1. Chapter 18 Code AmendmentsCITYOF
C HASSEN
7700 Ma~kd Bou!evad
PO Box 147
Ohanhassen MN 55317
Administration
Building Inspections
Engineering
Phone: 95222711(50
Fax: 952 2271170
Finance
Phone: 952227 1140
Fax: 9522271110
Park & Recreation
Fax: 9522271110
Recreation Center
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Pi~one: 9522271400
Fax 9522271404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone; 95222.71130
Fax; 952 227 1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952227 1300
Fax: 952227 1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952 227 1125
Fax: 9522271110
Web Site
www ci cnar~hassen mnus
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner
DATE: January 20, 2004
SUB J:
Code Amendments, Chapter 18, Subdivisions
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 2, 2003 to review
the proposed changes to Chapter 18. At that time, the Planning Commission
requested that staff contact other communities to review their tree preservation
standards as well as sidewalk policies.
The Planning Commission originally reviewed the draft amendment on March 4,
2003. The Park & Recreation Commission met in April 2003 to review the
proposed trail and sidewalk criteria. Their only comment was to remove criteria
for trails from the ordinance. Subsequently, City Council reviewed the draft
changes this past summer (2003).
DISCUSSION
Staff has contacted other communities to determine their requirements regarding
tree preservation and sidewalks.
As far as sidewalks are concerned, there are no definitive requirements between
communities. Many state that sidewalks "may be required". Staff has contacted
five additional communities since the last meeting to determine whether
sidewalks are required as part of subdivision. Of all communities contacted, two
communities require sidewalks on local streets. One community requires
sidewalks on local streets if they provide access to schools, parks, churches,
businesses or industrial development on adjacent property. Staff is proposing that
we adopt criteria to use in determining whether sidewalks may be included as part
of a development. Should the Planning Commission want to make sidewalks
mandatory, they can make that recommendation to City Council.
In tree preservation, we have also compared our standards with those of other
communities. Based on this comparison, our standards require more reforestation
or planting then other communities.
We have also pulled sample surveys from the building department to determine if
there is an average building envelope that should be used to determine adequate
building area. As can be seen from the survey, the average building envelope is
2,226 square feet with a range of 1,833 square feet to 2,971 square feet. These
building envelopes range in length from 56 to 80 feet with a depth from 31 to 55
feet with an average dimension of 68 feet by 47 feet.
The City of Chanhassen · A grocang sorrnmunity vvOh clean lakes, qoality schools a charrnin0 dD'~,vntc,~.'n ti]rivh'q husi~ ~:.s',:e .,.',.rodin(! trois ~nJ Leauh ,]1 [)ar.,'.' A ',g ( ~t piac( !, ~',.',::.r'~ ;,~rd ~ !.~'.?
Planning Commission
Code Amendments, Chapter 18, Subdivisions
January 20, 2004
Page 2
Staff is proposing that in calculating the tree removal of a development, the
developer shall estimate that all trees within the front 105 feet of a lot shall be
calculated in the tree removal total. The 105 feet includes the 30-foot front
setback (an area where small utility installation takes place, where building
materials are stored, and where vehicles and access to the site is taken), a 47-foot
house (the average building envelope depth), a 12-foot deck and a 15-foot grading
area, plus one foot to round up to the nearest five feet. Past experience shows that
most trees in the front and side yards are severely damaged and eventually killed
by construction practices and at least 15 feet around the foundation is needed for
access to the building. There are examples in the city of residential lots where
less trees were removed than stated above, but the majority of residential wooded
lot examples show those dimensions. Should a developer be able to save trees in
this area, then they would be credited as part of the building permit process
against required plantings for the house.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 18
of the City Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the following motion:
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance
amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code."
ATTACHMENT
1. Ordinance Amending Chapter 18, Chanhassen City Code.
2. Code Amendments Chapter 18, Subdivisions.
3. Tree Removal Calculations Sample 1, Burlwood.
4. Tree Removal Calculations Sample 2, Ashling Meadows.
5. Survey Results, City Tree Removal Calculations.
6. Average Building Envelopes and Surveys.
7. Planning Commission Minutes of December 2, 2003.
G:\Plan\BG\City Code\PC Memo Subdivisions 1 20 04.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE,
SUBDIVISIONS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 18, Article I, Section 18-1 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota, is hereby repealed.
Section 2. Section 18-39 (a) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
After the pre-application consultation and at least thirty (30) days prior to the meeting of
the planning commission at which action is desired, the applicant may file with the city,
an application for preliminary plat approval. The application shall be accompanied by
copies of the plat in such number as required by the city, an eight and one-half-by-eleven-
inch reduction of each sheet, proof of ownership satisfactory to the city, and a list of
property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the property certified by an abstract
company. The applicant shall pay the application fee established by city council
resolution. All required data, documentation plans, copies and fees must be submitted
before the application will be considered complete. Rejection of the plat by the city
council, or abandonment or withdrawal of the proposed plat by the subdivider, shall not
entitle the applicant to the return of all or any part of the application fee.
Section 3. Section 18-39 (f) (7) c. of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems or no ISTS (individual sewage treatment
system).
Section 4. Section 18-40 (2) f. of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Topographic data within the property to be subdivided and one hundred (100) feet
beyond the property boundary, showing contours as follows: two foot intervals
where slope is ten (10) percent or less; five foot intervals where slope is ten (10) to
fifteen (15) percent; ten-foot intervals where slope is greater than fifteen (15) percent.
All areas of the subdivision to be platted with a slope greater than twenty-five percent
must be clearly indicated. However, on undevelopable sections or larger acre lots
topographic data may be reduced to significant physical characteristics, such as top
and toe of slope, if in the opinion of the city the area is viewed as unsuitable for
future subdivision. Location and elevations of on-site and abutting water courses,
lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, and marshes at date of survey and their ordinary high
water mark plus approximate high and normal water elevations shall also be shown.
A wetland delineation report and surveyed wetland line for all jurisdictional wetlands
on or within one hundred (100) feet of the property boundary. The delineation shall
be no more than three (3) years old, unless accompanied by documentation
demonstrating the delineation has been reviewed in the past three (3) years and is
accurate or revised to reflect changes on-site. Flood plain areas, location of wooded
areas, rocky outcrops, power transmission poles and lines and other significant
physical features shall also be shown.
Section 5. Section 18-40 (4) c. of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
A drainage plan for the area indicating the direction and rate of natural storm water
runoff and those unaltered areas where storm water collects and percolates into the
ground. A proposed drainage plan for the developed site indicating the direction and
rate of runoff, the path of all storm water discharge to the public storm water
infrastructure and those areas where storm water will collect and percolate into the
ground shall also be included. Storm water management shall be consistent with the
city's surface water management plan.
Section 6. Section 18-41 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(a) Unless otherwise provided in the development contract for phased development,
within one (1) year after the date of the city council approval of the preliminary plat,
the subdivider shall file an application for approval of the final plat. In addition to the
application the subdivider shall submit:
(1) Copies of the plat in such quantities as is required by the city;
(2) Two (2) mylar copies of the plat;
(3) One (1) two hundred (200) scale copy of the plat.
(4) I"=200' scale mylar reductions of the final plat with just street names and lot and
block numbers.digital copy in .dxf format (the .dxf file must be tied to the current
county coordinate system) and a digital copy in .tif format of the final plat shall be
submitted. If the final plat application is not filed within this period, the
preliminary plat will be considered void unless for good cause shown an extension is
requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by the city council prior to the
one-year anniversary date of the preliminary plat approval. The application for final
plat approval shall be filed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the meeting of the
city council at which action is desired.
(b) The final plat shall conform to the requirements of this chapter and to all conditions
set forth in the approval of the preliminary plat as modified during final plat approval.
(c) The city council shall review the final plat and shall approve or disapprove it within
sixty (60) days of receipt of the completed application.
(d) No final plat shall be recorded by the city until the plat is in a form acceptable for
recording with the county, the proper filing fees have been paid to the city, a
development contract has been signed, appropriate security has been furnished, and
no other payments to the city related to the development are outstanding.
(e) Upon approval of the final plat by the city council, the city shall notify the applicant
of the approval and within thirty (30) days thereafter, the applicant or the city
attorney shall file the final plat with the county recorder and furnish the city evidence
of such recording. Failure of the applicant to comply shall be cause for revoking the
city's approval.
The developer shall pay the city a fee established by city council to reimburse the city
for the cost of updating the city's base maps and geographic information systems
(GIS) data base files and converting the plat and record drawings into an electronic
format.
Section 7. Section 18-56 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
The proposed subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive plan, the design standards,
and Chapter 20 of the City Code. The design standards set forth in this article are
minimum requirements. The city may impose additional or more stringent requirements
concerning lot size, streets and overall design as deemed appropriate considering the
property being subdivided.
Section 8. Section 18-57 (b) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
b) Street right-of-way widths shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan and
official map, and shall conform to county and state standards for trunk highways. If no
such plans or standards are applicable, right-of-way and pavement widths shall not be
less than the following:
Street ] Right-of-Way
Classifications [Widths (feet)
Minor arterial 1100
Collector [ 80
Roadway/Pavement
Width (feet)
Local street (rural residential) 60 24
Local street (urban residential) 60 31
Local street 60 36
commercial/industrial)
60 45.5
Cul-de-sac, turnaround radius
urban/residential)
Cul-de-sac, turnaround
radius(rural residential)
60
40
Cul-de-sac, turnaround 60 48
radius(commercial/industrial)
Private Street (Residential Serving 30 20
A-2, RR, RSF, R-4)
Private Street (Residential Serving 40 24
R-8, R-12, R-16)
Private Street 40 26
(commercial/industrial)
Section 9. Section 18-61 of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(a) Required landscaping/residential subdivision.
(1)
Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) deciduous tree to be placed
in the front yard. The type of tree shall be subject to city approval. Coniferous
trees must be at least six (6) feet high and deciduous trees must be at least two and
one-half (2~/2) inches in diameter at the time of installation. This requirement may
be waived by the city where the applicant can demonstrate that a suitable tree
having a minimum diameter of two and one-half (2~/2) inches for deciduous and
six-foot height for evergreen is located in an appropriate location on the lot. The
following trees may be used to meet planting requirements:
Scientific Name
Deciduous Trees
Common Name
Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar or hard
Cao,a ovata Shagbark Hickory
Cehis occidentalis Hackberry
Juglans nigra Black Walnut
Quercus rubra Oak, Red
Quercus alba Oak, White
Quercus bicolor Oak, Bicolor
Quercus macrocarpa Oak, Bur
Tilia americana Linden, American
Acer rtlbrlon spp. Maple, Red, all varieties
Acer xfreemanii, spp. Maple, Freeman, all varieties
Acer sacc~harim~m 'Sih,er Queen' Maple, Silver Queen
Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye
Betula nigra Birch, River
Betula papyrifera Birch, paper
Betula pendula 'Dalecarlica' Birch, cut leaf weeping
Catalpa speciosa Northern Catalpa
Fraxim~s spp. Ash, all varieties
Ginkgo biloba Ginkgo
Gleditsia triacanthos inermi& spp. Honeylocust, thornless - all varieties
Gymnocladus dioicus Coffeetree, Kentucky
Tilia spp. Linden, all varieties
Ulmus spp. ELM, DED-resistant varieties
Ornamental
Acer ginnala Maple, Amur
Amelanchier spp. Serviceberry or Juneberry
Crataegus spp. Hawthorn, all varieties
Malus spp. Crabapple, assorted flowering-Varieties,
Ostrya virginiana Ironwood
Poptdus tremuloides Aspen
Sorbus spp. Ash, Mountain, all varieties
Phellodendron atnurense Amur Corktree
Prumts cerasifera 'Newport' Plum, Newport
Prunus triloba Plum, flowering or Rose Tree of China
Pnmus virginiana 'Schubert' Chokeberry, Schubert
Syringa reticulata Lilac, Japanese tree
Conifers
balsamea
Abies concolor
Fir, Balsam
Fir, Concolor
Larix laricina Tamarack
Picea abies Spruce, Norway
Picea glauca Spruce, White
Picea glauca densata Spruce, Black Hills
Picea ptmgeus Spruce, Colorado Green
Pinus nigra Pine, Austrian
Pinus ponderosa Pine, Ponderosa
Pinus resinosa Pine, Norway
Pinus strobus Pine, White
Pinus sylvestris Pine, Scotch
Pseudotsuga met<iesii Fir, Douglas
Thuja occidentalis Arborvitae
Thuja occidentalis 'Tectmy' Techny Arborvitae
(2)
The tree(s) must be installed prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy or
financial guarantees acceptable to the city must be provided to ensure timely
installation.
(3)
All areas disturbed by site grading and/or construction must be seeded or sodded
immediately upon completion of work to minimize erosion. When certificates of
occupancy are requested prior to the satisfaction of this requirement, financial
guarantees acceptable to the city, must be provided.
(4) No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after development. On-site burial
or burning is not permitted.
(5)
Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required by the
city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as defined in the
comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more intensive land uses.
Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape material consisting of a
mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree preservation areas. No fences will be permitted
between the required buffer and the collector or arterial street. Where appropriate,
the city may require additional lot depth and area on lots containing the buffer so
that it can be adequately accommodated and the homes protected from impacts.
Lot depths and areas may be increased by twenty-five (25) percent over zoning
district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the preliminary and
final plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial guarantees acceptable
to the city shall be required.
