'm
really concerned about some big bloom of algae and weeds coming in there and restricting any of
the fishing and anything else that goes on in that bay. So that is a very big concern and I think
the Walker pond issue, which people have talked about tonight, has to really be nailed pretty well
to know that that's going to be filtered before it hits that particular part of the lake. The
subdivision of Lot, further subdivision of Lot 6. We talked about a deed restriction. Now
Kathryn you indicated that that doesn't work. I would think that the way we proposed it in our
memo today, was that if we would put a deed restriction in there, and Homer and I have talked
about this on the site the other day. We thought that putting a deed restriction on that particular
lot whereby, we didn't go this far over but whereby we would need the consent of all of the land
owners, deed holders in that subdivision as well as the ones that are on either side of it, to
consent to that deed restriction removal, that that would work. And I know from a, talk to real
estate attorney, he said that they've done that before. Putting that kind of deed restriction in there
but it was requiring the consent of the parties who are impacted by any kind of further
subdivision of that parcel.
Aanenson: The City would not be a party to the homeowners association covenants. We
wouldn't do that so if you were to put a restriction on there, anybody that would buy that lot
would have the right to come back and ask. . .
Al Weingart: They do. They would but they'd have to get the consent of all of the land.
Aanenson: But what I'm telling you is the City.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
Al Weingart: The City would be part of that.
Aanenson: The City would not become part of the homeowners, as a rule. We would generally
are not party of a homeowners.
Al Weingart: Right. Could you make a recommendation to that effect? With respect to putting
that kind of deed restriction on the property like that?
Joyce: Kate, is there a possibility of doing a conservation at all?
Aanenson: Right, I think what you could do, but again you take the risk that someone's going to
come back and.. .ask them to vacate it. It happens all the time.
Al Weingal1: No, I understand that you can't enforce that. I'm just saying could the Planning
Commission or the Council make a recommendation, non-binding, to suggest to the developer
that that kind of deed restriction be placed on that particular lot?
Aanenson: Sure. I mean it's our preference that they leave it one large lot. What I'm saying is
that someone can sit on that lot for a year or two and ask...
Al Weingart: Correct, but private parties can make that kind of arrangement relative to having
approval of other.
Aanenson: You could put it in your homeowners without... the City and how you guys enforce it,
the majority of the property owners...
Al Weingart: Okay. I just wanted to, yeah okay. And the same thing with respect to the docks
on Lots 4 and 5. A similar kind of, you know again Homer we talked about that a little bit about
restricting the agility for those homeowners to have docks and I'm not necessarily opposed to
them having docks. It's just that the impact for those particular parcels having to go through 100
to 150 feet of wetlands to get out there may be almost economically unviable in and of itself and
so I'm just curious whether that could be considered as well. That's all I have. Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Joyce: Okay, would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, could
I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Brooks moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Joyce: Thank you very much. We'll bring this back to the Planning Commission. Allyson
Brooks. Your comments and thoughts.
Brooks: Well, I guess my biggest concern is the tree cover but I don't think there's much we can
do. It sounds like everybody's gotten together and is trying their best to resolve the issue and see
10
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
that in the end we end up with a nice looking landscape. Other than that I don't have too many
concerns. It's mostly with the trees. They were talking about in another development where the
storm water pond didn't work. Is the engineering firm liable for that?
Hempel: I believe back when the Willow Ridge subdivision came in, the storm water
requirements weren't as stringent as they are today. I don't believe they...Walker or NURP
ponds at that time.. . sediment trap where the storm water went into a low depression and
overflowed into the wetland. I can certainly check on that.
Brooks: I guess I don't have any more comments. Although I would like to see a conservation
easement on that one lot. The Lot 6 and even though it may be unenforceable, I think we ought
to try it.
Aanenson: Sure. That'd be one way of...
Blackowiak: I have a few comments. I'll just sort of run down the staff recommendations. First
of all regarding the trees. Another concern right here that that large percentage is going to be
taken out. I believe that we should follow the ordinance and plant the particular trees as required
by ordinance. And if more have to be added, then definitely follow whatever the ordinance says.
