79-02 - Near Mountain PUD pt 12e
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
March 7, 1989
Mr. Michael Pflaum
Lundgren Bros. Construction
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
Re: Trappers Pass at near Mountain 3rd Addition
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
This is to confirm that the City Council at their February 27,
1989, meeting approved the revised final plat for the above sub-
ject to the following conditions:
f
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract
agreement with the city and provide necessary financial sure-
ties.
2. Lots 1-3, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2 shall provide a tree
removal plan at time of building permit application.
3. Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 shall be amended on the
final plat so that the lot lines are no longer within the
street right-of-way.
4. The driveway for Lot 1, Block 4, shall be constructed so as
that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
5. The most northerly lot of Block 3 (shown as Lot 3) should
become Lot 1 and shown on the amended final plat.
6. The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of approval
of the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit.
7. The applicant will revise notes on the plan referring to the
sheets within the final plan documents so that the references
are correct as to the number of sheets in the plans.
You should contact Gary Warren, City Engineer, regarding the
development contract and financial sureties. Please amend the
r"1
Mr. Michael Pflaum
March 7, 1989
Page 2
final plat as noted and submit two mylars for city signatures.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
Stephen Hanson
Planning Director
SH:v
f
W
City Council Meeting - F-_Nruary 27, 1989
Councilman Boyt: So I would move approval of Item G with the amendment to i tem
G(1), changing that date from March 20th to April 3rd.
Councilman Workman: I'll second that.
Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Workman seconded to approve Item G, Set
Special Meeting Dates as follows:
1. 1989 Goals and Position Classification Plan on April 3, 1989
2. Joint Meeting with Park and Recreation Comni.ssi.on March 13, 1989 at 6:30
3. Board of Review and Equalization on May 16, 1989
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the following
Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations:
a. Resolution #89-25: Accept Feasibility Study for North Side Parking Lot.
b. Accept Proposal for Preliminary Alignment Study of TH 101 from TH 5 to
TH 212 (new TH 212).
e. Resolution #89-26: Establish No Parking Zones on Park Road
(United Mailing) .
f. Resolution #89-27: Approve 1989 Park Dedication Fee Schedule.
h. Resolution #89-28: Approval of Resolution Proclaiming "Volunteer
Recognition Week".
i. Approval to Purchase Hot Water, High Pressure Washer.
k Revised Final Plat Approval, Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition,
Lundgren Brothers.
1. Accounts Payable
m. City Council Minutes dated February 13, 1989
Planning Commission Minutes dated February 15, 1989
Park and Recreation Comni.ssi.on Minutes dated February 14, 1989
Approval of Land Surveyor's Certificate of Correction, Kurvers Point.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
VISITORS PRESENTATION: SOUTH SHORE SENIOR CENTER, BETTY BRAGG.
` Betty Bragg: I have something that I think you have in your package which is
' the report for the past year. The South Shore Senior Center is comprised of
quite a few villages in this area and just as you have to pay attention
to Minnetonka and Chaska schools, we ask that you continue to give your support.
Ii
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 sS asc
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Stephen Hanson, Planning Director
DATE: February 17, 1989 _ d
SUBJ: Revised Final Plat Approval for Trappers Pass at Near
Mountain 3rd Addition
The final plat for this area was approved by City Council on
August 22, 1988. At that time, the plat was approved with six
conditions as follows:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract
agreement with the city and provide necessary financial sure-
ties.
2. Lots 1-3, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2 shall provide a tree
removal plan at time of building ;hermit application.
3. Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 shall be amended on the
final plat so that the lot lines ars no longer within the
street right-of-way.
4. The driveway for Lot 1, Block 4, shall be constructed so as
that it forms a 'I"' intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
5. The most northerly lot of Block 3 (shown as Lot 3) should
become Lot 1 and shorn on an amended final plat.
6. The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of approval
of the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit.
At this time the applicants are requesting approval of a revised
final plat to clarify confusion regarding one of the outlots.
The intent is to correctly show the outlots with regard to pre-
sent ownership. On the previous plat one outlot was noted with
this correction it would show as two outlots corresponding with
the existing ownership of those areas. In addition to the con-
ditions mentioned in the approval of the final plat previously,
the following additional condition needs to be added:
N
Mr. Don Ashworth
February 17, 1989
Page 2
Notes on the plat refer to five sheets and in the final plat
packet there are a total of only four sheets and references on
the plat need to be changed to reflect the correct number of
sheets within the subdivision.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council recommends approval of the Final Plat for
Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract
agreement with the city and provide necessary financial sure-
ties.
2. Lots 1-3, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2 shall provide a tree
removal plan at time of building permit application.
3. Lot 1, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 shall be amended on the
final plat so that the lot lines are no longer within the
street right-of-way.
4. The driveway for Lot 1, Block 4, shall be constructed so as
that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
5. The most northerly lot of Block 3 (shown as Lot 3) should
become Lot 1 and shown on the amended final plat.
6. The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of approval
of the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit.
7. The applicant will revise notes on the plan referring to the
-sheets within the final plan documents so that the references
are correct as to the number of sheets in the plans.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Lundgren Brothers Construction dated January 31,
1989.
2. City Council minutes dated August 22, 1988.
3. Staff report dated August 18, 1988.
4. Final plat dated January 30, 1989 and stamped "Received
February 6, 1989".
N3SSVHNVHO -40 ;Alto
686190839
saznsoToug
_Tq.: cjVN
mnPTJd
DNI `NOIZ0II2IZ3?9S02IgNHUDG I -I
szno-C XTnal Xzan
•aouo 3E am 4oEquoo
assaid `sitll Vu[pzs?az sauamazinbaz zaq zng zo suoigsanb 9Avq no-K jI
•��zun�zoddo
4s9iTzsa 94T as TiounoO 1�qzO aqq Xq UOT40P puu niainaz zoi squzzd OT
2uipznozd gITmazatl aza pus saSustlo Azsssaoau aqq appm. XT�?uzpzo30V 9AVq
GM •PDga Tmgns aq pTnotls gvTd TsuTJ pasinaz XT94PTzdozdds us uoisnguoo
pzone oq pie uotIsozJizETo zoo Iayq pazznouoo aneq -Kagq pup Xauzolls
s,uassEtlut'gD TtTm maTgozd s-rtl:l passnosip sstl °pzvu.-Kvw tl9ng `X9uzo:1:1t? zn0
papzooaz si 4RTd atlI za4je szaumo quazaggip anatl 04 anuzluoo TTTm
sTaozsd asatls • sai4zadozd uTv4unOW zt?aN off. sguoTaq 9 qoZ :.uamuzanoO
Jo auiT tlizou aqq go thou uoiazod aqq :XTTmsg PuTfog aqq oq s2uoTaq
XTquasazd t7 101 4u9muzano0 90 auTT tlgzou aqq go tlanos 4oTgno 919zET
eqj go uoT.Ijod eqj :omq uaaq ant?q pTnogs azatlq `saz8 jasuT atl, o4
luaDVIPP 40TIno 99JPT auo sum azagq azagM • s4OTgno go zagmnu pazinbaz
aq4 uisIuoo IOU pip panozddp sum goTgm UOTS19A aqq `dTagvunq-Tojun
'886T `ZZ gsn2nV uo
TtounoO -�4z0 uassptluvgD 9q4 mOaJ TEnozddv TsuTJ paniaoaz IuTd goafgnS
:anaqS zaaQ
uoiqzppy pz£ uivqunoN zEaN qE ssPj szaddBzs : ag
LT£SS NW `uasspquvgD
anizQ zaITno0 069
zauusTd X4TD uassVgUvgq
uosUPH OA94S •zW
686T `T£ -�z8nuvr
IEZI-ELb QL9) • G6ES5 V,-OS3NNM 'V-LVZkVAA s Qaan3-inO8 `dibZkVM 1SV3 S£6
Noii�nais o;sO4 G
u���auni
City CGunci.l Meeting just 22, 1988
Har FINAL PLAT APPROVAL, TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION.
Councilman Boyt: On the map I didn't see the trails.
Barbara Dacy: That is shown on the final plat.
Councilman Boyt: How did we go from 17 conditions down to 5 leaving out
compliance with the Wetland Alteration Permit, compliance with all erosion
control measures?
Jo Ann Olsen: They would still have to comply with all those conditions. I was
just pointing out specific conditions that we're applying to this phase. It's
pointing out to staff, when it does come through that they still have to do
these specific things before we can sign off on the final plat.
Councilman Boyt: So what you're recommending and what we would be approving are
all 17 conditions?
Jo Ann Olsen: Those are already conditions that have been passed.
Councilman Boyt: Okay, I just didn't want to see us change it.
Councilman Johnson: I did remember why I did this. It's a little disturbing
that such simple conditions as to redraw a lot line out of the street right-of-
way and some of these conditions that were previously said, do these before
final plat, have to be repeated. I just wanted to make kind of a comment on
this. This is ludicrous to me that, a couple of these are very simple things
that should have been done and we should have just given our final plat back and
never reached us with this kind of sloppiness in work. That's an editorial
comment.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Final Plat for
Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
(G) FINAL PLAT EXTENSION, ROBERTA BUCHHEIT.
Councilman Horn: Just a quick question. This extension on this plat has no
effect on the replatti.ng of the lake property does it? This is strictly just
the people on the side of the road?
Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We have separate subdivisions.
Councilman Horn: So this has no effect on that. That's the only question
I have.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Final Plat
Extension for Roberta Buchheit as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
7
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSE,N, .MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
DATE: August 18, 1988 ?.2Lw .�
SUBJ: Final Plat Approval for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain
3rd Addition
The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Trappers Pass
at Near Mountain 3rd Addition on April 25, 1988 (Attachment #1).
The preliminary plat was approved with the following conditions:
1. A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building
permit application for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2,
Lot 1, Block 3, and Lots 7-14, .Block 4.
2. The applicant shall construct oft" street trails along Trappers
Pass, Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted
and trail fees waived.
3. Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit.
4. The developer shall enter into a development contract with
the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee the proper installation of these improvements.
5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit and the permit from the
Department of Natural Resources.
6. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading, and once in place shall remain in
place throughout the duration of construction. All of the
erosion control measures shall remain intact until an
established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time
removal shall be the responsiblity of the developer.
7. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi-
lize slopes greater than 3:1.
8. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City's standards for urban construction.
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 18, 1988
Page 2
9. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer
details for the construction of the barricade on the dead end
of Trappers Pass between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4
with the plans and specifications.
10. Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side
of the Class B wetland along the rear of Lots 1 through 9 of
Block 4. The City's standard detail for the installation of
Type II erosion control (staked bales and snow fence) shall
be placed on the grading plan.
11. Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall
along both sides of Trappers Pass dead end shall be submitted
as a part of the plans and specifications review for
approval by the City Engineer.
12. Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4, as depicted on Sheet No. 1 of the
plan set dated February 18, 1988, shall be revised to show the
correct property boundaries.
13. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such
that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along
the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which
site of Lot 2, Block 3.
15. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the
side, front and rear of the lots in addition to all
appropriate drainage and utility easements for ponding sites
and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on the final plat.
16. All private drives shall access internal streets to the sub-
division. No driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant
View Road.
17. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the
time of plans and specifications submittal and design adjust-
ments made accordingly, if necessary, to facilitate proper
conveyance of stormwater under Pleasant View Road.
The submitted final plat plats eleven of the 34 single family
lots. Attachment #2 illustrates which lots are being platted at
this time. The remaining lots are being maintained as outlots
for future development. The proposed final plat is consistent
with the approved preliminary plat.
.—i
Mr. Don Ashworth
August 18, 1988
Page 3
The final plat is providing the required easements along the
front, rear and side lots lines and the required drainage ease-
ments for the ponding areas. Condition #11 of preliminary plat
approval stated that Lots 15 and 16, Block 4 had to be revised to
remove the lot lines from the road right-of-way. Lots 15 and 16,
Block 4 of the preliminary plat are being final platted as Lot 1,
Block 5 and Lot 1, Block 4 as shown on sheet 2 of the final plat.
The lots still are within the street right-of-way and an amended
final plat needs to be provided which removes the lots lines from
the right-of-way. Condition #12 requires that the driveway for
Lot 16, Block 4, which is now Lot 1, Block 4, shall be
constructed such that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla
and Iroquois Avenue. Condition #1 requires that a tree removal
plan shall be provided at the time of building permit applica-
tions for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3
and Lots 7-14, Block 4. Currently, the proposed lots to be
platted which are affected by condition #1 are Lots 1-3, Block 1
and Lot 1, Block 2. On sheet 4 of the final plat, the lots in
Block 1 are numbered 3-2-3. The most northerly lot shall become
Lot 1, and this shall be shown on an amended final plat.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council recommends approval of the final plat for
Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract
agreement with the city and provide necessary financial
sureties.
2. Lots 1-3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, shall provide a tree
removal plan at time of building permit application.
3. Lot 1, Block 4, and Lot 1, Block 5 shall be amended on the
final plat so that the lot lines are no longer within the
street right-of-way.
4. The driveway for Lot 1, Block 4, shall be constructed so that
it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
5. The most northerly lot of Block 3 (shown as Lot 3) should
become Lot 1 and shown on an amended final plat.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council minutes dated April 25, 1988.
2. Reduced copy showing the proposed plat.
3. Final plat dated August 11, 1988.
City Council Meeting - ,aril 25, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: So now we have before us, we voted to reconsider item 1.
�? We're on 8(b) but item 1 of the conditions. We have striken approval of the
final plat of the Reed property and at the last line, and alignment of 64th
1 Street to TH 41.
Councilman Horn: Unless I misunderstand something, our choices are we can have
6-4th go through or we can have the main entrance to this development.
Barbara Dacy: 64th realigned.
Gary Warren: One or the other.
Councilman Horn: Realigned to go through or?
Gary Warren: 64th 1,100 feet south.
Councilman Horn: 1,100 feet south of the Reed property or farther south?
Gary Warren: 1,100 feet south of the center line of TH 7 which puts you into
the Reed property.
Councilman Horn: So if people really want that to go through to TH 41, then
they don't want to approve this cul-de-sac?
Barbara Dacy: Right. That's the issue. Either the cul-de-sac or you
reconnect to TH 41.
Mayor Hamilton: And that's why I'm saying their option is we should start
condemnation process if those are our choices.
Councilman Boyt: And that's why we tabled it is because we don't know, so
let's vote on this.
Councilman Geving: I think we're still alright with condition 1.
Councilman Boyt: All condition 1 says is the whole thing falls apart if we
don't vacate 64th Street. Does anybody have trouble living with that?
Councilman Geving: No, because it's going to happen.
Councilman Johnson: Because we're really not saying how they going to
cul-de-sac...
TRAPPERS PASS ADDITION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF PLEASANT VIEW
ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF INY 101, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION:
A. SUBDIVISION OF 32.5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND
AND DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET.
Barbara Dacy: Briefly, I know the applicant has submitted a letter to each of
the Councilmembers objecting to three conditions on the plat. One of than
being the tree removal plan. Secondly, in regards to the Park and Recreation
57
10
City Council Meeting - A� 25, 1988
Commission's recommendation for trails and third, the requirement to re-
establish the storm water retention pond as a wetland. Staff has no further
comments.
Mayor Hamilton: Hello Peter. I see you guys have a lot of stuff here.. Does
the Council need to see all of this?
Peter Pflaum: I'll just quickly talk about the three points. The biggest
issue is the sidewalk. We're opposed to the sidewalks because we don't think
it does anything for the project. As you know we have a PUD that's in two
communities. It was zoned I think in 1978-79. The 600 units, I suppose in
your project were almost 70% done and now all of a sudden we're adding just a
little portion of the project, some 16 lots really and now you have a new
provision in there. I don't think it's in the ordinance. It's a new policy
and I think it really serves no purpose in our planning of development and is
not consistent with the planning of our development and really isn't any
benefit to the people living in the Planning Unit Development, your own
residents. I can see if we're doing a project from the start, we're starting
the project and that was a requirement. If the project was approved in 1978-79
and had all the additional subdivisions we've done. What you're really doing
is causing us to put a sidewalk that's about a quarter mile in length. It goes
nowhere. It leads into our subdivision and stops so that's briefly, sort of
common sense doesn't seem like. I don't mind putting the sidewalk in if the
residents want it and it serves some purpose but in a Planned Unit Development
such as this where everybody decided to be a member of that Planned Unit
Development because of the way it was set up, I think it really serves no
purpose and is really probably a detriment. The other two issues are smaller
in significance. one deals with the pond. All we're taking about doing, I
think we spent a_ lot of time at the Planning Commission talking about a pond.
The wetlands is about 7 1/2 acres and we want to open up, Rick can show you
that red area, we want to open up a portion of it. The only reason we're doing
that is to try to make it a little more attractive. The reason we're buying
this piece of property is to create another entrance to our project. So we
want to landscape it and we thought that this was a treatment that would look
aesthetically a lot better. The major issue at the Planning Commission was the
treatment of the edge of the marsh is on the east side next to Pleasant View.
What we would request is if we could just have an edge that goes graded right
down to the pond so you can see the pond. Your wetland ordinance I think says
it's got to be some kind of, what's the word Rick?
Rick Sayther: A fair amount of shrubs and something to screen the water from
the people so the water fowl would have more privacy I think basically.
Peter Pflaum: We'd be willing to put some kind of vegetation that was low
profile around there as long as you could see it and was low maintenance so
that was a big issue there. The other one was one more of pride more than
anything else in that you passed a provision now I guess that requires the
developers who are working in the woods to submit some kind of plan for the
staff's approval before we take trees down and our point is, we've been on the
site and done some 170 homes in the woods, most of them in the woods and we
haven't had any problems and we think we take pretty good care of the woods and
that's the reason we bought the site. It troubles us to have to go to staff
and have them review anything more than is absolutely necessary. I can see if
we had caused some problems but I don't think we have and I think we've planted
City Council Meeting pril 25, 1988
11.
s
far more vegetation than we've ever taken down from that site anyway so those
are the three issues. The first one is obviously of the greatest concern and
that is the sidewalks.
Mayor Hamilton: That meadow there, or whatever you want to call it, the wetland
area is really nothing but a meadow. There's hardly ever any water there.
There's a little bit there right now but normally that's just marsh grass isn't
it that grows in there Barb?
Barbara Dacy: There is water standing there from time to time.
Mayor Hamilton: I think there's a little bit in there right now but very
seldom do you see any water in there so I'm curious. I guess my question is
why are we requiring or wanting to put something around it.
Barbara Dacy: Something around it? Frankly I don't know what Mr. Sayther was
referring to. The intent of the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife
Service are to re-establish the pond as a wetland area. Slopes to foster
habitat and so on and recreation of wetland vegetation. I didn't get the point
from the Planning Commission that it was the intent to screen anything. It's
merely to keep the wetland appearance.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's fine. That sounds like what they're doing is to
do that.
Rick Sayther: I'm sorry if, I thought one of the six items in the Fish and
Wildlife Service guidelines was in effect to create a barrier so people
wouldn't intrude on the waterfowl. I'm pretty sure it said that.
Councilman Boyt: Yes, item (f) says that.
Barbara Dacy: I guess I'll eat all my words.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess from my standpoint, as far as the trees are concerned,
as I drive through Near Mountain, if there's been a tree that could stay, it
stayed. It only adds value to your property. I think as you drive up through
there, some of those houses, I don't know how you fit them in there with all
the trees on some of those lots. You have done a nice job of preserving the
trees.
Councilman Horn: Obviously that requirement wasn't put about because of the
work you dial but there are some areas we could show you to show you why we've
done that.
Councilman Boyt: Let's talk about access to Lots 15 and 16, Block 4. I'm not
sure I understand exactly how somebody is getting to Lot 15. Could someone
show me that. I'm curious as to where it's frontage comes from.
Rick Sayther: Lot 15 is this lot and it fronts on the existing road. As you
come up Pleasant View, this is the double right angle intersection. If you
turn and go up Valhalla and Iroquois, there are existing homes on these lots,
this one and this one, so Lot 15 would just becomes one of the neighborhood
area as would 16. 16 would take it's access right in the corner.
City Council Meeting - Al. .1 25, 1988
Councilman Boyt: 16 doesn't have frontage?
Rick Sayther: Yes it does.
Councilman Boyt: Where?
Rick Sayther: It has frontage on an unimproved right-of-way here but it also
would access right at the corner of the two.
Councilman Boyt: Don't we have a standard about the number of feet of
frontage?
Barbara Dacy: The standard is that you must abut 90 feet of lot width adjacent
to a public right-of-way. The ordinance does not state improved versus
unimproved. We interpret it as because there is access into the property,
given the existence of Pleasant View Road and Indian Hill Road, that that would
be adequate.
Councilman Boyt: How wide is that right-of-way?
Barbara Dacy: As shown on the plat here, it's shown as 30 feet wide, the
existing right-of-way and then the extension of Indian Hill is 15 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Are there any other roads in the subdivision that are 301 feet
wide right-of-way?
Barbara Dacy: In what subdivision?
Councilman Boyt: The one we're talking about here, Trapper's Pass.
Barbara Dacy: No. Everything is 501 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Why are we making an exception here?
Barbara Dacy: Because that's an existing platted right-of-way as part of the
Pleasant View Addition plat that was created in 1950.
Councilman Boyt: When they put in a development in an urban area, don't they
bring the roads up to urban standards?
Barbara Dacy: Yes sir.
Councilman Boyt: Are they bringing this road up to urban standard?
Barbara Dacy: The existing section that's out there now will provide access to
the property. There would be no need to create an urban section road along the
front of Lot 16.
Larry Brown: We had looked at possibly getting a roadway easement on Lot 16
should the need accomodate the extension of that road to the south. Being that
that road essentially, to borrow a statement, goes nowhere and ends nowhere, we
felt it wasn't necessary.
s
--� g 3
City Council Meeting - ~ ri.l 25, 1988
Councilman Boyt: So what we're doing is we're taking, let's take the property
that's to the right of that which isn't currently posed for development. Is
that property also going to be developed off the unimproved roadway?
Barbara Dacy: That appears to have frontage on Pleasant View Road.
Councilman Boyt: It's a rather large lot isn't it?
Rick Sayther: The backs of all these parcels in here have frontage on the 7
1/2 acre wetland. You can see on that overhead the corner of that same right-
of-way.
Michael Pflaum: Councilman Boyt, perhaps I could shed a little bit of light on
this situation. It's a little odd. This lot here and this lot here are to be
retained by the seller. They're not incorporated with any subdivision. It is
the requirement of the County that all of the property be platted but these two
lots are not part in the truest sense of... As a matter of fact this lot is
built upon right now with a house on it.
Councilman Boyt: Well, my concern is that when we accept it as a lot, we're
saying someone can build on it and I'm not sure that I want to encourage people
to build on an unimproved road with a 30 foot wide possible road surface
unless ... trail system is to lead into this park, is that right? Now the Park
and Rec people spent a fair amount of time talking about this. We have in the
Near Mountain area, which I believe is part of this development, people putting
together a request for stripping their road. That they're having problems with
the road that we call a road/trail combination. They're hoping that when it's
striped they'll have a little protection out there so I think there is a
concern in your neighborhood. There's another concern, the neighborhood would
like to have 20 mph speed limit signs so they apparently think that there is
some hazard in being out there on our trail which is right on the road.
I think that the City Council has changed it's philosophy about what's a safe
trail. From my part, I'll never vote to put a trail on the road. It's
cheaper. Maybe it looks nicer for the person who lives in that house but it's
definitely not safer and I wouldn't want my kids out there riding around on
that road and that's all the kids have to do to get from one place to another
because they can't walk on people's grass so they're out there with those cars.
Dangerous. I agree that it is an inconvenience to have a trail in my frontyard
or anyone's frontyard but it's worse to have kids out in traffic. I have every
sympathy with the Park and Rec's determination. Removal of trees. All we're
asking you to do is get together with the DNR. It's a very easy thing to do. I
agree with your statement and in talking to some of the neighbors out there, I
think there's a sense that you're very reasonable here. I think the City is
very reasonable. on the third issue of the wetland, it is a wetland because
there is water 6 inches below the surface all the time and there's a hard pan
underneath it that keeps that water up in there. What I see by way of a pond
entrance at the other side of the development, it's got a fountain in it, or at
least the water is going up a considerable distance. Is that how you perceive
of this development? This end of it?
Peter
Pflaum:
It probably would be on the one there.
There are two ponds on
either
side.
The one on the north,
if we're going to
put a fountain in or
small
one to
pipe it over there where
it's right near
the entrance. Not the
61
_II11
City Council Meeting - At. � 25, 1988
one further south that's in the wetland so we don't intend to put a fountain in
the one in the wetland.
Councilman Boyt: I know that the City has taken the opportunity from time to
time to improve wetlands. This is a wetland that I gather is serving a pretty
vital purpose in terms of holding water before it enters Lotus Lake and this
last summer it held water several feet deep so it has a purpose. You have an
opportunity to improve it. I think that as I read your comments in your letter
and to the Planning Commission, your concern was that you didn't want to run a
shallow layer -out from the shoreline on 301% of the shoreline and you wanted to
discourage weed growth by making it more than 4 feet deep. I can understand
that if we're creating a reflecting pool but I think we're dealing with a
situation where we've got a wetland. I think wetlands are nice. I think we're
lucky to have as many as we do and I would like to see you improve this
wetland, not change it's whole character. I guess that covers it.
Councilman Horn: I guess I would like an explanation of where the requirement
for sidewalks came from with respect to this particular request.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this item on March
22nd. The trail plan that showed where all the trails are on the little map
does not show where they are on streets that have not been platted yet so there
is a statement within the trail plan packet that says that all streets that
aren't cul-de-saced, an off-street trail should be acquired. That's where that
came from. Based on that, they made the recommendation.
I
Councilman Horn: So a cement sidewalk is what you call the off-street trail?
Lori Sietsema: Yes. i
Councilman Horn: And that requirement wasn't in existence when the first part
of the development was platted?
Lori Sietsema: That's correct.
Councilman Horn: Are we asking for them to extend it any further from the
particular area that they're asking for approval this evening?
Lori Sietsema: They will connect to on -street trails but they wouldn't
necessarily be connected to where we don't have off-street trails. We don't
have that easement on those lots but we will be striping that street to connect
a trail that's connected to the street.
Councilman Horn: But are they confined to the area that they're asking for
approval? In other words, are we extending our trail method outside the area
that they're asking for approval on or just confining it to,this particular
portion?
Lori Sietsema: There is on -street trails outside of this section that they're
proposing to develop.
Councilman Horn: Right but I mean, of what we're requiring tonight, is it
included just in this approval? In other words, what I'm asking is to put a
trail on any other portion of the development does not cover this approval.
62
City'Counci.l Meeting = April 25, 1988
15
f
Councilman Boyt: They already have a trail. It's on the street.
Lori Sietsema: It's on the street and they'll connect to those on -street
trails but they won't be constructing off-street trails.
Councilman Horn: Could you draw for me on this plan where that sidewalk would
go? It's easier to visualize than to try and read through the description such
as meets and bounds description. I'd rather see a plat.
Lori Sietsema: It would go along this road, along Timberhill Road, Oxbow and
then up to Trapper's Pass.
Councilman Horn: So it does go outside the area that they're asking approval
of tonight?
Lori Sietsema: It connects to the streets that are existing outside.
Peter Pflaum: The area we're seeking approval for runs about 50% up into the
existing PUD. Some of the land from the existing PUD and add it to the land
we're acquiring down here.
Councilman Horn: What is your gold area there that you're defining?