(b) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout the city and
with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical, substantial tree
stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
(c) No tree removal shall be permitted except as approved in a subdivision, planned unit
development or site plan application. Removal of trees prior to city approval will
result in the issuance of a citation. The cleared area shall be replanted at a rate of two
(2) times the DBH inches (DBH means diameter measured at breast height, 4.5 feet
above the ground) of trees removed, if known, or one (1) tree per 1,089 square feet of
replacement area with the required replacement area calculated at 1.5 times the
canopy coverage area that was removed. Additionally, the development review
process shall be halted and the developer shall be required to resubmit revised
existing site condition and tree inventory plans and new landscaping plans
incorporating the additional planting requirements.
(d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans:
(1)
It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity of the natural
environment through the preservation, protection, and planting of trees. The city
finds that trees provide many benefits including: stabilization of the soil by the
prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm water runoff and the
costs associated therewith, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise
pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection and increase of property
values, protection of privacy, energy conservation through natural insulation,
control of drainage and restoration of denuded soil subsequent to construction and
grading, protection from severe weather, providing habitat for birds and other
wildlife, conservation and enhancement of city's physical and aesthetic
environment, reforestation of open lands, and general protection and enhancement
of the quality of life and general welfare of the city. It is therefore the purpose of
this section to provide regulations related to the cutting, removal, or killing of
trees on construction and development sites and to ensure the protection and
preservation of the natural environment and beauty of the City of Chanhassen.
(2)
Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be
prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other
professional approved by the city. This survey shall include the species, DBH size
(DBH means diameter measured at breast height, 4.5 feet above the ground),
condition, location of all, trees over six inches in diameter and any damaged or
diseased trees on site. All significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be
tagged and identified by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing
canopy coverage area(s) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be
included as part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees shall
be cataloged with the nature and extent of any damage or disease specified.
Based on this survey and either site observation and measurement or a current
aerial photograph (taken within one (1) year of the date of plan submittal)
interpretation, the following shall be calculated:
1. Base line canopy coverage.
2. Minimum canopy coverage requirements.
The following table shall be used to determine the minimum amount of
canopy coverage that must be maintained or provided on-site as part of the
development. It shall represent the minimum canopy coverage, consisting of
existing tree canopy and/or additional trees required for the site. Existing
wetland areas located on site shall be excluded from the calculation of site
area in the determination of site coverage. If a forested area is to be dedicated
to the city for park land, then this area shall not be included in the base line
canopy coverage area calculation nor shall it count towards the minimum
canopy coverage for the ~te.
Base Line Canopy Coverage Per Acre
Comprehensive Plan Designation 80-- 60--79% 40--59% 20--39% 19% or
100% less
Commercial/industrial/institutional 28% 25% 20% 14% 10%
High density residential 35% 30% 25% 20% 15%
Medium density residential 40% 35% 30% 25% 20%
Low density residential 55% 46% 35% 30% 25%
Large lot residential 68% 56% 43% 35% 25%
Base line canopy coverage is the canopy coverage existing at the time the
development application is filed with the city. Minimum canopy coverage is
determined by using the matrix.
Priority shall be given to retaining stands of trees and undisturbed wooded
lands over individual specimen trees that will be incorporated into the
development. No more than ten (10) percent of the canopy retention
requirement may be met by an individual tree that is not included within a
designated woodland area.
For developments that do not meet the minimum canopy coverage, the
developer shall be required to develop a forestation plan to bring the total
canopy coverage up to the minimum requirement. Where existing woodlands
are removed or there is a loss of trees that would otherwise be used to meet
the canopy coverage retention requirement, the developer shall develop a
woodland replacement plan. The replacement plan must designate an area at
least one and two-tenths (1.2) times the removed canopy coverage area that
shall be planted with replacement trees for those removed. These plans shall
locate additional trees either as a continuation of existing stands of trees that
are to be preserved or create new stands of trees in desirable locations such as
along roadway corridors, on the north and west perimeters of the
development, in common open areas, or adjacent to park facilities.
The following criteria shall be followed in establishing minimum canopy
coverage:
1. When planting trees, one (1) tree shall be deemed to provide one
thousand eighty-nine (1,089) square feet of required canopy coverage;
2. Trees must be from the approved list of desirable species (preference
given for trees designated as native);
3. No more than one-third (~/3) of the trees may be from any one (1) tree
species;
4. Trees shall average at least two-and-one-half-inch caliper and may be
a minimum of one-and-one-half-inch caliper;
5. Not less than twenty (20) percent of the trees shall be conifers;
6. Conifer trees shall average seven (7) feet and shall be a minimum of
six (6) feet in height;
7. Plant materials used for the reforestation shall be of a similar species
as vegetation found on site;
8. Trees shall be used that are appropriate to the soil conditions found on
site; and
9. Trees shall be fi'om certified nursery stock as defined and controlled
by Minnesota Statute sections 18.44 through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act.
O)
In order to calculate the tree removal area of the single-family detached
development, the applicant must include the front 105 feet of the each lot within
the tree removal area of the development.
(4) Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the following:
a. Realignment of streets, utilities and lot lines.
b. Consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of ejector
pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize grading.
c. Reductions in roadway width and right-of-way and increase in street grade up
to ten (10) percent when the applicant can demonstrate that significant tree
preservation is directly related to the modification.
d. Use of private streets in lieu of public streets.
e. Variation in street radius and design speed.
f. Modified grading plans.
g. Within PUDs, the city council may consider waiving minimum lot area
requirements and/or density transfers as long as it can be demonstrated by the
applicant, that tree preservation can be enhanced. In no case shall overall
project densities exceed what is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. The
greater the level of preservation, the greater flexibility will be considered by
the city.
h. Within PUDs, variations to building setback lines provided a minimum twenty
(20) foot building separation is maintained between buildings on adjacent lots.
The setback variations shall be established and recorded as part of the plat
approval.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fences with clearly
marked signage specifying that the area is off limits for construction activities,
or other means acceptable to the city, prior to land preparation or construction
activities. Protective barriers in locations determined by the city must remain in
place until all construction activities are terminated. No equipment, chemicals,
soil deposits, or construction materials shall be placed within the protective
barriers. All understory trees and natural vegetation should be preserved within
the boundaries of the protective areas. Where this protection area cannot be
maintained or would otherwise render lots undevelopable, an alternate
protection, mitigation or tree replacement plan may be considered and approved
by the city. This plan may include the use of retaining walls, installation of
aeration systems, requirement for post construction deep root fertilization and
soil aeration, or construction vehicle ramp systems. Failure to properly protect
trees during construction will result in a fine of $100.00 per diameter inch of
tree(s) harmed, removed or destroyed.
At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect
designated tree preservation areas. Such easements shall be permanently marked
and signed as a conservation area with low profile monumentation acceptable to
the city. A monument is required for each three hundred (300) linear feet of tree
conservation area. Within designated woodland areas, the city shall encourage
the use of indigenous grasses and plant species to more closely resemble a
natural area. Home owners associations shall be responsible for the maintenance
of vegetation in common areas. Individual property owners shall be responsible
for the maintenance of vegetation on their property. The planting of trees in
excess of those required by this ordinance is permitted within the designated
woodland area.
During the removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of
public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot be
saved. These trees shall not be counted when computing the base line tree
canopy coverage.
If any protected significant trees are removed or killed or there is a loss of trees
as the result of construction activities, the city requires replacement at the rate
of two (2) diameter inches per each inch of DBH of the removed, killed, or lost
trees. The replacement trees shall be at least two and a half (2~/2) inches
diameter and will be species that conform to the List of Desirable Tree Species
for Planting in Chanhassen. No more than one-third (~/3) of the trees may be
from any one (1) tree species. Other species or sizes may be used as
replacement trees subject to approval by the city. Alternately, at the city's
discretion, if a developer removes trees within a protected area, the canopy
coverage area shall be calculated for that area and a replacement area one and
10
one-half (1.5) times the canopy coverage area that was removed shall be
planted. One tree shall be planted for each one thousand eighty-nine (1,089)
square feet of required replacement area. Trees shall be from the list of desirable
tree species, no more than one-third (~/_0 of trees from any one (1) tree species,
average two-and-one-half-inch diameter with a minimum one-and-one-half-inch
diameter, a similar species as vegetation existing on site, and appropriate to the
soil conditions. Any replacement trees that cannot be planted on the original site
due to space restrictions shall be planted on city property at locations to be
determined by the city.
(lO)Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required to ensure satisfactory
installation of landscaping requirements.
Section 10. Section 18-78 (b) (5) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sidewalks may be required. The following criteria shall be used in determining if
sidewalks are to be included in a development:
a. Sidewalks that connect to existing sidewalks within adjacent developed areas.
b. Sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to schools, parks and neighborhood
commercial areas.
c. Sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to existing within adjacent areas and
proposed trails as shown in the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive plan.
Section 11. Section 18-79 (f) of the City Code, City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Land area conveyed or dedicated to the city shall not be used in calculating density
requirements of chapter 20 and shall be in addition to and not in lieu of open space
requirements for planned unit developments.
Section 12. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and
publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
City Council of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota
,2004, bythe
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on
II
CODE AMENDMENTS
12/27/02
2/20/03
3/13/03
11 / 18/03
12/12/04
Chapter 18, Subdivisions
(Note: Changes are in bold and strike-through format. Comments are in italics.)
Sec. 18-1. Definitions.
All definitions shall be consolidated in chapter 1.
Wetland delineation means a boundary between jurisdictional wetland and
nonwetland based on the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Acceptable wetland delineations shall be no more than three (3) years old, unless
accompanied by documentation demonstrating: 1. The delineation has been
reviewed in the past three (3) years by a person trained and experienced in the
application of the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual; and 2.
That the delineation is still accurate or has been revised to reflect existing site
conditions.
*This definition is necessary in order to specie, what constitutes an acceptable wetland
delineation.
Wetland delineation report means a report containing a brief site narrative, maps of
the site and all pertinent data sheets that document the establishment of a wetland
delineation.
*This definition is necessary in order to specify what constitutes an acceptable wetland
delineation report. Definitions shall be incorporated in Chapter 1.
Sec. 18-39. Preliminary plat - Generally.
(a) After the pre-application consultation and at least '~..,..,,~ ..... ,,,,.. ~..)r'~ ~ ' .... '" ~:~'"
"~' thirty (30) days prior to the meeting of the planning commission at which action is
desired, the applicant may file with the city, an application for preliminary plat approval.
The application shall be accompanied by copies of the plat in such number as required by
the city, an eight and one-half-by-eleven-inch transparency reduction of each sheet, proof
of ownership satisfactory to the city, and a list of property owners within five hundred
(500) feet of the property certified by an abstract company. The applicant shall pay the
application fee established by city council resolution. All required data, documentation
plans, copies and fees must be submitted before the application will be considered
complete. Rejection of the plat by the city council, or abandonment or withdrawal of the
proposed plat by the subdivider, shall not entitle the applicant to the return of all or any
part of the application fee.
*Submittal of preliminary plats 21 days prior to the Planning Commission date does not
provide sufficient time to notice the plat, nor distribute items/hr comments. The current
practice is to have submittal deadlines a month prior to the Planninx Commission date.
(f) The findings necessary for city council approval of the preliminary plat and the final
plat shall be as follows:
(1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
(2 The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
(3) The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
(4) The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm
drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required
by this chapter;
(5) The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
(6) The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
(7) The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of dedicated and improved public streets.
c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems and no~ ISTS (individual sewer treatment
system).
d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems.
*This is a MCC recommendation. Sanitary sewer is required {hr all suburban style
development. ISTS may be permitted in appropriate large lot developments and as
permitted in section 20-906.
Sec. 18-40. Same--Data required.
(2) f. Topographic data within the property to be subdivided and one hundred (100)
feet beyond the property boundary, showing contours as follows: two foot
intervals where slope is ten (10) percent or less; five foot intervals where slope is
ten (10) to fifteen (15) percent; ten-foot intervals where slope is greater than
fifteen (15) percent. All areas of the subdivision to be platted with a slope greater
than twenty-five percent must be clearly indicated. However, on undevelopable
sections or larger acre lots topographic data may be reduced to significant
physical characteristics, such as top and toe of slope, if in the opinion of the city
the area is viewed as unsuitable for future subdivision. Location and elevations of
on-site and abutting water courses, lakes, wetlands, rivers, streams, and marshes
at date of survey and their ordinary high water mark plus approximate high and
!ow normal water elevations shall also be shown. A wetland delineation report
and surveyed wetland line for all jurisdictional wetlands on or within one
hundred (100) feet of the property boundary. The delineation shall be no
more than three (3) years old, unless accompanied by documentation
demonstrating the delineation has been reviewed in the past three (3) years
and is accurate or revised to reflect changes on-site. Where the ~ubdivision
borders a lake, river or stream, a meander line shall be established at an elevation
~lood plain areas, location of wooded areas, rocky outcrops, power transmission
poles and lines and other siEnificant physical features shall also be shown.
*The change is to make this rule consistent with the information required I%r storm water
ponds The second change will ensure that staff'has an adequate amount of time in which
to review the wetland delineation prior to fi'hal review of the subdivision. Inclusion of the
wetland delineation is fbr claril%ation purposes, since these reports are required of
subdivisions. The requirement for a meander line ~'o feet above the recorded high water
elevation is unnecessary.(7~8~03)
(4)
c. A drainage plan for the area indicating the direction and rate of natural storm
water runoff and those unaltered areas where storm water collects and percolates
into the ground. A proposed drainage plan for the developed site indicating the
direction and rate of runoff, the path of all storm water discharge to the public
storm water infrastructure and those areas where storm water will collect and
percolate into the ground shall also be included. Storm water management shall
be consistent with the city's storm surface water management plan.
