Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
8. Ortenblad/Ersbo Subdivision
I CITY OF ?. I .ii II to CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1 MEMORANDUM • TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager IFROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner � ' DATE: September 4, 1991 . ISUBJ: Ortenblad/Ersbo Subdivision IIOn August 7, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the Ortenblad/ Ersbo PUD proposal. The Planning Commission recommended approval II of the rezoning, subdivision, comprehensive plan amendment and wetland alteration permit with several conditions (Attachment #1) . There were also several issues that needed to be addressed prior to the City Council reviewing the proposal. The issues that were IIbrought up at the Planning Commission meeting are as follows: 1. Final review of wetland issues by the DNR, Watershed District, IFish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineer, etc. 2. A revised landscaping plan. li I 3. Review of access extension to adjacent properties. 4. Review of utility extension to adjacent properties. I5. A revised road alternative through Lot 14, Block 2, to preserve existing vegetation. ,. °_>. g'".,:r 6. Provision of amount of wetland area per lot. " " ;fi. "a 7. Provision of subgrade elevation data of Lake Lucy Road. 8. Further review of the proposed ponding areas. 11 9. Discussion of loss of Lot 1.4 and one other lot. Final Review of Wetland Issues iAfter the Planning Commission meeting, staff submitted plans again to the DNR, Watershed District, Fish and Wildlife and Corps of Engineers. At the time of the Planning Commission meeting on II tile PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER I I Ortenblad/Ersbo Subdivision September 4, 1991 Page 2 August 7th, the DNR had yet to determine the actual ordinary high water mark of the DNR protected wetland. Until the ordinary high water mark could be determined by the DNR, it was not known whether or not the applicant would have to receive a permit from the DNR for the construction of the proposed public road. If the location of the public road was actually within the ordinary high water mark of the DNR protected wetland, the DNR had stated that they would not be in favor of approving a permit which would allow the construction of a public road within a DNR wetland. Since the ' Planning Commission meeting, the DNR has determined the ordinary high water mark and has found that the limits of construction for the public street is outside of the ordinary high water mark of the large Class A wetland (Attachment #2) . Therefore, the applicant does not have to receive a permit from the DNR for the construction of the public street. ' Staff has also received comments from the DNR Wildlife Specialist who is reviewing the issue of, raising the water level of the large DNR wetland by 2 feet. Raising the water level by 2 feet does ' require a DNR permit. Jon Parker, the Area Wildlife Manager for the DNR, reviewed the proposal to raise the water level by 2 feet. Mr. Parker made the comment that raising the water level, if ' emergent vegetation could be established, would increase the habitat diversity and the size of the wetland and that this should increase its wildlife value. He also stated that the proposed buffer strip around the wetland should also help to protect the wetlands water quality and habitat value. Mr. Parker went further to say that he was skeptical that the addition of water to the basin would reduce the phosphorus concentrations by dilution as hoped by the developer. He stated that the phosphorus concentrations might be reduced if all phosphorus originated outside the basin and did not concentrate in it; however, it is ' quite possible that the phosphorus is in the sediments and will achieve the same concentration even with the added water. Mr. Parker recommended that the permit to raise the water level could ' be approved with the following recommendations: 1. The outlet on the south end be a variable crest structure with stop logs and adequate outlet channel to allow the draw down ' of water levels to or below present outlet elevation (974.5' ) . This will allow the developer to use a more standard method of establishing emergent vegetation by draining the pond to create soil conditions which encourage emergent vegetation establishment. If a suitable seed bank or source is not available on the site naturally, the developer may have to plant tubers of appropriate species such as bulrush, cattail, arrowhead, etc. during draw down. Such a controlled structure would also allow the pool to be lowered to its present nominal 11 1 I Ortenblad/Ersbo Subdivision September 4, 1991 Page 3 level if increased water levels cause saturation damage to the adjacent road bed and surface. 2. The developer be required to remove existing purple loosestrife from the basin and to monitor those sites and sites disturbed by construction for loosestrife invasion. Subsequent loosestrife invasion should be controlled by the City and/or homeowners. The Fish and Wildlife Service also commented that raising the water 1 level by 2 feet was not going to necessarily improve the Class A wetland, but they were not opposed to raising the water level and felt that the mitigation and the ponding areas being proposed for removal of sedimentation would be adequate. The Watershed District had no additional comments on the proposal other than they would have to receive a permit and meet any conditions of approval. The Corps of Engineers had no further comments. Revised Landscaping The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant submit a revised landscaping plan which provided the following: 1. Landscaping on the south right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road, I directly north of the Class A wetland, including deciduous trees in the highland areas. The applicant has provided for 4 clumps of quaking aspen along the southerly right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road. The clumps of quaking aspens are separated a distance of 80 feet. Although the Planning Commission and staff did not intend to fully screen the southerly right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road, the proposed 4 quaking aspen clumps seem inadequate. Staff is working with the DNR Forester and local landscapers to verify the appropriate type of landscaping for this location and what additional landscaping could be added. The landscaping plan should also designate the size of the quaking aspen at the time of installation. The City Code requires any deciduous trees to be at least An caliper. The DNR Forester stated the quaking aspen clumps would be appropriate for this location but that 1 more clump could be added to the east of the proposed plantings and still provide visibility of the wetland. Staff is recommending that 1 additional clump of quaking aspen be added to the east of the proposed plantings north of Lot 1, Block 2. I 11 I Ortenblad/Ersbo Subdivision September 4,. 1991 ' Page 4 2. Landscaping along the 2:1 slope adjacent to the Class A wetland to maintain the slope. ' The applicant has stated on the landscaping plan that a crown vetch ground cover and Dept. of Transportation mix #7 grasses • will be planted in the 2:1 slope located between the public street and the Class A wetland. The crown vetch and the #7 grasses will provide a good ground cover and stabilisation for the area. Staff is investigating with the DNR Forester and local landscape professionals to determine whether some larger planting such as the quaking aspen proposed on Lake Lucy Road could be added to this area. It was staff's intent to break ' up the area between where the public street is directly adjacent to the Class A wetland and to partially screen the public street from the wetland. The DER Forester has said that a 2:1 slope adjacent to a wetland can support a variety of trees including willows, ash, cottonwood, burr oak and conifers including balsam fir, white ' or black spruce and white cedar. The area in question is approximatley 200 feet long. Staff is recommending that 4 trees of the type recommended by the DNR Forester be added to ' the area between the public road and the Class A wetland. 3. Additional landscaping along the access points. In the staff report, staff had specifically requested additional landscaping between the easterly and westerly lot lines of Lot 1, Block 1 and between the easterly lot line and the edge of the wetland on Lot 1, Block 2. The applicant has continued the berming and landscaping to the easterly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1 but has not added any additional landscaping on Lot 1, Block 2. Staff is again requesting that the applicant extend the berm and landscaping to the approximate edge of the wetland. Additionally, staff requested more berming and landscaping along the monument signage on the northwest access of the site. This westerly access area currently has existing ' vegetation but it will most likely be removed with the construction of the pond. If this is the case, then staff is recommending that the landscaping be extended to the westerly property line along Lake Lucy Road to replace existing vegetation that is being removed. 4. Three trees, 2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen or ornamental per lot (credit for each tree over 6" caliper ion the lot shall be granted for that lot; however, a minimum of 1 tree per lot shall be provided. 1 Ortenblad/Ersbo Subdivision September 4, 1991 Page 5 I The applicant is still only showing one tree per lot. This must be expanded to 3 trees per lot on lots where it cannot be shown that existing vegetation meets the requirements. 5. A landscaped berm shall be provided on the north right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road across from the westerly access to provide screening from traffic to existing homes. The applicant is providing a 3 foot high berm and four 12-16' spruce in addition to 3 existing spruce and one existing silver maple to provide screening of the existing home from the proposed public street to the south. The landscaping and berm that is being proposed appears to be adequate. Access Concept The Planning Commission requested staff look further into provision 1 of access from the proposed subdivision to adjacent parcels. Specifically, the property to the east (Ravis property) , requested to be connected to the proposed PUD. Also, the property to the west (Coey property) needed to be reviewed to see if access was more appropriate through the proposed PUD rather than having an individual access from Lake Lucy Road. , A portion of the Ravis property adjacent to the subject site was separated by a subdivision from the Woitalla property in 1984 (Attachment #3) . A specific condition of the subdivision of the Woitalla property was that the parcel being created would not be considered a separate parcel for development since it was a landlocked parcel. As part of this transaction, the Ravis ' combined the newly created lot with their property to satisfy the condition of approval. Again, it was with the understanding that it was not to be developed as a separate parcel. I According to City records, there is apparently an existing road and utility easement through the Woitalla property which lies south and immediately adjacent to the Ravis parcel. However, staff has been unable to verify documentation at the County Recorder's office. In addition, it is not known whether this is a private or public easement. If this easement can be confirmed for public road and utility purposes, it is recommended that access to the Ravis parcel be acquired from Powers Boulevard. Two access alternatives potentially exist. One alternative would be to extend a public street to the westerly line of the Ravis property from the proposed subdivision as shown on in the Sr. Engineering Technician memo. This alternative would alter street alignments in the southeastern portion of the Lundgren subdivision. One benefit of this alternative is the creation of an additional lot in the Lundgren subdivision. In addition, it provides for both street and utility access along the same alignment to the Ravis parcels. The down I Jo Ann Olsen September 5, 1991 Page 6 side involves the additional tree loss due to the street extension ' and temporary cul-de-sac until the Ravis property develops. In addition, it may not be economically feasible for the Ravis' to construct a full City street and cul-de-sac section in order to ' provide access to only three future lots. The second alternative would be to explore the possibility of a private driveway from either Powers Boulevard through the Ravis ' property or from the proposed Lundgren subdivision. It appears that no more than four lots would be served by the private driveway. If a full street access is extended to the Ravis property, a portion of the cost for extending the street and utilities may be borne by the Ravis' which compounds the economical constraint of extending the cul-de-sac for just two, possibly three, lots. ' Staff is not recommending that a public street be provided for the following reasons: 1. The Ravis parcel is not landlocked. ' 2. When Mr. Ravis acquired the back portion of his property, its limitations on future development were clearly established. 3. There are other access alternatives over the Ravis parcel or possibly over other parcels in the area. Staff has reviewed several alternatives for access to the Coey ' property. The Coey property contains several natural features similar to the subject parcel, including extensive areas of heavy and mature vegetation, steep slopes and wetland areas. If a public street connection was provided from the subject parcel, it would result in extensive removal of mature vegetation and could possibly result in extensive impact to existing wetlands. The area of trees on the northwest corner of the subject site that the city is trying to preserve continues onto the Coey property. This area. of trees could be impacted with the connection of a public street from the subject parcel. If a public street access to the Coey property is provided, at a more southerly location, there is a large wetland area that could be impacted. It appears that the best access for the Coey property is from Lake Lucy Road or from the property to the west. Review of Utility Extension to Adjacent Properties Staff has looked at the possibility of extending utilities to the property to the east and west of the subject property. Staff has found that sewer and water extensions should be provided to the Ravis property to the east. The Ravis parcel has only minimal I • Jo Ann Olsen 11 September 5, 1991 Page 7 ' development potential due to its size and also due to conditions attached to the underlying subdivision (see above) . Development i potential is somewhat improved if portions of the two lots to the south of the Ravis parcel are combined. Extension of utilities will facilitate serving any development that may occur. , Staff then reviewed provision of utilities to the Coey parcel to the west. We found that it is possible to serve some of this area via the proposed lift station and a sewer extension has been accordingly provided. It should be noted, however, that if Mr. Coey or future property owners wish to tie into the line, that a trunk sewer charge will be assessed for each unit using the system. The Engineering Department concluded that water service should not be extended west from the Lundgren site to serve future development of the Coey parcel. Service could more efficiently be provided from Lake Lucy Road. Revised Road Alignment Alternatives through Lot 14. Block 2 to Preserve Existing Vegetation ' During the Planning Commission meeting, it was discussed whether or not the road should be located over the existing driveway to pull it away from the existing vegetation located in the northwest corner of the site. Staff agreed that the alternative should be further explored and the applicant has prepared two options. By locating the public street over the existing driveway, the road is being pushed into the existing Class A wetland and will result in filling of a portion of the northwest corner of the Class A wetland. Attachment #4 illustrates the alternatives. Staff has spoken with the DNR of the possibility of locating the street over the existing driveway where it would impact the northwest corner of the wetland. The DNR has a policy of not permitting public roads to impact a DNR protected wetland. Staff explained that the reason for adjusting the location of the public street would be to preserve some valuable trees and the wetland area that would be filled was a finger of the wetland and not a major portion of the wetland. The DNR commented that this may be considered a unique situation and that if it can be proven that adjusting the location of the public road to where it impacts the Class A wetland results in the preservation of an extensive area of another natural resource that they may be in favor of such a permit. , Staff has compared the impact to the trees with the alternatives. Alternate B is the current proposal, Alternate C and D move the road over the driveway. Alternate B removes 31 trees, Alternate C removes 35 trees and Alternate D removes 21 trees. Since Alternate C removes more trees it was eliminated. Staff compared the type and caliper inches of trees saved and removed between B and D (see 1 II IJo Ann Olsen September 5, 1991 IPage 8 I table) . Alternate D would save 162 caliper inches, but remove 121" for a net gain of only 41" caliper inches. The trees lost with Alternate D are fairly significant (27" and 30" oak) and this must be added to the impact to the Class A wetland. Therefore, staff is I , not recommending a different road alternative since there is little additional tree preservation that would occur and the DNR would be unlikely to approve the resulting filling of the Class A wetland. IPROPOSED ROAD ALTERNATE D VS. ALTERNATE B ITrees Saved Trees Lost 1 36" Basswood 1 14" Poplar 2 6" Birch 2 6" Bas swood 1 10" Birch 2 10" Oak 1 8" Oak 1 22" Oak Il1 12" Oak 1 27" Oak 16" Oak 1 30" Oak 1 26" Oak 1 6" Ironwood 1 28" Oak 1 10" Iro wood I 1 12" Ironwood 1 10" Hickory 1 8" Cherry ITotal 162" Total 121" ILose of Lot 14 and One Other Lot At the Planning Commission meeting, one of the Commissioners, I during his motion, suggested that the city take under consideration the removal of Lot 14 and one other lot. If the road is realigned over the existing driveway, Lot 14 would be removed from the site. IAs far as removing one other lot from the number of lots proposed, staff can only suggest that the applicant consider doing so and it is expected the applicant wishes to maintain the number of lots as proposed. The City Council has the ability to dictate the number I of lots as part of the PUD, but there is no clear rationale for doing so. The lot areas all exceed the minimum square footage required and all provided adequate buildable area. In addition, I project density is quite low. The Comprehensive Plan allows densities range from 0-4 units per acre. The current proposal results in a gross density of 1.22 units per acre and a net density I of 2.1 units per acre when wetlands and street right-of-way are excluded. During the development of the Cdmprehensive Plan, we found that over the last few years, single family subdivision in Chanhassen has averaged a gross density of 1.7 units per acre. I I • 1 Jo Ann Olsen I September 5, 1991 Page 9 Thus, the Lundgren proposal is actually less dense than normal city development. 1 • Wetland Area Per Lot The applicant has submitted a table showing the total square footage of each lot, the net upland area before the water level has been raised by 2 feet and the net upland area after the water level has been raised by 2 feet. The average lot area, including wetland, is 31,089 feet. The average lot area removing wetland before raising the water level 2 feet is 21,705 square. The average lot area after the water level has been raised 2 feet is 21, 157 square feet. Even after removing the wetland area, the average lot area exceeds the 15,000 square foot minimum required for a residential district and is comparable to the Curry Farms subdivision located directly north. The smallest lot area, after removing the wetland and after the wetland has been raised 2 feet, is just over 14,000 square feet. This provides adequate area for a house pad, deck, etc. Therefore, staff is not concerned that the lots adjacent to the wetlands do not have adequate buildable areas. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE PUD Lot Lot Lot Front Wetland Buffer Net Upland 111 Area Width Depth Setback Setback _ftip_trip Area Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' 75' N/A BLOCK 1 Lot 1 18,300 124' 146' 25'-W N/A N/A 18,300 50'-N Lot 2 18,200 135' 139' 25' N/A N/A 18,200 Lot 3 93,100 450' 201' 25' N/A N/A 93,100 • (Existing Home) Lot 4 19,500 135' 216' 25' N/A N/A 19,500 Lot 5 15,080 118' 156' 25' N/A N/A 15,800 Lot 6 16,800 80'" 142' 25' N/A N/A 16,800 Lot 7 54,400 50'" 245' 25' 75' 25' 31,100 • Lot 8 42,400 80'" 363' 25' 65' 25' 17,600 Lot 9 36,400 89'"* 378' .25' 75' 25' 17,800 Lot 10 36,100 91' 385' ' 25' 40' 10' 14,200 r I II Jo Ann Olsen September 5, 1991 Page 10 Lot 11 20,900 178' 248' 25' 40' 10' 17,400 ILot 12 28,200 90' 289' 25' 45' 10' 14,053 Lot 13 27,500 92' 303' 25' 40' 10' 17,000 ILot 14 22,700 111' 220' 25' 40' 10' 22,700 Lot 15 17,800 61'** 162' 25' N/A 25' 17,800 ILot 16 24,100 80'** 152' 25' N/A 25' 24,100 Lot 17 23,400 90' 172' 25' 40' 10' 17,200 ILot 18 19,600 97' 179' 25' 40' 10' 16,000 Lot 19 31,400 103' 223' 25' 100' N/A 31,400 (Existing Home) ILot 20 18,200 110' 242' 25' 75' 20' 16,100 Lot 21 26,000 94' 265' 25' 75' 25' 17,500 ILot 22 17,200 87'** 209' 25' 90' 20' 17,050 Lot 23 32,800 628' 129' 25' 75' * 31,300 BLOCK 2 • I Lot 1 54,500 138' 375' 25'-E 50' 15' 24,100 50'-W Lot 2 35,800 105' 384' 25' 65' 20' 16,300 ILot 3 75,000 465' 300' 25' 60' 25' 28,000 Lot 4 29,200 432' 204' 25' 40' 10' 22,600 ILot 5 21,200 140' 227' 25' 40' 10' 17,100 Lot 6 20,800 80'** 269' 25' 75' 25' 16,500 ILot 7 23,600 87'** 301' 25' 75' 25' 16,000 Lot 8 23,100 91' 326' 25' 75' 25' 15,100 Lot 9 23,600 95' 343' 25' 75' 25' 15,000 Lot 10 23,600 106' 353' 25' 75' 25' 15,700 ILot 11 25,700 94' 359' 25' 75' 25' 15,200 Lot 12 22,500 111' 267' 25' 75' 25' 15,600 ILot 13 27,100 88'** 371' 25' 75' 25' 14,100 z Lot 14 83,900 268' 335' 25' 50' 15'* 29,500 I I Jo Ann Olsen I September 5, 1991 Page 11 , See Tree Survey for Preservation Area Below 90'Requirement *** Normal RSF side yard and non-wetland rear yard setbacks shall apply where applicable. All lots subject to normal RSF accessory structure standards. Subgrade elevation of Lake Lucy Road The applicant has proposed to raise the DNR wetland lying south of Lake Lucy Road in order to provide better water quality for the wetland. Staff has concerns that the higher normal water level may cause the sub-base (granular material) in Lake Lucy Road to become ' saturated which would then be subject to frost heaves and premature deterioration of the street. The developer has retained a soils engineer to review the situation. The soils engineer concluded that no adverse effect should be incurred by the road. However, staff is recommending that the elevation of the water in the wetland be only raised to its current elevation of 975.5 and that the two catch basins in Lake Lucy Road be plugged or disconnected to eliminate the outlet since the development proposal is providing a .rate control structure at the south end of the wetland. Staff is - also recommending that the existing outlet from the storm sewer system in Lake Lucy Road be extended to discharge into the sedimentation pond located on Lot 2, Block 2. Walker Ponds ' Staff had the applicant provide detailed information on the capacity of the Walker Ponds and comparing them to the NURP standards. The applicant submitted the requested information and staff had Bonestroo, Rosene and Anderlik review the information to determine whether or not the proposed Walker Ponds do meet the NURP standards and are adequate for storm water detention and removal of sedimentation prior to the storm water entering the wetlands. We asked the Bonestroo firm to undertake this review since they are the city's consultants for our water quality improvement program and have considerable experience in reviewing similar proposals in other communities. The applicant is proposing to construct 3 Walker Ponds. The first Walker Pond is located in the northwest corner of the site and the second Walker Pond is located on the east side of the Class A wetland and the third Walker Pond is located on the south side of the Class A wetland. The comments from Bonestroo were that the first two Walker Ponds do not technically meet the NURP standards in that they are smaller and deeper than what the NURP standards call for but their capacity is close enough to be acceptable. The third Walker Pond on the south side of the Class A wetland, again, does not meet the NURP 1 I ' Jo Ann Olsen September 5, 1991 Page 12 standards and is not large enough to be beneficial or reasonable in terms of the city's long term maintenance needs. Bonestroo recommended that the third Walker Pond not be developed since it will not provide a benefit to the site. Instead it was recommended that storm water runoff from Lake Lucy Road into the Class A wetland be collected and redirected to the Walker Pond located on the east side of the Class A wetland. ' One of the major influences to the poor quality of the Class A wetland is the existing runoff from Lake Lucy Road. If the storm water is redirected to first enter the Walker Pond where the majority of the sedimentation and nutrients will be removed, the Class A wetland will be greatly benefitted. Staff is recommending that the existing outlet from the storm sewer system in Lake Lucy Road be extended to discharge into the sedimentation pond located ' on Lot 2, Block 2. Summary Staff has worked extensively with,this project and has reviewed the issues closely. The concerns raised at the Planing Commission meeting have been addressed and we feel that the project, with the ' changes proposed by staff and the applicant, will be a successful PUD. The one issue staff has with the Planning Commission conditions is with the removal of the sidewalk where the street is ' narrowed. The Planning Commission felt that no one would use the sidewalk so it should be removed. Staff feels for safety reasons, the sidewalk should be provided. It is best to have the sidewalk ' there for those who want to use it rather than to assume no one will use it. Staff has added the requirement of a sidewalk back into condition #1 under preliminary plat. ' RECOMMENDATION REZONING ' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: ' "The City Council approves Rezoning #91-2 property RSF and RR to PUD-R with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a Planned Unit Development Agreement containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The PUD Agreement shall be recorded against the ' property. 2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table. I Jo Ann Olsen , September 5, 1991 Page 13 3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91-9 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-4." PRELIMINARY PLAT Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: ' "The City Council approves Subdivision #91-9 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991, and subject to the following conditions: ' 1. Where the proposed street is reduced to 26 feet, there shall be "no parking" signs posted and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided over the boulevard. The sharp curves located in the loop street shall be limited to a 10 m.p.h. speed limit and shall have "sharp curve" signage. 2. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing the following: a. One additional quaking aspen clump shall be provided 'directly north of the Class A wetland and east of the proposed quaking aspen clumps. b. Four trees of the type recommended by the DNR Forester shall be added to the area between the public road and the Class A wetland. c. The berm and landscaping on Lot 1, Block 2, shall be extended to the edge of the wetland and the westerly access area directly north of the proposed pond area shall have increased landscaping to replace existing vegetation that is being removed. d. Three trees (2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen or ornamental) shall be required per lot. (Credit for each tree over 6 inches in caliper on the lot shall be granted. For the lot, however, a minimum of 1 tree per lot shall be provided.) e. A landscaped berm shall be provided on the north right- , of-way Lake Lucy Road across from the westerly access to provide screening from traffic to existing homes. 3. The applicant shall submit a comprehensive drainage and erosion control plan prior to final plat review. Wood fiber blankets shall be required for all slopes steeper than 3:1. I Jo Ann Olsen September 5, 1991 Page 14 4. The applicant shall work with ith staff to investigate the provision of future services of sewer and water to adjacent parcels. The applicant shall submit final road, drainage and utility plans and specifications for review prior to final plat review. The applicant shall also work with the City ' Engineer to address concerns with Lake Lucy Road subgrade. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and ' provide the necessary financial security. 6. The applicant shall acquire all necessary agency permits. 7. The applicant shall provide full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication and trail construction. ' 8. Provide the following easements: a. Dedication of all street right-of-way. ' b. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding areas. c. Access easements as required to service the "Walker ponds". ' d. Utility easements over all sewer, water and storm sewer lines located outside public right-of-way. e. Conservation easements over all designated tree ' preservation areas. f. Standard drainage and utility easements. ' g. Provide a conservation easement over all established wetland buffer areas. Such easements shall be marked ' with permanent visible monuments and the location of such easements shall be provided to city staff for approval. 1 9. The applicant shall indicate the allowable type of dwelling, the house pads and the lowest floor elevation on the grading plan. 10. The existing hydrant between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be relocated 75 feet to the south. The Fire Department must ' approve street names and a 10 foot clear space must be provided around fire hydrants. Additional hydrants are needed at the intersections of Lake Lucy Road and the proposed public road. 1 Jo Ann Olsen September 5, 1991 Page 15 11. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit #91-4 and Rezoning #91-2. , 12. The applicant shall provide proper restrictions (subject to city staff approval) on those lots having entrance monuments and/or landscaping. 13. The applicant shall work with city staff to provide for a shared driveway between Lots 6 and 7, Block 1. ' 14. The outlet on the south end of the Class A wetland shall be a variable crest structure with stop logs and adequat outlet channel to allow the draw donw of water levels to or below present outlet elevation (974.51 ) . 15. The developer be required to remove existing purple loosestrife from the basin and to monitor those sites and sites disturbed by construction for loosestrife invasion. Subsequent loosestrife invasion should be controlled by the City and/or homeowners. 16. Municipal sanitary sewer and water service should be extended easterly to the west line of the Ravis parcel. 17. The water level in the DNR wetland lying south of Lake Lucy Road should be maintained at a level not to exceed 975.5. ' 18. The catch basins in Lake Lucy Road shall be plugged or disconnected so as to drain the northerly catch basin north and the southerly catch basin south. The storm sewer line should be extended to convey the runoff from the south catch basin (Lake Lucy Road) into the sedimentation pond in Lot 2, Block 2. r 19. The final plat shall convey an additional seven feet of right- of-way on the south side of Lake Lucy Road to provide the total width of 40 feet lying south of the centerline. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ' Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #91-4 as shown ' on the plans dated July 29, 1991, with the following conditions: 1. All wetland areas will be protected daring construction by Type III erosion control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas are stabilized. , i I Jo Ann Olsen September 5, 1991 Page 16 2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the ' compliance table for each lot will be recorded as part of the PUD agreement. No wetland setback less than 40 feet will be permitted and the buffer strip may not be less than 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be preserved by an easement. ' 3. Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to the wetland and not during the migratory ' waterfowl breeding season. 4. The "Walker pond" and wildlife wetland areas must be designed to the standards proposed in the applicant's submittal packet ' dated July 30, 1991. 5. The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to guarantee that increasing the water level of the Class A wetland will not affect the stability of Lake Lucy Road. 6. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers. 7. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91-9 and Rezoning #91-2. " ATTACHMENTS ' 1. Planning Commission minutes dated August 7, 1991. 2. Letter from Sathre Bergquist dated August 27, 1991. 3. Copy of staff report for Woitalla subdivision dated October 18, 1984. 4. Alternatives for westerly street access. 5. Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician dated September 5, 1991. 6. Letter from Jon Parker, DNR, dated August 14, 1991. 7. Submittal from Sathre Bergquist dated August 21, 1991. 8. Staff report dated July 17, 1991. ' 9. Submittal from Lundgren Bros. dated July 30, 1991. 10. Revised landscaping plan dated September 3, 1991. 11. Plans dated July 29, 1991. 1 << If -3 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 7, 1991 Chairman Emmings called the meeting to order at 7:30 p .m . . MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart , Ladd Conrad , Steve Emmings , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes and Joan Ahrens MEMBERS ABSENT: Annette Ellson STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; Sharmin Al-Jaff , Planner I ; Kathy Aanenson, Planner II ; and Charles Folch , City Engineer , PUBLIC HEARING: LUNDGREN BROS/ORTENBLAT/ERSBO PROPERTY ZONED RR. RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD: • A. PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 30+ ACRES TO CREATE 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER/FILL CLASS B WETLANDS. Public Present: ' Name Address Terry Forbord Lundgren Bros . Rick Sathre 15311 Knob Hill Curve , Minnetonka Frank Svoboda 22752 County Road 7 , Hutchinson Peter Pflaum 18070 Breezy Point Road , Wayzata Bob Peterson 6650 Powers Blvd . Brian Tichy 1471 Lake Lucy Road Jim & Claudette Schluck 6800 Utica Terrace Scott Reinertson 6801 Utica Terrace Wendell G . Graviun 6270 Blue Jay Circle Jeff O 'Neil 6511 Devonshire Drive Bill & Julie Infanger 6740 Powers Blvd. Joe Morin 1441 Lake Lucy Road Jim Ravis 6660 Powers Blvd. , Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Emmings called the public hearing to order . Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair , because the staff did such a good job in their staff report and the detail is very complete, if it would be okay with you , I guess I 'd reserve my comments until later on because I only have, for the most part I think we are in total agreement . There are a few items that I would like to present to you but if it would be okay with the Chair I would " do that later on in the meeting . That would be up to you . Emmings: I guess if you have reaction to conditions that they'd impose on approval , I 'd like to hear those now so that other people in the audience 1 IIPlanning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 2 IIcan comment on them too if they want to . • I Terry Forbord: My name is Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros . , 935 East Wayzata Blvd . . I know you 're familiar- with this proposal because we were before you not too long ago in an informal capacity to share with you the I real nuts and bolts and dynamics of this proposal . As I just stated, the staff report on this , I 'm sure you 've taken the time to read it is quite detailed . This is actually been somewhat of an exciting endeavor - for us because in our line of work , as well as an engineering. and planning , I municipal planning and engineering, things are changing really fast relative to the environment . Thinks like water quality . Quality of life and for us to maintain our presence in the real estate development industry 1 as a leader , we need to be cognizant and be on the cutting edge of some of the newer things that are being developed to be sensitive to those environmental concerns . And it 's been refreshing for us working with city I staff because they , we all seem to be in agreement . Our objectives seem to be very much in step with one another . I think it 's been a learning curve for all of us . Rick , maybe you could put up that first exhibit . As you recall there was some discussion of why this proposal should be looked at I as a planned unit development or PUD . I appeared before you prior to this proposal talking about planned unit developments. I think we 've been forth right and you 've been forth right with us and we 've shared a lot of I information about it . Our objectives I believe with this proposal are the same as the City 's are . We believe we 're a quality developer . The City 's looking for quality developers to come into their community. This is a II quality neighborhood community . This proposal will eliminate the undesireable Ersbo plat which some of you may be familiar with . You were involved with . If you would like me to elaborate on any of these items , please stop me in case someone doesn't recall something that I 'm speaking II of from the past . We are going to improve the pre-treatment of storm water . We are going to improve and enhance conditions of existing wetlands • and we are going to create additional wetlands that are of a higher quality I than the wetlands that currently exist on the site and there will be a net gain of wetland area . There will be further protection of wetlands with an established preservation zone . Now we probably need to decide what we 're I going to call these areas . Whether they 're going to be buffer strips or conservation zones or preservation zones and that 's something that will be worked out in the final platting process . The reason we decided to opt for a preservation zone , because we want to make sure that the home buyers in I their mind's eye , when they 're buying something from Lundgren Bros. , that they realize that this needs to be preserved and we 're going to depict that . in our marketing materials . We 're going to take a hard look at the way we I present that to people who come and buy homes within our community. We want to make sure they understand what this is all about and what we 're trying to do and what the City 's trying to do. Those preservation zones will include easements and they will also include deed restrictions on each II lot to maintain compliance with the preservation objectives. With a PUD there will be more landscaping than a standard subdivision requirement would allow . There will be a greater degree of sensitivity for the I protection of significant trees and vegetation with an established preservation zone and easement similar to the one that 's around the wetlands . In other words there will be deed restrictions protecting II certain areas of trees so homeowners cannot come in and cut down those areas of trees because they will not be allowed to do so. As already • II Planning Commission Meeting I August 7 , 1991 - Page 3 mentioned by Jo Ann , there will be increased architectural standards . She talked about architectural elements like wood and brick . I think it also should be noted that every year- Lundgren Bros . travels the United States and gains data and comes back and updates their entire product line of housing . We do that in every subdivision that we do . We do it so we 're always hopefully on the cutting edge of what it is that homebuyers want and' delivering to them the things that they would find most appropriate for that present time . There will be a transitional area of housing . This is not inexpensive housing . We are talking about housing that ranges anywhere !' from $170 to $270 . Somewhere in that area . That is not inexpensive housing . At the same time it's not very expensive housing . It certainly falls within the realm of the housing that is needed within the City of Chanhassen . As mentioned by the staff , one of the purposes of the PUD that 's outlined very explicitedly in Code is why do you -have PUD's? Why would one do it? Well in this particular case we 're not doing it because we 're asking for smaller lots or anything . We 're trying to find a way , 11 after meeting with staff it was very clear that Chanhassen wants to be on the cutting edge of being sensitive . Not just to wetlands . Not just to trees but the big picture of things relative to real estate development . Storm water runoff . Traffic . Quality of life. Everything like that. By II pursuing this as a PUD, we are able to cluster the homes in areas closer together and maintain an open and green space which is an objective of the • City . There 's also as you know added tax base to the City anytime a quality development is promoted within the city . At this time I would likell to talk to you about the recommendations that are being presented to you . The first thing that I will do at this time if we could put the first page of the recommendations up . As I stated earlier , for the most part we are in step and in total agreement with what we 're trying to do here . Since our last meeting with staff and everybody was scurrying to get all this stuff together so it could be mailed out to the Planning Commission , in reviewing the information and the recommendations, we have found some items that make it very difficult for us to proceed with this proposal . They 're not necessarily overwhelming items but when you add them all together , the II economic feasibility becomes unmanageable . And for many, some of these may be items that are put before you as compromises but what I will urge you to consider would be , are they practical and do they make sense and really so they make an economic sense as well . On the bottom of your first page dealing with recommendations, under the section labeled preliminary plat . Item number 1 . It talks about where the proposed street is reduced to 26 feet there shall be no parking signs posted and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided over the boulevard. Sharp curves located in the long loop street shall be limited to a 10 mph speed limit and shall have sharp curve signage . We would propose or request that that would be modified and that we would maintain the back to back curb would maintain a II 26 foot width throughout the entire subdivision and that there would be no sidewalk . If I may let me just tell you why. Nationally , and this is fairly well know to those who are planners and engineer's and even real estate developers . Nationally there 's a movement afoot to. reduce the right-of-way and the pavement , the hard surface coverage in neighborhood communities . Why? Because in the 50 's and 60 's 'neighborhood communities II were designed for automobiles. Nowadays they 're designing them for families . They 're finally getting around to where we don't need to have these huge right-of-ways , freeways running hither and there through neighborhood communities . We do need adequate right-of-ways on arterials li I • Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1091 - Page 4 and collectors so traffic can move in an orderly manner and certainly ' within a safe manner but within local , small little neighborhoods and certainly one of this size where we have 37 total home sites in a loop street that serves those 37 home sites ; we feel that it 's really , it certainly isn 't a necessity to have the street any wider than 26 feet . Now 11 that was just , that 's one aspect of it . The other aspect of it and the reason we even pursued the reduced right-of-way to begin with is because as you know Chanhassen is right on the leading edge of tree preservation . ' Wetland protection . Right-of-way is for roads, is probably the single biggest culprit nationally for impacting both trees , vegetation and wetlands . The point is that the larger the right-of-way kind of flies in • the face of conservation . Now if health, safety and welfare is an issue , it certainly should be considered. We do not believe that health, safety and welfare is an issue on this particular proposal . We 're talking about 37 housing units and we do not believe that it would be impacted at all by ' having a reduced right-of-way . I would like to point out that right in front of City Hall , I believe the street is called Chan View , that is a 26 foot right-of-way . Right out in front here . Rick Sathre: Terry , you 're saying right-of-way . Terry Forbord : Excuse me . Pavement width . Right in front of City Hall and I 'd be willing to suggest and feel fairly strong that I 'd be accurate , that there are more vehicle trips per day occuring in front of City Hall than there would be through this neighborhood community . The point I 'm I trying to make is that it has become kind of a status quo in the past to make big streets where they're not needed and we don't believe in this particular case that the 26 foot pavement back to back is too small . Now I the compromise apparently that was reached was that the only portions in this particular proposal that would be reduced to 26 feet are the areas around significant trees . So in other words, we'd be having a pavement width that would go from 26 feet to 31 feet then back to 31 feet as it goes I through the subdivision. At least that 's the way I interpret it in the recommendations . We believe that 's confusing and we believe that what did we really achieve by it . I personally cannot find anything that there was any gain anywhere . Then there was a request for sidewalks. 6 foot of sidewalks on only those portions that happen to be 26 feet back to back . We believe that that 's probably not a good use of funds. That it would be confusing . We do not believe that it 's giving or protecting anyone. We're I somewhat confused by it . It seems like an attempt to compromise but again I only ask does it really make sense. Is that a good use of money to do that so we would request that that portion of the recommendation would be I changed so there 'd be 26 foot back to back of streets throughout the development and those small little sections of required 6 foot wide concrete would be deleted. And I believe when I looked at the plan I could 1 come up with they'd be sidewalk approximately 100 foot long in one space that all of a sudden then would disappear . Then in another space it was hard because it 's somewhat ambiguous . Then there 's another section that might have 200 feet of sidewalk and none of them are connected anywhere so I it just seemed to me that I would ask you to consider that it 's not necessary and that you would delete it. On page 2 of the recommendations, this primarily deals with landscaping and I think you all will agree with I me that Lundgren Bros . has probably done more landscaping in their subdivisions than any other subdivisions within the city of Chanhassen and 1 Planning Commission Meeting 11 August 7 , 1991 - Page 5 I typically in any other city that we develop . We have established a $45 ,000 .00 budget for landscaping in this subdivision . Let me ask you just for a minute to focus on this . I 'm sure most of you have landscaped at your own homes and you 're operating within a budget . And so you look at your home . Probably walk out in the street . This is what we do . We 're looking at the entrances to our subdivision or the areas that we choose to II landscape . We try to get a view of what is it that people are going to see . What is important? Is there something we 're trying to screen or is there something that we 're trying to create what we call a peek-a-boo that we want somebody to look through and get a corridor of something . When you 're operating within that budget then, you find out how many places can I put landscaping materials where it really has an impact . One of the things that 's fairly well known in the landscaping industry , if you 've ever, done this on your own home or worked with a landscape architect , they will tell you to try to form areas that you concentrate your landscaping so it looks like there 's really something there rather than spreading it all over!' the place because otherwise what happens is there 's nothing that really grabs you and goes wow . So I 'd like to run you through ( a ) thru (f ) and give you an explanation of what we would like , how we'd like to see these ' modified . Item 2( a ) states that the landscaping on the south right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road directly north of the Class A wetland . We would like to delete that for the following reasons . First of all it would block the view of the wetland . One of the reasons that we chose that site was because there 's a wetland there . We knew it had a problem . We knew it was 90% dead , or we discovered that through the process but still it was something that was really pretty to look at . That 's why we came to the 11 site . To landscape along there would block that view and that isn't something that we think is what people would want . The other issue that 's even more important and forgive me for my typing but survivability is misspelled . We don 't think they 'd survive because we looked at that and ,I II sat down with our landscape architect because we want to put some trees around the entrances and come towards that wetland but we 're real concerned for the distance between the back of the curb of Lake Lucy Road and the wetland . Rick , could you put up an exhibit that would depict that . Probably just a site plan. You can see where the edge of the wetland is in green . I marked it off just by walking . At the closest point from the back of the curb to what appears to be where it just drops off right to the wetland is probably about 5-6 feet . The furthest point it 's about 17 feet . Kind of varies along there. If any of you have ever driven down TH 169 in Shakopee in Valley Fair where all those evergreens are all along the 1. highway there, go look at them now. 30 feet in they're all dead and they 're still standing there and the reason they're dead is because of the phosphates and the chemicals that are put on the road for deicing in the winter . If we did plant trees along there they 'd all die. I think for that reason alone it was probably a better idea to take that money in the budget and put it somewhere there 's going to be some impact and I 'll get toll that in a second. By the way , these aren't items that I had a chance to talk to staff about so if we would have had a chance to talk about it , I think they probably would have agreed with some of this . Item number (b ), we would like to delete that . Landscaping along =the rear lots adjacent to II the Class A wetland. We believe it 's a waste of the budget and that it's not necessary and Rick if you 'd put up something that would show the lots . It has been suggested on more than one occasion during both the informal and the formal public hearing that there is something possibly negative 1 IIPlanning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 6 about being able to see the back of people 's homes . Or the back yards of P P y people 's homes . I should have brought with me slide trays this evening of I Near Mountain . You would find all through that development that the back yards of the people 's homes are far nicer looking in many cases than the. front yards because people spend the majority of their time in the back - I yard so they tend to fix it up pretty nice . All those lots that are around that large DNR wetland are around there and designed there for a purpose . So the people who live there can have the quiet enjoyment of what is there . 