Peter Pflaum: The gold area is the land we're acquiring. That's the land
that's being added to the land in the PUD.
Councilman Horn: Confusing. We've got so many different designations. I'm
just confused as to exactly what you're looking for. I got the impression from
Peter that said that we were going beyond the area of approval.
Michael Pflaum: I think what Peter was referring to was an area north of this
line is the existing PUD in which there were no trail requirements. Because
we're combining some of the land up here and some land outside the PUD,
suddenly there's a trail up inside.
Councilman Horn: As far as the tree issue, how much of a problem is that for
the developer? How long does that take?
Barbara Dacy: Up until this point, we have not had any problems at all with
the tree removal plans. I wanted to make clear that we're not recommending
that the DNR would come out to the site. What would be submitted is along with
the Certificate of Survey for the construction of the individual single family
home, that they identify on the plan the construction zone and the area around
the house pad that they're going to be removing trees. We've been implementing
that with the Shadowmere Subdivision and other subdivisions that we've approved
in the last year and a half. It's more administrative for us.
Gary Warren: The building permits, that's when you're getting it i.n. Quite
honestly, the homeowner and a builder wants to keep as many trees as they can.
I think the real purpose it served at Shadowmere was to do the DNR forestry
concept plan to give the developer some idea as he was laying out lots. Once
you get in the building phase, I guess I haven't observed that people have been
going in and removing trees anymore than they really have to.
63
Ay Council Meeting 25, 1988
Councilman Horn: What I'm trying to get at is, it would appear that it's
something that the developer would have to do anyway for his own people when
they develop an area so they know the plan and layout of the lot. This tree
goes, this one doesn't.
Gary Warren: A lot of it will have to do with how the site grading balances
out and whether he has to do any soil correction on the lots because they like
to do that with heavy equipment out there and then sometimes you're taking more
trees than you would with a select property.
Councilman Horn: Is it normal that they come in with a plan anyway? To
develop a plan as to what trees go and what trees don't?
Gary Warren: Not unless we require it.
Councilman Horn: What's the problem in doing that in extra time or do you
think there would be a debate as to which ones you can take and which ones you
can't?
Peter Pflaum: It's just another piece of paper that we have to submit. What
you're really telling us, us and the homeowners, is we don't know how to take
care of the trees in the area and it's really offensive to us and it's just
another bureaucratic step, that's all. Of course we can do it but the thing
that sort of bothers us as developers, if any homeowner buys it, he can take
down any tree he wants and nobody cares. What I'm saying is, I think we've
demonstrated that we take care of the neighborhood. Take care of the trees and
we don't need somebody watching over us. That's all we're saying. I guess
it's just that simple. We think we're doing a good job. We haven't had any
complaints and we all have enough paperwork and enough people to check with,
why add another step?
Councilman Horn: It's like a lot of the laws. They don't help the people that
aren't causing the problem but we had other people causing a problem
unfortunately it creates a problem for you.
Peter Pflaum: But you have the power to waive it. It doesn't have to cross to
everyone.
Councilman Horn: I'm not sure our Attorney would allow us to be selective on
this.
Pat Farrell: No. You have an obligation to enforce the ordinance across the
board.
Peter Pflaum: Is this an ordinance?
Barbara Dacy: There is a section in the zoning ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: Nothing bigger than 6 inches.
Mayor Hamilton: When we went to using a forester to help us do it, that's not
part of an ordinance is it Barb?
11
64
City Council Meeting - April 2511988
1-7
Barbara Dacy: The requirement for the forester, that's not part of the
ordinance. The issue is the removal plan.
Mayor Hamilton: That gets written into the development contract.
Councilman Boyt: While she's looking, I'd like to point out that the forester
was put in there to protect the new home buyer and the City of Chanhassen in
that the forester went through and said that tree's going to die because of
where you put your road. That tree's going to die because of where you put
your house. It hasn't been six months ago that the paper talked about the
number of homeowners, not people who bought in your particular division, but a
number of homeowners who had bought houses with beautiful trees to have them
die within 6 months to a year after they moved in. The forester can prevent
that because he can tell the developer that tree will not make it, take it out
now. That's how the forester can help you and help the people move in.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you find the tree removal?
Barbara Dacy: Section 20-1179. Tree removal regulations. It goes on to list
several standards that are available to the Council to require during
subdivision approval.
Councilman Geving: I think it's important to apply our standards across the
board and it may be an inconvenience for you guys but it protects us. The big
thing about this particular extension of your development is that it follows
the phased approach that we started a long time ago. I see this as just a
continuation and I think we're probably into"what? The third or fourth phase
- or wherever you are, so I don't see anything major here as far as the
subdivision that we're looking at. The only thing I do want to question is
what is the cost for the sidewalks that are being proposed? What would be the
cost to you?
Michael Pflaum: About $25, 000. 00.
Councilman Geving: Over and above the striping and what had been required in
the past? Okay, this is a new requirement. You feel that the City has
changed it's way of doing business since we started this PUD and Lori, are we
doing this now across the board in all of our new subdivisions? Even
extensions of old PUD's where they're phasing out and finishing up the final
development?
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission has stuck very closely to
what they adopted as their trail plan so I would say yes.
Councilman Geving: But in this particular case a developer has built out
probably 75% or 80% of the development and at the very last part of the
development now we're interjecting some new rules that says we're going to put
in some sidewalks. Is that correct?
Lori Sietsema:
they are able
I think what the Park and Recreation
to make it safe for the people in this
Commission would say is
section of the subdivision
of this PUD.
It wasn't done at the beginning but at
least in this section
there will be
safe places for children and adults and
people to walk and ride
bikes.
65
zty Council Meeting - Ay 25, 1988
Councilman Geving: From an Attorney's standpoint, are we on solid ground?
Pat Farrell: Yes.
Councilman Geving: We are? Okay. The only other comment that I have to make
is in regard to the Fish and Wildlife recommendations for the pondi.ng areas and
I think they're right on track. These people are professionals in their field
and they've looked at the site. They've made these recommendations and I think
they're solid so I'd like to stay with them.
Councilman Johnson: I'm totally in support of the sidewalks leading to the
park. The people in part of Near Mountain now don't have access. There should
have been a trail through the one place to arrive it down. I don't know if
there is a trail platted there. I'm not sure. There is a wide spot between
two homes that runs out to Pleasant View and the place disappears, the berm
disappears. Is that supposed to be a trail there?
Michael Pflaum: Yes, that was deeded to the City two years ago.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, we need to get a trail in there so that people can
get out there.
Lori Sietsema: It's scheduled for this summer.
Councilman Johnson: Great. Just to go on and complete our trail system so
these trails inside the thing actually go someplace. Now we have trails that
start someplace and they end up at a park. How about that? I'm for doing a
few more things on the wetlands that aren't on here. I have condition 7 and 8
and I'm all for the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife people on the pond.
I'd like to see on the west side of that pond, not necessarily on the east side
of the pond, your emergent vegetation. They talked about 300 of the edge of
the pond. That doesn't mean you have to put that on the east side of the pond.
I think you can have a nice clear water pond on the east side with the cattails
or whatever on the west side so we meet both requirements. I'd like to see a
conservation easement all the way around this wetland to enable the City in the
future to provide more wildlife habitat on there without having to go to each
individual homeowner and say, if we looked in the future to taking this meadows
wetland and further developing it, we can make it into a little prettier area
that wetland habitat. It's kind of an old farm field type habitat right now
and I'd like to see it maintained for future generations that we have a wetland
here. I'd like to see all homeowners be informed in writing and deed
restrictions that the lots contain a city protected wetland and further
alterations of said wetland will require a wetland alteration permit from the
City. Did you write that down? What I'm trying to do protect that wetland for
the future. On the clearcutting of the trees, cutting of trees, I'm
absolutely, you've got to have that plan. Go over to Pheasant Hills. There's
a new home that was built. The homeowner said I don't want any trees so the
builder took them all out. We've got this nice little stand of trees, they
took all the trees right down to a swamp. They filled dirt in right down to
the wetland area. No wetland alteration permit that I ever heard of. No
clearcutti.ng plan or anything. All of a sudden I went driving by there and
where there used to be trees, there's now sod. The entire back. He sodded his
entire yard. Pushed it right down to the wetlands and that's what we're trying
to prevent. Those cases, those abuses. I've seen what you've done and you've
City Council Meeting - _.pril 25, 1988
done an excellent job. I applaud you completely but there's other people out
there we have to protect ourselves from and you're not one but we be lax on you
and the next guy comes in and says, well you did it for him, do it for me. I'm
a good guy too. If that homeowner comes in and says I don't want any trees,
I'm working on some ordinances to help protect that later. So anyway, when we
get to vote on this, I'd like to see two items added. One is a conservation
easement 25 horizontal feet from the edge of the wetlands, approximately. That
we can then preserve that wetlands and that will be right in the people's deeds
so they know that they can't mess with that wetlands. Let the people be
informed of that. That's the range of my comments.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm still not in favor of putting in sidewalks. I don't think
they're needed. They haven't been in the rest of the subdivision. I see no
reason to start now. You put in a sidewalk, where are the kids going to ride
their bikes? They'll be in the street. They'll probably walk in the street
too so I think it's fine in a new subdivision. It's just as well when you
start it, you might as well put then in. It's not needed here. You do a
really good job with the trees. I think commented on that before. Somebody
owns a piece of property and they wanted to cut all the dang trees down, I
guess that's their business. If they like grass more than they do trees, it's
up to then to do what they want with their own land.
Councilman Johnson moved to approve the Subdivision Request #79-2 for 32.5
acres into 34 single family lots with the 17 conditions outlined by the
Planning Commission with condition 18 as follows:
18. That a conservation easement be established around the wetlands in Block 4,
Lots 1-9, extending 25 horizontal feet upland from the edge of the wetlands
and that the homeowners be informed in writing of the conservation easement
and the restrictions of their activities within the conservation easement.
There was no second and motion failed for lack of second.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision
Request #79-2 subject to the following conditions:
1. A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building permit
application for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3, and
Lots 7-14, Block 4.
2. Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit.
3. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper
installation of these improvements.
4. The developer shall
obtain and
comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit and
the permit
from the Department of Natural Resources.
5. All erosion control
measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of
any grading, and once in place
shall remain in place throughout the
duration of construction. All
of the erosion control measures shall remain
67
*-Ply Council Meeting - Api 25, 1988
intact until an estalbished vegetative cover has been produced, at which
time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer.
6. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stablize slopes
greater than 3:1.
7. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the Ci.ty's standards
for urban construction.
8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer details for
the construction of the barricade on the dead end of Trappers Pass
between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4 with the plans and
specifications.
9. Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side.of the Class B
wetland along the rear of Lots 1-9 of Block 4. The City's standard detail
for the installation of Type II erosion control (staked bales and snow
fence) shall be placed on the grading plan.
10. Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall along both
sides of Trappers Pass dead end shall be submitted as a part of the plans
and specifications review for approval by the City Engineer.
11. Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4, as depicted on Sheet No. 1 of the plan set dated
February 18, 1988 shall be revised to show the correct property boundaries.
12. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such that it forms a
"T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois Avenue.
13. The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along the common
lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which will serve as an emergency
overflow swale for the ponding site of Lot 2, Block 3.
14. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front and
rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility
easements for ponding sites and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on
the final plat.
15. All private drives shall access internal streets to the subdivision. No
driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant View Road.
16. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the time of plans and
specifications submittal and design adjustments made accordingly, if
necessary, to faciliti.ate proper conveyance of stormwater under Pleasant
View Road.
Councilman Horn, Councilman Gevi.ng and Mayor Hamilton voted in favor;
Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition and the motion
passed with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit Request #88-5 to permit development within 200 feet of the
Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within the Class
B wetland with the following conditions:
::
City Council Meeting - ?ril 25, 1988
1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must meet the
following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service:
a. The basin will have free form.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for
at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent
vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The bain will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water
depth to (a0 provide foraging -areas for species of wildlife feeding in
shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent
vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland
being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for
aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the pond
within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details on area of
construction for the pond within the wetland and how the remaining wetland
will be preserved.
3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8, Block 4
to completely protect the wetland from any construction activity.
4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4) must meet the 75
foot setback from the edge of the wetland.
5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration of the
wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4 beyond the 914 elevation..
6. The developer shall make every effort in it's pond design to improve the
wetland and make the wetland an attractive useful wildlife habitat.
7. That a conservation easement be established around the wetlands in Block 4,
Lots 1-9, extending 25 horizontal feet upland from the edge of the wetlands
and that the homeowners be informed in writing of the conservation easement
and the restrictions of their activities within the conservation easement.
All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: As I gather this wetland, a conservation easement may not
accomplish very much if the wetland isn't very noticeable in it's location. I
can see where we want to say to the people that the wetland itself should not
22
City Council Meeting - Ap,_.1 25, 1988
be disturbed. I can support that. I have a little difficulty telling them
that we really need this 25 foot extension out from the wetland if in fact the
wetland is very marginal and you're telling me it's very marginal.
Councilman Johnson: The 25 is kind of a buffer area because you don't know
exactly where it is. It's a pretty flat area and it's plus or minus 10 or 20
feet on where somebody would interpret it is so that's why I wanted the extra
feet in there.
Barbara Dacy: Maybe I can resolve some of your concerns. Number one, we would
retain a drainage easement over the edge of the wetland area. Number two, the
intent of condition 5 on the deed restrictions, that's consistent with what we
did on Kurver's Point. That the deed restrictions be recorded on those lots to
make them aware that they can't alter that wetland without a wetland alteration
permit. Third, we do have that 75 foot structure setback anyway so I think you
can achieve the same intent that you're after with basically, (1) make sure
that they don't touch it without authorization and (2) that area around the
wetland to be preserved. You can't put any structures in that setback.
Councilman Johnson: The conservation easement does one more thing. It gives
us access to it for conservation purposes where utilities easement gives us
access to it for utility purposes.
Barbara Dacy: Right. The most recent version of the conservation easement,
that is correct. It just depends on how much control the Council actually
wants to take on this particular area.
Michael Pflaum: Excuse me, what was the motion?
Councilman Johnson: I think we added the conservation easement.
Barbara Dacy: The six recommendations from the Planning Commission plus a 7th,
a conservation easement.
Michael Pflaum: And where does the conservation end?
Councilman Geving: 25 feet.
Barbara Dacy: From the edge of the wetland.
Michael Pflaum: What is the definition of a conservation easement?
Councilman Boyt: You can't mow it. You can't plant grass. You can't do
anything in there really.
Michael Pflaum: With all due respect, I guess this issue is a dead one because
we have met all of them.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. But they can't go in and sod. Homeowners
will do strange things.
Peter Pflaum: Is this something you require of all wetlands? A conservation
easement all around them?
g
City Council Meeting - pri.l 25, 1988
Councilman Johnson: Quite a few.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we've been pretty consistent on that.
Peter Pflaum: Have you extended the easement outside of the wetland?
k
Councilman Johnson: In many cases, the Chan Vista down here, it's up the side
of the hill some 40 feet or so. Vertically up the hill. It's almost three -
fourths the way into the property there. Of course, that's a city park too.
Councilman Geving: We have it on the north end of Lotus Lake where the
Pleasant View Road runs along the lake. On the lake side, that's a
conservation easement. Property lines do not extend across the road and down
to the lake.
Michael Pflaum: It seems a little harsh on the homeowner. They're already
giving up a significant portion of their property to wetlands. To tack onto
that 25 feet that isn't wetland...
Peter Pflaum: It's argumentative whether it's a city created wetland.
Mayor Hamilton: I can't disagree with you.
Councilman Boyt: Why 25 feet?
Councilman Johnson: I'm willing to reconsider 25 foot and go right with the
utility easement. To make it a lot easier on the platting, they only have to
draw one line. The marginal side of this.
Barbara Dacy: I think that would be good if the Council took that direction
because the Chan Vista .example versus this example, they are totally different.
Mayor Hamilton: That was the intent of your motion was to actually go with the
utility easement. That was your intent. Let the record show that that's what
the motion was.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to have the motion reconsidered.
Councilman Johnson: Let's do it the right way.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to reconsider the motion
on the Wetland Alteration Permit for the Trappers Pass Addition. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: The question I'm asking is, granted that the distance is I
think excessive, although I voted for it but have we clearly got this meadow
protected?
Barbara Dacy: Yes,
Councilman Boyt: You can't build within 75 feet of it?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
71
24
City, Council Meeting - Api — 25, 1988
Councilman Boyt: Can you put a shed up within 20 feet of it?
Barbara Dacy: No. You have a 75 foot setback.
Councilman Boyt: You can't put anything in. What about a fence?
Barbara Dacy: A fence, yes. You can go along the lot lines down to the edge
of the wetland. You can't go into the wetland because that would be protected
by the easement.
Councilman Boyt: This is a meadow. It's going to be hard to tell where the
grass stops and the meadow starts right or this is a low grade wetland. What
kind of steps is the City going to take to show people where it is?
Barbara Dacy: It is defi.neable out in the field. It's fairly clear from going
out there that you can observe it. And you could have the developers stake the
edge of the wetland, the contour elevation.
Councilman Boyt: If we give up the 25 feet, will you go out and stake the edge
of the wetland so people know where it is?
Barbara Dacy: As a matter of fact, isn't there erosion control being proposed
around certain portions of it also that defines it.
Gary Warren: Put the erosion control barrier right down to the edge.
Councilman Johnson: The survey on the Chan Vista, they put permanent stakes in
at the conservation easement along the lot lines.
Gary Warren: Well, temporary stakes.
Rick Sayther: We would actually set the lot corners on the lot lines at the
easement line. It'd be kind of needless to go out in the wetland and pound
irons in the ground. That's where the lot lime would be. At the easement
line.
Councilman Boyt: So you'd be willing to take responsibility for notifying the
owners as to where the wetland actually existed? The 25 feet gives us a
cushion Tom. If nothing else it says you can't do anything within 25 feet of
it so you're probably not going to cut down into it and if you would help us
establish that same limit, than maybe we don't have the need for the 25 feet.
Rick Sayther: We could help you establish it but on the one hand we're saying,
put something out there that people can see. On the other hand we're saying
keep it natural so the vegetation can grow on it.
Councilman Boyt: Well, the people don't have to see it forever. It's the
idea, if they're never told, if it appears on the deed, they're going to miss
it. If they go out there and there's a stake, I've got confidence that it
wi.11...
Rick Sayther: I think a combination of the documentation and the stakes being
up and the fact that you show the people on the survey that the homeowners have
72
5
City,Council Meeting April 25, 1988
-- should be adequate for them to know where it is.
Gary Warren: Restrictive Covenants would serve the same purpose.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit Request #88-5 to permit development with 200 feet of the
Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within a Class B
wetland with the following conditions:
1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must meet the
following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service:
a. The basin will have free form.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for
at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent
vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The bai.n will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water
depth to (a0 provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in
shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent
vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland
being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for
aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the pond
within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details on area of
construction for the pond within the wetland and how the remaining wetland
will be preserved.
3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8, Block 4
to completely protect the wetland from any construction activity.
4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4) must meet the 75
foot setback from the edge of the wetland.
5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration of the
wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4 beyond the 914 elevation.
6. The developer shall make every effort in it's pond design to improve the
wetland and make the wetland an attractive useful wildlife habitat.
All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried.
73
Council Meeting - Ap: 25, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to vote against it because I'd like to see the
conservation easement put over the top of the utility easement to give the
City...
Councilman Geving: You can vote against it but that's not my motion.
Councilman Boyt: I think you're accepting the conditions that the developer
just agreed to Dale?
Councilman Geving: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: The conservation easement gives us rights for conservation
purposes to that area where a utility easement, which you're asking for, does
not give us those rights. We still have a wetland alteration but I'm just
trying to give a little more extra rights.
AWARD OF BIDS, DOWNTOWN ENTRY MONUMENT.
Don Ashworth: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority agreed on this past
Thursday to approve the bids for the clock tower and the one entry monument.
The other entry monument is an assessable cost back against the Bloomberg
Companies. Accordingly, only the City Council can make that award. Staff is
recommending that the award be made for that one item realizing that the bid
again is for three items. You are only approving one of those three.
Councilman Johnson: Which one?
Mayor Hamilton: That's for the entry monuments. Entry monuments are
assessable back to...
Don Ashworth: Really only the one of those and that is the gazebo and the cost
on that is the $70,900.00.
Councilman Johnson: Has Bloomberg Companies who's going to be assessed back
and pay for this construction on their property basically, have they looked and
have they said that they would like this construction company, the low bidder,
to do this? Have they reviewed the construction company and they don't have a
problem with it? They believe they'll get a quality product from then?
Don Ashworth: They reviewed it. They did have an opportunity themselves to
take a bid on it. They're concern with the price, because they were hoping it
would be less. They were informed at the beginning of the project that the
cost was estimated to be in excess of $60,000.00 so they're not overly
surprised and if they would be, I would anticipate that them being present
tonight.
Resolution #88-37: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve
the award of the bid of $70,900.00 to Morcon Construction for the gazebo entry
monument with the provision of assessing the $70,900.00 back to the Bloomberg
Companies. All voted in favor and motion carried.
61
74
� t V10S3NHIY1 . .IHNYH�
'91a Nownuisma •sove musaNn1 ° I
0009-9Lt • 16E SS 'HVI 'YlY2AYM • AYMOY... HL(109 901
DNI '1Stt1DrJ!!3B 3tiH1VS (O3SIA3N) NOIIIODV ME
NIV1NnOW UV3N 1V SSVd SH3ddVd1
lYld AtlYNIWl13tld
a
4
H
2
0
Z
H
4
JN
a
0,-.
d
w
CL-
Q.
Q
F
1 1
V1093NNNY'N3 SWNNVN7
•alN NOI1anvisma *sous N3usulim
0002 ago • 1°00S'NA 'Y1VZAVM • AVMOVOVS N1006 S01 j v
JNI 'l.smo9u3s • 3UH1tlS 1a3SIA3!!1 NOI1100V awe
3 ° NIV1NnOW HV3N 1V SSVd Su3ddVH1
LV1d AMVNIWI'13Wd
W
S 4
Q
x 1= 2
x
s
r
QIs�
"
e8
3
c
e:
i z
o�
o
a'
�E
w J
a
f
4
p
m m
7^y
\
A
10o
I 1- i y m w w 4 F
8 Q I y I F\ t -----" aL .. s o a Q 3 e3
F 0
a w EF
F z
o �,, ZIP # ��o' /°
CtAft
of Las . 1t, e p
OU
<< \
3 i
Q
Q\�
p , 1 OD
9 y cs In g 'may V • tp
Fit `\/\ : z c 9iyt /—`\ ems" '.\ �p 71 �'g
� } �,e . M.- �.., r • . \ '.oz^ '�;�:� � tom''
3 N w 0 101100 pp NIV1Nl10 gV3N LIL
3a��;[�Sis s @3: Ssa..255 Q f.a
9<y�8�JUG,
�;.
E ;`o tg-4g'� '2.:dp�i'd`f § Bf3-`�Zj, £� f{{�9 �'�•_g t, ff'8}�t e��eG �a �" \ i��
�° ®. G` ii g�; j=^� � 3i9p-..wP�• $'..95Y wt� E''y E7 e��i -0pN � �?\ < � x
'gi3aa3e8'i''ia!ap�3i
^19�csr>Sa
4 0 /
a
A� sa,e g 9xt�s�! fp ae��3p93i� �x���Ai�9 �����e'i���� �•- f�
.£ `3 �- £_t{$E i E�'' .��� tl�£' 'Y3i f�•�9F 3r�2 i�f�fi a
FED-11-93 THU 14:4s SATHRE-PERGQUIST, I&c- R.82
.r
TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 4TH ADDITION 2
. ,
BLOCK 1
LOT
!
3
4
S
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
!
4
s
5
a
OUTLOT A
SOFT.
27278
24581
43150
22757
27a57
19898
322§3
2141S
a1314
24325
22511
esaes
63940
565e!
4711a
134386
36755
52418
4aa1!
47«96
TOTAL AREA
21 ACRES
25267
SCANNED
T H U 1 4= 4 6 S A T H R E- E E R G Q U I S T r I N C
w ,
R _ 0 3
LOT AMA TABULATION
Prepared for: Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc,
Prepared by: Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.
Dated: April 17, 1992
BLOCK 1
LOT
1
BLOCK 2
LOT
BLACK 3
BLACK 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
KOW
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
THE SUMMIT AT NEAR MOUNTAIN
AREA
(Square Feet)
38,035
AREA
(Square Feet)
28,994
24,113
24,881
21,684
21,682
23,655
AREA
(Square Feet)
36,535
23,450
22,324
20,302
25,115
20,931
26,625
19,748
20,977
19,581
22,541
27,416
25,042
LOT AREA
(Square Feet)
1 116,016
2 101,721
3 89,866
r►*3 f'
8,410
6,183
297,204
1,202
253,940
50,957
68,347
356,361
46.7542 ACRES
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
Mr. Mike Pflaum
Lundgren Brothers
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
This is to confirm that on August 22, 1988, the City Council
approved the final plat for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd
Addition. The final plat was approved with the following con-
ditions:
1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract
agreement with the city and provide necessary financial
sureties.
2. Lots 1-3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, shall provide a tree
removal plan at time of building permit application.
3. Lot 1, Block 4, and .Lot 1, Block 5 shall be amended on the
final plat so that the lot lines are no longer within the
street right-of-way.
4. The driveway for Lot 1, Block 4, shall be constructed so that
it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
5. The most northerly lot of Block 3 (shown as Lot 3) should
become Lot 1 and shown on an amended final plat.
6. The applicant shall meet all of the conditions of approval of
the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit.
You may now submit the two sets of mylars for city signatures and
a 500 and 200 scale reduced transparency of the final plat.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
--.k�I�-, o___
Jo Ann Olsen
Assistant City Planner
SCANNED
JO & 0
•9. ' �ceP�e.�
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District
Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co.
7803 Glenroy Road
Minneapolis, MN 55435
830-0555
Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman
3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower
Minneapolis, MN 55402
333-4800
August 3, 1988
Mr. Dan Blake
Sathre—Bergquist
106 South Broadway
Wayzata, MIN 55391
Re: Trapper's Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition: Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Blake:
'7 r�� 1r3a Via,. 97
AUG 19 1888
Zaass
m
The Board of Managers of the Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed
District has reviewed the plans and grading and land alteration permit
application as submitted to the District for the Trapper's Pass at Near
Mountain 3rd Addition in Chanhassen.
The Managers approve the grading and land alteration permit subject to
the following conditions:
1. All erosion control measures shown on the plans must be installed
prior to commencement of grading operations and be maintained
until all areas altered on the site have been restored.
If silt fence is used, the bottom flap must be buried and the
maximum allowable spacing between posts is 4 foot on center. All
posts must be either 2" x 2" pine, hardwood, or steel fence posts.
If hay bales are used, all bales must be staked in place and
reinforced on the downstream side with snow fence.
2. All areas altered because of construction during the 1988
construction season must be restored with seed and disced mulch,
sod, or wood fiber blanket, and the roadways restored at a minimum
with a gravel subbase within two weeks after completion of
construction or no later than November 1, 1988. Construction
undertaken during the 1989 construction season must be restored by
July 1, 1989.
Mr. Dan Blake August 3, 1988 Page 2
3. Homes to be constructed on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 must have the
basement floor elevation set at a minimum of 933.5 and the home to
be constructed on Lot 2, Block 2 must have the basement floor set
at a minimum elevation of 922.0. These elevations are 2 feet
above the calculated flood elevation of the stormwater detention
basins located adjacent to the proposed structures.