*The first change will ensure that staff is able to evaluate any inconsistencies in data or
problems that may occur as a result gf a subdivision's discharge through adjacent
properties. The second change will make the language consistent with the language used
throughout the rest of the city code.(7/9/03)
Sec. 18-41. Final Plat
(a) Unless otherwise provided in the development contract for phased development,
within one (1) year after the date of the city council approval of the preliminary plat, the
subdivider shall file an application for approval of the final plat. In addition to the
application the subdivider shall submit:
(1) Copies of the plat in such quantities as is required by the city;
(2) Two (2) mylar copies of the plat;
(3) One (1) two hundred (200) scale copy of the plat.
(4) 1"=200' scale mylar reductions of the final plat with just street names and
lot and block numbers.digital copy in .dxf format (the .dxf file must be tied to the
current county coordinate system) and a digital copy in .tif format (pdf
compatible) of the final plat shall be submitted. If the final plat application is not
filed within this period, the preliminary plat will be considered void unless for good
cause shown an extension is requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by the
city council prior to the one-year anniversary date of the preliminary plat approval. The
application for final plat approval shall be filed at least fq~te~w¢t44 twenty-one (21)
days prior to the meeting of the city council at which action is desired.
(b) The final plat shall conform to the requirements of this chapter and to all conditions
set forth in the approval of the preliminary plat as modified during final plat approval.
(c) The city council shall review the final plat and shall approve or disapprove it within
sixty (60) days of receipt of the completed application.
(d) No final plat shall be ap?r,~':cd by the city ...... ;~¢,~~ until the plat is in a form
acceptable for recording with the county, the proper filing fees have been paid to the city,
a development contract has been signed, appropriate security has been furnished, and no
other payments to the city related to the development are outstanding.
(e) Upon approval of the final plat by the city council, the city shall notify the applicant
of the approval and within thirty (30) days thereafter, the applicant or the city attorney
shall file the final plat with the county recorder and furnish the city evidence of such
recording. Failure of the applicant to comply shall be cause for revoking the city's
approval.
f) The developer shall pay the city a fee established by city council rese!ution to
reimburse the city for the cost of updating the city's base maps and geographic
information systems (GIS) data base files and converting the plat and record drawings
into an electronic format.
*This sentence lists the deadline for submitting a final plat for Council approval as 14
days prior to the Council meeting. Engineering staff has always used a three week (21
day) minimum for submitting a final plat prior to the Council meeting that it will be
considered. This is a more realistic deadline to ensure that staff'has sufficient time to
process the final plat report, development contract, administration tee calculation, etc.
The city requires the 1 "=200' scale mylar reductions of the final plat with iust street
names and lot and block numbers for addressing purposes. To facilitate the updating of
the xeographic information system, GIS, the city is requiring that plats be included in
electronic {brmat.
4
Sec. 18-56. Generally.
The proposed subdivision shall conform to the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance 'and
design handbook standards, and Chapter 20 of th Code. The design features set forth
in this article are minimum requirements. The city may impose additional or more
stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets and overall design as deemed
appropriate considering the property being subdivided.
*MCC recommendation.
Sec. 18-57, Streets. Subsection b:
b) Street right-of-way widths shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan and
official map, and shall conform to county and state standards for trunk highways. If no
such plans or standards are applicable, right-of-way and pavement widths shall not be
less than the following:
Street Right-of-Way Roadway/Pavement
Classifications Widths (feet) Width (feet)
Minor arterial 100 36 to-44
Collector 80 36
Local street (rural 60 24
residential)
Local street (urban 60 ~,~'~Q '~'~,~ J~'~ 31
residential)
60 36
Local street
(commercial/industrial)
Cul-de-sac, turnaround
radius (urban/residential)
Cul-de-sac, turnaround
radius(rural residential)
Cul-de-sac, turnaround
radius(commercial/industrial'
Private Street (Residential
Serving A-2, RR, RSF, R-4)
Private Street (Residential
Serving R-8, R-12, R-16)
Private Street
(commercial/industrial)
60 4-245.5
60 40
60
30
48
20
3040 24
-3040 26
5
* The table lists lhe allowable pavemeul widths for minor arterial streets as 36-44 feet.
The Planning Commission recommends that the minimum roadway width .for minor
arterials be 44 feet and the tninitnutn local street width be 32 feet. Engineerin,g
has used a standard street width of 36 feet for minor arterial streets. In addition, the
City's standard detail plate for urban streets only shows a 36-[bot wide street. The table
lists the allowable pavement widths Ibc local (urban) streets as 28-32 [bet. Engineerin,~
staff has used a standard street width o['31 [get for local (urban) streets. In addition, the
City's standard detail plate for urban streets only shows a 31-[bot wide street.
Engineering would like to eliminate the range and have 36 feet as the only listed
pavement width ['or minor arterials and 31 ['eel as the listed width for local urban streets.
Ifa ran,~e of slreet widths is allowed, enRineering believes that developers will
undoubtedly choose to build the least costly oplion, i.e., a 28-foot wide street. 7'his is in
direct conflict with what the City's standard has been in the past. To avoid confusion,
staff believes there should be one standard street width. Any deviation from lhe standard
would be approved as part of the subdivision review process as conditions warrant.
Section 18-56 (o) (7) requires a 40 foot easement Jar mullifamilv and commercial
industrial private streels.
Sec. 18-6 I. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements.
(a)
Required landscaping/residential subdivision.
(1) Each lot shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) deciduous tree to be
placed in the front yard. The type of tree shall be subject to city approval.
~r~.~ ~i, ..... ~,, ..... :'~ a ':o' ^r .... ~ Coniferous trees must be at least six
(6) feet high and deciduous trees must be at least two and one-half (2~/2)
inches in diameter at the time of installation. This requirement may be waived
by the city where the applicant can demonstrate that a suitable tree having a
minimum diameter of two and one-half (2~/2) inches for deciduous and six-
igh ...... .4 is located in an
foot he t for evergreen,~..,.~-a
appropriate location on the lot. The following trees may be used to meet
planting requirements:
*This distinction is confitsinj4 and unnecessary. Deciduous added for clarication
purposes. The landscaping is provided as part of the landscaping plan for the project.
The ordinance contains the list of species. (7/15/03)
Primary Specimen Common Name
Deciduous Trees
Acer saccharum Maple, Sugar or hard
Cao'a ovata Shagbark Hickory
Celtis occidentalis HackberO,
Juglans nigra Black Walnut
6
Quercus rubra Oak, Red
Quercus alba
Quercus bicolor
Quercu$ macrocarpa
Tilia americana
Oak, White
Oak, Bicolor
Oak, Bur
Linden, American
Acer rubrum spp. Maple, Red, all varieties
Acer x ~reemanii, spp. Maple, Freeman, all ~arieties
Acer sacc~harinum 'Silver gueen' Maple, Silver Oueen
Aesculus glabra Ohio Buckeye
Betula nigra Birch, River
Betula papyrifera Birch, paper
Betula pendula 'Dalecarlica' Birch, cut leqf weeping
Catalpa speciosa ~orthern Catalpa
Fraxinus "'
.met x ~.~ spp. Ash, ~ all varieties'
, :~,I ., ' . ~',,,,,t , .
7
Gleditsia triacanthos inermis, spp. Honeylocust, thornless - all varieties
~1~I;¢,.;.. ¢~; ........ tl ..... ' ...... ;,, '1 ....... ;.,1~ ~ ........ I ........ ¢ I .......
Gymnocladus dioicus CoJ~,etree, Kentuc~,
Tilia spp. Linden, all varieties
Ulmus spp. ELM, DED-resistant varieties
Ornamental
Acer ginnala Maple, Amur
Amelanchier spp. Sen,iceberry or Juneber~
Crataegus spp. Hawtho~te, all varieties
:l~(ltll~. t ...... ,,,t,, ,.,J ........ ., -'~ (',., ......
Malus / ..... ;
~ ......... sFccics)spp. Crabapple, assorted flowering-Varieties~
Ost~a virginiana Ironwood
Populus tremuloides Aspen
Sorbus spp, Ash, Mountain, all varieties
Phellodendron amurense Amur Corktree
Prunus ceras([era 'Newport' Plum, Newport
Prunus triloba Plum, flowering or Rose Tree of China
Prunus virginiana 'Schubert' Chokeberry, Schubert¢
Syringa reticulata Lilac, Japanese tree
8
Conifers
Abies balsamea
Abies concolor
Fir, Balsam
Fir, Concolor
Larix laricina Tamarack
Picea abies
Picea glauca
Picea
Spruce, Norway
Spruce, White
glauca densata Spruce, Black Hills
Picea pungens Spruce, Colorado Green
Pinus nigra Pine, Austrian
Pinus ponderosa Pine, Ponderosa
Pinus resinosa Pine, No~ay
Pinus strobus Pine, White
Pinus sylvestris Pine, Scotch
Pseudotsuga menziesii Fir, Douglas
Thuja occidentalis Arbo~itae
Thuja occidentalis 'Techny' Techny Arbon~itae
*ChanRes denote spellin,~ corrections and clarification of species. Deletions include
redundant mentions and poor selections.
(2) The tree(s) must be installed prior to receiving a certificate of occupancy or
financial guarantees acceptable to the city must be provided to ensure timely
installation.
* Granunatical correction.
(3) All areas disturbed by site grading and/or construction must be seeded or
sodded immediately upon completion of work to minimize erosion. When
certificates of occupancy are requested prior to the satisfaction of this
requirement, financial guarantees acceptable to the city, must be provided.
(4) No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after development. On-site
burial or burning is not permitted.
*Burning organic waste, such as wood, is a waste of resources. A variety of other
disposal options are available.
(5) Landscaped buffers around the exterior of the subdivision shall be required
by the city when the plat is contiguous with collector or arterial streets as
defined in the comprehensive plan and where the plat is adjacent to more
intensive land uses. Required buffering shall consist of berms and landscape
material consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or tree preservation
areas. No fences will be permitted between the required buffer and the
collector or arterial street. Where appropriate, the city may require
additional lot depth and area on lots containing the buffer so that it can be
adequately accommodated and the homes protected fi'om impacts. Lot
depths and areas may be increased by twenty-five (25) percent over zoning
district standards. The landscape plan must be developed with the
preliminary and final plat submittals for city approval. Appropriate financial
guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required.
(b) It is the policy of the city to preserve natural woodland areas throughout
the city and with respect to specific site development to retain as far as practical,
substantial tree stands which can be incorporated into the overall landscape plan.
(c) No ~ .......";~'~ or '"o~'~'~
............ ~, ........... areas tree removal shall be permitted except
as approved in a subdivision, planned unit development or site plan application.
Removal of trees prior to city approval will result in the issuance of a citation. The
cleared area shall be replanted at a rate of two (2) times the DBH inches (DBH
means diameter measured at breast height, 4.5 feet above the ground) of trees
removed, if known, or one (1) tree per 1,089 square feet of replacement area with
the required replacement area calculated at 1.5 times the canopy coverage area that
was removed. Additionally, the development review process shall be halted and the
developer shall be required to resubmit revised existing site condition and tree
inventory plans and new landscaping plans incorporating the additional planting
requirements.
*There have been several cases in which a developer has begun clearing be/'ore {i)zal
approval. This is a problem in case the subdivision isn't approved by the city. The
Planning Commission has previouslv stated that it would like to make the application
void and have the developer restart the process. Sta[f has added the language that the
development review process be halted and the developer resubmit plans recognhing the
changed conditions. Our concern is that the review deadline mav be exceeded. The
City Attorney's o,f,[ice concurred with sta[f's concern.
(d)
(1)
The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site
plans:
It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity of the natural
environment through the preservation, protection, and planting of trees. The
city finds that trees provide many benefits including: stabilization of the soil
by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm water
runoff and the costs associated therewith, improvement of air quality,
reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection
and increase of property values, protection of privacy, energy conservation
through natural insulation, control of drainage and restoration of denuded
10
(2)
soil subsequent to construction and grading, protection from severe weather,
providing habitat for birds and other wildlife, conservation and enhancement
of city's physical and aesthetic environment, reforestation of open lands, and
general protection and enhancement of the quality of life and general
welfare of the city. It is therefore the purpose of this section to provide
regulations related to the cutting, removal, or killing of trees on construction
and development sites and to ensure the protection and preservation of the
natural environment and beauty of the City of Chanhassen.
Prior to the submittal of development plans, a tree survey of the site shall be
prepared by a registered landscape architect, licensed forester, or other
professional approved by the city. This survey shall include the species,
DBH size (DBH means diameter measured at breast height, 4.5 feet
above the ground), condition, location of all significant, o~0;~
ot ...... , trees over
six inches in diameter and any damaged or diseased trees on site. All
significant special, damaged or diseased trees shall be tagged and identified
by number on the survey. A delineation of the existing canopy coverage
area(s) which outlines all areas covered by tree canopy shall be included as
part of the survey. Additionally, all damaged and diseased trees shall be
cataloged with the nature and extent of any damage or disease specified.