1 Some of the area as you can see on Lots 14 , 13, 12 , 11 , 10, 9, 8 , etc . have some trees there . Lots 8 , 7 , 6 , 5 , 4 are 700 feet away from Lake Lucy Road . Lots 3 , 2 and 1 face directly west and the point I 'm making is that first of all I don 't think the backs of people 's homes are something that I is negative to look at . Secondly , I think that -that money, rather than being spent to plant trees in the back of somebody 's yard which they 're probably going to do themselves anyway , we could take that money and we I could use that in other areas that I 'll get to here in a moment . Number ( c ). I 'd like to modify number ( c ). That the landscaping along the 2: 1 slope adajacent to the Class A wetland . Establishing the growth is important there because the degree of slope is going to be somewhat severe . II But it also is importar': to see the views and we do not believe that landscaping is necessary there . And Rick , if you 'd put that same exhibit up again and then point to the area that we 're discussing . Okay this is " I the area that we worked very closely with staff in trying to figure out how to minimize the impact on existing vegetation , the slopes and on the wetland . Because there will be a severe slope off from the back of the I curb back down towards that wetland , erosion is a concern . Not only to the City but to us . We don 't want to erode away the base of the road there . Staff has recommended that we use I think it 's wood fiber blankets or mat along there to prevent erosion but not only that . When we were out there I before we discussed and maybe this is just semantics so maybe it 's something that can be better understood if we had a chance to talk about it . But I 'm not sure if that 's an appropriate area for landscaping . I I guess I would suggest that 's an appropriate area for very good erosion control and establishing of different types of vegetation so it doesn 't erode and go away . Right there as you can see , when people come in, if 1 you 'd point to that street . When the home buyers are driving down that road and they 're coming into the subdivision, once they get around Lot 3 , one of the other reasons it 's designed , we really want them to see that wetland. That 's really pretty and we don't want to put anything there that I may interrupt that view for the same reasons along Lake Lucy Road. So it 's an aesthetic, a design idea that we hope people find pleasant so we do feel very much and very strongly that there should be erosion control right I there and there should be vegetation established to make sure that the roadbed doesn 't go away or anything like that but I 'm not sure if that 's the best place to spend our landscaping budget. Okay, item number ( d). We I do not have a problem with item (d ) . Item (e ) , 3 trees, 2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen or ornamental per lot. We believe that 's excessive. We are aware that the City is considering amending their tree policy. I would just like to point out as far as that exc 'asitivity . Remember the I homebuyer who keeps paying for all these things that we keep adding onto the cost of every home and typically home buyers , when they buy a home , they always want to landscape but it 's the thing they do over time . They Ido a little bit the first year . A little bit the second year . A little bit the third year and after they 've gotten adjusted to their payments , 1 Plarninc, Commission Meeting August 7 , 1°91 - Page 7 about the 4th year they start really doing some nice landscaping and I 'm sure , I know I 've gone through that and you have all gone through that too ' and that 's why we always think that getting beyond the 1 tree per lot becomes excessive . It 's just another burden in the cost of the home that we 're trying to control . Item ( f ). We would prefer to modify that . There 's a home , if you would put up your exhibit Rick . It would depict the, home north of the westerly entrance . Okay , and if you could just stand up there maybe you could point . Would you point to the entrance to the subdivision? Okay . Right now that is the westerly entrance and would head; south into the subdivision . You can see that it comes in. There's a number of modifications made to this entry point. Some of them had to. do - with the preservation of wetland . Some of them had to do with the preservation of significant stands of trees but the other thing that we were concerned about is the impact of traffic heading north towards Lake Lucy Road and what impact , if any , that would have on the homes to the north . At the informal neighborhood meeting that we conducted in July , the' homeowner there was concerned about lights . They were concerned mainly about what happens in the evening when it 's dark and everybody 's got their headlights on and will this impact our home? That was a really good concern . We were concerned about it as well so we spent considerably• time out there looking at it and we actually moved the road to the east . You can also see it 's angled a little bit right there where it intersects'. The reasons that we 've done that primarily , the adjustment to the. angle were to make sure that when cars leaving this subdivision. By the way , there are two ingress and egress so some of them will be using the other exit but the primary reason was to try to direct the traffic down what would be the property lines or if you 're familiar with that subdivision , there 's kind ofil a wetland area that goes northeast that those headlights would go that direction . Additionally we met with the owner of that property. Found out what their concerns were and I personally , we believe very strongly and our landscape architect does as well , that we can nullify any impact to that home by the planting of some trees like evergreen trees along in there . But in the recommendations it suggest putting berms in and landscaping . Once II you go into an area that 's already established. It 's already landscaped and you start hauling dumptrucks of dirt in there, we open a can of worms and this becomes a major project right there where we do not believe there 's going to be a significant impact and we do think that we can nullify any impact with the planting of some evergreen trees. It will be green all year round and that should screen that area. So we would request that that portion of the recommendations would be modified so rather than I stating what it does , that it would say that the applicant will work with that homeowner to plant coniferous trees to screen from headlights. And by the way, the headlights don't go directly into the house. They go into the' back yard. Anybody who does choose to go left, they may sweep through the windows and that 's what we're concerned about too and we think we can accommodate that just with planting of trees . So we would ask that you modify that . Okay , then I believe on the next page is the last item that I' would ask you to consider modifying. This would be at the bottom under wetland alteration permit . Item 3 . We would ask you to delete 'item 3 . It states that alteration to the wetlands must occurf •when it results in the II impact to the wetland and not during the breeding season. The first question was I did not know what the breeding season was because if you want to talk about breeding season it would be 12 months a year if you take, into every species of animal that there is . So that poses a problem 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1 c'11 - Page 6 11 obviously because there 's certain things you can 't do in the wintertime . The City has a policy that you can 't pull a building permit until the ' stre�te are blacktopped which means you have to start construction of a particular development sometime in the- spring and I assume just for a minute that breeding season maybe meant for maybe ducks or geese or something like that and that would be in the spring . Well , if we were 11 unable to go in and do any work in the spring, it 's to the point when do you do it? Then the other part of that is if you look at the whole and we do have a wildlife expert with us this evening. If you look at the whole ' impact of development on a particular piece of property and on an area in general , there is some benefit into concentrating that development process into the shortest timeframe possible rather than spreading it out over a ' long period of time because you may be trying to. save maybe a duck or ducklings here or there but over a long period of time of development maybe the erosion and the sedimentation problems created with development are worse f: ause you 're taking more time to do it . So there 's a trade-off . Every time you try to save something here , you may be exaccerbating the problem here . So we would ask you to delete that . That does not mean that we do not want to be careful but the way that this is written , it puts what ' we believe to be an unrcasonable constraint just on the development process . In summary , I would like to reiterate again that for the most part we are 100% behind and in agreement about what staff has done and I 'd like to also reiterate that it 's been fun. This has been challenging . I think as Paul stated , or excuse me . I 'm not sure if it was Paul but as staff stated in the report , he believes that this is kind of the shapes of things to come possibly . Not only in Chanhassen but possibly everywhere . ' I mean where there 's a working relationship between the public and private sector towards these sensitive types of issues . We like to think we 've always been like that but we 're learning more about this as times goes by also and so in summary I would like to ask you to consider our request for amending the recommendations . I do have for each of you a copy of that for your reference . If you have any questions we 'd be -happy to answer them . ' We do have our wetland and wildlife people here and our engineers so please feel free to ask any questions that you may have . Emmings: I 'm sure the questions will come . Thanks Terry . This is a ' public hearing . We ask at this point if there are any member of the public that are here that would like to express their concerns or ask any questions they may have with regards to this proposal . Is there anybody ' here who wants to speak? Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Erhart: I 'll just start out maybe , one subject that seems to run through two discussions tonight and that's the street width and right-of-way width . ' I seem to remember for most of the time I 've been on the commission here that the standards for right-of-way in curb and gutter streets was'always 50 feet and you kind of state here that in the report on this subdivision ' then it was changed: Let 's see , City Code recently amended to increase urban street right-of-way standards from 50 to 60 feet so that right-of-way would be consistent throughout the City. What does that mean to be consistent throughout the City. Planning Corrrnission Meeting August 7 , 19?1 - Page 9 Olsen: in the rural areas it was 60 foot right-of-way so we wanted it to be consistent that a 60 foot throughout the City . And another reason and Charles can add to this was so that all the utilities and everything was within that right-of-way . It 's not necessary to have the outside easements in addition to that . Erhart : Did we at the same time then increase the street width from 26 to I 31 feet or has it always been 31 feet? Folch: I 'm not sure if it always has been that way but it has been for a II number of years . The narrowest road width has been 31 feet back to back . • Emmings: What does back to back mean? You 've both used that term and I don 't know . Folch: Back of curb to back of curb basically which is considered a roadway dimension . Emmings: Okay . Erhart : Then I heard the other night , the difference between a 60 foot right-c,f =y for use of utilities may still be justified . However I • thought the reason there was a difference in rural lots you had a ditch II which took up a lot more space on either side surface . I assumed that was always the reason why rural was 60 and urban was 50 . But again we have more utilities and cables and everything like that . That may be justified . I thought I heard the other night , you were talking . It was in the staff here that maybe we ought to look at and then again it suggested a landscape ordinance discussion that we look at at least going to narrow streets maybe !' in smaller subdivisions. I guess I would tend to agree with that . Certainly we ought to study it when we get to that point because there is some areas around here where the streets seem massive . The expense of putting the street in . You 've got to maintain it over the next how many hundred years . Plow it and quite frankly it 's hard to service . Whether this subdivision ought to have 26 feet or not , I don't know . It just seems that if there 's inclination to review that , this ought to be one that ought " to he considered. I don't think, it doesn't make any sense to me to put the sidewalks in . I guess that doesn 't -make sense . I 'd also like to say it's unfortunate that maybe the applicants and the staff didn't get a to talk about some of the additional landscaping so maybe what we ought to address there is, leave it loose and end up with the developer and the staff meet to kind of nail down those last items before Council rather than try . . . In general again, as I stated the last time , I think the developer II has taken an area and obviously gone over almost every square foot and tried to address and come up with a plan that makes sense and I guess. . . I have a question on your page 5 here where it implies that, and maybe this " is just verbage Jo Ann. On the first paragraph there you say that you're referring to the tree preservation plans where we require . Tree preservation plan comes in. Let 's see. Building pad is showing' moving some of the most significant trees and then we're left to argue with builder and homeowner over redesigning their home. Do we really argue with homeowners about what their homes? Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 10 Olsen: Well yeah . Sometimes you do have where. we 've had , some Of the problem recently in Shadowmere where we 've had tree removal plans required ' and what 's happened is the builder has actually gone out and removed the trees . Well they 've met with the homeowner . They know that there 's a trae preservation plan required and they remove the trees so it fits the design ' of the house that they want where actually if you rearranged it you could have saved those trees so there 's been some , in the past we 've had the tree preservation plans and it really hasn 't preserved the trees . I mean there ' still hasn 't been very much sensitivity in designing the whole and working around what exists there . It still comes to where it 's cleared . They put in the home and then they call us and we go out and it 's a little late . SO yeah, there has been some difficulty . So what we 're trying to do with this is to really preserved and make it clear that , and with that tree preservation plan we have worked around saving sizeable areas for housepads . ' Erhart : In your mind who is the ultimate authority to decide if a tree gets removed or not? Olsen: Thc. homeowner? I know what your 's is . Erhart : Home owner . I 'm sorry , home builder . The builder . . .homeowner , who 's rot the ultimate authority to decide if a tree gets removed or not? Olsen: I know what your opinion is . Krauss: To back up on that a little bit . When you buy a project and you 're buying into tree preservation as one of the elements that sells the ' project and is a good move for a city , you have to have some assurance that that tree preservation is going to occur . Now on plans where we 've had specific areas set aside or specific trees. For example in Vineland Forest if you recall there were specific trees that we said were going to be ' preserved and we went out there and they were preserved. The contractors who built the roads knew they had to be preserved . People who built houses on those lots knew they had to build around those . ' Olsen: But since then they have been removed. Krauss: There was one that had been removed. But the problems come into play where we 've had this ambiguous statement like Lots 13 thru 14 should have a tree preservation plan. Well you get the old line. I 'll save every tree . . .to cut down to build the house . What we want is to put the cart ' before the horse and to say where we have specific areas that are valid and worthy or tree preservation, let 's block them out . Let 's put an easement around them . That easement will show up on the title and when somebody ' looks at buying the lot . When Lundgren 's sits down with these people, they 're going to say you can't put house plan 49-A on this one because it doesn't fit . You 're going to have to twist it around to accommodate- what you want in tree preservation. It puts the emphasize I think where it should be . Erhart : I don 't have any problem with the tree preservation easements . I ' think that 's a good idea because that 's part of the overall design for the development . I 'm just a little curious what our City's position is with Planning Commission Meeting August. 7 , 1991 - Page 11 ' the homeowner who buys a lot . He wants to build his house the way he wants to build it and he wants to end up the trees the way he wants them ended I up . Much aE I agree we want to -encourage and enlighten and coerce and everything , I guess I just want to make in my mind there 's a point where by golly if it 's his lot and he wants to cut down the trees , that 's his perrogative . That 's my opinion . Olsen: Right , that 's your opinion. Right . Erhart : When I see the term, what I 'm trying to clarify is what the City staff . Olsen: We 're not beating each other up out there . Usually what we do is I work with , when we have had these in the past I 've brought out Alan Olsen and then we have worked with the homeowner and actually had the homeowner out there with us to work with them . This is the house design they want then these trees will be impacted and remove them now . It 's not , maybe that was the wrong word but we have had some cases where we have specifically , such as Vineland , say specific some really important stands II of trees and where now we have the homeowner who wants to put the garage right through those and that 's where we do try to take a strong stance . Erhart : I agree because a lot of times a lot of that gets lost between the' time the homeowner really doesn't think about it and I like the process to force him to think about it . But anyway I 'll get off that . On page 9 there , am I reading that to say that our PUD doesn 't allow, on the top -' there , doesn 't allow 30 feet setback from the street? Olsen: That 's the perimeter . Exterior sides. ' Erhart : That doesn 't affect their desire to do a 20 foot , okay . Krauss: In fact there 's language in the PUD that waives the internal setback requirement . Olsen: I thought I read that one place and had a hard time tying it together . What 's under the concern about raising the wetland 2 feet and I • realize you 're going to go into that . Maybe Charles you could address it . Are you talking about Lake Lucy or are you talking about the street the developer 's putting in? Folch: This particular issue was brought to my attention late last week by' my street superintendent who has been with the City for a number of years and recalls back to when this road was improved and it's his belief that . Emmings: When you say this road, you mean Lake Lucy? . ' Folch: Lake Lucy Road . It 's his belief that one of the primary reasons why the road was raised at that location basically is .to get the road subgrade at an elevation above where it normally would be wet and saturated' from a stability standpoint . I 've gone back through the file . I cannot find any specific information related to that. However , my gut feeling is this could be a valid point to at least investigate and make sure that we aren 't adversely impacting the road subgrade by raising the water level . • I/ Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 12 II It 's something that needs to be addressed. At this point in time I don 't Ihave enoug information but we need to look into it Erhart : Just my comment on that is I think one of the really good things - that they 're doing on this is stablizing the water level in that whole area I and whether we ag ee it looks the way it is because it 's some nutrient loading or whatever it is , it 's only going to become a valuable wetland when you can stabilize the water level at a higher level . I think it 's I really good . . .so I guess obviously the developer would have a problem . Let me just stress quickly the other issues that were raised regarding the conditions that were added at the last minute. I assume you're looking for Isome comments on that Jo Ann? Olsen : Yes . I Erhart : Okay , so we 'll go to page 21 on 2( a ). Item ( a ) . Again since you haven 't had the staff and the developer hasn 't had a chance , I 'm not going , I think it 's best for you guys to get together and talk these through I so I 'll just give you s^me views . I think we should do some planting of deciduous trees along the , again without really studying it . Along the south right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road but in those areas where there 's ' I adequate highland area and where it can be a reasonable distance from the curb . So I think you 're going to have to kind of go out and look . Olsen: And that 's what we were planning on doing in a species that would Isurvive . Erhart : Like every 40 foot plant a hardwood and you could still see I underneath the hardwood and out there . Item (b ) , I agree that we shouldn't be asking them to put landscaping in the rear lots . ( c ) again , I would agree that we ought to put some hardwoods along that 2: 1 slope maybe every II30 feet to give it the boulevard effect . Olsen: And again , that 's a pretty extreme slope and what we were thinking about was something that would maybe not even, trees that won't work with IIsome higher . _ Erhart: Item ( d) , given that this is a PUD and it appears as though we're I going to adapt some kind of a landscape ordinance in the near future it 's reasonable to ask the developer to conform to that. I also think in item (e ) though if we 're going to do that we ought to note that the landscape ordinance allows them to have alternatives to planting 3 trees also . So if I existing 6 inch trees exist . Lastly , I do believe , I think Terry has a good point . Going in and dumping a bunch of dirt on the north side to build a berm right now may not , probably didn't sound very practical but I I do believe planting evergreens would solve that problem with the lights. So that 's it Mr . Chairman. I Emmings: They have one more Tim over in the wetland alteration permit , number 3? Erhart : Oh yeah , I did have one . You must have seen my notes. IEmmings: The Chairman sees everything. II Planning Commission Meeting ing August 7 , 1951 - Page 13 Erhart : Yeah , I think we 've been very consistent in not allowing alteration cf wetlands during mitgatory waterfowl breeding season . We ' sho:_ld stick with that however we could delete the other verbage that talks about least impact to wetland . Probably the comments are valid . Do I have anymore Steve? ' Emmings : No you don 't . Was I right? Erhart : Yep . Conrad: Jo Ann , can you briefly summarize for me what the previous • subdivision looked like? ' Olsen: Ersbo? Conrad: Yeah . Several years ago . , Rick Ssthre : I 've got the initial one. Olsen: It 's right in this area . It had the cul-de-sac coming in directly I acrosa from Arlington . It had 6 lots in addition to the Ersbo property . Conrad :- So we never had a plan for the westerly part of that? , Olsen: No , we never, did . Conrad: Okay . Why isn 't the DNR , what 's taking the DNR some time to get back on what they 'd like to do? Olsen: Well have to , we did have Ceil come out and that was kind of as this application goes out . It goes kind of midway into our application that the DNR was brought in because they received our submission to them II for our comments . Once she was out there it was really difficult for her to determine exactly where the ordinary high water mark is . So what they have to do now is bring out their survey crew so that -takes some time . That 's why it 's taking . It 's going to be another month. I don't know if I you know when they 're coming out. The survey crew but. Conrad: So their first letter back to us on July 10th. , Olsen: Just with the plans . That 's all they're looking at was our plans . Krauss: Well I 'd add too that the DNR letter that was included in your packet was based upon the original plan that we brought to you conceptually several weeks ago . The plans that are before you tonight have been refined extensively based on not only concerns the DNR raised but our concerns as II well and we brought them back out to the site and we think a lot of their concerns are being addressed and they've indicated to us that seems to be the case but they just don't have the final letter ready for us yet . ' Conrad: Well I 'm real interested in what they have to say . When we get a proposal for modification to wetlands , we really don 't have experts. Other people can bring in experts and I guess the best we can do is lean on the DNR and maybe a few other agencies that can help us . I 'm kind of • • Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 14 1 fascinatcc' by what they believe . We 're talking state-of-the-art wetland ' preservation and it kind of sounds neat but then again I don 't know . I 'm probably hearing one side and I don 't know if you two or staff believes . Do you believa that this is state-of-the-art type of wetland preservation? To me this sets a lot of precedent for what we should be doing . And therefore ' it 's just absolutely , if this is the precedent , I want to make sure it 's the right one . The obvious next direction is to follow it up in terms of what our wetland ordinance says . Some of the things I endorse are some of I the things I just don 't. have a clue if they're right or wrong and I need somebody other than somebody a developer brings in . I need somebody that advises us that this is . Everytime you do one thing you really, you can be I improving one thing but you can be doing some harm in another area . I think we 're all aware that wetland serve a different function and is this wetland , is this A wetland primarily habitat? Is it water quality? What is it? Is it the setting? Is it ground water? Then I get a little bit I confused but anyway , I really would have liked to have seen what the DNR said as I react to this design . It 's sort of like saying I kind of like it . What I 'm seeing . I like the idea of a PUD . I think this is a great I example of how a PUD can, work . Some clustering. I like how this can work but then there 's so many other unknowns to me and the only experts that I have that I feel are kind of non-biased maybe , I 'm not sure that they 're state-of-the-art but at least unbiased would be the DNR and so I 'm reacting I to nothing right now . I 'm not going to take a whole lot of time on some of my comments but tell me staff about the 6 foot path . I assume as we go down from 31 to 26 we 're worried about pedestrians . But I also assume , ' I 've got to make sure that I heard what Tim 's comment was . It is a 31 foot pavement Except in a few areas where it 's 26 . Why is it? I heard Terry talk about 26 might be a better way , or a future way of going in the I country . Is that a future way of going in Chanhassen and why are we at 31 versus 26 for this? And speak to me a little bit about pedestrian . I go through the Lundgren development , Near Mountain and on some days the streets are lined with people . They 're just lined with people walking and II Terry you should go over and see them . They 're all out in the street and I guess they like that but then that gets back to my concern always of how we 're moving people around. As we reduce the size of the street , then I we 're moving people around on that street . So I 'm sort of at a loss . I like shrinking the street but I worry about people moving. I Olsen: And those are some of the concerns that we had also . We are looking at reducing the right-of-way with like the landscape ordinance and is kind of the way things are moving is to less pavement and all of that but the City still has a 31 feet which is we 're still comfortable with that . We 're Inot prepared to say that 26 feet is the right width and if you do have it 26 feet , then you don't need a sidewalk or you do need a sidewalk. It has been done in other cities and they'll probably go through that but it is being done in Minnetonka and Eden Prairie and other cities do successfully have the reduced pavement . ' Conrad: Is there an associated sidewalk with that or how does that? Olsen: Not in all cases . • IFolch: Mr . Chairman if I might add some light onto that . The 31 foot ordinance was established for a number of reasons . It wasn't just an Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 15 arbitrary number that was set . And I think safety is a key issue here . You can say parking 's not going to occur on the street but yes it does . People have gatherings . People- entertain guests . You have mail service . Garbaga service . There 's going to be vehicles parked on streets from time to time and when you narrow that roadway width down, you not only are II narrowing the competing area between vehicles manuevering around that but also the pedestrians and that's a very , very important issue because I think in this area particularly where you have some quality environmental amenities that people are going to want to get out and walk around that neighborhood . They 're going to want to see things and take a look at things . They don 't have a walk so they 're going to have to make use of the street . In the 2 areas where there was difficulties getting around the wetlands where we were agreeable to reducing the width down to 26 feet , we thought it was a good compromise by also providing this 'walk off the street to allow the pedestrians not to have to compete with the automobiles in a I narrowed road width . 31 feet also allows better sight lines and clear distances for people getting in and out of the driveways. Looking down streets , especially on curvalinear roadways . There 's a number of aspects related to safety that are involved with that road width establishment . II It 's not just. an arbitrary number that somebody decided 31 sounds like a good number . Conrad: Terry when you were in here a couple months ago you were talking I about the Near Mountain development and talking about Silver Lake and maybe there 'd be some nature trails there . You didn't design any nature trails in this development . You were saying in the very beginning you factor in all the costs and that way later on things are going to come out economically for everybody but I think you were speaking real positively of some of the amenities that a nature trail could bring. Hasn't been ' designed here . Not that I need you to put it in but I 'm curious why in this particular development , I mean given that you have a wetland that 's rath:r pretty and given that you did talk to us several months ago about how that would be a nice amenity in some cases. Why wasn't it put in here?" Terry Forbord: Mr . Chairman, members of the Planning Commission . Terry Forbord , Lundgren Bros . . I don't recall speaking to you about nature trails or anything releverit to Silver Lake and Near Mountain. I do recall speaking to the Planning Commission about planned unit developments and some of the things that may enhance a planned unit development . That was not a sweeping statement where all planned unit developments should have those types of amenities. Every situation is different . The other thing , there 's been three times during this discussion where this subdivision has been compared to Near Mountain. Near Mountain is 360 acres that has close to 500 housing units. There 's a big difference between a 30 acre site where 41% of the land is open space , wetlands and only 37 housing units versus a huge planned unit development and so when you look at the scale you get into practical thoughts real quickly . What really makes sense from a dynamic design and aesthetic standpoint and then obviously from an economic feasibility standpoint and that's why . I mean it wouldn 't make a II lot of sense to do that . And even the Park and Recreation Board agreed. Conrad: So basically a walk trail in people 's back yards is not a sellable " commodity? 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 16 Terry Forbord: We find in 22 years that the vast majority , and I say the vast majority of people , number one they do not want a sidewalk in front of their home . They don 't want to pay for it and they don 't want to maintain ' it and they don 't want anybody walking .in front of their yards . Number two , they 've even more adamant about a trail in their backyard because that 's where they go to relax . Nowadays when you 've got a spouse , both ' spouses are working , they come home , what they really want to do is have some quiet enjoyment of the things they 're working so hard to have and they usually escape to the backyards of their homes and the last thing they want I are a bunch of people walking back and forth in their backyard so it 's a phenomena that from an idealistic standpoint it would be truly wonderful to have trails everywhere but from a realistic standpoint , when you look and say does it really make sense . Do people really want it and are they willing to pay for it , we find exactly the opposite . Conrad: You did make that statement several months ago about the validity ' of nature trails and when you design them in the front end and economically factor them into the equation they will happen but I don 't need a nature trail here . I 'm just curious about what Lundgren 's sees as important ' amenities as sort of a way I learn about what 's going on and what 's sellable and what people are wanting . But thanks . Terry Forbord: I don 't want to misunderstood because there certainly is a ' point where that would be appropriate . So don 't misunderstand that I 'm against them . I am for them . ' Conrad: They weren 't factored in here . Yeah , I know what you 're saying . They 're just not here and I wanted to know why . Staff , who will monitor this buffering strip around the wetland? Olsen: Us . Staff . Conrad: Who? Olsen: Who specifically? ' Conrad: Yeah , Paul? So there's a stake out in the ground where the wetland is and then there 's a 10 yard or 25 yard. Krauss: We 'll have a couple of things . IOlsen: It will be on easements and show up on surveys. I Krauss: Any survey 's that submitted to us for building permit will show both the wetland line plus the conservation area , whatever we call it . We 've been talking to Terry about monumenting the line. That 's always been a problem. Conrad: The wetland line or the. - ' Olsen: The buffer . Conrad: The buffer? Okay . Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 17 Krauss: So everybody knows where it is and you know if your neighbors monkeyed with it and that kind of thing . It 's something that you go back out and retrace . Conrad: And what 's this buffer zone going to consist of? Olsen: The vegetation will just be a natural vegetation. Mostly canary grass . Conrad: So if one person cuts into it it might stand out? 1 Olsen: Well it 's_ going to be going from 10 feet to 25 feet . It 's not going to be just a straight line so it might not be real obvious if someone 's cutting their 25 feet into a 15 foot but that 's why if we do notice something , if somebody calls, we will be able to go in and find those stakes and look at the survey . ' Conrad: Well I like the idea . I 'm just worried about carrying it out . Olsen : I think we 've had the most difficulty trying to protect them in the t past and these are things we 've always talked about that might be good so again it 's experimental . Conrad: The setback from the wetland, especially Class A is 75 feet so we 're saying 45 now . The DNR has final say? Olsen: No . They have no setback on that . Conrad: They don 't have a setback from a Class A wetland? Kraus: : Only from lakes . Conrad: Only from lakes . It 's our ordinance that 's 75? 1 Olsen: Right . Conrad: Are they reacting? They 're not reacting to that are they? 1 Olsen: We 've told them about the buffer strip and they think that that 's a real good idea but as far as the setbacks themselves, they're not concerned . Conrad: Okay . What is a 2 foot increase in water and Class A wetland makes it more of an open water space right? Less vegetation so it 's more I of a pond than it is a wetland or what? Olsen: Well they 're doing it to see if that will kind of remove , there 's a I lot of , I don't know if it 's duckweed but there's a lot of algae on top so they 're hoping that that . • Conrad: Aeration planned or there is no aeration planned for that? There 's I no dredging to clean up all the stuff that 's run in there? 1 Planning Commis ion Meeting • August. 7 , 1991 - Page 18 Olsen: We discussed that and a lot of , again with the DNR and Fish and Wildlife and people aren 't real excited thinking that would really resolve the problem . So with dredging the sedimentation you mean? • Conrad: Yeah . Erhart: If I could interrupt here . I think keep in mind some years , in dry years the whole thing dries up . Currently the way it is . . . II Conrad: I think there has to be some pedestrian . I 'm comfortable . I don 't know . I don 't mind taking a 31 foot street to 26 but I need staff to endorse that right now and right now they haven't . That sort of bothers I me . I guess I have a tough time reacting to that . I almost have to go with what staff 's saying . I do need some pedestrian , I do need to be confident that the pedestrians have been taken care of , especially around the 26 foot areas . I don 't know what to do right now . I guess in the I absence of not knowing what to do I have to go with staff on what they 're suggesting . However , on the other hand , I sure don't mind reducing the impervious surface of that street if somebody could satisfy my needs to I move people around safely . The walkers . Does the Lundgren plan of $40 ,000 .00• for shrubbery and what have you , does that meet our new standards where let 's say this was a $6 million dollar development , 1%? IOlsen: It doesn 't apply . Conrad: It doesn 't apply . I know it 's not in but are we trying to use IIsome of those standards? Olsen: Those standards don 't , we can 't really apply them to this to Iresidential . Krauss : What does apply though is , it more closely correlates to the I landscaping standards that are being proposed for the subdivision ordinance . This talks about perimeter landscaping and boulevard planting and trees on the lot . ' Conrad: Okay . Last couple things are just reaction to some of the landscaping issues . It 's really tough when Terry 's saying one thing and staff is suggesting another . Like Tim said , I really would like to have ' staff and the developer work it out . I think there's something to having vistas on wetlands so that people driving by. We don't need to block them. I think if you take a look at the other Lundgren developments, back yards really aren 't unattractive the way they've developed other properties so I that doesn 't bother me either but I still want , I still feel comfortable in saying , enforcing the 2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen in this development and less offset . Would that be , if they've already got 2 or 3 on that IIproperty , then that particular lot is taken care of? Olsen: Oh yeah. IConrad: Okay . I really have to defer to staff and the developer to work those things out . I can 't be smart enough to outguess that . And then point number 3 on the wetland alteration permit . I guess I don't know what 1 the wording should be on that . We 're certainly, as you get so close to a I • Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 19 wetland and it 's so close you 're in the wetland when you 're putting in the II streets and what have you and fill , I guess I 'm concerned about how that 's done . And so I think that 's what Lundgren has to live within is what the staff sets up as permissible so that it doesn 't affect the wetland that much . If spring is the time that the developer comes in and puts roads , that 's when there 's a lot of runoff . I 'm concerned with what happens but again I have to defer to what staff suggests. 1 Rick Sathre : I 'm Rick Sathre . I 'm the engineer for the project . There were a couple things that Commissioner Conrad, issues that he raised that I' think I could address . Specifically how we changed the impact on the DNR wetland . • Emmings: Do you want him to address that? Did you have a question you 'd II like him to answer? Conrad: Let 's keep going and Rick if you could comment after we 're all done . Maybe that would be appropriate . Emmings: Alright , Tim . What 's your name; Batzli : My name 's Brian but I 'll answer to Tim tonight . Emmings: Okay , go ahead. , Batzli : I 'd like to say that I think , I appreciate the sensitivity that Lundgren and staff have put into this and now I 'd like to hammer it a I little hit . Jo Ann , have we figured out what is the net average lot size? Olsen: It 's 30 ,000 . Batzli : No that 's gross isn't it? If you took out the wetland portion here that are totally undevelopable . Do you know what kind of lot sizes we 've got here? - Olsen: No I don't . Batzli : Okay . I 'm not going to talk about that much. I think Jeff 's going to , unless I call you Brian tonight . I don 't know. I think that we 've got some really small lots in here and we 're going to be putting some pretty big houses on them and we're not doing ourselves any favors . If ' recent experience with PUD's is any indication regarding real small lot sizes and houses put next to each other as far as variances in the future go. As far as what these homes look like, granted you're going to have a II big wetland in the middle of a lot of them especially on Block 2 but from just looking at the impact of what these homes crowded next to each other would look like fairly small lots from the road, I think some of the neighbors and maybe none of them spoke tonight but I think they all feel like it 's going to appear as if these are very small lots . Even if you put a fairly nice house on there , they're concerned and I 'd like to 'know what the heck these lot sizes are really going to look like once you factor out II both the protected area and the wetland because it appears, especially in Block 2 that they are going to look very tiny . I also have a comment or I I Planninc Commis: .on Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 20 quezt ion about what your density net is . Did you calculate the wetland size to be taken out as 8 .6 acres? • Olsen: No actually I did the 8 .3 . Batzli : And do you take out the road when you calculate that? I think that number should be much higher . Closer to 1 .7 or better . I 'd like you to look at that again . On Lot 7 , Block 1 they 've only got 40 feet on the curve . Don 't we have some kind of rule or regulation about that? I thought we had required more . ' Olsen: On a curve you have to have the 90 feet at the setback . Batzli : At the setback? Olsen: Right . Batzli : And we 've got 90 feet there? Olsen: No , no but . IIKrauss: Keep in mind this is a PUD. It 's not RSF standards . Batzli : Yeah , I understand . Do we like that? Do we comment on it? Do we look at it? II Olsen: It was in the table . I pointed out which ones don't meet that . Batzli : I know but do people look at it from the standpoint of we 're going to have a couple of driveways right next to each other on the curve? Do we Icare? I don 't know . Should we share a driveway there? Krauss: We have actually asked that that be modified . 1 Olsen: As a curve . Krauss: We wanted the eyebrow removed and the driveway shared if necessary Ibut it would open that area up quite a bit . • Batzli : I guess I 'm looking at it from the standpoint that it looks mighty I crowded on the curve and especially if, well I don 't think the pavement is reduced in width there is it at that point. Is the road width in Fox Hollow reduced from 31 feet? Do you guys know? It seems to me that there was something granted in Fox Hollow. Either the right-of-way or either the width itself . Do you guys know? Folch: That I 'd have to check on . I 'm not aware of off hand. I 'd have to find out for sure . I don 't recall . Batzli : It seems to me it 's narrower in that particular development, and I I guess I 'd , I mean I agree with Lundgren that I think sidewalks would detract from this particular development from a sellability standpoint . With the tight curves . I know in my particular development it 's a potential problem with people driving their cars too fast around the curves _. r Planning Commission Meeting II August 7 , 1991 - Page 21 and especially there 's a hill and a curve area in our development and this II has a couple of slope areas . I 'm not sure , is the elevation of the street going to be fairly consistent Charles do you know? Folch: In fact it won 't . You 're going to have the grade will be coming , down on both sides from the north down to the south where you 're going to have your lower points so it will fluctuate . I Batzli : So you 're going to be coming, especially on the east side going south? You 're going to be coming down a hill and then around a corner ; there? Folch: Exactly . ' - Batzli : Is that one of the areas where the width is reduced? II Folch: That 's one of the areas where due to the existing site limitations II it has been proposed to reduce the width in order to get the road to work in that area geometrically . Batzli : I don 't know . From a safety standpoint I 'd like to see something II that 's for sure . There 's been a lot of close calls with little kids on our road in ari area similar to that . I 'm not sure if the reduced road width is going to impact it that much or not . I asked last time if we •could take a II look at incorporating any of the road structure of this development into a potential development to the west . Was anything really done on that? Krauss: There 's a couple reasons we didn't pursue that . First is that II there was an original plan that looked to do that and when the property owner to the west was thinking about throwing the property in. He since decided not to pursue that which makes it difficult to anticipate a street II connection through there . The grades get rather tough. If you don't have the cooperation of property and know how it 's going to develop, it gets rather tough to see where a road's going to cut through, 1 Batzli : I know we 've done this hypothetically in the past and I just think that we 're going to end up with another entrance right on the other side ofil. chasing bend there in the next development down which is going to be somewhere between 100 and 200 feet away when it seems to me we might try to incorporate it . I don't know . If you say it's impossible , I believe you . Krauss: I don't think it 's impossible: We see-a concept that demonstrates' that it 's not impossible but it's quite difficult . Olsen: There are some wetlands right adjacent to, on the west. I don't r know if you 've got something that shows that. Batzli : If and when we ever get a trail system in this city, are we going I to have one along Lake Lucy Road? . • Olsen: I think that trail system is there . There's an additional easement for that trail . Batzli: Is there one already? II • 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' August 7 , 1991 - Page 22 Olsen : There 's an on street trail . Just a bike trail . Bat�li : That 'E as much as we 'll ever get there? Olsen: Well there 's an easement for off street but I think that what you 've got is what you get . You know it 's for the park department to really determine . Batzli : Terry , if I can direct this question to you . Who will own the ' little piece of land on the northwest corner of the development there that 's by the entrance? Is that Lot 23's property up there? Terry Forbord: Mr . Chairman , members of the Planning Commission. Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros . . Just to make sure I understood your question. The very northwest corner just west of the road there 's what appears to be a triangular piece of property that goes along the western boundary. That is part of Lot 23 , you 're absolutely correct . Batzli : So it will be up to Lot 23 to maintain that piece of property? Terry Forbord: Sir , Mr . Commissioner , that area is a preservation zone . It will have deed restrictions on it where it will maintain it 's natural state . If you look on the exhibits that have been supplied by staff and ' upon staff 's recommendation , that is an area that they feel should be maintained in it 's natural state and it 's always been our intent to keep it that way . There are some significant trees . As you know, the City of ' Chanhassen requires a tree survey of every tree that 's I believe larger than 6 inches and we have done that on this particular site . That area along both sides of that road in approximately 400 feet has significant trees on both sides of the road and that 's why that area is depicted on the preservation map exhibit as a preservation zone . Batzli : So you 're not going to have any entrance markers or anything like that in that area? Terry Forbord: To the contrary . Actually in the very northwest corner , as you will see on the exhibit on the overhead , there is actually a Walker Pond which is a sedimentation pond that will be trapping the storm water runoff that comes into this. Eventually goes into the large DNR wetland and you can see it kind of there depicted as kind of a kidney shaped little object there . That is a pond on that side . The landscape plan depicts landscaping all around that area . Now as you know when you 're putting in roads and you have a right-of-way and especially by entrances to I subdivisions , it 's very important that your sight lines be established so people at that stop sign are turning, they can see some distance . So yes there will be some landscaping but a safety considerations are there so the people ingressing and egressing will be able to see in a safe manner . Batzli : So you 're not going to have any entrance markers into this development? ITerry Forbord: No , that 's not true . Batzli : Where are you going to put them? 1' Pla min,=. Commission Meeting - August 7 , 1991 - Page 23 Terr Forbord: The entrance markers are on the landscape plan . They are depicted there . Olsen: It 's up on the transparency . I Terry Forbord : Rick , would you put the landscaping plan up please? Batzli : Maybe I should ask it this way . Is there going to be a homeowners, association in this development? Terry Forbord: No sir . Batzli : So will -it be. that Lot 23's responsibility to maintain the entrance monument and the landscaping on that corner or is that all going 1 to be on the right-of-way? Terry Forbord : It will not be in the right-of-way? What we have done in the past , even within this city and many other cities is that there is a landscaping easement , a monument easement . Often times a utility easement on those particular lots where there is monumentation . There is an agreement with the individual who buys that home that they will maintain I that in perpetuity . That 's been done in this city as well as every other city that we 've had . Batzli : When do we normally do that Paul? When would we require that? ' Krauss : The homeowners agreement? ' Batzli : Well he said there 's not going to be one . But require for example that land-�caping and sign monuments , things like that get taken care of in a PUD . U Krauss: Well , if it 's a concern you can require that it be set up at this time . In the past we 've had problems with some of these monuments that II included lighting and backlit signage and stuff that would fall apart and the homeowner didn 't maintain it. I think Lundgren typically has gone to , what is common now which is a low or zero maintenance type of facility . Sometimes a rock wall with brass lettering fixed to it . It 's a difficult II one on that particular lot Commissioner too. We want to have a low maintenance or no maintenance landscaping . The homeowner reasonably is not going to be maintaining it . The homeowner reasonably isn't going to think II of that as being part of their property. Batzli : That 's my concern is that you're going to have a development full of unhappy people because somebody 's not going to take care of it and they 're going to think that it's the City 's responsibility. Terry Forbord: That has not been our problem in the past . We've been in I business for 22 years. We 've have done this and we have not had that problem . - rBatzli : There 's been that problem in other developments here . I 'm not saying Lundgren 's is the problem . I just suggesting that this has happened before . ' 1 Planriin7.1 Commission Meeting • August ? , 19?1 - Page 24 Terry Forbord: You 're right . It does happen with other developers . I think the basis for that is how is the agreement handled between the home buyer end the developer . Is it thought through beforehand . As I stated , we don 't have those problems . ' Batzli : Typically when you put this kind of restriction on the deed they 're buying , w o has the right to enforce it? Krauss: Well , it wouldn't be the first time . We could arrange for the ' City to be involved in the chain of title so that if the property wasn 't being maintained we 'd have the. . .to go back to the homeowner to require the maintenance . We 'll do it ourselves and assess the cost . That would be a possibility . Batzli : I 'd like to see something like that . Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair? Mr . Pflaum , President of Lundgren Bros . is here and he deals with these things himself so maybe he could better address some of those questions . . ' Peter Pflaum: There 's no easy answer . What we do is there 's an easement on the property that in the event the homeowner doesn 't take care of it , we ' have the right but not the obligation to come and take care of it . So there is a protection from the homeowner if this person is not doing it , we can come in and rescue the situation . Batzli : Lundgren? Peter Pflaum: Lundgren , yeah . And we use that in those cases where there 's not a homeowners association . If there 's a homeowners association we give them the right to do it . But like Terry said , we 've never had a problem but if we did , we have the right to come in there and take care of II it and then figure out how to resolve it with the neighbors . Usually you 're not talking about a major item in terms of dollars . Batzli : No , typically it 's for an individual or group of individuals I inside the subdivision and you 're right . But I guess I would feel more comfortable . I have a lot of confidence in Lundgren but I think the City might be here longer than Lundgren. I would prefer that the City have that Iright . Ahrens: What is the sign going to look like anyway? Is it going to be no maintenance? IKrauss: I don't believe we 've gotten into the details yet. • I Batzli : The building inspector 's comments on the type of house and 5 foot drainage easement and stuff Jo Ann. Is that handled in your condition 8( f )? • IKrauss: I believe the condition that 's handling 'it is condition 9. Batzli : Okay , so 8( f ) plus 9 handles it because really they talk about 2 Ithings . The type of house and then the 5 foot drainage . Okay . I share I Planning Commission Meeting I August 7 , 1991 - Page 25 Ladd '. concern . I would like to see it demonstrated that there 's kind of II no net loss . That this is really top drawer and we 're doing the right far as the landscaping , I agree with ( a ) that I think we should put a couple in provided they 're going to survive . ( b ) I think we can get rid of . ( c ) , I really don't have something to protect the slope but that doesn 't necessarily mean trees . Is that right Jo Ann? Olsen: Right . Batzli : Yeah . And then ( e ) , I think as long as they 're acting in accordance with what we 're proposing in the new ordinance regarding if there is existing trees , a minimum .of 1 or whatever. the language ends Op . I don 't know if we 're going to pass it that they can delete all three . They 're credited with existing trees over a certain caliper . I just think II that should be worked out depending on what we talk about later tonight . I agree there shouldn 't be a berm . And as far as the wetlands , I think there should be some kind of language in there that it should minimize impact on II it from the standpoint of I guess we don 't want their grader running around the entire wetlands . I don 't know how we say that but I think there should be some protection . As far as the during breeding season, it seems to me we always do have that in there but I guess Terry raised an interesting point . It might be all year round . Olsen: Well , it usually is in the spring when we mean it and'when we say II minimal disturbance , a lot of times you can do that grading when the ground is still somewhat frozen and stuff so when you 're filling in a portion of ail wetland you 're really not , that 's the least impact . It 's the harder ground . That 's what we intended . Erhart.: . . .Item 3 that you 're discussing deals solely with the timing . Not the extent of granding . Olsen: Right . The timing . That 's what I mean. , Batzli : I 'm done now . Olsen: If I could , I did go through the, you're right . The actual net II density is 2 .1 without the wetlands . For some reason I had that done and another one got in there . So what was in there is the net lots and it had not removed the wetland. So if you remove all the wetlands, 8.3 acres , it's 2 .1 units per acre . Thanks for catching that . . Emmings: And our city average is 1 .7? Olsen: That was shown in the Comp Plan. Rick Sathre: . . .37 lots on 22 acres . , Olsen: What I did is I had added up all the lot areas . Had removed the streets and then what I did was just remove the wetland areas from that and I came up with 17 .7 acres.. ` Rick Sathre: And roads . But if you just take out the wetlands , then the density is 1 .7 . ' I ' Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 19 91 - Page 26 Emmi ngs: W,: take out both . When we say net , we take out both . ' Jeff? Farriak3 . ' I 'm going to start out with some stuff just in general that I have q;ueEtions on that we didn 't cover- in the previous meeting . I just can 't find in here in all this paperwork. I 'm going to start out with this tree preservation . Go to Exhibit H that shows some of the trees . It 's on this sheet here . The road that comes up in the northwest corner that you said that you changed the angle so it wasn't going straight into the road . The one we 're talking about the light shining into the homeowners home . I 'm I looking at how that relates to the trees that are in existence there . I can see that whoever did the plotting on this thing was trying to get a lot out of what is now Lot 14 . Buildable lot there in the corner . The 1 southwest corner of Lot 14 . Was I guess trying to get a minimum building lot in there . I 'm wondering are there any other ways to run that road through there so you wouldn 't have to slice through? IIOlsen: We did talk about running it right like adjacent to the wetland. Farmakes : S:) that would curve it off to the east? A little more to the II east? Olsen: Exactly . Then once you get the building pad in there , you 'd be losing them so we weren 't really , there really was no way to get around it even if you did move it all the way over because then , like I said , with the building pad . Also the ponding area that 's in that northwest corner , they 're going to be dredging that out and making it deeper . That 's going I to be removing some of the poplars and stuff there too so it is kind of getting hit from all angles . II Farmakes: I guess I 'll get into this Lot 14 in a few minutes here . It seems that the stand that 's there essentially will be eliminated either through the road or that holding pond or Lot 14 . Correct? 