4. The District must be notified in writing a minimum of 48 hours
prior to commencement of construction.
If you have any questions regarding the conditions of the District's
permit, please call us at 830-0555.
Sincere 1 ,
R ert C. Obermeyer
$PARR ENGINEERING CO.
Engineers for the District
Approved by the Board of Managers
RILEY-PURGATORY-BLUFF CREEK
WATERSHEDIDDl RIC
President
Date CSC
RCO/mmm
c: Mr. Frederick Richards
Mr. Frederick Rahr
Mr. Gary Warren
DB/330,0
LAW OFFICES
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
SIDNEY LORBER'
EDWARD M. MOERSFELDER'
SIDNEY BARROWS'
ROBERT LEWIS BARROWS'
HAROLD D. FIELD, JR.•
KENT E. RICHEY
ALLEN I. SAEKS'
HUGH M. MAYNARD'
THOMAS D. FEINBERG'
JOHN C. KUEHN
MORRIS M. SHERMAN*
BRADLEY J. GILLAN
GEORGE REILLY'
MICHAEL A. NEKICH'
CHARLES K. DAYTON
MARTHA C. BRAND'
DAVID N. COX'
DAVID N. HAYNES
STEPHEN R. PFLAUM'
CAROLYN CHALMERS
CHARLES A. MAYS'
JAMES V. ROTH'
LOWELL J. NOTEBOOM'
ROBERT L. DEMAY
GEORGE F. McGUNNIGLE, JR.'
ANGELA M. SOHMANN
RICHARD G. PEPIN, JR.
ROBERT P. THAVIS•
FREDRIC T, ROSENBLATT•
JAMES G. BULLARD*
BYRON E. STARNS'
JOSEPH M. FINLEY*
JOHN H. HERMAN
LAWRENCE J. FIELD
STEVEN D. DERUYTER'
DAVID W. KELLEY
JAMES R. DORSEY
RICHARD RAPSON
KATHLEEN M. GRAHAM
MARK S. WEITZ•
STEPHEN J. DAVIDSON'
DAVID L. LILLEHAUG
STEPHEN R. LITMAN'
DAVID C. ZALK'
'PROFESSIONAL CORPOR—ONS
SUITE 1500
100 SOUTH FIFTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402
TELEPHONE (612) 337-1500
TELECOPIER (612) 337-1657
INCLUDING THE PRACTICE OF THE FORMER
PEPIN DAYTON HERMAN a GRAHAM, P.A.
Ms. Barbara Dacy
City Planner
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Ms. Dacy:
July 1, 1988
GEORGE B. WYETH
PEDER A. LARSON
DAVID KANTOR
NANCY WILTGEN REISERT
MICHAEL L. BERDE
VIRGINIA S. CONE
LOWELL V. STORTZ
CATHARINE BOSCHEE
DOUGLAS B. GREENSWAG
MICHELLE A. MILLER
ELLEN SAMPSON
MARC D. SIMPSON
MARGARET M. VAN VALKEN13URG
SHAUN C. MCELHATTON
ANGELA M. CHRISTY
JAMES A. BARNUM
—
ROSANNE NATHANSON
SHERRI L. KNUTH
GEORGE S. LEONARD 41872-1956)
MICHAEL G. TAYLOR
ARTHUR L. H. STREET (IBT7 1961)
JOHN W. GETSINGER
BENEDICT DEINARD (1899.1969)
THOMAS P. SANDERS
AMOS S. DEINARD 11896-1985 )
ROBERT ZEGLOVITCH
TIMOTHY WELCH
ELIZABETH M. NIMMO
GREGORY C. BROWN
IRENE SCOTT
SUSAN M. ROSINER
M. PATRICIA SCHAFFER
ROGER DUNEKACKE
DANIEL D. FOTH
DESRA G. STREHLOW
OF C.O...'
WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
(612) 337-1511
This letter will serve as a request for a zoning letter
concerning several subdivisions which have been developed by
Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. in the City of Chanhassen.
For your convenience, I have enclosed a sample letter
listing the various subdivisions in the format we would prefer
which can be retyped on City letterhead.
Please return the letter to my attention in the self-
addressed, stamped envelope provided. If you should have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your
assistance.
DAH:rb
Encl.
Very truly yours,
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD
By
David A. Hillert
ifseCF:tvED
JUL 051998
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
July 7, 1988
Title Insurance Company of Minnesota
400 Second Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Re: Trappers Pass lst, Trappers Pass 2nd, Chestnut Ridge 2nd,
Chestnut Ridge 6th, Chestnut Ridge 8th, and Chestnut Ridge
9th Additions (Our File #79-2 PUD)
Dear Sirs:
According to the applicable Chanhassen City zoning ordinances and
amendments thereto, the above referenced subdivisions are
classified PUD-R, Planned Unit Development, Residential.
Ver t ul yours,
Bar ara Dacy
City Planner
BD:v
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
Mayor Hamilton: So now we have before us, we voted to reconsider item 1.
We're on 8(b) but item 1 of the conditions. We have striken approval of the
final plat of the Reed property and at the last line, and alignment of 64th
Street to TH 41.
Councilman Horn: Unless I misunderstand something, our choices are we can have
64 th go through or we can have the main entrance to this development.
Barbara Dacy: 64th realigned.
Gary Warren: One or the other.
Councilman Horn: Realigned to go through or?
Gary Warren: 64th 1,100 feet south.
Councilman Horn: 1,100 feet south of the Reed property or farther south?
Gary Warren: 1,100 feet south of the center line of TH 7 which puts you into
the Reed property.
Councilman Horn: So if -people really want that to go through to TH 41, then
they don't want to approve this cul-de-sac?
Barbara Dacy: Right. That's the issue. Either the cul-de-sac or you
reconnect to TH 41.
Mayor Hamilton: And that's why I'm saying their option is we should start
condemnation process if those are our choices.
Councilman Boyt: And that's why we tabled that is because we don't know so
let's vote on this.
Councilman Geving: I think we're still alright with condition 1.
Councilman Boyt: All condition 1 says is the whole thing falls apart if we
don't vacate 64th Street. Does anybody have trouble living with that?
Councilman Gevi.ng: No, because it's going to happen.
Councilman Johnson: Because we're really not saying how they going to
cul-de-sac...
TRAPPERS PASS ADDITION, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF PLEASANT VIEW
ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF HWY 101, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION:
A. SUBDIVISION OF 32.5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POND WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND
AND DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET.
Barbara Dacy: Briefly, I know the applicant has submitted a letter to each of
the Councilmembers objecting to three conditions on the plat. One of them
being the tree removal plan. Secondly, in regards to the Park and Recreation
57
10 1-11
City Council Meeting - ,I_.il 25, 1988
Commission's recommendation for trails and third, the requirement to re-
establish the storm water retention pond as a wetland. Staff has no further
comments.
Mayor Hamilton: Hello Peter. I see you guys have a lot of stuff here. Does
the Council need to see all of this?
Peter Pflaum: I'll just quickly talk about the three points. The biggest
issue is the sidewalk. We're opposed to the sidewalks because we don't think
it does anything for the project. As you know we have a PUD that's in two
communities. It was zoned I think in 1978-79. The 600 units, I suppose in
your project were almost 70% done and now all of a sudden we're adding just a
little portion of the project, some 16 lots really and now you have a new
Provision in there. I don't think it's in the ordinance. It's a new policy
and I think it really serves no purpose in our planning of development and is
not consistent with the planning of our development and really isn't any
benefit to the people living in the Planning Unit Development, your own
residents. I can see if we're doing a project from the start, we're starting
the project and that was a requirement. If the project was approved in 1978-79
and had all the additional subdivisions we've done. What you're really doing
is causing us to put a sidewalk that's about a quarter mile in length. It goes
nowhere. It leads into our subdivision and stops so that's briefly, sort of
common sense doesn't seem like. I don't mind putting the sidewalk in if the
residents want it and it serves some purpose but in a Planned Unit Development
such as this where everybody decided to be a member of that Planned Unit
Development because of the way it was set up, I think it really serves no
purpose and is really probably a detriment. The other two issues are smaller
in significance. One deals with the pond. All we're taking about doing, I
think we spent a lot of time at the Planning Commission talking about a pond.
The wetlands is about 7 1/2 acres and we want to open up, Rick can show you
that red area, we want to open up a portion of it. The only reason we're doing
that is to try to make it a little more attractive. The reason we're buying
this piece of property is to create another entrance to our project. So we
want to landscape it and we thought that this was a treatment that would look
aesthetically a lot better. The major issue at the Planning Commission was the
treatment of the edge of the marsh is on the east side next to Pleasant View.
What we would request is if we could just have an edge that goes graded right
down to the pond so you can see the pond. Your wetland ordinance I think says
it's got to be some kind of, what's the word Rick?
Rick Sayther: A fair amount of shrubs and something to screen the water from
the people so the water fowl would have more privacy I think basically.
Peter Pflaum: We'd be willing to put some kind of vegetation that was low
profile around there as long as you could see it and was low maintenance so
that was a big issue there. The other one was one more of pride more than
anything else in that you passed a provision now I guess that requires the
developers who are working in the woods to submit some kind of plan for the
staff's approval before we take trees down and our point is, we've been on the
site and done some 170 homes in the woods, most of them in the woods and we
haven't had any problems and we think we take pretty good care of the woods and
that's the reason we bought the site. It troubles us to have to go to staff
and have them review anything more than is absolutely necessary. I can see if
we had caused some problems but I don't think we have and I think we've planted
9r-J
City Council Meeting —*� Apri.l 25, 1988
1.
far more vegetation than we've ever taken down from that site an so those
are the three issues. The first one is obviously of the greatest concern and
that is the sidewalks.
Mayor Hamilton: That meadow there, or whatever you want to call it, the wetland
area is really nothing but a meadow. There's hardly ever any water there.
There's a little bit there right now but normally that's just marsh grass isn't
it that grows in there Barb?
Barbara Dacy: There is water standing there from time to time.
Mayor Hamilton: I think there's a little bit in there right now but very
seldom do you see any water in there so I'm curious. I guess my question is
why are we requiring or wanting to put something around it.
Barbara Dacy: Something around it? Frankly I don't know what Mr. Sayther was
referring to. The intent of the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife
Service are to re-establish the pond as a wetland area. Slopes to foster
habitat and so on and recreation of wetland vegetation. I didn't get the point
from the Planning Commission that it was the intent to screen anything. It's
merely to keep the wetland appearance.
Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that's fine. That sounds like what they're doing is to
do that.
Rick Sayther: I'm
Wildlife Service
sorry if, I
guidelines was
thought one of the six items in the Fish and
in effect to create a barrier so people
wouldn't intrude
on the waterfowl.
I'm pretty sure it said that.
Councilman Boyt:
Yes, item (f)
says that.
Barbara Dacy: I
guess I'll eat
all my words.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess from my standpoint, as far as the trees are concerned,
as I drive through Near Mountain, if there's been a tree that could stay, it
stayed. It only adds value to your property. 'I think as you drive up through
there, some of those houses, I don't know how you fit them in there with all
the trees on some of those lots. You have done a nice job of preserving the
trees.
Councilman Horn: Obviously that requirement wasn't put about because of the
work you dial but there are some areas we could show you to show you why we've
done that.
Councilman Boyt: Let's talk about access to Lots 15 and 16, Block 4. I'm not
sure I understand exactly how somebody is getting is to Lot 15. Could someone
show me that. I'm curious as to where it's frontage comes from.
Rick Sayther: Lot 15 is this lot and it fronts on: the existing road. As you
come up Pleasant View, this is the double right angle intersection. If you
turn and go up Valhalla and Iroquois, there are existing homes on these lots,
this one and this one, so Lot 15 would just becomes one of the neighborhood
area as would 16. 16 would take it's access right in the corner.
59
City Council Meeting - A,-il 25, 1988
Councilman Boyt: 16 doesn't have frontage?
Rick Sayther: Yes it does.
Councilman Boyt: Where?
Rick Sayther: It has frontage on an unimproved right-of-way here but it also
would access right at the corner of the two.
Councilman Boyt: Don't we have a standard about the number of foot of
frontage?
Barbara Dacy: The standard is that you must abut 90 feet of lot width adjacent
to a public right-of-way. The ordinance does not state improved versus
unimproved. we interpret it as because there is access into the property,
given the existence of Pleasant View Road and Indian Hill Road, that that would
be adequate.
Councilman Boyt: How wide is that right-of-way?
Barbara Dacy: As shown on the plat here, it's shown as 30 feet wide, the
existing right-of-way and then the extension of Indian Hill is 15 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Are there any other roads in the subdivision that are 30 feet
wide right-of-way?
Barbara Dacy: In what subdivision?
Councilman Boyt: The one we're talking about here, Trapper's Pass.
Barbara Dacy: No. Everything is 50 feet.
Councilman Boyt: Why are we making an exception here?
Barbara Dacy: Because that's an existing platted right-of-way as part of the
Pleasant View Addition plat that was created in 1950.
Councilman Boyt: When they put in a development in an urban area, don't they
bring the roads up to urban standards?
Barbara Dacy: Yes sir.
Councilman Boyt: Are they bringing this road up to urban standard?
Barbara Dacy: The existing section that's out there now will provide access to
the property. There would be no need to create an urban section road along the
front of Lot 16.
Larry Brown: We had looked at possibly getting a roadway easement on Lot 16
should the need accomodate the extension of that road to the south. Being that
that road essentially, to borrow a statement, goes'nowhere and ends nowhere, we
felt it wasn't necessary.
CityCouncil Meeting d 3
g �pri.l 25, 1988
Councilman Boyt: So what we're doing is we're taking, let's take the property
that's to the right of that which isn't currently posed for development. Is
that property also going to be developed off the unimproved roadway?
Barbara Dacy: That appears to have frontage on Pleasant View Road.
Councilman Boyt: It's a rather large lot isn't it?
Rick Sayther: The backs of all these parcels in here have frontage on the 7
1/2 acre wetland. You can see on that overhead the corner of that same right-
of-way.
Michael Pflaum: Councilman Boyt, perhaps I could shed a little bit of light on
this situation. It's a little odd. This lot here and this lot here are to be
retained by the seller. They're not incorporated with any subdivision. It is
the requirement of the County that all of the property be platted but these two
lots are not part in the truest sense of... As a matter of fact this lot is
built upon right now with a house on it.
Councilman Boyt: Well, my concern is that when we accept it as a lot, we're
saying someone can build on it and I'm not sure that I want to encourage people
to build on an unimproved road with a 30 foot wide possible road surface
unless ... trail system is -to lead into this park, is that right? Now the Park
and Rec people spent a fair amount of time talking about this. We have in the
Near Mountain area, which I believe is part of this development, people putting
together a request for stripping their road. That they're having problems with
the road that we call a road/trail combination. They're hoping that when it's
striped they'll have a little protection out there so I think there is a
concern in your neighborhood. There's another concern, the neighborhood would
like to have 20 mph speed limit signs so they apparently think that there is
some hazard in being out there on our trail which is right on the road.
I think that the City Council has changed it's philosophy about what's a safe
trail. From my part, I'll never vote to put a trail on the road. It's
cheaper. Maybe it looks nicer for the person who lives in that house but it's
definitely not safer and I wouldn't want my kids out there.riding around on
that road and that's all the kids have to do to get from one place to another
because they can't walk on people's grass so they're out there with those cars.
Dangerous. I agree that it is an inconvenience to have a trail in my frontyard
or anyone's frontyard but it's worse to have kids out in traffic. I have every
sympathy with the Park and Rec's determination. Removal of trees. All we're
asking you to do is get together with the DNR. It's a very easy thing to do. I
agree with your statement and in talking to some of the neighbors out there, I
think there's a sense that you're very reasonable here. I think the City is
very reasonable. On the third issue of the wetland, it is a wetland because
there is water 6 inches below the surface all the time and there's a hard pan
underneath it that keeps that water up in there. What I see by way of a pond
entrance at the other side of the development, it's got a fountain in it, or at
least the water is going up a considerable distance. Is that how you perceive
of this development? This end of it?
Peter Pflaum: It probably would be on the one there. There are two ponds on
either side. The one on the north, if we're going to put a fountain in or
small one to pipe it over there where it's right near the entrance. Not the
61
E-x�y Council Meeting - Ai 1 25, 1988
one further south that's in the wetland so we don't intend to put a fountain in
the one in the wetland.
Councilman Boyt: I know that the City has taken the opportunity from time to
time to improve wetlands. This is a wetland that I gather is serving a pretty
vital purpose in terms of holding water before it enters Lotus Lake and this
last summer it held water several feet deep so it has a purpose. You have an
opportunity to improve it. I think that as I read your comments in your letter
and to the Planning Commission, your concern was that you didn't want to run a
shallow layer out from the shoreline on 30% of the shoreline and you wanted to
discourage weed growth by making it more than 4 feet deep. I can understand
that if we're creating a reflecting pool but I think we're dealing with a
situation where we've got a wetland. I think wetlands are nice. I think they
are something we're lucky to have as many as we do and I would like to see you
improve this wetland, not change it's whole character. I guess that covers it.
Councilman Horn: I guess I would like an explanation of where the requirement
for sidewalks came from with respect to this particular request.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this item on March
22nd. The trail plan that showed where all the trails are on the little map
does not show where they are on streets that have not been platted yet so there
is a statement within the trail plan packet that says that all streets that
aren't cul-de-saced, an off-street trail should be acquired. That's where that
came from. Based on -.that, they made the recommendation.
Councilman Horn: So a cement sidewalk is what you call the off-street trail?
Lori Sietsema:. Yes.
Councilman Horn: And that requirement wasn't in existence when the first part
of the development was platted?
Lori Sietsema: That's correct.
Councilman Horn: Are we asking for them to extend it any further from the
particular area that they're asking for approval this evening?
Lori Sietsema: They will connect to on -street trails but they wouldn't
necessarily be connected to _where we don't have off-street trails. We don't
have that easement on those lots but we will be striping that street to connect
a trail that's connected to the street.
Councilman Horn: But are they confined to the area that they're asking for
approval? In other words, are we extending our trail method outside the area
that they're asking for approval on or just confining it to this particular
portion?
Lori. Sietsema: There is on -street trails outside of this section that they're
proposing to develop.
Councilman Horn: Right but I mean, of what we're requiring tonight, is it
included just in this approval? In other words, what I'm asking is to put a
trail on any other portion of the development does not cover this approval.
62
3-5
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
T_
ICouncilman Boyt: They already have a trail. It's on the street.
Lori Sietsema: It's on the street and they'll connect to those on -street
trails but they won't be constructing off-street trails.
Councilman Horn: Could you draw for me on this plan where that sidewalk would
go? It's easier to visualize than to try and read through the description such
as meets and bounds description. I'd rather see a plat.
Lori Sietsema: It would go along this road, along Timberhill Road, Oxbow and
then up to Trapper's Pass.
Councilman Horn: So it does go outside the area that they're asking approval
of tonight?
Lori Sietsema: It connects to the streets that are existing outside.
Peter Pflaum: The area we're seeking approval for runs about 50% up into the
existing PUD. Some of the land from the existing PUD and add it to the land
we're acquiring down here.
Councilman Horn: What is your gold area there that you're defining?
Peter Pflaum: The gold area is the land we're acquiring. That's the land
that's being added to the land in the PUD.
Councilman Horn: Confusing. We've got so many different designations. I'm
just confused as to exactly what you're looking for. I got the impression from
Peter that said that we were going beyond the area of approval.
Michael Pflaum: I think what Peter was referring to was an area north of this
line is the existing PUD in which there were no trail requirements. Because
we're combining some of the land up here and some land outside the PUD,
suddenly there's a trail up inside.
Councilman Horn: As far as the tree issue, how much of a problem is that for
the developer? How long does that take?
Barbara Dacy: Up until this point, we have not had any problems at all with
the tree removal plans. I wanted to make clear that we're not recommending
that the DNR would come out to the site. What would be submitted is along with
the Certificate of Survey for the construction of the individual single family
home, that they identify on the plan the construction zone and the area around
the house pad that they're going to be removing trees. We've been implementing
that with the Shadowmere Subdivision and other subdivisions that we've approved
in the last year and a half. It's more administrative for us.
Gary Warren: The building permits, that's when you're getting it in. Quite
honestly, the homeowner and a builder wants to.keep as many trees as they can.
I think the real purpose it served at Shadowmere was to do the DNR forestry
concept plan to give the developer some idea as he was laying out lots. Once
you get in the building phase, I guess I haven't observed that people have been
going in and removing trees anymore than they really have to.
X
' f Council Meeting - A 1 25, 1988
Councilman Horn: What I'm trying to get at is, it would appear that it's
something that the developer would have to do anyway for his own people when
they develop an area so they know the plan and layout of the lot. This tree
goes, this one doesn't.
Gary Warren: A lot of it will have to do with how the site grading balances
out and whether he has to do any soil correction on the lots because they like
to do that with heavy equipment out there and then sometimes you're taking more
trees than you would with a select property.
Councilman Horn: Is it normal that they come in with a plan anyway? To
develop a plan as to what trees go and what trees don't?
Gary Warren: Not unless we require it.
Councilman Horn: What's the problem in doing that in extra time or do you
think there would be a debate as to which ones you can take and which ones you
can't?
Peter Pflaum: It's just another piece of paper that we have to submit. What
you're really telling us, us and the homeowners, is we don't know how to take
care of the trees in the area and it's really offensive to us and it's just
another bureaucratic step, that's all. Of course we can do it but the thing
that sort of bothers us as developers, if any homeowner buys it, he can take
down any tree he wants and nobody cares. What I'm saying is, I think we've
demonstrated that we take care of the neighborhood. Take care of the trees and
we don't need somebody watching over us. That's all we're saying. I guess
it's just that simple. We think we're doing a good job. We haven't had any
complaints and we all have enough paperwork and enough people to check with,
why add another step?
Councilman Horn: It's like a lot of the laws. They don't help the people that
aren't causing the problem but we had other people causing a problem
unfortunately it creates a problem for you.
Peter Pflaum: But you have the power to waive it. It doesn't have to cross to
everyone.
Councilman Horn: I'm not sure our Attorney would allow us to be selective on
this.
Pat Farrell: No. You have an obligation to enforce the ordinance across the
board.
Peter Pflaum: Is this an ordinance?
Barbara Dacy: There is a section in the zoning ordinance.
Councilman Boyt: Nothing bigger than 6 inches.
Mayor Hamilton: When we went to using a forester to help us do it, that's not
part of an ordinance is it Barb?
:�i
�a
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
r - Barbara Dacy: The requirement for the forester, that's not part of the
ordinance. The issue is the removal plan.
Mayor Hamilton: That gets written into the development contract.
Councilman Boyt: While she's looking, I'd like to point out that the forester
was put in there to protect the new home buyer and the City of Chanhassen in
that the forester went through and said that tree's going to die because of
where you put your road. That tree's going to die because of where you put
your house. It hasn't been six months ago that the paper talked about the
number of homeowners, not people who bought in your particular division, but a
number of homeowners who had bought houses with beautiful trees to have them
die within 6 months to a year after they moved in. The forester can prevent
that because he can tell the developer that tree will not make it, take it out
now. That's how the forester can help you and help the people move in.
Mayor Hamilton: Did you find the tree removal?
Barbara Dacy: Section 20-1179. Tree removal regulations. It goes on to list
several standards that are available to the Council to require during
subdivision approval.
Councilman Geving: I think it's important to apply our standards across the
board and it may be an inconvenience for you guys but it protects us. The big
thing about this particular extension of your development is that it follows
the phased approach that we started a long time ago. I see this as just a
continuation and I think we're probably into what? The third or fourth phase
or wherever you are, so I don't see anything major here as far as the
subdivision that we're looking at. The only thing I do want to question is
what is the cost for the sidewalks that are being proposed? What would be the
cost to you?
Michael Pflaum: About $25, 000. 00.
Councilman Geving: Over and above the striping and what had been required in
the past? Okay, this is a new requirement. You feel that the City has
changed it's way of doing business since we started this PUD and Lori., are we
doing this now across the board in all of our new subdivisions? Even
extensions of old PUD's where they're phasing out and finishing up the final
development?
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission has stuck very closely to
what they adopted as their trail plan so I would say yes.
Councilman Geving: But in this particular case a developer has built out
probably 75% or 80% of the development and at the very last part of the
development now we're interjecting some new rules that says we're going to put
in some sidewalks. Is that correct?
Lori Sietsema: I think what the Park and Recreation Commission would say is
they are able to make it safe for the people in this section of the subdivision
of this PUD. It wasn't done at the beginning but at least in this section
there will be safe places for children and adults and
People to walk and ride
bikes.
65
jC�ty Council Meeting - AL 'l 25, 1988
r
Councilman Geving: From an Attorney's standpoint, are we on solid ground?
Pat Farrell: Yes.
Councilman Geving: We are? Okay. The only other comment that I have to make
is in regard to the Fish and Wildlife recommendations for the pondi.ng areas and
I think they're right on track. These people are professionals in their field
and they've looked at the site. They've made these recommendations and I think
they're solid so I'd like to stay with them.
Councilman Johnson: I'm totally in support of the sidewalks leading to the
park. The people in part of Near Mountain now don't have access. There should
have been a trail through the one place to arrive it down. I don't know if
there is a trail platted there. I'm not sure. There is a wide spot between
two homes that runs out to Pleasant View and the place disappears, the berm
disappears. Is that supposed to be a trail there?
Michael Pflaum: Yes, that was deeded to the City two years ago.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, we need to get a trail in there so that people can
get out there.
Lori Sietsema: It's scheduled for this summer.
Councilman Johnson: Great. Just to go on and complete our trail system so
these trails inside the thing actually go someplace. Now we have trails that
start someplace and they end up at a park. How about that? I'm for doing a
few more things on the wetlands that aren't on here. I have condition 7 and 8
and I'm all for the six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife people on the pond. -
I'd like to see on the west side of that pond, not necessarily on the east side
of the pond, your emergent vegetation. They talked about 30% of the edge of
the pond. That doesn't mean you have to put that on the east side of the pond.
I think you can have a nice clear water pond on the east side with the cattails
or whatever on the west side so we meet both requirements. I'd like to see a
conservation easement all the way around this wetland to enable the City in the
future to provide more wildlife habitat on there without having to go to each
individual homeowner and say, if we looked in the future to taking this meadows
wetland and further developing it, we can make it into a little prettier area
that wetland habitat. It's kind of an old farm field type habitat right now
and I'd like to see it maintained for future generations that we have a wetland
here. I'd like to see all homeowners be informed in writing and deed
restrictions that the lots contain a city protected wetland and further
alterations of said wetland will require a wetland alteration permit from the
City. Did you write that down? What I'm trying to do protect that wetland for
the future. On the clearcutti.ng of the trees, cutting of trees, I'm
absolutely, you've got to have that plan. Go over to Pheasant Hills. There's
a new home that was built. The homeowner said I don't want any trees so the
builder took them all out. We've got this nice little stand of trees, they
took all the trees right down to a swamp. They filled dirt in right down to
the wetland area. No wetland alteration permit that I ever heard of. No
clearcutti.ng plan or anything. All of a sudden I went driving by there and
where there used to be trees, there's now sod. The entire back. He sodded his
entire yard.- Pushed it right down to the wetlands and that's what we're trying
to prevent. Those cases, those abuses. I've seen what you've done and you've
City Council Meeting April 25, 1988
done an excellent job. I applaud you completely but there's other people out
there we have to protect ourselves from and you're not one but we be lax on you
and the next guy comes in and says, well you dial it for him, do it for me. I'm
a good guy too. If that homeowner comes in and says I don't want any trees,
I'm working on some ordinances to help protect that later. So anyway, when we
get to vote on this, I'd like to see two items added. One is a conservation
easement 25 horizontal feet from the edge of the wetlands, approximately. That
we can then preserve that wetlands and that will be right in the people's deeds
so they know that they can't mess with that wetlands. Let the people be
informed of that. That's the range of my comments.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm still not in favor of putting in sidewalks. I don't think
they're needed. They haven't been in the rest of the subdivision. I see no
reason to start now. You put in a sidewalk, where are the kids going to ride
their bikes? They'll be in the street. They'll probably walk in the street
too so I think it's fine in a new subdivision. It's just as well when you
start it, you might as well put them in. It's not needed here. You do a
really good job with the trees. I think commented on that before. Somebody
owns a piece of property and they wanted to cut all the dang trees down, I
guess that's their business. If they like grass more than they do trees, it's
up to than to do what they want with their own land.