*Locating all trees over six inches in diameter is consistent with the sutn;e¥ requirements
for building permits.
a. Based on this survey and either site observation and measurement or a
current aerial photograph (taken within one (1) year of the date of plan
submittal) interpretation, the following shall be calculated:
1. Base line canopy coverage.
2. Minimum canopy coverage requirements.
The following table shall be used to determine the minimum amount of
canopy coverage that must be maintained or provided on-site as part of the
development. It shall represent the minimum canopy coverage, consisting of
existing tree canopy and/or additional trees required for the site. Existing
wetland areas located on site shall be excluded from the calculation of site
area in the determination of site coverage. If a forested area is to be
dedicated to the city for park land, then this area shall not be included in the
base line canopy coverage area calculation nor shall it county count towards
the minimum canopy coverage for the site.
Base Line Canopy Coverage Per Acre
Comprehensive Plan Designation 80-- 60--79% 40--59% '20--39% 19% or
100% less
Commercial/industrial/institutional 28% 25% 20% 14% 10%
High density residential 35% 30% 25% 20% 15%
Medium density residential 40% 35% 30% 25% 20%
11
Low density residential 55% 46% 35% 30% 25%
Large lot residential 68% 56% 43% 35% 25%
Base line canopy coverage is the canopy coverage existing at the time the development
application is filed with the city. Minimum canopy coverage is determined by using the
matrix.
Priority shall be given to retaining stands of trees and undisturbed wooded lands over
individual specimen trees that will be incorporated into the development. No more than
ten (10) percent of the canopy retention requirement may be met by an individual tree
that is not included within a designated woodland area.
For developments that do not meet the minimum canopy coverage, the developer shall be
required to develop a forestation plan to bring the total canopy coverage up to the
minimum requirement. Where existing woodlands are removed or there is a loss of trees
that would otherwise be used to meet the canopy coverage retention requirement, the
developer shall develop a woodland replacement plan. The replacement plan must
designate an area at least one and two-tenths (1.2) times the removed canopy coverage
area that shall be planted with replacement trees for those removed. These plans shall
locate additional trees either as a continuation of existing stands of trees that are to be
preserved or create new stands of trees in desirable locations such as along roadway
corridors, on the north and west perimeters of the development, in common open areas,
or adjacent to park facilities.
The following criteria shall be followed in establishing minimum canopy coverage:
l. When planting trees, one (1) tree shall be deemed to provide one thousand
eighty-nine (1,089) square feet of required canopy coverage;
2. Trees must be from the approved list of desirable species (preference given
for trees designated as native);
3. No more than one-third (~/.~) of the trees may be from any one (1) tree
species;
4. Trees shall average at least two-and-one-half-inch caliper and may be a
minimum of one-and-one-half-inch caliper;
5. Not less than twenty (20) percent of the trees shall be conifers;
6. Conifer trees shall average seven (7) feet and shall be a minimum of six (6)
feet in height;
7. Plant materials used for the reforestation shall be of a similar species as
vegetation found on site;
8. Trees shall be used that are appropriate to the soil conditions found on site;
and
9. Trees shall be from certified nursery stock as defined and controlled by
Minnesota Statute sections 18.44 through 18.61, the Plant Pest Act.
12
*The Woodland Management Plan does not lac'il#ate improved l%restrv management
procedures or increased awareness of building in wooded areas. It has not ser~,ed the
purpose intended and should be eliminated.
(4)
T~ ~4~1~ F.,~;1., .4~T.~oI~A .~o;A~t;,~I A~.,~l^~to tko qnnli~-,~t m,,ot
..... ;.~4 ~,k.,~l ....4 ....... '~ In order to calculate the tree removal area
on the lot, the applicant must estimate 8,400 square feet of tree removal area
* Grading and tree removal is usually misrepresented and underestimated on wooded
lots. This change would help minimize that problem. The intent is to recognize that the
tree impact area extends beyond the actual building. Tt,. t;'t~ ...... r .... v~ ......... ~ ....... the
(5)
Minimizing the tree loss should be achieved by any combination of the following:
a. Realignment of streets, utilities and lot lines.
b. Consideration of alternative utility configurations such as the use of ejector
pumps, force mains, or revised home elevations to minimize grading.
c. Reductions in street roadway width and right-of-way and increase in street
grade up to ten (10) percent when the applicant can demonstrate that
significant tree preservation is directly related to the modification.
d. Use of private dmo~ streets in lieu of public streets.
e. Variation in street radius and design speed.
f. Modified grading plans.
g. Within PUDs, the city council may consider waiving minimum lot area
requirements and/or density transfers as long as it can be demonstrated by
the applicant, that tree preservation can be enhanced. In no case shall overall
project densities exceed what is allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. The
13
(6)
greater the level of preservation, the greater flexibility will be considered by
the city.
h. Within PUDs, variations to building setback lines provided a minimum
twenty (20) foot building separation is maintained between buildings on
adjacent lots. The setback variations shall be established and recorded as
part of the plat approval.
Trees designated for preservation shall be protected by snow fences with clearly
marked signage specifying that the area is off limits for construction activities, or
other means acceptable to the city, prior to land preparation or construction
activities. Protective barriers in locations determined by the city must be4oeamd
~',~ ~,,~, ....... ~,,~ .... ,,,~o~' remain in place until all construction activities are terminated.
No equipment, chemicals, soil deposits, or construction materials shall be placed
within the protective bamers. All understory trees and natural vegetation should
be preserved within the boundaries of the protective areas. Where this protection
area cannot be maintained or would otherwise render lots undevelopable, an
alternate protection, mitigation or tree replacement plan may be considered and
approved by the city. This plan may include the use of retaining walls, installation
of aeration systems, requirement for post construction deep root fertilization and
soil aeration, or construction vehicle ramp systems. Failure to properly protect
trees during construction will result in a fine of $500 $100.00 per diameter
inch of tree(s) harmed, removed or destroyed.
*It is unreasonable to require tree protection {kncing located 12x the diameter of the
tree. This generally makes wooded lots unbuildable. Tree protection should be required,
but it's location should be field located at each site. While the city may be serious about
protecting trees during construction, many developers and builders are not. A penalty
.for failing to protect trees is needed to quickly and effectively remedy the situalion. Staff'
had originally proposed $500 per diamenler inch. City Council felt that this was too
ornerous and not fair or equitable. There is a dif~brence between whether trees are
removed accidentially or purposely, and proving the difference would be very difficult if
not intpossible. Staff reviewed the City of Plwnouths requirement which is $100 per
diameter inch and is proposing that amount as part of the code.
(7)
(8)
At the city's discretion, conservation easements may be required to protect
designated tree preservation areas. Such easements shall be permanently marked
and signed as a conservation area with low profile monumentation acceptable to
the city. A monument is required for' each three hundred (300) linear feet of tree
conservation area. Within designated woodland areas, the city shall encourage the
use of indigenous grasses and plant species to more closely resemble a natural
area. Home owners associations shall be responsible for the maintenance of
vegetation in common areas. Individual property owner's shall be responsible for
the maintenance of vegetation on their property. The planting of trees in excess of
those required by this ordinance is permitted within the designated woodland area.
During the removal process, trees shall be removed so as to prevent blocking of
public rights-of-way or interfering with overhead utility lines.
14
(9)
(10)
(11)
The removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they cannot be
saved. These trees shall not be counted when computing the base line tree canopy
coverage.
If any protected significant trees are removed or killed or there is a loss of trees as
the result of construction activities, the city requires replacement at the rate of two
(2) c-ahp~ diameter inches per each inch of DBH of the removed, killed, or lost
trees. The replacement trees shall be at least two and a half (21/2) inches ~
diameter and will be species that conform to the List of Desirable Tree Species
for Planting in Chanhassen. No more than one-third (1/3) of the trees may be fi'om
any one (1) tree species. Other species or sizes may be used as replacement trees
subject to approval by the city. Alternately, at the city's discretion, if a developer
removes trees within a protected area, the canopy coverage area shall be
calculated for that area and a replacement area one and one-half (1.5) times the
canopy coverage area that was removed shall be planted. One tree shall be planted
for each one thousand eighty-nine (1,089) square feet of required replacement
area. Trees shall be from the list of desirable tree species, no more than one-third
(I/3) of trees from any one (1) tree species, average two-and-one-half-inch ~
diameter with a minimum one-and-one-half-inch c-ahpe, diameter, a similar
species as vegetation existing on site, and appropriate to the soil conditions. Any
replacement trees that cannot be planted on the original site due to space
restrictions shall be planted on city property at locations to be determined by the
city.
Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required to ensure
satisfactory installation of landscaping requirements.
*The city only requires guarantee ofithe landscaping installation. Stating it twice wax
redtmdant.
Sec. 18-63. Surface water management.
(b)
In accordance with the city's surface water management plan as a condition of
subdivision approval, subdividers shall pay a water quality and water quantity
connection charge. The charge shall be based upon the gross area of the
subdivision less the area to be dedicated to the city for ponding, parks and
wetland, and right-of-way for state highways, county roads, and local arterial
roadways. The subdivision will be given a credit for any on site stormwater
improvement which has been oversized to serve property outside the subdivision.
The charge for lots oversized due to individual on site sewage disposal and water
systems will be reduced to the charge that would be imposed on a one-half (1/2)
acre lot. An additional charge will then be imposed if the lot is further subdivided
less a credit for the charge previously paid. The charge shall be paid in cash
before the subdivision is approved by the city unless the city and subdivider agree
that the charge may be assessed against the property. Property being subdivided
15
shall be exempt from the water quality and water quantity connection charges
imposed by this section if the charges were paid or assessed in conjunction with a
previous subdivision of the property and if the property is not being zoned to a
classification with a higher charge. Thc amount of this charge shall he
*This change will allow the charge to be ad/usted automatically based on changes to a
standard cost index. A change is state statute requires adoption o{'most lees by
ordinance. The City has incorporated all the {'ees in Chapter 4. hzclusion o{'language
such as this would be appropriately located i, Chapter 4.
Sec. 18-78. Required improvements. Subsection(b) (5)
Sidewalks may ..... be required "n "* ~.o, .... ;.~ ..e .n ~.~ o,.~,o Th
following criteria shall be used in determining if sidewalks are to be included
in a development:
b. Along ~n ~,h,,. streets: .... ini~]llll = r,~, ..,;d~ concrete o;a .....
c. On cu! dc sac streets: the sidewalk shall end at thc circle or bubb!e
a. Sidewalks that connect to existing sidewalks.
b. Sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to schools, parks and
neighborhood commercial areas.
c. Sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to existingand proposed trails as
shown in the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive plan.
*Staff is proposing that standards be established {hr sidewalks and trails. The Planning
Commission recommended that sidewalks be tnandatory. The Parks and Recreation
Commission recommends that re. ferences to trails be deleted. City Council did not
want to require sidewalks outright~ but rather~ develop criteria to determine when
sidewalks should be included in a development.
Sec. 18-79. Park land dedication requirements.
16
(f) Land area conveyed or dedicated to the city shall not be used in calculating
density requirements of the cit:~ ....bUllll,~ ..... ''1 '[ll'¢''~: ....... chapter 20 and shall be in
addition to and not in lieu of open space requirements for planned unit
developments.
*MCC recommendation.
Minnesota Statutes
462.358 Procedure to effect plan: subdivision regulations.
Subdivision 1. Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35
Subd. la. Authority. 7b protect and promote the public health, safe(v, and general
welfare, to provide,&r the orderly, econonlic, and sqfi' developnlent of land, to preserve
agricultural lands, to promote the availability of housing affordable to persons and
families q[ all income levels, and to facilitate adequate provision.for transportation,
water, sewage, storm drainage, schools, parks, playgrounds, and other public services
and facilities, a municipality may by ordinance adopt subdivision regulations
establishing standards, requirements, and procedures for lhe review and approval or
disapprowll of subdivisions. The regulations may contain varied provisions respecting,
and be made applicable only to, certain classes or kinds of subdivisions. The regulations
shall be un({brm for each class or kind of subdivision.
A municipality may by resolutiou extend the application el'its subdivision regulations
to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction but not
in a town which has adopted subdivision regulations; provided that where two or more
noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than four miles apart, each is
authorized to control the subdivision of land equal distance from its boundaries within
this area.
Subd. 2. Repealed, 1980 c 566 s 35
Subd. 2a. Terms of regulations. The standards and requirements in the regulations
may address without limitation: the size, location, grading, and improvement of lots,
structures, public areas, streets, roads, trails, walkways, curbs and gutters, water supply,
storm drainage, lighting, sewers, electricity, gas, and other utilities; the planning and
design of sites; access to solar energy; and the protection and conservation of flood
plains, shore lands, soils, water, vegetation, energy, air quality, and geologic and
ecologic features. The regulations shall require that subdivisions be consistent with the
municipality's official map if'one exists and its zoning ordinance, and may require
consistency with other official controls and the comprehensive plan. The regulations
may prohibit certain classes or kinds Q[ subdivisions in areas where prohibition is
consistent with the comprehensive plan and the purposes of this section, particularly lhe
preservation of agricultural lands. The regulations may prohibit, restrict or control
17
development.fi~r liw purpose qf protecling and assuring access lo direct sunlight for solar
energy systems. The regulations may prohibit the issuauce Qf permils or approvals.[br
any lracts, lots, or parcels for which required subdivision approval has not been
obtained.