1 Krauss: No . There will be some trees removed . What you have is a trade-off . If there 's a potential and alternative for the road to come out in another location onto the adjacent property , that would be the only way to do that but there 's net environmental impact damage on that site to accomplish it . If the road 's going to connect there at all , your other alternative is to come through the Class A wetland and we 've been trying to I keep some , everybody 's been trying to stay out of that . What they did is sort of split the difference and they've got trees located on either side of the road . Significant trees located on either side of the road and as the road comes through there at a diagonal , you should still have II considerable tree massing. I don 't know where you want to pick out the kind of trees that are in there . I can't read it. Rick Sathre: Mr . Chairman, I 'm Rick Sathre from Sathre-Berquist. The earlier plan that some of you saw last time we were here, the road-was shifted a little bit farther east through this area right in here . I chose I finally this alternative after looking at about 3 or 4 others because this allowed us to save some 16 to 30 inch oaks right in this area that are west of the existing Ortenblat driveway. Also saving some significant trees , although they aren 't oaks on the west side of the road . Picking this particular alignment gave us trees on both sides whereas if we pushed it Planning Commission Meeting I August 7 , 1991 - Page 27 farther west or east we lost everything on one side or the other . This II seems to protect the largest trees the best . Farmakes : Was one of those options when you went to the east , there 's sort II of a natural gap between those two clumps of trees where you move it farther to the east so it 's on the east side of where those oaks are you II would nip some of that wetland up in the northwest corner? Rick Sathre : Here 's the existing drd.veway . That 's where that opening is? - Farmakes : Well yeah . It comes at a different angle but . ' Rick Sathre: Okay . Well it isn't wide enough for the road so if we came out here , then we 'd fill into the Class A wetland . II FarmaLes: But you could angle it and fill in that one corner up there to ' minimize the loss of those trees? If the angle was this direction rather than th_ present direction of the road? Rick Sathre : If we moved the entrance farther east and did impact the II wetland , you 'd still have , it 's back here where the trees are significant . So just moving the entrance east didn 't help necessarily . Olsen: I think he 's talking . I Rick Sathre : Maybe I don 't understand . Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair , Terry Forbord of Lundgren Bros . . I know when I you 'r locking at one dimension on a map , even for those of us who do this day in and day out , it 's very difficult to try to understand the dynamics II of moving something even one foot east or west . The other thing that one needs to take into perspective when they 're just looking at these lines and wondering , is this where it 's going to be is something called grading I limits . Okay , so when you 're looking at those lines , that isn't the only area that will be impacted . The grading limits that it takes to make it all fit together and the engineer can probably explain this from a City 's perspective , the grading limits can change depending on where you put the II road . If we move that road further to the east , the impact wouldn't just be on what you see in that one dimension because you may have to grade 50-60 feet each direction beyond the right-of-way in order just to make it ' work because of the topography . So when we selected, like Rick said and I think he was fairly modest when he said we've looked at three different concepts because we worked with the City staff seeing their concepts and II then our concepts and we went back and forth. Got the wetland people involved . I mean every expert that was available got involved in the design of these sensitive areas and the roads. But we also had to take into effect the grading limits of the right-of-way . How far on both sides II of the road were we going to have to cut dirt or move dirt . The spot that you see right now , right where it is today has the absolute minimal impact of any alternative for that particular location. , Whether it be trees , - 'II wetlands , wildlife , whatever . Farmakes: Paul , did you look at these other proposals that they 're talking about? ' 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 28 Krause : We in fact sat around a table sketching out a variety of things at several meetings , yeah . ' Farmakes: Okay , because as far as the .grading goes , the angle that I 'm . talking about really relates to Lot 14 and whether or not there is a Lot - II 14 . The angle isn 't that much different than the present road that goes in there now . It 's slightly more to the east . I 'm not an engineer . I don 't build roads . I Olsen: Do you want me to show what I think you 're talking about is to bring the road or do you want to come over and do it? But you 're talking about bringing the road through here instead? IFarmakes: Well just either that or angling it up and nipping a bit of the wetland . IIOlsen: And then what you 're saying is that they would lose Lot 14 . Farmakes: I 'll get into discussing Lot 14 in a minute . But it would be II Lot 14 , that is correct . I think we 've maybe covered that enough . My concern is that maybe when this does come before the City Council that that 's looked at . I 'd like to touch quickly on this road issue . On page 20 . Has the safety , has this come before the Safety Commission at all or have they commented on any of this? Olsen : We got comments back from the Building Inspector and then also from IIthe Fire Marshall . They had no comments specifically . Farmakes: You don 't see this , this isn 't really a thru street of any kind . 1 It 's just internal traffic and you feel that this would be , without a street that this would be a safe issue? • Olsen: Well that 's why we 're doing the compromise to try it . To try and I see if we can because it really was a difficult situation because we really wanted to save the wetlands and the trees but also provide the closed. street . So we 're comfortable that the transition would work . Farmakes: The sidewalk would be 6 feet on both sides? ' Olsen: No , just one side . • Farmakes: Which side would this be? The north side? IIOlsen: We were proposing that it be on the wetland side . That 's mostly where people would be wanting to walk.. IBatzli : I don 't think people would use them though. I don 't think people would go onto the street, onto the sidewalk , back onto the sidewalk kind of a thing . IOlsen: If we make it like an easy transition. We kind of were thinking just a little ramp up , ramp down . . . Plannir, Commission Meeting , Aucust , , 1991 - Page 29 Batzli : I just think of like in Eden Prairie . A lot of times you see people L - 1 !k.inc down the street and the sidewalk 's right there . I don 't kncw if they 'd use it . Olsen: You want to provide it just in case . , Krauss: We may be guilty of trying to be over creative on this but we clearly wanted to be sensitive to not plowing into , we needed to protect the wetland . We didn 't want to plow into the hill with the oaks on it and II there 's only so much room to put the road and then we looked at revising our standards which the PUD ordinance encourages you to do. But we're being asked to break 'some new ground here and there 's a limit to how far we 're comfortable in going and we developed this compromise out of it . It 's clear to me in looking at planning literature from Around the country that a lot of places are looking at reducing right-of-way and street width for the same reasons that we 're considering it here tonight . What 's not ' clear to me is the standard that we should use and I think the engineering department has indicated that they 're going to check with other communities and see what they 're going with. You know it takes a while for the ordinances to catch up with what some of other communities are doing and we 'd like to see what is safe . We do have a tight curve here compounding the narrowness of the street . We think it can be done safely or else we wouldn 't propose it . But we wanted to have all the safeguards we could built into this and the sidewalk was part of that . Farmakes: If the sidewalk was deleted , did you take that into consideration when you were looking at that? In other words would you approve it or do you have real safety concerns if that was deleted? Krauss : We 'd really have to take a look at this . I 'll be honest with you II Commissioner Farmakes. This is something that we had a conference call with the City Manager and ourselves sitting around a conference table late Wednesday afternoon with the developer 's engineer trying to work out something that we could agree on that met the goals that we felt we needed to meet . What you see in front of you is the net result of that . Farmakes: I 'm going to reserve an opinion on that until we get further information on it . The next thing I want to touch on is the lots. I 've been really impressed with Lundgren development and their developments. I think they 've done a really nice job. Signage, landscaping, the whole thing . I do have some concerns that again when this goes to City Council that they 're really looking at what this really is. Particularly in these areas where they show the wetland . Often it's the case in the wetland you II see a huge lot there and really it's not quite so huge when it comes time to build on it . In looking at Lots 14-5, if you look where the building pads are and you superimpose where the wetland is , and that's Exhibit C and , E , if you put those two together , it would seem to me and then look at the square footage that is on page 16 on the staff report here and look at those listings , they look pretty substantial when you .look 'at lot area but ' when you subtract the wetland and you subtract the wetland setback and you subtract the front setback on the lot , these lots are half or more in some cases. And then compare them against Lots 1 , 2, 3 . The existing home on 3 . Even 14 , 15 , 16 . These lots aren 't suffering a lot of loss through I wetland habitat or they 're pretty much all buildable. It concerns me that ' Planninj Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 30 E thru 14 are so different . I understand that PUD , that 's what goes on but I thick that these figures are a bit deceptive . . That we should also have hat rcz'_ i ; nct buildable square footage of that lot is when they 're comparing them against the other lots that are there because I think they look far different than what 's on here . The other lots that I• have concern ' about would be Lot 13 , Lot 12 , and Lot 10 . Also those lots are having a fair amount of lc _s due to the proposal . I 'm also concerned about 7 and 6 . The access on the road . You said there 's somebody over there that wants the thru street through there . Is that the positioning of that street or where it 's proposed? Olsen: No . Like I said, in just our first shot at that we 've looked at that they already do have access on Powers Blvd. that they could bring in their own private drive and there 's some slope and topography there and trees that would be removed . Farmakes: It seems awfully narrow there . They'd either have to share a lot or put them both of them right together . I 'm concerned in particular about Lot 14 . I still feel that , typographical considerations aside , that the reason that that rc -d 's going through so that building pad on 14 and it 's just the corner there . I guess considering looking at these homes and the density of these homes , if you look at them on any part of the lower ' level or the south part. , if there 's houses close together in the arrangement for the typographical area , there 's not more than 3 or 4 of them in a row and then they change angle . When I look at 5 thru 14 , ' they 're sort of all on a crescent . They 're all , because of the typographical positioning all in a row. They seem awfully close together to compared to the rest of the development and I also understand that a PLC , taking use and consideration of the land that that 's what you do ' sometimes . I 'd like to see fewer homes in between there . Between 5 and 14 . In particular 14 . If you eliminate 14 and move those apart a little bit , you can maybe get those a little bit more to conform . I don 't know 11 about the economics of that but to me that 's a glaring standout there . When we talked about , to go onto the next subject, when we talked a bit about the improvement of the wetland . I still have concerns about finding out information about how the wetland that 's on the lower half of this development is affected . The drainage ditch at one time , it 's now filled up , you guessed it being about 12 inches deep at the time it drained out the property . Is that correct? So it takes very little to drain that level down to the next wetland, is that correct? Frank Svoboda: The ditch as it is today is about 6 inches shallower than 'it was originally . There 's about 6 inches of sediment on the bottom . That 's probably about 12 to 18 inches. Farmakes: Okay , but at this point that's more of a , it's not draining out I right now into the lower , it's filled in? The drainage area . Has there been any discussion as to what, if anything that they talked hypothetically about putting a crop in. I 'm sure the D?s:=• isn't going to allow that : As I far as improvement . If they approved the water level on this thing , how is that going to affect the wetland and the next slope down which is on the southeast of this property? Besides the road or Lake Lucy Road, are they going to be doing anything to change the nutrients in this issue that 's I already there? Particularly if this land has already been cropped . There Planning Commission Meeting ' August 7 , 1991 - Page 31 is suh_tantial amounts of nutrients there . How is that going to affect the .. g lower w,�tl:.nd and in raising that water level , how that drains? Is that grin, tc take the nutrients and the problems from there and put it down to the ne->:t one? Is there something that can done about that? And if so , what would the DNR allow us to do? My comments then , to finish up on going back to page 21 . I would defer to the City on that as far as blocks view . ' That 's an aesthetic issue. This is a considerable distance from the highway . I 've seen the other development 's homes . They look pretty good from the back . I guess I don't have as much concern about the blocking of the view . It will take a long time for those trees to get up to that state ' but I still would like to see some landscaping . Survivability is an issue . I 'd like to hear from the City .on whether or not that 's a confirm on that . Krauss: On boulevard trees along Lake Lucy? ' Farmakes: That 's correct . That 'd be line ( a ) . They would like that deleted and next to it , the thing Terry handed out here . Comments that say here , it says blocks view and low survivability . Krauss : We have asked the street superintendent , who admittedly isn't a landscape expert but who 's familiar with what grows in his rights-of-way toll take a look at that when he was looking at that drainage issue and he. believed that it was wide enough to support some boulevard trees . He 's got" a lot of intuitive feel for these things and I sort of trust his opinion . What we were talking about though is exactly what Commissioner 's Conrad and Erhart mentioned which is the boulevard trees with deciduous trees through there . Basically just to break it up a little bit . I Farmakes : I 'd like to see that stay in then, unless there 's legitimate information basking that up that we can 't put anything in there because I it 's not going to live . It would. be a waste of money . On ( b), as far as the landscaping of the rear lots adjacent to Class A wetlands , I 'd still like to see that remain but I also understand that the sellability of these !' types of homes , these people are going to want to look out onto the lake . They 're- going to want to look out on the wetland. I guess as you said before , if there 's enough there to break it up . Olsen: Yeah , that was our intention. It wasn't going to be a solid ' screen . Just a little . Farmakes: So maybe a definition of what that is. Perhaps something that II is compromiseable there . I 'd like to' see also (e) stay in there. I don't think that 's excessive . However , since that 's not on the books, perhaps again that 's something up for discussion. A landscape berm and so on , I guess if , again I defer to the City's opinion there on whether or not the landscape only is going to affect that particularly in the winter . - As far as line 3 , again I 'd like to hear from the DNR on that. I 'm not a wildlife " expert and what constitutes a breeding season and how that will affect . I 'd like to get their opinion on that . That 's the end of my comments. Emmings: Thanks Jeff . Joan . . ' 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 32 Ahrer : I 'd like to first comment on Terry 's comments and then I had some general comments . As far as the 26 foot width of the street goes ,. I think that 's fine and I think putting in a sidewalk is , I don 't want to expose the City to any liability here by not putting in a sidewalk but I don 't think people use them . I know that they 'd use them if they were only on it for a short time but I think it would look nice . The landscaping. Under ' ( a ) , the landscaping along Lake Lucy Road. I guess my only concern there is not to block the view of the wetland for everybody else . I don't know what you had in mind there as far as what kind of landscaping goes but ' there 's other people that look at that wetland besides the people who are going to live in it and I think that shouldn't be blocked from the road . ( b ) , I have no opinion about that . I 'll defer to the City on that . ( c ), I guess my understanding is that your intent there was to stabilize the land next to the wetland . That 's why you wanted some landscaping . Is that true? Olsen: Right . There 's some special grasses and stuff like MnDot will use and we were also going to look at if it is possible for like birch or willow but again it 's something that , it 's maybe just one . But that slope 's pretty steep so that 's something we 'll be working on but at least the vegetation. Thick growth vegetation. We just want to see what they 're proposing and make sure that that was going to be adequate . That wouldn't ' erode . Ahrens: Okay , ( e ) . We 've been. talking about this requirement for some time now , months and we all think it 's a great idea and I don 't know , if we ' don 't start here when are we going to start? I don 't see that as too big of a burden for Lundgren . And ( f ) , I 'm biased on this because that 's my little house up there across the street from this. ' Emmings: Well how does the homeowner feel? Let 's hear it . Ahrens: Well first of all , I 've heard lots of comments tonight that the IIroad has been moved east of where it 's original location was. Right? Rick Sathre : The angle coming in has been cocked so it 's just this lip uhere . The intersection hasn 't been moved farther east , no . Ahrens: But on your Exhibit , on your sheet #7, it shows the existence of I the old road alignment as compared to the existence of the new road alignment and then new road alignment is actually west of the old road alignment . I Rick Sathre: The absolute touchdown point on Lake Lucy Road moves very slightly west because the additional proposal showed a slope going actually into the Class A wetland a little bit. We shifted it over just enough to Iavoid that . I think you 're talking about this one aren't you? Ahrens: Right . 1 Rick Sathre: The initial proposal had the slope 'coming down off of the road right-of-way into the very corner of the Class A wetland. We shifted the road from, the curve line from here over to there to get a little 1 farther away and then the angle coming in, you can see . I don 't know if Planning Commission Meeting ' August 7 , 1991 - Page 33 you can understand this graphic . It 's very hard but the cross hatched lines represent where the road was a month ago in our planning . This dark line is the newer road . New idea for the road and I guess what you see looking at it , studying it , a couple things are different about it but one II of them is that the headlights coming out the road would be pointed easterly until you got closer to the road . Ahrens: Okay , but once it 's at the road , I mean I can tell what 's west and east here and once you 're at the road where the cars are stopped and ready to go out. onto Lake Lucy Road , it 's actually further west than it was ; before . kick Sathre: Yeah , the cars would actually stop probably 15 or 20 feet farther west . 1 Ahrens: And if you look on sheet #6 , where the existing driveway is now . The Ortenblat driveway , that 's considerably east of where your proposed road is . Rick Sathre: Jo Ann , can I use your market for a moment? I 'll draw that 11 driveway on here . Ahrens: Do you have your own Exhibit #6 because it 's on there already? • Rick Sathre: That 's the tree survey map? Ahrens: Right . Tree survey and vegetation. , Rick Sathre: It was up here a while ago . This one. Is this the one? Ahrens: Right . ' Rick Sathre : This is the existing driveway location. That would be about • at the eastern edge of the permanent road . , Ahrens: Right . The eastern corner would be more accurate . And you know, Terry 's a very persuasive person and I can see that he persuaded most of • the commission here that a berm isn't needed there but I 'd invite any of you to back into that driveway at night 'and point your headlights out and you 'll see that this goes directly into our backdoor . That 's not .an accurate depiction of where the house is compared to where the road is going to be . And there 's a big difference for us living• there to have a dirt driveway there than to have a paved road with all these houses. I think there 's been landscaping, as far as evergreens go that, we planted 3 I evergreens there several years ago which was a big mistake because it's real windy and real sunny there and I 'd like to talk to your landscape architects and see what they have to say about that but evergreens aren 't going to make it there . So I think there should be a berm and I encourage the berm , that the City require that a berm be put in there and landscaped. As far as the removal of the trees go in that roadway too, are those going to be replaced? I Emmings: The question is whether or not there 's going to be replacement of the trees that are removed to put the road in on the west side. 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 34 Olsen: That was part of all the additional landscaping that we were requesting . Specifically on that site or that location we have discussed ' relandscaping like the ponding area . Like again right now it 's kind of an indentation with some poplars . To have some of that vegetation back but as far as replacement in that location , we have not specifically 'talked about that . ' Ahrens: I liked Jeff 's comment about moving the road further east if that could be done at all . Closer to the actual alignment of the existing ' driveway . However , again even if it was aligned closer to the existing driveway , there would still be a problem with the impact on our lot . It 's a big impact there and I don't know if Lundgren has ever gone out there at night and done what I suggested . Shown your headlights up there . Mostly because it 's a hill across the street and I don't know what the grade is . What 's the grade going to be? ' Folch: I don 't recall off hand. Rick Sathre : The road grade comes down to a low point . . . I believe we ' showed a 6% slope coming down toward Lake Lucy Road but then we level off as you get right to the road so you don 't slide out onto the road . You 'd actually , as you approach the road you get pretty flat at Lake Lucy Road . Like the driveway is now . ' Ahrens: I 'm going to move off of that point . I could go on for a long time about that . When do you plan on raising the level of the wetland 2 feet? When would that be done? Right away or would that be something that would be done down the road? 11 Terry Forbord: Mr . Chairman , would you like me to address that question at this time? Emmings: I 'm sorry . If she asks you a question, go ahead and answer it . ITerry Forbord: Mr . Chair , members of the Planning Commission , my name is Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros . The precise time table of when that I would occur is unknown at this time . A lot of that will depend on when the final approvals come from the city . When the development agreements are prepared . When the funding is available and if we are in a construction II season or if we are not in a construction season. So there 's obviously a lot of factors that none of us know at this exact time when that would happen . So I can 't give you a date when it would occur . I Ahrens: The reason I 'm asking is because I 'd like to know what the , if you raise the level of the wetland it's going to increase the circumference of the wetland and how does that impact on the setback that 's shown here? IDoes the setback get pushed? Terry Forbord: Mr . Chair , the chart that -is shown and it has been submitted to you as a preservation zone and an upland wetland setback zones I are utilizing the new ordinary high water mark that will be established as a result of the raising . • Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 35 n _ • Oka so all of you 've g�� ,� , the figures and all the drawings you ve presented to us already have in place the wetland being 2 feet higher than it presently is? Terry Forbord: Yes sir . Rick Sathre: The line that 's on the drawing as the edge of the wetland isn 't the water surface . It 's actually where the vegetation changes from wetland to upland. So it 's generally that line is up, I 'd say the elevation is probably around 979 . " Emmings: Now wait a minute .. Now you 're saying something different. Rick Sathre : I 'm saying something different than what Terry did. We 're 11 proposing to raise the water surface from 974 .5 to 976 .5. Emmings: Okay , and what 's drawn on here? Rick Sathre : That line is actually where the vegetation changes out on the!' ground which is a line that 's actually way up the slope . It varies in height because the vegetation doesn't follow the contour . But that line is say 797 . Emmings: So everyplace that line is higher? Rick Sathre: It 's always higher than the water level is now or would be . ' Much higher . Olsen: And we did discuss this and we did have them take that into account with the buffer . If it 's a 10 foot buffer it 'd be coming from the height ' or the edge of the water after it 's raised 2 feet . So it does reflect everything being pushed out . Emmings: Well no , that 's not what he 's saying. He 's saying the change in I the vegetation from aquatic to terrestrial to day . That 's what he just said . ' Rick Sathre: I can help you. I 'll try to help you. I don 't think I have a graphic . These probably aren 't the same scale . Well they're fairly close enough. ' Erhart: Rick? To ask a quick question. Is that the change in vegetation today or as proposed? ' Rick Sathre: No . The water surface in the wetland right now, and this is an approximation . This is the water right now. Something like that . If the DNR would allow us to, we 're proposing to raise that so, whoops that 's not going to work . We would be creating a new water surface that would look , this is going to be hard. Maybe you can't see all of them. Can you? It would spread out a little bit farther than 'it ,is now but the line on the ' wetland map , the line that we measure from is what Braun Intertec located on the ground as the vegetation line and that 's uphill still farther . On the western shore isn 't that different because the slopes are steeper but II on the east side , I know the wetland line right now is something like that 1 ' Planning Comm. ion Meeting . August 7 , 1991 - Page 36 so it 's upland quite a bit and it comes right through between the Walker Pond . In general there 's three different lines . ' Emmings: Okay thanks . - Olsen: The green line is going to be pushed out though and I thought ' that 's what we asked for the plans to reflect . That when everything is pushed . When the water is raised, the vegetation is also going to be going out now . Rick Sathre : I think the reed canary grass might migrate up the hill a little bit . Olsen: We can work on that one . Ahrens : So what are you going to do about that one? Olsen: Well , what we want to have reflected is , the water level 's going to be raised up 2 feet . If that 's approved , that 's done . Then you 'll have , ' we 'll determine the edge of the wetland and wherever that is and that 's not necessarily where the water is . Actual water edge is but then we'll be taking the buffer from that . So that 's what we want to have because if you raise the water , then that also pushes out the emergent vegetation . The .I wetland vegetation which actually determines the edge of the wetland so it 's something we 've got to come to a conclusion actually where that is and then from whore the edge of that wetland is and then that buffer strip going . So I don 't know that it 's much different from where it's at . . . Batzli : So as a condition for example Jo Ann, let 's say I want to add an amendment that we 're going to pound in monuments or markers . Since we don 't know where the vegetation is going to migrate up to , how do we know what our 10 or 25 foot buffer strip? ' Ahrens : Also for the easements . Legal description. Emmings: You 'll end up measuring it from the other side . . . Batzli : Well what would you like us to do is the question. Krauss: We 're dealing with a DNR wetland where they establish a wetland I edge and OHW. We 're going to know what that OHW's going to be. Ahrens: At some point in time though. ' Krauss: No . We 're going to know that exactly. I don't know if this was your earlier question. In terms of when this would happen. This would I happen as part of the development. It'd be a condition of it and it would occur at whatever time development occurs. This fall or next spring or whatever . So what we 're going to do and what we have done is regulated the setbacks relative to the new elevated wat='- line . From the expanded ' wetland the setbacks would be measured from there . Now it 's true that the wetland vegetation would migrate uphill from there and we don't know to what extent but we have an expertation that I 'm pretty sure 'it 's going to -1 1 Planning Commission Meeting ' August 7 , 1991 - Page 37 wind up in that additional conservation strip that we 're providing beyond the wetland . Ahrens: How is that going to impact the wetland to the south? When you rain ° the water level . Krauss: The outlet , the outflow and I guess I 'd defer somewhat to the City, Engineer or the applicant , but the . . .flow leaving this water body should be no different post development than it is today . That 's what we try to juggle so that we 're not inducing any water flows or anything else that 's going to upset the balance downstream. By the way , this thing flows in two I directions . It 's kind. of weird . the flow splits somehow . There 's an outlet underneath Lake Lucy Road . ' Emmings : But that 's being shut off . To my understanding . Krauss : We 're still doing some final talking on that . In fact whether or I not you close off one entirely or just the elevation on both of them and let it continue flowing in two directions like it is now is going to be , we 're going to ask the DNR that but I think our last discussion on it was ' that we should probably raise both of them and have it continue to flaw in both directions . Emmings: Alright . I. Olsen: We 're also trying to assure that water isn't totally cut off from that wetland to the south either . We want to still have water entering so II that 's being provided for too . Ahrens : There was some discussion in here , in your staff report . I can 't remember where it is but concerning use of the neighborhood parks by the people who live in this development . I don 't know where I read it in here but they suggested that kids will be using the Curry Farms Park which is I across the road . There will be kind of a crosswalk or something . Is that going to be? Olsen: That was in the Park and Rec memo from Todd Hoffman and their discussion . It was just something that I think they 're recommending . They were commenting on that they would be looking at. Also that they would want that to be provided for . They didn't make it a specific recommendation . Ahrens: I know it 's not part of this , part of your recommendations but I was just curious about that . Are the locations of the lot in the PUD proposal different from the location of the lots in subdivision proposal? Krauss: How do you mean? We've never formally reviewed a subdivision . Ahrens: Well the one that we saw before, • Krauss: You mean the one that came in two weeks ago? , Ahrens: Yeah . Are these clustered more or anything? ' Plannin' Commis-:.on Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 38 ' Krauss : Well see that was just an earlier version of the PUD concept . That basically was a PUD plan that was being presented to you 2 weeks ago . This Plan is simply a refinement of that. The one you saw 2 weeks ago was not one that was designed to come in under normal RSF standards . Gise��• .. :-,ad the reduced front yard setbacks. Reduced right-of-way . Ahrens: My last question , is Lundgren or the City going to do any community education for these people- who live along a wetland? Do 's and don 'ts on living next to a wetland and what they 're supposed to do . I mean is there anything the City can do about that? Olsen: We didn 't again discuss anything specific with this project but in general , with what had happened in the past . We' talked about trying to use our newsletter to educate the public that those are wetlands and they are protecting what you can and cannot do . We have done that in the past and I ' don 't know that it 's been very successful . Ahrens: You 've done it in the past? ' Olsen : We 've had some in the newspaper articles and it 's never been anything . It wasn 't in the newsletter yet . We haven 't discussed anything specifically educating residents of this new subdivision . ' Krauss: . . .too that under the surface water utility program which is now kicking in , we 've got an article coming out in this newsletter . There will be periodic . . .to everybody in the city . Those kinds of educational materials and programs are part and parcel of that project . Ahrens: I don 't have anything. else. Emmings : I do . I don 't really , it 's hard to know where to start here . There are so many issues . It almost leaves me to the conclusion that this I hasn 't been worked on to the point where we 're ready to take action on it but the one thing , a lot of the comments that have been made strike me as being comments that relate to the fact that we 're still looking at this in I of ways as if it 's a regular single family subdivision as opposed to a PUD . We 've kind of got our , this is kind of new for us and I think in a lot of ways we 've got the anchor of our boat stuck over in the family subdivision and it 's hard to get the anchor out . But when I look at I it overall , when I look at the fact that we're preserving 41% of this as open space , I think this probably is exactly what we 're trying or should be trying to do under the PUD ordinance. I think it is rightly done as a ' PUD but I keep getting hung up . I was looking, as an example at Block 1 , Lot 13 which is advertised as a lot with 27 ,500 square feet. A lot width of 92 feet . A lot depth of 303 feet and that lot depth of 303 feet then , you look at what the wetland plus the buffer eats us, the depth drops to 120 feet and the area drops to something just over 11 ,000. But thot 's where I think again my anchor 's stuck back in the single family subdivision and I don 't think we ought to be looking at it that way . We 've talked I about the comments that were made about houses . ,There being too many lots with houses appearing too close together . I think that one of the things we were trying to -do in the PUD was to cluster . Get the houses together so we do leave bigger areas of open space and I think this plan does that . Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 39 - But. I 'm not sure . And I 'm trying to think about this without bringing along all th.t baggage from the single family subdivision ordinance that we 're so used to working with because this is very new for us . And I guess' to some extent I 'm thinking by virtue of the fact that the staff and Lundgren have worked on this together that the staff has been representing our position in reaching those goals _ The goals of the PUD terms of clustering and getting other amenities and particularly open space in exchange for relaxing a lot of the requirements of the subdivision ordinance . So the bottom line is , I think I support this and I think it should be moved along to City Council with those kinds of reservations . I 've got a few other more specific comments . With regard to the buffer gone , buffer zone I think is an excellent -idea . I 'm not sure it 's big ' enough in some places and I don 't know if I like 10 feet but nevertheless, II I don 't quite understand what 's in the buffer zone . I hear that it can , as a landowner , if I want to put a tree in there , can I go back and plant a tree in there? Olsen: YE " . EmmingF : Alright . If t here 's a tree in there that I don't like , can I go II in there and cut it out? Krauss: If it 's not , yes. You could . If it 's not in one of those ' designated tree preservation areas , yes . It 'd be the homeowner 's perrogat ive . Emmings: But he can't mow right? He could plant wildflowers in there if I he wanted to I suppose . I don 't quite understand, I don 't know how the landowners are going to know what the hell they sari do or not do in that buffer zone and I almost feel like we ought to give them some direction . Maybe we need a definition in our ordinance about what a buffer zone is and what folks can do but that isn 't provided here and I think it 's kind of a nebulous thing . The second concern of mine with regard to the buffer zone II is that it 's got to be marked in backyard in a visible way . A person ought to be able to walk in the backyard , anybody ought to be able to walk in that backyard and see a marker where that zone starts . And it shouldn 't be a pipe in the ground that 's flush with the ground that you -have to find with a metal detector . It 's got to be something that you can just walk in there and see . That 's the only way we'll ever have any hope of policing that in any way it seems to me . Olsen: We 've discussed that and those markers are , sometimes they do get covered with the vegetation . They can be moved or removed. We've II discussed what kind of markers those would have to be . Concrete. That 's how we came to that post is that that 's something . Yeah, it 's not visible but it 's something that will always be there. It can't be moved and you 111 can always find it . Emmings: I think it ought to be visible . I think it 's got to be visible. is Batzli : Put both in . Emmings: Yeah , do both . That's okay too . I don't know . But if it 's not ' visible , I don 't know . The policing of this is almost hopeless anyway and 1 I Planning Commission Meeting • August 7 , 1991 - Page 40 I if you bury that pipe , it 's totally hopeless . I mean it 's beyond hopeless I somehow . Whatever that might mean . With regard to raising that Class A wetland 2 feet , the raising of the level of water in the wetland is going to be done simply by raising the outlets . Is that right? Or •where the . water will spill out . IIKrauss: We structure the outlet so . . . I Emmings: So you 're not going to be pumping water into this thing . It. 's going to fill up by natural . . .or won 't fill up at all . And sometimes it 's going to go down I take it so the line we 're talking about on the shore , the aquatic vegetation changes to terrestrial is something that 's going to change over the years no matter what we do there , unless we actually pump and keep it full at the specific level . Okay . The one thing that bothers me about the Class A wetland is everytime we looked at wetland designs , I where we 've installed them or we 've gone in and approved them , they 've always had an undulating bottom so that you had areas where vegetation can grow in shallower water and then there 's deeper water areas and I don 't see I any effort at all being made to do that in this one or is that just something that 's not here? Olsen: It 's being done . IKrauss : Specifically the Class A wetland? IEmmings: Yeah . Krauss: Well the Class A wetland we 've been pretty much told by the DNR Inot to look at . . . The new wetlands that are being created . Emmings: Yeah , I 'm just talking about the Class A . So the DNR is not for doing that? IOlsen: When I was talking about the dredging was to dredge all the material on the whole site . IEmmings: No . I 'm only talking about making an undulating bottom. Olsen: I know what you 're talking about . Yeah, that's . I Emmings: I would think. the DNR would be for that . IOlsen: It was total dredging to remove phospherous . Emmings: I 'm not talking about that . We don't need to talk about that. IOlsen: Right , I know . That's what I 'm saying. That 's what the DNR suggested. - I Frank Svoboda: I 'm Frank Svoboda . Mr . Chairman; members of the Commission . What you're referring to , typically what 's done is in the process of reconstructing or designing a new wetland. What we try to do is I create that variable bottom . In this case we 're dealing with a natural wetland . I Planning Commission Meeting II August 7 , 1091 - Page 41 I Emmings: No , you 're dealing with an agricultural field . I mean to some extent isn 't that right? IIFrank Svoboda: Well , when I use the term natural I 'm using it in the sense that the DNR would use it . Yes , I would agree based on the history that I gave you that it is no longer or it has become naturalized because it 's II filled up with water . This bottom is basically flat and we 're not proposing to do anything with that because that would require a permit to alter that wetland through the DNR because it is a DNR protected wetland . So all we 're proposing to do is a practice that is consistent with both DNR II and Fish and Wildlife Services practices when they actually manage wetlands to enhance them for waterfowl is they will- put in a control structure and they will raise the water level by some determined amount and they will not" do any sort of modification of the bottom. Emmings: Okay . It seems to me if we went and approved that wetland that's one way to do it . But I don 't know. The DNR isn't requiring you to do it . ' I don 't know . It seems like we 're turning what is sometimes a wetland into a pond here . Maybe that 's okay. I don't know but if we 're going to call it a wetland and be consistent with what we 've done in the past , it seems II to me there ought to be some variation in that bottom so that you get some vegetative growth that 's typical of wetlands . Erhart : If it was dry when they did this project , you could do that but II now that you 've got what , probably a foot of water? Rick Sathre: F foot to . 'i Emming: : Well you could still do it I suppose . It might be harder . Olsen: Just real quickly . The DNR did suggest that they do want to get II the vegetation like what you would get if you had the undulating bottom . You could have it drained completely and let it dry out for a couple of seasons and then that vegetation would appear and then let the water come back in and some of the vegetation would be removed or some stay in but you 'd have to do that on a cycle. IIEmmings: ' That 's an awful lot of nuisance . I don 't have any problem with the rezoning . On the preliminary plat , the 26 foot roadway, I just like other people have already said , I don't have any way to know . One thing I II would like to ask though is if you 're going to , I assume- that if it does taper from 31 to 26 that 's going to happen over , it 's not going to go like this . II Krauss: No . There 's standard road taper details. Emmings: Okay . I 'm not sure that it wouldn't be a good idea to have a II uniform roadway going through there. 26 feet , I don't know if it 's enough or not . If this is one of those points where if the developer can talk the City into it , the Engineer and Planning into it, ,that's fine but I don't II have anyway to think about it . On that one curve though , you 're reducing the road to 26 feet from .31 . Then you 're adding a 6 foot sidewalk which brings you back out to 32 it seems to me and I don 't know why , what the li II 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 42 IIhell 's the difference if you build it as a road or as a road and a • sidewalk . IIOlsen: It was going to be on top of where the boulevard would. be . So if you had the 31 you still have boulevard and you still have that . So you II have the street , the curb , boulevard so you 'd have wider street , curb , boulevard versus l'arrower street , boulevard with a sidewalk . Emmings: Okay , but if you just eliminate the boulevard on that side , you 'd IIstill have the 31 foot road . Olsen: Yeah and that was something that we discussed and it wasn't IIacceptable . You need that boulevard . Krauss : It was our City Engineer 's position that he wanted to maintain the I boulevard section both for the installation of utilities and to allow for road maintenance . Emmings: Alright . Another thing that came up but I 'm not quite sure how II to think about it and I d almost like to ask Ladd about it is if the net density here winds up being 2 .1 when we typically have 1 .7 , isn't that , that 's startling to me but again I don 't quite know how to evaluate it • because we are preserving so much open space . I guess the reason it winds up , I don 't know . II Conrad: That 's tough . And I 've been struggling with that trying to figure out what we 're really , I guess I have to ask staff again . On the surface it looks like there 's a lot of open space but there 's a lot of open space there no matter what that you can 't develop on and so we 've got 37 houses II on , especially on some , very small buildable sites . I endorse the clustering thing . I really like that but I 'm still struggling with what is the City getting back in return for that . IIOlsen : The buffer area is something kind of new and in addition to that the tree preservation areas . I mean definitely setting them aside . IKrauss : And the additional wetland area . Conrad: A little bit . IIRick Sathre: An enhancement of quite a bit . Conrad: An enhancement? II Rick Sathre: There 's only 2 acres of the wetland that's there now that 's not changing . Most of the wetland that's there is either or we 're II proposing to improve it either by raising the water level or we 're going to improve it by recreating it in a more diverse manner . So we don 't have all the same kind of grass and wetlands. It ': 11 be more diverse . IIConrad.: I guess that 's where I get back to , I like the trade-off of density for improvement but I just can't tell at this point in time if there is , I don 't know what kind of improvement there is . Does the DNR go IIalong with this? How was Chanhassen changed because of these new II Planning Commission Meeting II August 7 , 191 - Page 43 II standards? The 45 foot setback . I just have a real tough time saying I urn tan1 wh_t the trade off is . Krauss: On SOME of that , we are learning as we go . I mean the science is II improving . The knowledge is improving . We 've got our surface water management plan coming up . There 's new State legislation for wetlands that we helped draft that 's now in place . We have new management practices that' we 're getting from various State organizations. We 're trying to incorporate that stuff as it develops . I can 't sit here and tell you that il these are the standards that we 're going to propose to you 6 months , a year from now with our new surface water utility but we think these are the.best . we can offer you at this poiit 'in time . Also if I could go back a little bit too about the density . I 've often told you in the past that I 'm real II uncomfortable with our net versus gross but that 's what you 've always done and this is not really the appropriate place to argue about that but when we have E net density figure here , 2 .1 units per acre , the 1 .7 unit per acre averao- density that we told the Metro Council we experience here is a gross number . We just went in and took subdivisions and divided the number of lots by the area . We didn 't knock out the streets and wetlands . Emmings: Okay , that wasn 't a net number . I thought that was a net number . Krauss : No , that was a gross number . So that would equate to the 1 .4 units per acre gross density that you 're getting in here . II • Batzli : Assuming you have a big wetland in the middle of every development . I Terry Forbord: Mr . Chairman? Emmings: Sure Terry , go ahead . Terry Forbord: There 's been a number of issues raised by each of you as you gave your comments and if you 'd like , I -think I can answer the II significant ones that I heard to date . Emmings: Okay , if you 're not going to address what we're talking about right now , I 'd like you to wait because I 'd like to finish what I 've got on my sheet and then you can go ahead. That's okay. You were just hoping I was done . Like everybody else. Now when people build decks in the back II yards of their houses and they're along that Class A wetland, are they going to have to come in for a wetland permit? . Olsen: If it 's developed within 200 feet? - I • Emmings: Yeah . Olsen: We 've never done that in the past. I think what 'we intended with II this is that we establish those setbacks for the Class. A and Class B wetlands and as long as they maintain that , that ,was essentially all being 11 approved now . That any development within that 40 foot to 75 foot setback is acceptable . Batzli : So you can construct your garden shed right at the marker? 1 II IIPlanning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 44 • Olsen : Yeah . No , not at the marker . • IIBatzli : Why not? That 's within the setback isn 't it? Emmings: As long as it 's in your back yard . IOlsen: You have 40 foot . You have a 40 foot setback . IBatzli : Up to the marker . Up to the conservation easement marker . Krauss: You have a setback though. IIFarmakes: Is the setback from the marker? Krauss : The setback is from the wetland. So part of that setback and the Iconservation easement overlap . Emmings: Okay , what is the setback from the wetland? Olsen : That 's where you have it ranging from .40 feet to 75 feet but the buffer within there might be 10 to 25 feet . IEmmings: Okay . With regard to the things that Terry talked about . Under number 2 , the revised landscaping plan. The landscaping on the south side of Lake Lucy Road , I drove by there tonight and that was one of the first 1 things that struck me is that it needs it . But it doesn 't need , and I think I agree with the other comments I 've heard . It doesn 't need to be a solid screen across there . It needs to have some clumps of things just to break up what 's there so I think you 're kind of on the right track on that I one but it definitely needs something . The landscaping along the rear lots , I personally don 't have any interest in that at all because it seems to me the lots that are closest to the road already have , there are some I trees in there already and the ones that don't have it are a long ways away and I 'm not that concerned about that personally . The landscaping , ( c ), along the 2: 1 slope adjacent to the Class A wetland. I don't really have II any comment about that. It could be sumac or anything like that. Something that would hold the bank but not be that big a deal . On ( e ) , the 3 trees per lot . I don 't know if Terry knew when he said that was excessive that they get a credit for what 's on the lot and that might I . change his attitude toward At a little bit. I don 't know but I think it should be enforced . As far as the issue , which we can now call Joan 's house , that we 've been referring to as the berm, what I was going to I propose on that even before I knew it was Joan was that , that seems to me , if nothing else Lundgren has demonstrated a real willingness to work with the City and it seems to me they ought to have the same willingness to work I with Joan . And she ought to get , the person that lives in that house ought to get what they need . If it means a berm, it means a berm . If tbat 's what it takes to satisfy that homeowner , whoever it might be , then that 's what it takes . That 's what should be done . I 'm not that concerned about I the way that west street goes through, even though it 's taking down 10 to 16 inch oak trees . There 's no way to .bring a road out on that end that saves all the trees . Cutting down some trees , I don't know. We're trying II as hard as we can to save as many as we can and you can 't save them all and trees , fortunately grow. You can plant new ones and you ought to be I . Planr,in2 Commission Meeting I August 7 , 1g91 - Page ,45 planting new ones all the time . But it doesn't , the location of that road doesn 't concern me that much . It seems to me like it 's in a pretty reazonable place . The other thing I 've got here is in the back of our packet . There was a letter attached from the neighbors to the west . Joe II Morin and it was endorsed by Ted Coey . I don 't know if I 'm pronouncing your names right but I guess if nothing else , I don 't know that we 've addressed all the issues that were raised in that letter but the letter was a lot of effort . I can see that and it was aimed at a lot of specific proposals and it 's not that often that we get this organized something from the neighbors and I think it ought to be acknowledged . I can't give you much more than that but we ought to acknowledge it . The blending with - adjacent neighborhoods that you bring up is a problem that we've discussed at the Planning Commission almost as long as I 've been here . We 've never II found a way to do it . We 've looked at ways of doing it .where you have formulas . If they 're going to be lots that adjoin another property , there can only be a certain density so you wind up making the properties bigger along the edge if you 're abutting up against big properties or smaller . . . I think it 's more in living in a developing community . . . The farmer doesn 't like to see the big lot subdivisions coming in next to him. When that farmer sells and that developer builds smaller lots , the big lot people don't like the smaller lots and it just goes on and on and there 's just no happy way . There 's really no sensible way to address it . Some of the points he brought up , you know there 's the visual impact cif the back yards . That 's really an aesthetic issue and that one has been addressed to some extent . The impact on the Class A wetland on Lake Lucy , I guess we 're relying , because we don 't have the expertise primarily we 're relying on our staff and DNR to tell us what we should or shouldn 't do here . That's why we 're making the DNR permit a condition of our approval also . Excessive number of variances . There won't be any variances because it 's being done as a PUD . Maybe that seems like a little bit of slight of hand but I don't" think it. is . The notion of buying the PUD, at least the way I see it is , that we do relax the normal single family subdivision standards to some extent in order to get something that we think is of value to the community . To get a project that we think is a good project . That preserves open space . That 's sensitive to other natural features and thinks of that nature . So I don't know . Those are my general reactions toil what ?oe wrote . I don't know. This is 2 hours into this and now really I guess I owe you a chance to respond. Conrad: 3 hours. ' Emmings: 3? Okay , I live in a different time zone . Terry , go ahead. Terry Forbord: Mr . Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. I 'll be II brief. I think that it's important for each of you to realize, and I believe you do realize this . That you have a staff , and I 've heard it repeatedly from each one that you're relying on staff because you don't have the expertise, etc. . I think it 's important for you to realize that you have a staff that is highly competent . We work in every community in the whole western suburbs and there is no other city as much on the cutting l edge of the issues that you 're all worried about here tonight more so than Chanhassen . That 's a fact . I can state that . There are some very close , behind you . Plymouth and Eden Prairie but to me that tells me you should have a certain amount of credibility or we all should have a certain amount 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting August. 7 , 1q91 - Page 46 of credibility and understanding with staff that they 're doing their due diligence . There was some discussion about we rely on the Army Corps of ' Engineers of the DNR because they 're so fair . Those people are more . slanted probably than the development community . Maybe . So I think it 's fair to say in this particular analysis that staff has taken this to the - ' nth degree and I think staff would also support this claim . That Lundgren Bros . is the one that came forth with the initiative on the preservation zones . How to make it enforceable . How to make it work in a way that I do not know of a city that has that or has ever had a plat filed with that ' type of restrictions as far as setbacks , etc . . That was an idea we came forth with after them asking us can you come up with some sort of creative idea _that will make it so we can protect what we 're trying to protect . To me , just from a professional standpoint , this has been a real private/ public sector endeavor . Next item would be , I think it 's important as Paul stated in the staff report , it 's important to recognize what we are not asking for . There 's a lot of discussion and confusion still that appears I over PUD versus a standard subdivision . It 's really not that complicated. PUD 's are simplier to understand actually than standard subdivisions . Believe it or not but it 's important to recognize what we 're not asking ' for . If you look at what all the things that a PUD may encompass . There's been a lot of discussion about density and I 'm glad that Paul brought it up because I was just squirming in my seat to share with you what the real density issues are here . When you get into this 1 .7 and 1 .4 , 1 .2 , 2 .1 business . This proposal , as you know in the RSF district you can have anywhere from a 1 .2 to a 4 .0 density . This is at 1 .2 if you use the same ratio as what the City uses throughout the City and the way they factor the I 1 .7 . The issue about when you look at a site plan and say well these lots really aren 't that big because there 's a wetland as part of it . I don 't understand that . Those lots are that big . Those lots are owned by the I homeowner . If you took into consideration some of the comments that were and if you looked further west down Lake Lucy Road, there 's some 5 acres , some 10 acre tracts and some 20 acre tracts . If you took those 10 acres . There 's about 3 or 4 10 acre parcels just west of this. If you subtracted I out of those 10 acre parcels the wetlands , or the unbuildable area , those people do not have 10 acre parcels . Should they have been allowed to have a building permit? So in reality they do have 10 acres . In reality these I lots do meet the test. They are the correct width at the setback line that the City requires . They are the minimum size that the City requires and whether there 's a wetland there or not really is irrelevant. If you took I the wetlands completely out of that plat right now and all you could see were the lines , this project wouldn't be any denser . Those homes wouldn't be any closer together than any other subdivision that has those setback regulations . Those sideyard setbacks . Nothing would be different and I I think that 's important to recognize . For some reason I keep hearing these are closer together . Boy these are really shoe horned in there. They're not . So I think it 's , I had to remind you of that . The wetlands don't have anything to do with it . The issues about the DNR. The staff has put in as a recommendation that whatever approvals before you this evening would be contingent upon obtaining each and every other governmental agency I approval and that 's only fair so we do not have a problem with that . We agree with that . The landscaping , I neglected in my earlier presentation to get to what I was finally going to say . What I was going to talk about was the concentration of wetland budget effort so when you see the Ilandscaping you really feel like you 've got something and the way to do I Planning Commission Meeting , August 7 , 1 991 - Page 47 that is concentrated in the very most important areas that need it the most . In other words , if your budget allows you to buy 200 trees and you EpreaC' trees at equal distance all over an entire 30 acre piece , it 's net going to look like there 's very many trees . But if you put them in the key places . Right when you 're going around a curve or right where you 're trying to screen something or right when people come in , boy and then you ' irrigate it and you plant some flowers around it and you do some of the other things with low profile bushes and etuff , people are going to go wow . There 's going to be an immediate , what we call , point of arrival impact . And about the landscaping , I guess what we would request is if you would allow us to work with staff because we really haven't had that opportunity .' We would pursue that In the same way we 've. pursued .and overcome all these other challenges . We would go out on the site with the staff . We 'd kind of say , well here 's where the road is . How does it work best and that is the way we would propose to do that . So I think the landscaping issue is really a non-issue . I think that 's something we can work out with staff just if we have all these other . The visible markers at where the preservation zone is . I think that 's an excellent idea . We discussed that quite a tit at staff level . In fact we kept trying to come up with the neatest ideas and we kind of had like a little brainstorming sesson . Actually we are not opposed to , I mean there 's going to be monuments there anyway and rather than having some ugly iron monument there , maybe there 's a way that we can come in . As you know , as part of this PUD we will try to be making the signs and all those other architectural elements kind of blend together . Maybe we can come up with a small little sign that says preservation zone and it would go on a particular monument at each corner . We talked about that at the staff level . That may be a possibility because- 1 I do think , as Chair recognized , that the people do need to know and there should be no confusion over that . Just so you know, in all of our purchase agreements as exhibits there are items that depict what you see here and II there 's an easement for preservation under that becomes a deed restriction and an exhibit that 's actually in each purchase agreement that each homebuyer buys . But that 's not to say that maybe we shouldn't try to come up with another method of being more proactive and handing out maybe DNR literature to our prospective buyers so that 's something I think we can work through with staff because I think they're all items or objectives that we 're all trying to meet . I think as far as Commissioners Ahrens situation with her home , that 's a difficult thing . I don 't have an immediate fix for that . I don't think there is a perfect fix . I do know that that home from the elevation of the Ortenbiat driveway, that that home" probably to it 's peak or let's say just to the upper most windows on the upper level is probably close to 15 to 22 feet high. Approximately . You'd have to build a berm that high to completely screen the house. It would virtually , it would not be practical but I do believe that it . would make II sense to try to screen to whatever extent reasonably possible any traffic . Excuse me , headlights . That 's on a very busy road . The majority of the traffic that goes by that home isn't coming from our subdivision and the majority of the traffic that continues to use that road over the next 10-20-30 years will not be coming from this subdivision. I think we should look at what impact will this particular subdivision. ' It would only be the" people that are making left turns at night with their headlights on remember . It 's not 24 hours a day , every single car coming in and out of there and remember there is another entrance. But we would like the opportunity to work with the subject property . To determine and find a way, Planr,; ng Cor,:mi ion Meeting August 7 , 19';'1 Page 48 IIthat we can scrcen that because it is a concern of ours as well . But I think it should be fair and I think it should be reasonable . Thant. you . Em^ i -ggs Thanks . Shou l d we start over now? Conrad: We 've got to end this soon . Are there any more items on our ' agenda? Erhart : The bankers . Conrad: Just a thought . I 'm looking at things we don't know. Staff , do you feel that you 've ironed out a lot of things or are there more things to ' iron out that should be brought back to us? I guess an issue that I 'm just struggling with is do we want to see this again here . There are a lot of open issues in my mind . There 's a lot of issues , when you talk about something for 3 hours it means things aren 't real clear . It means they 're ' foggy . Cue-stion is can we deal with it back here or is it still going to be foggy the next time? There 's a lot of subjective feelings and it will be subjective once it gets to City Council also . So yeah , I 'm struggling with whether I want to see it back . Paul , Jo Ann , is there validity from your standpoint . Landscaping you haven 't talked to Lundgren a great deal about it . But definitely some difference of opinion and the way Terry set us up , he was talking about some financial things that make the project go or not go . That 's the way I heard it in the beginning . Whether that was an overstatement of the case or not , I don't know. I Olsen : I think the landscaping we can , I think that 's something we could definitely work out . The wetland issues , Paul and I were already discussing that we should probably before it goes to the Council , I definitely gets those comments back from the DNR . Whether or not that means you want to see it again , I don't know . What were those main issues to the wetlands? What was really impacting . . . I Conrad : Obviously if they don 't get the permit this road doesn 't go in , - 71,2".t:' I Olsen : Right . Conrad: So you 've got a whole different alignment and that , it would have to come back to us . Olsen: That would . Oh yeah, there 's no question. I Conrad: So I guess I 'm kind of bothered . I really would have liked to have seen the DNR comments. Obviously Lundgren wants this in and wants it gone and hopefully the DNR will approve it but I really wouldn 't have liked I to have seen what they said about this before we spend 3 hours of our life , 3 1/2 hours screwing around with this . And we 're changing our setback standards of a wetland program that we set, that really is a State model and I we 're changing it . I think what you're t,lling me is pretty good but we haven 't considered it so here we are . We 're in a PUD . We 're saying okay , well it must be good . Let's do it . Let's forget about the standards we set . Let 's slip them . See I don't know again. Plannin' Commission Meeting II August 7 , 1991 - Page 49 Eri;ir^s : How are you ever going to know though? I Conrad: We 'd get- the experts in and say hey , setback doesn 't matter . 10 foot tiansiticn area is far more important than an arbitrary 75 foot . 0lsen: We have received that though. That 's where we got the idea from talking with Fish and Wildlife and talking with the ONR . Saying look , we II have this 75 foot setback but we 're still having all these problems . What do you , and I didn 't give you that background but that 's where we got a lot of that from . But the density issues and things like that , if that 's what I you want to see , we can bring that back . . Conrad: Those are just some discomfort areas that I 've got. I had a concern with pedestrian traffic and I don 't think I could go down to a 26 I foot road if we haven 't found a way to handle people . I think I 'd have to keep it at 31 . Road access by Joan 's house , I don 't know that that 's been solved . The landscaping hasn 't been solved. Jeff talked about density II on Lot 14 and all the lots that are backed up there . The engineer , we 're not sure whether the 2 foot rise in elevation or water is going to affect . There 's just a lot of little issues and whether we 're going to do anything about them if they came back . That 's what I 'm struggling with . Do we have any insights when this comes back that it 's going to be better? I do know that staff would have more time to address a couple of them . The road access and the landscaping . The question is I think do we want to see it . II Emmings: Just as a very minute point , I think what Terry said about calling these zones preservation zones rather than calling them buffer zones is probably a good idea . Just because the name tells you what it 's about . 0len: Actually I think we 're going to have it as a conservation easement .' Emmings: Yeah but if it 's called a preservation , that one carries a lot different impact than a buffer zone . I think it 's probably a good idea to II call it that . Would you-, Paul have some comments on Ladd's questions? Krauss: This is a tough one . We 're examining this subdivision, this PUD ' under a microscope that we didn 't even know existed a year ago . I mean we are holding this project to standards that the State hasn't even thought of yet . They 've just started a committee to think of them over the next 2 I We 're examining this, and there 's nothing wrong with it. It 's staff 's instigation that we're doing this but we're examining this subdivision to the extent that we 're determining whether a road should be 2 or 3 feet wider than it is to save a tree . We 're biting off a lot here and' there 's an implication that because it 's more complex and -there are some things that still need to be resolved., that there's something inherently wrong with the plat . I don't think that that's necessarily the case . I II recall there 's kind of a parallel . Two years ago when we brought you Market Square PUD and it had 20 something conditions attached to it and Commissioner Conrad was very concerned that that implied that there were a lot of loose ends and it probably ought to be thought of some more . My reply was no . It just implied that it was a more complicated proposal than you 're used to seeing and we needed these conditions to guarantee that these kinds of things would happen . I 'm not going to tell I wish we had a II I/ Planning Ccrnmis=.' on Meeting August 7 , 1991 Page 50 ' little more time or that the DNR could act more promptly . Part of the thine that 's throwing the DNR on this one is they too are going into this is that they too are going into this in more detail than they 've really ' been asp -a to in the past . We 're holding ourselves to standards that other people aren 't yet and we 're proud of that and we want to continue to do that . I don 't know how to sum it up . I don 't know how to recommend where ' you take this . I know that the applicant has some time considerations that he has but you need to be comfortable with it and ultimately we need to get a good project for the City . I think we can handle it on the presumption that we ' ll have these loose ends cleared up before it gets to the City ' Council but it 's really up to you . Emmings : It seems to me Ladd . I don 't know but it seems to me the things ' that are open are 100 of the whole , or some small fraction of the whole . To me they 're not big items . I 'd just as soon see it get moved along and figure that the staff 's going to be able to continue to work with them hetwe_'n •ry.:w and City Council and get things done . Or if they can 't , that ' the City Council maybe would then send it back to us . Conrad: My only comment is if the DNR turns it down then it 's a lot of wasted time . It 's wast._.ng , and I guess that might be up to staff 's best judgment in working with them but if the DNR can 't allow the filling of the wetland , ue 'vie wasted a lot of our time and we 'd be wasting the City Council '., time . Emmings: Maybe then we should put that in as a condition . If they don 't receive that approval prior to the , if they don 't receive that approval 1 it 's got to come back . • Conrad: _T think that the City Council should see the DNR 's comments . 1 Emmings: Oh they have to . ' Olsen: And that 's what we were saying is we should do too . Emmings : Do we know when that 's coming? 1 Krauss : We 're calling them daily to light fires. I guess normally , under the normal process we would have had it for you but because of the complexity of this thing and because we redesigned it , they haven 't had Itime to catch up . Rick Sathre: Mr . Chairman, when we first were in here , when we first were talking to staff we were encroaching that cross hatched area and what we 've I done since then is we really, we pulled the road over much tighter to this steep slope and now at the worst point we're 14 feet out into the reed canary grass that 's been mowed along that wetland edge. I guess the bottom 1 line is , I don 't think the DNR is really going to say that their jurisdiction line is this red line . I think it 's going to be lower than that . It usually is but what the worst case would be , yeah they say , our 1 line is the same as the Federal wetland line. Well , what would have to happen is this road would have to move • 14 feet easterly which would put it into the slope a bit . That 's' how you avoid the wetland. You impact the 'slope instead and I don 't think . 1 1 Plannin Commission Meeting August 7 , 19 '1 - Page 51 Emma' s : Is this the only issue that the DNR is' looking at? They also have to receive a permit for raising the water 2 • Rick Sathre: But that 's not a , either they like that or they don 't like that . Olsen: And they 're just going to be making comments on other things to do , for it . Conrad: I feel the item should be ,. as I look at it for your , I think it should he tabled . ' Emmings: Do you want to make a motion? Conrad: I can to see what the rest of you think . I make a motion that this item he tabled . Emmings : Is there a second? ' FarmakeE : I 'll second it . Emmings-: Is there any discussion? 1 Batzli : I guess I would rather see the staff work on it because I don 't know ,.hat it 's going to show by us holding it back and they come back and they yeah , the U .S . Fish and Wildlife or DNR, whoever looks at it likes it . Then wh t are we going to say , fine . Go ahead : Conrad: Literally at that time I would assume that staff would have worked" out all the ct.her issues so it would be a• clean staff report and we would see it . That 's really , we 'd see what DNR said and we wouldn 't send along if DNR had some negatives . See right now if we pass it , it 's going to go to City Council no matter what . And that 's the debate. Can we improve what we 've get for City Council? Can we add value to what the staff submits to the City Council? I don't think we 're going to slow it down . It may be a week or two but . - Erhart: . . .when would it be back? ' Olsen: If it 's tabled? It would depend on when the DNR responds . Erhart : When do you expect them to respond? ' Olsen: Well , have they told you when the survey crew might get out there? Terry Forbord: They 've already been there . Olsen: I don 't know exactly how long . I talked ,to Ceil today and she II didn't give an indication how soon it was going to happen so I don't know. • Emmings : We 've commented on this thing . We commented on every aspect of it and I guess I 'm not sure what it- would do to keep it here because the 1 ' Planning Commission Meeting - A,ueust 7 , 1991 - Page 52 only circumstance in which I 'd like to see it back is if the DNR does son;c.thi r, that charges the design . Then I 'd want to see it but I would i magi ne t ha,t in , I don 't know . Is there someway we could pass it along and ' sa/ t ' :,t _ t h.:t event we want it back? Olson: Sure . ' Emmings: We could pass it the way it looks now, assuming that there is DNR approval . If there 's not DNR approval and that winds up changing the I - design , then we 'd like to have it back . Can we do that? Krauss: Well our normal procedure is to bring back anything to you that significantly deviates anyway so making it as a condition is perfectly fine with us . I guess though I would ask if we could define though . If the DNR did make a change as Mr . Sathre proposed , you know if they said stay out of there entirely , we 'd wind up chewing into the Ersbo hillside more . Emmings: But that doesn 't really change . ' Krauss: Well that was the answer I was seeking . Emmings: That doesn 't change the plan . ' Krauss : If the road configuration changes in any significant way or the lot configuration changes in any significant way , certainly that should come back . Also there were issues raised regarding the design by Commissioner Farmakes and several others that I think need to be responded to as well . So we would make sure that that was presented to the City Council . ' Emmings: Is there any other discussion on the motion? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to table Subdivision #91-9 for further clarification . Conrad, Farmakes and Erhart voted in favor of tabling the item . Emmings, Satzli and Ahrens voted against tabling and the motion failed with a tie vote of 3 to 3. ' Emmings: Alright , is there another motion? Batzli : I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning 1 #91-2 , property RSF and RR to PUD-R with the following conditions 1 , 2 and 3 as set forth in the staff report dated July 17th. ' Erhart : I 'll second that . Emmings: Okay , so this is just on the rezoning? IErhart: Yeah . Emmings: . Is there any discussion on the rezoning? Batzli moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Rezoning #91-2 property RSF and RR to PUD-R with the following ' conditions: I Plannin; Commission Meeting • August 7 , 1991 - Page 53 1 . The applicant shall enter into a Planned Unit Development Agreement containing all of the conditions of approval for this project and shall EJbmit all required financial guarantees . The PUD Agreement shall be recorded against the property . 2 . Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table . II 3 . The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91-9 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-4 . All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Emmings: Is there a motion on the preliminary plat? ' Batzli : I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #91-9 as shown on the plans dated July 29 , 1991 subject to the fcllowin' conditions . Conditions 1 thru 11 set forth in the staff report and I 'd like to make a radical departure and ask the Chairman that we discuss , or at least go slowly through these changes that I 'm about to propose here as I make the motion so everybody understands what they -are . Do you like that or do you just want me to wing through them and then go back? Emmings: You 're leaving conditions 1 thru 11 as they are? Batzli : Well 1 thru 11 as they are but I 'm going to modify them now . So II we 're going to include those and now I 'm going to modify them. Emmings : Alright . Batzli : Do you want me to just go through them or go through them slowly? Do you want to be able to comment on them individually? Emmings: No . You just go through them . Batzli : Okay . Number 1 , the words , and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk II shall be provided over the boulevard is deleted. Number 2, ( a ) at the end of the sentence in parens (shall include deciduous trees in highland areas ) . ( b ) shall be eliminated. ( c ), at the end of wetland add the words , to maintain the slope . (d), the words berming and would be eliminated . ( e ) , parenthetical at the end of the sentence. (Credit for each tree over 6 inches caliper on the lot shall be granted. For that lot , however , a minimum of 1 tree per lot shall be provided. ). (f ) would remain" as is . Number 8( g ) . Added at the end. Such easements shall be marked with permanent visible monuments and the location of such easements shall be provided to City staff for approval . , Emmings: Read that one again. Batzli : Such easements shall be marked with permanent visible monuments and the location of such easements shall be provided to City staff for approval . Olsen: Location and design? Planning ornd ssicn Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 54 Bc_tzli : The location of the actual easement . • ' Emminga : Don 't discuss them . Just give them to us . • Batzli : A new one number 12 to read , the applicant shall provide proper restrictions ( subcect to City staff approval ) on those lots having entrance monuments and/or landscaping . New number 13 , applicant shall work with City staff to provide for a shared driveway between Lots 7 and 6 of Block ' 1 . And I would also add as a motion but not as a condition that the staff receive the approval or the comments from the DNR regarding the wetlands and no net loss and all this is a wonderful idea prior to it going to the ' City Council . I would also like to see that they work with Lundgrens to eliminate Lots 14 and one other lot , either 5 thru 13 , somewhere in there of Block ' Emmings : Lot 14? Batzli : Lot 14 , Block 2 . ' Emmings : Okay . Is these a second? Ahrens : Second . Emmings : Okay , discussion . ' Batzli : That last one was not a condition . Just a suggestion . Emmings : Alright . So that 's not a condition of approval . What is it then? ' Batzli : It 's a directive to staff to talk with Lundgren about doing it . IErhart : Eliminating two lots? Batzli : Yeah . IErhart : Your change on item number 1 , essentially leave it the same? 26 feet in some areas and 31 feet in other areas? • Batzli : Yeah . Erhart : Without the sidewalk? ' Batzli : Right . I don't think the sidewalk 's going to do anything . Conrad: Well let 's talk about that . It 's at a bend in the road right? Right where you need it . It 's at a 90 degree bend. Batzli : What is the sidewalk going to do I Conrad: I don 't know . Batzli : I don 't think the sidewalk 's going to do anything . Nobody 's going to use it . I would include it if I thought it was going to do something . • 1 Planning Commission Meeting August 7 , 1991 - Page 55 I thirL we could make the whole road 26 feet . I just think the 31 feet is nice because some people are going to park on it . I don 't know that. it 's going tc tter .. That 's my rationale . I believe the road through my subdivision is actually narrower than 31 feet and the only time you have a problem is when people park . There's a problem down the hill around the curve but there 's always going to be a problem with that regardless of whether you 've got an extra 5 feet or not . I don't buy that 5 feet is going to make that much difference . That you 're going to put in a sidewalk that nobody 's going to use . ; Conrad: I think they would . • Batzli : If you were running down the road. You run through all these I little subdivisions . You 're telling me you would use the sidewalk around that curve? Conrad: If I go around curves and cars are coming the opposite way , ' runners are , we 're going against the traffic . They 're close to me all the time . • Batzli : So you 'd use it because you 're running against the traffic . If you were going the other way , you 'd cross over to the other side of the street and run on the sidewalk? Conrad: If you take a look at the little asphalt path on the north of Lotus Lake Park . People are always on it . It only goes for a couple hundred feet but they 're always there . Batzli : In fact they need it more stretch by the soccer field there but anyway . ' Conrad: . I don 't know . I 'm not a technician in that case. I just look at a 90 degree corner and yeah , just hypothetically. A runner would be coming on the right hand , running come in would be going against traffic . I don't know that that runner 's going to use the sidewalk. I don't . Batzli : If all the other commissioners want a sidewalk there , I 'd be perfectly happy to accept an amendment. Conrad: I heard that people didn't like them. Yet on the other hand , it's " a real strange curve . You 've got a 10 mph limit . Maybe that 's going to keep the traffic from going too fast there. Batzli : I don 't know that the sign or the curve is going to slow anybody I down . Conrad: I find that just a general problem and I don't have a solution . ' Batzli : Put 18 ,000 speed bumps in there and let the engineering department worry about trying to •put the snowplow through there in the winter . You . I know . I don 't know what we 're going to do . If the sidewalk would help at all and it would save one life, I say put it in there. And maybe then we say put it in there . 1 Plannin7 C,_mm__sion Meeting Au;L:ct 7 , 1991 - Page 56 Ccnrad : I Just wanted to raise that s+oint . It 's not a p o straight- line . Tim an-' T d=�+ig cd a nature trail going through . That would take all pedestrian:. off the road . Emmings : Is there any more discussion on the motion? Batzli moved, Ahrtns seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Subdivision #91-9 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991 and subject to the following conditions: 1 . Where the proposed street is reduced to 26 feet , there shall be "no parking" signs posted . The sharp curves located in the loop street shall be limited to a 10 mph speed limit and shall have "sharp curve" signage . 2 . A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing the following: a . Landscaping on the south right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road directly ncrth of the Class A wetland shall include deciduous trees in the highland areas): h . Deleted. c . Landscaping along the 2: 1 slope adjacent to the Class A wetland to maintain the slope . d . Additional landscaping along the access points . e . Thre=. trees ( 2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen or ornamental ) per lot . ( Credit for each tree over 6 inches caliper on the lot shall be granted. For that lot, however , a minimum of 1 tree per lot shall be provided. ). f . A landscaped berm shall be provided on the north right-of-way Lake Lucy Road across from the westerly access to provide screening from traffic to existing homes . I 3 . The applicant shall submit a comprehensive drainage and erosion control plan prior to final plat review. Wood fiber blankets shall be required for all slopes steeper than 3: 1 . 4 . The applicant shall work with staff to investigate the provision of future services of sewer and water to adjacent parcels . The applicant shall submit final road, drainage and utility plans and specifications for review prior to final plat review. The applicant shall also work with the City Engineer to address concerns with Lake Lucy Road subgrade . 5 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial security . 6 . The applicant shall acquire all necessary agency permits . I ,S SU II w Aki 0 13 SATHRE - BERGQUIST , INC . Io 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391 �s� ® �,Q (612) 476-6000 FAX 476-0104 �' Rs FA-1 II August 27, 1991 1 II Ms. JoAnn Olsen CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive I P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 II SUBJECT: ORTENBLAD/ERSBO P.U.D. proposal Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. IIDear Ms. Olsen: II Ms. Cell Strauss called me Friday to say that the DNR has set an O.H.W. elevation for wetland 10-131W (the wetland along Lake Lucy Road) . Their determination is that the O.H.W. is 976.3 feet above mean sea level. 1 Attached is our field elevation data for the stakes around the Ersbo hill. As you'll note, the lowest elevation we shot for the proposed road toe of slope was point *150 at elevation 976.59. IThe road fill, as proposed, will not encroach into the DNR jurisdiction and therefore no DNR permit is necessary for this roadway construction. IIPlease let me know if this is unclear, or you wish further information. Sincerely, 1 SATHRE-BERCQUIST, INC. I igi,S��GC/. f i SI-► Richard W. Sathre, P.E. II RWS/dm II cc: Mr. Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Mr. Frank Svoboda Ms. Ceil Strauss IIattachment . A U G 2 3 LI I 'TY OF CH N11,,SC STS . -'n - / c4/ ,n �-Vdr/aW II 7-25-91 Page 1 II STARTING, ENDING POINT Its : 138,153 LIST COORDINATES PT# NORTH EAST ELEV 138 7624.132 5630.757 i z.o .4i I TOP SLOPE 139 7581 .347 5612.652 (0Z'2,S9j TOP SLOPE I 140 TOP SLO 75PE 47.810 5572.760 I 01% .4(5 141 7522.824 5509.412 1010,13 1. TOP SLOPE 142 7546.095 5456.075 cl erC,i 1 CL 143 7522.221 5420.764 i1.$,$3 144CL 7488.565 5397.894 9$i,S' c . CL o , 145CL 7454.017 5395.002 q 30-o . i 146 7412.353 5406.803 9 44 s • CL D 147 7356.954 5427.423 ISO,S„ CL 148 7527. 126 5374.497 916.111 $,i - TOE SLOPE 149 7498.327 5359.378 117.11 'IL TOE SLOPE 150 7463.006 5359.835 114.S) °1° TOE SLOPE tHe.4% 151 7429.791 5368.842 /1(c. TOE SLOPE I 152 TOE SLOPE 7390.693 5382.402 111.1 153 7348.554 5397.747 91 1,71 ISTARTING, ENDING POINT #s TOE SLOPE -D 4fkwis X16.3 , 1 Ceik Siva SS 812-31)111 I I :0,-„i".s rdf"7 .s. 7 4)7 CITYOF '° I CHAN ASSEN . . 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 Action by City Administrable , Endorsed .� Modified STAFF REPORT Rejected Dat..�_. .. TO: Chanhassen Planning Commission Date submitted to Comrni:siat FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner Date bmitted to Cooed I DATE: October 18, 1984 //- �9-fy SUBJ: Proposed Metes and Bounds Subdivision of a 2.1 acre parcel , into a 1. 23 acre parcel and a .87 acre parcel, Lewis Woitalla, applicant. PLANNING CASE: #84-23 Subdivision GENERAL INFORMATION ' Applicant Lewis Woitalla 6740 Powers Blvd. Chanhassen , MN 55317 Status of Applicant Owner Requested Action Metes and bounds subdivision creating a 1. 23 acre parcel and a . 87 acre parcel,. ' Purpose Adjoining land owner to the north intends to buy 1. 23 acre parcel. Existing Zoning R-1, Single Family Residence Location 6740 Powers Blvd. opposite Carver II Beach Road. Size 2.1 acres ' Existing Land Use Single family residential Adjacent Land Use and Zoning North: Single family residence; R-1 II South: Single family residence; R-1 East: Single family residential; P-1 West: Vacant agricultural; R-la 1 I I Lewis Woitalla Subdivision October 18, 1984 Page 2 ' Adopted Comprehensive Plan a . Land Use Plan: The site is identified as Residential Low Density. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary runs along the western ' boundary of the parcel. b. Transportation: Powers Blvd. is identified as a collector in the Comprehensive ' SPECIAL INFORMATION Plan. Public Utilities The existing residence, which is located on what is proposed to be the .87 acre parcel, has water and sewer service. Sewer service to the proposed lot to the rear (the 1. 23 acre parcel) can only be achieved by the installation of a lift pump. Physical Site Characteristics The site gradually slopes to the west into a Class B Wetland which exists just outside of the western boundary of the proposed 1.23 acre parcel. REFERRAL AGENCY REVIEW Carver County See attached. rMinnesota DNR "Larger lot is barely within shoreline district, size is more than adequate for Lake Lucy class (Recreational Development) ." ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to subdivide his 2.1 acre parcel into two lots . The property owner at 6720 Powers Blvd. (Mr. John Ravis) , whose parcel abuts the northern boundary of the applicant 's parcel, intends ' to purchase the proposed 1. 23 acre lot. A 50 foot roadway and utility easement now traverses the subject par- cel from Powers Blvd. west to the proposed 1. 23 acre parcel. It appears that this easement was reserved to provide access to the rear parcel . The proposed lot sizes meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance; however, the 1.23 acre parcel should not exist as a separate lot of record and must be described and recorded as part of the parcel to the north, as intended by the prospective property owner. A landlocked parcel would not be created and the access easement which now exists to the property would not be needed. 1 Lewis Woitalla Subdivision October 18, 1984 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION 1 The Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commissionn adopt the following motion: 1 "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision Request #84-23 subject to the consolidation and recording of the 1. 23 acre parcel with the property owned by Mr. Ravis ." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Commissioners unanimously recommended approval of the request on a motion by J. Thompson and seconded by Ryan. REPORT ATTACHMENTS 1 1. General location map. 11 2 . Detailed location map. 3 . Site plan stamped "Received October 3, 1984". 4. Application. 5 . Letter from Bill Weckman, Carver County, dated October 16, 1984. 6. Letter from William Kallberg , Minnegasco, dated October 17, 1984. 7 . Planning Commission minutes dated October 24, 1984. i 1 1 1 1 1 °r 1 1 11 =E21-3 jONH_iI _° CREEK _--_-i nll 4 pli /4igpoi I I 0..,„ �. A __,r_v■ LUCY s► , I 5? 101* Ir 114111111611,1:11P\ ROAD O� ■ KIIII wilipta... 111111".....:k 111111,...-Anliw, _rv*,.....1-1""x 141.14.1TINAP1114- NIAulth q ,ulie. wrir,,, fla Lia Tap7.1■,:ilii .'''' \\, 1 PRefe- = LI s isiorJ mem ? b ,,�(i( FUT'71.,0 ir - - . ti . I -41:0/ Mt rt. , - rt; \\, 4fir 4olum kY4.-' t Vio. am Lc- '''' ' / — • . • a• . WV' -!- ---'s , I '41P OVIIIIIIIII WACO r: m' Al All vi. - A ,..1.- 'i LAKE LUCY �! • s in EA -3, '-_ m!^' MIL a RU ' \ �� DR. -/Arae Bic IN= Ill gm ==.-- ::=w, kJ- 4A. AB r _ -_ : Till ' _4 - % EL dm 0- aulan,,It:7:3:4-4‘ 1 _:_._ Ail . . t__ 1114 UREA/ 47.‘ v c i —_ i ` LAKE ANN 10. 7 I = iO0/ - !'.=- - --___L---------- 4 al h.4 w..., ms LA .. Mil I 1111 4 ore,"rte iiiiips. 110 u) SARA f j� . �Is�.,i 3 tr��cnINt Lel 0 CL It , Irmiur 1 mkt W _r n 1 CC lAl i '1Z we emu I" / m J =© �►:1 _R E __ r .. =f:� BOULEVARD NM -r. mud t- i • OR. :i \\ anK ®S� 787►+ W — , I of RT ? we givirri PI ca Etr #,., • -" `—� _„tin 1 1 4+ w r--. , z I m o , T� , �� D C . _ wi `` fRWHARDCERIB p 8K 92, P 262-263 II NI/2, E 1/4, NE 1,%4, SW I/4 01 1 -- ---- 309 -- - r I rn �s y .� x W G GRAVLUM . t. /� m o �m 8+ty9,P44F �°c l lc; wy v O o I ° �� 2 r�io I g �w -� iN �� 240 � f71 D Cm D i.. 41 rr °r a 1 — ; ro , I a o� I ill LAK�ENCE E. KE�?6ER vy I f 9r •a I 159 s 4" -y- - - ROAD -- -- NO. - ---- -- �, -�7CARVER COUNTY ► __R/W Deg :CUNT1 NWY DEPT- -T-`T-T-r-tirK! M1SC,rPiiA-710 _,c f R/W per pl0f l TT T'7 I b. j 40 40 1 r-��T.' • r r�T.� ' I• I i a , I i ' Z .i 1 f . r I A + • c'' N — 909_ �1 t.. LhE�_1. .:C 96 7, . 1 — . 331NbS o - __T_ \ N w A tl m � m G - r —_ — hi s ■ T \ I -- 39 'N ON(M038 g - +_.._--.._44.0r_ �. ' ~ j '� ; / r, 514 __ 770 -; �.i-11 w •. m .1 ; 1_LIg ze to I ..— _ ' fir LANE - - 11 _. of,► _ �� x, 1.; -35 n oQ --- -•. 3 . ' - 'r-,.7 o° - - ---- x.59 02 -•- ; ; . ..,..F.: 1 r-I _t. _� -ov= - -1 jo ., ,C. or Kr / 0'of S�¢ ' °04.0_c4 O•yr 6,0.7 %,7es - b . -- --i . _ N j2s •, o N a (� a • (� � � o r-. o r �4, Io 1 - A 'l ` IJ, ` P•II . i 4 4b q ' C I`I { - . Ll '` t - W i,4 I 1 t3 NN.4) T „Ai�, 1 7.:I4gigs CO J r vim- 1 J • i � -0 I a s i_, j�- "'. - 1. .1 �,�� 1 1 ' �! '�, l �/ 1 1 O� wn,,,r e I It , 1 v 1 , ,'_ . -55 - _ r_;�i- - '�iJ - -- ' 1 o're b/c ci:tom 44,n. - .. .5 4. - • 6,7'7- L'... T • /� _ - — .A(.12.1- — , , ��-1.`sir——— ...• w e.,t4�. ...r -.., / 9.1e; .:,... i'.•:::• ---••.- .,j, .1.•1'—.. ?:' .�I.. 4 :f* :w,.: • dg}N ld013A30 Allt411WINOD afr79 51.90704d 1 £- 1 s' `` C.I3A1P 3 s -U 4, 2 3- C C j' N Q , v Q i 3SSVHNY =IS "' - .• _ ll , m n .. Ir ... w n o ,, • Ilk' . ifTrAtibief ex i T1: •-•---3 Li go ',..,(A.4t xerri. -412 : LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION faj J _ rs�M II CITY OF CIIANHASSEN L.(,t� 690 Coulter Drive 1VO ("q„f Chanhassen , Z!N 55317 - '� ,�pp / �1 ( 61 2) 937-1900 tiZelo/V 4.,L Vt ,4A APPLICANT : l -dWIS 1(1,i ii1 z-`4 OWNER: LEt645 T/9 L- 4- , ADDRESS 040 FOGGIER_ i l- ADDRESS ')i PI E. ICsl' /OM S`A) Gs 3 f7 Zip Cone Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime) 5-7- & ? TELEPHONE 4.4- 7475 ' REQUEST: Zoning District Change __ Planned Unit Development II Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan II Zoning Variance Final Plan Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision I Land Use Plan Amendment Platting Conditional Use Permit Metes and Bounds II Street/Easement Vacation Site Plan Review II PROJECT NAME PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION i ' KV II REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION PRESENT ZONING —) II. REQUESTED ZONING 54..44A-9..__ 1 USES PROPOSED SIZE OF PROPERTY I ,SO l Y\ 3c g I LOCATION C 7L/C .°L' WaiS f REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST L'VCITALL A inIit,^,!;S 7 To SELL I II LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary') 5 7/901 I) 1 II (over) a' r I 1 City of Chanhassen Land Development Application Page 2 ' FILING INSTRUCTIONS : ' This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions . Before filing this application, you should confer with the City Planner ' to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby certifies that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . Signed By -_-at.v..}-t /'; c=?.,/6 Date / Applicant The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein described. ' Signed By u - Date /L Fee Owner Date Application Received /Q - 74, I ' Application Fee Paid /4Z e0 City Receipt No. /17 ;124e 1 ' * This Application will be considered by th= Ptann 'ng C.mmiss' .n/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their - jarair�„.m„,,,- meeting if the application is received by AW�2rIMIST/ • V 1y ( , PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE"' -�- r,, ' (612) 448-3435 EXT. 255 600 EAST FOURTH STREET CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 COUNTY Of CAI VI Q October 16, 1984 Ms. Barbara Dacy City Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P 0 Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Planning Case #84-23 Subdivision Dear Ms. Dacy: Regarding the proposed subdivision at 6470 Powers Boulevard, Carver County submits the following comments: It appears that both parcels will be served by access onto CSAH 17 (Powers Blvd.) . Carver County prefers the combined access. If the access is a private driveway, application will need to be made to the Carver County Engineer for approval . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal . Sincerely, ' Bill Weckman ' Ass't County Engineer BW/cr , CITY OF CHANHASSEN RFc-AWED FT 1 7 1984 COMMUNITY UNITY DEVE!OPMaNT DEN I • Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer J � - j( I II II G-■"----- II ' 4) Planning Case No. 84-23 Subdivision There is gas main in Powers Boulevard from which the lots can be served directly without any gas main extention, provided I that a gas service line can be run to the rear (1.23 acre) lot in what appears to be a 50' roadway and utility easement across the front (.87 acre) lot. IIn all four Cases, please advise the Owner/Developer that natural gas service is subject to policies in effect at the time of application. If such service is desired, early application should be made I by contacting our Sales Department at Ridge Square in Minnetonka. The telephone number is (612) 544-0108. I Thank you for again providing us an opportunity to comment on your Planning Cases. II William C. Ka f:erg Director, Sys em Design Operations Division I cc: C. Capron (+ preliminary plat maps) 11 IWCK:lk II II 1 I 1 II II 4Cvr II Planning Commmision Minutes October 24, 1984 II Page 5 Public Hearing: Subdivision Request #84-23 to subdivide a 2.13 II acre tract into a 1 . 23 acre parcel 727e% .87 acre parcel on prop- erty zoned R-1 and located at 6740 Blvd., Lewis Woitalla, applicant. I Public Present Paul Larson (representing applicant) 1969 Shorewood Lane I James & Norma Ravis 6660 Powers Blvd. Dacy stated that the applicant is proposing to subdivide his 2.1 II acre parcel into two lots and intends to sell the 1.23 acre lot to Mr. Ravis whose parcel abuts the northern boundary of the ' applicant 's parcel. She stated that the lot sizes meet the II requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance but the 1.23 acre par- iii cel should not exist as a separate lot of record and should be described and recorded as part of the prospective property owner 's Itot. She stated that a 50 foot roadway and utility easement tra- es ers the . 87 acre parcel from Powers Blvd. west to the proposed 1.23 acre parcel and added that this access easement would not be needed because there would not be a landlocked parcel. I J. Thompson moved, seconded by Ryan to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. J. Thompson moved, seconded by Albee that the Planning Commission II recommends approval of Subdivision Request #84-23 subject to the consolidation and recording of the 1.23 acre parcel with the prop- , erty owned by Mr. Ravis. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Public Hearing: Subdivision Request #84-22 to replat Lots 3 and I 4, Bandimere Heights 2nd Addition into 4 lots to be known as Eickholt Addition on property zoned R-1 and located at 9370 and II 9380 Kiowa Trail, Bob Eickholt, applicant. Public Present Robert & Mary Jane Eickholt 9380 Kiowa Trail II Dacy stated that the applicant is proposing to replat two lots of II the Bandimere Heights 2nd Addition into 4 single family residen- tial lots . She stated that each lot meets the lot area require- ments of the Shoreland Management Regulations and complies with the subdivision ordinance requirement of 90 feet of lot frontage II at the building setback line. She stated that the lot created for the existing residence (Lot 3) dictates that the existing home be located 9.85 feet from the north lot line and the required I amount ten feet. She stated that the encroachment is negligible and realigning the lot line would mean reducing the required lot width for the proposed Lot 2. II VT-t\11-HttECT N7 ii iirj C 1 .7, / ii) AL \\ 1N,\,, \ � i. - - I , � � I ostion g\ 11‘it I -- - - , ,, ,,,,,iiiti 115 4 ( k I ro• Ki. - \ \ 1 ivinItu. . • \.t. , 1 1111 lior )„ \ \\ , \ , I , 12,..\ \ \"\\\\\ ______ , \ \\ c , \ \ \ \ I 1 1 . , f . ww \ \\ \ 3 CA_ ti7.c:15.17 1■1C.•• 12la°17C5AL., 4,/31 l'9Z)1" - I 3 / /.........4 3 ............,..........4.,,,, . i .... ••• / .,.. ( / ..... • ...." ... \ I .) • ........... ..................- .................... LAYT...E. t...1..acY -r.. eryko —\ . • 4020.7•40•80101•144900•11512111MA 2 / . / ) I ... ............ ..... ..... ...._/ „ - ..s!".. .„ ..... ...... ...,• :VW .....* _ . . .......... 1 :r.- ...-..............-__ i / .--... • 't &rrt.... I ,......- .• .., .. :, : : , . • ct: r If ••••••ao a 0•••• O•• •so..••••••••••••••...... • , / ; . .-.* ... ---":77,.. — ..•• / , , „-. .e.,, p .••• • . a' • • ,- • ;it., • .. *4" : s : , / / . - \ „6. ::. •., ..,. ,.... , ••3 .., • • .,.•.... . . i- ... ; -.. • '. " ' - • S': ,n, !.1 ll No • 4-.1. IK4 . . , . .. „?..-:•.--....4:-.., , .- . :.. s i • 1 .; .1 I * *I . . . . . . . . . •:. s., , /, : ? ., .. • • .• .... -. .• . , .. . t t4-4L WTW4.M2) .... ,. .. .. t * n Ze> 44 t .. .. \ ... ....*\ ..... ...‘.. .... ...i., '.1' -s* •.:' *4 • \-- C---, ' 0`. .'-..-- -i'-, , * 4?zt . , : , %.• '1. — r ":„...Rzzr ■t.f.i. 0 'g i!*.), :• %, i ':. 60424€010■Se. WAITS . ',-... %....'.• % •-•.„. 4r--- . .=',;•;-,,,..•*:-V-44i.k4e ...isii.4.' ....: I 1: ‘1‘• 1%.„ Pk '4C,VA \ ( ,,L. .." -..e - ' : P: -: , ',.. •, - E ,.. ,... ..,.. -.... I ...... ..,..... ,.,,,,,,._ ...... • t,::?;.• .'4'.*ii,p4i . it .-.,4 4. V. .." N ‘ %- ,`••••..........:--- . ..t h2 1-`, •_,.■•, s . .....*: ... .., ‘ ,.. . -„ .„.. .: ..•-, ,,-,,,-•;,:,,,,*,..4f.1... ..: i -,.... --,.. i .! ,•,... &a. / f. --.., . a.„,-.•_„„,_,•;,,e4-F .• .."-'4;.1 Ntl \'.. - t:'-.7`-', -..4..„-`' . ' .'• V g ....... • .i.....„,,,:4,, ,..: .... . e.. •Nr..\ % ..W. .tt • N.'it:\ \.t.* \ \ \ s- *: - ,',' ,:"'‘ 'W 1 • . Iii,.--..:: 4 r...i... \ \ \ \ .-.. .... .. . • . . ,,N . . i >, A. : 1 0 , \ * •, \ *, ' • ! ei'•-`,,,',K4 • .... . : 'S.;;"^:„.'F';*•• : a : :'$ : • .: II '. . 4r. \ ; .• . . . :;,.'.\-•..1::.-1, ' • ., : :: :i 5 Hp .., . • .., .. 46. i I \ / ./. % % ..., $ . 1,N‘„,.. st,. :''. : . ..:: •Ii , , \ 47 . %. % % .1. l'';; ■, ..\.. : $ / . - •. . 2 % .% :. i % % ■ • \... /".. :. ............../ ■ ./*/ '' '-' '`.'/`'' ' I" /. t 14 1 : I. It \., •% 1 1, %,, .0 . ., -"/ 1 i fa I 1 ..■.„ "-. N 1 . . : .. .....'::.:7 ;-.:,,f:.-,k..- . --.......___...---- ....--- - ) - - .- -.: , . . , : • : $ . , ,.-,,_,..,,,,• i ....---- • i . i • i : ; : I (Iv+ —z------------ _„.. I j‘ j TrS:=•7" ."1',=. ; r • . -- $ ---•—••=1:-..::„.____ —/ : .? . ::-_•,,-.1„..., i - ..„ : ; . . i 5 --.....„....,, ---. --. '.. -; .- '.;__::4-,L-:,:,;-` .. .,-.---•-• 1 ' • i ' : •,,s •I ':. '', i 1 : -„„---, . . .,. ,--„„■-.„„.. H5. .-. ...".•_• .. % •. -!,.:-.,,-",;:.,?,.?,.;.:..G,,,,-..,7-,1_,:4.7 F'"i ..1-:.• •r•-•-•••..........--, 1_ I ‘ ; , ... . .. , \ \ , „ „ • ,. , -.. , ; i .. . :. %...›.% \ \ ". \ \ I . ..s.. \ ilk \ \ \1 1 * ',. ._. . . 1 • „ \\ ' \ ‘ ‘ . ' -':•!:[:-,-. _• — A t . ' ,..., . , , Z to I , • - .. ; , • , • \ .„, , , , , • I • .-„, • , ....- -- t, ..)..... „,../...... ..... \\\ ..., /1 2. . s. \ .. . \ , . V .... .. . ., . • _,,•,.,-„, 'A" T• ....."'"..... • ; \ \ . lq k -,--.., :-•:<•._, , i s ..--•: -;•-::- ; • ,•—• . . • . , \ -.• i t %- \ n. •• :.% `.. .1 r % 7.1.* , „. : , t :.... • r s i . ,k ::::.-!,..-,r.-.:-:..• :-; ‘ -,•,-.,, .L, • •• — -.. . ,„ \ \ \\ ,.. \ .. .• .! ‘1,-zif-r:7-: 1, . ----- , ( • •.C.:.-',-:'-:),%-;,•,-.%! ---''' ''..... .L. ... $ : ,\ ..., • ... . , ir..... . ...... ..... ... • • ---:.-,-.,---•.,- : 5„ \ 1 I s. ',. f< x \,:-.-y--,:1;,.,-:\ .• It - I . . -------- I , ; .i..7 -1.-=--...4e-...a:› otz- . x.tsrp-IG. olza\li a t o xy Al- t-r-TY----e 101 la)reoi: — ?Ayr clie.Nrs v.iesT I --ro Ni\-11,Z7C: t l.rt . At Li CoKINAZEtZr. 91 I 199 i I -n -- --•.-- - -----__ -- ••••••■ I L'ib.ice I / .--- 1 I en I• 111111111111111■111■1 ....-- i 1 •1 MI , L. II -- -- --- _ eo • i". .-- / _. - , ....... ....- A r --_------ 70- — : , i,,,,,,vaz .....9,,,. ! .4, „ „ 1.1/141 I : f;btxD r k I- i 1 , : "'mi.--GiffiAptt6. Li&krr'S i ; .A i (101 tan, wsmakt-v* ‘ ' 1 \ , ,IT • i tk I _ ---111ip t - >, 990- - LIV ,.. :;-• I \ SI4SrTi** V4SIL444, • to *"" .. ...£1:11t0 flor- e012400 1 t ,..„ ix. TvIerEc.- CAtrzpo 1 ■ l• , - ----.. --- - • I ‘... ' ■ 1 \ \ . , - , . I ' ........ ......■ ' I ‘ I , . ! I 1 H 1 .......••■■•-.........., I .•••., ' \... ... il ; 1 1 •I I 115 i 1 • \ • I • • \TA • Vssa. I I 1 cZ 1 °+ 14t1/ r I I \\\N \ P (Si) i� � . '1 t •1 \ 1 * It 1 ' \ t ‘ al I , S *it i i ___ _ ,, ,N 1 - 1 ' - • �� I c.N)- - / .1 t . ' lie . \ \ ‘ ..\\\ 1 \ . t. .'t \ s \ \ N. . . 144) ,:,',.• ,,,,;\I •,..,_ ----Si!:::-.-.. , ...... I �rE. I n ` "a.Y '--,N. 1 �c -ated 1 3 I ... �z __ S3 M -A-Nts6Ka . I c S�L1rv11 9cv�• ),�� C17.-? ' c \1 d _______8 ° �_ , 1 ,: ; +54 -.- Q 1 // A -2 rivi . ( 37hr I lid f . -;"'"y,.ri .- (Cill) • LAKE I o •••••. • • •• •'.":::::::....,:.::::::.?:::::::::::::::::::::::.:1.:::........ ::::: . I 1 1( . . .. . ...... .. ... .. . ....... ... ....... ... • . .. • ••• •• •• ..• .. •..• .•••. .• •••. ••.. •. • 1 .......:.......:•:„:::.....::::::i.iili.:::: ::::::::li:f:..;:::::::....f:: :::::k It::::f:i:';".':::::Aif,'::.::-:::::::17.1aVe.S. . . .. ... .....-.:::::::::.::::::,..:::::.....'.::::::::.::::..:1. . „...y.....::..! 1 .:•••::::::::::)..i4::::::::?::::*:::itigriNc ::::::::....:.:.....:::::.'::::::::::::::.:::::::::•:::::::::::: :.::::::1::::::::i:ii..:)..::::.:*:.::::::::::::::•:.::::::::::•:* I -::::.7::::::::: :::::::::: ::::.:...:..i:::.::::::::::::•:.: 1 f.fi:::::':.:::::.::.......:::::::.::::•::10v-i........:::.::...........:::y:::....::::::;......::.::::;.:.:•:::::..(:::::::::::::;::::•::::::-....: ::.:::::::::::: :::: :!::::;::::...::::•1:::::.::•::::••:%::;•:::-..::::.::::::::::::-::...:.::::::::. ::::::::.;.i:i...i.'::::::::::::.,4::•:.*.:;!":::: •:.:::::.:1:::::::::ii:::::::•:•ff::::::::;.:::::::::..:::::::..•.;:-...• . ...::::::i.:::. -• -,..... .....;:........:..: .:..,-.-.,....::::..:.:.!:::,:::.:-..:?::::: I -..*:::::::::::::•:6::::i::,...;:i.::::,:-.1.... ,. • ::.:1•:-...... • • - • ••• • •.....A.':-'•' ..:•:- c' ::::::::......1.:::::f:?.:..'..:'.. ... . . .„:..... :....:::::::.:.:•:..........::"....- :: : :-. .... • ..:: ..:: •:'-:::::::::.:-....-.V:':Vf:-.::: -.::':1::::::..:.(4 .:.... ..... $, * ::::::::-..1:..:-.;:-.:.::::::t.::•:...............::':;:.:.:•-.•;::.:::.is•::,;:.......:AV4.■-wpr4 .:::.:.1.:. ii.::.:.::::::.:i!q.,::.:;:::14:::::::::$1/C)A.,..... ..........i-...-.. .......:„.........,................:.......;:::::::.:::::::.::1:;:......:::::........-.4.1k.. .. :IL, .. ...........1...:.........:..:.:::::::.........:.......:)....:..i.:... :.:.:.:i.:i • :::::::.:.-..........::'. I ;-:.:;:if::*:-....- . 1 . ,;:.::::.::: ::•!.V.:.:-.:::::.:::•: ::::i:::::....i:::::::::;':•:::.:.:::.;:•:::: ::::':::::::':::::14:::::::::.:::::..;:7..::::)..1.1!::...:i. *:':'::::::::::::::::::i:iiii.:.:i. Piiii.7..- i s5,0 eta :.::::::t.,1 1::::.-:.ii:-:-..-.::::;::-:...::::.:..::::;::::::::::::::.;:•:..:::::.:.: ::::::;-:::::•15::::::::::::::':.:-....;:.:::::•:::::1:::::::-.:;::.;.;::::.::.:::::.:::-.:::::::::.t:::::::::.1.?:.:.:.::-:::.:..:::;::: e3/4: .....:1:.. ... t E I '5 P.' ::::11.:::i.'.. N::::: ':".:1:"...Y.:::::.:.:::.:::::::::::::::::::::.1:::::.;:k;":;::::::::::::::::: ::;:?:iiiii.....;:.::::**::::::.f:'::::::::::'::::::;...::;';:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.ii::::::::;S::::.:.::::'.......*:.::::::;:::1::::?i::::. I .:::::;:::i:ii:::11.f.:7 to 1 ... :::ii:?i.*.j .:*:: ::::::.::::.":::?;:':.;1;.....::::::.::::.:::::...::"........i.:::"::::::::::::::;:::::::::.*::::::::":31:::.;:::::::.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::....::::::::::;.::::.:.:::::::::::::::::.::;::::::::::::....L:::-..'-:::::::.:i..:.:::::::::::::';.:..... .. its tp AI. C:*1.7.4 ,.a.;::4: 1:::::......::::::..V. i;r• ffilj:t..i.:::: :W.:::.*::::•IJII...:JANE:-:: :::::::::::::;.:::::::::.:::::::::::::;"F:::::::::::::.:::•.::;::::::::::.i:::.:::i::::i*:::::4:.j:.1/1:::f.:1.'i;;.;:4,.. L.::::::".:::::::::::::::::::::: ::::•::::;:;:.:.: I "...i.;:::::.:..........".• .. T f e.1 iJi.... .j.i......:.-:.'-?it...::.:::.4.;.::::-....t:::: ::*:17/Xl.t1-........:::::::*:i;:::..i..i..ii.. ."-• .':::;:.::::::::::: ::: :;::1'::::-.::::;::::::::::.::::.::::::%:::44:: ::.*::.i.:i..:-.:::-:::::::::.: I ::::: 1 4 •°.P :•0 :: ...-: "-•••:!:.:.:-:::1::::*.liw-''.:',.:::....•::';'..::;:x_:::::.:::::::::::::.:....::.:::;:::::::.y.....? ' ...10(*:::.:::.::-......fi. :-........-,........1,,...N.*;:.:ii:::.... F .:::.f....::::::::;::::.:1:1*Tli.f.iiiii::::::::7::•?.." .1::::4::•:;:•:•;N:........y.::::::::::: :1*::::.:*.i.t44.M7:::: :4,.209„3, .::.:::.:.:::...:::::: : ::::::.:::::.:.:•\ ...*:iii.:•::::..:44'.4.:::.*:.:....."..3....::::::::y."0-..1:::•::■'• 1iti ..:::•:::774',.r7777::::•:::•:•,::::::::::::.:f......:•••:::•::.:::::1:::I.;...:::::::::;.:;::::::.:. I :.'1./::::::•::: eat 4be :'4.:.::::.!:!:::ii.:::*...i.i.;:::-'•i it::•:••••••••••... ..rlic::;ati°,,:.::.;.:1 : ::::•::::: • •-.i;.r!4 ..lizo.::• •'-''. ::'.',■•*-)0021:::-.:::::::.::::::::::::::;:tlf.•:?:-::.:.:::i:::.;:::::., 0 ( 3 :::::C:...4Z■.../..............)-' ........ .......:::-..; ..... ::#01 . .:..k. :':'...• ....:::-.i.:-!::;;;.:.1. 41•71 ::::::::.::.-1."...1.:::.:::::::::::::::.::.: .:.::.f.i.::::iff-fliffilf. lit; e v i :t;';■ et 7"1 64 1 ..::',:.1.. ::: ..../.::::::.}::::;:::::::t:::::.:.:.:.:!:::i i.:•I'IY(fi.:::::::::::::::i.i.'::::::::::::::::::::f:!:"...:.:::*::::::::::.::-.:::::::::::::::::.:::::.:J.: Zi::.::;;":.:: : % i ;!,,,All....-: ::4-:::::-:::::::::::::::-1.:::::::;:::::::•:.:.:::.::':::::::::;'::::;:::::...::...::::::::::'...:::.1.;::::::::;;;.:';;;:::::::::::::;.-;:::':::::::::. •.ft .. . ::••:: 1 I i v es I 1 .::C14•4•.'i 1'". •:...*:•.::::•::::::::•••it::::: :::.:;:::lifilli:::::.;I::::::.i.::.:::•:;;::;;;;.:. .::}r.:::::::::::.::::::::;*•:•.:1.:.:::•::::::::•:::••:'•..::-::•.:: ..::; :1 i I t :. Si f *1;;;:::::::;:;3:::::t•;•::::).:::::::::::::::::"•::•::::::::.!::::.:::.:::::: ::::•;:',::::: :::.::::::::::::::::::::•.::::•...:::::::;-;•:::: ::;*:.::•;::::. • I :"...:)'...: i 1 1 1 1.1*.:111:::::;..f..iti.i.i. :;.;;:;;i::::.1:.::::::::24:&•;•;•;::::.:*:.;;;;:.::::.:::::::::::::::::::::g:::::::.:.::::::::::::.:•;:.::::::::' I :::::::"•gi :. i .11::::::::"%:*..