As I was sitting up here I did have a thought when I was listening to Katie Fernholtz. She was
talking about varying sizes. Could we take a total caliper inch figure. So in other words, we've
got 63 trees at 2.5 inches...and I don't know if that's good or bad. So we've got roughly 168
caliper inches. We could say we would like a minimum of 40 trees or 50 trees or whatever it is
with a total caliper inch not to be less than 168. Something like that. Maybe there is a formula
that can be used or something that can be worked out to get a little more of a variety that people
seem to be talking about, but yet still follow the intent of the ordinance and get the inches of
trees. That would mean they'd have some smaller trees which may be more appropriate in
certain areas, but yet the trade off would be that we would get some larger, maybe 4 or 5 inch
caliper trees going into different areas. Now I don't know if that's ever been tried before but it
just made me think about it when I was sitting here so that would be, at least something I hope
we can maybe look at... I would certainly hope so...warranted if they didn't. I mean if they buy
.,{hem, there's certain warranties so anyway. That was one of my thoughts. Going through to...2
to 3 I think, follow what the staff has said. Number 5. 5(a), I feel strongly we need to have the
preliminary grading plan and information before we go ahead. I would be very concerned about
setting a standard and then all of a sudden finding that the.. . grading was 4 feet too low and
therefore the house is going to be way too low or something's going to happen that we don't
want to happen so I think we need to cover that condition...before we start anything. Going up
to number 18. Talking about permits. I would like to add... but I would suggest maybe that we
add a line saying, no work shall commence until all appropriate permits are obtained.. .copies of
the DNR permits and so I don't know if they're still applicable. I don't know if they have to be
repermitted because a certain amount of time has lapsed. I'm not certain about that but I want to
make sure that everything's in place before we start grading and cutting down trees so that we
don't two months down the road find out that something didn't happen and we've got a bunch of
lots that should have been graded.. .moving forward so I would hope that we could do that. The
water quality pond, I defer to engineering. I really don't know a lot about it. And then Lot 6,
11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
Block 2. The conservation easement. That was in my notes, although I didn't know. . . but I think
that's a great idea. I think.. .has the property already been sold? .. .because I was going to say
because that could be a stipulation in the contract.. . conservation easement remaining in force for
6 years, 7 years, whatever. I mean that's the type of a thing that gets written in all the time so I
don't know about the deed restriction but... conservation easement is perfectly...I don't think we
need to keep subdividing any more. And then to the neighbors comments. I too would like
larger lots, like Mr. Randall. I hope the tree canopy issue can be resolved. I don't know about
the potential streets, I don't know what to say about that one. I think that if they're going to do a
grading plan, I think if there's going to be lots sold, that the street has to be provided. You know
whether or not.. .location, I don't know but maybe some further thought is needed... And overall
I think it's a good proposal. I hope that we can just be very sensitive to the impact from the
runoff and the impact of the trees and we really have to move carefully on this. I think
everybody, it's in everybody's best interest to do a good job on...I ce11ainly hope that you
can.. .something that everybody's happy with. And I'll be quiet.
Joyce: Okay, thank you very much. Matt.
Burton: Well I agree with just about everything Alison said, or both Alison's said on this is a
sen~itive site and I'm glad they're going to be reducing lots to 17... I liked Alison's idea of the
caliper inch.. .decide how to do it. The lot size I feel.. .about your lot sizes but I do think also
that the proposal complies with the zoning ordinance. I'm not sure there's a lot we can do.. .lot
sizes in the development. I like the idea of the conservation easement... but I don't think we can
do anything more than just in terms of... And if the dock, I think the staff made a good
recommendation. I like to see the one dock... I guess that's all I have.
Sidney: Appreciate staffs efforts on this application. Also the applicant's diligence in working
with a forester and preparing a forest management plan. I'm very impressed with that. A few
comments and I think I agree with most the comments that my fellow planning commissioners
have made. I do appreciate the neighbors keeping before the planning commissioners. I do think
you have some very good comments and suggestions for staff and the applicant. I think Sharmin
when she started off said that there are... points here that the development is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and that it meets all ordinance requirements and in that respect, we're saying
that this development probably should go forward to Council. And that restricts our ability to
really change the number of lots and.. .lot sizes so with that, just a few addiJional comments. I
would like to see an attempt made for a conservation easement, like the other commissioners
have stated. Also I'd like to see the applicant and staff work to address some of the issues that
Mr. Randall has for the southwest comer of the property. There would be something we could
do there. And I do like the idea of having more flexibility in the reforestation and the tree
replacement plan and I'd like to see the applicant work with staff to develop a tree replacement,
reforestation plan that.. . conditions for approval. And also if there would be a possibility of
changing the location of the watershed pond. Just as another look see to see if something could
be done. I do agree with staff that I would like to see Sea) remain as is. I think that's very
important for the overall layout of the development to be well understood by everyone before
they start building. So those are my comments.