The regulations may pennit the municipality to condition its approval on the
construction and installation of sewers, streets, electric, gas, drainage, and water
facilities, and similar utilities and improvements or, in lieu thereo.~i on the receipt by the
municipaliU of a cash deposit, certified check, irrevocable letter qf credit, or bond in an
amount and with surety and conditions sqffi'cient to assure the municipaliU that lite
utilities and improventents will be constructed or installed according to the specifications
of the municipality. Sections 471.34.5 and .574.26 do not apply to improvements made by'
a subdivider or a subdivider's contractor.
The regulations may permit the municipality to condition its approval on compliance
with other requirements reasonably related to the provisions of the regulations and to
execute development contracts embodying the terms and conditions of approval. The
municipality may enforce such agreements and conditions by appropriate legal and
equitable remedies.
Subd. 2b. Dedication. The regulations may require that a reasonable portion qf any
proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as streets,
roads, sewers, electric, gas, and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas
or ponds and similar utilities and improvements.
In addition, the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed
subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for
public use as parks, recreational facilities as defined and outlined in section 471.191,
playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may
choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the
portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the.fair market
value of the land no later than at the tinw of final approval, (b) any cash payments
received shall be placed in a 3pecial fund by the municipality used only for the purposes
.for which the money was obtained, (c) in establishing the reasonable portion to be
dedicated, the regulations may consider the open ,space, park, recreational, or con,non
areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d)
the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land
for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a result of approval of the subdivision.
18
Tree Removal Calculations
Using total diameter inches
Sample 1
Burlwood
Maple Grove:
Total Diameter inches of trees 8" and larger:
Need to retain 70% of total: 846"
Inches lost: 342"
Inches saved: 866"
No replacement required
1208"
Existing Chanhassen ordinance:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 5.27 ac. or 229,583 SF
Baseline canopy coverage 35% or 80,941 SF
Minimum canopy coverage allowed 30% or 68,875 SF
Proposed tree preservation 13 % or 30,142 SF
Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the
difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by
1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage (68,875 - 30,142)
Multiplier
Total replacement
Total number of trees to be planted
38,733 SF
1.2
46,480 SF
43 trees (46.480 + 1089)
Eden Prairie:
((A/B)x C) x A = D
Significant trees: 12" and greater deciduous, 8" and larger coniferous
A=Total inches of significant trees lost as a result of land alteration
B= Total inches of significant trees existing on site
C=Tree replacement constant (1.33)
D=Replacement trees (number of caliper inches)
A= 198
B= 902
((198/902) x 1.33) x 198: 58 (29 two-inch trees)
Sample 2
Ashling Meadows
Maple Grove:
Total Diameter inches of trees 8" and larger:
Need to retain 70% of total: 967
Inches lost: 123
Inches saved: 1258
No replacements required
1381
Existing Chanhassen ordinance:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 35.2 ac.
Baseline canopy coverage .03% or 1.22 ac.
Minimum canopy coverage allowed 25% or 8.8 ac.
Proposed tree preservation .02% or 0.82 ac.
Developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the
difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by
1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings.
Difference in canopy coverage 17,424 SF or .4 ac.
Multiplier 1.2
Total replacement 20,909 SF
Total number of trees to be planted 19 trees
In addition, the applicant must increase canopy coverage to meet the minimum
twenty-five percent required. The calculations are follows:
Total reforestation area (8.8 - 1.22 ac.) 7.6 ac. or 331,056 SF
Required canopy coverage 304 trees
Eden Prairie:
((A/B)x C) x A = D
Significant trees: 12" and greater deciduous, 8" and larger coniferous
A=Total inches of significant trees lost as a result of land alteration
B= Total inches of significant trees existing on site
C=Tree replacement constant (1.33)
D=Replacement trees (number of caliper inches)
A= 98
B= 1356
((98/1356)x 1.33) x 98 = 5 (Two 2 1/2" trees required)
Survey Results
City Tree Removal Calculations
City Policy Notes
Plymouth Residential developments may Significant trees: at least 8"
remove or disturb up to 50% of the DBH decidous,
total inches of significant trees.
Removal beyond 50% requires
replacement plantings at a rate of
1.25" for every 1" removed.
Chaska Wooded areas with slopes <18% can
be developed. Retention of
substantial tree stands encouraged.
Minnetonka Developer not responsible for Significant trees: at least 8"
replacing trees removed within ROW, DBH deciduous, at least 15'
within and 20' around building pad, coniferous
within and 10' around driveway.
Developers do not have to plant more
than 25 trees/acre. Signficant trees
removed outside of the areas listed
above are replace at a rate of tree-to-
tree. Significant trees removed on site
within two years prior to a
development application must be
replaced tree-for-tree.
Eden Prairie Replacements required for any Significant trees: 12" and
significant trees lost due to grading or greater deciduous, 8" and
land alteration. Replacement are larger coniferous
calculated by ((A/B)x C) x A = D A=Total inches of significant
trees lost as a result of land
alteration
B= Total inches of significant
trees existing on site
C=Tree replacement constant
(1.33)
D=Replacement trees (number
of caliper inches)
Maple Grove
Subdivisions: 70% of the total tree inches for
trees 8" and larger must be protected. If more
than 30% are removed, the excess shall be
replaced at a ratio of 1.5" for every inch
removed.
R-I, R-2, R-3: Builder shall replace trees
removed in building pad area, measured by
calculating the area from the lot line to a line
85' behind the front lot line and extendin~g
across the width of the lot. The builder is
required to replace trees removed in that area
at a rate of 1/2" replacement for every inch
removed <8", 1.,5" replacement for trees 8"-
11", 2" replacement for trees > 11". Trees
protected within the area may count towards
replacement at a rate of 2" of replacement for
every inch preserved.
Attached single-family and apartments: 40%
of the total DBH inches must be retained after
construction. If more than 60% are removed,
the excess shall be replaced at a rate of 1.5"
for every 1" removed.
PUD: 70% of the total tree inches for trees 8"
and larger must be protected. If more than
30% are removed, the excess shall be replaced
at a ratio of 2" for every inch removed.
Industrial: 40% of the total tree inches for
trees 8" and larger must be protected. If more
than 60% are removed, the excess shall be
replaced at a ratio of 1.5" for every inch
removed.
Commercial: 30% of the total tree inches for
trees 8" and larger must be protected. If more
than 70% are removed, the excess shall be
replaced at a ratio of 1.5" for every inch
removed.
Commercial and Industrial PUDs: 40% of the
total tree inches for trees 8" and larger must be
protected. If more than 60% are removed, the
excess shall be replaced at a ratio of 2" for
every inch removed.
AVERAGE BUILDING ENVELOPES
ADDRESS SQUARE FEET BUILDING PAD
Bent Bow Trail 2019.28 62x51
Hallgren Lane 2013.91 56x46
Highover Drive 2055 70x42
Hunter Drive 2463.33 71x51
Majestic Way 1959.25 66x40.5
Point Lake Lucy 2970.66 79.5x50
Red Oak Lane 2018.5 66x51.5
Saphire Lane 2536.5 69x55
Springfield Drive 1848.46 60x45
Stone Creek Lane 1833.0 70x31
Topaz Drive 2803.98 79x53
White Oak Lane 2190.11 66x47
Average Size 2226.00
Average Length x Width 68x47
l~os
/
/
/
? ~L~
985,2)
985.2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 7, Block 1,
QAK RIDGE OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA
976.7 x
. 984.0 . - ~ a
~=60. O0
R=50. O0
984~'2 x
(984.2) ~' 986.0
~GREN
LANE
3050 Harbor Lane l~c.
Pl~outh, MN 55447
Phone: (672) 559-0908
Revised: 5-26-97
Reviaed: 5--12-97
~..~ ~ ~,.,~ ~,~ ~, ,
~' '' '~;~%' Proposed garage floor elev.= 986.0
o Denotes iron monument Z~'bPP~ " ~ "~' "' "~-'~
' *" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'/~"'~'~posed I~%--fi.e~r~-~e~, = 986.
(000.0) Denotes proposed elev: ' '¢.¢.¢~'¢,.F:,.,~ Pr'oposed t~.,-o~,*f~u~¢.i~n,,,.81~.= 978.35
Denotes surface druineg(~ L/l/i¢ti~::) .~ ¢~;c:',./c~:¢s' ~>4}t- F'Icr¢ BEtdC~tfi.¢ARK'¢ Top of iron rnr]rked "BM" on this
i
-. , /
HY-LAND SURVEYING,
LAND SURVEYORS
[6'~G,~ Proposed fop of Block
10'3~'~ Proposed Garage Floor 871)0 Jefferson 11ighway
Osseo, Minnesota 55.569
]02-6,~ P~oposed Lowesl Floor (7(;5) 493-5761
EROSIO~
CON[RO~
¢ ~ X, INSTALL TYPE,S%
O / 'ULLY VEGE]ATED; DUR.N
~ ~ J ~ ~O,SIRUCTION STAKED HAY BALES
'~ ~ //'~ BE USED IN LIEU OF ~ENClN~
~/~
,¢5.5
· 'log~.1
P.A.
INVOICE NO I9,067 186
F.B. NO.
SCALE I"= 30'
Denotes Iron Monument
Denotes Wood Hub Set
For Excavation Only
Denotes Existing Elevation
Denotes Proposed Elevation
Denotes Surface Drainage
I'kPPROVED
IDEPT~
J aY~
JDEPT.j
LOI 14, BLOCK 4, HIGHOVER
The only eoseme*qs shown are from plots of record o[ information provided by client.
I hereby certify that Ibis survey wes prepared by me or under
my direct supervision, and that I om o duly Registered Land
Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesofo,
Surveyed by us this 21ST day of FEBRUARY , 20 0~00 _
........ /REVISED: 3 ~-~
Signed
Hyland, Minn.~. No. 20262
Milton
E.
SURVEY FOR:LUNDGREN BROS. CONST.
x988.5
:988.5)
(987.5)
\ \
\
·
~' ' ~-, / J ~ ~1
EDGE OF BITUMINOUS DR~
S89'12'54" W a r °in ° g eW~T~l~ G ~¢
DEVIATIO~,I FfiOM GRADING PLAN
BENCHMARK:
GENERAL NOTES:
1. · - Denote~ iron monument.
2. x§gO.o Denotes existing spot elevotion.
3. ~(890.0) - Oenotes proposed s~t elevotlon.
4.~ - Oenotes direction of surfoce droinoge.
5. Proposed 9ocegs floo¢ ~ 1~0.6 (drop goroge 4
40 0 40 80 120 Feet
~ ~ I- 7 J d
Esl~btished in 1967
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. ,NVOICE O. ' .
LAND SURVEYORS SCALE I": 20'
o Denotes Iron Monument
REGISTERED UNDER LAWS OF STATE OF MINNF~OTA ~ Denotes 'Wood Hub Set
7601 - 73rd Avenue North 560-3093 For Excavation O~ly
Minneapoli~[Mlrme~ot~ 55428 xO00.O Denotes Exlsllng Elevation
JMS COMPANIES ~ Denoles Proposed Elevation
Property located ~n Section'- ./~O.~ Proposed Top Of Block
10, Township H6, Range ~3,
Carver County, Minnesota ~,~ Proposed Goroge Floor .
??~,¢ Proposed Loweit Floor
Type of Building -
~ I~Fo,,v ll~r~r~v.
Lot 4, Block 1, ROYAL OAK ESTAIES
Proposed building informoUon must be checked with approved building
plan before excavation and construction.
The 001¥ ~l~¢r~qt$ I~own a~e f~ plate of ~ ~ Inf~tlon provl~ ~
clot,
~ ~ ~dl~ t~t ihl~ la a I~ ~ ~t re~e~talion of a su~y of t~
~s of t~ ~ ~d~ ~ ~ t~ ~tI~ of ~1 ~lldings ~d vis-
~u~thl. 91ti ~of November 19 94
' ///~mond A. Prosch/l~inn>'R.e~/~o, 674~
Ot_O
'ts~ 0
,(
~ ¢°
~ ~°
145.00
N01°44'50" W
* PIONEER
Certificate of Survey for: WESLEY
4137 RED OAK LANE
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendoto Heights, MN 55120
(651) 681-1914 FAX: 681-9488
E-moil: PIONEE[,:~:~:~RESSENTER COM
625 Highwoy 10 N.E
Bloine, MN 5543~
(,612) 78;~-1880 FAX:785-1883
E moil: PIONEER2(~PRESSENTLR.COM
CONSTRUCTION
$2,:7,,:70,2~,,~.2 S88'23'11"E 73.93
~ ~"),~ ~ 985.4 ~3 7
~7 ~; / ~ DRAINAGE ~ UTILITY ~ 5
· t;~ :~ ,... ~ L~ EASEMENT PER PLA~
,... L~-~ ~{~ ~.o ,o 92¢ ~
.... ~ ~ k ' y985'1 17.3~ , 984.77 ·
~//~ ~ k 20. '~_
BENCH MARK ¢¢~ ~ ELEV,=984 62
TOP OF PIPE ~¢
S89'27'51"E 100.00 ~
~ss.s s~.z_ ~8~.o APR 1 6 199~
RED OAK LANE
PROPOSED ROUSE ELEVATION
NOTE; BUILDINO DIMENSIONS SHD~ ARE FOR HORIZONTAL ANO ~RTICAL LOCATION ~OP OF BLOCK ELEVATION:
OF STRUCTURES ONLT, SEE ARC*ITEC,UAL PLANS FOR BUILDING AND
FOUNDATION DIMENSIONS. GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION:
WE HEREBY CERTIFY TO WESLEY CONSTRUCTION THAT THIS 15 A tRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A
SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF:
LOT 20, BLOCK ~, OAKS OF MINNEWASHTA
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
EXCEP~ AS SHOWN, AS SURVEYED BY ME OR
~ ~7 DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCHROACHMEN1S,
SION NEER ENOl P A
i ~CAL~E9 ] IooIN~K~ 50 FEET BY:~~
L.5. ~eg. Nm ~9828
18 1 9
I_ ~ -' , '" '"'
rtl
PIONEER
~n~ineering
2422 Enterprise Drive
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
(612) 681-1914 FAX: 681-9486
Certificate of
Survey
for: LUNDGREN
I 6
25 Highwoy 10 N.E.
81oine, MN 55454
(612) 783-1880 FAX: 783-188.3
BROS. CONST.