Councilman Johnson moved to approve the Subdivision Request #79-2 for 32.5
acres into 34 single family lots with the 17 conditions outlined by the
Planning Commission with condition 18 as follows:
18. That a conservation easement be established around the wetlands in Block 4,
Lots 1-9, extending 25 horizontal feet upland from the edge of the wetlands
and that the homeowners be informed in writing of the conservation easement
and the restrictions of their activities within the conservation easement.
There was no second and motion failed for lack of second.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve Subdivision
Request #79-2 subject to the following conditions:
1. A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building permit
application for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3, and
Lots 7-14, Block 4.
2. Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit.
3. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper
installation of these improvements.
4. The developer shall obtain and comply with all`conditi.ons of the Watershed
District permit and the permit from the Department of Natural Resources.
5. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the initiation of
any grading, and once in place shall remain in place throughout the
duration of construction. All of the erosion control measures shall remain
67
4. y Council Meeting - Al 1 25, 1988
intact until an estalbished vegetative cover has been produced, at which
time removal shall be the responsibility of the developer.
6. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stablize slopes
greater than 3:1.
7. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards
for urban construction.
8. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer details for
the construction of the barricade on the dead end of Trappers Pass
between Lot l of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4 with the plans and
specifications.
9. Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side of the Class B
wetland along the rear of Lots 1-9 of Block 4. The City's standard detail
for the installation of Type II erosion control (staked bales and snow
fence) shall be placed on the grading plan.
10. Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall along both
sides of Trappers Pass dead end shall be submitted as a part of the plans
and specifications review for approval by the City Engineer.
11. Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4, as depicted on Sheet No. 1 of the plan set dated
February 18, 1988 shall be revised to show the correct property boundaries.
12. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such that it forms a
"T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois Avenue.
13. The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along the common
lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which will serve as an emergency
overflow swale for the ponding site of Lot 2, Block 3.
14. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front and
rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and utility
easements for ponding sites and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on
the final plat.
15. All private drives shall access internal streets to the subdivision. No
driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant View Road.
16. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the time of plans and
specifications submittal and design adjustments made accordingly, if
necessary, to facilitiate proper conveyance of stormwater under Pleasant
View Road.
Councilman Horn, Councilman Gevi.ng and Mayor Hamilton voted in favor;
Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition and the motion
passed with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded.to approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit Request #88-5 to permit development within 200 feet of the
Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within the Class
B wetland with the following conditions:
m
City Council Meeting April 25, 1988
1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must meet the
following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service:
a. The basin will have free form.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for
at least 300 of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent
vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The bain will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water
depth to (a0 provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in
shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent
vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland
being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for
aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the pond
within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details on area of
construction for the pond within the wetland and how the remaining wetland
will be preserved.
3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8, Block 4
to completely protect the wetland from any construction activity.
4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4) must meet the 75
foot setback from the edge of the wetland.
5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration of the
wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4 beyond the 914 elevation..
6. The developer shall make every effort in it's pond design to improve the
wetland and make the wetland an attractive useful wildlife habitat.
7. That a conservation easement be established around the wetlands in Block 4,
Lots 1-9, extending 25 hori-zontal feet upland from the edge of the wetlands
and that the homeowners be informed in writing of the conservation easement
and the restrictions of their activities within the conservation easement.
All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: As I gather this wetland, a conservation easement may not
accomplish very much if the wetland isn't very noticeable in it's location. I
can see where we want to say to the people that the wetland itself should not
69
2,2 '1-)
City Council Meeting - Al j-1 25, 1988
be disturbed. I can support that. I have a little difficulty telling them
that we really need this 25 foot extension out from the wetland if in fact the
wetland is very marginal and you're telling me it's very marginal.
Councilman Johnson: The 25 is kind of a buffer area because you don't know
exactly where it is. It's a pretty flat area and it's plus or minus 10 or 20
feet on where somebody would interpret it is so that's why I wanted the extra
feet in there.
Barbara Dacy: Maybe I can resolve some of your concerns. Number one, we would
retain a drainage easement over the edge of the wetland area. Nummer two, the
intent of condition 5 on the deed restrictions, that's consistent with what we
did on Kurver's Point. That the deed restrictions be recorded on those lots to
make them aware that they can't alter that wetland without a wetland alteration
permit. Third, we do have that 75 foot structure setback anyway so I think you
can achieve the same intent that you're after with basically, (1) make sure
that they don't touch it without authorization and (2) that area around the
wetland to be preserved. You can't put any structures in that setback.
Councilman Johnson: The conservation easement does one more thing. It gives
us access to it for conservation purposes where utilities easement gives us
access to it for utility purposes. y
Barbara Dacy: Right. The most recent version of the conservation easement,
that is correct. It just depends on how much control the Council actually
wants to take on this particular area.
Michael Pflaum: Excuse me, what was the motion?
Councilman Johnson: I think we added the conservation easement.
Barbara Dacy: The six recommendations from the Planning Commission plus a 7th,
a conservation easement.
Michael Pflaum: And where does the conservation end?
Councilman Geving: 25 feet.
Barbara Dacy: From the edge of the wetland.
Michael Pflaum: What is the definition of a conservation easement?
Councilman Boyt: You can't mow it. You can't plant grass. You can't do
anything in there really.
Michael Pflaum: With all due respect, I guess this issue is a dead one because
we have met all of them.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. But they can't go in and sod. Homeowners
will do strange things.
Peter Pflaum: Is this something you require of all wetlands? A conservation
easement all around them?
70
City Council Meeting April 25, 1988
T— Councilman Johnson: Quite a few.
Mayor Hamilton: Yes, we've been pretty consistent on that.
Peter Pflaum: Have you extended the easement outside of the wetland?
Councilman Johnson: In many cases, the Chan Vista down here, it's up the side
of the hill some 40 feet or so. Vertically up the hill. It's almost three -
fourths the way into the property there. Of course, that's a city park too.
Councilman Geving: We have it on the north end of Lotus Lake where the
Pleasant View Road runs along the lake. On the lake side, that's a
conservation easement. Property lines do not extend across the road and down
to the lake.
Michael Pflaum: It seems a little harsh on the homeowner. They're already
giving up a significant portion of their property to wetlands. To tack onto
that 25 feet that isn't wetland...
Peter Pflaum: It's argumentative whether it's a city created wetland.
Mayor Hamilton: I can't disagree with you.
Councilman Boyt: Why 25 feet?
Councilman Johnson: I'm willing to reconsider 25 foot and go right with the
utility easement. To make it a lot easier on the platting, they only have to
draw one line. The marginal side of this.
Barbara Dacy: I think that would be good if the Council took that direction
because the Chan Vista example versus this example, they are totally different.
Mayor Hamilton: That was the intent of your motion was to actually go with the
utility easement. That was your intent. Let the record show that that's what
the motion was.
Councilman Geving: I'd like to have the motion reconsidered.
Councilman Johnson: Let's do it the right way.
Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to reconsider the motion
on the Wetland Alteration. Permit for the Trappers Pass Addition. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: The question I'm asking is, granted that the distance is I
think excessive, although I voted for it but have we clearly got this meadow
protected?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
Councilman Boyt: You can't build within 75 feet of it?
Barbara Dacy: Yes.
71
24
City Council N.eeti.ng - ApLj.1 25, 1988
Councilman Boyt: Can you put a shed up within 20 feet of it?
Barbara Dacy: No. You have a 75 foot setback.
Councilman Boyt: You can't put anything in. What about a fence?
Barbara Dacy: A fence, yes. You can go along the lot lines down to the edge
of the wetland. You can't go into the wetland because that would be protected
by the easement.
Councilman Boyt: This is a meadow. It's going to be hard to tell where the
grass stops and the meadow starts right or this is a low grade wetland. What
kind of steps is the City going to take to show people where it is?
Barbara Dacy: It is defi.neable out in the field. It's fairly clear from going
out there that you can observe i.t. And you could have the developers stake the
edge of the wetland, the contour elevation.
Councilman Boyt: If we give up the 25 feet, will you go out and stake the edge
of the wetland so people know where it is?
Barbara Dacy:- As a matter of fact, isn't there erosion control being proposed
around certain portions of it also that defines it.
Gary Warren: Put the erosion control barrier right down to the edge.
Councilman Johnson: The survey on the Chan Vista, they put permanent stakes in
at the conservation easement along the lot lines.
Gary Warren: Well, temporary stakes.
Rick Sayther: 'We would actually set the lot corners on the lot lines at the
easement line. It'd be kind of needless to go out in the wetland and pound
irons in the ground. That's where the lot line would be. At the easement
line.
Councilman Boyt: So you'd be willing to take responsibility for notifying the
owners as to where the wetland actually existed? The 25 feet gives us a
cushion Tom. If nothing else it says you can't do anything within 25 feet of
it so you're probably not going to cut down into it and if you would help us
establish that same limit, than maybe we don't have the need for the 25 feet.
Rick Sayther: We could help you establish it but on the one hand we're saying,
put something out there that people can see. On the other hand we're saying
keep it natural so the vegetation can grow on it.
Councilman Boyt: Well, the people don't have to see it forever. It's the
idea, if they're never told, if it appears on the deed, they're going to miss
it. If they go out there and there's a stake, I've got confidence that it
wi.11...
Rick Sayther: I think a combination of the documentation and the stakes being
up and the fact that you show the people on the survey that the homeowners have
72
City Council Meeting - April 25, 1988
should be adequate for them to know where it is.
Gary Warren: Restrictive Covenants would serve the same purpose.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Wetland
Alteration Permit Request #88-5 to permit development with 200 feet of the
Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be constructed within a Class B
wetland with the following conditions:
1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must meet the
following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife Service:
a. The basin will have free form.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for
at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent
vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
c. The bai_n will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water
depth to (a0 provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in
shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent
vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland
being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for
aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the pond
within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details on area of
construction for the pond within the wetland and how the remaining wetland
will be preserved.
3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8, Block 4
to completely protect the wetland from any construction activity.
4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4) must meet the 75
foot setback from the edge of the wetland.
5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration of the
wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4 beyond the 914 elevation.
6. The developer shall make every effort in it's pond design to improve the
wetland and make the wetland an attractive useful wildlife habitat.
All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and motion carried.
73
4`9 ._
l�y Council Meeting - Al 1 25, 1988
Councilman Johnson: I'm going to vote against it because I'd like to see the
conservation easement put over the top of the utility easement to give the
City...
Councilman Geving: You can vote against it but that's not my motion.
Councilman Boyt: I think you're accepting the conditions that the developer
just agreed to Dale?
Councilman Geving: That's correct.
Councilman Johnson: The conservation easement gives us rights for conservation
purposes to that area where a utility easement, which you're asking for, does
not give us those rights. We still have a wetland alteration but I'm just
trying to give a little more extra rights.
AWARD OF BIDS, DOWNTOWN ENTRY MONUMENT.
Don Ashworth: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority agreed on this past
Thursday to approve the bids for the clock tower and the one entry monument.
The other entry monument is an assessable cost back against the Bloomberg
Companies. Accordingly, only the City Council can make that award. Staff is
recommending that the award be made for that one item realizing that the bid
again is for three items. You are only approving one of those three.
Councilman Johnson: Which one?
Mayor Hamilton: That's for the entry monuments. Entry monuments are
assessable back to...
Don Ashworth: Really only the one of those and that is the gazebo and the cost
on that is the $70,900.00.
Councilman Johnson: Has Bloomberg Companies who's going to be assessed back
and pay for this construction on their property basically, have they looked and
have they said that they would like this construction company, the low bidder,
to do this? Have they reviewed the construction company and they don't have a
problem with it? They believe they'll get a quality product from them?
Don Ashworth: They reviewed it. They dial have an opportunity themselves to
take a bid on it. They're concern with the price, because they were hoping it
would be less. They were informed at the beginning of the project that the
cost was estimated to be in excess of $60,000.00 so they're not overly
surprised and if they would be, I would anticipate that them being present
tonight.
Resolution #88-37: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve
the award of the bid of $70,900.00 to Morcon Construction for the gazebo entry
monument with the provision of assessing the $70,900.00 back to the Bloomberg
Companies. All voted in favor and motion carried.
74
City Council Meeting - aril 25, 1988
realize you need every dollar the DNR spends there, the EPA spends a dollar on
non -point sources or whatever, if it's significant to remove it from the
project or if the City is willing to pay that part of the cost themselves
because that's a little lake. I'd hate to see six more boats on that lake
during the day. It may work out.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Jim Wehrle: I am the president of the dear Mountain Homeowners Association and
I had given some thought to stopping into the meeting this evening in any case
but after city action that was taken in my neighborhood today, I think I had
300 irrate homeowners calling me insisting that I do so. My question has to do
with the construction of or erection today of no turn signs in and out of our
subdivision. For the last several years we have had free access in and out of
our development and although the exit from our subdivision onto Pleasant View
is on something of an angle, it's been relatively easily negoiated and
presented no great difficulty in making a right turn. There's been some
difficulty perhaps on the part of school buses turning off Pleasant View into
our development because of the angle that was put there but nevertheless we all
bought our homes with the understanding that we had this egress from our
development. Even on your agenda this evening, presumably you will be
approving a new addition to Near Mountain that will once again develop an
additional point of exit or entrance into Near Mountain that will presumably be
unrestricted so we -don't see the justification. I'd like to ask if you could
have your public safety or engineering or whatever department possibly address
this and get these things taken down as soon as possible.
Mayor Hamilton: Are you aware of that Gary? That it was put up? I hope
somebody's aware.
Gary Warren: Yes, I talked with Jim earlier and public safety is actually
looking to get signs put up so they could enforce the conditions of the
approval of the original development which goes back 4 or 5 years ago. I don't
know if Jim wants to comment about the public safety.
Councilman Horn: It's not a public safety issue. This body decided that
that's the way that access would work.
Mayor Hamilton: I don't recall us ever saying that there would be no right out
onto Pleasant View however and I can't imagine that we're going to try to cut
off another neighborhood from having egress and ingress some one neighborhood
to another. It doesn't seen to make a lot of sense to me.
Jim Wehrle: I guess that's a lot of our concern is the confusion over the
issue and we've been in there for several years now and if this body, when they
approved the PUD or whenever, wanted that done, why weren't those signs put up
4 years ago. Who at this point in time suddenly authorized that these signs go
up today after we've been in there for years and this has presented no safety
problem and the representative of the City that erected them today told all the
irrate citizens that stopped and inquired, that it was not a safety issue.
Mayor Hamilton: I think what we need to do is have Gar 1
ook at it and Jim if there's no reason why those signs should be up there,, that should come back
d
11
ems^
City Council Meeting - AE_—1 25, 1988
here for our review and approval with the public safety recommendation. I
would think it should go to that body first.
Jim Wehrle: In the meantime I'm afraid we've got a lot of citizens that are
going to be running illegally through these signs. Can they be taken down
until this is resolved?
Mayor Hamilton: I think they should be taken down.
Gary Warren: We'll put some covers on them so they're not active.
Councilman Johnson: Didn't this come out of the people further down Pleasant
View that didn't want the traffic?
Mayor Hamilton: That's always the case.
Councilman Johnson: So it was a decision and it was an error on the City's or
the developer's part not putting them up 5 years ago. In order to make the
change I think we ought to talk to the Pleasant View people.
Mayor Hamilton: I was here 5 years ago and I don't remember that we were going
to do that and you weren't here so I don't know how...
Councilman Johnson: I actually remember it because it made some newspapers or
something.
Jim Wehrle: I guess I'd just point out what the apparent inconsistency or
possibly even the irrational logic behind making that no right turn and yet
we've got a new exit coming out of the development being approved here tonight
that's not going to put that restraint on it. Will there be some sort of
opportunity for public comment when this is discussed?
Mayor Hamilton: Yes.
Jim Wehrle: Is is safe to assume that will be at the next meeting of the City
Council?
Don Ashworth: Probably not if it does go to public safety first. It may go to
one of our committees but I'll get a hold of you Jim.
Mayor Hamilton: If it goes to public safety, you'll be notified of that
meeting also and you can come there and make comment.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REALLOCATION OF YEAR XIII COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS.
Mayor Hami 1 ton called the public hearing to order.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was
closed.
Mayor Hamilton: This is last year's funds?
12
ITY OF
?1-��';� CHANHASSEN
Z
11.
CL
Q
0
W
LVA
STAFF REPORT
7-
C. DATE: April 6, 1988
C.C. DATE: April 25, 1988
CASE NO: 79-2 PUD/88-2 WAP
Prepared by: Olsen/v
PROPOSAL: 1. Subdivide 321 Acres into 34 Single Family Lots
2. Receive a Wetland Alteration Permit Create
a Pond within a Class B Wetland
LOCATION: Extension of the Near Mountain Subdivision - North
and adjacent to Pleasant View Road, approximately
West of Hwy. 101
APPLICANT: Lundgren Brothers Construction
935 East Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
PRESENT ZONING:
PUD-R, Planned Unit Development
RSF, Residential Single
Family
ACREAGE:
32'1 acres (Net-23 acres)
DENSITY:
1.5 units/acre (net)
Endorse,+
ADJACENT ZONING
Modified ----
AND LAND USE: N—
PUD—R; Near Mountain
Rejected
S-
RSF; single family
00 sum r. to, mm crf
"""! 6~�
E-
PUD-R; Near Mountain
BuumRsea :,
�y
W-
RSF; single family
_�
WATER AND SEWER:
Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARAC.:
The site contains a large Class B wetland
and wooded areas.
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Residential Low Density
?•!8
1
0
..•,. .,lam,
ZI:xsdw ., . �'la
f1cm,16 r -�i�.►n�
• ter. ter. �.. •r. r--, � � �e��
/_1
Trappers ?ass
April 6, 1988
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-615 of the RSF District requires a minimum lot area of
15,000 square feet, a minimum lot frontage of 90 feet and a lot
depth of 125 feet (Attachment W .
Section 20-409 (1 & 2) requires a minimum lot area of 15,000
square feet for lots adjacent to a wetland and a 75 foot setback
for structures from the ordinary high water mark of a wetland
(Attachment #2).
REFERRAL AGENCIES
City Engineer
Building Department
Public Safety
Park and Recreation
A NAT,Yq T S
Preliminary Plat
Commission
Attachment
#3
Attachment
#4
Attachment
#5
Attachment
#6
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 321 acres of property
into 34 single family lots. The property is an extension of the
Near Mountain and Trappers Pass subdivision. Page 4 of the plans
shows the property being added to the Near Mountain PUD. The
majority of the subject property is zoned RSF, and a small number
of lots are zoned PUD-R. The PUD lots are proposed to be
replatted to be consistent with the area to the south. Because
there are no changes in the number of lots in the existing PUD
area and bcause a majority of land area is zoned RSF, and outside
of the original PUD area, this application has been processed as
a preliminary plat. All lots meet the RSF requirements.
Lot Layout
The gross acreage of the site is 32.5 acres and the net acreage
(minus streets and wetland) is 23 acres. The net density is 1.5
units per acre.
The lots are located along two roads extended from existing Near
Mountain roads, Trappers Pass and Oxbow Bend. The plat is also
providing a secondary access to Pleasant View Road from the sub-
division, Timberhill Road. The subdivision provides future
extension to Outlot D at the end of Trappers Pass which has been
designated as High Density as part of the PUD approval in 1980.
The Fire Inspector recommends that Trappers Pass where it ends
next to Outlot D should be provided with a temporary cul-de-sac.
Due to the steep slope at the end of Trappers Pass, the temporary
cul-de-sac would have to have a retaining wall installed. As a
compromise, staff has agreed to recommend barriers across the end
extension of Trappers Pass to prevent cars entering the dead end
and not being able to turn around (Attachment #7).
Trappers Pass
April 6, 1988
Page 3
Lots 15 and 16, Block 4 are separated from the Near Mountain
development. Lot 15 will be serviced by Indian Hill Road. Lot
16 abuts a 15 foot unimproved right-of-way and will be serviced
by a driveway at the corner of Indian Hill Road and Valhalla
Avenue. Lots 1 through 9, Block 4 abut a Class B wetland and
contain the minimum requirement of 15,000 square feet of lot area
and provide adequate area beyond the 75 foot wetland setback for
the location of the single family residence. Lot 2, Block 4 has
buildable area for a single family residence but is somewhat
restricted by the wetland setback. The developer must understand
that the proposed residence and any additions (porches) must
maintain a 75 foot setback from the wetland. Lot 2, Block 3 will
have similar restraints due to the proposed holding pond on the
lot (Page 2 and 3 of plans).
Portions of the proposed site are heavily vegetated. To prevent
clearcutting of the site staff recommends that a tree removal
plan be provided at the time of building permit application for
Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3 and Lots
7-14, Block 4.
Streets, -Utilities, and Gradin_and_Draina;e
In the attached memo, the City Engineer reviews the proposed
streets, utilities, and grading and drainage of the site.
Park and Recreation Commission
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat
on March 22, 1988. The Commission recommended that the applicant
construct off street trails along Trappers Pass, Oxbow Bend and
Timberhill Road. Park dedication fees will be required and trail
dedication fees will be waived (Attachment W .
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed plat meets all of the requirements for an RSF
District. Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission
adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision #79-2
for 34 single family lots as shown on the plan stamped "Received
March 14, 1988", and subject to the following conditions:
1. A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building
permit application for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2,
Lot 1, Block 3, and Lots 7-14, Block 4.
2. The applicant shall construct off street trails along Trappers
Pass, Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted
and trail fees waived.
3. Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit.
Trappers Pass
April 6, 1988
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of
Subdivision Request #79-2 subject to the following conditions:
1. A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building
permit application for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2,
Lot 1, Block 3, and Lots 7-14, Block 4.
2. The applicant shall construct off street trails along Trappers
Pass, Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted
and trail fees waived.
3. Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit.
4. The developer shall enter into a development contract with
the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee the proper installation of these improvements.
5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit and the permit from the
Department of Natural Resources.
6. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading, and once in place shall remain in
place throughout the duration of construction. All of the
erosion control measures shall remain intact until an
established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time
removal shall be the responsiblity of the developer.
7. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi-
lize slopes greater than 3:1.
8. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City's standards for urban construction.
9. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer
details for the construction of the barricade on the dead end
of Trappers Pass between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4
with the plans and specifications.
10. Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side
of the Class B wetland along the rear of Lots 1 through 9 of
Block 4. The City's standard detail for the installation of
Type II erosion control (staked bales and snow fence) shall
be placed on the grading plan.
11. Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall
along both sides of Trappers Pass dead end shall be submitted
as a part of the plans and specifications review for
approval by the City Engineer.
Trappers Pass
April 6, 1988
Page 5
12. Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4, as depicted on Sheet No. 1 of the
plan set dated February 18, 1988, shall be revised to show the
correct property boundaries.
13. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such
that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along
the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which
will serve as an emergency overflow swale for the ponding
site of Lot 2, Block 3.
15. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the
side, front and rear of the lots in addition to all
appropriate drainage and utility easements for ponding sites
and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on the final plat.
16. All private drives shall access internal streets to the sub-
division. No driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant
View Road.
17. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the
time of plans and specifications submittal and design adjust-
ments made accordingly, if necessary, to facilitate proper
conveyance of stormwater under Pleasant View Road.
STAFF UPDATE
The applicant suggested an alterantive to the language of con-
dition #1 regarding the necessity of tree removal plans:
1. There shall be no clearcutting of lots.
This is acceptable to staff; however, the city has approved the
tree removal plan condition on the Shadowmere, Kurver's Point,
Eight Acre Woods, and Creek Run subdivisions. The Planning
Commission chose to maintain the condition as originally written.
The applicant will address the Council on this matter.
CITY_COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve Subdivision
Request #79-2 subject to the 17 conditions as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
N
Trappers Pass
April 6, 1988
Page 6
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit to
construct a holding pond within a Class B wetland. The wetland
located in the southerly portion of the site is a Class B wetland
with approximately 4.9 acres of wetland within the proposed site.
The applicant has provided data on the wetland and the proposed
alteration to the wetland (Attachment #8).
The applicant is proposing to construct a holding pond within the
wetland area. The holding pond is required to maintain the
predevelopment rate of stormwater runoff on site. The applicant
is also providing two other ponding areas which will collect
stormwater prior to it entering the wetland. As stated in the
informational sheets provided by the applicant, the pond will be
developed to the six standards of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Staff visited the site with Dr. Rockwell (in 1987) and recently
with Jim Leach from the Wildlife Service and it was determined
that the Class B wetland was in marginal condition and that the
construction of a pond within a small portion of the wetland
would not be detrimental to the wetland. It was also pointed out
by Dr. Rockwell that increased drainage of the wetland through
the outlet under Pleasant View Road would not be advised. The
applicant is not proposing to change the elevation of the
existing outlet and therefore the wetland will not be further
drained.
The edge of the wetland is at the 914 contour shown on page 3 of
the plans and the low area of the wetland is at the 912 elevation.
The low elevation of the proposed pond is at the 908 elevation.
The invert of the outlet to permit drainage from the wetland is
at the 913 contour. Therefore, the pond will promote standing
water in the wetland.
The proposed lots along the
requirement of 15,000 square
the 75 feet for the wetland
the proposed erosion control
and 8, Block 4 to completely
tion of the site.
RECOMMENDATION
Class B wetland meet the minimum
feet of lot area and are providing
setback. Staff is recommending that
around the wetland include Lots 7
protect the wetland during construc-
The proposed development within 200 feet of the wetland will not
directly impact the wetland through construction. The wetland
will be protected by erosion control and no construction will be
permitted beyond the erosion control fence into the wetland. The
proposed pond within the Class B wetland will increase the
holding capacity and standing water within the wetland which is
beneficial to the wetland. The pond will be constructed to the
six conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Trappers Pass
April 6, 1988
Page 7
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit #88-5 to permit development within 200 feet of
the Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be
constructed within the Class B wetland with the following
conditions:
1. The holding ponds must meet the following six conditions
established by the Fish and Wildlife Service:
a. The basin will have free form (no even -sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
feeding and resting birds.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
10:1 - 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
food for wildlife.
C. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0
feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to pro-
vide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser
pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland.
2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction
of the pond within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall
provide details on area of construction for the pond within the
wetland and how the remaining wetland will be preserved.
3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7
and 8, Block 4 to completely protect the wetland from any
construction activity.
4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4)
must meet the 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland.