••.::::•••••••:-t 1'•?::::-:•:•;•:;"::••:-:•:•;:::::•::::::::"::::•••••:•::::*•%71.:11•::;::•:::::: M.777.:::::::::::::::•••••••••••••••:•:*:::*•"::::::::::::::::::•:•'•'•:V::•:•.:-.;i: 1 I .:::::;.:•::: ."•'.:**(:".:.:::::4:::16:.';.;:•:i .::::::::....:(i.::::•?:::::::::::::?..:::.:":!::::*::::: :::**)::::?::::::;11•":•::•:.:::.:.:f.ii:::::•.".:.::•.::•.*:.::::::::.:: :::.;":1... :•.....-. \ \ •..... te 1:14n....:::::Aii.::::.:::::.::.••••••••••••:::i:::::::.•••:'..'......:*:::::.::::i i::::::::::::........ ...::.::.::••• .......: Y.I.ffi 1 \ •Pt ti;Yiiii:::1:::::.:::::::::.:;;::::::::::::::::::11::-:::.::::: - •II \ \ f t....:";:::::1:.;::::::"!:!.•::::-::::::;-:i.,:::::..f.: 3*.:::::-:.'...::::::::::::::::::: ::::i.:::::::::::::•,..').:*ii:::::::?...:::::::::::::::::::::::::::?:..?.fi•f.:W ... .. ....•-•::::•1-..:-.-.•:-.:::::::::-....:::•:.:::.:.:...........:::::::::y:::::•:,:.:-.::::-:...... •::::..:-......: I 1.1:ill; 1 \ \ s• .ti::.......:k..::::::::-;:•:-:•:::.:.:::.::::::::::-::•::::::::.:.::::: :::::.:-:::: A..........1 ......*::%•::?k:::::::::::.::::::::.:::::::::;:::::iiii:i::::::......:::.......:•:•.••.„..................-....:,;::,:::: •••-•.••• •••.....................-..-•:•:•.....:::::::::-. .:1:.:::::-.....:::::-...:::::::::. • c,::.::::.-:•::Nk.•11.*:•:.:.:.:•:.;•g.:*:...*:::::::::.:::":.:?.:-...:::::::::.::::::::::::(11::.:::•:: :::::::.:::::::::: • k t NI:::::.t.i.::::**A:::ii::::.t.-":::::::'::::..'-':'..*::;:::::.iiii::-:li-:.::.::::::;.:.:::•:::::ic:::::::-;:-:-. ‘ *\ ' 1 ik.:::::1 1:.:,*i i;:k'Fri:..;;•5::::::::'-:';1•::.::::.:::::::•Y:':::.;•:::::::(:::::c.i.::"..:::::...:::"..,:i:f.:::::::i:::::::.:::'-:;":"." :.:;-.."-‘.::::::f.3:::::"....: ..... -.:......: i \S\ I .8..i. ....:**:**:.:......:::::.N;...*:::.:::::.*:.::..i.ei.•:!..i!:.::::::::.:::::*:"." ‹ \ \ i . *s':4.:::.:11.;:.•::Nfi..i:::X''':%...v, :• :• :::::::::::.:::.:'iiii"..."-.:1'':.::::::::.::::::::•-•::::::-:::::::::.:::- .:::..:-•::: -......:.•:%:„. .::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::.::::::.:*:-.•::::::::-... I . \ \\ : :: I ....::::::.::::::;J: . :::::-........;.:::: \ A\ °pa 4:VI 01.t.:.: :::.;:!;';.: ....... . .............:....:.:;;:..:.;:.:.:•:..:::':1:1:. I --....-:.;;:.' - • . • • • • •• •.•• I \ \ \ \N,...\, \41\ 1 .........:.:::?... N........ ..:.::::::1X1 :0.• I CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147• CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612)937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Sr. Planner FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician DATE: September 5, 1991 SUBJ: Staff Report Update for Lundgren ' Brothers/Ersbo/Ortenblad Preliminary Plat Land Use File No. 91-10 A few outstanding issues left to be resolved as an outcome of the Planning Commission meeting. This memo addresses those concerns. Extension of Utilities to Adjacent Parcels Upon further review of the adjacent parcels, the Ravis parcel lying east of the proposed development currently is serviced by a sanitary sewer line along the west side of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) . However, the existing sanitary sewer line at Powers Boulevard is not deep enough to fully serve both of Mr. Ravis' parcels. Therefore, it is recommended that a sanitary sewer line be extended from the proposed development to the easterly property line for future extension into the Ravis property. In addition, in order to promote water quality through both parcels, it is recommended that a six-inch water line also be extended from the proposed development to the Ravis property for future extension and connection to the existing water line along Powers Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to extend sanitary sewer service to the parcel west of the development (Coey parcel) . .Extension of this sewer line will conveniently make available sanitary sewer service to the Coey property. This parcel was initially proposed to be serviced through a future trunk line from the west along Lake Lucy. Municipal water service is readily available to the Coey property from Lake Lucy Road. Street Access to Adjacent Parcels According to City records, there is apparently an existing road and utility easement through the Woitalla property which lies south and immediately adjacent to the Ravis parcel. However, staff has been unable to verify documentation at the County • Is tisr PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ' S I 11 Jo Ann Olsen September 5, 1991 Page 2 Recorder's office. In addition, it is not known whether this is ' a private or public easement. If this easement can be confirmed for public road and utility purposes, it is recommended that access to the Ravis parcel be acquired from Powers Boulevard. Two access alternatives potentially exist. One alternative would ' be to extend a public street to the westerly line of the Ravis property from the proposed subdivision as shown on Attachment No. 1. This alternative would alter street alignments in the ' southeastern portion of the Lundgren subdivision. One benefit of this alternative is the creation of an additional lot in the Lundgren subdivision. In addition, it provides for both street and utility access along the same alignment to the Ravis parcels. ' The down side involves the additional tree loss due to the street extension and temporary cul-de-sac until the Ravis property develops. In addition, it may not be economically feasible for ' the Ravis' to construct a full City street and cul-de-sac section in order to provide access to only three future lots. ' The second alternative would be to explore the possibility of a private driveway from either Powers Boulevard through the Ravis property or from the proposed Lundgren subdivision. It appears ' that no more than four lots would be served by the private driveway. If a full street access is extended to the Ravis property, a portion of the cost for extending the street and utilities may be borne by the Ravis' which compounds the ' economical constraint of extending the cul-de-sac for just two, possibly three, lots. Providing street access to the parcel west (Coey property) involves difficult constraints such as steep grades, valuable wetlands, and mature stands of trees. The applicant's engineer, Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. , conceptually laid out an extension of a ' cul-de-sac from the subdivision which also took into account the existing house (Attachment No. 2) ; however, the concept involved working around a wetland, ravine, mature trees, and steep grades. It is staff's contention that the topography and environmental constraints of the area south of Lake Lucy Road between Lake Lucy Highlands and the Lundgren development, including the Coey ' property may be best suited for larger lot development with access from a cul-de-sac street or private driveway extended from Lake Lucy Road and possibly future developments from the west. ' Storm Drainage The applicant has proposed to raise the DNR wetland lying south ' of Lake Lucy Road in order to provide better water quality for the wetland. Staff has concerns that the higher normal water level may cause the sub-base (granular material) in Lake Lucy Road to become saturated which would then be subject to frost 1 I Jo Ann Olsen I September 5, 1991 Page 3 heaves and premature deterioration of the street. The developer has retained a soils engineer to review the situation. The soils engineer concluded that no adverse effect should be incurred by the road. However, staff is recommending that the elevation of the water in the wetland be only raised to its current elevation of 975.5 and that the two catch basins in Lake Lucy Road be plugged or disconnected to eliminate the outlet since the development proposal is providing a rate control structure at the south end of the wetland. Staff is also recommending that the existing outlet from the storm sewer system in Lake Lucy Road be extended to discharge into the sedimentation pond located on Lot 2, Block 2. Preliminary Plat Lake Lucy Road is one of the City's east/west• collectors. The existing right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road is 33 feet on each side of centerline. According to the Eastern Carver County Transportation Study, Lake Lucy Road is designated to be a collector Type II street which requires a minimum right-of-way of 80 feet. Staff recommends an additional seven feet of right-of- way along the south side of Lake Lucy Road be dedicated with this plat. Recommended Conditions 1. Municipal sanitary sewer and water service should be extended easterly to the west line of the Ravis parcel. 2. The water level in the DNR wetland lying south of Lake Lucy Road should be maintained at a level not to exceed 975.5. 3. The catch basins in Lake Lucy Road shall be plugged or disconnected so as to drain the northerly catch basin north and the southerly catch basin south. The storm sewer line should be extended to convey the runoff from the south catch basin (Lake Lucy Road) into the sedimentation pond in Lot 2, Block 2. 4. The final plat shall convey an additional seven feet of right-of-way on the south side of Lake Lucy Road to provide the total width of 40 feet lying south of the centerline. jms/ktm Attachments: 1. Alternative No. 1 - Ravist•property. 2. Alternative No. 2 - Coey property. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer LAKE LUCy RD. i Al . - 1 / 4/4.?2 / f . 1 ;;rr � 1 ‘ 0 „, ,... ; / . / . . i ► / 1 ` ERSso '' : \ 11 , -. \ �`-% \I \i 1 - i / `\ ,N =- I - .. "' V \ I ‘ '4 - • 1 .Ai. iti \ , Not...„1/4",...... ..._ ........ • • t 1 - f _ IL; "mum' , / r ....... I • , 0 . _c _ cis ; ...1 • i . ,, RAVis A m• 4 � W cc 1 1 ,i‘\,\ .1---7- o i I 1 •-- 1-,-- - i.k • . 1 i I it' laVt84# 1 I : ' • . . lz) ■ I_ _.__ t , • , t ATTACHMENT NO. 1 I . ) t. , 0 ; - / •.-.. .p 1 w".4 i / 7 i.i + 11 ,A wear ed. I 1 (./... . • • t r� . . ,, 1 1. r , t. • 1 •. 0 Lis / Oe°46.°AP4.1 4". " .. 1 t6:, . • .. nT, , . 1 %• gi 1 - 1 ..! .......,•,..„----:_r, A ---7 • 1 1 .....0 � " ••.. V.- . .... r ?..„„„,„8„/„.„ i • • 42:16 , •e 1 • 1 II {g �' ; • •• ) ,/ • t41 / N.... \..11 , . . i • .• +�.. •• .. /o 1/ .''.. 1 ,- 41/ * • >,9 'I kb . ........-...'°P - ....-...**- • '\ 04 ,.. ,.• 1 1 1364\e. . \ -r \-e- •r ATTACH T N \;2 4.../ S0 d r 1. ) I flO ! tl3)- 3e1 1 S SG : 6 3111 t 6 - 2 T - • I SF-00006-03 STATE OF MINNESOTA I DEPARTMENT of Office Memorandum Division of Fish and Wildlife I TO: Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist DATE: �ti�141�4 JgJ9�er 8/14/91 o AU O`er /4(7L--- G �9,�1 oo RECEIVED PHONE: RE r, AWM, Shakopee ION Vi (612) 445-9393 -"� ATERS „ ,II e,-.,-,' C. ' 4 SUBJECT: • 'i,;i,i. .'^� Pre-permit coordination: Lundgren Bros. , Ortenblad property II As you requested, I met with consultant Frank Svoboda and Terry r� -st> Forbord of Lundgren Bros. on site on August 2. Wetland 10-131W t^ is located in Section 2, T116N, R23W, in Ctn. The AUG ? > 11 I wetland was predominately open water with a fringe of reed canary grass which was mostly flooded. There were two to three ro : ; . ; ;; r,A c:r h small patches of purple loosestrife in the wetland fringe. I There was a massive infestation of loosestrife in the outlet ditch to the north across Lake Lucy Road. I could not observe svbmergent plants in the basin, and cannot comment on their presence or absence. We observed 8 to 15 wood chicks, II apparently broods, loafing and feeding on the wetland. The surrounding vegetation is mostly alfalfa and wild hay which has been mowed at least once this year. There are also some areas 1 of brush and timber in the vicinity. Lundgren Bros. propose to increase the water level on this wetland to 976.5 feet by constructing a dike on the south II outlet and blocking or raising the present culvert outlet to the north. The present control point is the culvert under Late: Lucy Road at the north end, and the nominal invert elevation 1 was reported to be 974.5 feet. Subsequent surveying by Lundgren indicted that the actual present control point is 975.5 feet, due to an accu elation of sediment in and upstream 1 of the culvert. Svoboda indicated that the present water surface elevation is 975.5 (8/13/91) . As I requested, Svoboda provided depth cross sections of the basin and an extrapolated contour map (attached). He also provided a contour map of the Ibasin at the nominal 974.5 outlet elevation. As you can see, the basin currently has a maximum depth of I about 3 feet. If the culvert were cleared out the max depth would be only 2 feet. The proposal would raise water levels in the basin about 1 foot over current level. I planimetered the 1 contour areas from the attached drawings, assuming that the scale is 1" = 100 feet. Below is a table of the results in acres. w e tokk.\\o e . jai- I Ceil Strauss 8/14/91 Page 2 II DEPTH (FT. ) OUTLET ELEVATION (FT. ANSL) 974.5 975.5 976.5 0-1 1.6 1.05 0.58 1-2 1.4 1.6 1.05 2-3 0.0 1.4 1.6 3-4 0.0 0.0 1.4 Total 3.0 4.05 4.63 ' Assuming that the drawing and my calculations are correct, the proposed project would increase water surface area at runout by .58 acres over present condition (elevation "A") and 1.63 acres over the "cleaned-out" culvert condition (elevation"B") . Area less than 2 feet deep would be reduced by 1.37 acres or 1.02 acres from elevations "A" and "H", respectively. Area from 2 to 3 feet deep would be increased 0.2 acres or 1.6 from those respective elevations. Area over three feet deep would be increased by 1.4 acres over either condition. ' Water at all of these depths should be capable of sustaining . emergent or submerged vegetation. If emergents could be established, the proposal would increase the habitat diversity and size of the wetland. It should increase its wildlife value. The proposed buffer strip around the wetland should also help to protect the wetland's water quality and habitat value. I am skeptical that the addition of water to this basin will reduce the phosporus concentrations by dilution as hoped by the proposer. This might be the case if all phosphorus originated outside the basin and did not concentrate within it. However it is quite possible that phosphorus is in the sediments and will achieve the same concentrations even with the added water. I would reoommemi that the outlet on the south end be a variable crest structure with stoplogs and an adequate outlet charnel to allow the drawdown of water levels to, or below, the present outlet elevation (974.5). This will allow the proposer to use the more "standard" method of establishing emergent vegetation by draining the pond to create soil conditions which encourage emergent vegetation establishment. If a suitable seed bask or source is not available on site naturally, the proposer may have to plant tubers of appropriate species such as bulrush, cattail, arrowhead etc. during drawdown. Such a control structure would also allow the pool to be lowered to its present or nominal level if increased water levels cause saturation damage to the adjacent roadbed and surface. I Ceil Strauss 8/14/91 Page 3 I would also recommend that the proposer be required, as a condition of this permit, to remove existing purple loosestrife from the basin and .to monitor those sites and sites disturbed by construction for loosestrife invasion. Subsequent II loosestrife invasion should be controlled. The city of Chanhassen should be strongly encouraged to remove loosestrife from the ditch north of the basin. As you know, loosestrife is classified as a "noxious weed" under Minnesota Statutes. ' I see no problems with issuance of a permit for this proposal if my recommendations are followed. cc: Roc•Je r Johnson 1 1 G To L•-k`4- / / • Wt ' --I et2oS. corms Sr: I -• I , /10 ,° loo 20•31 - S I ovail St.A-p r o -Q t.).-D. 1 I I� I ,t5 I 1.4., I- ............... .r ... I . . .. ..... 1-4..K.S 1.0...Y z 95-1 A- Ro ►.t) r., 1t" J` 4$s.o . ...............•. vie• c �'� I.•-. 7 ri=-", : t.4 ., u...,T..._. , ,A,„z7,,,---1 egret+ OF GI-19 N%. 975-.6 I( ( -' I a N. 4 V 19 AS WC. TGD 10 Pt � �;WitJfe 1.JA� ptt //3 f9/ L 4Le —Cr iS i 401 i nou-' v r �0.-n9'I. II I I%.1 AP 4.%of? -144 %3Y• i Vt#3. LI 1 • 1 } + 4 4. 3 + ♦ N$ECT i icfore.5 \whinge.. ' �.1 Lite wile:4 I 1.00enEg- t5-9'741 Ll t : . Z.03:1 / 1 \.. ■ (IA • fP t:Z :4; .. .:. le 1 + ---+ + ., • 1 ANA' : ..5 - tisz- W.,. '\ \ $gA0 N 1p1- mac_ 6.1V I MaEl.Y�At_ f o�.t' M ra; R S • '(' ' �N1L �c>So-DAN I • . N%\bA 1611)0/ Post-It"brand fax transmittal memo 7671 if 01 Pages• 3 ,\'�`L �D� T4PfrAl 1 SVo�OpPi From Pct. i w` o AUG 1991 , co. Co. °' RECEIVED j Dept. Phone F �°c. REGION WATERS ti FsxN FaxW94 ..40V'D7 4 T MGRS ,.,1c/j i I I LO N-1, -eNS -'&¢oS. ccsr. I -• j I to 50 ,'°° loos i 1-4.3e-V. Le 0.6 e X 981.4 fLvA'oo •• . -.c-- MI•••=1•1=MIC7 )1 Wc-Al CD Y) f1 , ; ( I' \ B S V■!A£;, 4ZL 0 A ■ Nit t(9 • ill Vili, 916.5 p : W t4� 4 w++rt># ►S ql� 1 Q�1 \lhilou. 467 u ,, „I .. , ■ - ( ' ' . S. <AP ;, _N.!--44 i 1 I � . - tC- w -. �. • ($11\ r-j t. "- c rraM fas.-As cacmm rs iiv 1 'Spvi/ 1..1 t ,������ ��� v Iry I s p� i•-•C r IS C"i b•5 rn co RECEIVED f.:.--: I rortYr, * 4- t. i E IO!N vi ' SST s WATERS J i :Z l:- . I W NPe:1e-vJ 'EoS. f 'T. -. j 1 }}tO 50 tCO 'loot 1 1 012: wec Ar,/ C) ').T�. 8+ stG t yS t Jo t 1 l.b►K-'E U)eY X%1.4 12.0A� 9132-6 'qg:.o I ( : i -,.. _`*mss mil. ..J •J- 0� IT�S.� h<z• _ 1 IA g 1 : (! 2t, 4 `. . N 1 i _ c + 1,4 icx..5t` b '1 `IlLit.be w01.�'t� 1S q7 E -■ . v ;;' 4t4F ■ k*.;_- e 1 r 1 '�j r 41% --VE-reins tST It.x„. Wen.•oat, a74 e1; wit $e.A V ra irsTE-riec_ I P A 1 $csfiblA MOP61c)Ren^ S WO ". . INK- 4►0Bo1z,P. I w e-g- Diern4s . IF • out it Vi)'_ tIA ? AUG 1991 WL./ (2,0A17 UDNoI.S RED:^ " {,CVel, kr e314-. C . k; WATERS 2- .1 . -c 'Roil IS ruu4,- Z 1 - 9 1 W E a 1 0 : 4 $ S FI T H R E - B E R G R U I ST I N C . P . 0 1 w N SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC . .adimp I 0 co 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391 (612) 476-6000 FAX 476-0104 FRS POk 1 EALBASSOiCALS2M4Min DATE: $tom 11991 TRANSMITTER: SAINWe ' - TRANSMIT TO FAX #: 931 57 WODtvgatM re05. OMMADiegS50 ' Please deliver the following to: NAM MIX. C14025 riX.C4A ORGANIZATION: (My CP CI4A144PcSSW ' Total number of pages (including cover sheet) . If you do not receive all the pages in good condition, please call: (612) 476-6000. ' i oa IE TS: W gpvr 41400.04c, '1'Eje cozrP G%1Y . o EPtc OF I `�WAL r " fbN )S, IN 'wt 94Z fiz ice . C -olt IA•565 , 'Me S m w1 f 1) Om 4o-r' 4/8toc c z) 14 MVt.A StAkIptetz.. 11404-14 via ,suittatay.6 sobbver• Its TNT romeeT VI oc ►, V 0)04 tvco1cr vfmremitaco Twt4 reto, its e*rtsNy9,06 I7. •rtiv NotrW Vr D To µow (4-0W0/ kfreo1Clµ w 1f vzokleViale 6N1'ae{.1t.)6'S AUG - .,2 1 - 91 WEIi 1 0 : 44 '. t-. THRE - IDERGGU I .S.: -r , I h4 1.7.. . P . 01 J , • I TABLE 6.1-1 WET DETENTION POND DESIGN GUIDELINES II i + .. - I. Permanent pool volume > runoff volume from 2.5 inches II : rainfall event under fail development conditions with a' ' - 25% increase in volume to allow for sediment deposition - over approximately 25 years. II • 2. Mean. depth ..of the. pool should be > 4 feet. Smaller ponds with less than 2 acre feet of volume may have mean I • • depths from 3-4 feet as a matter of practicality in construction. 3. Length/width ratio > 3 to promote plug flow where prat- I ticable or alternately two ponds constructed in series • with the first pond (smaller in size) to settle out coarse particles and the second pond larger and deeper II - - for removal of Smaller particles and nutrients. 4. Provision of a bench around the entire perimeter of the II detention basin with slopes < 10:1 for safety purposes and to promote establishment Tit rooted aquatic plants. 5. Permanent pool side slopes < 3:1 depending on soil engi- -' neering properties. 6. Maximum pool depth < 10 feet to prevent thermal strati- II fication and nutrient recycling from bottom sediments. 7. Additional design considerations which may be included. II are,: provision bf a shoreline buffer and an access for maintenance. • t• • Source: "Design Calculations II C cu ations For Wet Detention Ponds 1 pre- • pared for St. Paul Water Utility and Vadnais Lake Area Water Management Organization oy William W. II • Walker, Jr.', PH.D., Environmental Engineer. 1 1 • . II 1 . II err ;,, ••., 1� , of 17� ���/'•� � -' '� two �o., *� - r ���` � (.--, „.---' k 0%.,4 c,;\ 4/(*;__ _ .., 4k.,. , i i. 4;-ik, 01 u ____ - ' ,..,.....A .7°_,,, -=-• 1 1 ,,, r i 6) Air*V- ,l \ I;� 4f10, �% n�),J � s r ,, - . 0 u4 al — vin 10 --- - Ni 4 —7 14' 4%4 I&ett4 -‘";f i0 • iJ• •A ft• n re >s - to \ \0* 1/4, m 1, Sti ,,,t \f.f.,i\ ,,. ...-.. .-.1---.......—.,..ii ,iftt , . „„ , A, „0.110 ,:pio. . . tk., N.t.('VATAakh r %1404 S , ' .. lallk jli # . VV, „Of*, Nee#411"*"'k.'`rN'g+ r�.�l ; =•fir `s, i t z U!rihre•-:4- 1,-„,.7k-,44,eorr.v.-p--)„.,,.... .,- ;. pall 1 h, i eilt .'"a I I I.1 IN V.:A<0 7-1:4--:Iii' :-.--:7 -‘ .'1.4..:A f,j/76, -/ '..17,.: : *Airk*11%4 413' L 1 r 971 Mr- E 13 - "-----1116111.11".1 t M 5 i ,. s' O a f W MNOn o w ` �1 _1.144 jelf C ia 4 i ' ;•= m,",qt/IfoN -z.; 11, rill . A ....6... -°1/ it itiki tgili".14 Wi.__Art 0EE�s a�41 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN ` 4,� �,,, S A T H R E - B E R G O U I S T, INC. ORTENBLAD & ERSBO PROPERTIES z lrY 150 SOUTH BROADWAY • WAYZATA, MN. 55391 • 476-6000 r• LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION INC. ` 1 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA T , LAKE I qa / .. • ef � 4 ‘ (74V/a l' YA.. i . \ N.0 r. , 111=r V." '-/W/ 4 • ... ..... .,.. ,. .,• 1 i -.7.4, .■ Mr - II-ill Nitil silk I dit4 . 141,0•40: \ ,, rte. 14 1, /.4. iv 1 f . . II )4, III -. it l N 1 -- 99 L.ft 1 - 14 _1 . tee° fi''.44tria I �;_ fit►Z ill . 4 'IV '011 :. . - 4 • , x i 0 • 13 , . . . = .,_ :,:,, ! . . 1 . ____,..t _,.. _ ..... co. ¶ cA Qy D a. =- 1.7 ar sS VerLmAt4 1 9oDL voWMe. S. 1 AA(S) von,Crrs cvp■ . 0L-r. 6 C ' J� 1 x17 erm 3t0 4 s4o t,2.4, 45.0 1I(i0 Vec> 5.4.00 1 G foan 1NftS)w 1%1 Z.5 (ACM t t &;- eValstiT: . 1.'1 A,c,005 ,, 4-3c y¢/ac. x 2..1 iN ar 1z_tN/F'r o.4C044' of(um )= 1 6t10 P 3 © TO Dru.00 iF02 •SeT?w•me►T wo4:71/45P -ooec26ize lb.ro ZV% — 1 6110 f-r3 ,L 1.7.S s -7-710 p.5 G, .r„ " a. .... 4:71....8 .tem .,.Mc .,r4 per Tire AT gro5 t . I ■ I, v — — s -.. ._ -- a. --k-.k-z--:-::',4-' v'.=,v 'V4j-/�Lt.i..i',-'.pro .; -J , I " t. . P . t, I LJ NM 617-EN '15r...4)5. C-C4.b SreuCflc, oerm\taA'D f ERA • 1ieo'P6PTY S*11Wt6- oG tc-r,'NU... J■ny 2711991 PAK I 1 1 E.y-i (NI& Dirs'ter SLe van ot`1-O11A-,S $0�� i Pttoc-IDSE5 oi ' ett.yperot l -91b.5 - I 1 '', \ �_....... i ._ ..r -•Me•-- / ,r1.---o I Mb5' Pece b 'V TcsiZM. s-nN,& CAA SS n./ 1 1 9644647. To w..LcE Z r 12 y 1 vo4t. lotto. sw rt PE 3 W ETIANb i 1t`nN I ) . IIiirt •••..................z..........:77 1=7...... 1 ?IZrpoSC15 GuLVE 44 / / _ EuEvpcno►J—� / I 3 `,v r I 40 1 eZz 'yes'vlitita Yk 7 I \ I 1 O vv iv..TA¢,( 17,120—.6. Nmos, - j.5 p4.12c5 O �;x Mn..aES 1- root. N� 1; coo VOb 5 . 1 9-70_ 3S F .>q0 .117- bflo SF Nico 914 - 3io 441A, 740 v44, 7040 ATu. - 3cto I,TO 110)40 1 47e. -4, ,o O3 'NM) ft-l3 04 2.6 eAcki. ittai a u. EvasC 1. `r Z 5 nceie4.435 bo SF/A[-K 1.91•3 41 1L N/�pc K 0.0044r•C'r0"470s • 915 Pr V I & 'm AyLpu1 Foe. sepo"Elf '$+1+L N P.— 0444.4G it•-''D 25/0 WIC VII f 1.15 .. 1t144- pia C) Co CPT:N*1 Ve Pam. Vo%.uMs- iN (Disci' cNRL? rim • 1 p s.LvA.TioN AT 02 iteckW 911.4) • ALIC - ` 1 - 'd 1 •W EL 1 o : 4 .:. SHT HRE - SEPGUU I ST .. I NC• . F . E., r... VVETt.. .1.1t7 Ce 411o,4 91...C1/4/%1 (VA.LILEjZ t ) I LO NIT)eriZtasS 1517-05• CoNS S IC.-(i , oeTi'►-iL'a A4D/ER.sit.c neenglaw Sa'TNe6-t oc )%c-r,INV... ..WU/ 23,1991 RW$' I I \ ' 1 W1-1 ST 1 NS' c4,,,kis A \ I "tYpE. Z WEtLANp . . 5EW �Tb Wa1,14£41- I`�� M lt40 O eCRt1C� W(.VC %.' E .. 7 e . ` I X.ss.\\ . .5 5 r` I Ikte.k /1 ��t,t7ti 1// /.. .%**-%•-jt L,` I I -.....,. I :IL: ),..••••■■"."'' • Y �• I A r"----,.._.......„......T. ...4 Rabu c. Vreze . - \ ------"--.71- ' I I 1 1 • ® �AAnz 'QbOL. VoWMIr: e t`N A. V OL ; G„A%f 01. 0 q-r4 0 6 o / ' /7(0 6 VDO 0 Vt.° Ore, 24,0 *0w &MO 99 0) tiiID G m v.,Fi..0 l$ 1..6 1► 120INFRi-t- eVev4r2 1 4.., AtR.�' 4 0 sc/^c. ri t.5 04 -■,-1Z sN/Pf n 0.4 s+erg air rowa). 11 Cfoo Pr; © To !•LWo yerV r•cei•S? IKMA YP cNCfrEA',alf TONND ZS% - I 11 060 I`-1.1-S % Z1 Viso �; (.3 IT " O F PC DATE: July 17, 1991 `� I HAA! EI' CC DATE: August 12, 1991 CASE #: 91-9 SUB, 91-2 REZ 91-4 WAP I STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 1) Preliminary Plat to subdivide 30.3 Acres into 37 Single Y'Y g Family Lots 2) Rezoning of property from RR, Rural Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development ' Q 3) Wetland Alteration Permit to Fill Class A and B Wetlands V and Develop Within 200 feet of a Class A Wetland „J LOCATION: Ortenblad/Ersbo Properties located south of Lake Lucy Road, approximately ; mile west of County Road 17 Q APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 30.3 acres (gross) 26. 3 acres (net) DENSITY: 1.22 u/a (gross) 1.4 u/a (net) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; Curry Farms S - RSF; Greenwood Shores I E - RSF; single family residence W - RR; single family residence 1 in , WATER AND SEWER: Is available to the site. 1 121 PHYSICAL CHARACTER. : The site contains two single family residences (the Ortenblad and Ersbo homes) . The site also contains one large Class A wetland (f� protected by both the City and DNR and several 11 smaller Class B wetlands protected by the City. The site contains some steep slopes and is heavily vegetated. 1 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential I I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicants are requesting approval to subdivide a 30.3 acre site into 37 single family lots. Two of the lots will be occupied by existing homes with the remaining made available for new construction. After extensive discussion with staff, followed by discussions with the Planning Commission at the July 17th meeting, it was determined that this plat should be viewed as a PUD request. At the present time, the site is zoned RSF and RR. A large portion of the area was located outside of the MUSA line until the recent MUSA expansion that was approved by the Metropolitan Council in May. Related requests include subdivision/plat approval and approval of wetland alteration permits. ' Staff has worked extensively with this applicant over many months to develop this plan. The level of effort here is somewhat unusual ' for relatively small single family development, however, the need for this work stems from a complex set of variables that needed to be worked with. Of primary concern was the many wetlands that are ' located on the property, while other issues related to access and tree preservation. The wetland issues have received probably the most attention. Of the wetlands contained on this property, the largest is a water body that is also protected by the DNR. The ' applicant's design staff has done extensive study of the condition of wetlands on this property and has found that they are generally poor and in particular, the major DNR wetland suffers from ' degradation due to nutrient loading and lack of stable water levels. This area was farmed extensively up until the mid-1960's and has had its drainage patterns altered. It was also clear that in laying out the requested loop street system, that it would not be possible to avoid impacting some of the low quality and smaller wetland water bodies. In cases such as these, the city typically allows relocation and improvement of wetland values elsewhere on the site. The current proposal results in a rather detailed plan to not only ' maintain and increase the surface area of wetlands but also to significantly improve both water quality and wetland/wildlife values on this site. The proposal utilizes the latest technology to capture much of the nutrients that have already damaged the main water body as well as to improve the quality of runoff that would be related directly to this proposal. Flexibility provided under the PUD Ordinance is also being utilized to ensure that not only will adequate setbacks be provided from the wetland but also that there will be a protected wetland fringe which will also improve water quality and wetland values. In short, we believe this proposal is representative of the type of development that is going to be demanded by the city in the future as a result of our ongoing surface water management planning effort. I 11 11 Lundgren Bros. I July 17, 1991 Page 3 Design of the street was also of critical interest. Flexibility in street design was required if wetland impacts were to be minimized and tree loss in areas where significant areas of mature trees are located was also to be minimized. The applicant has worked extensively with city staff to work out an acceptable compromise on the street standards that should yield significant improvements in environmental protection without compromising safety. The use of the PUD Ordinance to regulate this project is somewhat unusual but we believe a valid concept. In the past, the PUD Ordinance was often used to allow for the construction of substandard sized lots on the presumption that lower cost housing would result. In reality, the price of this housing was not measurably lower than anything else available in the community and a large number of problems resulted from variance situations arising from undersized lots. It must be stressed that the use of the PUD in this project is a completely different proposal. In this instance, the PUD is in no way being used to support undersized lots. In fact, the lot size averages over 30, 000 square which is more than twice the normal RSF district standard. What the PUD is being used for, however, is to allow for a more sensitive design of streets as well as to promote the clustering of homes in areas of high ground where they can be accommodated without impacting the wetland. As a result of this plan, 41% of the site will be set aside as permanently protected open space. Private yard areas are not included in this total and will occupy much of the remaining area. Thus, the PUD is being used to promote higher quality and more sensitive design which is one of the stated fundamental purposes of the PUD District. While this proposal is a fairly complex one, we believe that it is quite well developed. The developer, Lundgren Bros. , has a strong track record of developing desirable and sensitive residential projects elsewhere in our community. They have worked extensively with city staff and have invested a large amount of time and effort into developing a plan for what we expect would become a high quality residential neighborhood. We continue to work with the DNR and watershed districts to refine the wetland plan. We believe that the use of the PUD district will not only result in a sensitive project but also one that is of higher quality than one normally expects. Conditions of approval not only mandate environmental protection efforts but also extensive landscaping. Based upon the foregoing, staff is recommending approval of the three requests. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RSF, Residential Single Family and RR, Rural Residential to PUD-R, r Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 4 ' Planned Unit Development-Residential. The site contains many physical features which restrict the development of the property. There are six wetlands located on the site. The largest wetland contains 5.3 acres and is a Class A wetland protected by both the City and the DNR. The remaining five wetland areas are Class B wetlands ranging in size from 2.2 acres to .06 acres. The Class B ' wetlands are protected by the city. The site also contains heavily vegetated areas, steep slopes and two existing single family residences. As a result of the existing features of the site, it was found that it would be unusually difficult and probably inappropriate to ' attempt to develop the site under normal RSF standards. Rezoning the property to PUD will provide flexibility to modify street right-of-way, front yard setbacks and wetland setback standards so that the home sites can be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner. The flexibility provided by the PUD will be used to lower the rear yard wetland setback standard to decrease the street right-of-way and front yard setbacks to move the home sites further from the wetlands than what would be possible under normal zoning requirements. The intent of the PUD district is to enhance flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. Planned unit developments are encouraged to provide preservation of desirable site characteristics and protection of sensitive and environmental features including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, U lakes and scenic views. PUDs should also provide a high quality of design and design compatibility with surrounding land uses. The use of the PUD for this project was explored with the Planning Commission on July 17. Justification for Rezoning to PUD The PUD ordinance allows for enhanced flexibility in developing a site by the relaxation of many normal district standards. In exchange for this flexibility, the city expects to achieve a higher ' quality project that is more sensitive to meeting the community's goals which include improved design and enhanced environmental protection. The applicant is proposing to reduce the road right- !! of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet and to reduce the pavement width from 31 feet to 26 feet. The applicant is also proposing to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 25 feet and a reduction of the wetland setback for structures on some of the home sites. It is almost as important to note what the applicant is not asking for. Unlike several residential PUD's in the past, there is no request to include undersized lots. In fact, the reverse is true. Average lot size of 30,900 square feet is double the 15,000 square foot RSF standard. Given this fact and standards that would be incorporated into the PUD agreement, there should be no repeat of I I Lundgren Bros. I July 17, 1991 Page 5 the numerous setback variance situations which have surfaced in these older PUDs. The proposed reductions in right-of-way, street width and setbacks will minimize impact to wetlands, vegetation and slopes found on the site. Essentially, they allow the disturbed area to be "clustered" tightly around the streets to minimize impact of development. The applicant has worked on several alternatives to the street design, specifically at the west access point and where the road is close to the Class A wetland on the east side of the property. By reducing the street right-of-way and road width, many of the mature trees located in the western corner of the site are being preserved, where as if a full street right-of-way and road pavement width were utilized, the trees would be removed. By reducing the street right-of-way and pavement width on the easterly edge of the Class A wetland, the applicant is able to minimize impact to the Class A wetland. The stands of mature trees will that will be preserved on the site are being protected with a vegetation preservation zone. In the past with other subdivisions, staff has required tree preservation plans for each lot at time of building permit on sites where there are stands of trees that should be preserved. We have found that when the tree preservation plan comes in, the building pad is shown removing some of the most significant trees and then we are left to argue with the builder and homeowner over redesigning their home. What the applicant is proposing to do is to preserve the significant stand of trees with an easement so that it is clear that those trees are protected and cannot be removed. In addition, staff will be requesting replacement of trees with an improved landscape plan and the provision of three trees per lot versus the required one tree per lot. The site contains both Class A and Class B wetlands of which some will be altered as part of the development. The Wetland Ordinance allows the city to permit alteration to wetlands upon receiving a wetland alteration permit. Typically, a wetland alteration permit is permitted if the wetland is replaced with one of equal or greater size and quality. With the enforcement of the wetland ordinance, staff has found areas where the ordinance is lacking in actual protection of wetlands. With this project being proposed as a PUD, staff has been able to work extensively with the applicant and their wetland consultant to come up with creative ideas which would resolve some of the problems we have experienced in the past. These include the following: 1. The plan is proposing the creation of both "Walker Ponds" and wildlife wetland areas. The "Walker ponds" will be used for storm water detention which will remove sedimentation and nutrients from storm water prior to it entering the wetlands. The "Walker ponds" are designed to NURP (National Urban , I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 6 Runoff) standards which are now being used as best management practices for development of sites. NURP ponds have been designed to remove the highest amount of nutrients from storm water runoff. This technology represents a significant improvement in water quality than has been produced by typical sedimentation basins used elsewhere in the community. The ' applicant has taken the "Walker pond" one step further by maintaining the design of the NURP ponds but also modifying the design around the boundary so that it will appear as a wetland and not simply as a storm water holding pond. The site is also creating two wildlife wetland areas, which are wetlands being created solely for the enhancement of wildlife ' and not used for storm water detention. In the past, such as with the Curry Farms subdivision, we have found that replacing wetlands with a combination of wetland/storm water pond was not successful. This resulted in an area being designed to ' meet wetland standards but which was actually used for retention of storm water. The large deposit of sedimentation eventually kills the wetland and it does not serve as beneficial to wildlife with the high amount of balance in the water level. The proposal to establish wildlife areas as drafted will avoid this problem. 2 . Another problem that we have seen in the past with the protection of our wetlands is that the wetland ordinance requires a 75 foot setback for all structures from the edge of ' a wetland but does not prevent alteration up to the edge of wetland. Therefore, although a structure may have to be 75 feet from the edge of a wetland, the area between the structure and the wetland could be sod, seed, rock, etc. Without a buffer strip the wetland is exposed to direct impact from fertilizers used on the lawn, infringement of the wetland vegetation from mowing and maintaining the adjacent lawns. To resolve this issue, the applicant is providing a preservation strip around all of the wetlands which will be maintained in its natural state. The buffer strip ranges in depth from 10 feet to 25 feet in width and will not be permitted to be altered. This strip is provided in addition to wetland setbacks that are established on a lot by lot basis. The preservation strip will further protect the wetland from fertilizers off the adjoining lawn and shall provide a natural area for wildlife. The preservation strip should also help with maintaining the distinct look of a wetland and preventing removal of vegetation and alteration to the wetland by residents in the future. r I I I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 7 Transition Area Function One of the possible uses of the PUD is to help create a transition ' between differing land use and levels of development intensity. This issue was raised at the July 17 Planning Commission meeting. We want to point out that the entire area is zoned and guided for single family uses with a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. We are hesitant to establish a precedent of requiring larger lot sizes or higher housing prices through the use of the PUD. However, we believe this proposal does provide a good transition between an area of RSF and an area of RR development to the west. The Curry Farm subdivision to the north has an average lot size of 20, 562 square feet and a net density of 2.13 units/acre. The proposed subdivision has an average lot size of 30,900 square feet. There would also likely be an increase in home values moving from east to west along Lake Lucy Road. Section 20-505 of the Zoning Ordinance provides required general standards for a PUD. While most of these standards apply to industrial or commercial PUDs, some of the more general standards also apply to a residential PUD. The standards which are applicable are as follows: I Section 20-505 a. a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development the surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the topography of the area and existing natural features, the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the 11 proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of non-compatible land uses and parking areas. The proposed single family subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which designates this area as Residential Low Density. The Comprehensive Plan designates Low Density as 1.2 to 4 units per acre. The proposal results in a gross density of 1.22 units/acre and a net density of 1.4 units/acre which is at the low end of the allowable density range. Data produced for the Comprehensive Plan update indicates that normal RSF development averages 1.7 units per acre. The proposed ' lots are being located around the existing wetlands and the proposed street design is minimizing alteration to the existing wetlands, mature vegetation and slopes. , I I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 8 The PUD is also providing a transitional area between existing and future development. ' Section 20-505 b. ' b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality architectural and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. The applicant is proposing that the material that is used with the construction of the homes will be of high quality, including wood and brick, etc. The site design is providing a buffer strip around the wetlands to protect the wetlands once the development has been completed and is also providing state-of-the-art upland ponding ' areas to further protect the wetlands by removing sediments prior to storm water entering the wetlands. The applicant has changed the design of the streets several times to provide the least impact ' to the existing wetlands, trees and slope preservation. The trees being preserved are contained within a preservation easement so that the trees will continue to be protected once the development has been completed. Section 20-505 e. ' e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: Comprehensive Hard surface Plan Designation Coverage (%) Low or medium density 30% residential The proposal has 8.6 acres of wetland out of 30.3 acres. The 8.6 acres of wetland will be protected as permanent open space. In ' addition to the wetlands, 3.8 acres of additional land will be permanently protected as open space through preservation areas over vegetated areas and the wetland buffer strip. Therefore, a total ' of 12.4 acres of permanent open space will be maintained on the site. The 12.4 acres of permanent open space is 41% of the whole site and this does not include open space found in the lawn areas. Section 20-505 f. f) The setback for all buildings within a PUD from any abutting ' street line shall be 30 feet for local streets and 50 feet from railroad lines for collector or arterial streets, as designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building up I I Lundgren Bros. I July 17, 1991 Page 9 to a maximum of 100 feet. The setback for all buildings from exterior PUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be 30 feet except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building up to a maximum of 100 feet. Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD. The proposal will be maintaining a 30 foot setback from the perimeter lot lines of the PUD. A condition will be added to require a 50 foot setback from Lake Lucy Road which is designated as a collector street. ' Section 20-505 h. h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the City, all property ' to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without restriction, however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain- of-title. The subject site contains two individual properties which are now under control of the applicant. As part of the PUD approval, a PUD agreement with all of the conditions of approval will be recorded against each property. This will guarantee that all of the conditions which are set forth to ensure the protection of the unique site features will be valid and enforceable for each individual lot. ' The proposal is combining the Ersbo and Ortenblad property and by doing so is removing an existing plat on the Ersbo property. The Ersbo property is being better utilized when combined with the Ortenblad property. Section 20-505 i. ' i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants, established in the PUD Development Contract. The PUD agreement will also include a sign plan which will dictate ' exactly what type of signage is permitted on the site. I I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 10 Section 20-505 k. k) The uniqueness of each PUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The City Council" may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that ' strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. ' The proposed PUD is providing street right-of-way of 50 feet versus the required 60 feet, a reduced paved street of 26 feet versus the typically" required 31 feet, and reduced front yard and wetland setback standards to further remove the homes and street section from the sensitive features of the site including the existing wetlands, steep slopes and vegetated areas. The PUD allows the typical City Code standards to be modified if the city finds that the strict adherence to such standards is not required to meet the intent of the PUD or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area and the city as a whole. ' Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD-R provides the applicant with flexibility but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The reduced standards allow the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for reducing the ' standards, the city is receiving: • Improved pretreatment of storm water ' • Improved conditions of existing wetlands • Further protection of wetlands with buffer strip and easements • Increased landscaping ' • Protection of vegetation with easements • Increased architectural standards • Provision of transitional area • Clustering disturbed areas away from sensitive features of the site I 1 I Lundgren Bros. 11 July 17, 1991 Page 11 ' PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide 30.3 acres (Ortenblad and Ersbo) into 37 single family lots. The net acreage of the site is 26.3 acres after removing street right-of-ways and wetland areas. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.22 units per acre gross and 1.4 units per acre net. Both the Ortenblad and Ersbo property contain single family residence which will be maintained as part of this subdivision. The lots all exceed the minimum 11 15,000 square feet of area with an average lot size of 30,900 square feet. Streets/Access ' The subdivision is being serviced by one loop public street off of Lake Lucy Road. The subdivision also contains one cul-de-sac servicing 7 single family lots in the southwest corner of the site. The City Code requires a street right-of-way of 60 feet and a pavement width of 31 feet. As part of the PUD, the applicant is proposing to reduce the right-of-way width from 60 feet to 50 feet and to reduce the pavement width from 31 feet to 26 feet. The applicant is proposing to do this to reduce the impacts to the vegetation, steep slopes and wetlands located on the site. , Staff strongly supports the use of a street loop rather than the alternative of serving the site by an over-length or several cul- de-sacs. Staff originally developed a similar conceptual street plan during the review of the most recent Ersbo plat. We have received a request from a property owner to the east to provide access to his parcel through this plat. We found that it would be difficult to provide, would eliminate a potential homesite and is not needed since access to this parcel is available from Powers Boulevard. , The City Code was recently amended to increase urban street right- of-way standards from 50 feet to 60 feet so that right-of-way would be consistent throughout the city. We also note that the PUD ordinance specifically encourages the relaxation of street standards when safe but more sensitive projects can result. The majority of subdivisions located within the urban area of Chanhassen contain only a 50 foot right-of-way. Therefore, although the reduction in right-of-way from 60 to 50 feet is not consistent with the City Code, it will actually be consistent with what exists with other street right-of-ways in the urban section. The City Code specifies a standard of 31' for urban low volume street. The applicant is proposing a 26 foot wide street. Staff has concerns with the reduction of pavement width but believes that it can be accommodated if carefully designed. The Engineering Department has stated that if a pavement width of 26 feet was accepted, the street would have to be signed for no parking. It is 1 I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 12 inevitable that there will be parking on the street when a resident has company. As a compromise, the city is suggesting that the 31 ' foot width be used except for the westerly access where the stand of trees is located and east of the Class A wetland where the sharp curve is located. In these two areas, the road width will be ' reduced to 26 feet in width. To accommodate pedestrian traffic where the road width is reduced, staff is requiring installation of a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk along the boulevard. In these areas, the streets will be signed to prohibit parking. This should work well since there will be little or no demand for on-street parking in these areas since they are not near any residential driveways. ' There is a sharp curve on the easterly side of the Class A wetland. The sharp curve has been designed into the street so as to minimize impact to the Class A wetland and the steep slope located on the Ersbo property. The loop street does not meet the minimum design standards for a 30 m.p.h. roadway. Staff is requesting that the developer's engineer provide curve design speed information to verify that the proposed curve will meet the safety standards. A reduced speed limit to 10 m.p.h. and "sharp curve" signage will be required as a minimum. We note that the street cannot be modified to open the curve without significant environmental damage. Further, we note that it is unlikely to be used by anyone not familiar with the area since it does not serve through trips. Therefore, we are recommending that it be allowed with signs 1, posting an appropriate speed and curve notice. The plan proposes an 8% slope on one of the curves located east of the Class A wetland. The City Code allows a maximum of 7% grade. Again, these set standards of the City Code can be modified with the approval of the PUD with specific conditions established that 1 would guarantee that safety standards are still maintained. It should be pointed out that the city has often approved street slopes in excess of 7% grade when it has reduced impact to existing steep grades and vegetated areas. ' The most easterly access is located directly across from Arlington Court in the Curry Farms subdivision. The westerly access is I offset from a cul-de-sac in Curry Farms to the northwest. The boundary of the subject property is such that an access could not be located directly to the south of the existing cul-de-sac. The ' access is at an angle so that lights from traffic leaving the site should not have too great of an impact on existing homes to the north. To further minimize any impact from traffic leaving the site to existing homes to the north, staff is recommending that either a berm and/or landscaping be provided on the right-of-way or private property, if possible, north of Lake Lucy Road. Staff will work with the applicant to come up with an appropriate landscaping ' and grading plan. I Lundgren Bros. I July 17, 1991 Page 13 Landscaping and Tree Preservation The site contains some areas with significant vegetation. The most significant stand of trees is located in the northwest corner of the site where the applicant is proposing the westerly access and a ponding area. The proposed street and ponding area will remove 11 several of the trees. The applicant has worked with the design of the street to try to minimize the impact to the existing vegetation as best possible. As a result, some of the large trees are preserved on both sides of the street. Originally, the plan showed some of the trees only being preserved on one side of the street. The applicant has added a retaining wall to the design of the street to lessen the amount of grading and as mentioned before, they are also proposing to reduce the right-of-way and pavement width which will further reduce the impact to existing trees. The applicant is preserving the remaining trees with a tree preservation area. ' Page 6 of the attached plans shows the areas designated for tree preservation. In addition to these areas, staff is recommending that the trees located on the Ersbo property also be included in the preservation zone (Attachment #1) . The applicant has provided a landscaping plan as shown on Page 8 of the submitted plans. Since the applicant is requesting rezoning to a PUD and there are some significant trees that are being removed as a result of the subdivision, staff is recommending that the landscaping plan be increased. Specifically, staff is requesting that landscaping be provided on the north side of the right-of-way on Lake Lucy Road, just north of the westerly access point and along the rear of lots adjacent to the Class A DNR protected wetland (Attachment #2) . Although the Class A wetland will be surrounded by a vegetation buffer strip, staff feels that it is necessary to have additional landscaping in the form of trees to further reduce the visual impact of the rear lots facing out onto Lake Lucy Road. Staff is also requesting that trees be planted along the south side of the boulevard between Lake Lucy Road and the Class A wetland. The two landscape berms proposed along the easterly access should be expanded to the easterly lot line on Lot 1, Block 1 and to the buffer strip on the westerly side of Lot 1, Block 2. The landscaping areas should also be increased on the sides of the westerly access point. There is a 2 to 1 slope between the proposed road and the wetland across from the Ersbo residence. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide details on how this will be stabilized and landscaped. The final landscaping plan and budget should be provided for review and approval prior to obtaining final PUD approval. The city is currently in the process of revising landscaping regulations. Currently, the City Code requires one tree per lot as part of a subdivision approval. The new landscaping ordinance will I/ I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 14 ' require placement of 3 trees per lot. The 3 trees are proposed to include two hardwoods and one evergreen or ornamental tree. Staff ' is recommending that the applicant be required to provide 3 trees per lot as part of this PUD. If the applicant can show that 3 trees already exist on the lot, and that these trees will not be removed with the construction of the single family residence, the ' requirement of the 3 trees per lot could be waived. Gradinct, Drainage and Utilities Grading on the site is proposed to be kept to a minimum in an effort to preserve the trees and other natural elements of the area. The grading plan indicates that the majority of the slopes ' will be 3: 1 or flatter with the exception in the northwest corner and east of the largest wetland. Slopes in these areas appear to be 2 : 1. It is important to note that the steepness of these side slopes does not permit normal maintenance operations. This should be considered when determining seeding material and slope stabilization methods. Wood-fiber blankets will be required for ' all slopes steeper than 3:1. The drainage plan is a highly complex one due to the water quality improvement goals that have been established. A preliminary review of the plans indicates that it should exceed all storm water retention requirements due to the need for increased retention time to improve water quality. Natural drainage flows will remain ' undisturbed. Since the site flows into two watersheds, both Riley Purgatory and Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districts should be formally required to review and/or approve permits for the project. ' The City Engineer has raised a concern over the proposed raising of the main wetland water level by 2 feet. The concern relates to the potentially poor quality of the subgrade under the street and the chance that higher water levels could cause a problem. His department is researching this question at the moment but further investigation and possibly planning for remedial measures may be required of the applicant prior to final approval. A sanitary sewer extension is proposed to the southwest corner of the plat for future service of the property to the west. Sanitary sewer and watermain will be acquired from the mainlines on Lake Lucy Road. However, sewer and water lines and/or associated easements should be investigated to provide future service to ' landlocked parcels east of this plat. A written request has been made by the Ravis property to the east. i 1 I Lundgren Bros. II July 17, 1991 Page 15 Easements II On the final plat, the following easements and right-of-way shall II be indicated: 1. Dedication of all street right-of-way. I 2. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding areas. II3. Access easements as required to service the "Walker ponds". 4. Utility easements over all sewer, water and storm sewer lines II located outside public right-of-way. 5. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation II areas. 6. Standard drainage and utility easements. 7. Provide a conservation easement over all established wetland II buffer areas. Park and Recreation I On July 23, 1991, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed plat. After discussion the Commission recommended that II the City Council accept full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication and trail construction for the Ortenblad and Ersbo properties. I COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE PUD Lot Lot Lot Front Wetland Buffed! Area Width Depth Setback Setback Strip Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' 75' N/A II BLOCK 1 II Lot 1 18,300 124 ' 146' 25'-W N/A N/A 50'-N II Lot 2 18, 200 135' 139 ' 25' N/A N/A Lot 3 93, 100 450 ' 201 ' 25' N/A N/A II (Existing Home) Lot 4 19,500 135' 216' 25' N/A N/A II 1 I IILundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 16 Lot Lot Lot Front Wetland Buffer IArea Width Depth Setback Setback Strip Lot 5 15, 080 118 ' 156' 25' N/A N/A IILot 6 16,800 80 ' ** 142 ' 25' N/A N/A Lot 7 54,400 50' ** 245' 25' 75 ' 25 ' 1 Lot 8 42,400 80'** 363 ' 25' 65' 25 ' ILot 9 36,400 89 '** 378 ' 25' 75' 25 ' Lot 10 36, 100 91' 385' 25' 40' 10 ' 1 Lot 11 • 20,900 178 ' 248 ' 25' 40 ' 10' Lot 12 28,200 90' 289 ' 25' 45' 10' 1 Lot 13 27, 500 92 ' 303 ' 25' 40' 10' 1 Lot 14 22,700 111' 220 ' 25' 40 ' 10' Lot 15 17,800 61' ** 162 ' 25 ' N/A 25 ' 1 Lot 16 24, 100 80 ' ** 152 ' 25' N/A 25' Lot 17 23 ,400 90 ' 172 ' 25 ' 40 ' 10 ' 1 Lot 18 19,600 97 ' 179 ' 25' 40' 10 ' I Lot 19 31,400 103 ' 223 ' 25 ' 100' N/A (Existing Home) Lot 20 18,200 110' 242 ' 25' 75' 20 ' ILot 21 26,000 94 ' 265' 25' 75' 25 ' ILot 22 17,200 87 '** 209 ' 25' 90' 20 ' Lot 23 32,800 628 ' 129 ' 25' 75' * 1 BLOCK 2 Lot 1 54,500 138 ' 375' 25'-E 50' 15' 1 50'-W Lot 2 35,800 105' 384 ' 25' 65' 20 ' I 11 I Lundgren Bros. II July 17, 1991 Page 17 II Lot Lot Lot Front Wetland Buffer Area Width Depth Setback Setback Strip II Lot 3 75,000 465' 300' 25' 60' 25 ' Lot 4 29,200 432 ' 204 ' 25' 40' 10 ' II Lot 5 21,200 140' 227 ' 25' 40' 10 ' Lot 6 20,800 80'** 269 ' 25' 75' 25 ' 11 Lot 7 23,600 87 '** 301' 25' 75' 25 ' II Lot 8 23,100 91' 326' 25' 75' 25 ' Lot 9 23, 600 95' 343 ' 25' 75' 25 ' I Lot 10 23,600 106' 353 ' 25' 75 ' 25 ' Lot 11 25,700 94 ' 359 ' 25 ' 75' 25 ' II Lot 12 22,500 111' 267 ' 25 ' 75' 25 ' II Lot 13 27, 100 88 '** 371' 25' 75' 25 ' Lot 14 83,900 268 ' 335' 25' 50' 15 '* II * See Tree Survey for Preservation Area II ** Below 90 ' Requirement *** Normal RSF side yard and non-wetland rear yard setbacks shall apply where applicable. All lots subject to normal RSF II accessory structure standards. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT I Due to the sensitivity of the site, the applicant has gone to great lengths to have the wetlands analyzed by professional biologists II and chemists. This work yielded the conclusion that the condition of the wetlands, most notably the main DNR protected water body, is poor. This area was actively farmed until the mid-1960s and has II had its drainage pattern altered. Due to high levels of nutrients flowing into it and the lack of adequate water volume, the wetland is in poor shape and does not support the many species of animal and plant life that should be in a healthy wetland. Uncorrected, II this problem would only become worse. These problems also have impact on downstream water bodies like Lake Lucy and Christmas Lake. Elsewhere, two of the smaller wetlands found near Lake Lucy II II I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 ' Page 18 Road were created by the construction of driveways which blocked water flow. ' It is virtually impossible to develop this site without directly impacting some of these wetlands. Due to the planning that has ' been done, we believe the net result of this proposal will be an improvement in wetland and water quality, expansion of wildlife habitat as well as an increase in the total surface area of ' wetlands found on the site. • The City Code requires a wetland alteration permit for any alteration to a Class A or Class B wetland and for any development ' within 200 feet of a Class A wetland. There are 6 wetlands located on the site. The largest wetland contains 5.3 acres,is a Class A wetland and is protected by both the City and DNR. The remaining ' 5 wetland areas are Class B wetlands ranging in size from 2 .2 acres to . 06 acres. The applicant is proposing to completely fill 2 of the Class B wetland areas and to partially fill the remaining Class B wetlands. There will also be a small area of filling in the Class A wetland. Sheet 5 illustrates the wetland areas which are being altered, enhanced and created and the following table lists the areas: ' Total Area of Existing Wetlands 8.3 acres ' Total Area of Wetlands Altered/Filled .7 acres Total Area of Wetlands Enhanced 5.5 acres Total Area of Wetlands to be Created 1.0 acres ' Total Area of Unaltered Wetlands 2 .0 acres Total Area of Wetlands ,After Completion of Project 8.6 acres ' Net increase in wetland area 0. 3 acres The applicant is proposing to replace the wetland areas that are being altered with the creation of two "Walker ponds", two wildlife wetland areas, the enhancement of the Class A wetland and ' enhancement of a portion of the large Class B wetland located in the southeast corner of the site. The "Walker ponds" are designed to remove a high amount of sedimentation from storm water prior to 1 it entering the wetland areas. The applicant is also adding to the design of the ponds so that they look like a natural wetland and an extension of the existing wetlands. The applicant is also creating two new wetland/wildlife areas. The applicant is also proposing to enhance 5.48 acres of wetland by raising the water level I I Lundgren Bros. 11 July 17, 1991 Page 19 approximately 2 feet in the large Class A wetland, by enlarging the Class B wetland located in the southeast corner of the site. , The wetlands that are being created will be protected from infringement through a preservation strip located around the boundaries of the wetlands. The preservation strip ranges from 25 feet to 10 feet in width. The preservation strip will maintain a vegetative area between the developed area of the lot and the Class A and B wetlands. The vegetative buffer will be preserved by an easement and by the PUD agreement which will be recorded against each lot. Alteration to the buffer strip will not be permitted. The width of the preservation zone for each lot is located in the compliance. , It was not possible for the applicant to provide the required 75 foot setback for structures from the edge of the wetland. The proposed wetland setbacks range from 75 feet to 40 feet. Staff worked with the applicant to establish the reduced setbacks so that they would allow for the location of a single family home and a usable back yard while providing adequate protection for the wetlands. As stated previously, the additional protection is being provided through the buffer strip which will prevent any alteration occurring to the edge of the wetland. The required minimum wetland ' setback established as part of this PUD is shown in the compliance table which will be recorded with the PUD agreement. To ensure that staff can locate the edge of the buffer strip to establish the setbacks, the applicant will be required to place 15 inch by 18 inch iron pipes at the edge of the buffer strip along each lot line. The Class A wetland is protected by the DNR and any alteration/enhancement proposed must be approved by the DNR. The DNR has initially denied any proposed filling to the Class A wetland for the construction of the street. Staff, the applicant, and DNR have met on the site to determine the actual extent of DNR jurisdiction in relation to the limits of construction for the road. It was determined that th"e DNR would have to have the wetland surveyed to determine the actual ordinary high water mark. If construction is beyond the ordinary high water mark, then DNR approval is not necessary. If construction is within the ordinary high water mark, the DNR would have control over permitting the alteration. Any filling of wetlands requires a permit from the Corps of Engineers. The applicant will be required to submit the appropriate permit application. A preliminary letter from the DNR is attached to this report. It should be noted that these comments were based upon an earlier version of the plan. Current plans have been revised to address these and other concerns and we are continuing to work with DNR staff to refine this proposal. I I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 ' Page 20 The Engineering Department has stated that there may be a problem ' with raising the water level of the Class A wetland due to the type of foundation under Lake Lucy Road. The applicant will work with the Engineering Department to verify that there will either be no impact to Lake Lucy Road or to determine ways of avoiding the ' impact. Staff feels the addition of new wetlands, the enhancement of existing wetlands through increased water capacity and removal of sedimentation and the protection of the wetlands with the buffer strips are a fair trade-off for the wetland area which is being ' removed. RECOMMENDATIONS REZONING Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following ' motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Rezoning #91-2 property RSF and RR to PUD-R with the following condition: 1. The applicant shall enter into a Planned Unit Development Agreement containing all of the conditions of approval for ' this project and shall submit all required financial guarantees. The PUD Agreement shall be recorded against the property. 2. Compliance with setback standards established in the Compliance Table. ' 3. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91-9 and Wetland Alteration Permit #91-4. " 11 PRELIMINARY PLAT Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #91-9 as shown on the plans dated July 29, 1991, and subject to the ' following conditions: 1. Where the proposed street is reduced to 26 feet, there shall 1 be "no parking" signs posted and a 6 foot wide concrete sidewalk shall be provided over the boulevard. The sharp curves located in the loop street shall be limited to a 10 m.p.h. speed limit and shall have "sharp curve" signage. I I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 21 ' 2. A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted providing the following: a. Landscaping on the south right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road directly north of the Class A wetland. b. Landscaping along the rear lots adjacent to the Class A wetland. c. Landscaping along the 2:1 slope adjacent to the Class A I wetland. d. Additional berming and landscaping along the access points. e. Three trees (2 hardwoods and 1 evergreen or ornamental) per lot. f. A landscaped berm shall be provided on the north right- of-way Lake Lucy Road across from the westerly access to provide screening from traffic to existing homes. 3 . The applicant shall submit a comprehensive drainage and erosion control plan prior to final plat review. Wood fiber blankets shall be required for all slopes steeper than 3:1. 4 . The applicant shall work with staff to investigate the 1 provision of future services of sewer and water to adjacent parcels. The applicant shall submit final road, drainage and 11 utility plans and specifications for review prior to final plat review. The applicant shall also work with the City Engineer to address concerns with Lake Lucy Road subgrade. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract and provide the necessary financial security. 6. The applicant shall acquire all necessary agency permits. 7. The applicant shall provide full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication and trail construction. I/ 8. Provide the following easements: a. Dedication of all street right-of-way. 1 b. Conservation and drainage easements over all protected wetland and ponding areas. c. Access easements as required to service the "Walker ponds". I Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 22 d. Utility easements over all sewer, water and storm sewer lines located outside public right-of-way. e. Conservation easements over all designated tree preservation areas. ' f. Standard drainage and utility easements. g. Provide a conservation easement over all established wetland buffer areas. 9. The applicant shall indicate the allowable type of dwelling, ' the house pads and the lowest floor elevation on the grading plan. 10. The existing hydrant between Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 shall be relocated 75 feet to the south. The Fire Department must approve street names and a 10 foot clear space must be provided around fire hydrants. Additional hydrants are needed ' at the intersections of Lake Lucy Road and the proposed public road. ' 11. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit #91-4 and Rezoning #91-2. " WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ' Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: ' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit #91-4 with the following conditions: 1. All wetland areas will be protected during construction by Type III erosion control. The erosion control shall be maintained in good condition until the disturbed areas are ' stabilized. 2. The proposed wetland setbacks and buffer strip shown in the ' compliance table for each lot will be recorded as part of the PUD agreement. No wetland setback less than 40 feet will be permitted and the buffer strip may not be less than. 10 feet wide. The buffer strip will be preserved by an easement. ' 3 . Alteration to the wetlands must occur when it results in the least impact to the wetland and not during breeding season. 4. The "Walker pond" and wildlife wetland areas must be designed to the standards proposed in the applicant's submittal packet dated July 30, 1991. Lundgren Bros. July 17, 1991 Page 23 5. The applicant shall work with the Engineering Department to guarantee that increasing the water level of the Class A wetland will not affect the stability of Lake Lucy Road. 6. The applicant shall receive permits from the DNR and Corps of Engineers. 7. The applicant shall meet all conditions of the Subdivision #91-9 and Rezoning #91-2 ." ' ATTACHMENTS 1. Additional tree preservation areas. ' 2 . Additional landscaping. 3. Memo from Charles Folch dated July 30, 1991. 4. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated July 31, 1991. 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 3, 1991. 6. Memo from Mark Littfin dated June 28, 1991. 7. Letter from DNR dated July 10, 1991. 8. Letter from MN Soil and Water Conservation District dated July 1, 1991. 9. Letter from Corps of Engineers dated July 15, 1991. 10. Application. 11. Memo to Planning Commission dated July 12, 1991. 13. Planning Commission minutes dated July 17, 1991. 14 . Letter from Joe Morin dated July 18, 1991. 11 15. Applicant Submittal packet dated July 30, 1991. 16. Plans dated July 29, 1991. • 1 1 1 1 1 1/ EXHIBIT H MUM1ItM LANE LUCY ''''''7'7,7_ 1 j i CA—VI-4_ 4 f.i--� — u r I I �+ 'y:` Tt ?rep , ..,,_. , ,,,:,, , ,,...„,, , :,,, .,- , ,,,,,.„,,,:.,•,,....,...,„:,,,,. {l-'',' •t,-"—'",:;:,`-`-',1;',',"' ' ' - ' ' :'',a '-''.,- .1:-,,!.. --,' - lit" N: 1- 1p ' ' :,:1\7',.,„,,1.'1, , „:-...". r —t4/ at 11,1 1‘, v.i: •.t,-, ___•:L.__ 1.- , ' ,;,,•-,_\ -- ..11 . 1:1, ,, .: \--Ts • \ \ "..,„\)/,•••• ' . Ve....„ .,. , :::,_„lc,L LjIC„J1 .\\ - ,, • 1 \ / \ „ - u - y : ,Ist:,:se . , •,,,, ...._,I to a/ \`�' `.. vf..'Y,_4.0 1 • \ ® i\; / 1 I / ar \ \\ - \ i 1 1 > 9F� \\I. / a 1 ii t •li:/// 1•I N • � l/ t �`` �1 it • 'cif '� /, u I — ------- 1 g / ______/ .. ) ... it . 1 _ , T • _____-< - \ mom 1 .......... 1 \„___/ 1 % 1 . . • • ,.--( 101 1 S • �''°`' ' , i,:s . , J, � " t, _ I s E'' b F „ i F � ": Y;. y1\ V > ' ` a1 .. ': EXHIBIT 0 i i L I r III- 1 0 1,tf E -i 1 1 iliti b e t 1 ,I -; 1 • [...4._\c)0.3.c..4-i9 11-icA at t . I o • i IF. 4 a l C.-c..c. L..■it-r?..1- i i 5 . 1 ha Al u D 4, 1%. ; la u.) t I, 1 g Ul I eiliZaliVlb . . 3./ ---..- '-'-'—''---I) r ,._.._ —...._ -.—..— .... ..._ MI .-..- ...' I MIENLINIE LAKE LUCY it Ao---) MI i. _,W4 likutr■L .1■1111•1••—■■MINIM 1111■ft 1..-----mgmnypriglk illipprwal■IIII 10.Z.,. vale • 1„:::..,34. , --- If i'llkaVi I I VILI#11170A6 0 . , 4r; 0 I i i I / : 4 0 , 0 rm il I i r-'"4 iiiil "I. - - - "Na 4 'ail 1 I , i 'At n 0,.. 2 : : fl.- DNR_WETLAND 4:",,,, A i -s%-mg IL –- .:. . --___ ,ay ,, - I 1117°- - ALL9. qi eiCe le I col" ,2\ ->-. 1 . ., „„ / • . .vt401, ...„. • ..,..,.. .. ..„. . . . .. , 7, 9, - -;•,,,,... , ERSBO . ,, $.Ot r J., \A* \4 44 1•1 1,6p 4 4 % \., • 411,. — • . 4 22 . N-7.4.■. s. 41-.1:Ne _..,,,‘ \ \ )\ ,0 Itt,\ - -:- .4Nit.,....k* ,4 6 1217_ 1 . . •Aii..,‘ a C4.4.-". - , V. ,its._ _-,-;;,7:-.'t ,.. . ......04. -...I. 1 qt,,_, 0 ■,--i-a., .• ilL. I , .1. ft.-7,'.*4 ---t--' ..-7.f...• .4.111- -. RTENBL. • Prt1111%. . ' .. /.• _. • .., _,,,_, ov, , . II 4,4* -'04 8 7 • 0-' 10 ' 9 • t 12 • -- ... __ ... --- lev,;■..00 3 /WETLAND I' I 16 14 . I 1 , , . ... % I 15 I 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner ' FROM: Charles Folch, City Engineer 0 DATE: July 30, 1991 1 SUBJ: Lundgren Bros ./Ortenblad/Ersbo Review of PUD/Preliminary Plat File No. 91-10 LUR In accordance with review of the above-referenced PUD/preliminary plat, I offer the following comments for consideration: 1 . The proposed street width is shown as 26 feet wide. City 1 ordinance specifies a standard urban low-volume residential paved street width of 31 feet back-of-curb to back-of-curb. Staff has discussed this matter with the developer. An 1 acceptable alternative has been reached specifying full City standard width ( 31 feet back-of-curb to back-of-curb) through the residential area with a transition to 26 feet at the two critical areas near the wetlands . No parking would be 1 allowed in these two reduced width areas . 1 2 . The preliminary plat submitted shows a road right-of-way width of 50 feet and a cul-de-sac radius of right-of-way of 50 feet also. City ordinance calls for a 60-foot 1 right-of-way and a 60-foot cul-de-sac radius of right-of-way. Given the wetland constraints and the fact that this is a PUD, staff is agreeable to the reduced right-of-way proposed. 1 3 . From preliminary staff investigation, it is apparent that two horizontal road curves on the easterly leg of the street loop do not meet mnimum design standards for a 30 MPH roadway. 1 One of these sharp curves is introduced on an 8% downgrade. Staff has some concerns for the safety aspects of this design . A reduced speed limit to 10 MPH and "sharp curve" signage will be required as a minimum. The 8% grade appears warranted in an effort to reduce the impact to the adjacent wetland. I I 11 Jo Ann Olsen July 30 , 1991 1/ Page 2 4 . A comprehensive drainage and erosion control plan needs to be submitted for the final plat review. The drainage plan should be accompanied with design calculations verifying the ponding storage and runoff rate calculations and design flows for each of the corresponding storm sewer pipe segments . The majority of the runoff from the site is proposed to be directed via storm sewers to clarification ponds for pretreatment prior to discharging into the wetlands. 5 . Grading on the site is proposed to be kept to a minimum in an effort to preserve the trees and other natural elements of the area . The grading plan displays that the majority of the slopes will be 3: 1 or flatter with the exception in the northwest corner and east of the largest wetland. Slopes in these areas appear to be 2: 1 . It is important to note that the steepness of these side slopes does not permit normal maintenance operations . This should be considered when determining seeding material and slope stabilization methods . Wood-fiber blankets will be required for all slopes steeper than 3: 1 . 6 . Drainage and utility easements shall be provided on the final plat for all utility infrastructure outside of the normal road right-of-way and for all detention ponds and corresponding access points for which City maintenance will be required. Wetland areas shall also be encompassed in appropriate drainage easements . The developer shall confer with staff to determine proper easement widths needed. 7 . A sanitary sewer extension is proposed to the southwest corner of the plat for future service of the property to the west . Sanitary sewer and watermain will be acquired from the mainlines on Lake Lucy Road. However, sewer and water lines and/or associated easements should be investigated to provide future service to landlocked parcels east of this plat. A written request has been made by the Ravis property to the east. 8 . Prior to final plat, the developer shall submit to the Engineering Department final plans and specifications for review and City Council approval, provide the necessary information, security and letter of credit to enter into a corresponding development contract for this improvement project . The Developer shall acquire all necessary agency permits . ktm c: Paul Krauss , Planning Director Dave Hempel, Sr . Engineering Technician I 11 I CITY OF IIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Coordinator DATE: July 31, 1991 SUBJ: Site Plan Review - Ortenblad and Ersbo Properties - ' Lundgren Bros. Construction The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the above mentioned preliminary plat on July 23 , 1991. Mr. Terry Forbord of Lundgren Bros. was present at the meeting. A copy of the staff report presented to the Commission is attached for your review. Minutes of the meeting are currently available. Discussion that evening centered on whether or not a small park, ' less than 1.5 acres, would be desirable in this subdivision to satisfy the needs of the persons residing in the 37 proposed homes. The potential of a trail connection to Greenwood Shores was also discussed. It was the consensus that other parks in the area, with Curry Farms Park being the most accessible, would satisfy the park needs of this subdivision. The City's Comprehensive Plan classifies a neighborhood park as one which serves populations residing within a mile radius of the site. The Ortenblad-Ersbo property is centrally located within the service areas of Pheasant Hill Park, Curry Farm, Carver Beach playground and Greenwood Shores ' Park. Remaining at issue was the desire to investigate possible traffic control or warning signs to be posted in crossing areas of Lake Lucy Road. ' Upon conclusion of their discussion, the Park and Recreation Commission recommended the City Council accept full park and trail fees in lieu of land dedication and trail construction for the Ortenblad and Ersbo properties. I I I 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 1 Wi.�- 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 I MEMORANDUM: I TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner II FROM : Steve A. Kirchman , Building Official le li DATE: July 3 . 1991 SUBJ : Planning Case 91 -9 SUB 8; 91 -4 WAP (Ortenhlad , Ersbo I Lundgren) Back„round : II I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case , and have some items I feel should be added as II conditions of approval . .Analysis : I The preliminary plat indicates most lots have narrow front footage, so most homes will be close together at the side Lot lines . This mad cause drainage problems from lot to lot . A 5 ' drainage II easement at each side property line with a drainage swale between adjoining lots would help prevent problems from occurring. II Topography throughout the proposed subdivision varies considerably. Future grading and drainage problems can be avoided if future II owners and contractors are made aware of the type of home permitted on each lot . R ( rambler ) , SE (split entry) , RWO (rear walkout ) , SEWO ( split entry walkout) . or TU ( tuck under) should be indicated in the outline of the proposed house pad. The lowest floor II elevation should also be shown in the house pad outline. Inclusion of these conditions will accomplish a great deal in preventing drainage problems and homeowner complaints . II Recommendations : I recommend the following three conditions be included in the II conditions of approval . II II Jo Ann Olsen July 3 , 1991 Page 2 1 . Provide a 5 ' drainage easement at each side property line , and indicate drainage swales in these easements on the grading plan . 2 . Indicate the allowable type of dwelling in the hours pad outline on the grading plan . 3 . Indicate the lowest floor elevation in the house pad outline on the grading plan. • 1 I 1 I I I i 1 I I I I 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 I (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 11 MEMORANDUM TO: JoAnn Olsen, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin , Fire Marshal DATE: June 28 , 1991 SUBJ : #91 -9 SUB and 91-4 WAP (Lake Lucy & Powers Blvd) Requirements from the Chanhassen Fire Department : 1 . Additional hydrants needed at the intersection of Lake ' Lucy Road and proposed public road . One needed at the south/east corner , east entrance. One needed at south/east corner , west etrance I 2 . Relocate existing hydrant between Lots 2 & 3 , 75 ' south . 3 . Fire Department must approve proposed street names . 1 4 . 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants , ( i . e . utilities , street lamps , landscaping) . I I I 11 I I I STATE OF I iii L-1- 1-_ MSCD"Li'ZI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO WATERS, 1200 Warner Rd. , St. Paul, MN 55106 IIPHONE NO 772-7910 FILE NO IJuly 10, 1991 1 Jo Ann Olsen City of Chanhassen I 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 I RE: PRELIMINARY PLAN, ORTENBLAD/ERSBO PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, PROTECTED WETLAND 10-131W, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY Dear Ms. Olsen: IIWe have reviewed the site plans (received July 1, 1991) for the above referenced project (NE 1/4, SW 1/4, Sec. 2, T116N, R23W) . In II general, we see major problems with the current proposal, particularly the road placement. Specifically, we have the following comments to offer: II 1. Protected wetland 10-131W (6 acre, type 4) is on the proposed site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation which alters the course, current, or cross section II of protected waters or wetlands is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR protected waters permit. No official OHW has been established for 10-131W. Please contact II this office if there is any question about whether proposed activities will be within protected wetland 10-131W and we can make arrangements to estimate or officially determine, if necessary, the OHW. II2 . The proposed plans for this development show that this wetland is to be filled in several spots for the construction of II "Public Street". The filling of a wetland for roadway construction is permitted only if: 1) the public need rules out the no build alternative, and 2) it is the least impact II alternative. If it was necessary to fill into wetland 10-131W in order to construct "Public Street" the City would have to apply for the DNR protected waters permit. You are advised that it would be highly unlikely that the DNR would issue a II permit for roadway fill in a situation like this, since it would be extremely difficult to argue that the public need for that particular residential street rules out the no-build I alternative. The only public that would benefit from this road are the developer and those who buy the homes on that street. .. . __- I 11 1, " c� c„ IAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER II 11 Ms. Olsen I July 10, 1991 Page Two (2) II 3 . The proposal to "enhance" wetland 10-131W by controlling the water level should be commented on by DNR Fisheries and Wildlife staff. A DNR protected waters permit would be II required; however, the water level changes would not be authorized unless the DNR Division of Fish & Wildlife concurs that the changes would benefit wildlife. II 4 . It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the II stormwater routed directly to this wetland. 5. A portion of the site is in the Lake Lucy shoreland district; II therefore, the city should ensure the project is consistent with their shoreland management regulations. 6. Portions of the site appear to be very steep and are, II therefore, not appropriate building sites. We understand the city is working on a bluff/steep slope protection ordinance. Relevant provisions of the city's proposed ordinance and the July 3, 1989 version of the state shoreland management II guidelines should be consulted in ensuring that each lot has an appropriate building location. II 7. Should a variance to the city's requirement for a 75 foot setback from wetlands be considered the city should require that a buffer strip of natural vegetation be maintained II adjacent to protected wetland areas. This buffer strip should be preserved with conservation easements, covenants or deed restrictions for the properties adjacent the wetland areas. II This would also help to ensure that the property owners are aware that the city, DNR and U.S. Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over the wetland areas and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits. I 8. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site II Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent, II should be followed. 9. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10, 000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor II will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. II II I I ' Ms. Olsen July 10, 1991 Page Three (3) Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me or Ross Toepel at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding ' these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss ' Area Hydrologist cc: Carver SWCD USCOE, Vern Reiter Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer Wayne Barstad, Ecological Services Lake Lucy file (10-7P) Chanhassen shoreland file I I I 11 I I I I T R NV CARVER SOIL AND WA E CONSERVATION DISTRICT II 219 East Frontage Road , Waconia,Minnesota 55387 AltiA Telephone(612)442.5101 mi cuiiillir II MINNESOTA klit. RECEIVE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS JUL 0 8 1991 I . (Ai Y yr L.rinovn,-JJ ..h: July 1, 1991 Jo Ann Olsen II Senior Planner Planning Department City of Chanhassen II 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Planning case - 91-9 SUB and 91-4 WAP II Jo Ann Olsen: II The proposed plat and wetland alteration have been reviewed by this office. The following is a list of concerns relating to the above referenced planning case. II * Block 1, lots 10, 12 & 13 and Block 2, lot 1 each has an area of fill material within the construction window shown on the II engineer's drawing. This office is concerned with the potential for structural damage to foundations placed within this material. Settling of the fill material and the material associated with the origional wetland bottom is one reason for this concern. Another II reason for concern is the potential for problems associated with fluctuating watertables. Care should be taken to ensure the bottem elevation of basements and foundations is above the I seasonal high watertable. * Caution should be taken with regard to the possible existance of II seasonal watertables in the area around the wetlands. Seasonal watertables can fluctuate based on climatic factors. Placing foundations or basements in areas with known seasonal watertables II may create costly, long term structural problems. * Slopes found within the indicated building sites range from 4 to 16 percent. An erosion and sediment control plan is needed prior I to the construction phase of this development. Specific measures such as the location of silt fencing, wood fiber blankets, mulching, seeding rates and planting dates, etc. .. need to be outlined in this plan. A maintenance schedule should also be II included to ensure that the outlined practices are functioning properly. Erosion & sediment control planning assistance is II available at the Carver Soil & Water Conservation District. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I • Block 1, lot 3 is shown to require major regrading on exibit c. Slopes in this area will most likely require erosion control practices such as wood fiber blankets in addition to reseeding as soon as grading is completed. Newly constructed road ditches should also be seeded for erosion control as soon as grading is completed. * The engineer's drawings did not include a complete surface water . plan. No drainage easements were indicated in the areas of stormwater detention ponds or along property lines. * Wildlife habitat is another concern. It is realized that the developer is planning to increase and enhance the wetland area on this parcel. However, this office would support these measures only if approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and/or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. If these organizations ' determine this alteration & enhancement a desirable mitigation this office would recognise and approve of this plan accordingly. Each of the above mentioned concerns should be addressed by a quailified ' engineer or professional specializing in the area of concern listed. The information enclosed with the request for our review indicated a list of firms & individuals retained for this project. This list ' appears to contain the expertize needed to address our concerns. Enclosed you will find a computer generated soils map of the parcel and soils data relating to building site suitability. If you have questions or concerns relating to this letter or the enclosed materials please contact this office. Sincerely, Daniel J. Kane District Manager, CSWCD encl. * computer generated soils map * soil interpretation sheets ' c. * Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. * District Files 1 r I I 11 PAGE 1 OF 2 INTRODUCTION I This soil survey contains information that can be used in land-planning programs in the county. It contains predictions of soil behavior for selected land uses. The survey also highlights limitations and hazards inherent in the soil , improvements needed to overcome the limitations, and the impact of selected land uses on the environment. ' This soil survey is designed for many different users. Farmers, ranchers, and agronomists can use it to evaluate the potential of the soil and the management needed for maximum food and fiber production. Planners, community officials, engineers, , developers , builders, and home buyers can use the survey to plan land use , select sites for construction, and identify special practices needed to insure proper performance. Conservationists, teachers , students, and specialists in recreation, wildlife management , waste disposal , and pollution control can use the ' survey to help them understand, protect, and enhance the environment . Press <space bar> for next page PAGE 2 OF 2 1 Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances . Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. , These and many other soil properties that -affect land use are described in this soil survey. Broad areas of soils are shown on the general soil map. The location of each soil is shown on the detailed soil maps. Each soil in the survey area is described. Information on specific uses is given for each soil . Help in using this publication and additional information are available at the local office of the Soil Conservation Service or the Cooperative Extension Service. <esc> to exit <P> for hard copy <enter> for page one , • 1 I/ I tNT p, ,i vs, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY y�l ` F ST PAUL DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS•II "i' �-�: c, 7,r:1 1421 U.S.POST OFFICE 8 CUSTOM HOUSE Mkt , -, • "1:- ST PAUL.MINNESOTA 55101-1478 !-/'` July 15, 1991 JuL - '' 9l REPLY TO ATTENTION OF CITY LAS L,11/' `r"-s: Construction-Operations 1 Regulatory (91-447S-75)- SUBJECT: Wetland Alteration, Ortenblad/Ersbo Property Development, City of IIChanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota II City of Chanhassen Jo Ann Olsen 690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147 — Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 I We have learned that you are considering conducting the activity I referenced above. It appears that you will need a Department of the Army permit for this work. We are enclosing application materials. We can process your application more quickly if you fill out the application completely and Ispecifically. Also include several color photos of the worksite. Complete the needed information as soon as you can. Because we must obtain recommendations from several agencies, our processing for most IIindividual permits takes about 60 days. The temporary placement of fill material into any waterbody/wetland for I purposes such as temporary stream crossings, bypass roads, cofferdam construction, or storage sites may require a Department of the Army permit. If your project will, or may, include any temporary placement of fill IImaterial, please include that information in your permit application. Since issuance of a Federal permit may require state review or approval, it is important that you promptly provide the State enough information to I evaluate your application. You may also need county and/or city permits. It would be advisable to make inquiries early in your planning process. IIIf you have any questions, call Yvonne Berner at (612) 220-0365. II f�l/IZ A6Wel Enclosures) Wopat 4?;° f, Regulatory Branch IIConstruction Operations Division I- 1 II 350° I • I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 1 Terry M. Forbord, Vice President APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros . Construction, Inc. OWNER: Richard C. Ersbo Richard C. Ortenblal ADDRESS: 935 E. Wayzata Boulevard ADDRESS:1211 Lake Lucy Rd 1351 Lake Lucy Rd. Chanhassen, Chanhassen, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MN 55317 MN 55331 TELEPHONE (Day time) 473-1231 TELEPHONE: (evening' 445-8278 ' 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. X Subdivision I 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. X Vacation of ROW/Easements I 3. Grading/Excavation Permit 13. Variance 4. ri Inte m Use Permit 14. X Wetland Alteration Permit 5. X Notification Signs 15. Zoning Appeal 6. Planned Unit Development 16. Zoning Ordinance Amendment , 7. X Rezoning 17. Filing Fees/Attorney Cost , 8. Sign Permits 18. Consultant Fees 9. Sign Plan Review 10. Site Plan Review TOTAL FEE $ 1,905.00 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8W X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. * NOTE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. , . 1 'I PROJECT NAME Ortenbl ad Ersbo The Property abuts the South side of Lake Lucy Road and is approximately 500 ILOCATION feet West of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17) in Northern Chanhassen. LEGAL DESCRIPTION The East Three Quarters (3/4) of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1/4) of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota , IEXCEPTING THEREFROM Ersbo Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota and Lots 1 and 2, Block 1; Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2; and Oatlots A and B, Ersbo Addition, according to Ithe recorded plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the County Recorder Carver County, Minnesota. • IPRESENT ZONING RSF and R.R. REQUESTED ZONING RSF 1 PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Residential — low density REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Residential 1 ow density IREASON FOR THIS REQUEST For the development of a new Neighborhood Community. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the IPlanning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed In my name and I am the party II whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the ▪ authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. ▪ I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any Iauthorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. II also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit Is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. T 'orbord Vice President 6/17/I1 ignature of Applicant Date IAcitx „x60;a42-t-19 e24,147 Barbara J. Ortenblad & Richard C. Ersbo . 6/17/41 ISignature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid $1,905.00 Receipt No. This application will be considered by the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustments and Appeals on July 17, 1991 I CITY OF li 1 , 0 CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 II (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 N 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission 1 FROM: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner 1 DATE: July 12, 1991 SUBJ: Lundgren Brothers/Ortenblad/Ersbo Proposal 1 PROPOSAL 1 The applicant is proposing to subdivide 30. 3 acres into 37 single family lots. The net acreage of the site is 26.3 acres after II removing street right-of-way and wetland areas. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.22 units per acre-gross and 1.4 units per acre-net. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the Ersbo and Ortenbiad property. Both the Ersbo and Ortenblad property contain a single family residence which will be maintained as part of the subdivision. The lots 37 will be serviced by one loop public street and one cul-de-sac. The lots all exceed the minimum 15,000 II square feet of area with an average lot size of 30,900 square feet. The site contains many physical features which restrict the II development of the property. There are seven wetlands located on the site. The largest wetland contains 5. 3 acres and is a Class A wetland protected by both the City and the DNR. The remaining 4 II wetland areas are Class B wetlands ranging in size from 2.2 acres to . 06 acres. The site also contains heavily vegetated areas, steep slopes and, as previously mentioned, existing single family residences. As a result of the existing features of the site, the I location of the public street and lots results in several variances to the 75 foot setback from the wetlands. The majority of the variances to the 75 foot setback are located along the south side II of the cul-de-sac and the south side of the large Class A wetland. The applicant is proposing to completely fill one of the Class B wetlands for street improvements, to fill a portion of the other wetlands to allow for the creation of lots and buildable areas and II fill a portion of the Class A wetland to allow for the location of the public street on the east side of the Class A wetland. II 1 I Lundgren/Ortenblad/Ersbo Proposal July 12, 1991 I Page 2 PROJECT DISCUSSION ' Staff has been working intensively with Lundgren Bros. Construction to develop and refine plans for this subdivision over a period of months. The design process for this site is unusually complex 1 given the difficult terrain, presence of numerous wetlands, desire to protect existing homes and incorporate them into the plat and a desire to remain sensitive to the environment and toward creating ' high quality residential home sites. The design process accelerated recently when it became clear that Lundgren had a need to create these lots as soon as possible and are striving to have home sites available prior to the end of the 1991 construction season. Prior to the submittal of this proposal for review, staff and the developer had a long discussion as to whether or not this should be brought in as a straight subdivision or as a PUD. At that time, we believed it would be highly desirable to develop this as a PUD since the flexibility that would be provided could be used to meet the goals described above by providing flexibility in setbacks, street widths, etc. However, as you are aware, staff is working with the Planning Commission to develop a new PUD ordinance. The new PUD ordinance has been adopted and is in place, except for the section with deals specifically with single family residential development. Given the uncertainty of the status of the ordinance, staff reluctantly advised the developer to bring this proposal in under straight RSF standards. The developer did what he was requested to do and applied for a subdivision. It was only after we were able to review the final proposal that we concluded that processing the request as a straight subdivision would raise numerous issues. These issues are described further below. However, at the eleventh hour, after extensive discussions, we concluded that this really should be brought forward as a PUD but we wanted to provide the Planning Commission with an opportunity to review the proposal and digest the issues involved in an informal 1 manner. Thus, we determined that we would keep this item on the agenda as a discussion matter wherein the complex issues pertaining to the design of this proposal can be explored and the Commission 1 can obtain information from the engineer and wildlife biologist who participated in its design. We therefore, took the action of notifying the neighbors that the official public hearing is going to be rescheduled to August 7th and the July 17th meeting would be held for informational purposes only WETLAND ISSUES The location of the wetlands and desire to protect and improve them is really the driving force behind most of this discussion. As you are aware, there is a large Class A DNR protected wetland located immediately south of Lake Lucy Road that is highly visible. What 1 I Lundgren/Ortenblad/Ersbo Proposal July 12, 1991 Page 3 may not be as clear is the fact that there is also a large Class B wetland on the southern part of the property which extends north ' from Lake Lucy, plus several smaller wetlands and wetland fringes that are scattered throughout. The ultimate result of these wetlands is that it is virtually impossible to develop a reasonable subdivision on this property without some trade-offs. The trade- offs as envisioned by staff include protection for the DNR wetland, mitigation for the other Class B wetlands provided elsewhere on the site in the form of new wetland expansions and improvements. In principal, this is not much different from normal practice, however, the reality is somewhat different due to the magnitude of these requests and the issues involved. To his credit, the developer retained professional assistance in designing this plan. The design goal of this effort was to provide improvements to the DNR wetland and improve water quality of others before discharging down stream. Evidence obtained during this analysis indicated that the large DNR wetland is actually seriously damaged by high nutrient loaded runoff. Chemistry studies of the water indicate that it is virtually devoid or dead of most life forms it should be supporting to have a full diversity of wildlife. The proposal calls not only for pretreatment of water prior to discharge into the wetland, but also raising the water level of the wetland to allow more biological diversity to occur. Staff is reasonably comfortable with the trade-off concept proposed by the applicant in principal and we believe that this subdivision would be a highly desirable project. However, there are several points that are being refined at the present time and hopefully will be resolved before this matter is brought back to you for formal action. The first matter is that there is an intrusion into the DNR wetland for the public street. Although this is being compensated, staff is asking that every attempt be made to eliminate this intrusion. The intrusion of the road in this area results from a desire to protect a wooded hillside and a belief by the applicant and his consultants that the net affect of the improvements that are being made for this wetland will be positive. However, upon reviewing the plans, we have concluded that this intrusion can likely be significantly reduced and possibly eliminated and we are asking that this be done. I The second matter concerns the wetland trade-offs. Normal practice in the past was to create sedimentation ponds and basins as physically separate entities which then discharge water into the wetlands. These ponds have not proven as effective as we would like in removing nutrients from storm water and there are new pond designs that are supposed to be doing a better job. The current proposal calls for use of ponds able to remove more of the nutrient load. The proposal being worked on by the applicant would have these ponds actually be constructed as what would functionally and visually be part of the wetland system. The applicant's consultant I Lundgren/Ortenblad/Ersbo Proposal July 12, 1991 Page 4 will be on hand to discuss this further but it is their opinion I that this can produce a higher quality of storm water runoff than has previously been the case. Staff is excited by this concept but is in the process of getting more information to see how these look from a visual standpoint, if they will in fact be functional parts of the wetland and can be counted towards the no-net-loss requirement or if they would be counted as retention,basins as they have been in the past. VARIANCES Although extensive attempts have been made to eliminate them, there are variances that result from this proposal. Use of standard RSF setbacks has produced a series of variances for setbacks on a number of lots. In spite of the fact that these lots are generally oversized, with an average lot area of 30,900 square feet (including wetland areas platted onto the lot and protected by easements) , the variances result from the large number of wetlands that make it impossible to develop this site without being in fairly close proximity to them. By the applicant's count, there were 11 lots having setback variances. We believe that this number is actually somewhat higher since the applicant's engineer figured wetland setback variances from the existing wetland areas and not from the expanded wetland that will result from the raising of the DNR wetland by 2 feet or from the wetlands that will be created as ' mitigation strategies. At this point, it is unclear as to what the total number of variances will be but it is clear that there is a sufficient number of them that we are uncomfortable with this being 11 reviewed as a straight subdivision. It must be stressed, however, that these variances do not imply that this project has excessive density or that it is poorly designed. In fact, we believe the reverse is true. The density is quite low and the design is extremely sensitive to the goals that have been established for this site. PUD Having reached this point in our analysis, it was clear to staff that this project is one that is ideally developed under the PUD ordinance. The PUD ordinance will give us flexibility to modify street right-of-way, front yard setbacks and wetland setback standards so that a reasonable number of home sites can be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner. In some instances, the flexibility provided by the PUD would be used to lower the rear yard wetland setback standard. In others, the . street right-of-way and front yard setback would be decreased to move the home further from the wetland than would be possible under normal zoning requirements. I Lundgren/Ortenblad/Ersbo Proposal I July 12, 1991 Page 5 Since we are in the middle of developing a new PUD ordinance, it would be worthwhile to look at the implications of using the PUD ordinance as currently drafted at this time. The section of the ordinance that originally dealt specifically with single family development has been eliminated and not yet replaced, while all other sections of the ordinance are in place at this time. Upon closer examination, we do not believe that this in anyway affects our ability to use the PUD ordinance on this proposal, even though it is single family development. We say this since the former Section 20-504 was specifically designed to deal with lots being created under 15,000 square feet in area. As noted above, the average lot size of 30,900 square feet on this proposal is over twice the usually standard. Furthermore, we believe that the improved PUD ordinance as it exists gives us sufficient flexibility to handle this development as a PUD and creates such standards as we feel appropriate. While we clearly believe handling this project as a PUD is an appropriate way to go, the question will inevitably be asked by some "what is the city getting out of this?" I have never been entirely comfortable with this question being posed in this manner, however, there are a series of direct benefits that would accrue from handling this project in this manner. , 1. Lundgren has a justified reputation as being a high quality developer creating projects that are environmentally sensitive and excellent residential neighborhoods. We have first hand experience in our community of this expertise and we believe having them do additional projects in our community is a direct benefit. ' 2. The wetland enhancement program being developed for this project is one of the most advanced, if not the most advanced, we have dealt with in Chanhassen to date. They are not only looking to avoid the wetlands directly or to provide no-net- loss for any intrusions but they are also looking to make significant improvements into the quality of the wetlands and have invested in the studies and plans required to do so. Under the PUD, we will be varying some of the rear yard setbacks below normal requirements where necessary from a design standpoint. However, in return we will be requiring that a natural strip be maintained around the perimeter of the wetland so that sod lawns are not created right up to the wetland fringe. As a philosophical point at a staff level, we have often discussed the validity of a 75 foot setback or any other setback for that matter if at the same time we allow a property owner to put a sod lawn adjacent to the wetland. When this is done, there is no fringe vegetation to support wildlife and organic lawn debris and chemicals run directly into the water body without any filtration. The PUD gives us I Lundgren/Ortenblad/Ersbo Proposal July 12, 1991 Page 6 the flexibility to deal with this issue up front. 3 . Tree preservation will be enhanced above what would normally be expected in a typical subdivision. We believe we normally do a fairly good job with preserving trees in subdivisions, however, we would be able to use the flexibility of the PUD ' ordinance to help work around tree preservation areas that are designated. 