0
916.2
917,1 ~'- SERVICE
916.0
\\ 909.9 x
. UTILITY
\ x/i/ ~ ER PLAT~
N 88'24'13"E 71.58
BENCFt MARK
lOP OF PIPE
ELEF=91~.~~
910.6
'%
,,.d~xs 9os.2
914.0
914.9
~BENCH MARK
TOP OF PIPE
ELEV.=914.35
2
903.1
PROPOSED HOUSE ELEVATION
LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION:
TOP OF BLOCK ELEVATION:
GARAGE SLAB ELEVATION: ~ [~,~_
X 000.00 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
( 000.00 ) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION
-- -- -- DENOTES DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
) DENO~S DRAINAGE FLOW DIRECTION
~ DENOTES MONUMENT
[] DENOTES OFFSET HUB
VVE HEREBY CERTIFY TO LUNDGREN BROS. CONST, THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A
SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF: CO~,~'FACT DEVELOPER FOR
LOT 3, BLOCK 4, SPRINGFIELD 2ND ADDITION sAm'~'~.Y ~W~R ~.m~. wA'r~rt
CARVER COUNTY. MINNESOTA ~EVIf".E LOCATIO~
IT DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW IMPROVEMENTS OR ENCttROACHMENTS, EXCEPT AS SHOWN, AS SURVEYED BY ME OR
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION THIS 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 1998. ~ /¢ ~
· S~NE~.~'/PIONEER ENGIN~P.A.
SCALE : 1 INCH = 30 FEET
~2~ UlS~'r~ ~rson. L S
FOR:
HANS HAGEN HOMES
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS:
GARAGE FLOOR =
TOP OF BLOCK =
LOWEST FLOOR =
TOP OF FOOTINS =
./
S 88"41 89.06
52.16
19.0 o 3
c~ Garage House
~ J (6'po~red bo~ment)
30.0
?¢4,6 A
DIAO: 92.00X31.30= g7.18 ~9.~ ~
~ DENOTES PROPOSED TION.
x989.6 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION.
125.83
S88°34 '20" W
DENOTES DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE.
DENOTES WOOD HUB AT 11 FOOT OFFSET.
: ..~... 54.67 --.\
Lot 6, Block 1, STONE CREEK SIXTH ADDITION, Carver County, Minnesota
Sc:a,e i"= 30' ] 0 Denotes ran Monument Set ~ I
~ j ~ Denotes Iron Monument Found Job No, ~606
Bearings shown are on an (assumed datum. Drown By:
We i:ereby certify that this is o true and correct representation of
a survey of the boundaries of the above described land end of the
location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments,
if any, tram or on said land. E.G./.J~U~__S~, .[~C.
D~ted this_ ~'7~/~ay of /~,, 199~___ Minnesota License No..
02 FT
CANT
corner fo/is in /dH I
/nv=9?L05
1::1ev=983. 71
OV.O. ZO. ~009)
..f'"--8ou/der Retolning Wotl
! os required
~--edge of bit
×9808!
X97~59
/i
/
× 988. 5,5 ~
98~84
988.18
found
T0-40062
hole
~Tu//d/'ng Perm/t Survey
on Lot ?0, Bloc~( ~,
OAHSTM OF M/NNE~ASH?A,
!
Ol o o ; by
APPROVED
DEPT: ~
DATE: ~'~'~'/I
DEPT: ff ~ ¢
Jon Raue
Dote:
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
3. The applicant shall show the location of the existing driveway on the survey.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 OF CITY CODE~ SUBDIVISIONS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Feik: You know Bob can we, just let everybody know, let's just do this as sort of an
open comment as you would. Otherwise if everybody saves our comments to the end.
Papke: What page are you on again?
Generous: Unfortunately I was looking at the ordinance and I was on page 2 of the
ordinance but it was Section number 4 of the ordinance. I don't know if that's the best
way to proceed with that. Maybe I should just go over areas of contention or if you have
questions.
Feik: Yeah, the reason I want to mention that because I had a question regarding that 500
feet. You know 500 feet has come up numerous times over the years, whether 500 feet's
adequate. Is it adequate for all applications? Is it applicant for a bakery? It's going to be
a different notice I would think requirement for a bakery for somebody else putting up a
fence. I'm wondering, and maybe this isn't the time but, I'm not sure that's adequate.
Slagle: Can I ask, where are you seeing?
Feik: The 500 feet, I'm still on page 1.
Generous: Page I of the ordinance, Section 18-39(a).
Feik: I know that is our ordinance and ! know we've got to address what we've got in
front of us but.
Generous: And we have been trying to go beyond in instances. I know like when I did
the hotel I went up into the new neighborhood in Arboretum Village because the 500 feet
didn't go past West 78th Street so we tried to get everyone on Century Boulevard. Yeah,
it's, our ordinance provides more distance in it than state statute requires it.
Slagle: Do you have any sense as to how our compares to other communities?
Generous: I think we have, the ones that I've seen, we have more, the distance required
in the notice.
Lillehaug: I think when we sat down to discuss this before and we did discuss this 500
feet, I think we kind of looked at it as a balance cost wise too. I mean if we go 1,000 feet,
33
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
I mcan is that reasonable to send out, I mean 1,000 feet might, 1,000 feet just straight
across the board might encompass quite a few.
Papke: Yeah, because it's surface area. When you double it, you quadruple the number
of potential residents you're contacting so.
Slagle: I think what I would just throw out to fellow commissioners is again we .just ask
staff to be, oh what's the word. Be aware of in certain situations because to be quite
honest with you, little disappointed in the last meeting's review of that business. The
landscape, snow removal and then today's bakery, that we didn't think to go to the
neighborhood just on the other side of that...by the apartments. And I know that's an
oversight so I'm not being critical but I just think, if we have, if I have your trust that,
trust you that you'll.
Generous: And this is something we could also bring up at our work session.
Feik: Well I don't even think the landscaper got to the apartment building. Tonight's did
but the landscaper was outside of that. I don't believe it was. Alright.
Generous: I would skip to page 3. It's Section 8 of the ordinance. It starts there. Under
the existing ordinance we have a range for the arterial and local streets. The Planning
Commission last time had stated a preference for going with the maximum. Staff is
recommending that we go with what our detail plates show. We're recommending that
everyone come in for a variance on it. Well that was the previous city engineer. So
that's one of the discussion items if we want to go forward on that. Go with the detail
plate. Would you like to reaffirm your recommendation that we go with the maximum
under our ordinance?
Lillehaug: I would like to throw out 31 feet. I guess when I'm working with other cities
I see 32 feet because you have two standard 12 foot lanes and then you have two standard
4 foot shoulders so that's 32 feet, and that would meet state aid standards. 31 feet, you're
cutting it by one foot. I mean we're splitting hairs here but do you see an issue with that
Matt at the 31 feet and is that a standard that the city's been using for years and years?
Saam: The 31 is yeah. At least since I've been here and previous year's plans that I've
seen. But I guess from an engineering standpoint we don't have a problem with 32. Now
developers may have a problem with 32 and it might impact environmental features, what
have you but yeah we just, like Bob said, we're trying to stick with what our standard has
been, at least in the recent past per our detail plates. So I do want to point out the only
thing that we varied on page 4 from what you previously recommended was that local
street width of 31. I think you had recommended 32. You as a Planning Commission
and we have 31 in there so everything else we've gone with your previous
recommendations on. I just want to point that out.
Lillehaug: And the only reason you switched is because so 31 meets the standard plates.
34
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Saam: Yeah.
Lillehaug: You didn't want to switch the standard plate'?
Saam: We sure can but it's, i guess that's what we amved at after internal discussions.
Lillehaug: I guess I'm okay with 31 feet.
Slagle: I am too.
Generous: While there was a lot of.
Feik: Excuse me, go ahead.
Generous: I'm sorry. Next is under the landscaping section. We took out a lot of the
redundant requirements and some trees that weren't, we don't like to see anymore. We
had some invasive species. We had some maple trees that were, or conifer trees that
while they grow fast here don't live long and so Jill said let's slim down this and get rid
of a lot of the redundancies. If we're going to say a species and a lot of varieties, let's
just list it once. All of the subdividers that come in have landscape professionals that
help them create those plans so we're trying to get out of the being too prescriptive there.
And so the significant change would be on Section 18-61 (c).
Slagle: 7. Top of page 7.
Generous: Top of page 7, right.
Lillehaug: Can we hit on that quick like?
Generous: Yes.
Lillehaug: So really what that says is if they're beyond the development review process,
then you're going to enforce basically the replacement ratio there?
Generous: Yes, and they'll have to resubmit plans to show those changes so that
basically it tells you that the Planning Commission would table it at that point when they
found out that they can't go with those.
Slagle: If I may though Bob, we table it. It comes back to us. You remind us that it's on
a timeline. And you know basically you know we need to approve it or reject it, and as
we found out two meetings ago, an applicant can tear down all the trees they want and
then have to replace it at a ratio that we show here, but it could be in a city park. Or it
could be anywhere in the city.
Generous: If they don't fit on the site. And if they're tearing down that many trees we
would require to be on site.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Slagle: I guess you know, my question is this. Simply put we have an applicant, and I
don't need to go into names, tears down a bunch of trees north of Lake Minnewashta and
you know they pay a fine or who knows. I haven't heard exactly what happened, but
they're replacing trees and it could be beautiful, mature trees are now gone and we have
trees that I can't even tell you for sure that we maintain some periodic inventory to see if
they're still growing. And I just don't see any penalties other than replace. Why not a
citation? Why not a stopping of the process and a resubmittal of an application?
Feik: Why not forfeiture of a portion of the escrow or the.
Generous: Well at this stage we wouldn't have any of that.
Slagle: Well why wouldn't we have landscaping escrow?
Feik: Well because the application is incomplete so he doesn't have the, either the bond
or an escrow or a letter of credit posted yet. Correct?
Generous: There's no conditions that he has to comply with.
Feik: But you could change it and say that the application must, a new application must
be completed or submitted with a revised tree condition. I mean start the process from
zero.
Generous: But the clock doesn't start from zero is what the city attorney's office...
Feik: We can't say the application is deemed incomplete at that time?
Generous: Well you could recommend, instead of tabling it they'll deny it or approve
without a condition. That they do something. Here we're saying if you go in and you
have a site that's wooded and you go and you start removing trees while you're in this
process, you're going to have to give us new information because our tree preservation
calculations are based on what they submit originally and if they're changing that original
submittal information then we need to get that data. So at least you'd have more accurate
data information.
Slagle: If you listen to what you're saying Bob, i mean so I come to you with a tree
survey that shows 120 mature trees. And in the eom'se of working through staff and what
not, I then go and cut down 110 of them illegally, or however you want to phrase it.
Prematurely. Whatever the word is. So what you're saying is, oops. I'm son'y. Now I
just have to give you a survey that shows 10 trees. And now you're going to tell me
where to replace them or how many I have to replace.
Generous: But we'd have the previous information so they'd have to show the trees
being removed.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: From where?
Generous: Because the original submittal would have that 100 and whatever, 60 trees.
The new submittal would show that they have 50 trees, or so much canopy area less and
so we're already counting that as being removed.
Feik: All this does to me is ensure that the developer knocks the trees down before they
pull, start the application.
Generous: Well and that's something we need to clarify...
Feik: Knock them down 2 months before any discussion of an application and then they
don't ever have to count them.
Slagle: And what if they do that? What's the penalty? What do they sufi-'er?
Feik: Nothing.
Generous: Well no clear cutting is permitted without, except through the site plan,
subdivision or building permit process. Violation of the ordinance is a misdemeanor.
Feik: Yeah but we had one in front of us a year and a half ago that was on a hillside with
lots of trees, that was actually, it was an outlot. Next to an outlot and was actually zoned
agricultural. The owner could knock all the trees down and say he's going to plant corn,
and then decide not to. You know, there's nothing you can do about that stuff. Alright. I
don't know, any suggestions? Gentlemen?
Slagle: Well if I could say, I would hope, if I may, the city attorney and planning, I mean
I would hope that we'd be able to come up with some measure of, what's the word l'm
thinking of. To create some penalty, phase, action, that would prevent any of us from
going and clear cutting trees if we were going to be requesting some action on the city for
a development or something.
Feik: Well is there no letter of credit posted with the application?
Generous: No, because those are based on compliance with certain criteria.
Slagle: So it's a misdemeanor threat if you will of clear cutting I guess.
Generous: Yes. Also there's economic self interest for developers. There's a premium
paid for wooded lots. You would hope that they would use that as part of their reasoning
when they do the development.