Trappers Pass
April 6, 1988
Page 8
5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting
alteration of the wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4,
beyond the 914 elevation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the wetland
alteration permit with the following changes to the motion:
1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must
meet the following six conditions established by the Fish and
Wildlife Service:
a. The basin will have free form.
6. The developer shall make every effort in it's pond design to
improve the wetland and make the wetland an attractive useful
wildlife habitat.
STAFF UPDATE
The applicant requested the Planning Commission consider
approving the wetland alteration permit without the requirements
of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The applicant wants to create
the pond as an aesthetic feature near the entrance of the sub-
division (similar to existing entrance). The applicant pointed
out that a small area will be altered in comparison to the total
wetland area. The Planning Commission made a minor change to the
conditions of approval but maintained the requirement that it be
developed to promote wetland vegetation and habitat.
The applicant may address the Council on this issue as well.
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended
Alteration Permit
recommended by the
ATTACHMENTS
that the City Council approve Wetland
Request #88-2 subject to the conditions as
Planning Commission.
1. Section 20-615 of City Code.
2. Section 20-409 of City Code.
3. Memo from Asst. City Engineer dated March 31, 1988.
4. Memo from Building Department dated March 28, 1988.
5. Memo from Fire Inspector dated March 30, 1988.
6. Park and Recreation Commission March 31, 1988.
7. Location of Trappers Pass Barrier.
8. Wetland data
9. Application
10. Planning Commission minutes dated April 6, 1988.
11. Preliminary plat stamped "Received March 14, 1988".
ZONING § 20-631
Sec. 20-614. Conditional uses.
The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" District:
(1) Churches.
(2) Private stables, subject to provisions of chapter 5, article III.
(3) Recreational beach lots.
(4) Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of five (5) acres.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-4), 12-15-86)
State law reference —Conditional uses, M.S. § 462.3595.
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to
additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet.
(2) The minimum lot frontage is ninety (90) feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac
shall be ninety (90) feet in width at the building setback line.
(3) The minimum lot depth is one hundred fifty (150) feet.
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25)
percent.
(5) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, thirty (30) feet.
b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet.
c. For side yards, ten (10) feet.
(6) The maximum height is as follows:
a. For the principal structure, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
b. For accessory structures, three (3) stories/forty (40) feet.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 5(5-5-5), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-616-20-630. Reserved.
ARTICLE XIII. "R-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-631. Intent.
The intent of the "R-4" District is to provide for single-family and attached residential
development at a maximum net density of four (4) dwelling units per acre.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 6(5-6-1), 12-15-86)
1209
§ 20-407
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
(4) Sedimentation basins for construction projects.
(5) Open storage.
(6) Animal feedlots.
(7) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
(8) Operation of motorized craft of all sizes and classifications.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-5), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20408. Prohibited uses in class B wetlands.
The following uses are prohibited in class B wetlands:
(1) Disposal of waste material including, but not limited to, sewage, demolition debris,
hazardous and toxic substances, and all waste that would normally be disposed of at a
solid waste disposal site or into a sewage disposal system or sanitary sewer.
(2) Solid waste disposal sites, sludge ash disposal sites, hazardous waste transfer or
disposal -sites.
(3) Animal feedlots.
(4) The planting of any species of the genus Lythrum.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-6), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-409. General development regulations.
Within wetland areas and for lands abutting or adjacent to a horizontal distance of two
hundred (200) feet, the following minimum provisions are applicable:
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet.
(2) The minimum structure setback is seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary high water
mark.
(3) Septic and soil absorption system setbacks are two hundred (200) feet from ordinary
high water mark.
(4) The lowest ground floor elevation is three (3) feet above ordinary high water mark.
(5) No development shall be allowed which may result in unusual road maintenance
costs or utility line breakages due to soil limitation, including high frost action.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 24(5-24-13), 12-15-86)
Secs. 20-410-20-420. Reserved.
1190
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Larry Brown, Staff Engineer 5,1
DATE: March 31, 1988 r�
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Trappers Pass 3rd Addition
Planning File No. 79-2 PUD, Lundgren Bros. Construction
This 34-lot subdivision is located along the west side of
Pleasant View Road approximately one-fourth mile west of
State Trunk Highway 101. The 32.5-acre site is comprised of
rolling hills along the north half of the site and a low-lying
area on the south half of the site which contains a Class B
wetland in the southeast corner.
Sanitary Sewer
The proposed sanitary sewer plan connects to the existing sani-
tary sewer mains along Trappers Pass, Oxbow Bend and Pleasant
View Road. The proposed sewer mains have been adequately sized
to accommodate the 34 lots as well as subsequent subdivisions
located to the west of Near Mountain 3rd Addition.
Water Service
Similarly, the plans propose a looped
through this site by the extension of
Trappers Pass, Oxbow Bend and Pleasant
watermains have also been sized at an
accommodate future phases of the PUD.
ments will be reviewed with submital o
specifications.
Roadway
network of the watermains
the watermains along
View Road. The proposed
8-inch diameter pipe to
Specific valve require-
f the design plans and
The applicant has provided for a 50-foot right-of-way which is
consistent with the City's standards for urban construction.
A 10% street grade is proposed for the dead end extension of
Trappers Pass between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4.
The City's recommended maximum street grade is 7.0%. However,
due to the extreme topography in this area and lack of alter-
natives, the 10% grade is acceptable.
A-MAC44meivr d 3
Planning Commission
March 31, 1988
Page 2
Normally, it is required that a temporary cul-de-sac be
constructed on a dead end such as the one referenced above. The
construction of this cul-de-sac would necessitate extreme lengths
of retaining wall around the temporary cul-de-sac, only to be
removed upon the extension of Trappers Pass to the west in the
future. Since the lots abutting this dead end have access to the
thru portion of Trappers Pass, this dead end shall be barricaded
at its easterly intersection thus eliminating the need for the
temporary cul-de-sac.
Sheet No. 1 of the plan set shows Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4
extending beyond the existing right-of-way noted as Iroquois.
These should be revised to coincide with Sheets 2 and 3 of
the plan set.
The extension of Iroquois Avenue to the east of Valhalla is not
practical due to the existing road patterns, topography, and the
location of Pleasant View Road to Lots 4, 5 and 6 of Pleasant
View. Therefore, additional right-of-way along Lot 16 of Block 4
is not necessary.
Adequate sight distance is available for the safe connection of
Trappers Pass with Pleasant View Road. Normally it is preferred
to match intersections, however, matching this intersection with
Fox Hollow Drive would basically obliterate the wetland area for
little or no gain.
Grading and Erosion Control
The majority of the grading is within the proposed right-of-way
with the exception of the three ponding sites and side slope
construction along the north side of the Class B wetland.
It is recommended that a drainage swale be constructed along or
near the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which would
serve as an emergency overflow swale for the ponding site of Lot
2, Block 3.
The proposed side slopes are within the recommended standards of
a 3:1 slope.
Additional erosion control should be shown adjacent to the
wetland along Lots 7 and 8 of Block 4. The City's standard
detail for Type II erosion control (staked bales and snow fence)
should be shown on the grading and erosion control plan.
Drainage
The applicant has provided for three ponding sites and a storm
sewer system which maintains a pre -developed runoff rate and pro-
vides adequate storage for a 100-year
Planning Commission
March 31, 1988
Page 3
The applicant's engineer has provided calculations to verify
that the volume of natural runoff to the Class B wetland has been
maintained. The ponding and outlet configuration as it relates
to the 6" diameter outlet pipe under Pleasant View Road will be
further reviewed as a part of the detailed design.
Drivewa s
It is recommended that the future driveway for Lot 16, Block 4
intersect Valhalla Drive at right angles to form a "T" inter-
setion with Valhalla and Iroquois. No driveway access shall be
allowed to Pleasant View Road.
Recommended Conditions
1. The developer shall enter into a development contract with
the City and provide the necessary financial sureties to
guarantee the proper installation of these improvements.
2. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit and the permit from the
Department of Natural Resources.
3. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading, and once in place shall remain in
place throughout the duration of construction. All of the
erosion control measures shall remain intact until an
established vegetative cover has been produced, at which time
removal shall be the responsiblity of the developer.
4. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi-
lize slopes greater than 3:1.
5. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City's standards for urban construction.
6. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer
details for the construction of the barricade on the dead end
of Trappers Pass between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4
with the plans and specifications.
7. Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side
of the Class B wetland along the rear of Lots 1 through 9 of
Block 4. The City's standard detail for the installation of
Type II erosion control (staked bales and snow fence) shall
be placed on the grading plan.
8. Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall
along both sides of Trappers Pass dead end shall be submitted
as a part of the plans and specifications review for
approval by the City Engineer.
Planning Commission
March 31, 1988
Page 4
9. Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4, as depicted on Sheet No. 1 of the
plan set dated February 18, 1988, shall be revised to show the
correct property boundaries.
10. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such
that it forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois
Avenue.
11. The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along
the common lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which
will serve as an emergency overflow swale for the ponding
site of Lot 2, Block 3.
12. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the
side, front and rear of the lots in addition to all
appropriate drainage and utility easements for ponding sites
and storm sewer facilities shall be shown on the final plat.
13. All private drives shall access internal streets to the sub-
division. No driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant
View Road.
14. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the
time of plans and specifications submittal and design adjust-
ments made accordingly, if necessary, to facilitate proper
conveyance of stormwater under Pleasant View Road.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
FROM: Building Department d� ,
DATE: March 28,.1988
SUBJ: Trappers Pass Third Addition
#79-2 PUD and 88-5 WAP
Due to the grade of the proposed lots, it may be necessary to
install and maintain effective erosion control on some of the
lots before any construction begins. It should be made clear at
this point who will be responsible for this added erosion
control. Arrangements should also be made for removal of the
erosion control once permanent cover is established.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 0 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Dacy, City Planner
FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector
"'JAIL -
DATE: March 30, 1988
SUBJ: Trappers Pass
79-2 PUD, 88-5 WAP
Upon review of the site plan concerning Trappers Pass Third
Addition, I am requesting that a temporary cul-de-sac be
installed on the street Trappers Pass. This is from the Uniform
Fire Code 10.207 (A).
If you have any questions, please ask.
45
10.206-10.208 UNIFORM FIRE CODE
Obstruction of Fire Protection Equipment
Sec. 10.206. No person shall place or keep any post, fence, vehicle, growth,
trash, storage or other material or thing near any fire hydrant, fire department
connection or fire protection system control valve that would prevent such
equipment or hydrant from being immediately discernible or in any other manner
deter or hinder the fire department from gaining immediate access to said
equipment or hydrant. A minimum 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around
the circumference of the fire hydrants except as otherwise required or approved by
the chief.
Access Roadways for Fire Apparatus
Sec. 10.207. (a) Required Construction. Every building hereafter con-
structed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of access road-
ways with all-weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed
width, with adequate roadway turning radius capable of supporting the imposed
loads of fire apparatus and having a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical
clearance. Dead-end fire department access roads in excess of 150 feet long shall
be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire department
apparatus.
EXCEPTION: When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or M
Occupancies as defined in the Building Code, the requirement of this section may be
modified when, in the opinion of the chief, fire -fighting or rescue operations would
not be impaired.
(b) Obstructing. The required width of access roadways shall not be
obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. NO PARKING signs or
other appropriate notice, or both, prohibiting obstructions may be required and
shall be maintained.
(c) Extent. The access roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. Where the access
roadway cannot be provided, approved fire protection system or systems shall be
provided as required and approved by the chief.
(d) Fire -protection Alternate. Where fire -protection systems approved by the
chief are provided, the above required clearance may be modified.
(e) Oversizing. The chief shall have the authority to require an increase in the
minimum access widths where such width is not adequate for fire or rescue
operations.
(f) Bridges. Where a bridge is required to be used as access under this section,
it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections
of the Building Code and using design live loading sufficient to carry the imposed
loads of the fire apparatus.
Premises Identification
Sec. 10.208. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and
existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the
street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their
background.
40
I
1982 EDITION
Key Box
Sec. 10.209. When access to or within a structure c
because of secured openings or where immediate a.
saving or fire -fighting purposes, the chief may require
an accessible location. The key box shall be a type apf
contain keys to gain necessary access as required by t
Division III
INSTALLATION AND MAINTENA
PROTECTION, LIFE -SAFETY S'
APPLIANCES
installation
Sec 10.301. (a) Type Required. The chief shall de
of fire appliances to be installed and maintained in
premises in the jurisdiction other than private dwe
according to the relative severity of probable fire,
which it may spread. Such appliances shall be of a q
class of fire associated with such building or premise
the chief.
Portable fire extinguishers shall be in accordance
10-1.
(b) Special Hazards. In occupancies of an espt
where special hazards exist in addition to the normal
where access for fire apparatus is unduly difficult, at
required consisting of additional fire appliance un.
appliance, or special systems suitable for the protect
Such devices or appliances may consist of automatic 1
is sprinkler or water spray systems, standpipe and
extinguishers, suitable asbestos blankets, breathing
matic covers, carbon dioxide, foam, halogenated
special fire -extinguishing systems. Where such systi
be in accordance with the applicable Uniform Fire Cc
the National Fire Protection Association when Unift
not apply.
(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply cal
fie flow for fire protection shall be provided to all pre
or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed.
building protected is in excess of 150 feet from a wa1
there shall be provided, when required by the chic
mains capable of supplying the required fire flow.
Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure
mains or other fixed system capable of supplying the
the requirements for fire flow, the chief may be guide
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator jc�'
DATE: March 31, 1988
SUBJ: Park and Recreation Commission Action on Trappers Pass
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this site plan at
their March 22nd meeting. They felt it important to continue the
trail system within the existing development along Near Mountain
Boulevard and Trappers Pass. The trail plan, however, calls for
off-street trails rather than the existing on -street section.
As the proposed development will be served by North Lotus Lake
Park, additional parkland will not be needed.
It is the recommendation of the Park and Recreation Commission to
request that off-street pedestrian trails (sidewalks) be
constructed along Trappers Pass, Oxbow Bend, and Timberhill Road,
with 100% credit in trail dedication. It is also recommended
that park dedication fees be accepted in lieu of parkland.
Kj�
z
Q
W
z
*1
l�
ZS, 20o S4 DK
5 � �
y 0'6) /1� A\ \ 11
>C�
210, Soo ie '
2 ��^ - • 0 / 26,�1oc
"Y
0
a chord of 55.64
thence South 65
t; thence South 25
D and said line
ange 23, described
!rnment Lot 3 with
fterly along the
line 558.50 feet
Lot 3; thence on
f said Government
19 minutes West,
according to the
ieasterly line of
,t 4; thence east
of beginning.
described line:
thence east along
%.67 feet; thence
thence deflecting
ieasterly line of
to the right and
iIEW, 350.18 feet
northeasterly to
1.34 feet east of
sere terminating.
ol lows :
thence running
67 feet; thence
.heasterly 35:3.88
to be described;
last described
�o the right and
he northeasterly
-es to the right
37 feet; thence
:ht and running
notes 12 seconds
to the point of
/2
/ 29, 3oosF
\CO
"4;7Wei 3
4
s
� /31, 000SF
36, 4-00 SF.
4 EX ISTI
21,ioosF EXISTIN
of
13
S5 -10 1
O / 0
S \%
1 10 �32 s
t/�/
2 3, 20o s� o
aQk
U�
N� 258.a8
N 87�33 23' E-
15
x\ _V N
43, Sob s� N
0
o, N�
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
EVALUATION WORKSHEET
To Be Completed By Applicant and Submitted with Application
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
1. WETLAND DESCRIPTION:
Size:
Class: Type: TYPE B
Location: Lakeside Streamside Upland X
Watershed District: Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek
Area of Open Water; No Cpen Wate
Drainage Flows To: Lotus Lake
Vegetation
Types:
Reed
Canary Grass, was commerciall, cut for ha; in past.
Soil Types:
Silty
Clay,
Clayey Loam
2. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ALTERATION: Residential subdivision
Constructed around wetland. No fill proposed within wetland Pond
would be excavated in eastern portion of wetland bv, Pleasant View Road.
3. PURPOSE OF
PROPOSED
ALTERATION:
CoAls_cuct siii,yle family
development
adjacent to
the existing
wetland
4. APPLICABLE WETLAND ORDINANCE SECTION: 28.9
5. A. DISCUSS THE IMPACTS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF NO
ALTERATION IS MADE: If no direct alteration was made to the
wetland the proposed storm water pond would be eliminated. This would
not directly impact the proposed development If no grading was done
within_200 feet of the wetland the site would have to be replanned with
fewer lots and not be cost effective.
At E)
'1
5. B. IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO WETLAND
ALTERATION:
SEE ATTACHED
C. IDENTIFY THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED
ALTERATION:
SEE ATTACHED
6. USING THE WETLAND ORDINANCE STANDARDS AS A GUIDE, DETERMINE
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE
AND PROPOSED ALTERATION: The proposed alteration would closely
conform to the Wetland Alteration Permit Guidelines as outlined in the
Ordinance. -The area of inconsistency is the removal of some existino
wetland vegetation. This is a negative impact on the Class R Wetlana
but the addition of the storm water control and sedimentation pond for
this drainage basin would be a benefit to down stream Lotus Lake, Tt ;j
the intent of this project to maintain and adhere to the allowable soil
discharge rates outlined in the ordinances through the use of silt fence,
hay bale dikesrsedimentation ponding areas, and timely revegetation of
disturbed areas of the site.
-2-
WMAND ALTERATION PERMIT
EVALUATION WORKSHEET
An alternative to the proposed plan would be to eliminate the pond.
This would not directly affect the development of this land but would
have a negative impact downstream. This still leaves the problem of
grading within 200 feet of the wetland. The alternative to this is to
replan the property staying 200 feet away and therefore having fewer
lots. This makes the project economically unfeasible and therefore the
site would remain agricultural.
5. C.
The main disadvantage of the alteration is the loss of some existing
wetland vegetation through the construction of the pond. The pond would
be constructed in accordance with the guidelines set by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for construction of a Wetland for wildlife and
would eventually provide open water for various shallow water and open
water wildlife. It would also provide a sedimentation ponding area for
the storm water to pass through prior to reaching Lotus Lake.
The construction of the single family development creates the
possibility of soils being transported to the wetland during and after
grading operations. It is proposed to use siltation fence,
sedimentation ponds and timely revegetation to contain the soils and
keep them from entering the wetland. Once the houses are built and
yards are complete, fertilizer, oils and road salts will be introduced.
The storm drainage is designed to go through storm water ponds to
minimize the affects of these on the existing wetlands and Lotus Lake.
It must be remembered that the development of this land will remove it
from agricultural and therefore eliminate the agricultural fertilizer,
animal wastes, and yearly cultivation of the land.
The development of this area to single family is consistent with other
land uses on adjacent properties around this wetland and Lotus Lake.
City of Chanhassen
Land Development Application
Page 2
FILING INSTRUCTIONS:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten of
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
that he is ALIte familiar �with �the Vpro ce
applicable City Ordinances. duralprequirements Plicarit bof calllfies
Signed By Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Date
/� Applicant,
L f
The undersigned hereby certifi--s that the applicant has been
authorized to make this application for the property herein
described.
Signed By Date ��
Fee Owner
Date Application Received �(ll
Application Fee Paid `
City Receipt No.
* This Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/
Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their
meeting.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 10
,
Erhart: That clears up a few things for me. I guess my feeling is that
it's just too narrow to be acceptable for a beachlot. I would vote
against it.
Emmings: Me too. Again, I think it's too bad the way this matter was
handled by the developer but I think the ordinance is very clear. I
think the ordinance is good. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind
that it would depreciate the value of the neighboring homeowners and that
in itself is enough to kill it for me. It's also one of the criteria in
our ordinance under granting conditional use permits is that it can not
depreciate surrounding property value. It would just, not only for the
adjoining neighbors but also from people don't live.right next to it that
they feel it would depreciate their property values and I don't think we
could possibly grant it on that alone. I think from here then, given
those comments, I think it's pretty clear which way this will probably go
if we voted tonight. It probably isn't going to change a lot but I think
we've got to hold the public hearing open so that notices can be sent out
to all the people who own lakeshore around the lake that are in
Chanhassen and give them an opportunity to speak and be heard on this
issue if they want to be. With that, I would ask that we have a motion
to table this and continue the public hearing until the appropriate
notice can be sent out.
Erhart moved, Batzli seconded to table the request for the conditional
use permit for a recreational beachlot on Lot 37, Shore Acres, Sunny
Slope Homeowners Association, until the appropriate notices can be sent.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Dacy: Before the public leaves on this item, the variance request has
been scheduled in front of the Board of Adjustments and Appeals
on Monday, April 25th. If we have not sent the notices out already, you
will receive a notice on that issue. The next meeting that this will be
considered would be April 20th so we'll be sending out notices on all of
the issues within the week.
PUBLIC HEARING:
TRAPPERS PASS ADDITION, PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND
PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - RESIDENTIAL, LOCATED ON THE NORTH AND
WEST SIDES OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE WEST OF HWY 101,
LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION:
A. SUBDIVISION OF 32.5 ACRES INTO 34 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A POND WITHIN A CLASS B
WETLAND AND DEVELOP WITHIN 200 FEET.
Public Present:
1 Name Address
Greg and Deb Cray 320 Pleasant View Road
Frances O'Brien 450 Indian Hill Road
MR
--.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 11
James and Esther Holte 330 Pleasant View Road
R.D. Stevens 6614 Horseshoe Curve
Jim Wehrle- 241 Mountain Way
Michael A. Pflaum Lundgren Bros. Construction
Peter Pflaum Lundgren Bros. Construction
Rick Sayther Applicant's Engineer
Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on -this item.
Emmings: Does the developer want to make a presentation?
Peter Pflaum: If you want a presentation.
Emmings: If you have anything that you want to present in reaction to
what...
Peter Pflaum: There's only three issues. It's a pretty simple deal. No
point taking your time unless you have questions. There are three issues
that we are concerned with. My name is Peter Pflaum and I'm the
president of Lundgren Brothers. The three issues, I have to go from
memory but that I remember that we are concerned with. One dealt with
the tree issue. It's sort of hard for me, we've had such a good
relationship with your community, I don't know how to state this without
offending people, but to us it really was an insult to put restrictions
on us in taking trees down or your concern about it and let me explain
why. We bought this site or controlled the site since 1979. The only
reason we were interested in the site really was because of the trees.
On top of that, we planted probably more trees on that site than any of
your developments in your community and we plan to plant more. First of
all that's why we feel it's an insult. The reason we're there is because
of the trees and we planted a hell of a lot of trees out there. In
addition to that, as a developer I've always been a little bit incensed
when you require something of a developer you don't require of the other
citizens. I mean, after all, we are a property owner and we should be
treated, you really discriminate. I'm not saying you, because it happens
in other communities but it really bothers me as a developer when you
tell a developer he's got certain requirements he has to do with regards
to taking trees down yet the average citizen doesn't have any. To me
that's discrimination.
Emmings: Well, it isn't discrimination but let me just explain what I
think is going on here because I don't think it's anybody's intent.
I don't know what you're doing out there and maybe none of the -rest of
the people do either. That's sitting up here, I don't know who does or
doesn't but the point is, that's something that I see on every one of
these that comes through on every development. It's one of those boiler
plate type conditions that we see in all of them and it certainly isn't
directed at you or your company personally, I'm positive of that.
Secondly, we've had experiences with developers who come in who have said
we bought this property because of the trees, why the hell would we want
to take the trees down? The next morning they're all gone. That would
probably seem stupid to you as a developer maybe who knows what he's
doing and maybe those others didn't but we've had that experience. Don't
take offense. Just understand it as an item of boiler plate.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 12
Peter Pflaum: But the other side of it is, it is a major inconvenience
to us to have to go to some city official and take an inventory and
something we object to violently. Not only that, I don't believe it's
been a standard procedure because in the first two addi.tions,of Trapper's
Pass, to my knowledge, we've never had it. I would ask your Planning
Commission, I will object to the Council also, have them go out there and
see if they've got any objections. I haven't heard one objective from
the residents or from the City. As a matter of fact, I've heard
compliments. Just the opposite and so I object and we will object. Why
should we have to do that? I do think if you're going to require us to
do it, you should have it in your ordinance. You should require every
citizen who buys a house in your community, that you want to review his
backyard because why should we be treated any different?
Wildermuth: There is a difference though. The residents lives on the
property. You don't live on the property. You're a developer. You
develop and you move on.
Emmings: I don't want to get into an argument here. We're not going to
get into individual arguments here. You have to understand that this is,
I see development after development.
Peter Pflaum: Is this part of your ordinance?
Emmings: I don't think it's in the ordinance but it's been a condition
on every one of these over the last year or so and all that we're doing
is saying, we don't intend to insult you. That's not what's going on
here. It's just boiler plate and I would differ with you too. There is
a difference between one person developing one lot for his own home than
there is a developer coming in and doing a really huge development like
you've done here. There is a difference. But anyway, go ahead.
Peter Pflaum: That was one point. The second point deals with the
sidewalk. There's a requirement that we put a sidewalk. First of all we
had, as you know, done quite a bit of developing in your community with
no sidewalk in this project. Now you're coming to us and telling us you
want us to put a sidewalk in a part of the subdivision that leads to
nowhere. Maybe you should show them what we're talking about.
Rick Sayther: On this street and on Oxbow Bend.
Peter Pflaum: I have two concerns. First of all, I don't think we
should be required to put a sidewalk in that leads to nowhere and
benefits nobody. It just costs us money. Second of all, a portion of
that street was already approved before under an additional plat with no
sidewalk. I'm sure what's happened is you have a new ordinance or
concern about getting sidewalks in the community but in a.planned unit
development such as ours, which is in it's sixth year of development,
which is 80% done, it doesn't seem to make much sense to take one portion
' of it and.put a sidewalk in that leads nowhere. Really, the reason we
developed out here, and I think the reason a lot of the residents are out
here, is they didn't want sidewalks. Certainly in our project it's
inconsistent with everything we've done. So that's why we object to that
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 13
because we don't think it serves any purpose and it's a needless cost and
we don't think our residents want it. The other issue deals with the
wetland. The only reason we thought we wanted to dredge a portion of the
wetland to create a pond just to create an amenity to that end of the
site that really needs some help. The only reason I wanted to acquire
this piece of property was to develop another entrance to our site. Our
site has a serious problem and really I think a health and hazardous
condition in that there's only one street that serves I don't know how
many units. 150 or some incredible number and they were in the flood, if
you talk to residents, one of the big ponds there flooded and they didn't
have access. Most of you weren't around when we bought this property and
got it zoned originally but there was concern then,, when we did the
project about how much access there should be on Pleasant View. If you
looked at our original plat, the original planned unit development that
was approved and it was always planned that there would be connection
from our project through this piece of property now. Maybe you could
show them where that is.
Rick Sayther: It may not be clear to the people back here but this is TB
101, Pleasant View Road. The site that we're looking at now is over
here. The only access from Pleasant View now is near TH 101 and it feeds
back into this big area to the west. When this was approved, there was
approved a stub street that deadended into the piece, the O'Brien parcel
that we're dealing with tonight with the idea that there would be some
sort of a looped street system to that property.
Emmings: Where does that road go to the north?
Rick Sayther: This is the Shorewood/Chanhassen boundary and in the other
Galpin/Near Mountain PUD there's another road that comes down.
Emmings: That Trapper's Pass that stubs, that little stub they're
talking about putting a barricade across and that goes into, when that
land to the west of that is developed, will there be more entrances still
out into the existing roads?