12
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
Joyce: Okay. My comments kind of echo all the other planning commissioners. I would like to
say I think everybody involved put a lot of work into this. You've done a good job. A lot of
effort and a lot of thought's been put into this. I think the neighbors are very well organized.
Very nice presentation. Defmitely suggest you continue this onto City Council. They'll listen to
you and take to heart some of the things you said. I think what it all boils down to is whether it
could be developed or not. Very simple.. .talked about lot sizes and stuff and Dave said, you're
building roads and putting utilities in, you're going to lose trees. So it's either a decision of do
you develop or not develop. I think these folks have presented it can be developed and they're on
the right track as far as being considerate of what's there. Like LuAnn said, we have a
comprehensive plan. They're following the comprehensive plan as far as lot sizes so I don't
think lot sizes are as big an issue as we're making it. I, the one concern I have in the back of my
head is the storm water situation and I'm just going to go on record, I hope... they can come up
with the right concept on the stonn water. Whether it's on the east side or west side, Ijust don't
feel comfortable commenting on it. I don't know a lot about it but it's a concern. Definitely a
concern. ..and things like that. Otherwise, the conservation easement, good idea. Let's put that
in a conditions, whatever and let's see what happens. Otherwise I think we can make sense out
of this development.. .so those are my points. So what we need here is a motion to send it to City
Council.
Blackowiak: Okay, I'll do it. I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of rezoning 16.40 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential
Single Family (95-1 REZ); Preliminary plat (95-3 SUB) to subdivide 16.40 Acres into 17 single
family lots, with variances (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lots 7 and 10, Block 2, and Lot 3,
Block 3, a 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way, five homes accessing via a
private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 6, Block 2), Lake Lucy
Estates, as shown in plans dated April 24, 1998, with the following conditions. 1 through 33
with condition 18, adding the line, no work shall commence until all appropriate permits are
obtained. And condition 34. The Planning Commission suggests conservation easement on Lot
6, Block 2 to prevent further subdivision. And changes to condition 21 and 26 as per the memo
from Dave Hempel. I hope I don't have to read that all. And I think I'd like to add a condition
35. That there would be a cross access easement agreement prepared for the use of the private
driveway including the Randall parcel. .. I think I got. .. would anybody like to add something?
Aanenson: You're just throwing. .. use their driveway?
Blackowiak: Correct. I'd just like to...
Aanenson: I'm not sure if it's a city matter or a matter between two property owners but we
understand what you're saying.
Audience:. ..
Joyce: You're on the record on that. Unless.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
Aanenson: What we're saying is that it may be a civil matter. We'll review it and point it out to
the City Council.
Audience: ... tree sizes?
Brooks: I thought we stated the applicant shall plant 63 trees or develop an appropriate
reforestation plan with the city.
Blackowiak: I'd like to keep 1 written as is and just direct the staff and applicant to possibly
review other options to present to Council. But I like this. I mean at minimum we need to keep
this in. Should the Council ask them. ..you know, something else can happen, that's great and I
think that that might be a possibility but at a minimum I want this condition 1 to stay as is.
Joyce: Could I have a second?
Brooks: Second.
Joyce: Is there any discussion?
Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of rezoning 16.40 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single
Family (95-1 REZ); Preliminary plat (95-3 SUB) to subdivide 16.40 Acres into 17 single
family lots, with variances (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lots 7 and 10, Block 2, and Lot
3, Block 3, a 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way, Five homes accessing
via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 6, Block 2),
Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in plans dated April 24, 1998, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall plant 63 trees as replacement/reforestation plantings. Trees shall be
selected from the city's Approved Tree List and meet minimum size requirements. A
landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be
location, species and size of replacements. The applicant and staff work further to
present possibly reforestation options to the City Council.