Slagle: Depends on where you want the woods.
Generous: Well that's.
37
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: What's your next item Bob'?
Slagle: What page are we jumping to Bob'?
Generous: Section 18-61(d)(4). It's page 9. Now this is one that Jill recommended. The
previous ordinance said show a 60 by 60 pad to estimate tree removal. She said 8,400
square feet. Just say that 8,400 square feet of this site is going to have tree removal if
there's trees within that 8,400 square feet development.
Slagle: Is that easy for people to understand?
Lillehaug: I read it about 10 times and I don't understand it.
Generous: We took a look at it and she said maybe the first 100, she wanted to go 110
feet. 115 feet of the lot, say that you're going to clear everything out of there to estimate
the tree removal.
Lillehaug: I just don't understand how it's written there. I mean I can't, without the stuff
that's crossed out before and after it, I wouldn't know what that means. I really
wouldn't.
Feik: But if you just put comma, after 8,400 square feet comma, or 60 by 60. That'd
give you some grounds to interpret how that 8,400 came up with. 60 by 60 isn't 8,400.
Lillehaug: 8,400 square feet, that's over a 90 by 90 foot pad.
Feik: Well that would include obviously all the excavation for foundation and stuff.
Generous: Everything in fi'ont of the structure.
Feik: You have 60 by 60 plus 15 feet all the way around?
Generous: No, it's even more. She just said the first, well in here it's 105 feet. Actually
she came up with 9,200 and I dropped it down because she was double counting within
the 60 foot pad you have supposedly you would have a deck area.
Slagle: Bob, can I ask you a question? Again getting back to neighboring communities.
What do other communities use? Can we find out?
Generous: They're all over the place but yeah, we can find out.
Slagle: I mean I'm just thinking, if you did Eden Prairie. You know, I mean you pick the
communities, it'd just be interesting to see what they do. Half a dozen.
Generous: Sure.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: is this section only referring to tree removal so somewhere, I can't remember
off the top of my head but somewhere else in the ordinances we're saying they have to
demonstrate that they can still place a 60 by 60 foot?
Generous: No.
Lillehaug: This is it right here?
Generous: This is it.
Lillehaug: This is only for tree removal that we state that.
Generous: Right. That's to calculation, unless you know what the actual building
footprints that are going on this site. We had to come up with the mechanism for
estimating what tree removal would be.
Lillehaug: So nowhere else do we say that an applicant has to demonstrate that they can
place a 60 by 60 foot pad?
Generous: No.
Lillehaug: Separate from tree removal.
Generous: So as part of this we wanted, You know I suggested that alternatively we look
at just saying the first 105 feet of the lot, but Jill was trying to come up with an area
calculation and I don't know if it's a combination of the two that we need for that, and
how to make it understandable for people.
Papke: Yeah, just don't word it like the dock you know.
Generous: Yes, the greater of.
Feik: What's the next one?
Lillehaug: Did we have problems with how it was worded before?
Generous: Well it just said the 60 by 60, and Jill, we had a problem because we thought
that was under estimating tree removal because usually they have the house pad and then
you have 15 feet beyond that where the grading equipment goes in and the little Bobcats
and so.
Lillehaug: So actually this 8,400 is actually more conservative if you really look at it.
Generous: Yeah, it's closer to what we would think would actually happen.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: Okay. Yeah.
Slagle: Are we to page 10 yet'?
Generous: The financial penalty, yes. You've got on page number 5, as part of your
previous recommendation we have $500 in there. Council felt that was punitive. I didn't
check, this came fi'om Plymouth. They had $100. Per diameter inch of trees being
removed. Theoretically you know a 28 inch tree that goes out, that's $2,800.
Feik: Well that would be in addition to replacement though.
Generous: Yes. They would have to pay.
Feik: Do we still have the replacement in here?
Generous: Yes. The replacement in there is probably not changed. And this is only
after, if they, once they get through the process, preliminary plat approval to final plat
and they say we're going to save these trees and then they don't do that.
Feik: So we should put there, then at the end of that sentence then, you know comma, in
addition to the 2:1 replacement as indicated in whatever other section it is. So they
understand it's both. It's because you know what, at $100 a diameter inch, there's not a
developer in town that wouldn't rather just knock them down. And not replace them. I
mean to be construed like the dock.
Lillehaug: Probably I mean, you talk about over adjacent to the Legion over here.
They've got 3 oaks they're trying to preserve. Well, .just cut them down if it's causing
too much confusion. You know they're only going to get fined $2,800 bucks per tree.
Big deal in their pockets.
Feik: Right, right. But if it's that and replacement.
Slagle: They have that much money?
Lillehaug: I don't know but, it's a big deal to me.
Papke: What are we really trying to achieve here? I mean because this is really going to
protect small trees, saplings and is it really the old growth oaks in town that we're trying
to preserve here? Is that kind of what we're getting to or what? Because we may take a
different strategy if we want to protect a few big old trees versus every tree in the city.
Feik: Sure. You could do $500 per inch for any tree over 12 feet. 12 inches. Something
like that.
Papke: I mean what do we want as a Planning Commission I guess is the question I'm
asking. What's our goal? What do we want to try to achieve with this?
40
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Slagle: Well if I can throw out. I remember, and Steve I don't know if you were here but
there was an application for a building just south of the church. The old historic church.
It's now a Remax building. And there was an old oak that the claim was that they would
rock wall around it and Craig was pretty involved in that one and I think basically thc
concern was that they said they would do this and be being a construction expert if you
will, was just sort of, it's just not going to work the way you're thinking and the question
came up well, what happens if they say they're going to protect it and it doesn't. And
that's what I remember at least personally with the involvement and awareness of these
trees, so I think your question's great and I would be an advocate to say that after a
certain diameter width we increase the value. And I would hope the council wouldn't
feel that large, large trees, by adding that would be punitive. Who knows.
Papke: What's the nature of the council's concern from a punitive standpoint? Are they
concerned that some guy who's putting up 4 houses is going to get unnecessarily dinged
if he cuts down a couple small trees or what, can you give us any context where the
punitive.
Generous: I think they were just concerned that a developer comes in and he's following
the rules and his subcontractors don't and so then he's penalized because he's the
responsible party under DC when it's a subcontractor that is storing materials over the
root zones and killing trees or whatever the case may be.
Slagle: Wouldn't they just put...subcontractor.
Generous: Well it depends on their contractual arrangement I suppose.
Papke: Isn't that the general contractor's job?
Generous: Well we have you know, same thing with like erosion control fencing.
Keeping that up.
Lillehaug: One more comment on that I guess is, in the ratings here they're, or the
council's justification was that they couldn't really distinguish between trees removed,
being removed accidentally or purposely. In my mind I guess it really wouldn't matter if
they were accidentally or purposely. It should be the contractor's responsibility to purely
protect them. So I guess I wouldn't go along with that justification.
Papke: ...accidental versus purposeful.
Lillehaug: Right, to me it doesn't matter though.
Feik: Would this go in the actual development contract as well? Because if it doesn't go
in the contract you'd never know about it and it'd be that much tougher to enforce.
Would you include?
41
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Saam: Typically this stuff, if it's in the code ah'eady, there's no reason to also put it in
the development contract because it's already in ordinance.
Feik: Well I understand that but if the developer actually read it, and then he could go to
his excavator and say guys, you knocked these trees over. It's coming out of the sub's
pocket. Because I'm looking at it saying you know what, I'm not sure how collectable
it's going to be. If it's in the development contract and he's got to acknowledge it.
Slagle: Let me ask this. Again without mentioning names, what did we learn fi'om the
incident on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta? I mean and some things you can
share, some things you can't but I mean something happened there. Clear violation of
whatever right, wrong, laws, ordinances we have and there was punitive action against
the perpetrator if you will. Was that sufficient in the city's mind? Do we wish we had
done more? I mean I just remember Lori being very upset and very disappointed, as was
Jill. And so I mean.
Generous: I can't answer for them.
Slagle: Is it your opinion that what you see here, $100 per diameter inch would be
enough of a deterrent to prevent that.'?
Saam: You're asking me?
Slagle: You're my two staff people.
Saam: Maybe you meet council half way. If you wanted 500 before and now you don't
feel 100's enough, you come to 300. I don't really have an opinion on it.
Generous: It could get pretty expensive you know. Diameter inches add up. 28 inches
here, 10 there, 5 there. It could be a significant cost.
Slagle: We don't want to be negotiating with council.
Generous: No.
Saam: I guess the one thing I think you should keep in mind is, you know no matter how
much you set it, some people if they are bad per se or don't care, you know is it going to
matter? And how do you regulate that? So it's tough. I mean most developers that we
see aren't going to do what you're referring to up on Minnewashta. I mean we just don't
see that happening so.
Lillehaug: And then this punitive damage wouldn't have applied there anyways because
they weren't finished. Or would have been applied. Were they finished with their
approval process?
Generous: The replacement, this $100 wouldn't have applied, no.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: Right, because they were, yeah.
Generous: But the replacement stuff up fl'ont would have been delayed, their project was
delayed long enough anyways with the court.
Papke: I hate to let this just slide though because I think we're going to face this in the
AUAR area that we were looking at not long ago has a lot of old growth oaks and once
we start to look at proposals in that area, this is a potential issue.
Slagle: Can I make a recommendation to the commission here? Mr. Chair it looks like
there's at least two items, two areas. Tree preservation and sidewalks/trails that the
council and the commission are differing on. Is there any reason that they should be part
of the work session? And why wouldn't we have that dialogue amongst the two groups
versus talking to staff and you go back and.
Feik: I think that's a relevant comment but this still is a public hearing so we still have to
hear from everybody else too before we move on to what we're going to do with this. I
don't disagree.
Lillehaug: And maybe it's a point, it's at a point where we give our recommendation
again.
Feik: My opinion on this deal, you know what, it's supposed to be punitive. That's why
we put the dollars in there, and I guess I don't have a problem negotiating with council. 1
don't know. Alright, well let's move on and see what else because we may not take
action on this tonight anyway and I want to make sure we get public comment in before it
gets too much later. What else do we have to look at here Bob?
Generous: Well the last one, significant item was on page 11 in Section 10. It's Section
18-78(b)(5) of the code. It was, right now the ordinance says sidewalks will be required.
Previously we had it on all local streets and on one side of collector and arterial and so
council said go away from that. Develop criteria where we would look at putting it in
and make it not permissive rather than mandatory.
Papke: When I read this, I couldn't figure out how you could possibly interpret this.
You know, what does it mean that you may be required to put a sidewalk in if there are
sidewalks that connect to existing sidewalks. Well connect to what existing sidewalks?
Where?
Generous: On adjacent developments is what we were looking at. We have subdivisions
that are in place. They have a sidewalk up to their property line. When the next
development comes in we would make them continue that sidewalk through their project.
Feik: Or access the trails.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Generous: Or to access the trail system, yes. And a good example of that is the Hidden
Creek development. Off of the north side of Highway 7.
Papke: Can you at least then put in here connect to existing sidewalks in adjacent
developments where the sidewalks abut the proposed development'? Just so, because I
was concerned that we're going to see this at some point in time, you know in a proposal
and we're going to go well, how do we interpret that?
Feik: And then go back to shall. Drop the may and go back to shall.
Papke: May is just.
Generous: So something, and adjacent developments continuing those existing
sidewalks'?
Feik: And trails.
Papke: And in the next one, you know to kind of carry out of that, sidewalks that connect
neighborhoods to schools, parks and neighborhood. Well where are these schools, parks
and neighborhood areas? Are they again on adjacent properties? Is that what you're
saying?
Generous: That's the intent. If you're in the neighborhood and if this would bring you to
that development. An example would be the Walnut Grove project. Had this been in
place we would have had a sidewalk.
Papke: It sounds like you need to put you know, at least adjacent property or something
like that on each of these or maybe in the preface area there, so that it's clear that we're
talking about a sidewalk in an adjacent development. Or a school or a park and a
neighborhood commercial area that is adjacent to the proposed development, or an
existing or proposed trail that you know terminates at the proposed development or
something like that where we can have some criteria for looking at ...that does or doesn't
meet the criteria.
Generous: I think that adjacent development would work for all three of these.
Papke: Right, except are we going to treat it, if adjacent development has sidewalks that
are 200 feet away from where these two things butt up, how do we interpret that one?
Okay. And then does that adjacent development that's already developed, do they have
to bring their sidewalks in so they connect with this new development? I don't know,
what's the intent?
Lillehaug: If I can ask fellow commissioners to look at page 16. What staff had drafted
up before, maybe we had discussed before was a, b, and c.
Feik: Which was struck by council. I'm assuming that's where that.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Generous: We wanted to show the progression of this.
Lillehaug: That's really more on the lines of what I'm still thinking anyways.
Generous: Well and maybe that's the recommendation.
Slagle: If I may.
Feik: Please.