Peter Pflaum: The point I was trying to get to and I got off the subject
a little bit, the reason we wanted this site and the only reason we
wanted it was to develop another access to our property that was
originally intended as a way to have access to our property. The
reason I was concerned about doing something with the pond is I wanted to
dress up the entrance to the property. We had a private meeting with the
neighbors and I asked the neighbors, there are some of them here, if they
would object or what their feeling was if we created a pond there because
if they didn't want it, we wouldn't do it. My understanding was the
neighbors felt it was a good idea. One of the neighbors was concerned
whether, maybe more than one, if we did something to that pond it would
somehow affect flooding on their property. Rick studied that and he can
show that that is not a factor. All we really wanted to do was just open
up a corner of the property so we can have some open water so we can
landscape.around it and just enhance the property. We also want to do
quite an intensive landscaping around the entrance because at that point
in time, just like we did in the Near Mountain entrance. There's no
vegetation so we wanted to put some trees in. So that's all we're
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 14
talking about but the reason is just to improve the property. I think
our concern was, the way the condition is put on it by the staff, we
couldn't live with it because of the way that it was written would not
allow us to really improve it with the idea of opening up some water.
That's the only intent was to do that. So those are the three issues.
The trees, opening up some water in the marsh and the sidewalks. Those
are the three issues between us and the staff. Everything else I think
we're in agreement.
Emmings: Just so I'm sure I understand, are you saying that you've got
an application here for a wetland alteration permit and the staff is
recommending approval of that permit. Now, if you get the permit with
the conditions that are on it, will that give you what you want there or
are you saying...
Peter Pflaum: No, we're saying the conditions placed on it will not
allow us to do what we want.
Emmings: What specific condition?
Dacy: Number 1.
Michael Pflaum: Let me try to explain. I don't have the Fish and
Wildlife Guidelines before me but basically as I understand it, by
reading it, the objectives that these standards serve are to establish
beneficial habitat for wildlife creatures and marsh vegetation. Produce
a nice ecosystem that will be beneficial to wildlife in general. What we
are attempting to do here is take a small piece of that wetland. It's
about 6% of that and make a hole there. Open water so we don't have
vegetation growing up through the water. There's going to be I think 7
1/2 acres of wetlands undisturbed. Actually it's going to be a little
less than that because we are building our pond, our pothole, on a
portion of that 7 1/2 acres. Basically about 7 1/2 acres remain
undisturbed. A 1/2 acre is dredged to form an open water pond without
the shallow slopes and ungladdy bottom and so forth because really that's
not the aesthetic that we're trying to make.
Emmings: And then real specifically, how does that first condition cause
you problem with what you want to do?
Michael Pflaum: It's so small to begin with that having an irregular
shape is almost impossible to create. The second one has to do with side
slopes. Side slopes are too shallow. You have very abundant weed growth
coming up to the surface which does not create an open water pond. If
you have an uneven bottom, where it's rising and falling, you have
irregular weed growth throughout and basically, we're not trying to
create a rice paddy. We want to create a pond and leave the rest of the
land as it is.
Mr. Stevens: What constitutes as wetland is all that 1-want to know and
tl-
how is this 7 acres a wetland? This was farmground.
Dacy: Yes, it's to my understanding that many years ago it was farmland.
...in any case, a wetland exists our there today. It is on the DNR's map
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 15
and we had a gentleman from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife come out and
evaluate the site. He confirmed that it is in fact a wetland. There are
three thi.ngs that determine a wetland. Vegetation, soils and if it
supports wildlife habitat. In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife person's
opinion, those three tests were met.
Mr. Stevens: I have test borings here from 1978 where at 15 feet it
impacted 8,000 pounds and no water appeared in the hole in -four hours on
the adjacent property. The first lot just south of this one and that was
the wetest spot on the area. We had horses down on that for about 5
years. We pastured horses in there. Mr. Hoyt has two evergreens in his
yard about 50 feet tall that came out of that same sewer area you're
talking about and I think O'Brien's farmed it for many years.
Dacy: I'm not disputing that. I just want to make clear that even
though there may not be standing water at consistent time periods
throughout the year, again, that there is wetland vegetation, canary
grass, sedge grass, if there is peat and muck soils or wetter soils than
the typical hayden clay soils that you find in Chanhassen, then the Fish
and Wildlife people...
Mr. Stevens: You probably have those conditions now but they were
created. It wasn't that way.
Dacy: Right, and we have to look at what exists today at this point and
not what was 10 or 15 years ago.
Mr. Stevens: How long ago did they determine this was wetland?
Dacy: It was in February.
Mr. Stevens: How about my lot next to this? Is it buildable next to
that pond?
Dacy: With a variance, potentially yes.
Mr. Stevens: A variance for what?
Dacy: Depending on where you're going to place your house on the
property...
Mr. Stevens: I'd like to split them into two lots. It's 9/10ths of an
acre.
Dacy: If you've got 90 feet of lot frontage, 15,900 square feet of lot
area and you can meet the 75 foot setback...
Mr. Stevens: But we can put a road in along side and split it for two
lots can't we? Isn't that in your ordinance?
Dacy: You're talking about...
Mr. Stevens: We're 150 feet wide or so on the front.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 16
Dacy: You would have to create a full blown city street right-of-way.
With 150 foot lot width, you could not split that into two 90 foot lots
running on Pleasant View Road.
Mr. Stevens: We're planning on putting it this way...
Emmings: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to address the issue that's
in front of the Commission.
Mr. Stevens: I think it is the issue because if they put in that pond
and then I have to set back 75 feet from a wetland and they're calling
that a wetland now, then the condition is changed. .
Emmings: But you're asking our staff to tell you whether or not you'll
be able to divide your property and until you put in an application and
they have a chance .to look at it in detail, it's unfair for them to put
them on the spot. If you have questions like how far do I have to be set
back from that pond or something, that would be appropriate but don't ask
us to do a review of your property here tonight. It just can't be done.
It's not fair to you or to us.
Dacy: With or without this pond, this boundary represents the limits of
the wetland today so even if they didn't create this pond, their pond
isn't creating your issue. You have to deal with this pink boundary in
here as it goes through your site.
Mr. Stevens: My question I guess was when did it become a wetland
because it certainly wasn't when I bought the property? It was called
buildable lots by the City and the sewer and water is in on them. We're
paying taxes and assessed for it and I certainly would like to be able to
build on i t .
Jim Wehrle: I'm the President of the Near Mountain Homeowners
Association. I guess there's just a few key points that we'd like to
communicate. Those of us who live in that immediate area, especially
such as myself and my neighbors. Obviously as far as the trees go, we're
pleased with the apparent resolution that's been reached with the
agreement. To put something in writing to protect the trees. We're in
favor of that but I'll second the thoughts that Lundgren Brothers have
passed along that they have done a pretty good job in saving the trees,
even though they haven't been required to. Secondly, I think my primary
concern, speaking to you as an individual from this point, that there
under no circumstances be, hopefully any resistence to allowing another
exit out of our development for safety purposes. We found ourselves in a
situation last July of not being able to get the Life Squad back into
that area and it is still the exactly the same exact situation today as
it was at that point in time. We could not, -if a flood came up out of
our ponds across the streets, the one real access street that comes back
into the area where I live, we can't get any first aid as.needed. I had
a life squad truck stall out under 3 feet of water in front of my house
on July 21st, or whenever it was and I think there are getting to be so
many homes back in there and there's such limited access right now, that
that's an absolute necessity for health and safety if nothing else, as
well as traffic flow. As far as the pond, I think all of us who built or
Lid
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 17
bought in [dear Mountain did so because it was a very nice planned unit
development. It has a lot of nice ponds in it. I think Lundgrens did a
great job in putting in the ponds that are there now and I think this is
comparable to, my understanding of how they went about putting in the
pond that are in there now. Dredged out an area perhaps 6 feet deep.
I would think if they were allowed to do what they're proposing here,
that it would be a great enhancement to the vegetation and/or wildlife
that may want to live in that ecosystem because it is dry, 'as has been
discussed here, a considerable part of the year. That would see to it
that there was some wetland available throughout certain parts of the
year. So not only aesthetically would it be nice but I think it would
enhance whatever necessities the wildlife had for that wetland. Lastly,
I'll just concur that we do not have sidewalks throughout the rest of
that planned unit and there wouldn't be any consistency with what is
there now. It's not a big deal to the homeowners association one way or
the other but I will concur that it seems to be a needless expense that's
non -conforming with the whole atmosphere of the existing development.
Emmings: Is what they're calling sidewalks here, is that the trail?
Dacy: Off-street trails.
Emmings: The portion of the trail system that's been recommended by the
Park and Recreation Commission. Is there anybody else who wants to
comment on this item?
Greg Cray: I live on the second lot down from where that pond is there.
I really like the development as it's laid out but there again, the one
problem that I have is the pond in general. That whole wetland area,
there's no drainage out of there except for one very small tile line that
was put in by the City when they put the park in which is just to the
southeast of that area. Right in there. The end of that tile line would
end up approximately in the middle of that pond the way it's drawn there.
I want to make sure that there's some means for getting water out of that
area. Like during that large storm last year, we got a tremendous amount
of water back in that area. Probably, I would guess 8 feet deep on a
site over that wetlands area. The tile itself that was put in was put in
quite high in my thinking. It really would have to be extremely deep out
there before it would ever be of any kind of use for draining that area
out. I'd just like the City to take into consideration the possibility
of that tile being changed and enhanced to make sure that there's no
drainage problems and so on especially since I'll commission the hillside
could have an impact as far as the watershed and so on.
Emmings: How long have you lived out there?
Greg Cray: Approximately 6 years now.
Emmings: And we've been hearing that it's typically dry in there. Is
that your experience?
Greg Cray.' It depends on the time of year. It generally has water. At
the time we bought, it was dry. When I bought the lot. The next spring
during the time where I was building the house, it got quite a bit of
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 18
water in there and it's gone anywhere from so dry you can walk across it
to 6 to 8 feet deep, depending on the weather.
Batzli: How does it impact your lot?
Greg Cray: The big impact it has on my lot is that my sump pump never
quits running when it gets high. It just raises the water table of the
whole area because there's no outlet.
Emmings: Do you have anything further?
Greg Cray: No.
Emmings: Do you want to address this outlet question?
Brown: Yes. I'll address part of it and then I'm going to defer this
question to the applicant's engineer, Rick Sayther. We've discussed this
6 inch tile line quite extensively being that the public has been quite
concerned about it. Upon submission of the storm sewer calculations for
the plat, I raised the question to the engineer, Rick Sayther, what
happens to this 6 inch line once the development is in? Are we
overloading that line and Rick explained to me that in their
calculations, and I went through and verified this, they completely
disregarded that line. The reason for that, in the event of a 100 year
storm, they have provided enough storage in the ponding area to take care
of their development alone without any run-off from the 6 inch line that
now exists out there. So they've provided more than adequate storage for
it. This 6 inch line will adequately drain it off obviously at a slower
rate than an 18 inch pipe would but the storage issue, I think they have
addressed quite well. As far as the neighboring structures, I'll have
Rick discuss that.
Rick Sayther: I'm Rick Sayther with Sayther-Berquist. We're the
planners and engineers for Lundgrens. After we had our neighborhood
meeting or at our neighborhood meeting this gentleman came and was
concerned and I was too, not knowing what the elevations were out there
so I sent my survey crew out to do a couple things. One was to locate
the edge of the wetland and the other was to shoot the elevation of the
tile line so we could see how high the water would get before it ran out.
We also went onto his lot and I hope he isn't mad at us for it but we
went out and shot elevations around his house and shot the garage floor
elevation. It's not a walkout so we couldn't shoot the basement floor
but I would guess it's probably an 8 foot difference between the garage
and the basement. Something like that?
Greg Cray: Yes, it would be about that.
Rick Sayther: Okay, we shot the garage floor at 923.98 which is about
924. The tile line right now would outlet the wetland at' 912.7 so from
the garage floor down to the tile is about 11 feet. The basement would
be at about 915 or 916 so the basement level is 2 or 3 feet above the
the line. In the 100 year storm, we expect the water to rise in the
wetland up to the 914 contour which is that pink line on the drawing.
The theoretical 100 year storm which we got way more than last year.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 19
Emmings: Is that with or without the pond or doesn't it matter?
Rick Sayther: That pond together with the other ponds will serve to
reduce the run-off rate to what's there now. We're proposing a couple of
other ponds that aren't colored that are the stuff on the top of the
drawing.
Emmings: So if you didn't have the pond, would the water be higher in
the 100 year storm?
Rick Sayther: I'd say yes because we're increasing the total amount of
run-off through the development process. If the tile line wasn't there
at all, then that marsh would continue to fill and there would probably
be a problem someday but even with that small 6 inch pipe, it will have
adequate capacity to drain the water down. Water will drop down to at
least the pipe elevation and then it may evaporate out and go dry like it
has in the past. The wetland. Or it may stay up at that elevation of
the pipe. It just depends on the season and the wetness. It's a good
thing the pipe is there and our calculations show that it would be
adequate for the future.
Emmings: If that is dry so much of the time, how will the pond have
water in it all year round or all summer long?
Rick Sayther: We believe that although the surface gets dry sometimes,
below the ground level 6 inches or less, there's water so if we dig down
4 feet, we'd have 4 feet of water in that excavation. That's really what
we're doing. We dig below the surface level to have open water where now
the water is just standing in the soil.
Emmings: So you're digging down into the water table and have you dome
something out there to test that notion?
Rick Sayther: There's water there most of the time just at the surface.
Just below. Our experience in the area with all the ponds that we've
done have shown that that's a real practical way to create a pond.
Brown: If I may address one other thing. Prior to me coming aboard on
staff here at the City, as I understand it, there's been a great debate
over the 6 inch tile line that was placed out there by the City. Being
that it is now, at the present classified as a wetland and at the time
that the tile line was installed, we could not drain the wetland dry so
the intent of putting the 6 inch tile line at a certain elevation was to
maintain some moisture in that wetland so that wouldn't be a
euthificati.on of a wetland.
Emmings: Anybody else have any comments on this?
Mr. Stevens: Are you also aware that there's a culver that drains the
parkland back over into that slew?
i
Brown: Yes we are.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 20
Mr. Stevens: Although the contour of the park has changed quite a bit.
It used to drain the run-off into that area.
Conrad moved, Wildermuth seconded to close the public hearing. All voted
in favor and motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Erhart: You stated that you planted trees in this area. Are you
referring to when you developed the other areas in there you planted
trees to landscape after you d-id the subdivision or. you planted trees in
this particular area?
Peter Pflaum: We didn't do any of this in this particular site. What I
was really referring to is, if you were to drive in Near Mountain, this
whole area didn't have any trees on it. Every tree in that subdivision.
If you went into this area right down here you'd probably find, I don't
know 70-80 15 to 20 foot evergreens. I was talking about this area.
Just driving you can see. That's what I was referring to. When I was
talking about woods, from this area where my hand is all this area is
woods. What I was saying, we developed all this land in here in the
woods. We went out there and working with backyards, there wasn't any
requirement, it was never a problem. It's a real hardship for a
developer to have to come in and bring the city out there and show them
what trees you're going to take down. I can see your concern if somebody
has abused something and I can also see if it was an ordinance that
required to every development.
Erhart: This is something that started after ... The condition number 1
there Barb, what does it exactly involve? It says tree removal plan
shall be provided at the time of building permit application for Lots
1... ?
Dacy: Basically what that means is that when the Certificate of Survey
is submitted for each building permit application. At the time of
building permit application for individual homes.
Erhart: What does that have to do with the subdivision?
Dacy: I'll finish. A Certificate of Survey will show where the proposed
house pad is going to be and the finished floor elevation of that as
compared to what the existing contours are out there on the property. So
what we would be asking the builders to do would be to label on that plan
where the construction area would extend to. How much of the lot would
they be grading out during construction of the single family home so we
have a record that they are not going to be clear cutting the entire lot.
Erhart: In our clear cutting ordinance, we have a clear cutting section
in our subdivision ordinance right?
'- Dacy: Right. It's tree removal and conservation of vegetation in the
subdivision ordinance.
a
Planning Ccmmission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 21
Erhart: It states that they will all be 3 inches or something, that are
removed for streets...
Dacy: No, I think what you might be referring to is shoreland
requirements for tree removal but that specific diameter size is not
identified anywhere.
Erhart: In the subdivision ordinance?
Dacy: Right.
Erhart: We do have it as clear cutting provision in the subdivision
ordinance?
Dacy: The term clearcut is not stated in the ordinance but there are six
provisions in this section which allows the City to require these types
of removal plans.
Erhart: In the subdivision ordinance?
Dacy: Yes.
Erhart: Is there anything else in the process that requires the
developer to identify house location?
Dacy: No, the Certificate of Survey is the best method to do that
because the surveyor has gone out to the lot. Again, the developer has
suggested an alternative condition that would be acceptable to staff.
Erhart: What I'm driving at is, this particular paragraph just started
showing up in the subdivision proposals about a year and a half ago and
you're the first person who's really objected to it. I don't remember
being on the Commission where we ever actually discussed this particular
thing. I think we just accepted it. Do you remember Ladd?
Conrad: Yes. It was like a policy.
Erhart: Yes, we kind of accepted it but I don't know if it was ever
really clear what we were asking.
Conrad: The detailed requirement of the developer, we base it on staff's
opinion of what is necessary for a landscape plan or clearcutting plan.
Erhart: Without spending a lot of time on it, if we thought it through
and this is what we want to do, that's fine. If we haven't, I guess I
would suggest perhaps at a later meeting we do think through this
particular requirement and really understand the ramifications to
subdevelopers to see if there's a possibility to accomplish the same
thing without placing much effort into it. That's enough of that. The
other thing is, the sidewalks, the trail system. Again, unless I'm
wrong, this is the first time that I can recall seeing a subdivision come
in here where there was actually a request of the subdevelopers to
actually put in the surface for the trail system. Am I wrong on that?
.4,
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 22
Dacy: Yes. There have been other subdivisions where off-street trails
have been required.
Erhart: Where they've actually been required to put them in; The
asphalt surface?
Dacy: Right.
Erhart: Recently or a long time ago?
Dacy: Lake Susan Hills West. Curry Farms. Kurvers Point. Again, the
Park and Rec Commission adopted their trail plan within the last year so
they're just following through on those requirements.
Erhart: So we're to understand that it is now city policy here that now
that we've got a trail plan, that we're expecting developers to do that
as a part of the subdivision? If that's the case, then I think that's
something new.
Dacy: I guess I would even go one step farther with the Commission and
say that that recommendation is from the Park and Rec Commission and
certainly the Planning Commission is welcome to comment on that
particular condition. However, the final disposition of that particular
condition should be up to the Council. I would feel uncomfortable having
the Planning Commission acting on what the Park and Rec Commission did.
Erhart: I'm not suggesting to do that. Again, I'm bringing up, we're
acting on policy for a program in the City to do that so it's probably
worth our while to have Lori come in here and tell us what is the grand
scheme of these things. On the other hand, if this is something that's
been going for a long time and we just missed it, then you can just
ignore than. What was the purpose, are we requiring the developer to
extend the Trapper's Pass up to the end of the property or is that their
idea?
Rick Sayther: I don't think the staff has required that we run the
street up here but we found that the buyers of the lots, the builder or
the home buyer can't really fully appreciate how that will look after the
street's built unless the street gets built so it's just been the policy
of Lundgren Brothers to build the street adjacent to any lot that's
platted whether it's going to be used right at that time or not.
Erhart: Alright, we appreciate that. Lastly, do you want to defer the
wetland questions until we get to that or just go?
Emmi.ngs: You didn't really present your report on that did you?
Dacy: Between the discussion of the developer and Larry, I think staff's
presentation is fine.
Emmings: okay, then let's just talk about the whole thing now.
Ar
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 23
Erhart: There's simply not enough run-off there to make essentially a
wildlife wetland. It's seem the proposal is simply an aesthetic pond
which I'm all in favor of. There simply isn't enough drainage there to
take the 912 or the 911 and create and improve a combination an aesthetic
area and wildlife.
Rick Sayther: I believe that through time, after the development is
finished, since there will be more water going into the basin, that water
will stand in there more often for longer periods and you'll probably get
more aquatic vegetation than you've got. The base of it is a big, flat
bottom basin. The water stands in a couple spots and the water has to
get 1 1/2 to 2 feet deep before it can run out. I think through time
you're going to have that position where the water is standing there 1
1/2 to 2 feet deep over quite a big area. I think the wetlands will
become more viable.
Erhart: That being the case, could we resolve, the real problem with
ponding is your slope. You said in a small pond you can't make the
increase of water with a 10:1 slope around the whole perimeter, correct?
What about, let's assume the area does become more ponded as time goes
on, could we increase the size of the pond slightly to the west? Forego
the requirement for the 10:1 slope on the east half of the pond but
slightly increase the size on the west size to get the 10:1 slope toward
the center of the bowl as an alternative.
Rick Sayther: That's a creative idea. I think what's really going to
happen though is, it slopes all around that basin. The whole basin has
slopes of 10:1 and 20:1. As the water fills in there and it gets to get
1 1/2 feet to 2 feet deep, I think exactly what the Fish and Wildlife is
hoping for would happen with most of the wetland. Whether we do the pond
at all, that condition will come to be. There will be a better habitat.
What we really want to do with that little half acre piece there is to
create a permanent open water area for the attractiveness of it.
Erhart: I think you can accomplish both simply by expanding the size.
Maintain your open area because you want 3 feet of water there to keep
open and just expand your grade off towards the center. I understand
you're limited by road and you have lot constraints. I just suggest that
as a compromise solution on this but again, certainly a pond is better
than nothing at all. That is the real problem isn't it? The slope.
There's really no other problem. It's uneven to me. It's too small to
have a rolling bottom. Muck, you're going to have it whether you want it
or not. That's the real problem.
Rick Sayther: The intent is to dig it to be 4 feet deep from the pipe
down.
Erhart: I'd say it's pretty straight forward beyond that so I'll pass.
Conrad: Larry, on the streets when we have a 10% slope on Trapper's
Pass, what does that create? What kind of drainage problems does that
create when we have a slope that's a little bit steeper? Is that a
concern of yours?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 24
Brown: At 10% grade, no.
Conrad: You're worried more about safety and access than you are with
drainage?
Brown: Correct. The reason that you see the type of storm sewer casting
that is speced out, that you see commonly around the City is for that
very reason. At a 10% grade the water does not go shooting past the
grate but falls down into the curb box so that's not a concern of mine.
Conrad: For drainage specifications, you've considered the grade and you
feel comfortable that they can deal with that?
Brown: Correct.
Conrad: As far as the pond is concerned, my only concern on the pond is
that it does dry out and we end up with something that's not always the
most attractive thing. I think Peter you had some problems last year
when we have the semi -drought before we had the semi -floods. I can't
think of a solution for that. I guess I would not ask for an expanded
ponding site simply because when it does go dry, a pond can look
negative. In terms of how to keep it full all the time, I guess I don't
have a solution for that particular concern. Because of the developer's
good track record in Chanhassen and the fact that they have to a degree
reforested and have been really pretty sensitive to the environment, I
think they should follow our policies but I'd sure encourage the staff to
make it a very easy review with the developer. I don't know what kind of
guidelines that's sending and I guess I'll ask Barbara. When somebody
submits a tree removal plan, what does that entail? What is that? Is
that specifically detailing which trees are cut or is that a review, a
walk through of the site with people from the developer's company. How
do you do that?
Dacy: It basically shows what trees are going to be removed in the area
of the construction for the grading and the construction of the home. We
do not require a detailed inventory of each lot and each tree. Just a
plan to show us the area that trees are going to be removed and
basically, it means kind of a circle on the site or around the proposed
building pad.
Conrad: So it's a document that is submitted?
Dacy: Yes, that we keep on file. It gives the inspection staff and when
the building permit is reviewed by all the departments, we can look at it
and say, okay they're not clearcutting the lot, they're not removing a
substantial amount of vegetation. It appears to be okay. Now, to be
honest and totally frank, 5 years from now that property owner could go
down and one day at a time take a tree down at a time and put down new
sod and eventually clearcut the lot and we probably wouldn't know about
it but we.have gotten burned. There are subdivisions during building
permit review that it comes back to staff saying, why didn't you catch
this and how could you allow such a thing.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 25
Conrad: There have been some real bad situations and I think we agree
that there should be review of that. I'm trying to get a sense for, are
there degrees in this review because we know that the Near Mountain group
has done a real fine job so to impose a burden is not the point of this
little exercise. To be consistent however, in how we treat people is to
a degree important. So I ask the question again, are there degrees in
how we work with the developer and we review that tree removal situation
or is it just an absolute? Are there no degrees in the depth that we go
to in that plan?
Dacy: We can work with Mr. Pflaum and work out some type of solution to
this. Yes, there are degrees available and we would be more than happy
to work with them.
Conrad: That's all.
Brown: One clarification if I may. To address both Mr. Erhart's
comments and Mr. Conrad's comments, the concerns about extending the
wetland out, I think I've analyzed the flows that come down through this
storm sewer pipe and pond and eventually go out the 6 inch tile line. To
Great an open water pond you need at least 4 feet of water before the
cattails will not grow. The rates just would not really facilitate
extending this pond out. Being that you have a shallower pond, it
. wouldn't.be an open water pond and it would be more inclinced for your
operaion. Again, you have the scenario that Commissioner Conrad talked
about, having the edges dry and having a barren surface out there which I
don't think is desirable.
Erhart: I have a point that the requirement is only a 10:1 slope for 300
of the shoreline so it's not the whole thing.
Brown: My intention was not for the slope. That's an entirely different
issue, but extending it out. They've maintained a certain rate to keep
an open water pond out there.
Conrad: On the pond, I feel comfortable that the requirement of the Fish
and Wildlife Service, condition (a), I don't have a real strong feeling
for keeping it uneven and I think that condition can be slipped, in my
mind. I'm not sure that the others, I haven't been persuaded yet that
the others can be slipped or sacrificed. Based on what I just said
Larry, because I am saying that (b) through (f) for Fish and Wildlife is
important, did you just say that (b) should not be a requirement of their
ponding?
Brown: No. I'm saying that the total overall surface area of the pond,
they are restricted in one sense as far as the slopes. I think it's a
whole other issue.
Ellson: The tree removal plan, I wasn't here when I guess you've had all
the abuse and I certainly understand it. Maybe you can put something in
there such as, unless it's a developer we've worked with before who has
proved himself. If you're new then you've got to go through the ... until
you've proven yourself to our City, you don't have to do it. I'm not
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 26
necessary comfortable with clearcutting but if staff is comfortable with
that clearcutting unless approved, then I would be fine. Also, I agree
with the rest. I think he's been very good with the City and I'd rather
not bring him any more work than he needs. The part about the sidewalk,
I think the Park and Rec Commission, as you stated before, are just
pretty much asking for this to be tagged along with everything from now
on but I don't really see a point if this is part of the whole planned
unit development and it wasn't done as a planned unit development then
it's no longer planned. It's all of a sudden something that was stuck in
there. It takes away from the idea of being planned. I could see
eliminating the sidewalks. I share the same feelings with Tim about the
wetlands thing. I would like to see them try to have grading like there
someplace. I'd hate to eliminate all the major points that the Wildlife
Service has and then say, we think in a few years it will end up that way
anyway. They have a certain intent and there's really good reasons for
it and they didn't just decide this for nothing. They've got these
points for really good reasons. I'd like to see some sort of attempt at
a portion of it sloped like that if it could be. That's it.
Batzli: I had a couple of questions for Larry to start with. Is the
retaining wall only going along the deadend portion of Trappers Pass?