2. Tree removal limits shall be established 20 feet from the building pad for all custom
graded lots, once the type of home is designated. Tree protection fencing must be
installed at the limits and maintained throughout construction.
3. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. The applicant shall
work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along
Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the
development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement
shall permit removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4'
height shall not be permitted to be removed.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
4. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to
grading.
5. Building Department conditions:
a.
Revise the preliminary grading & erosion control plan to show the proposed
dwelling pads with standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry
level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat
approval.
b.
property.
Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the
c.
Obtain building permits from the Inspections Division for retaining walls over 48"
high. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation,
top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior
to final plat approval.
6. Fire Marshal conditions:
a At the east end of Lake Way Court provide an approved turnaround for
fire apparatus. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.204 (D).
b. Relocate the existing hydrant that is located on block 8 on the south side of
Lake Way Court to the north side of Lake Way Court on block 2.
c. With reference to block 2, lot 6, if structure is not visible from the street,
additional address numbers will be required at driveway entrance. Pursuant to
Chanhassen Fire Permit Policy Premise Identification No. 29-1992.
7. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition
and/or trail construction.
8. The buffer on Lot 5, Block 2, shall be adjusted so that there is a smoother transition along
the Lot 5 property line.
9. All riparian lots shall access the lake at the point of least impact to the wetland on a shared
dock. The location of this dock would be on lot 6.
10. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre, (or $9,184 for the 11.48 acres) for
single-family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides water
quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. To receive this credit the
applicant must provide the City with plans for a stormwater quality pond designed to retain
up to 75% phosphorus according to the Walker Pondnet model.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
11. The proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a water
quantity connection charge of$22,730. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of
final plat recording.
12 The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management
Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for
review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the
wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent the grading limits.
13. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with
seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of
each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook.
14. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval
three weeks prior to final plat consideration.
15. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before accepting the utilities and will
charge the applicant $20 per sign.
16. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 1 a-year and laO-year
storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with
the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve
prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post
developed stormwater calculations for laO-year storm events and normal water level and
high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual
storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to
detennine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding
design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model.
; ,.
17. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health
Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and
comply with their conditions of approval.
19. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
maintenance of the ponding areas. A 40-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be
required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court.
20 The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands or storm water ponds
shall be a minimum of2 feet above the 100-year high water level.
21. The proposed storm water pond must have side slopes of 10: 1 for the first ten feet at the
normal water level and no more than 3: 1 thereafter or 4: 1 throughout for safety purposes.
The pond shall be redesigned in an effort to minimize tree loss east of the cul-de-sac.
The stormwater pond shall be designed and constructed with a 75% phosphorus removal
efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the
pond into the surroundings is recommended.
22. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in
accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing
home (Tichy) on Lot 4, Block 3 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system
within 30 days after the system becomes operational. COlli1ection to City water is not
required unless the well on Lot 4, Block 3 fails.
23. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer.
The construction plans shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs and gutters on
those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond.
24. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. Lot
4, Block 3 shall relocate their driveway from Lake Lucy Road to Lakeway Drive. In
addition, the street address for this lot shall be changed accordingly.
25.
Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 shall
be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading (with two-foot
contours), drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the
building permit application for review and approval by the City engineer prior to issuance
of a building permit for the lot.
I. .; ..
26.
The grading, drainage, and construction plans shall be revised incorporating the following
changes that conform better with the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss:
a) Tree protection fencing.
b) Consider the use of retaining walls along the northeast comer of Lakeway Lane
and Lakeway Drive to reduce grading and minimize tree loss.
c) Shorten and lower cul-de-sac and increase radius to 60 feet.
d) Provide "Y" or "T" temporary turnaround on Lakeway Court.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
e) Denote dwelling type on all lots including garage, first and lowest floor elevation.
f) Label height of retaining walls.
g) Provide drain tile behind the curb for those lots not adjacent to wetlands or
stormwater pond.
h) Design private driveway (Lakeway Drive) to drain partially back to cul-de-sac.
i) Add outlet control structure to pond.
j) Revise sanitary sewer alignment through Morin's parcel and provide sanitary
sewer service to parcel to the west per staff.
27. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being
extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the
applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Marins.
28. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No.
209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance
agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private
street{s). A temporary turnaround may be permitted on Lot 10, Block 2 or Lot I, Block 3
until the Morin's parcel further subdivides.