Slagle: Since I I think probably of all have been the most vocal. I'm not suggesting I'm
the biggest supporter but at least the most vocal of this. And a bit of background. There
is a staff member who shared with me in the last year that neighboring communities were
enforcing and updating ordinances that required, it didn't matter, it didn't talk about
neighborhoods. It was street. This kind of street got either two sidewalks or one
sidewalk. Cul-de-sac got something, on and on and I remember asking staff to research
that. And that's where I would like this to go, is to research communities and Maple
Grove, Plymouth, Eden Prairie, Woodbury, you name it, but where are the communities
out there today going on this because the more and more I read, which is not all that
expansive on planning, is that there is a movement towards the community feel. More
sidewalks. You know the porches out front. That whole whatever you want to call it,
Americana if you will, but more importantly for me and why I've been such a proponent
for this is just the safety and to me to think that we would have may instead of shall,
when you look at some of the neighborhoods, and I'm talking within the last 10 years,
that we don't have a sidewalk and it mystifies me when I see mothers pushing kids on
strollers and if the issue according to Bob tonight was that there was some concern by
some about upkeep over time of sidewalks. Repairs. That would cost money and who
pays for it. I guess I would ask engineering to fm~ther research really what have we spent
on an annual basis to fix sidewalks. And maybe it's a lot more than I think it is, but I
would guess that the streets have been a major focus, not so much sidewalks. I haven't
seen many sidewalks repaired in my running, and I run a fair amount throughout the
cities. Heck the last time I remember I wanted Pillsbury to fix their sidewalk, if you
remember the one off Galpin and it still hasn't been fixed. It's call cracked up so, and
that was two years ago. So I'm just using that as a basis that I don't think there's a lot of
sidewalks being fixed these days.
Feik: You mean Audubon.
Slagle: Audubon, I'm sorry. Audubon.
Papke: Just to add to that, I think we've heard some pleas for trails in developments that
don't have sidewalks.
Slagle: Exactly.
45
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: And now that brings me to a question, why did park and rec recommend deletion
of the references to trails?
Generous: They just wanted to be able to look at a project...
Slagle: And do their own thing,
Feik: But we're just saying access. If it has access to trails we want a sidewalk. We're
not trying to tell park and rec where to put the trails, l'm in one of those neighborhoods,
Bluff Creek Estates, top of the hill on Audubon. We have no sidewalks but we're hooked
up to a trail. We have no sidewalk on Audubon. We've got, and it's gravel shoulder.
We've got strollers on Audubon. We've got kids you know, we've got 5 year olds
Rollerblading on Audubon to go around the block. Anyway, anything else on this item'?
Otherwise I want to move this to public comment period and then we can bring it back
and we can deal with it as we choose. So if there's no other comments for staff at this
point, I'd like to open this up for public comment. If you have a comment, now would be
the time.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I would like to
comment first on streets. On page 5. I noticed this mentioning that a private street has a
right-of-way, actually defined as right-of-way and as I recall, code have been changed
about a year and a half ago, and I don't. Bob would know this. Where the definition is
of right-of-way. It didn't include private street so I would like that to be covered. It's
pretty important because it affects our shoreland role which means you have to be set
back 20 feet from the right-of-way of a private street. And then on page 13, where you're
talking about the 60 by 60. 60 by 60 is such a practical way to figure out if there's
enough room for a home on a lot. Just have this little square and you fit it on and you've
got it. Or you don't have it. The buildable area, where is that defined? Bob would know
this too. What is replacing this'? What is the buildable area required now?
Generous: What's the buildable required?
Janet Paulsen: Yeah. And is there a certain width?
Generous: Well you have the lot dimensions in the subdivision. It's any area within the
required setbacks. Buildable area.
Janet Paulsen: Well as I recall I think Minnetonka and some other cities have more
restrictive standards because they have to have a certain width before you can measure
the buildable area, otherwise you could have a really narrow triangle. That you shouldn't
really include that.
Lillehaug: I support you there.
Janet Paulsen: And then I was wondering, also on page 13. In the parenthesis 5.
Minimizing tree loss. I have to disagree that that would be accomplished by having a
46
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
private street. Private street causes more intensive development because it doesn't
require the same setbacks and the lot line is measured many times from the middle of the
private street, enclosing a private street. So it becomes more intensive. I don't think this
causes less tree loss. It causes more. And then I have to agree, I think we should require
sidewalks. It should say shall, not may. Why would want to go back to a lesser
standard? We should be improving things. Not lessening them. Okay, thanks.
Feik: Thank you.
Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I almost missed the meeting
tonight. I had to work late and I'm looking, oh my god. It's Tuesday. Hit the computer.
The agenda. Oh my god, Chapter 18. So I'm not very well prepared. But I have to say, I
don't think this report is very well cooked up either. I think there's a lot of improvements
that need to be made. I think if we're going to change the code, let's make it better. Not
make it more ambiguous. I really liked seeing that right-of-way there for private streets.
That was a pleasant surprise seeing that documented. Boy, I don't want to have to page
through all this. Jan pretty much covered everything. The 60 by 60 is a real issue and
staff in the past has tried to say, well you don't build a square house. But you know I've
seen a lot of development plans come through and if you don't have adequate building
area, you could have a lot that met requirements 15,000 square feet, but it might not have
enough buildable area. It might have shoreland, wetlands. It might have too steep of an
incline. A bluff. I think that stamp has proven to be really a valuable tool when you see
the plats coming through, l'm not, this is not my area of expertise but I think it's really
important. That number very much surprised me to see 3,600 square feet because I've
defended that time and time again. In fact I wish I had everything I've said about it, but
I've seen that number go up to like 8,000 some. I mean what does that really mean, that
you can demonstrate that you can clear cut that much land or something? I don't quite
get what you're trying to do with using a number that that's big. That's like half of a
RSF lot. And our residential lot is like 15,000 square feet minimum. It's more than half
of a lot. I just don't get the logic there. I'd like to see some meat in this and I did do
some real quick research before I came and that's, I've been watching Dream House and
Portland, Oregon has some really strict codes about tree preservation because these
builders on this show were really concerned. We have to make sure that we do
everything correctly. So I pulled up something here. Construction fencing in their code.
The fence must be 6 foot high, orange plastic and must be secured to the ground with an
8 foot metal post. Or the fence must be 6 foot high steel on concrete blocks. Well, I saw
a project in our neighborhood, you know the orange fence goes up, and then it.just slides.
And no one cares about where they drive, what they do. What they move over this area.
I think when you put meat in it like they did, it prevents that fence from moving.
Development limitations. It says here, within the root protection zone of each tree, the
following development is not allowed. New buildings. Grade change or cut and fill
during or after construction. I have to say I observed fill, just huge tons of fill over areas
that should have been protected. No meat in our code for that. New impervious surfaces
so they can't create an impervious surface around the root zone. Utility or drainage fill
placement. Staging or storage of materials and equipment during construction. Huge
issue. Particularly when you're building like in our neighborhood, building, making and
47
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
creating a new lot because where would those construction materials go'? You know
they're not supposed to go in the street. If the lot is the minimum size, where do they go'?
90 foot wide lot. 60 foot wide house basically. You know, and then you're supposed to
have some trees on this site. Where do they put these materials? And vehicle
maneuvering areas during construction. You know, someone brought up the contractor's
responsibility and the subcontractor's you know just kind of going and do what they
want. Well there has to be some controls. Someone has to be responsible. Enforcement
is not here. I mean I wish we had enforcement to protect the trees t¥om being clear cut.
i'm all for steeper fines. It seems the pocketbook is the only place that hm'ts people. And
maybe yeah, you take down a tree and it adds up. Well maybe it's going to add up to a
number that they can't afford and they'll think twice about cutting out trees that they
shouldn't be cutting out. But you know, I think with the budget that we've just gone
through, the budget process, the one large gap that we could fill in the revenue stream
would be doing some enforcement. And I hope that you will table this tonight and give
serious consideration to doing things to really improve what we have, because our
resources for building are limited and your right about the AUAR. It's coming. There's
sensitive land down there. Sidewalks, huge thing. Let's plan. Let's do things right. Not
make things easier to get through but let's try to make what little we have left the best it
can be. Thanks.
Feik: Thank you. Alright. More comments fi'om commission. I did hear, I did like the
idea of a different sort of tree preservation barrier that would, most people just see the
yellow, or the orange fence. Think it's a silt fence and that's as far as they go with it so
they don't know it's really necessarily protecting the trees. If there's no other comment
then, Rich you had to make some statements regarding you might want to table this or
something. You want to continue on your...fi'om earlier.
Slagle: I'd like to table this and ask staff and get a firm commitment Bob, if I may, from
you that we will actually receive a written, for lack of a better term, research paper that
would address what different locales are doing. I mean I noticed as an example on the
tree removal at $100, there's use of reference to the City of Plymouth. That's what they
use so we suggest we adopt that. I mean I wonder if I called 7 other communities, I mean
I might have a listing of $200, $50, $400.
Generous: Zero.
Slagle: Yeah, zero. Yeah exactly so I mean l'm not advocating that it comes out one
way or the other. Just what's out there. And then I would ask for you to do the same
thing with the sidewalks and specifically what do communities, and those communities
I'll leave up to you, but what do they require for sidewalk criteria. For you know
collector streets, main arterial, you know, you give me the listings or give us the listings.
Because it might turn out that 80 percent of the communities are where we are today and
suggest may. You know who knows.
Lillehaug: What does tabling really get us here? You know the council's reviewed this
already. Is tabling going to help us make them more aware that we have more concerns
48
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
with this? Is that our goal of tabling it'? Because I mean I have real distinct
recommendations how l would like to change this and recommend.
Feik: Well I don't think there's a hurry. I think what we want to do is we want to do it
right in concert with all the parties and we've only got 4 of the commission up here as
well to comment on this.
Papke: Uli often has a comment or two on trees.
Feik: Yes, yes.
Slagle: Just it adds to fact finding. I mean I think the council, if I may be bold enough to
say, similar to what we've been operating a little bit of a vacuum. I mean council says
boy you say shall and it's punitive. Well.
Papke: They may be coming to the conclusion it's punitive because they don't have
data... There's no justification for what we've proposed or what we think we should do.
Slagle: And vice versa. We feel, we operate in that same vacuum.
Feik: Does that answer your question?
Lillehaug: Yep.
Feik: With that I guess we need a motion.
Lillehaug: Can I make a couple comments?
Feik: Absolutely.
Lillehaug: As I see where our motion is heading, I would definitely like staff to look at
what Debbie brought to the table for item 6 there, about tree preservation during
construction. I think she had some very valid points and every one of them I think we
could include as I think they're all legitimate. That's it.
Feik: Anything else?
Papke: As a Planning Commission, do we ever look at other communities you know
guidelines and code books and so on? The example of Portland was brought up. Now
they are known to be extremely protective obviously. They're kind of on the outside of
the bell curve, but I think that provides an interesting data point to use as a reference.
And maybe some good ideas as to how you might be able to structure some of these
things, put some teeth into it. I don't know. As a group you know I'm fairly new to the
group, I don't know if periodically do we look at other community standards and codes
and guidelines and try to learn something from that?
49
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Feik: Bob, can you answer that?
Generous: We do and yes we can.
Papke: City staff does but does the Planning Commission do that'?
Feik: Well I think what I hear is a desire to have some of that research that you do on a
regular basis, or in the process, brought back up here so that we can be made aware of
that. And everyone else so, versus just the recommendation based upon research. Give
us a little background of how you're making that recommendation.
Generous: Kind of the matrix that we showed you?
Feik: Yeah, or comment or whatever. Something.
Slagle: Summary, like there'd be a spreadsheet or something.
Generous: It's easy to do. It's, all it takes is a little staff time. Once you have it you can
keep it in our update.
Feik: Well if we deny enough permits you'll have lots of time. Just kidding.
Lillehaug: I have one more comment. Also I would like to really look at the 60 by 60
foot lot. l guess I didn't realize that this was the only place that we referred to a 60 by 60
foot building pad.
Generous: Under the PUD, they talk about a 60 by 40 pad.
Lillehaug: But that is strictly for tree removal.
Generous: Under this section.
Lillehaug: Under this section, but that's what I was getting at earlier. Is it under other
sections?
Generous: The only other place that it's mentioned is in the PUD.
Lillehaug: Okay. Because I also have concerns regardless of trees, and a minimum and
maybe this isn't the chapter to be, I think it is the chapter to be addressing it in. We do
need to specify a minimum width because I have concerns with that obviously, and I
think it's a valid point that we should be establishing a minimum of a 60 by 60 foot pad.
Now I'm done.
Feik: Very good. Now you're done, alright.
Slagle: Well then make a motion?
50
Planning Commission Meeting - December 2, 2003
Lillehaug: i wasn't 100 percent behind tabling.
Slagle: I can do it if you don't want to. I just have made most of them tonight.
Feik: Then you're on a roll, go ahead.
Slagle: You want to do it?
Feik: I can't make one so. It's up to you three.
Slagle: Here we go, alright. I recommend that the Planning Commission table the
approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code as shown
through the attachments presented tonight, and ask that staff research per our prior
direction and report back within 60 days. Is that enough Bob?
Generous: Yes. We want to move, keep moving things forward.
Slagle: 30 days?
Feik: Well, do we need a time limit?
Slagle: No.
Generous: No, I don't know that we need a time limit because my boss is going to push
me.
Slagle: Oh, and I would add to that, if I may, in my request is that we consider for future
work session that if we still end up having some differences of opinion between council
and commission that, because I just think that's helpful face to face...
Feik: Or maybe our council liaison could be here. Do we still have liaisons? Oh we
don't. Never mind then. Alright, so did you make a motion?
Generous: Yes.
Feik: I'm sorry, do we have a second on that? Any amendments to that motion?
Slagle moved, Papke seconded to table the amendments to Chapter 18 of the City
Code, Subdivisions per Planning Commission discussion. Ali voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Feik: Would someone please note the minutes'?
51