Rick Sayther: Yes.
Batzli: Is there a setback requirement on that or do they put that right
up to the street? How are they proposing to do that and is that a
portion where the Park and Rec Commission has required the sidewalk?
Brown: The setback requirement for the retaining wall?
Batzli: Yes. That's something that you guys are going to have to
approve at any rate, correct?
Brown: Correct.
Batzli: Is that including if there would be a setback required? You
have in here that details for the construction of the retaining wall
shall be submitted. Are you comfortable with that? In case you need
some sort of setback from the road or something else that you're covered
there?
Brown: Yes. The plans propose that the wall be placed outside the
public right-of-way and that would address our concern.
Batzli: And the sidewalk, as it currently is being requested by the Park
and Recreation Commission, doesn't go along right at that end?
Brown: It very well may be. I haven't reviewed the Park and
Recreation's recommendations with that.
Batzli: On the barrier issue, are you talking about some sort of semi-
permanent barrier? What exactly are you thinking about installing right
there?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 27
Brown: This issue has recently come up before the City Council with the
imfamous Teton Lane feasibility study and we are now gathering
specifications and trying to adopt a standard for a permanent breakaway
barricade. You'll be seeing this possibly in the future where it's
imbedded down in the ground. It's a sturdy sturcture that wouldn't
allow a regular car to go through it. However, a fire truck could very
easily snap it off at the base and gain access.
Batzli: Is aesthetics part of the study that we're conducting on
something like that?
Brown: Definitely. There are several designs that are out there and
have been used for a very long time.
Batzli: I have a general question and anybody can answer it. Is the
Fish and Wildlife Service, after having designated or Department of
Natural Resources, after having designated something as a Class B
wetlands, there are six conditions that we list. They're established by
the Fish and Wildlife Service and how binding on us are those conditions?
Dacy: We use the Fish and Wildlife Service as much as we do DNR or the
Watershed District. They make recommendations to the City. The City's
wetland ordinance goes beyond the requirements of DNR or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife. If that wetland was not on the DNR's maps, it is on the
City's maps because we cover all types of wetlands. So city staff is
recommending that these conditions be a part of the wetland alteration
permit and a recommended condition of approval. If the Commission feels
that this is not appropriate in this case, that's fine. Then you can
remove all or some of the parts that you don't feel is appropriate in
this case.
Batzli: I think I heard you just say that our standards are tougher than
the DNR's but we included here their standards.
Dacy: No, what I was saying is, our ordinance covers wetlands beyond
what the DNR covers.
Batzli: That's all I have.
Wildermuth: I think most of the issues have been pretty well discussed.
I guess I'm not persuaded that a tree removal plan doesn't have to be
submitted. I think Barbara, between you and the developer you can reach
some kind of an accomodation for a simplified plan in view of the track
record that the developer has. I think the Fish and Wildlife
recommendations should be observed. I think in view of the investment
into the trail system that the City is going to be making, we should
definitely stay with the trail system. I like to see this kind of
development. I think it's a real asset to the City. Large lot
development with nice homes. It's going to be a real asset. There is
i one issue though that I would like to bring up and that is, at some point
''- I think we're going to need some help from these developers in giving our
highway system a little further developed there. TH 101 is a pain now
and it's going to be even worse. I see this 32 home development, some of
'1
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 28
the other land that Lundgren has is zoned multi -family. That's going to
put even more pressure on Pleasant View and TH 101.
Emmings: In that regard, did I just see in the paper that the State and
the County swapped some land and that the County is going to be taking
over TH 101. It looked like it didn't come that far south.
Dacy: That was only north of Hwy. 12 was my understanding.
Emmings: But the article seemed to say that after some improvements are
made, south. It sounded like Hennepin County or both of them.
Dacy: South of Hwy. 12?
Emmings: Yes. Maybe I'm wrong about that but I thought that was an
interesting piece of news that somebody was finally actually being forced
to take over responsibility for that thing.
Wildermuth: I think at some point we're going to have to put the brakes
on development in that area because of what's happening or what's not
happening with TH 101. That's all I have.
Headla: Street lights are going to be required?
Dacy: Yes. They are part of the development contract.
Headla: Would you tell me again what you're going to do with that whole
wetland area. Just give me a quick shot at it. Are those bullrushes, is
that going to change?
Rick Sayther: I guess I'm speculating a little on what nature will do
through time. Our intent was to put in a storm sewer pipe that would
drain the water from the streets and the frontyards and the driveways,
run the water down into a 4 foot deep open water pond and the water would
then drain out through the 6 inch tile line the City built through the
ditch and the park and eventually to Lotus Lake. The rest of the wetland
we wouldn't do anything to. This 7 acres plus the south there we
wouldn't touch at all but I was saying that I thought through time it
would become a wetter wetland. I don't know if that makes a lot of sense
but right now it's seasonally dry. In some seasons it's dry. I think
through time, because all development generates more water than no
development, it will tend to be a wetter wetland.
Headla: Larry, do you think that pond would be filled up? What's your
guess? When would that propose pond be filled up? It holds roughly
100,000 gallons. When would run-off fill that up? One spring? Five
springs?
Rick Sayther: Immediately. As soon as it was dug it Would be full. As
f soon as you start digging with a backhoe, there's enough water in the
soil that it would fill immediately to the surface of the ground. Some
of the ponds that we did last year in Shorewood Near Mountain, we were
building ponds that were above the ground water level. Those we needed a
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 29
long time. We need the big rain to fill those up but this is a different
situation. We're actually working in a perched water tabled.
Headla: The reason I wanted to know that is, when I drove through there,
I really felt pretty much a sterile, naked area. Well manicured ponds
and I saw some geese in there. They were swimming period. You go look
at that whole wetland area, that was teeming with ducks, geese and a
muskrat or something at the far end but they were in there feeding and I
suspect they were getting ready for nesting. When you have just a well
manicured pond, outside of being a catch basin, it's worthless to
wildlife and I sure would hate -to see that wildlife habitat disturbed or
lost. It almost sounds like, from what you said, if you put in that pond
you're going to be draining the moisture back into that pond until it
gets filled up.
Rick Sayther: I don't believe it would. The pond area that we're
talking about is about 5% of the wetland area. A pretty small
percentage.
Greg Cray: I'd like to make a comment. I'd say about 90% of that pond
area is under water right now. It's under water. The water level is
that high.
Rick Sayther: I don't think the water is up where you think it is.
Headla: It didn't seem like it. It just looks like that pond, on the
balance, that that whole area there. I don't have a comfortable feeling
on it and I don't know enough about it to even say I'm right. I haven't
seen anything here to give me any confidence that we're not going to
upset that balance.
Brown: If I may add a point. The water table at this point, I think
everyone will agree, in that area is fairly high. It's a perched water
table. Essentially what you're doing is just removing the soil. The
water is already there. Right now it's not real evident because the soil
is there. You remove the soil and you have a ponding condition along
with that perched water table. It's not as though you're taking a dry
area, digging it out and letting the runoff come into that dry area.
Headla: So on the map there, like where it has 7.5 acres, your feeling
is you aren't going to drop that water table maybe an inch or a couple of
inches at the most for the time being.
Brown: No, because the water table right here is perched already. If
there was not a perched water table at that point, then I would say yes,
that is possible.
Emmings: What does perched mean?
( Brown: Perched means that there is an impervious layer somewhere down
that will allow the water to go above normal, the lake bottom or any body
of water.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 30
Headla: Barbara, I'm pleased at item 5. I just love to see that type of
thing on the wetland. That's going to give us more clout and help
everybody. When the builder starts applying for permits at Murray Hill,
did you have any trouble there? Remember all the discussions_ we had
about the tree plan?
Dacy: Oh, the six lot subdivision down at the bottom of the street? I
was employed here.
Headla: No, they're just putting them in now.
Emmings: It's the one where they took out the house to create that
entrance into that Murray Hill?
Dacy: Okay, that's called Eight Acre Wood.
Headla: Did any problems develop, is the builder and you communicating
with what trees are going to be removed?
Dacy: They've gotten plans and specification approval. We haven't
received any building permits on any of those lots yet. They're doing
what they have to do for the road and utility construction. Larry,
you've dealt directly with them.
Brown: For the first phase only they put in utilities. Right now that
project is being held up by the Watershed District but that's not
relevant here. A point to note, we have and I will not mention the names
to protect the innocent but we have run into problems, serious problems
with not having tree removal plans...
Headla: I just got to support item 1 on that tree removal. I think
we've got to go all the way on that. We've asked the same thing and we
had the builder here, I think he's outside now, who went through that
whole bit. We didn't, at least I'm not aware of any problems with him. I
think we've got to be consistent and require that. I want to support the
one on the trail system. I think we've just got to ask the same thing of
him that we ask of anybody else. That's all I have.
Emmings: I don't have much additional. Brian has pointed out a section
of the code under required standards for PUD's. It does prohibit clear
cutting of woodland areas and prohibits cutting trees over 6 inches in
diameter unless it's demonstrated there is no feasible way to develop the
site.
Dacy: That's Section 20-1179?
Emmings: No, this is Section 20-504(b).
Dacy: Okay, Section 20-1179 is part of the landscaping -ordinance and it
says the same thing. It would apply to the non-PUD areas also.
Emmings: And it talks about the number of trees per lot and what size
they have to be so there already are some things there. It doesn't sound
ba
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 31
to me like it's a very formal requirement. I'm a little torn on this
issue because I think a developer who's done a good job and has proven
he's done a good job ought to get some credit for that but I don't think
that means we relax our standards. It doesn't sound to me like it's that
big a deal to put in a tree removal plan. You want to know the general
areas of cutting and it sounds like they can take a plat and just circle
on those lots that you've expressed concern about, circle a general area
of where there will be tree removal and that's all you really require.
It sounds like a pretty easy job to me. It's not like taking a complete
inventory of all the trees out there and then deciding tree by tree which
are going to go and which are going to stay. I think we've got to leave
that in there. We put it in on all of them and I think we ought to stay
consistent on that so we don't have problems like we've had in the past
ever again. On the wetland question, I think it's a good thing to put,
if that pond wasn't sitting on a wetland I think we'd all be all for it
and I don't think it makes any difference that it's sitting there on a
wetland in this particular case. I think it's a nice thing. I wouldn't
want to own Lot 1 however and worry about kids coming and falling down
into the pond but I don't have to buy a lot now so it's not a problem.
Another thing on the pond is it just seems like such a differdnt kind of
alteration. We've been real firm about forbidding alteration to' wetlands
but it seems to me when we've done that it's been where they've wanted to
fill them or they wanted to put roads through them. Alterations of that
kind. This seems like a very different kind of thing. It would be nice
to hear what someone like Dr. Rockwell would have to say about this
particular one but it seems to me that some of these Fish and Wildlife
Service items can be a way to create what they want to create there in
this particular case. That's all I have.
Erhart: Steve, I think we've been doing a lot of these haven't we?
Where there are alterations of Class B wetlands where we've had holding
ponds and stuff. ,
Emmings: Where we've put ponds in them?
Dacy: The best example that I can draw for you to draw a similarity is
the City's pond at the end of West 79th Street. Remember when the City
went through it's wetland alteration permit. The basic purpose of that
pond was for storm water retention and we couldn't achieve some of these
six conditions because the HRA and the Council felt it should be more
aesthetic and more appealing. They didn't want to see the wetland
vegetation around the rim of the pond.
Emmings: So that's directly analagous.
Dacy: Right, so you have a similar situation and the other point being
that it is a fairly portion of the total wetland.
Erhart: I think in this subdivision right up here, there's a lot of
ponds.
Dacy: Right, there's no question that we have on a regular basis
implemented these conditions.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 32
Batzli: Would it be a reasonable condition to request that they get some
sort of a DNR opinion that what they're going to do won't adversely
affect the wetland?
Dacy: Sure, that's fine.
Batzli: Is that the sort of opinion that a DNR official would give?
Dacy: They may or may not need a DNR permit anyway.
Emmings: You went out there with somebody. From Fish and Wildlife?
What did they think?
Dacy: Right. Prior to Dr. Rockwell leaving, both Dr. Rockwell went out
there with Jo Ann and Mr. Leech went out more recently in February and
they felt that the wetland was a marginal quality. It wasn't extremely
good but it wasn't extremely bad and they felt that the proposed
alteration could be achieved but as typically, they have always
recommended the implementation of those six conditions.
Emmings: Do you know if they were asked if this was just a pond like
they're proposing, if it would have any detrimental effect on the balance
of the wetland?
Dacy: To be honest, I know that Mr. Leech did not have the benefit of
this detailed plan when he went out to the site. His main purpose was to
tell us the quality of the wetland and where the edge of the wetland
vegetation was to advise the developers.
Emmings: Could his opinion as to whether or not the pond, as it's
proposed, would be detrimental to the balance of the wetland be obtained
before this gets to the City Council so they could take a look at that?
Dacy: Yes.
Emmings: Okay. Anybody else have anything?
A motion was made at this point. Discussion followed.
Conrad: Point 1, you don't feel Dave that you want to simplify the tree
removal plan at all? You're comfortable that the developer should go
through...
Headla: We're saying a tree plan. A tree plan's a tree plan. Now the
people who work with the contractor, there's.goi.ng to be some repoire and
I'm sure there's going to be give and take as they develop a tree plan.
If somebody comes in and they really don't know what he's like, I'm sure
they're going to look at it a lot more seriously what they're doing than
somebody they've had repoire and worked with for a few years.
Conrad: So you don't want to send a signal saying, in writing, a
simplified tree plan?
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 33
Headla: No.
Conrad: You think that staff can interrupt the words right now?
Headla: I think right now it gives them enough leeway that they can work
with that person and do what they think is the spirit of the
recommendation.
Emmings: I agree with Dave on that, by the way. I don't think we should
change. That's a boiler plate condition and I think it ought to stay
that way and let the staff work with the applicant,. just like Dave says.
I think it's very appropriate and it doesn't sound to me like we're
requiring that much anyway.
Conrad: I don't know what simplified versus complex is and I think Tim's
comment is we should probably talk about what this is because it's really
good but we don't know what we're asking.
Dacy: And that's probably because you don't work with it everyday. The
building inspectors and the planners, we're out in the field all the time
and we work with them and we can tell from the Certificate of Survey if
they're really going to be needing to remove all those trees.
Conrad: Maybe Mr. Chairman you can have staff educate us in the weeks to
come on what's required.
Erhart: I'd ask staff to come back at some time and help us understand
this requirement and whether or not we're really putting a hardship and
we're not gaining anything but as far as this proposal, I think we ought
to move ahead.
Headla moved, Batzli seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision #79-2 for 34 single family lots as shown on the
plan stamped "Received March 4, 1988" and subject to the following
conditions:
1. A tree removal plan shall be provided at the time of building permit
application for Lots 1-5, Block 1, Lots 1-11, Block 2, Lot 1, Block 3
and Lots 7-14, Block 4.
2. The applicant shall construct off street trails along Trappers. Pass,
Oxbow Bend and Timberhill Road with park fees accepted and trail fees
waived.
3. Compliance with the conditions of the wetland alteration permit.
4. The developer shall enter into a development contract with the City
and provide the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper
installation of these improvements.
5. The developer shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the
Watershed District permit and the permit from the Department of
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 34
Natural Resources.
6. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
initiation of any grading, and once in place shall remain in place
throughout the duration of construction. All of the erosion control
measures shall remain intact until an established vegetative cover
has been produced at which time removal shall be the responsibility
of the developer.
7. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize
slopes greater than 3:1.
8. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City's
standards for urban construction.
9. The applicant shall submit for approval by the City Engineer details
for the construction of the barricade on the deadend of Trappers Pass
between Lot 1 of Block 1 and Lot 14 of Block 4 with the plans and
specifications.
10. Type II erosion control shall be placed on the upstream side of the
Class B wetland along the rear of Lots 1 through 9 of Block 4. The
City's standard detail for the installation of Type II erosion
control (staked bales and snow fence) shall be placed on the grading
plan.
11. Details for the construction of the proposed retaining wall along
both sides of Trappers Pass deadend shall be submitted as a part of
the plans and specifications review for approval by the City
Engineer.
12. Lots 15 and 16 of Block 4, as depicted on Sheet No. 1 of the plan set
dated February 18, 1988 shall be revised to show the correct property
boundaries.
13. The driveway for Lot 16, Block 4 shall be constructed such that it
forms a "T" intersection with Valhalla and Iroquois Avenue.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a drainage swale along the
common lot line of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 4 which will serve as an
emergency over -flow swale for the ponding site of Lot 2, Block 3.
15. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front
and rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage and
utility easement for ponding site and storm sewer facilities shall be
shown on the final plat.
16. All private drives shall access internal streets to the subdivision.
No driveways shall be allowed to access Pleasant View Road.
17. The outlet configuration shall be further reviewed at the time of
plans and specifications submittal and design adjustments made
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 35
accordingly, if necessary, to facilitate proper conveyance of
stormwater under Pleasant View Road.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Conrad moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commi ss ion 'recommend
approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-5 to permit development
within 200 feet of a Class B wetland and to permit a holding pond to be
constructed within the Class B wetland with the following conditions:
1. To improve the quality of the wetland, the holding ponds must meet
the following six conditions established by the Fish and Wildlife
Service:
a. The basin will have free form.
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 to
20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of
emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife.
C. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable
water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife
feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage
growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and
thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent
vegetation.
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing
wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable
substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe,
etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the
basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
2. Upon submission of plans and specifications for construction of the
pond within the Class B wetland, the applicant shall provide details
on area of construction for the pond within the wetland and how the
remaining wetland will be preserved.
3. The erosion control fence shall be continued across Lots 7 and 8,
Block 4 to completely protec;t the wetland from any construction
activity.
4. All structures adjacent to the wetland (Lots 1-9, Block 4) must meet
the 75 foot setback from the edge of the wetland.
5. The developer shall provide deed restrictions prohibiting alteration
of the wetland area on Lots 1 through 9, Block 4, beyond the 914
elevation.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 1988 - Page 36
6. The developer shall make every effort in it's pond design to improve
the wetland and make the wetland an attractive, useful wildlife
habitat.
All voted in favor except Batzli who opposed and motion carried.
Batzli: Is staff going to have the Fish and Wildlife come back out?
Emmings: If you want to amend the motion, if you want to make that.
Conrad: Would you like me to add that staff bring the Fish and Wildlife?
Emmings: Or get an opinion from them. Maybe they don't have to come
back out. -
Wildermuth: I don't think DNR or Fish and Wildlife can do much with a
wetland that small.
Conrad: I'm comfortable that they don't need to be invited.
Emmings: Brian, do you want to state your reasons for your vote?
Batzli: I guess I'd prefer that we invite somebody out that actually
knows what they're doing to take a look at what we're proposing.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE,
SPECIFICALLY LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS ON PROPERTY ZONED BF, BUSINESS FRINGE
DISTRICT AND LOCATED AT 608 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, JAMES FREEMAN AND
BRAMBILLA'S INC.
Barbara Dacy and Larry Brown presented the staff report on this item.
Emmings: Has the applicant been asked if he'd be willing to go along
with closing off one those?
Brown: The applicant, we received word that the applicant was
dissatisfied with closing off one of the accesses.
Jack Brambilla: In regards to your little diagram there, you brought up
the question about the speed going by there. If you back up to the east
about 100 yards, there's a warning light there that will come on when the
traffic light when you go to the left there is lit red. That warning
light will slow traffic down if the traffic light is for stopping. It's
a little problem corner there. I don't think the cars are going no 55
mph there. People do slow down.
LUrlDGREn
INC.RUCTION
BROS�
935 EAST WAYZ_ATA BOUL.EVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
April 3, 1989
Dear Neighbor:
Lundgren Bros. Construction soon will be entering the final phase of the
Chanhassen portion of the Near Mountain project. This will start in the
spring with development of the small Trappers Pass addition approved last
year which is to provide a needed second outlet to Pleasant View Road.
In addition, we soon will be returning to the City with a proposal to
revise the overall Near Mountain Development Plan. As you probably
already know, the original plan included 120 multi -family attached
dwellings to be constructed on the large hill at the western end of the
site. Over the years, there has been discussion whether multi -family
buildings are, in fact, the most appropriate or desirable use for this
area.
We now believe that executive bracket, large lot single family homes
similar to those in Trappers Pass and Sweetwater would be more consistent
and compatible, and accordingly soon will propose to Chanhassen amendment
of the Development Plan to replace the multi -family buildings with such a
subdivision.
While it will be a month or more before the Chanhassen Planning Commission
will hold a public hearing on this matter, we would like you and your
neighbors to join us now for an informal presentation of our development
proposal and discussion of any suggestions or concerns which you may have
We are confident that with your input and support we will be able to
create a neighborhood as attractive as your own and in which you would
want to live.
Our informational meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, April
12th, in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. City Hall is at
690 Coulter Drive.
I hope you will attend and look forward to meeting you.
"inc
r
Peter Pflaum
President
APR ® 5 1989
PP: bf CITY OF CHANHASSEN
ANON 1 S : 02 LEONARD r STFREET F
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
FOR
BLOCKS 1, 2 AND 3,
TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION
A Residential Development
In The
City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD - TTW/HMM
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
TTW225 5/10/89
0e-2s_SD MON 1 5 : 02 LEONARD , STREET F
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
RECITALS.......................................................1
DECLARATION...................... tit ............................. 2
ARTICLE I GENERAL COVENANTS AFFECTING ALL LOTS..................2
Section 1. Residential Purposes........... ...............2
Section 2. Building Specifications ......................... 2
Section 3. Setbacks.........................................4
Section 4. Nuisance........................................"4
Section 5. Prohibited Dwellings ............................. 4
Section 6. Windmills.......................................4
Section 7. Antennas........................................4
Section S. Animals .......................... .............5
Section 9. Driveways; Parking; Vehicles....................5
Section 10. Rubbish.........................................5
Section 11. Signs...........................................6
Section 12. Utility and Drainage Easements..................6
Section 13. Soil Removal....................................6
Section 14. Clothes Lines...................................6
Section 15. Rights of Developer ..................... :....... 6
ARTICLE II SPECIAL COVENANTS AFFECTING CERTAIN LOTS......'1..,..7
Section 1 Subdivision Entrance Improvements...............7
Section 2 Pond Equipment-* ................................ 8
Section 3 Berms.,* .......................... 1,04 ........ 10
Section 4. Protection of Wetlands .........................10
- i -
o 6- 2 6- 8 9 M O N 1 S: O 3 L E O N A R D, S TREE T F'
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Page
ARTICLE III
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE ..............
Section
1.
New Improvements..............................12
Section
2.
Changed Improvements ...........................13
Section
3.
Committee Members ............. •..............
13
Section
4.
Committee Chairman.............................13
Section
5.
Submission of Plans and Specifications ........
14
Section
6.
Review of Plans and Specifications ............
1-4
Section
7.
Remedies Against Owners.......................16
Section
8.
Remedies Against Committee....................16
Section
9.
Retention of Records ..........................16
ARTICLE IV ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS ..........................
17
Section
1.
Duration......................................17
Section
2.
Severability..................................17
Section
3.
Mode of Enforcement ...........................17
Section
4.
Amendment; Termination ........................18
Section
5.
Captions......................................18
0 6— 2 a_ 0 9 M O N 1 S: 03 L E O N A R D S T P E E T P_ P
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS
FOR
BLOCKS 1, 2 AND 3,
TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION nd
_ I
_ re -
This Declaration is made this 19th day. of March, 1989 by :h
Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. a Minnesota corporation
_
"'Developer"}._ din
[th
RECITALS
A. Developer is the fee owner of -the land in Carver he
County, Minnesota, legally described as follows:
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1;
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2;
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 3;
all in TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION.
Each of said lots is referred to herein as a "Lot". All of said
lots are referred to collectively as the "Burdened Property". ed
B. Developer desires to impose upon 'and subject the, Bur- Hof
dened-Property to certain covenants, conditions, restrictions and lel
reservations for the benefit of land in Carver County, Minnesota -al
legally described as follows: as
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1;
Lots I and 2, Block 2;
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 3;
Outlots A, B and C;
all in TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION. for
11 '
Said Land is referred to collectively as the "Benefited Pro- .
in
perty."
a
a
06-2o- 9 MON 1 5 : O4 L.EONARD s STREET
F
DECLARATION
NOW, THEREFORE, Developer hereby declares, imposes upon, and
makes all of the Burdened property subject to the following cove-
nants, conditions, restrictions, reservations and easements, the
burden of which shall run with the Burdened Property and bind all
persons who now or hereafter have any right, title or interest in
the Burdened. Property,- and the benefit -of which shall run with
the Benefitod Property and inure to the benefit of all persons
who now or hereafter have any night, title or interest in the
Benefited Property:
ARTICLE I
GENERAL COVENANTS AFFECTING ALL LOTS
Section 1. Residential Purposes. Each Lot shall be used
only for residential purposes, except that Lots or portions of
Lots may be used by home builders for temporary offices, model
homes and/or for subdivision entrance monuments. Residential
purposes include houses and other Residential Improvements (as
defined in Article III, Section 1 of this Declaration).
Section 2. Building Specifications.
a. Height. No dwelling shall be erected, altered or
placed on a Lot or permitted to remain there other than one
detached single-family house not to exceed two stories in
height, as measured from grade. If the house includes a
walk -out basement, the basement shall not be counted as a
story.
- 2 -
0 6- 2 6- S 9 N O N 1 5 : 0 4 L EON A R D , STREET F
b. Garaues. Each house shall have one or more
attached fully -enclosed garages, but no carports or detached
garages. There may be garage space for any number of cars,
but from the street in front of the house � it must --appear
that there is garage space for no more than three -:'cars.
Example fl: One double garage door facing -the street and one
single garage door on the side of the house but visible --from
the street. Example #2: Three single garage doors -facing
the street and one single garage door facing the rear of the
house but not visible from the street.
C. Storage Structures. Attached or detached struc-
tures for storage purposes are permitted, but any storage
structure large enough to hold an automobile shall be con-
sidered a garage whether or not it is used as a garage.
Each storage structure on a Lot shall be of the same color,
design and quality of construction as the house on the Lot.
d. Comrletion. Each house or other structure con-
structed or placed on a Lot shall be completely finished on
the exterior thereof within nine months after commencement
of construction.
e. Floor Areas. If the house has one story,
excluding any walkout basement, the first floor area shall
be at least 1,400 square feet. If the house has two
stories, excluding any walkout basement, the first floor
area shall be at least 1,000 square feet and the total area
of the first and second floor shall be at least 1,800 square
feet. The first floor area described in the preceding two
- 3
06•-26-P-9 MON 1 5 : 05 LEONARD I STREET F
sentences shall be exclusive of breezeways, open porches and
garages. if a house is a split level house, then the first
two levels higher than the basement shall be considered:to
be the first story and the next two higher levels shall 'be
considered the second story.
section 3. Setbacks. Building setbacks from all Lot lines
shall comply with city ordinances, as modified, by any applicable
planned unit development special use permit_.
Section 4. Nuisance. No noxious or offensive trade or
activity shall be carried on or upon any Lot, nor shall anything
be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance
to the Benefited Property.
Section 5. Prohibited Dwellings. No structure of a tempor-
ary character, trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, barn, or
other outbuilding shall be used on any. Lot at any time (either
temporarily or permanently) as a dwelling.
Section 6. Windmills. No ornamental, operational or other
windmill shall be constructed, erected, installed, placed or used
on any Lot at any time.