29. The applicant shall extend utilities to the parcel to the west through a location determined
by staff. Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lake way Lane. A sign shall
be placed on the barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future". A
condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners in
Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension. The property to the west may continue to
utilize the existing private driveway, until such time when the property further
subdivides. It will then gain access via Lakeway Lane only and the existing private
driveway shall be abandoned.
30. The applicant or their assignee shall submit a haul route and traffic control plan to the
City Engineer for review and approval prior to site grading commencing.
31. Individual sewer and water services to the lots shall be field verified to determine the path
of least impact to the trees.
32. The applicant shall be entitled to a refund (up to 90% depending on construction costs) of
a portion of future sewer connection charges collected from Morin's parcel when building
permits are issued.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998
33. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared for use of the private
driveway including the Morin's parcel."
34. The Planning Commission suggests conservation easement on Lot 6, Block 2 to
prevent further subdivision.
35. That there would be a cross access easement agreement prepared for the use of the
private driveway including the Randall parcel.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
EDEN TRACE CORP. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIE\V FOR A 15.000 SQ. FT.
OFFICEIWAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD
AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE WEST AND
AUDUBON ROAD ON LOT 1. BLOCK 1. CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 4TH
ADDITION. QUANTUM CONTROLS INC.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Joyce: Thank you Sharmin. Are there any questions for staff at this time?
Blackowiak: I had a question. Sharmin, on page 5, the compliance table.
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Blackowiak: It talks about no variance is required, yet the south building setback is at 10 feet
and the PUD ordinance is 25 feet. Would that require a variance or is that 10 feet?
AI-Jaff: It is 10 feet. It is an interior lot line so that was a mistake.
Aanenson: No variance is required. It's an interior lot line. An exterior lot line is 25 feet.
Blackowiak: Okay, so interior is.. . okay, good. Just making sure. That's it, thanks.
Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else have questions? Is the applicant here and like to address the
Planning Commission? Please come forward.
Mark Understad: Mark Understad with Eden Trace... Not a lot to say.
Joyce: What you see is what you get huh?
Mark Understad: Yeah, and hopefully we've got it right again here so.
19
r
I." ;.
;C:.l{~
June 24, 1998
1:(':1
1- ,_....'
Sharmin Al-Jaff
City of Chanhassen
P.O. Box 147
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'7t\}
Dear Charmin,
This letter is to inform you of our concern for the proposed development that includes a
portion of our property at 1471 Lake Lucy Road. At the May 20, 1998 Planning
Commission meeting a proposal was made that would place a conservation easement on
Lot 6, Block 2. This lot is part of our existing property and is not being sold to the
developer, Contractor Property Developers Company; although it is included in the
proposed subdivision. Nancy and I will retain ownership of this lot and intend to build
our new home on it.
While preparing the preliminary plat for submission to the Planning Commission, Homer
Tompkins of Contractor Property Developers Company presented to us a draft plat that
included four lots with lake frontage for our review. After much discussion, we were
able to refine the preliminary plat to the present state in which three lots are proposed
with lake frontage, with our remaining property becoming Lot 6, Block 2.
This lot was intentionally designed to maintain the privacy and natural integrity that we
now enjoy. The request at the Planning Commission meeting for a conservation
easement to be placed on this lot seems to be without regard for our intended use of the
property and our ownership rights. We have yet to have a member of the Planning
Commission, city staff or the neighborhood contact us about this lot. It is not our intent,
nor has it been our pattern in the 14 years we have lived on this property, to do anything
but preserve the natural attributes of this land.
In our conversation, you indicated that Lot 6, Block 2 could be subdivided into two lots
within the building parameters set by the city. In this regard, the placement of a
conservation easement does nothing but restrict the use of property we already own. The
arbitrary placement of an easement on this parcel is not justified and does not address the
rights of the property owner. Therefore, we are requesting that the suggestion of a
conservation easement be removed from the proposed subdivision for Lot 6, Block 2.
Nancy and I have made our feelings known to Contractor Property Developers Company
and I would like you to include this letter in the proposed plat that will be submitted to
the City Council at their July 13, 1998 meeting. Thank you.
Sincerely,
c:1-:- Y- tic ~
Brian and Nanc2 ()