4. We must continue to stress that the purpose of this PUD is not to support undersized lots. Rather we are getting oversized lots. However, we are also getting a modicum of clustering stemming from the deviations from normal setback standards that would be allowed under the PUD. By this we mean that the disturbed areas used to accommodate a house, driveway and lawn areas will be somewhat more compacted than what would be the case with normal zoning and compliance with normal setback standards. For example, if we utilize a smaller street right- of-way and a reduced front yard setback, the disturbed area will be clustered closer to the paved street than would be the case with a full size right-of-way and full size setback. 5. The subdivision ordinance is in the process of being modified to require improved landscaping, however, this is not yet in place. Lundgren typically does an admirable job of landscaping their projects and has indicated to staff that ' they intend to do so on this site as well. However, the PUD does give the city the flexibility to require these improvements as part of the development contract which would provide assurances that the city is in a position to review and approve what is ultimately placed on the property. 6. The Ersbo plat does not represent an optimal subdivision in spite of having been revised twice. The short stubby cul-de- sac with lots fronting directly on Lake Lucy Road, abutting up against a sharp hill line will result in lower quality lots and the placement of a road or private driveway immediately adjacent to a wetland. The Lundgren proposal would significantly improve this situation by incorporating this area into a high quality subdivision, locate the road further away from the wetland and provide an improved design for sediment and nutrient reduction of storm water flowing into the wetland. SUMMARY 1 In conclusion, it is our opinion that the city would best be served by having this development pursued as a PUD rather than a straight subdivision. We are seeking Planning Commission comment on this matter as well as your comments on the development proposal itself. Lundgren/Ortenblad/Ersbo Proposal July 12, 1991 Page 7 In our opinion, the current proposal comes very close to being an optimal design for this site. Improvements and modifications suggested by staff are not major deviations from this proposal and due to the cooperative relationship we have with this applicant, we believe a very high quality development will result. I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 24 INFORMAL DISCUSSION: ' LUNDGREN BROS ./ORTENBLAD/ERSBO, PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND RSF , RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED EAST OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD: A_ PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 30+ ACRES TO CREATE 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS . B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER/FILL CLASS B WETLANDS . Paul Krauss presented the staff report on this item . Emmings: Does the applicant want to make some kind of presentation? Terry? 11 Terry Forbord: My name is Terry Forbord with Lundgren Bros . , 935 East Wayzata Blvd . in Wayzata , Minnesota . With me this evening are a number of people who will help me hopefully answer some questions for you and for anybody else who may be here to hear what we have to say . Mr . Rick Sathre , our consulting engineer , Mr . Frank Svoboda , Wildlife Biologist and Mr . Roger Carpenter who 's a Limnologist . They are with the firm Braun 11 Intertec . Paul pretty much has said a lot of the things that are relevant to this proposal so I won 't get too much into those things because I would like the people that are here with me this evening who are very well qualified to deal with the specific issues , talk to you a little bit and then hopefully you 'll have some questions or if there 's any other discussion we can answer your questions . But I would like to just touch upon a couple things briefly . You may recall a number of' months back I was before you with a gentleman named Mr . John Shardlow . We talked a lot about PUD 's because I know the City of Chanhassen was looking very strongly at amending their Code and their ordinances relative to PUD 's . If you recall in that discussion there was a lot of discussion over what is a PUD and what is it for . Typically there 's a misconception of what it is and what it is used for . It doesn 't necessarily always primarily have to do with density or lot sizes or things like that . However , it may and it doesn 't ' necessarily have anything to do with trade-offs or anything else . However , it may . When we first met with the staff many , many months ago , even before we secured the development rights to this property . We 've had numerous discussions about this because we knew it was a very , very sensitive area but that 's why we had selected it . We 've learned over 22 years that our customers like to live in areas where there is wetlands and there 's wildlife and there 's neat things to look at so we typically try to find the most beautiful sites we can and then do the best we can with them . And so in working with staff it was very evident to all of us , staff and ourselves and our consultants that this was a classic piece of property to be developed as a planned unit development . But because of the things the city was going through in redeveloping their ordinance and because .of the various timeframe that we were on and that timeframe has only to do with 1 the fact that the weather in Minnesota gives you only about 6 months of buildable season . It was mutually agreed upon, relunctantly by all of us that maybe the best thing to do was to proceed under standard subdivision regs which Paul has already described . That was a dismay to all of us I because this is a classic piece of property for a Planned Unit Development . Because it has natural amenities that should be treated very carefully . I Planning Commission Meeting ' July 17 , 1991 - Page 25 But under standard subdivision regs you can 't . It 's literally impossible to do it . Unless you come in and ask for numerous variances which kind of • flies in the face of what everybody 's really trying to do . So after we made an honest effort to make this work with standard regs , it became evident that we should withdraw . We should reconsider and then come before you and recommend that this would be a Planned Unit Development because that will allow us to bury things like , it 's not so much clustering as it II is maybe varying a front yard setback . Varying a street width here and. there because it may save a significant tree or it may save from filling a wetland which would be allowable under the DNR and the Army- Corps. Hopefully we can modify some of those things by varying some of the strict II things that are normally required under a standard subdivision regulations . So that 's why we have pursued it . And I 've attended enough meetings that II you 've had relevant to those discussions that it seems Like this is very much in the spirit of things I 've been hearing from the Planning Commission and the City Council and staff for years here . And I must say , because I II know staff is too modest to admit it , but I must say that they 've been very , very interested in this and helpful to us trying to solve problems . They haven 't in any way tried to impede us . They 've said here 's some problems , what can we do to fix it and they 've been very helpful in that . II Because it 's such a sensitive site and because we 're not experts at these many things like wetlands and wildlife , we pursued to find the best people we could in the region to help us and assist us . And so we have hired thell people that are here tonight to do that . Through the process of researching this site we found out some things that were somewhat surprising to us . That the major wetland that is on that site is , and I 'll' use it in lay terms but it 's very close to death because of very many things which they will address . So that kind of changed our course of what we were trying to do . We realized not only were we going to be coming in here and trying to create a sensitive development . A nice place to live . II We were going to have to do some fixing of what man had already damaged and man was the problem here . Over the last 30-50 years . What man has done has been very damaging to that site and we 're going to try to fix that . Atli this time I 'd like to introduce Mr . Rick Sathre . He 's the consulting engineer and planner on this proposed neighborhood community and he can give you a little background of the proposal . And this is conceptual only . This is not with the items that Paul has talked about . Reduced front yard , setbacks and the reduced street widths . • Those things , those are refinements that would be made in our submission of the Planned Unit Development documents but it would look very similar to what you 're seeing II here . - Rick Sathre : Good evening . The red blob on here is the site . This is Lake Lucy Road along the northern edge of the site . This is County Road 17' or Powers Blvd . to the east . Lake Lucy and Lake Ann. It 's about a 30 acre site . Just slightly over that . Looking a little closer . Zooming in a little closer to the site you see again the property 's bounded by the red. The Ersbo parcel is at the northeast corner . That 's on the Ersbo property , on the half section maps right now appears the first plat that the City approved . Subsequently there was a second plat with a different street configuration approved . The Ortenblat property , the southwesterly property' of this land is still without any division . We 're combining the two . You can see to the west the larger rural parcels and to the east and to the south and to the north the urbanized subdivisions around the site . This II ' Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 26 isn 't the world 's best graphic but this is the City 's aerial photo with contours overlaid on it . The blue boundary is the approximate site ' boundary . Here on top of a hill is the Ersbo home and farther to the southwest is the Ortenblat home . Here 's the Ortenblat driveway . Long , •long driveway coming back to this house . The Ersbo driveway doesn 't show _ I up nearly as well but it follows this path . In the north central portion of the site there 's a large open water wetland area . That 's the DNR wetland that you see from Lake Lucy Road . Way down in the south portion of the property and straddling the southerly boundary is another Class B II wetland in your ordinance that appears on this site . There are several others . Four other small wetland bodies also . This is a copy of the boundary survey of the parcel and it shows again the houses . The two I houses are in red on this drawing . The large green boundary here is that northerly wetland and this one is a southerly wetland . There 's also , the real constraining thing about this property is that the wetlands are spread out so much . If it was all one big body , it 'd be easier to work around . But besides the two wetlands that have always appeared on your maps , there are four other small ones . There 's a finger of wetland south and east of the Ersbo home . Another one due east and then two small little pockets up II at Lake Lucy Road which are separated from this main body by the driveways into the two homes . Erhart : Rick , does the water flow from one wetland to the other? Rick Sathre : Yes . On the ground we 've found a shallow ditch right here II connecting this one to this one . The southerly wetland is lower by , I would guess it 's 5 or 6 or 7 feet . This one 's lower . Erhart : In a storm , where does the water go in that wetland? IRick Sathre : Right now , before Lake Lucy Road or before there was a city project to upgrade Lake Lucy Road we believe that the water drained to the south out of this ditch . When the Lake Lucy Road was upgraded there was a pipe put under the street up here . Catch basins in the street and a pipe underneath. Right now water could go out to the north or to the south and I think it does . IIErhart: And you 're proposing to raise the water level of that pond? IIRick Sathre: Yes . Erhart : Well obviously you 're going to build up the south end . Am I Igetting ahead of you a little bit here? Rick Sathre: Well you 're getting a little ahead of me but we 're talking about taking the water out of this wetland to the south but we 're talking IIabout in effect damming the wetland up by filling this ditch or eliminating the ditch and plugging the northerly so we can hold more water- in there . Get more volume in the wetland . water volume for several reasons . Emm"ings: Okay , how will the water then go to the south? Planning Commission Meeting II July 17 , 1991 - Page 27 i Rick Sathre : It would drain through a series of storm sewers and wetlands . The existing wetlands and ones that we 're proposing to create or enhance . II Terry Forbord: There 's quite an extensive comprehensive system that we 've developed to accomplish all those things and we can get into that in greater deatil if you 'd like . II Rick Sathre : This just recaps basically what we 're doing . What we were proposing to do if it hadn 't been recommended now that we go back and look II at PUD . We had been thinking that we would do an RSF subdivision with these standard setbacks . 30 front , 30 rear and 10 side and the land lends itself well to creating 37 single family lots on little over 30 acres with an average lot area of about 30 ,000 square feet or over 30,000 square feet ., The density of that is about 1 .25 units per acre . This is the concept plan that we 're working on refining right now . If you 'll remember the Ersbo plats that you 've reviewed in the past in this corner had different street II configurations . The significantly different thing about what we 're doing now is we 're trying to get a street that aligns with Arlington Court I believe it is on the north side of Lake Lucy Road to come into this site and go through the site past the Ersbo home to provide a large loop throughll both properties . The difficulty here , one of the things we 're working on now is trying to work on the curvature of this street and tightening up the!' alignment of the road . Maybe working on narrowing the road for a distance to sneak through or sensitively pass between the steep hill and the wetland . That 's one of the major things that we 're working on right now . Trying to do that sensitively . Over here in this portion of the property II there 's some beautiful trees and here to we 'd like to find a sensitive way through that tree stand with the road so we 're working on , through the PUD provisions we 'd be working on some refinements to this plan to sensitively go through that area as well . Once you get back into the southerly portion/ of the property , we don 't have steep slope constraints anymore . We don't have tree constraints anymore but what we have down there is wetlands and II they 're constraining as well . Here 's a graphic that shows that subdivision superimposed on the existing lotting pattern in the area so you can get an idea , feel for how the streets line up with streets elsewhere and how the lots would back up towards other parcels . I guess you 'd have to study that" one for a while to see the real important features of it . This is a graphic that shows , the red boundaries on this plan are the wetland boundaries . Braun Intertec , their technicians went into the field and physically staked the boundaries of the six wetland areas . Our surveyors II at Sathre-Berquist went out behind them and located the stakes and then we 've drawn them on the plan . Drawn the lines. Connected the dots if you ii will and so those red lines represent those boundaries of the wetlands as they exist . The blue areas are upland areas now which we would propose to turn into wetland . Some of these areas would be , this little blue area and this one are brand new wetland areas that would be used for sedimentation. II They 'd be water treatment basins . Trying to trap some of the nutrients and the sediment that was heading toward the large wetland. We'd also be using this area on the northwest corner for the same purpose . To trap as much as" we can of the bad things in the water before it gets to the wetland . This basin on the western boundary of the site and also this new blue area plus this portion of the existing wetland , we 're talking about , we 're investigating the logistics of creating new wildlife ponds . New wetlands ' that have a very diverse character . Have a varied edge to them and a nice II Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 28 bottom topography so we encourage different plant growth . So three of the ' wetlands that we would be draining actively through with storm sewer , we 'd have a little different character . These would be very natural looking wetlands we hope . Much better than what the site has right now and the sediment ponds would be more of a functional , a man made treatment system . ' Erhart : Rick , can you throw that back up again . It looks like there 's a high ground between your sediment pond and the existing Class A or is it in 1 reality . Rick Sathre : Here? Or there? Erhart : Both places . That 's just shows where the edge is or is it gradually . It 's all going to be one? ' Rick Sathre : I guess the way I see it , and I think we 're still working on how it should look but around the periphery of this DNR wetland there is a fairly gradual slope . A lot of the slope it 's very gradual . So the way I see it , that edge would continue up and once you got beyond the wetland boundary , then there 'd be a rolled slope back down . Erhart : So you see those being separate from the existing wetland then? Rick Sathre : Well we need to separate them physically because of the function that we 're trying to promote in these . We 're actually trying to use them to trap the sediment . So we don 't want to intermingle them . Erhart : How is that different from what we 've done in the past? Krauss : That 's the thing . I think there 's something that needs to be touched on here and possibly it 's something that Frank Svoboda can touch on . Functionally there needs to be a separation for the flow between the ' two areas for this thing to work . Visually we want this to work as a unit . It 's going to be so close and . . .indicated , there 's some design where the barrier is at the water level . We can have wetland vegetation on the I property . There 's not going to be a wall . So it would look like a . . .sort of wetland with different areas when it 's all said and done . It 's not going to be this standard , uniform, rectangular , excavated retention pond off in the corner someplace . It will look from a distance or look from being there as though you 're talking about a single wetland . Erhart : Okay . Why is this going to work better to clean the water than ' what you just described? Terry Forbord: You 're raising really good questions and part of the presentation , it 's a step by step process , as we walk through that you 'll hear answers to that . Just one more item to address that . The conservation district , the conservation zone that Paul spoke of that would surround that wetland is going to be somewhere between 10 and 20 feet . I Right now what we 're determining is what is the optimum amount . That 's very hard to measure because that depends on the plant types and things like that but because of that and emergent vegetation that will occur in I the wetland area , you won 't even be able to see that . It will look like . . . wetland . Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 29 Rick Sathre : I suspect you 'd see a change in plant life . You 'd have a different plant species there than you would inside this area or just inside here a little bit . I guess as long as I 'm on this , I didn 't talk about , a minute ago about where we 're intruding on the wetlands and I should do that . Starting up here , in order to get a road into the site we needed to impact unfortunately either this wetland or this little tiny one . II We 're making a conscious decision that if we had to choose that we should be impacting this small little basin . Not this one . So we 're showing a filling of about half of that little area which is a very small area . A tenth of an acre or less than that . Also up here in the northeast corner there 's a small little wetland area . I think Frank will talk about whx they 're there . But anyway we 're talking about eliminating that one II altogether . As we are proposing to eliminate this basin which is straight east of the Ortenblat home and we 're also showing some encroachment into fingers of this southerly wetland. An item of major interest and major work has been the effort to minimize or eliminate the impact on the large II wetland by this road . As I said before , we 're working to try to minimize or lessen anyway the impact on the upland grading here . There 's steep slopes and trees in the upland. Trying to balance that out with some intrusion perhaps into the reed canary grass that surrounds the open water II wetland . We 're working on the logistics of that . I guess the graphic I 'll share with you right now is the topographic map . The significant tree II areas on the site . North of the Ersbo home on this northerly •facing slope there are a great many dead elms unfortunately . There 's also other species . As you get east of the Ersbo home and then down in the southerly , southeasterly part of the site there 's mature trees . We 'd want to preserve " as many of those as we can . East of the Ortenblat driveway next to the wetland there are significant trees as well as just north of the Ortenblat home . But the absolutely best trees on the site are way up here in this northwest corner . Large oaks and other large trees . One of the things the ll PUD will let us do I hope is lessen the right-of-way width and even lessen the pavement width perhaps for a ways to get through that area and minimize our disruption . With that I 'd like to turn it back to Terry . I Terry Forbord: Let me just touch upon a couple of things here before I introduce the next individual . Probably the easiest thing .to do as far as I the development of these two combined sites would be to cut all the trees down and then grade the entire site flat and we wouldn't have to worry about any of the things we 're talking about here tonight . Obviously that may be the most efficient thing but it certainly doesn't fit the spirit of what we 're all trying to achieve . The other thing that we 're trying to achieve here that we have consider obviously are the people who live there already and who 's property it is . Mr . Ersbo , he 's going to stay in his home and he 's going to live here so obviously we have to be sensitive to his wishes because he 's going to be there . The same with the Ortenblats so all the physical constraints that exist on the site plus protecting the private property rights of the individuals so they can enjoy their quiet enjoyment of their property , made it a difficult site of where to put the roads and deal with all of these issues but I think as you can see by just this exhibit right here , the different constraints were enormous in trying II to make this work . At this time I 'd like to introduce Roger Carpenter . He 's a Limnologist and when we took Frank out as a consultant to tell us about these wetlands and what we should and shouldn 't do , the first comment ' he made was , well I 'll tell you right now this thing 's real sick . He says 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 30 1 there should be these types of vegetations around it . There should be ' these types of vegetations in it . And that thing , for whatever reasons is dying or very close to death . So we decided we 'd better get somebody in who 's an expert at understanding why that occurs and take some tests . Have them analyzed by an independent laboratory so we 're able to make some ' recommendations and part of this development process will be able to restore the vitality that that wetland probably at one time had. Roger . ' Roger Carpenter : I 'd just like to explain basically what I did to try to take a look at the situation as it exists now and try to make some conclusions . We went out and we took some water samples and had them analyzed at a certified independent laboratory for a number of different parameters that we would normally look at in a water body . The main thing that came back was that it was extremely high in nutrients . Mainly phospherous and nitrogen are the two that we would be concerned with . The ' phospherous is the most important because that 's a controlling factor for algae growth in lakes . So after taking a look at the results of the water analysis , everything kind of fell into place and it kind of explained what 1 we were seeing there which was basically as Terry mentioned , the absence of any emergent or submergent type of plants . The entire water surface is covered with a mat of a very small plant called duck weed and that 's again characteristic of an over enriched type of environment that you would see where one type of plant is able to dominant the situation to the exclusion of other types of plants . The adverse effect of this is that we aren 't able to , or again the emergent types and submergent types of plants like ' cattails or bullrushes are not able to gain a foothold . This mat of duck weed that covers everything shades out the other types of plants and it also reduces , because of the shade reduces the oxygen so that different I types of animals are not abundant in the water . The advantages of having these different types of emergent and submergent types of plants is that they are able to bind up this phospherous and nitrogen within the plant body . Within the roots and the part of the plants that are sticking out of ' the water . It 's able to reduce the nutrient loading that 's in the water and reduce the amount of nutrients that are able to leave the site also so that a more desirable type situation would be to have these , a more diverse • I type of situation with the different types of plants we 're talking about so with that I think I 'll introduce Frank Svoboda who will talk about some of the different things that can be done to enhance this wetland area . I Frank Svoboda : Thanks Roger . I guess I 've been , Terry 's been houses almost as long as I 've been in the business of doing wildlife management and wetland studies . Over the course of that time what I 've learned is I that wetlands are really a reflection of what goes on in the surrounding landscape so that the wetland is sort of a mirror or reflection of what actually goes on in the upland that serves as a drainage area to feed that I wetland and provide it with water . So the first thing that we always do when we come up with a situation like this , what may be some circumstances that we don 't really understand is that we take a look at the land use history of a particular parcel of land and what we discovered in this case I was that by going through or going back and looking at the aerial photos , the earliest one being 1937 , we discovered that from 1937 through approximately sometime between 1937 and 1963 this area , the large wetland , I Wetland #1 or the DNR wetland had been cropped that entire period of time and that 's consistent with this shallow hand dug ditch that connects this Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 17 , 1991 - Page 31 I wetland basin with this basin . And again this is a fairly common occurrence in the urbanizing areas where in the past farmers wanted to use perhaps this wetland for hay or for pasture and what they would do is look for a nearby wetland that was lower in elevation and then they 'd dig a shallow ditch connecting the two wetlands together . In fact they may be in some instances we 've seen just a series of these shallow interconnecting ditches . Typically you 'll see these ditches are somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of feet wide and 18 inches to 2 feet deep . One of the things we did that we looked at for this particular ditch , collected a I sediment core . A soil sample to see how much sediment had accumulated in this ditch and what we discovered was there was about 6 inches of sediment that had accumulated over the years and as- a result it acted as a dam and gradually because the water couldn't drain in this direction , it gradually I water would start accumulating in the wetland . When we had the meeting last week , one of the individuals that attended that meeting indicated that as recently as 1974 they actually had corn planted in this wetland and that'll before they could get in there to harvest that corn, this basin filled up with water because of heavy fall rains so they were unable to harvest that corn crop is 1974 . So in effect what might appear to be a wetland that may" have been around since the last glacier came through in fact has been modified in the past . Has been exposed to agricultural activities . Land use activities that have changed it 's character and in fact that activity took place as recently as 1974 . What I would like to do now is to just I briefly show you some color overheads and walk you through the wetlands on site . Wetland #1 is the big DNR wetland to the north . Lake Lucy Road extends right in front of these houses and at the north end of this wetland . Wetland #1 , and these classification systems , even though they look like they 're incomprehensible , they represent a hierachical code that 's developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service for their national wetland inventory . I won 't go into all the particulars and details of that' classification system other than it allows fairly detailed descriptions of individual wetland basins so that for example the OW , the P stands for polestrian . That means it 's a wetland. The OW stands for open water . G indicates that it 's generally flooded . The EM stands for emergent . That means it has emergent vegetation that actually breaks above the surface of the water . And this means that it 's persistent . It continues to stand . It' doesn 't fall down . The F indicates that it 's generally semi-permanently flooded representing this edge . And then the D indicates that it 's been ditched . Each of these classifications allow that sort of level of descriptive detail . We 're basically standing at the south end of the wetland looking north . This fringe of vegetation around- the edge is primarily canary grass . One of the things that I look for to indicate whether a wetland is healthy or not is the amount of vegetative diversity II that you observe . And I like to compare this to for example an agricultural cornfield . Agricultural cornfield has only one species on it . Corn . And that 's not very productive for wildlife . One of the theories or ' I guess it 's more than a theory . A proven fact is that the more vegetative diversity you have the more productive a particular community is and that also applies to wetlands so the greater diversity of vegetation you have , the more aquatic species and terrestrial species that you can get " utilizing that particular wetland. So this was one of the factors that indicated to me that there was something not quite right here . The other thing was that as I looked at that wetland , there should have been more wildlife species present and certainly there were frogs present . We 've ' Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 32 I observed some individual mallards using that wetland . Occasionally ' muskrats have been observed out there but again as one of the residents indicated at the meeting last week , an individual who has lived in this area for 26 years , he said over the last several years the productivity of this wetland has declined . And he said in fact several years ago it was not at all uncommon to see numerous broods of ducklings on this wetland and now we did not see a brood of ducklings or any broods . What we did see were some individual birds . So we 've had some verification as to what my ' original hypothesis was and that was that there was something not quite right with this basin and that was further confirmed when Roger went out and did the water chemistry analysis . Wetland #2 is the other large basin ' to the south and again supporting a monotypic stand of reed canary grass and literally no open water in this basin whatsoever so it has limited value as far as wildlife is concerned and one of the things we would like to do to this wetland is create some open water adjacent to it to improve ' it 's diversity . I think what I ' ll do quickly just to get you oriented to where these different basins are as we 're talking about them is to put one of the previous overheads up so that you can get your orientation . Okay ' Wetland #1 , the DNR wetland . The one with Lake Lucy Road in the background . Wetland #2 is the large wetland to the south . Wetlands #3 and #4 are wetlands that essentially formed as a consequence of these two ' driveways that were constructed . This is not at all an unusual occurrence when you have road construction because either culverts start filling in with dirt and the drainage starts getting altered or else maybe elevations aren 't set right to begin with or just as a result of the construction of ' the ditch you start getting some minor accumulation of water in these roadside ditches . The reason that these are called wetlands however is that they do satisfy the national criteria for delineating wetlands . That ' is they have to have aquatic vegetation . They have to have hydric soils and they have to have hydrology . And certainly these two basins do meet those criteria but in terms of origin and function , they are really marginal in terms of wetlands . Then the other two remaining wetlands , this ' is a basin just to the east of the Ortenblat residence . This one is somewhat , actually topographically it 's quite a bit higher than Wetland #2 and is connected by an overland drainage swale where after the water ' reaches a certain elevation in this wetland it kind of spills over and seeps overland into this basin so it 's connected . This area that 's shown here is just an overland spillway . So keeping in mind then that Wetland #3 ' is east of the Ersbo driveway . That Wetland #4 is west of the Ortenblat driveway . #5 is east of the Ortenblat residence and then 06 is connected to Wetland #2 . As I mentioned previously the ditch that was connecting Wetland #1 and #2 , the hand dug ditch , the ditch itself does not show up here at all because it is so shallow but there is some trees on either side of the ditch and in places there will be some canary grass and goldenrod but basically it 's very shallow . In fact on the one instance when I ' visited the site was after quite a heavy rainfall and in spite of the fact that we had probably over an inch of rain or better , there was just some seepage collected in the bottom of that cf,,-ch and within 2 days when -I returned to the site , the bottom of that witch was entirely dry so that ditch is just marginally functional . Wetland #3 ,=is the one 'that was east of the Ersbo driveway . Again mostly canary grass . Some box elders around the edge . Just basically a fairly marginal wetland . #4 is the wetland to I the west of the Ortenblat driveway. This wetland is a few feet higher than the main DNR wetland and again the canary grass surrounded by some box Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 33 elders but basically just a relatively small , small,J y all , sm 11 basin . Wetland #5 had some water standing in it . Had various wetland type shurbs . Some wetland trees and again the canary grass . Finally wetland #6 . Basically very similar to wetland #5 . Some shurbs . Wetland type shurbs . Box elders and again canary grass . So that 's an introduction overview to the wetlands on site and what we 're proposing to do as a result of the development , what the developer 's proposing is that there will be more than just no net loss.' In other words , there will be more than an acre per acre replacement of wetlands impacted relative to the wetlands replaced . So we 're accomplishing a couple of things in this design . One is to deal with improvement of two of the wetlands to create more wildlife habitat on the site and for three of the wetlands , as Rick indicated earlier , to use those wetlands as water quality enhancement pools and that would be the wetland. I Partially filled wetland west of Ortenblat 's driveway . The larger wetland to the east of the DNR wetland and what appeared as a square wetland straddling that drainage ditch between #1 and #2 . What 's illustrated here I is the concept called the Walker model and Dr . Walker is a researcher who specializes in urban storm water quality . Urban storm water management and actually he did some of his developmental work in the City of Vandais Heights where this particular concept was tested out and applied . This pond called the Walker pond is actually , if you look at it from a planned view , looks almost like a triangle . The water comes into this triangle at the shallow end and weaves at the wide end. Then it has a bench at the shallow end and then gradually gets deeper with the maximum depth being somewhere between 4 to 10 feet . And there 's some fairly a variety of mathematical formulas that you go through to calculate how big this pond is . How deep it 's supposed to be and what size it needs to be in order to I perform the water quality function . I won 't get into that because that 's not my area of expertise . There 's other , Roger knows the details of that but basically what I do want to emphasize here is that a slug of water remains in this pool and it remains in this pool for a certain minimum period of time . Long enough for the sediment particles to settle out because most of the nutrients come into a body of water , the phospherous II particularly comes into a wetland attached to particles of sediment . That 's a primary means of transport . So if you can provide a means for those sediment particles to settle out . If you can cause this water to sit' here and remain calm and allow those small particles to settle to the bottom , then the next time you get a major storm event and you get a new slug of water coming in , it pushes this cleansed water out the outlet end and brings in a new , or the water that 's in here now is dirty so to speak II and then again the process repeats itself . And depending upon the size of the pond , treatment efficiency can vary from 40% to 60% and if you put two of these in series , one ahead of the other , you can increase the treatment 1 efficiency by a little bit . What we 're proposing is to use these as single celled ponds to reduce the nutrient loading before it gets into the DNR wetland . Then the other element of this plan , because we recognize II that the DNR wetland has deteriorated in quality , we're proposing to raise the water level in that wetland to increase the volume of water that 's in there . So by increasing the volume of water , we can increase the dilution factor of the nutrients . So besides pre-treating some of the water that II runs into the wetland , we 'll also be holding more water there so that the nutrient load will be diluted and the other part of that is if we can reduce the nutrient load , increase the water level , we 're expecting that we 'll get a vegetation response in that basin that once we change the water !' i Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 34 11 chemistry and the soil chemistry which are basically the main parameters that limit the kind of vegetation you have . If we can alter that , then the vegetation will respond because different birds , different animals will bring the seed in so we 're not worried too much about the seed source . What we need to do is work with the chemistry of the basin . Change those ' conditions so the seeds that do come in can then respond . For example what happens with the mat of duck weed that covers that basin , it cuts out the sunlight from penetrating down to the bottom of the wetland so these other ' more desireable species can germinate and as a result of that , we end up with this sterile pool and with monotypic fringe of canary grass . So we 're trying a number of things which have been studied from a scientific sense . We 're applying those principles and expecting a positive response . Emmings: Have you had any experience in attempting this type of restoration in the past? ' Frank Svoboda : I guess in terms , this is a fairly new approach and the reason I say it 's new is because only recently has anyone recognized and it ' was just mentioned quickly in passing earlier . The idea of using wetlands to manage storm water quantity has always taken precedence and the water quality aspect has kind of taken a back seat . If you 're following any of the literature , or I shouldn 't say the literature but the news accounts about different writers or different people that are interviewed talk about the benefits of wetlands and quite often they 'll say we need to preserve wetlands because we can use wetlands to enhance water quality . Well , that 's only part of the story because if you 're using a wetland to improve water quality in a lake , stream or river , obviously if the water quality improves there , it 's going to have to deteriorate somewhere else . So the ' idea of , well the recognition that if you use a wetland for water quality treatment purposes , you are going to sacrifice other functions . That is an inevitable result . People aren 't pointing that out . That 's only coming about just very recently . And so the reason this hasn 't been done is because people really haven 't recognized that this is a problem and so what we 're saying here is yes . In fact this is a problem . It 's not all that uncommon in urban areas and when you make a decision about using a wetland ' for water quality or water quantity treatment , that decision has to be made consciously on the basis of facts and information . So that if we choose to use big wetland for water quality purposes , we 're going to sacrifice ' something in the way of wildlife habitat . Now when that decision is made consciously , that 's fine . So the response is we 're basically on the cutting edge here because no one is thinking about wetlands in these terms and so it really hasn 't , the question hasn't surfaced . Now in terms of a ' more general sense , having done wetland mitigation in the past , there 's a project that I worked on several years ago near Forest Lake where we took a Type II sedge meadow and converted that to a Type III wetland. I would I guarantee I could take anyone from , who didn 't know the history of that wetland that 's a biologist for a public agency . I could take them to that wetland and they would not know that that was a modified wetland . I was out there one spring . There were three species of frogs . A Great Slue Heron . Several ducks on that wetland so there was just a tremendous response in terms of wildlife diversity . The other thing that that project did was not only did it enhance , change the character of that Type II II wetland . It also provided some surrounding upland habitat as well so we actually designed a wildlife habitat area . And that project was extremely I Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 35 . II successful . Successful to the point where both people from the DNR and the Corps of Engineers point to that project as one of the classic examples of what can be done if the job is done correctly . As I said , someone could go out there and they would not know that that was a wetland that was created . There 's no indication that it was ever engineered or anything like that . It just looks very natural . So in one sense we 're doing some pioneering work II here . In another sense , other aspects of this work has been done before . Emmings : Given the wetland , the big wetland . The DNR , what we 're calling #1 , the condition that it 's in today . To get it be what you describe to be a healthier wetland . One with more diverse vegetation and so forth , is that a difficult thing? Easy thing? Is the transition from a poor wetland to a good wetland going to take a year or 10 years or 20 years? ' Frank Svoboda: In some respects it 's going to be I would say that what we 're doing here perhaps is somewhat , I wouldn 't say it 's entirely experimental but to some extent it 's a consequence of how much damage that wetland has sustained in the past because as I indicated previously , the limiting parameters are water chemistry and soil chemistry . So what we 're ' trying to do is improve the quality of the water that 's entering that wetland in two ways . Pre-treating the water and also increasing the volume . Now we 've talked to numerous experts at the University and some ' other Limnologists and all indications are that the approach that we 're proposing here is in line with the scientific knowledge as it exists today.. So on the basis of what the experts are telling us , we think it 's going to work but we 're not going to know if it 's going to work until we actually go, out and modify the , increase the water level and pre-treat some of the water that 's going in there . But the best indications are so far that we 're reasonably sure of success . But again , the wetland business , some II people will say it 's a science . Certain aspects of it are scientific but much more of this craft so to speak is art rather than science . You apply principles and then you wait for nature to respond to the application of those principles . So there 's a good deal of art involved in this as well . II Try and apply what you know in a creative way and predict a certain response . Erhart : Frank , what 's the average depth of that pond now? The Class A pond . Frank Svoboda: Well , from what we can tell and the reports we 've gotten is' 2 years ago this basin was completely dry . Although we didn 't actually go out into the center of it , our expectation is it 's probably somewhere between a foot to 2 feet deep . Probably more in the neighborhood of a foot" to a foot and a half . Erhart : Do cattails grow in areas that aren't permanently wet? ' Frank Svoboda: Cattails , depending on the species of cattail , they will grow in areas anywhere from 6 inches of water all the way up to water 3 feet deep . I Erhart : But if it gets dry they won 't grow? Every year it gets dry they 're dead? I Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 36 I Frank Svoboda : Right . Although . • ' Erhart : I guess what I 'm saying is , what makes you think that the reason that you only get canary grass is this -is a non-permanent water area . If you take a field , a filled field like this and dry it out every 3 years or 4 years , you 're not going to have cattails . Frank Svoboda : Actually there were cattails in there because when Roger ' was out on the site he did find the residual remains of cattails along the fringe and what happened was when the pond dried up a couple of years ago , then the cattails died back and it was replaced by canary grass . Eventually that cycle will repeat itself but the other part of the equation is hydrology . Clearly if you have a drainage area that 's small relative to the wetland , then you 're going to get these fairly severe fluctuations in water . Now by redirecting some of the runoff on the site and attempting to ' capture more water , what we 'll try to do is kind of reduce the extent of those fluctuations . So where it might dry out now during certain periods of time , we might have 6 inches of water in it where in the past it was complete dry . So we 're also doing some work with the hydrological part of the equation and trying to bring more water in there . Erhart : What 's going to be the final depth? What 's the control structure you 're going to use there? Rick Sathre : We 're talking about a pipe outlet that would be up probably ' about 2 feet higher than the ditch outlet now . I would expect you 'd get the very center there could be water approaching 4 feet I would think . ' Erhart : Yeah . At the design level , what are the slopes going to be at the shoreline? Rick Sathre : On the western edge next to the woodland , next to the II Ortenblat driveway I would say the slopes are probably between 3 and 5 to 1 . Something like that . On the eastern side , the eastern shore the slopes are probably more like 10 to 1 . IErhart : So in any case , whereas the slopes now of the shoreline is probably more like 20 to 30 to 1 . IRick Sathre: They 're pretty flat . Erhart : Pretty flat , yeah . So you 'll be able to maintain a pretty I consistent shoreline assuming you don 't have any leakage at your higher level . I Rick Sathre: That 's a concern too . The soil is pourous enough in some places where we probably will get some seepage . I Erhart : If you can do that , that will help you a lot in maintaining the cattails and more traditional shoreline just by having a consistent . Maintain a consistent water level . One that doesn 't move around on you . Terry Forbord: The interesting part of this is because Chanhassen is probably the , of all the municipalities in the metropolitan area , I Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 37 I Chanhassen probably is more interested in this type of thing than anyone I can think of . Plymouth is also somewhat interested but Chanhassen appears to be more on the cutting edge of understanding , or attempting to understand it . And when for us , when we realized the problems here and realized that the do nothing approach . If we don't do anything , what I 've in been told by Frank and Roger is that that existing wetland , and even the other smaller ones , will continue to decline in quality just because of what man has already done . Because right now it's in an uncontrolled environment for it . If you start controlling the environment , controlling II the amount and the flow and the types of runoff that goes into them , cleansing the runoff that goes into them , that you can attempt to bring them back . So that 's become an interesting part of our proposal . Rick Sathre: Did you want to talk about that . . . Frank Svoboda: What we would like to do with the two ponds that we talked II about for wildlife habitat . Typically the ideal wildlife pond has a ratio of emergent vegetation . Vegetation that grows above the water . The water , it 's a ratio of about 2: 1 . That is roughly 33% open water and about 67% vegetation . The other thing that you try and accomplish is not to have all the open water in one spot . All the vegetation in another spot . Is to try and create some variation in the location of that mix of vegetation and water . So what we 're proposing for those two ponds is to create a wetland that has an irregular meandered edge to approximate a natural condition and then from the upland here and the first several feet of the wetland , designing the bottom at a ratio of roughly 10: 1 to 20: 1 so it 's fairly steep here . Then as you get into the deeper water , this edge being 0 to 18' inches deep . Getting into the deeper water , 18 to 36 inches deep and making the bottom flater . Something like 20: 1 to 50: 1 here and then in the middle having pockets of open water that would stay open water permanently . ' So here you 'd have water preferably 3 feet and deeper . In Cross section it looks like this . Where you have the deep pocket here . Then this kind of hump which would be the 18 to 36 inch so you get some vegetation maybe II staying below the surface or breaking through the surface . So you have a bottom that 's irregular and you have an edge that 's irregular . That is typically when you see a natural wetland that was formed by glaciation , that is the kind of pattern it has . So that 's what we 're proposing to do II in these two wildlife wetlands at the south end of the site . The one which would be excavated from upland and the second one which would be a combination of upland excavation and some modification of the existing canary grass wetland . So this is our concept here and this is , as I mentioned to you , the wetland at Pioneer Point in Forest Lake . "This is the type of approach that we used there and it works very well . Terry Forbord: Frank , what types of vegetation will be 'introduced in this type of wetland? , Frank Svoboda: Well preferably what we like to see in addition to the cattail are things like pickerel weed and bullrush . Depending on the water quality , we would like to get some bullrush established . Some of the other " wetland grasses besides canary grass . Wetland herbs like swamp milkweed . There 's literally hundreds of wetland species and a good healthy wetland , the healthier the wetland the more variation you have in the vegetation . II Generally a good indication of a wetland that 's suffering from something , 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 38 be it poor water quality or some sort of problem regarding soil 1 chemistry , you tend to end up with a wetland that 's fairly •monotypic . Either canary grass , continuous stand of canary grass or continuous stand of cattails and little else . What we like to do is try and vary that diversity and again the two things that we have to work with are the soil chemistry and the ' ' water chemistry because my feeling is if you get those things in balance , if you get those things corrected , then these other plants will start showing up . Erhart : Where are you going to do that? Is that the Class A wetland or the other ones? Is that the one on the west boundary? Frank Svoboda: Okay , it would be these two . It would be this basin plus this part of the wetland which is excavated out of upland and then which would extend to this part of the existing #2 wetland . Erhart : Okay . To get bullrush and swamp milkweed and all that , do you have to plant those or will they show up naturally? ' Frank Svoboda : There are two schools of thought . In fact there 's been established nursery business in wetland plants . There 's a couple of nurseries in Wisconsin and there 's several nurseries on the east coast . My feeling is if you bring the soil chemistry and the water chemistry into proper balance , the other species will come in . In many instances there is a seed bank within the wetland that is lying dormant and it just takes the proper conditions in order to invigorate that . In other cases or in addition to that , ducks travel numerous wetlands and seeds will stick to their feathers . Stick to their feet . They 'll consume seeds of other plants and those will be passed in the excrement and the seeds get introduced into the wetlands . Plus some of the seeds are wind born so there are numerous mechanisms for producing a seed bank . One of the things that led me to this conclusion was that reading through the historical ' records when the land was first settled , we had numerous wetlands around here that had wild rice present yet we no longer see any wild rice here . I believe if we look at the type of water chemistry that wild rice requires in the wild rice beds farther north where the water quality is much better , if we looked at the water quality there and compared it to the water chemistry we have here , we 'd understand why we don 't have wild rice any longer is because of the effect of agriculture and various land use I practices that changed the water chemistry . So that 's why I 'm such a strong believer in getting those two elements back into proper balance because then the rest of the community , the ecosystem is going to respond . I And certainly I 'm not going to tell you that 5 years from now this is going to look the way it was in 1750 because I don 't think that 's possible . That 's like saying that you could go out and recreate a native prairie in I an agricultural field by seeding Big Blue Stem and Indian Grass and a few other things . Certainly you 've re-established the native plant species but it still isn 't the proper mix of all the elements of what the native . prairie once was . So I 'm not going to stand here and tell you that this is Igoing to look like it did in 1700 but what we 're trying to do is make it better than it is today . Emmings: When you 're creating these wetlands , I read about how when loosestrife is introduced to these areas it takes over . How do we know I Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 39 we 're not just really just creating a happy home for some loosestrife? Frank Svoboda : ' There is an element of risk with that , particularly since I loosestrife is established immediately across Lake Lucy Road . What happens is when you disturb an area , create an open soil condition , then that 's a real optimal situation for purple loosestrife to get established . And so there 's going to have to be some diligence , some care taken initially to prevent that from being established there