Email from Steve Lillehaug 2-15-05
Page 1 of 2
Generous, Bob
From: Steve Lillehaug [slillehaug@cLedina.mn.us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 3:11 PM
To: debbieturneroriginals@msn.com; Dan Keefe; jmcdonald@mcdonald-rud.com; Kurt Papke; Rich
Slagle; Uli Sacchet; Generous, Bob; Aanenson, Kate; AI-Jaff, Sharmeen
Subject: February 15, 2005 Planning Commission meeting
Good afternoon all. I will not be able to attend tonight's meeting.... Below are comments I received. Please
consider them as part of your review and recommendation.
Also, it is my strong opinion that the developer should definitely go the extra steps to mitigate the negative
impacts as Jeff and Lisa describe. I trust that staff will work with the developer to ensure the specifics are
designed properly as well as constructed as approved to meet all requirements.
!~:~~~~~~r:no::::~~~~~~;i~fh t~~~~d~~~~rc~~~:w~~a~~W~ateriaIS -t" :t~~'~J t
on the website, here are our questions and concerns. 'if VJVL
Planting of Trees: 'l
We appreciate the staff recommending that trees be planted around the . ,J ~ .
cul-de-sac. However, we still have these questions and concerns. -"') ,), .I! P..e" .', ~ c-r-/lr-~. .
1. What is the minimum height of the trees that will be planted? How V> ....- .~. . t
will that height compare to the height of our house? We are concerned 0' (:Pv. et}c<t1'<'Uv, l \'(,1' Sl1!",\.'1
that we will still have headlights shining in the windows of the top CD J. 0
level of our house. ,} 'I fJ._ V\j\A-,,~.1<\,tJj,..ll!""\. , 1\
I -z., ~. () ,'.1,....'\(<'>d.,..","
2. How far apart will the trees be planted? Will the headlights still \, \ d~.Ja .( E..e ....... - ."
shine between the trees? Would seem that, even with the number of trees f2 e--v 1 ' ,
noted, it will still result in a loss of privacy in our backyard. With "" f,l, C 4 L{) Ie" "+0 ~'"-1" "'....
a hot tub in our backyard, privacy is a key driver to our home's value - '-~ -/,-1 ~., iK. .
both when we purchased it as well as sales value. We would appreciate ;J L l ~.(' ,. . t'}
it if more trees could be designated along the entire eastern border of f!~ 1; \~' ~
the development to minimize the loss of privacy of the existing f\ 'i-., ~~ ~t t~~~
development to the east, specifically a thicker border between our lot v. '\,,, f'=
and the cul-de-sac as well as the flag lot driveway that will run behind to F t-O~ e......f' ~ (' (J
our backyard. ..) ~ I ' ( h.J V'V'\V? "t~l\
3. When will the trees be planted...when the development is done? or ~ 'C'11'-':;"f~'O'k!' t" ,-,..~
could they be planted sooner to provide some privacy during the e: fC: t;', '.0 \::,.. A~f
development process? ~ ~ . 14 /"' (
4. Who ,determines the location that the tree~ are planted to p,rom?te the () () 11 l. 'It .~.ci.'" ~ ) i:~c>,JI2 '/./"f~
most pnvacy? "Around the cul-de-sac" as wntten In the matenals IS -t"~;'{ -00
~~~~;:~~ ~aa~~~epancy in the number of trees proposed by the ~A>tQ ,,~t" ,,~~) ~"t~ \ lr>,t ~
developer and the number proposed by the staff (141 vs. 193 trees). Who ~:',t;J ~_L~\""J I o/? t-v-vJ.:~--'~J
monitors this afterwards to ensure that the developer met the 1~ I .
requirements of the city? ..A
Drainage:
Based on the materials, it appears that the drainage issue has been set
aside and disregarded by the developer. Someone should be responsible
and that responsibility should be designated upfront, before approval,
to ensure that the wetland alteration will not affect the existing
homeowners surrounding the area in question. Once the area is developed
and water issues arise, then it's too late. Some areas just are not
meant to be altered.
1. Does the "5-year wetland maintenance and monitoring plan for new
f".I"~J . .. t
,..e.
tli'f'
'I'" '!\tl W'"
'\l<<;
'.}J\
Thanks. Steve
~ tItA ~-e( ;reI SS~A.c.~:~
I ( \ :,:1 \ .)t:( v,
I/~:.".,..\t /k ~. \,
c:..e ~ tJ.. ,:J/,l ( .
2/1512005
wetland construction" apply to drainage problems or just the areas where
wetlands have been moved?
2. The materials state "applicant should develop detailed plans for the
installation of the culvert at Pipewood Lane." Shouldn't this be done
before approval?
3. Although the minimum is 36", is the proposed 42" culvert enough to
handle the drainage from the existing homes to the North and East, the
park to the North and the new houses planned for development? Even with
the warm day on Saturday and rain on Sunday, ours and the neighbor's
backyards are saturated and have water standing in them - it is bad
enough already and it could get much worse.
Flag Lot:
The materials reference the variance requirements for the flag lot. It
is a little unclear in the document, but if the variance is to encourage
the natural features, then a flag lot shouldn't be approved. By adding
a house on the flag lot, it only discourages the natural features from
the adjacent existing homes and prevents them from enjoying the
wetlands. The flag lot takes away from the natural features of the
land.
Both the flag lot and lot 11 encroach on the privacy of the existing
homeowners by having a side lot to back lot design. Lots 11 and 12
shouldn't be approved and the other lots should be made wider to protect
the privacy of the existing homes. However, at a minimum, the side lot
setbacks on lots 11 and 12 should be increased to equal the setbacks of
the front of a house given the side lot to back lot design. As
mentioned above, more trees should be designated along the entire
eastern border.
Gate at Cartway Lane:
1. Don't believe there was a reference in the materials to having a
break-away gate where Cartway Lane connects to the cul-de-sac on the
east end. This was proposed by the public at the last meeting. We are
concerned about the additional traffic that may occur without that gate.
Many residential roads in our area already are used as shortcuts between
Highway 7 and Smithtown Road to the North (and to and from the
elementary school). Without a gate, the gravel road, Cartway Lane, also
will become a shortcut and take on more traffic than originally was
intended.
With so much being proposed with these wetlands (seems like the
developer is trying to force a square peg into a round hole), will the
new houses be built on soft ground? I know there are ways to build up
the land and grading, but how effective is that? I've heard many horrow
stories of houses built on former wetlands.
We appreciate the willingness of the Planning Commission to answer our
questions, to hear our concerns and to make an informed decision.
Jeff and Lisa Jewison
2/1512005
tt?~ {1~Q
,( c It' t .
ii
Page 2, ot 2,
i, 1
.~ ... ~.,l.,'
Cftt>t QT\\~t' \J .0-....