during those first couple of years when that soil is raw and exposed . , Emmings: Will it become any less a problem thereafter? Frank Svoboda : Once you get a good tight vegetative cover established , I it 's less apt to invade . The most vulnerable time is when it 's first disturbed but certainly there 's numerous cattail wetlands around the metropolitan area that had no disturbance and they 're full of purple loosestrife . So that 's certainly a factor that has to be recognized . I believe that there may be a few scattered individual plants that came in on the south side of Lake Lucy Road probably as a consequence of the reconstruction of that road and the exposed soil that was there at the time . Terry Forbord: Are there any other questions we can answer for you I relative to the aspects of the PUD proposal other than wetlands or if you have more wetland questions , that 's fine but maybe there 's some other things that you . I Emmings: Well yeah , we 've spent a lot of time on this single aspect . I guess everybody 's pretty interested in it . Are there other people here who ll have questions or comments about , I see other people have come . If you 'd like to ask your questions or make your comments , this might be a good time to do that . Joe Morin: My name is Joe Morin and I live directly to the west of this development . Emmings: The property neighboring it to the west? Right next to it? Joe Morin: The next door neighbor is Ted Coey . He has a 20 acre parcel II and I 'm next door to Ted . I have a 5 acre parcel . Basically I have a ' few comments to make about the work that the staff did . This is a difficult site and they 're to be commended for the work that they 've done up until now . I think their report is well done and it 's sensitive to the environment in the area but I do have six concerns that I 'd like to outline briefly in the interest of saving some time . It 's getting late and two proposals that I 'd like staff to look at . My first concern is basically with the transition of this type of development into the surrounding developments . If you look to the south in the Greenwood Shores area you can see that the lot sizes are much larger . And if you look to the west of!' this development , the existing homes in that area are higher valued by considerable amount than are the value of the homes proposed for this development . It 's my understanding that part of what you 're doing is struggling with developing a PUD ordinance at the same time we 're trying toll understand this particular development so the comments that I make are r Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 40 relative to both . What I would like to see is a future kind of ordinance and also the problems that I see in this proposal . The second concern that I have is the exiting of this road . There 's two major problems with that . The first of course is the impact of that road on the residents across the street . It comes out right about at their front door . And the second and ' very serious concern I have is that it goes right across the top of that knoll where all those beautiful oak trees are . There 's a huge beautiful mature oak tree and also birch and aspen and it 's just a gorgeous area . I think that there are some things that can be done to bring that out at a ' different location . The third concern that I have is the view from Lake Lucy Road looking into that high density development . What you 're looking at is the back yards of a whole lot of houses . That 's not a real , I don 't ' that 's I think something can be done to mitigate. that as well . I understand there was a problem with that on Lake Riley Hills development and some work was done to mitigate that concern . I 'm not fully understanding what they 're saying about this holding pond . To me it appears that all of the surrounding homes are draining into that Class A wetland and all that fertilizer and stuff going in there is going to make that a lot worse . There 's this tiny little holding pond at the exit of that Class A wetland that 's supposed to protect Lake Lucy and I 'm not real confident that this experimental project is really going to do that . So I really feel that with 37 homes on a site that small with that much wetland and with Lake Lucy , the headwaters of the chain of lakes downstream that we need to take a stronger look at that . That Walker pond concept sounds interesting but it 's certainly not doing anything to protect that ' Class A wetland . I just want to make sure that 's understood . Also the developer . Emmings: What do you mean it 's not doing anything? I understood them to say it was going to do something . I wonder what you mean . Joe Morin: Here 's what I 'm trying to say . You have all these homes here with fertilizer on their lawns draining directly into this Class A wetland . There 's nothing stopping that except hopefully there will be some buffering in there . Erhart : Joe , if you don 't have it draining in there you won 't have the pond . ' Joe Morin: Right . That 's what forms the Class A wetland . The reason it 's dead now and has a lot of duck weed in it is because of all the fertilizer that the farmers put on the cornfield . All that stuff was already there . ' All that phospherous was in there and what this does is it simply adds more nutrient loading into that area . Now as I understand it , maybe I have it wrong but there 's a little pond here where this thing is flowing out . That 's the Walker pond proposal . IEmmings : Okay , what I understood is that the water that they collect from other parts of the site , storm water and so forth will be going through the Ipond that 's going to be built to the east of the wetland . Joe Morin: This one up here? 1 Emmings: Right . That 's what I thought they were talking about . I Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 41 Joe Morin: . . .but none of this other stuff that 's flowing in there is being buffered at all . Emmings: I understand . Joe Morin: And perhaps the storm sewer coming down here , I don 't know is II that a Walker pond down here? Rick Sathre : Let me address this . This one? This is a Walker pond , this is a Walker pond . That 's a Walker pond . All of the street runoff would be, directed through one of those three before it goes into the Class A - wetland . Joe Morin: But you have all of this going through that and then going in . Emmings : No . It 's going the other way . Rick Sathre : The water 's going in through this into there . Joe Morin: Well yeah but the proposal is to block the exit to the north so, the only way to come out is this way . Rick Sathre : Well but it won 't go through this little basin . . .a separate II pipe that takes it out . Joe Morin: What does it drain into? ' Rick Sathre : It will come down to this wildlife pond after it 's stored in there and then it will discharge into this area . Joe Morin: These hold the storm sewer runoffs but they don 't hold runoffs from all of the surrounding properties and they ,don 't do anything to protect Lake Lucy from all the runoff . . . And even if they did, looking at II the size of the relative size of that area and in effect that this is an experimental project , I don 't have a lot of confidence in the fact that that 's going to be protected . That 's my concern . The other thought I had II is I know that this is well within the guidelines proposed 'in the Comprehensive Plan in terms of density but that isn 't really a zoning requirement in that we still need to look at those as guidelines . Areas inil the high terrain area surrounding the north side of Lake Lucy , the areas that primarily drain into the Lake I believe should be looked at as larger lot kinds of homes than what is being proposed here . Also for all the other properties to the west that haven't been developed yet , including my II own . And I guess my final concern is what a horrible precedent we 're setting here . There 's 11 variances that are proposed on these lots . That 's something that really troubles me a lot . That 's my final concern . My two recommendations that I think could be studied. I 'm not a civil engineer or anything but it looks to me like the impact on this knoll could be mitigated by coming out through the area where the existing driveway exits rather than coming across this knoll and certainly that would have an" impact on this wetland somewhat . But in terms of the overall environment that this knoll and the trees surrounding it and this area are far more valuable than is a tiny section of this wetland area . So one of the thoughts might be to redirect this road to follow closer to the wetland Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 42 • area and then move the homesites to the other side . That would put the front yards visible from Lake Lucy Road rather than the back yards and it ' would conform to the terrain of the properties I think a lot better . The other thought I had was in looking at this area here , in order to reduce the total number of variances required , 11 here , perhaps by combining some ' of these lots . Instead of having two small lots , make them one larger lot and instead of having a road in here , you could service four of these with a private driveway which would bring the homes further from the wetland area and I think would make a more suitable development for this environment with all it 's amenities . I think maybe it 's not economically feasible to put $300 ,000 .00 homes in there today but it was 5 years ago . It may be again 5 years from now so I 'd hate to have the economic conditions ' at this moment in time ruin what could be potentially a very beautiful area . For all of Chanhassen . ' Emmings: Thanks . Is there anybody else who has comments on this? Okay Eric . You 're a notoriously long speaker . Have you got a list like Joe where you can just hit us bing , bing , bing? ' Eric Rivkin : I 'm also historically improving my , cut down on my . I just want to say I have some concerns . I 'm not going to repeat what Joe has said . I do agree in spirit to what Joe has said although the solutions may not always be there . I am concerned about the trees on the northwest corner of the lot being destroyed . There is a very high knoll there and it would really tear into that I think in a wrong way . To add a benefit to ' Joe 's proposal of moving the street around to where the existing driveway is , I think the benefit would be to take the runoff , nutrient rich runoff from the backyards of those things and then it will be intercepted by a street . Then that would also guarantee that a true nature buffer area between the road and the pond existed rather than have an artificial one only 10 or 20 feet wide created by a back yard conservation easement . I am concerned that not all runoff is redirected to be so called cleansed . I think that should be mitigated in some way so that the spirit of this , so that this experiment could work . Given a chance to work . I think that developments like this have to move in this direction where water quality is put a front seat to water quantity and so I think it should be mitigated in some way to guarantee that all the runoff is redirected to be cleansed . And if that means laying it out again , so be it . I 'm also as Co-chair of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association I 'm concerned about any water that enters Lake Lucy watershed . I understand from talking to Terry yesterday that , am I still correct in assuming that this , all the water is now going to be running into Lake Lucy watershed and not into Christmas Lake watershed? Terry Forbord: That 's correct . A very small amount of it , if any , runs north at this present time . The watershed district boundary is on the center line of Lake Lucy Road so everything north of Lake Lucy Road is supposed to go north . Everything south is supposed to go south. ft 's the conclusion that it would best be served to run it south . Eric Rivkin: By deepening the water , increasing the water holding capacity of this whole site , and when you have big storms , you 're going to have ' flushing of nutrient rich water going into Lake Lucy . I 'm concerned about that . What guarantees do we have that the water quality is going to be 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 43 improved over what it is now at least and are there any water quality guidelines that could be proposed to say okay , we are going after this much levels of phospherous or whatever and try to set some clear cut goals and , some ways of meeting them and guaranteeing that they be put in place through conditions on the plat . Another condition that I saw kind of looming on the horizon here was what is going to fund the nutrient harvesting in those catch basins? In order to prevent phospherous from moving down the watershed and ruining wetlands downstream as our Limnologist said here , the phospherous has to be removed every so often . He ' said , did he Paul said that the City is responsible for harvesting those? Cleaning those basins out every once in a while . Krauss: Well yeah . We have a number of sedimentation basins existing around the community . They have a service life that varies depending on how much erosion is getting into it and what not . We have an obligation to maintain those things and they 're in every subdivision and that 's primarily ' the reason why we 've steered plans to having essentially focused collection points . You know instead of having 8 or 9 small ones around , have 2 or 3 that we can manage . The fact of the matter is though is most of these things are still relatively new given the timeframe of development of Chanhassen . To the best of our knowledge they haven 't failed yet , at least from the sedimentation basins . We need to start structuring , and Charles would be able to take this one , but we need to start structuring a maintenance program for our sedimentation basins . Now we are starting to use these basins in an expanded mode to also improve water quality . We will need to maintain them probably more frequently than had been the case when it was just for water volume for the water quality aspect . In some cases it 's weed harvesting. In some cases it 's sediment removal that will have to be done . Certainly going to be coming in and taking out the fines that have settled out . Otherwise it won 't function . Up to this point we II haven 't had an active effort to do this because ( a ) it hasn 't been necessary and ( b ) we haven 't been able to afford it . That 's one of the primary reasons we got into the surface water utility . We now have a II source of revenue that in part is going to be Used for the planning effort to get our water quality program or our storm water management and wetlands effort on track but that 's only about a fifth of the funds that we 'll be generating over the next 5 years . The rest of it is for land acquisitions . " It 's for maintenance programs. It 's for street sweeping. It 's for going in and dredging these things out on a more periodic basis so it is something that we 're responsible for . It is something that we 're getting up and running now so we 'll be ready to do that yes . Eric Rivkin: Okay. Well my concern is that the guarantees will be in place forever basically because that 's what you 're creating here . Also with the people that are living there got these basins in their back yards . Does that mean a truck from the City is going to be driving through their ' lots to clean these basins out at a time when wildlife is trying to establish itself? I mean the timing is important in this. Maybe the basins ought to be moved closer to the road so people don't feel , and the wildlife aren 't going to be encroached on at the .same time . It 's a thought . It 's an environmental issue and it 's also I 'm sure the people that are going to be living there , it 's going to be an issue . I Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 44 Charles Folch: Yeah , typically when we review a development proposal we take a look at how we are going to access these 'ponds . We normally require ' an access easement to get to the pond . We try to control the steepness of the grades to get down there . Certainly there is going to be some disturbance when we have a heavy piece of equipment going in there and ' doing the dredging work and cleaning it out but hopefully with the methods that we 're learning here as far as our revegetating of these wetlands , we can implement those same procedures to help restore any disturbance that occurs when we do go in and do maintenance . ' Emmings : I think tonight and given that it 's almost 11 :00 , what we 're going to do here is I 'd like to get the concerns folks have out on the ' table and not to respond to them so everybody gets a chance to say their peace and get everything out on the table . Because they 're going to be going back to work on it and there will be another public hearing where we can maybe budget more time for this . So go ahead Eric . ' Eric Rivkin : I didn 't expect any answers now . I guess also , is the 20 foot wild easement around the backs of these lots , is that consistent with the diversity of vegetation concept or re-establishing wildlife? I don 't need an answer but I don 't know what the ideal conservation easement is going to be here . ' Krauss: Keep in mind the wetland body itself is going to be protected . I mean there 's no question of that and we 're talking about it as an upland area beyond the wetland . In the past when we 've had a setback , we 've had a 75 foot setback requirement but you could sod basically up to the wetland and we 've become convinced that whether it 's 75 feet , 35 feet or whatever it is , unless we have a fringe of natural growth , we 've got a significant ' problem because anything that 's put on the lawn , any grass that 's cut on the lawn just flushes right into it and the idea is to keep it up there . ' Eric Rivkin : Right . That 's all I have . Thank you very much. Mark Sanda : Hi . My name is Mark Sanda and I live just to the west of Joe Morin about a quarter mile or so . I just wanted to state that I agree with ' Joe 's points and I feel they 're very important . The slide to me that is the most telling one is the plat map that shows this new development in relationship to the plat maps of the other developments and it just is I taking a little bit away from the area . We 're trying to shoehorn a few too many homes into a limited space . A very valuable space and we can 't lose sight of the bigger picture of how close this development is to the shores of Lake Lucy . Many of you have sat here for many hours as we 've debated I our problems with Lake Lucy and the declining water quality there and we really have to be mindful of how this development , even though Lake Lucy is shown as little tiny corner on these maps , is very , very close . It 's just Ia few hundred yards away . That 's basically all I wanted to say . - Emmings: Thank you . Is there anybody elje that wants to put anything on I the record here tonight? I think maybe we ought to , I don 't know if anybody else has comments they want to make at this stage of things . I think we ought to give some direction in terms of whether or not we think this ought to be done as a PUD as opposed to a straight subdivision , IIespecially in light of the fact that we don 't have an ordinance to guide us Planning Commission Meeting 1 July 17 , 1991 - Page 45 in this . That doesn 't seem to bother Paul , which I guess , I don 't know . Does anybody have any comments they want to make? Erhart : I think you 're doing the right thing by raising the water level of that pond . I guess I tend to believe that will do more for wildlife than any single thing . I mean ducks just don 't breathe in 6 inches of water . They 'll rest there and move on so I think increasing the water level there II will have a dramatic effect on the value of that wetland so I think we 're doing all the right things there . We 're mitigating , we 're moving things around because you have to on roads . And the fact is that we 're replacing II with more and trying to allow people some live there I think is- good . I think sometimes we tend to think that when we do subdivisions that somehow aliens are moving in from Mars to live as neighbors but you know these are I people that are going to live here . It 's a growing population and we 've got to make room for them in a manner that 's consistent . The other people are already there but we try to make , we try to accommodate them the best way we can and I think for that reason we have to , as much as I don 't like 11 to move wetlands , sometimes you have to do that to make it sense for people to have homes and enjoy the wetlands like so many of us do now so . I think it appears as though we 're on the right track here . Interested in I think I it was Joe 's comment . The idea of putting the road next to the pond like they used to do in the old days . You know they put the road next to the lake and have the houses face the pond . It just sort of hit my curiousity II there . I don 't think anybody 's used that approach for years but I just wonder what the impact of lot prices would be if you were to do that . Terry Forbord: Would you like me to respond? ' Erhart : I don 't know . Do you have a quick answer? Terry Forbord: I have a couple answers for that but if you would like me , 1 we can address them later . If you 'd like me to address them now , I 'd be happy to do that . II Erhart : I thought it was an interesting question . Terry Forbord: Well there 's a number of things . First of all you have to II remember in today 's lifestyles that people have , they don't spend a lot of time in their front yards . I mean if you think about what you do day in and day out by enjoyment of your private property, the majority of that I time is spent in the rear yard area with your family or just trying to get away . Most people don 't like to watch the cars go by . At one point in time it was exciting maybe when the vehicle was the biggest thing around , that was something people liked to do . From a design standpoint , I think if one was just to go out and look at this property , you can see very easily where people would like to enjoy their particular homesites . That would be looking at the habitat we 've already discussed. From an economic standpoint , it would prohibit the values of the site just because . . . Erhart : Well you could only get lots on one side. of the street . , Terry Forbord: The think that occurs , see one of the problems is we focused entirely on wetlands and what we 've done , I mean we 've focused on that because we know it 's a serious issue in Chanhassen . We 've focused on II ' Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 46 that a little bit tonight . One of the things we all forgot to do here is that you have to look at the whole equation . Do you want to worry about , do you want to grade the site a lot? So in other words you have to out down all the trees so you can move the dirt different places to put homesites somewhere else so we took not just trees into the equation . We took not just wetlands . Not just wildlife but we took people who live there . We took e\. erything into consideration . Now there were a lot of very good points raised by every speaker tonight . Every single one of them was taken into consideration into the design. The key. is the balancing act . Where is the fine line where the ultimate balancing act is so the optimum is created with the least impact on the entire site . Is it worth filling a good large portion of a wetland to save one tree? That 's the ' balancing act we have to do . We 've done that over and over again. Erhart : Okay . Just the last item . There 's one reoccurring theme I hear here from Joe and Eric and the other individual here was a great concern for that northwest corner . I think maybe what we need to do in the next meeting is , Rick you kind of stated you had a good reason to move it to the left instead of the right . Maybe what we need to do is have a good ' explanation when your final decision for everybody to understand why you picked that particular site and not get into it tonight . I think that would be helpful for everybody . Terry Forbord: Actually we ' ll address each concern that was raised by all the individuals tonight and explain in detail why we chose what we did . 1 Because like I say , you have to take the whole equation to understand . . . Emmings: What do you think about doing it as a PUD as opposed to doing it as a straight subdivision? ' Erhart : I think if time permits , that 's obviously the way it should be done because you avoid setting the precedent of all the variances . So if the developer is willing to do it as a PUD , I think we ought to do it that way . Emmings: Yeah , and so do I . Go ahead. Batzli : Can you put the overhead back up which shows the development in the context of the surrounding development? My general philosophical , two question philosophical questions . One is , it appears to me that there is a higher density here obviously than the areas directly surrounding it and it appears as though some of the problems with setbacks and looking at it as a PUD is in part because we are shoe horning a lot of things in there . Compared to the surrounding properties . I mean I think they're nice sized lots but you look at what 's around it and they are smaller . I 'd like to I guess see maybe fewer lots put in there personally . The other thing is 1 addressed to our planning staff and that is , Paul . Has there been any thought as to how the properties to the west are going to develop and the effect of placing the road that close to the boundary line and would it ' make more sense to try and stub something off on the side or has there been any thought on that? Krauss: In fact there 's been a fair bit of thought on that . It hasn 't I been mapped out but the Lundgren proposal was originally , I don 't know if Planning Commission Meeting ' July 17 , 1991 - Page 47 it was intended to but they intended to work out an arrangement with the adjoining property owner , Coey . Bring that into the plat and it had some nice advantages . Unfortunately they weren 't able to do that . So we 're left to deal with what we can . We have looked at that area to some extent . ' For example we know that there 's no way to provide sewer into this area without a lift station . The lift station that Lundgren is proposing , we 're having a stub go out to the Coey property so that can be extended along the' lake as property owners need it . In my view it 's unfortunate for both properties that the Coey property wasn't brought into this at the same time . because that 's going to be very difficult to develop by itself . .' Batzli : It 's going to be impossible almost from looking at it . Terry Forbord: May I just address that? Because I think I can answer many" of the questions immediately on that . There 's some natural features of this area that if things were on an ideal situation , would dictate that some properties be incorporated with other properties_ There 's 4 .8 acres II of the western , excuse me the eastern section of the Coey property that lends itself to being incorporated with the Ortenblat property . Primarily because there is a ravine , there 's a knoll , there 's a wetland and then there 's another wetland . So in actual configuration would go something like this .. Down like this and then back down like that and it 's about 4 , 4 1/2 acres . Not very large piece of property . It should be incorporated II with this . There 's no way you can make a link of a street to 'fill , to fit or serve just those 4 acres . It would have to be incorporated here and this street would have to be servicing it . We looked at that . The only way for Mr . Coey in the future , if he ever chooses to develop that part of II his site , would be to have to cut all the trees down and fill in the ravine with some kind of a mass grading on that piece of property to connect it with another road . He told us it didn 't make any difference because he didn 't want to develop it anyway which is a right that he certainly has and' so we did research all those different components and met with staff and tried to see what could be done and actually the best way to serve the property would be off of Lake Lucy Road at this point in time on the Coey property . And getting back to the other question , the property is zoned RSF . It meets the land use guide plan and all the criteria of the existing comprehensive plan . I believe that RSF zoning classification is a 1 .4 dwelling units per acre and this is 1 .2 so it 's almost at the very lowest II density that is allowed in that particular zoning district. Batzli : I understand that . I tried to preface that by saying I personally" would like to see that . I understand that it meets criteria and compared to my postage stamp sized lot , these are mammoth but that 's another issue . Paul , has any consideration been done? Granted the gentleman who owns the property to the west doesn 't currently want to develop but for example when we were looking at Vineland and some of those other things, we had engineering look at how the heck are we going to service these things if II they develop . Has any thought , has our engineering department or have you guys looked at it? Krauss: We have . We 've done it in house . We haven't gotten it formally I done up for you and frankly the thought of not connecting up to Lake Lucy at this time and leaving a leg to be connected across the Coey property in the future did occur to us . We didn 't pursue it at great length . You know " 1 Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 48 II if you had your druthers as Mr . Forbord 's saying , if the road would have I come out over there . We could still force it that way but that 's an awful long dead end cul -de-sac that would exist for an indeterminant time . We could look at that a little further if -you 'd like . I Batzli : I don 't know . It just seems , I have to go out and look at that site too because I didn 't recognize that it 'd be that tough to stub something out . Joe Morin: Can I say something? II Batzli : Yeah . Joe Morin: If Ted says he doesn 't want to ever develop , that 'd be just great with me because I don 't want to develop either . So that property Iwou,ld stay just like it is for the next few years . Batzli : Well yeah I recognize he doesn 't want to do that now but in 20 Iyears when he does develop it . Anyway , enough of that . Terry Forbord: I think it would be , we 've actually laid out that whole area . We 've done 3 or 4 concepts trying to figure out . . .as you suggested I and the topography , if you saw a topography map of the area and then go on the site , it 'd be easier to understand why that link between these two can 't be made . I believe we submitted to the staff , the engineering I department those layouts so they can see those . I 'm sure they 'll share them with the Planning Commission at the next meeting so they can understand . I Batzli : The question about looking at the back yards from the road I thought was an interesting one but I think as Lundgren 's pointing out , they really , you want to put the back yards around that wetland so that 's an interesting observation to kind of make . From Lake Lucy Road what are you II going to be seeing? That 's interesting . What does the DNR think of these experimental ponds? Have you guys had an opportunity to talk to them? I Krauss : Well let 's focus a little bit on the experimental issue a little bit and maybe Frank could expand on this . We like to think we 're on the cutting edge of a lot of this stuff and I think we are in terms of we want to use this stuff in the real world and do this . The concept of these I ponds has existed for quite a while . The State Board of Soil and Water Conservation Service has published a manual on how to do this a couple of years ago . The Metro Council required that we do these kinds of things as a matter of police as a condition of approval with our Comprehensive Plan . They required the same thing of Eden Prairie and everybody else that comes before them . It 's called Best Management Practices . We are trying to II break some ground here but we 're not , this is not an experimental program that has a high risk potential that won 't work . I mean the science behind this is pretty clear . The designs of these things are pretty clear . Where I think what Frank was touching on where the art comes in is how you put I together all these elements to achieve what you really want to in the wetland . It 's clear to anyone that looks at this that we 're doing a much better job with this one that .has been done in the past . The degree of effectiveness is something that you have to see so I shy away from the Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 49 I semantics of calling it an experiment . I really don 't believe that that 's the case . Frank Svoboda : When I spoke about it being experimental I wasn't talking about the water ponds . That concept has been around for quite some time . The experimental or trial aspect of this is a question of what 's going to II happen when we try to alter the water chemistry of the wetland that 's been degraded . That 's where the results of that aren 't unclear . Certainly our intent is we 're trying to take , we know what the condition of the water II quality of that wetland is today . Even if we improve that 25% above where it is now , we 've made some marked progress so that 's what the trial aspect of this is . If we improve that water quality 20% , how is the vegetation and how is the wildlife going to respond? That 's the part of what I was describing that 's a trial aspect . So the storm water ponds , the Walker concept has been around for quite some time . In fact that concept has been adopted by the NUR program . National Urban Runoff Program and this pond design is actually incorporated into those standards so that part is not experimental . Batzli : And one final question if I could for Terry . Can I ask what your II range is going to be for the homes in this? Your kind of target range . What you 're thinking right now . Terry Forbord : That 's an excellent question . Sorry I didn 't address that earlier . The price range of homes in this area in today 's dollars would be somewhere of about $150 ,000 .00 to $220 ,000 .00-$210 ,000 .00 . That 's what our !' preliminary estimates are . Emmings : That 's the home or home and lot? Terry Forbord: Home and lot . Erhart : What are the lots going to run? ' Terry Forbord: The lots , again this is real preliminary because you don 't know until you 're all done . I wouldn 't be surprised they 're somewhere between $40 ,000 .00 and $65 ,000.00 . Emmings: Thanks . Farmakes: In your development if you sell the lot, you do the development right? Terry Forbord: Right . Lundgren Bros . primarily develops real estate for II it 's own benefit . Over the years , the 22 years that we 've been in business , periodically some of the larger scale neighborhood communities that we 've developed , we 've allowed a few builders that we've done business " with and that are friends of ours to come in and build a home here and there . This particular neighborhood community is quite small . It 's only 35 homes that are for sale and the intent is for Lundgren Bros . to construct all of the homes in this particular development . Farmakes: There was very little said tonight in regards to the wetland that borders this area up in here . It 's a different type of wetland . Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 50 Basically I believe the wetland picks up a majority of all these lots here and then it goes up into there . The southeast corner of that . I 'd like to see more information on that wetland . At least as much as you have on the Class A wetland up above where it 's marked #2 . The majority of the discussion that we had there was in regards to that wetland . Your property and your development also borders that lower one . I 'd like to hear more information in regards to how that would be effected . The type of wetland that it is and so on . Terry Forbord: Would you like to hear that tonight? The reason we focused on the other one is because that one is . . . Farmakes : I understand that . I was just wondering , I 'm assuming that one is in better shape . That is the last one I believe before it gets into the lake? Terry Forbord: Frank 's more qualified to discuss that than I am . Emmings: It 's just getting too late . I think what he 's saying is he 's ' interested in that and we 're going to be asking you about it when we do have the public hearing . Farmakes : I have just a couple more quick things . If we can put that other schematic up . ' Emmings : Take whatever time you want . If you want him to answer it now . Farmakes : No . I just want to list it as a question . I don 't need a • response right now but I would like to hear more about that . The schematic Ithat you had up prior to that . Terry Forbord: This one? 1 Farmakes: Yeah . I guess I don 't have any problem that you made a concerted effort to deal with the barriers that you could to the south . There is a large wetland there and a lot of those lots look a lot larger I than they really are in the Greenwood area . Greenwood Shores area . To the north there 's the highway there separating the two . I 'm concerned to the west and I 'd like to see the proposed plan , the Coey development , that I topography as it goes west is pretty dramatic. There 's a lot of hills and valleys and terrain is pretty severe topography . I would like to know , I know that you 're not going to develop the property to the west at least I right now with this proposal but I 'm concerned about what type of buffers potentially could be there between homes in the $250 ,000.00 or $210 ,000 .00 range that you said or the $150 ,000 .00 to $210 ,000 .00 and the types of homes that go to the west . That really hasn't been addressed in these I schematics . I 'm a little concerned that that housing density goes right up to the west there and I think there are some natural buffers to the north and to the south . To the west there 's the highway there . Or excuse me , to ' the east . So in general I like the fact that it .seems like a natural thing for a PUD . At least the criteria that we discussed . I support that it 's being done that way . But I do have concerns about the density of it in relationship to how it would work west . And that 's it . That 's the end of Imy comments . Planning Commission Meeting g July 17 , 1991 - Page 51 I Emmings: I can 't tell from looking at the drawings that are in front of us how much actual area there is on a lot of these lots . On the Exhibit I , II once you get the wetland in there and I assume that the purple line that 's on there is the wetland at the higher level that it 's designed to be at after it 's deeper . And then you get the wetland setback area . There 's not a whole lot of , it doesn 't look like there 's a lot of room on the lot and I 'm going to be interested to see what kind of ground we 've got there . I think it should be done as a PUD . I think you 've obviously done a tremendous amount of work trying to put something together that 's II appropriate for the area . I don 't think I have a problem with the density but like Jeff mentioned , there 's a lot of those lots look real big and of course they 're going to be , there 's a lot of wetland area . But I think it should be developed as a PUD. Just one other question I have. There was a 11 comment made over here that , I don 't remember who made it now . Maybe it was Eric . But someone said that the problems with the amount of nutrients that are in that area at this time is a vestige of it 's use as an agricultural area . Is that right? Can you maybe answer that one quick? Is the problem that there were a lot of fertilizers or something on that at one time that 's still making that nutrient rich? Is that true? ' Frank Svoboda : That certainly , what happens is there 's only two ways nutrients can leave a wetland . Either it 's flushed out with water when it 's suspended or else when it 's tied up in the vegetation . You come in and cut the vegetation and haul it away . Emmings: And if you don 't haul that vegetation away , it recycles? Frank Svoboda : It falls down and dies so it constantly recycles in the system and continue to add more nutrients . . . Emmings: Is there something you can do about that before you put this all permanently under water? Frank Svoboda : Well we were somewhat facetiously talking about this the other day . The suggestion came up to drain it and put corn on it for about 3 or 4 years and don 't put any fertilizer on it . Take all the vegetation off and you take all the crop off and basically the consequences is you tie II the nutrients up in the growing material and then you haul it out of there . And they 've done this with cattails for example in some instances where they 've allowed the cattails to reach a certain stage of nutrient concentration and then come in and cut all the cattails off and haul them away . Emmings: You said facetiously right? Frank Svoboda: Well the answer is you're not going to or you can't turn that into a corn field anymore because it 's a protected wetland . The concept is that you do something like that . You raise a crop, whether it's corn or cattails or whatever . That is really the only way to get rid of that nutrient accumulation . You get it suspended• in the water and flush it " out or tie it up in . . .and harvest it . Emmings: So what 's your plan then? What are we doing with that? Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 52 Frank Svoboda : The third alternative is to add more water with less nutrients in it . Emmings: And then over time the hope or. the plan is that that will what? Frank Svoboda: If you reduce or stabilize the amount of nutrients that enter into the system , then over some extended period of time , gradually those levels will diminish . Emmings: Alright . And what about it continuing to be fed by back yard runoff from the use of fertilizers? Frank Svoboda : That 's one of the benefits of the PUD is that you can increase that setback in the backyards and then you have that strip of natural vegetation between the cultured lawn and the edge of the wetland . So that standing vegetation that remains natural would catch , will intercept any nutrient rich runoff before it gets into the wetland . So by going to the PUD concept you 've accomplished two things . One is that you 've minimally reduced the amount of area that 's cultured grass and is subject to fel:tilizatioL, across the entire subdivision . Secondly , you would have this natural buffer that will pick up any of the nutrient rich water and retain the nutrients there in the upland and hold it . IEmmings : What 's going in this natural buffer area? Is it trees? Shurbs? Grass or all three or whatever? Whatever happens to grow there? Frank Svoboda : Well primarily right now , depending on where they 're at , it 's either trees , variety of species or mostly grown grass . IIEmmings : So you 're just going to leave what 's there? Is that the idea? Frank Svoboda : Right . And the other thing is , Terry 's answer was , if we II raise the water level , "we 're going to increase or shift that zone of saturation so now it 's canary grass and cattails and grown grass will turn into canary grass or something else . In terms of I think a couple of I spots we did talk about introducing some other vegetation . One location was here where we have this curve in this public street and the idea was to steepen this slope 2: 1 . Make it 2: 1 slope to minimize what encroachment there might be into that wetland. Then the other offsetting factor would IIbe some habitat landscaping . Emmings: I can tell you one thing that 's going to be of interest to us is what kind of , how is that we 're going to keep people from pushing their lawn mowers into the conservation area . Is there going to be a siren that goes off when they do that because that 's going to happen. It 's happened to us over and over . Terry Forbord: I 'll just touch upon that briefly because that is something that the City should deal with . Not just now but also in the future and I we 've already dealt with that in a couple of areas . Some of them right here in Chanhassen and very recent in Trapper 's Pass 4th but in another example would be in a neighborhood community that we 've recently developed in Plymouth called Bay Point on Mooney Lake . There 's a number of things t Planning Commission Meeting July 17 , 1991 - Page 53 you do . Deed restrictions on each lot . Easements that run with the lot and enforcement aspects that the municipality has . Emmings : I think we 've talked from time to time here about having something that marks it on the property . I think that should be there . A visible reminder to each property owner that what 's beyond that point in their yard isn 't just theirs . Terry Forbord: Additionally you know and this was raised at the neighborhood meeting . I haven 't shared with you any of the discussion that occurred at that . It was about a 3 1/2 hour meeting . I considered it ,very • productive . One of the people who live north of Lake Lucy Road in Curry Farms shared with me afterwards , they said one of the things that was frustrating for them was that there was never any informational packet given to them so they knew what was occurring the day that they bought the house . Well in all of our neighborhoods an informational packet is part of" the purchase agreement as an exhibit that goes into detail all the easements that exist on their particular lot . What they can and they can't do . Emmings: Give them the packet and then tell them there 's a test at the end . Terry Forbord: But that doesn 't suggest that maybe we can 't do a better job and we 're looking at that and we 're trying to find ways to accomplish the very things that you raise Steve so those are good points . Emmings : Does anybody got anything else or can we .leave? Farmakes moved, Batzli seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor" and the motion carried. - The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m. . Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Mann Opheim • I 1 I City of Chanhassen July 18,1991 690 Coulter Drive P.O.Box 147 ' Chanhassen,MN 55317 Letter to: Planning Commission Members Paul Krause—Planning Director Jo Ann Olsen—Senior Planner Dear Planning Commission Members and Staff, The purpose of this letter is to outline my concerns and recommendations with respect to the proposed Lundgren ' brothers development on Lake Lucy Road. I feel that the staff has done good work in bringing the project to this point. The site is very difficult to develop due to the wetlands,valleys,and mature trees on the site;and due to the impact on Lake Lucy downstream. I also feel that the plan can be improved by addressing the concerns and recommendations outlined below. I understand that the PUD guidelines that will apply to this and to future developments are being worked out as this proposal is being reviewed,so my comments apply both to the proposed development and to provisions that might be contained in the PUD guidelines. 1. Blending with adjacent neighborhoods. There are two problems in this regard with the proposed plan. The lots are too small,and the price range of the proposed homes($150K to$210K)is too low. Homes on the west side of the development should be on larger lots,and be priced in the$250K to$350K range to be compatible with existing homes along the shore of Lake Lucy to the west. Lots on the south side of the development should be larger to blend in with the Greenwood Shores neighborhood. The overhead slide used by the ' developer(in the informal presentation to the planning commission) that shows the platting of the proposed development along with the platting of existing neighborhoods graphically illustrates the severity of this problem. Recommendation: Establish guidelines that provide for reasonable transitions between a new development and existing homes to protect the investments that people living in the community have made in their homes. 2. Impact of the road (west exit). The road on the west side is shown cutting through valleys,hills,and stands of mature trees ... rather than following the natural contours of the property as does the existing driveway. It also exits on Lake Lucy Road at a point that impacts the entry-way of the existing home across the street. Recommendation: The road should be moved to exit in the location of the existing driveway to save the mature oaks,birch,aspen,and other mature trees on the beautiful knoll on the northwest corner. The existing ' driveway location does not impact the home across the street. Moving the road to the east may have a slight impact on the wetland to the east,but it will eliminate the impact to the wetland on the west,and prevent the knoll from being destroyed. This is a sensible tradeoff,as it preserves features far more valuable to the ' environment. 3. Visual impact of"backyards". The view from Lake Lucy Road would be into the backyards of the proposed sites. This is a layout that community planners have worked hard to eliminate in other developments ... the Lake Riley Hills development is a recent example. Recommendation: It is recommended in item 2(above)that the road be moved to the east in the region of the ' exit to preserve the knoll and wetland to the west. Moving all or most of the road up to the boundary of the Class A wetland,and creating fewer(larger)building sites on the south and west side of the wetland would eliminate a great deal of this problem. It would also eliminate the need to completely fill wetland #5 as is proposed. Normally it is not desirable to locate a road between the site and a natural amenity;however, the rolling hills,valleys, and wooded areas behind these sites are also beautiful natural amenities that can be enjoyed from backyards. This layout would conform to the natural terrain,and would allow homes to be sited in beautiful locations with minimum disturbance to the environment. 4. Impact on the Class A wetland and Lake Lucy. There are two related concerns in this regard. ' First, the proposal to raise the level of water from one foot to 2-3 feet is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately,this may not be enough of a change to promote diversity of plant life and maintain open water. One concern is that the fertilizer from backyard runoff and the natural process of eutrophication will promote the creation of solid cattails and purple loosestrife in this area within a short period of time. Also,there is nothing in the proposal to remove the Phosphorus pollutants deposited by 20 years of farming this area. These pollutants will continue to be carried into Lake Lucy. This proposal does nQ improve the wetland,but only makes it worse as the pollutants from an excessive number of developed lots flow into it. Second,the runoff from the proposed 37 sites drains directly into the wetlands. The developer baffled many of us with the lengthy discussion of the'Walker model"holding pond concept,and their concern for the environment. However they did not show how the concepts they talked about fit into an overall drainage system. Because of the terrain and the location of the holding ponds,only a small percentage of fertilized lawn runoff will be carried by storm sewers into the two holding ponds. Fertilizer and other pollutants from the 37 lawns drain directly into the wetland. For example,the pollutants from the 14 sites around the Class A wetland drain directly into it. These pollutants then flow from the Class A wetland through a pipe to be deposited directly into the Class B wetland downstream,and from there into Lake Lucy. Heavy rains will carry these pollutants directly into the Class B wetlands ... creating a "shock"loading on the environment that kills wildlife. Recommendations: First,the nutrients contained in the Class A wetland should be removed. The developer talked about growing corn and removing the corn plants each year for a few years as a possible method. A more lasting improvement would be made by removing the nutrients by excavating the Class A wetland to remove the nutrient rich soils at the bottom of the pond. This would not only remove the pollutants,but would create a deeper pond which would sustain a diversity of plant life and wild life for decades. Second,the holding ponds should be incorporated into an overall drainage system design that ensures that i most of the flow into Lake Lucy from this development passes through them. One idea might be to locate them south of the Class A wetland so that the pollutants flowing from this wetland would be buffered by the two holding ponds before entering the Class B wetland. Also,moving the road to the boundary of the wetland (recommended in#3 above)would ensure that most of the lawn runoff would flow into storm sewers rather than directly into the wetland. 5. Excessive number of variances. The proposal calls for eleven variances for wetland setbacks,complete filling of two wetlands for the sole purpose of making more lots,and partial filling of four other wetland areas. The community simply cannot allow this kind of precedent to be set! We cannot send out a signal to developers that "going the PUD route"is the way to avoid Chanhassen's enforcement of wetland ordinances. Recommendation: The main problem with the Ersbo/Ortenblad proposal is that the developer is proposing to put too many lots into this delicate environment. If all of the sites were as large as the Esbro site and Ortenblad site the problem would be less severe. This is compounded by the fact that the developer feels that he is operating within city guidelines. During the public hearings for the comprehensive plan,there was much discussion by the planning commission and city council about the density of development around Lake Lucy and Lake Ann. City officials calmed the public concern by saying that these are only"guidelines"... not actual"zoning"requirements. The problem is that there is no density guideline established that falls between the rural (10 acre minimum)and the single family low density(1.22 to 4 homes per acre)guidelines. 1 1 A zoning guideline in the neighborhood of one to two acre minimum should be established. This zoning should be applied to all existing lots in the steep terrain on the north shore of Lake Lucy where drainage flows into the lake. This will promote sensible long term development of this area that is sensitive to the environment, rather than implementation of hastily planned proposals sensitive only to the economics of the moment. I appreciate your consideration of these ideas. I am confident that the planning commission and staff will work 1 with this developer to create a development plan that is suitable for this area. Sincerely, I oe Morin 1 1441 Lake Lucy Road Chanhassen,MN 55317 (?/,Ji-Z\ `'`6)-9-,r- 'O (Ar'`k `P-A--`-)6 4° c_D\J, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ` 6 6 6 0 10o4.. a...o 7 yYl,n,• - 9TO , 1 4 4 1 1 c/0 6)6 (L.,...) C;1124.e,,,, __ _____, _ _ _ _ I i a t -J J�, t 9 g J -- ..a4L..c.e.) ...4‘42;n2: CA)-#) '-'14-e- _9 Le-41QQ J2)-R., ,-.......d _ . .. 1 0_212, d..0 aLtite,,,,s _ aa.„, 1,,,,....a.k4:4, --9......„:„.1 , (..)..., a..., __ _ _ .c.e-s . a Cve- a-..e., 1 _44.,..04.41, itagd az, ...144.oscric jj ,..tv, ---- —_ 111 . . 1 ___ _ ' - • _ a ...,,,- 6.4....k.....,_ .... ....ta.„,t_ ..±.• eQ4..., i ,- --1272.) ca-Sr-f--c- ...)ytAicz24±3 .... t) %-iya-‘,..vv,,, -- . `Q ' . - - -- ,..4.c� '4 3'i ' ..g-1 5 a ,41.4_..e. +„ .e_e_e_ki. _ 1_a-i. __aka) ita-c.k724A .74.0- %-ja.L4I I . of - - - __ --- Sect . - Oa , '1"l� ?- it6 1Ra�nge, - a3_ l' 6 acres ctescribed as follows rn O 1.50' of 5 3o - , W h/y - - St fll Doc. 69633 . aha also {'•'e -- -- N a5 1 of 5 'i341 o r PT 0 V I _ - 1 � � ^ .. I w-es-.J.09- __ 4e_e-A-a-(4) ------- - - n�' ----'- - -- -- -- -�7---- ---- --- -' ----�� - -'- ---1 ---' - ----------- -'-- -+ 1114 - � C1011 . -�0--' -------'-- -- - -- - --� - ''-- ---' --- - _-__-___-_v - ■----- - - - ' -- '-'-----------'------ '|7 - _ _ ~P~~_ 1' ' -�N[------ - - - ---------'---- -- -------- ----- -'--------'- -------- - -�� I ---' ' ' - '---- -'-------- '--------- ~~ -----'---' - ' -- '-------'---- -- ------ ------------'------- �N - ---'---'----- ---- --------'------ --�--- -- -'---- ----' �� I .... Ir-: .Z 4 ‘ fi' - Z %I.''• Z vl 0 -)--- -1--- 0 • .- Ui 1.g A ,.. Z 1 I I I -_ I I c ‘n i --. I / < I s. . -, f .. . : .. _ I I c:i I..... 0 I I 1 \ 1 . N ! / ...., ,..... 3 r! Z I i \ , I — tk 0 CL . 0 1 . _ _ I I 1 — ........ —_, ....., _.. _. _ I Ps' •,1 I I