Section 7. Antennas. No exterior antenna, aerial, tower,
wire, line, cable, dish or other device for transmitting or
receiving radio, television, microwave, laser or other electro-
magnetic signals ("antenna") shall be constructed, erected,
installed, placed or used on any Lot without the written permis-
sion of the Architectural Control Committee. The Architectural
Control Committee shall deny permission if the antenna is visible
from any public street adjoining the Lot and may deny permissior
- 4 -
9
M O N 1 5: 05
L EON A R D, S T R E E T
F
if it
determines, in
its sole discretion, that the
antenna would
be offensive to the sight. Any fence, wall -or other structure
intended to shield an exterior antenna from sight shall be sub-
ject to review -by the.Architectural.Control Committee:
Section 8. Animals. No animals, livestock, or poultry of
any kind shall be raised, bred or.kept on any Lot, except.that
dogs, cats and other household. pets may be kept,: provided -that
they are not kept, bred, or maintained 'for any commercial pur-
poses. The total number of dogs and cats kept on a Lot at -any
one time shall not exceed three (3).
Section 9, Driveways; Parking; Vehicles. All driveways and
parking areas constructed on any Lot shall be paved with an
asphalt, brick, concrete or bituminous surface. operable automo-
biles may be kept, stored or parked only on paved driveways, on
paved parking areas, or in enclosed garages. All other vehicles
shall be kept, stored or parked only in enclosed garages._ "All
other vehicles" means all motorized and all non -motorized vehi-
cles except operable automobiles, including (without limitation)
the following: automobiles that are inoperable, trucks, vans,
recreational vehicles, all -terrain vehicles, ambulances, hearses,
motorcycles, motorbikes, bicycles, snowmobiles, watercraft, air-
craft, house trailers, camping trailers, other trailers ana trac-
tors. Notwithstanding the foregoing prohibition, guests of the
owner of a Lot visiting for less than 15 days in any 30 day per-
iod may park their vehicles on unenclosed paved areas of the Lot.
Section 10. Rubbish. No Lot shall be used or maintained as
a dumping ground for rubbish, except during construction of sub-
- 5 -
06-26-O9 MON It!; : 015 L.EONARD s STREET
F
division improvements and houses. Trash, garbage and other waste
shall be kept in sanitary containers.
Section 11. Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayer:
J to the public view on any Lot except as follows:
a. one sign no larger than 6 square feet in area ma}
be placed on each Lot advertising the Lot for sale, unlesE
the Lot is a corner Lot, in which 'case ..one such sign -for
each side of street frontage is permitted.
b. During the initial construction and sales period
of the Property, one additional sign no larger than 6 square
feet in area may be placed on any Lot containing a mode_
home.
Section 12. Utility and Drainage Easements.
installation and maintenance of utilities and
Easements for
drainage are
reserved as shown on the recorded plat of the Burdened Property.
Section 13. Soil Removal. No sod, soil, sand or gravel
shall be sold or removed from any Lot, except for the purpose of
excavating for the construction or alteration of a house on the
Lot or appurtenances thereto, or for the proper grading thereof,
or for road improvement.
Section 14. Clothes Lines. No exterior clothes line,
clothes rack, or other device for drying or hanging clothing or
other laundry shall be constructed, erected, installed, placed or
used on any Lot at any time.
Section 15. Rights of Developer and Home Builders. Unti:
the last Lot within the Benefited Property is sold and conveyer
to an owner other than Developer or a professional home builder,
- 6 -
O o— 2 6- g •D N O N 1 5 : 07 L EON A R D, S TREE T F
1
the following actions by said persons will not be deemed viola-
tions of the foregoing restrictions:
a. The use of a house for model and sales office: pur-
poses;
b. The storage of equipment, materials and earth
during the construction of new houses;
C. The display of signs of.any legal size advertising
lots or houses in the Benefited Property.
ARTICLE II
SPECIAL COVENANTS AFFECTING CERTAIN LOTS
Section 1. Subdivision Entrance Improvements.
a. Easement Areas. Developer may build Subdivision
Entrance Improvements in the most southerly corner of Lot 2,
Block 2, and the most easterly corner of Lot 4, Block 3, Trappers
Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition (the "Entrance Lots").
-Subdivision Entrance Improvements" shall mean monuments, signs,
walls, fences, landscaping (vegetation and structures), lighting,
sprinkler systems, and utility lines and related improvements.
If Developer elects to build Subdivision Entrance Improvements on
an Entrance Lot, it shall reserve an easement over a specific
area legally described in the deed from Developer to the pur-
chaser of the Entrance Lot. The easement area shall include
space for the Subdivision Entrance Improvements together with
access thereto and underground utilities.
b. Developer's Easement. Each easement shall be a
nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, assignable, commercial
- 7 -
06--26-99 MON 1 S : 07 LEONARD r STREET F
easement in gross in favor of Developer, its successors and
assigns. Pursuant to this easement, Developer shall have the
right, but not the-obligation,__to install, operate, maintain,
repair.and replace the Subdivision Entrance Improvements (if any)
built within said easement area.-
C. Lot Owners' Responsibilities. The owner(s) of
each Entrance Lot shall maintain in good -order and repair the
Subdivision -Entrance Improvements thereon.
d. Maintenance. Maintenance of landscaping shall
include (without limitation) watering, fertilizing, weeding, cut-
ting, trimming and raking the lawn, trimming and pruning trees
and shrubs, and removing all debris, including dead wood, leaves,
grass and litter; but need not include replacement of diseased or
dead trees and shrubs. Maintenance of a sprinkler system shall
include, without limitation, preventing the freezing of any pipes
in the system by draining the pipes each autumn. Maintenance of
each other Subdivision Entrance Improvement shall include what-
ever is necessary to keep the improvement in good operating order
and good appearance.
Section 2. Pond Equipment.
a. Easement Areas. Ponds will be located within the
following described "Pond Sites":
Pond Site No. 1: The drainage and utility ease-
ment dedicated in the plat of TRAPPERS PASS AT
NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION over the southerly por-
tion of Lot 2, Block 2.
Pond Site No. 2: The drainage and .utility ease-
ment dedicated in the plat of TRAPPERS PASS AT
NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION over the southerly
portion of Lot 2, Block 1 and over that part of
Lot 3, Block 1 described as follows:
-$-
0 G_ 2 G_ S 9 M O N 1 5 : S 8 L E O N A R D+ STREET P
Beginning at the most easterly corner of said Lot
3; thence southwesterly along the north right-of--
way line of Oxbow Bend a distance of 42.00 feet;
thence North 56°30125'".-West .a distance-of-133.91...._.
feet; thence east -northeasterly �,to . a- point." on -.the
common boundary between said Lots 2 and 3 distant
93.16 feet from the point of beginning; ..thence
South 48000100" East along said common boundary.a
distance of 93.16 feet to the point of beginning.
b. Developer's Easements. Developers hereby -reserves
r
-easements as follows: -- - -- - -
(i) over the Pond Sites to install, remove, -replace,
maintain, repair, and operate a fountain and aeration equip-
ment, including, 'without limitation, water hoses, air hoses
and air diffusers (the "Pond Equipment") in and around the
ponds;
(ii) over the Pond Sites for access to the Pond
Equipment; and
(iii) within the Pond Sites for underground utility
lines serving the Pond Equipment.
Developer shall have the right, but not the obligation, to
install, remove, replace, maintain, repair, and operate the pond
Equipment. The Pond Equipment shall remain the property of
Developer and may be removed by Developer at any time without
notice. Said easements shall be nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevo-
cable, assignable, commercial easements in gross for the benefit
of Developer its successors and assigns.
C. Rights of -other Persons. Neither the public nor
the owners of Lots in the Property shall have any rights in the
Pond Sites by virtue of the easements granted to Developer in
this Section unless and until Developer shall assign its rights
under this Section to them by recorded instrument. This Section
shall not in any way diminish the rights of the City of
Chanhassen in the Pond Sites by virtue of the fact that the Pond
.. 9 -
OG - 2 S- 8 S M O N 1 5: 08 L E O N A R D. S TREE T I
sites are within the drainage and utility easements dedicated tc
the public in the plat of Trappers Pass at Near Mountain arc
Addition.
Section 3.- Berms..
a. Berm Area. Developer may build a berm withir
the following described NBerm Ar.ea";
The Easterly 30 feet of Lot 2, Blopk 2 and
the Easterly 30 feet -..of Lot 4, Block 3,
TRAPPERS -PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD.ADDITION.
b. Developerfs Easements. -Developer does not -com-
mit to build a berm, nor to maintain any berm, however Develope,
hereby reserves easements as follows:
(i) for a period of two years after the
recording of this Declaration, to build a berm within
the Berm Area and to landscape said berm; and
(ii) in perpetuity, to maintain any bert
within the Berm Area.
c. Lot Owners' Responsibilities. If a berm is
built, the owners of the Lots containing the berm'shall maintair
the berm, each owner to maintain the portion of the berm on hi-c
Lot.
d. Berm Maintenance. Berm maintenance shal:
include fertilizing, weeding, watering, mowing, raking, pruning,
controlling erosion and any other work reasonably required tc
keep the berm attractive and sound.
Section 4. Protection of Wetlands.
a. Location of Wetlands. Lots I through 4 of Bloc}
3 include wetlands, as shown on the plat of Trappers Pass at Nea:
Mountain 3rd Addition. The wetlands are within the platter
- 10 -
06-26-99 MON 1 5 - 09 LEON►=aRD , SYRREET '
1
drainage and utility easements that cover the rear portions of
said lots. The edge of the wetlands. (as shown on the plat) is
the contour. line at elevation '914 feet _above mean sea level
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929).
b. Governmental Regulations. Wetlands are; pro-
tested by various statutes, ordinances and regulations_.. of
federal, state and local governmental authorities, :including
(without limitation) Article VI of the Chanhassen City-_ Code
(Section 20--401 et seq.) . The, wetlands in Lots : 3 through 4,_
Block 3, Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition are "Class B
WetlandsN under Article. VI of the Chanhassen City Code, The City
Council of the City of Chanhassen may amend or repeal Article VI
of the City Code and may replace it with other ordinances dealing
with wetlands.
C. Private Restriction. In addition to the various
governmental statutes, ordinances and regulations protecting
wetlands, the Developer (for itself, its successors and assigns)
agrees that the following activities are prohibited in perpetuity
within said wetlands in Lots 1 through 4, Block 3, Trappers Pass
at Near Mountain 3rd Addition:
(1) Constructing, installing, or maintaininc
anything made by man, including ;but not
limited to buildings, structures, walk-
ways, clothes line poles, and playgrounc
equipment.
(2) Cutting, removing, or altering trees o'
other vegetation-
O G - 2 0- 8 9 M O N 1 S_ 0 9 L E O N A R D. S TREE T
r
(3) Excavation or filling.
(4) Application of fertilizers, whether
natural or chemical • -
(5) Application of chemicals or the des-
truction or retardation of vegetation:`._
(6) The deposit of waste or debris.
(7) The appl16
ication of herbicides; pesti�
- tides and insecticides. _
(8) Outside storage of any kind.
(g) Activity detrimental to the preservation
of the scenic beauty, vegetation and
wildlife.
The foregoing restrictions are for the benefit of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and may be waived
by action of the Chanhassen City Council..
ARTICLE III
ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTER
Section 1. New improvements. No Residential Improvement
shall be commenced upon any Lot by anyone except Developer with-
out the prior written approval by the Architectural. Control
Committee (mcommittee") of the person who will actually perforn.
the proposed work and of the plans and specifications i:"for the
work. gResidential Improvement& shall mean the clearing of some
or all of the trees from the Lot, the grading of the Lot, or the
construction, erection or installation any structure, includinc
(without limitation) the following structures: any house
garage, shed or other building; any porch, deck or balcony; an*
12
v_+o-2o-S9 MON 1 S: 10 LEONARID r STREET
f-
fence, wall or gate; any mailbox, newspaper box, or light post;
any exterior antenna (as defined in Article I, Section 7); any
retaining. wall, :terrace or other landscaping structure; any
patio, driveway or parking area; any tennis court, -and -any
swimming :pool (whether --above ground or .below ground)..`
planting of trees, shrubs and other plants shall not be deemed
Residential Improvements.
_Section 2. -Changed Improvements. The exterior color,
style, and materials -of any structure on a Lot shall not -.-be
changed by anyone except the Developer without the prior written
approval by the Committee of the person who will actually perform
the proposed work and of the plans and specifications for the
work.
Section 3. Committee Members, The Committee shall consist
of three individuals appointed by Developer until the date the
Developer no longer owns any of the Benefited Property. There-
after the Committee shall consist of three individuals either:
(a) appointed by the board of directors of an association of
owners of Lots in the Benefited Property, provided that the
owners of at least 75% of the Lots in the Burdened Property are
members of the association; or (b) elected by the owners of at
least 75% of the Lots in the Burdened Property, if no such asso-
ciation is established.
Section 4. Committee Chairman,
The Committee shall appoint
one of its members to be its chairman. The chairman shall call
meetings of the Committee. A quorum of the Committee shall con-
sist of two of its members. The Committee may act upon the vote
13 -
OG _ 2 s_ 8 9 M O N 1 5: 1 1 L E O N A R D s S TREE T F
or written consent of any two of its members. The chairman of
the Committee is authorized to execute certificates of. approval,
notices of disapprovaland similar instruments-effectuating_deci-
lions of the Committee.
- Section 5. Submission of Plans and Specif ications.: At
Least fourteen (14) days before work on a Lot is, commenced, the
owner of the Lot shall -submit to -the Committee one complete'set
of plans and specifications (including, without -.imitation,. full
site plans, -grading and drainage plans, building elevations, -roof
pitches, exterior colors and materials), along with the name of
the builder who will actually perform the proposed work.
Section 6. Review of Plans and Specifications. Within
fourteen (14) days after receipt of plans and specifications and
the name of the builder, the committee shall approve or dis-
approve them in writing. The Committee. -may disapprove a builder
if the Committee determines, in its sole discretion, that such
builder does not meet the Committee's standards of credit worthi-
ness and/or does not usually build Residential Improvements of
the same quality and in the same price range as Developer. The
Committee may disapprove plans and specifications only for one or
more of the following -reasons:
a. Non -Compliance. Non-compliance witti this
Declaration, municipal ordinances or other governmental
regulations.
b. Incompatibility With the Lot. Failure of the
proposed Residential Improvement to be compatible with the
- 14 -
06-26 -S 7 MON 1 5= 1 1 LLEONARD r STREET t'
Lot upon which it is to be built, in terms of topography,
soils and existing vegetation.
Failure of the proposed Residential Improvement to be com-
patible with the houses and other structures built or to be
built by Developer in the following subdivisions:
TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN
TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 2ND ADDITION
SWEETWATER AT NEAR MOUNTAIN
SWEETWATER AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 2N0 ADDITION
SWEETWATER AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION
in terms of style, general size, height and width; quality
of construction, price range and obstruction of views.
e. inadequate Information. Failure of the plans
and specifications to show all information necessary to
evaluate the foregoing characteristics.
The Committee's determinations concerning the builder an.4 plans
and specifications shall be conclusive. If the Committee disap-
proves the builder or the plans and specifications, it shall
state in writing the reason for such disapproval and, in the case
of the plans and specifications, the deficiencies which must be
cured to obtain approval.
- 15 -
0 - 2 6- 8 9 M O N 1 5 : 1 2 L E O N A R D r S TREE T F
Section 7. Remedies Against Owners. If construction of or
exterior changes to a Residential Improvement are commenced with-
out the Committee's approval of the builder and/or approval of
the plans - and specifications,..or if construction of:or-exterior
changes to a Residential _Improvement are completed not in
accordance with approved plans and specifications, any owner of a
Lot in the Benefited Property, -may bring an action to enjoin fur-
ther construction and to compel- the owner to conform-.-thE
Residential Improvement with plans":and specifications approved-b�
the Committee. Any such action must be commenced and a notice o_
lis pendens shall be filed within ninety (90) days after the datE
on which the certificate of occupancy is issued by the appropri-
ate municipal authority, in the case of a house, or within ninet\
(90) days after the date of completion, in the case of any other
Residential Improvement.
Section B. Remedies Against Committee. In the event that
the committee and/or the members of the committee shall fail tr
discharge their respective obligations under this Article III,
then any owner of a Lot in the Benefited Property may bring a:
action to compel the discharge of said obligations. Any sucl
action must be commenced within ninety (90) days after the dat:
on which the certificate of occupancy is issued by the appropri-
ate municipal authority, in the case of a house, or within ninet.
(90) days after the date of completion, in the case of any othe
Residential Improvement. Such -an action shall be the exClusiv
remedy of any owner of a Lot in the Benefited Property fc
failure of the Committee and/or its members to discharge suc
MOMEC
M O M 1 5: 1 2 L E O H A R D. S TREE T
obligations, Under no circumstances shall Developer, the
committee.or members of the Committee be liable to any person for
damages -(direct, consequential -or otherwise)•
The -Committee shall
Section .9.- Retention of Records. -
retain for a period of three (3) years all plans and specifica-
tions submitted to it and a record of all actions taken with
regard to them_
- ARTICLE IV -_:-
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
section I. Duration. Articles I and III of this Declar-
ation shall remain in full force and effect until 30 years fron
the date hereof. Articles 11 and IV of this Declaration shall
remain in full force and effect until terminated pursuant tc
Section 4 of this Article.
Section 2. Severability. Invalidation of any one or morc
of the provisions herein by judgment or court order shall not
affect any of the other provisions, which shall remain in ful
force and effect until the date of expiration.
Section 3. Mode of Enforcement. Any owner of any portio:
of the Benefited Property shall have the right to enforce th'
provisions of this instrument in the owner's name by probeeding
in law to recover damages or by proceedings in equity to restrai
any violation; provided that the remedies in Article III and no
the remedies of this section 3 shall apply to violations c
Article III. The City of Chanhassen shall have the right to
- 17 -
M O N
1 5: 1 3
L E O N A R D, S TREE T
F
enforce its
rights
under Article II, Section
4 of this
Declaration by proceedings at law or in equity.
Section 4. Amendment; Termination.-=-This-Declaration maybe
amended or terminated only by an -instrument executed by,all-of
the following persons:
(a) the fee owners of at least 75% of all the -_
Lots in the Burdened Property;`
-- (b) Near_Mountain-Properties, -a-.Minnesota --
co -partnership, so_ long --.as it- owns: -any of. the
_ Benefited Property;
(c) the Developer, so long as it owns any of
the Benefited Property; and
(d) The city of Chanhassen, if the amendment
or termination affects Article II, Section 4 of
this Declaration.
Any amendment or termination instrument need not be executed by
any other person holding an interest in the Benefited property oz
the Burdened Property.
Section 5. Ca,)tions. The title of this instrument -and the
captions of the articles and sections of this instrument are for
convenience of reference only.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer has executed this Declara-
tion as of the day and year first above written.
I)MLOpER: LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
By
Its
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before -me, -this _
day of May, 1989, by Peter Pflaum, President of Lundgren Bros
Construction, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of th
corporation.
Notary Public
CITY OF r
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
May 9, 1989
Ms. Judy Hermanson
Title Insurance Company of Minnesota
400 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Re: Current Zoning - Trappers -Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition
Dear Ms. Hermanson:
Mike Pflaum of Lundgren Bros. Construction has asked that I write
to you advising you of the current zoning of the above -referenced
project. The property is zoned P.U.D. (Planned Unit
Development), and is subject to conditions contained in a deve-
lopment agreement between the City of Chanhassen and the deve-
loper. Single-family residential housing is consistent with that
zoning.
If you have any questions relative to this project, please do not
hesitate to contact my office at 937-1900.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Olsen
Asst. City Planner
JO:ktm
LU11DGREn
ONSTRUCTION
BROISNC.
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
May 8, 1989
Ms. Jo Ann Olson
Chanhassen Assistant City Planner
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition
Dear Jo Ann:
On May 12, 1989, Lundgren Bros. will close a loan with Shelard
National Bank for the development of subject plat. Shelard requires a
"zoning endorsement" to its Title Insurance policy, for which Title
Insurance Company of Minnesota needs a statement that our proposed use
for single family detached housing is consistent with the property's
current zoning.
I would appreciate it if you would address such a statement to Ms. Judy
Hermanson, Title Insurance Company of Minnesota, 400 2nd Avenue South,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401; and send me a copy of your letter for use at
the closing if Ms. Hermanson's should be misplaced. I have attached as an
example a letter which was written by Brad Nielsen of Shorewood last year.
If for any reason you will not be able to supply such a letter in
advance of our closing, please call.
Very truly yours,
LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Michael A. Pflaum
MAP:bf
Enclosure
MAY Q 91989
CITY OF CHANHASSEB►
CITY OF
MAYOR
Robert Rascop
COUNCIL
Jan Haugen
Kristi Stover
Robert Gagne
Barb Brancel
ADMINISTRATOR
Daniel J. Vogt
SHORE -WOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB'ROAD Y SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474-3236
16 March 1988
Re: Current Zoning - Sweetwater at Near Mountain 2nd Addition
To Whom It May Concern:
Mike Pflaum, Lundgren Bros. Construction, has asked that we write to you
advising you of the current zoning of the above -referenced project. The
property is zoned P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development), and is subject to
conditions contained in a development agreement between the City of Shorewood
and the developer, dated 14 March 1988. Single-family residential housing is
consistent with that zoning.
If you have any questions relative to this project, please do not hesitate to
contact my office at 474-3236.
Sincerely,
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
Bradley iNielsen
City Planner/Building Official
BJN:ph
cc: Mike Pflaum
file no. 405 (88.07)
A Residential Community on take Minnetonka's South Shore
I
LU11DGR(n
R°«�°�
BROiOINC.
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
April 22, 1988
Mr. Tom Hamilton
440 Chan View, Apt. 9
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Chanhassen City Council:
On your agenda for April 25, 1988, is our proposed preliminary plat for
Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition, an RSF extension of the Near
Mountain project. City Staff is supportive of our proposal, and there are
only three areas of disagreement, each involving so-called "boilerplate"
conditions which we feel are unnecessary or inapplicable.
Please take a brief moment to read the attached explanation of our
position on these matters. We are not arguing against the requirement of
any ordinance. These are general conditions of approval implementing
policies which we feel ought not to be slavishly applied. In the context
of what we have already accomplished in Chanhassen, and what we are now
proposing to do, it is appropriate that the City Council test their
suitability for this situation.
Respectfully submitted,
LUNDGREN ROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
M' chael`~A. _'f um
cc: Don Ashworth
Barbara Dacy
Lori Sietsema
APR 2 5 1988
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7'
Lundgren Bros. Construction's Objections to Recommended Conditions of
Approval for Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition RSF Preliminary
Plat
(4/21/88)
1. Requirement of a Tree Plan
Lundgren Bros. believes that it is appropriate for the City to
supervise tree removal on small, environmentally sensitive sites
which are surrounded by existing houses -- particularly where
preservation of lakeshore habitat is a major issue. Lundgren Bros.
understands that the tree plan requirement was first applied in this
kind of a situation.
What we do not see is justification for expanding a necessary
precaution in certain instances into a generalized policy to be
applied wherever there are trees. We believe the requirement is
unnecessary for our project, a needless burden on the City's staff
and an unwarranted intrusion into the conduct of our business.
Please consider the following:
a. Lundgren Bros.' supervisory personnel have been building high
quality custom homes on difficult, wooded sites for a combined
total of well over one hundred years
b. Lundgren Bros. seeks wooded sites because it recognizes the
residential value of a wooded environment. Preservation of this
environment is as important to Lundgren Bros. and its buyers as
it is to the City Council and citizens of Chanhassen.
C. Since commencing the Near Mountain project in 1983, Lundgren
Bros. has developed 178 lots on the Chanhassen portion of the
site. To date, 160 homes have been constructed, many of which
are within the woodlands occupying the western one-half of the
site. If anyone has complained of wanton destruction of trees
or insensitivity to other environmental concerns, Lundgren Bros.
has not been advised of it.
d. This issue aroused our concern in 1982, when the first proposed
development contract for Near Mountain included a similarly
intrusive provision. At that time the parties settled upon the
following compromise, which became Section 4.09.a. of the P.U.D.
development agreement and which we now propose as an alternative
to the tree plan requirement for Trappers Pass 3rd Addition:
"Landscaping and the location of structures shall take into
consideration the preservation of trees, slope protection,
subsurface drainage, prevention of siltation and similar
potential problems."
2. Requirement of sidewalks along all non-cul de sac streets
Trappers Pass 3rd Addition is basically a relatively small southward
extension of the Near Mountain project. It is comprised roughly one-
2
half of land from within the P.U.D. and one-half of land acquired
from neighboring property owners. Although it will contain 32 lots,
it will add only 16 to what has already been approved as part of the
P.U.D. Its principal benefit is that it will create a second
entrance on Pleasant View Road which will enhance the visibility of
the Trappers Pass neighborhoods and improve traffic circulation
within and through the P.U.D.
Lundgren Bros. does not feel that there is any practical
justification for constructing roughly one-half mile of sidewalk
along the winding residential streets of this subdivision. (Please
see the attached plan.)
a. The approved P.U.D. plan requires no such sidewalk. The
sidewalk therefore would extend only to the border of the
Trappers Pass 3rd Addition plat.
b. The sidewalk would induce pedestrians to enter Trappers
Pass but leads to no destination. This probably will not
be appreciated by the citizens whose houses are near the
ends of the sidewalk.
C. In our view, short curvilinear residential streets are safe
and serviceable alternatives to sidewalks. .The streets in
Trappers Pass 3rd Addition would not encourage speeding or
recklessness.
3
d. Sidewalks are aesthetically unappealing and are not desired
by upper bracket homebuyers.
e. Homeowners considering Chanhassen are not seeking the kind
of urbanization sidewalks represent. We doubt Chanhassen's
current residents would want sidewalks in their
neighborhoods.
f. There is another pedestrian egress roughly midway between
where Pleasant View Road intersects Near Mountain Boulevard
and our proposed Timberhill Road. It has not yet been
improved with a trail but has been available for its
construction for some time.
3. Design stipulations which make construction of an amenity pond
impractical (approval condition Ybl. of Wetland Alteration Permit)
To enhance the attractiveness of the Timberhill Road entrance,
Lundgren Bros. would like to create a one-half acre open water pond
which would lie partly within the approximately 7.5 acre Class B
wetland. To be aesthetically worthwhile, this pond should be
excavated to a uniform depth of about four feet and have sides which
are steep enough to discourage cattail growth. The objective is to
produce a reflective surface which is unbroken by emergent
vegetation.
The Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines which have been incorporated
4
k
as conditions of approval are intended to promote the growth of aquatic
vegetation. We are asking that these conditions be waived.
Less than 6% of the wetland would be devoted to ponding and a
permanent open water area could only benefit resident wildlife. The
pond would not drain or in any other way alter the remaining 7+ acres
of wetland.
5
T
APPROVED P U. D.
DEVELOrEv LAND
T2A?PERS ?ASS EKTVWW�
/WCvv r K wr-r-sl. I I
3 ` rN -10.5 I WAY 31.5 MOUNTAIN
T r
10
4 9 2
� PO
•,Nv.9�z.o g � � /
I PR OSE STORM WER f 3 I
' EXISTING WTERMAIN —
5 g
i
_ , 9Z3o7
INV.
l �
e,
6 5 3 "NW a
4-4 V. 926
0 S e, PRC.POSED W TERMAI
9
8 4
ro
s
E GE OF WE AND 914
FOX
CLASS / , O4CO�
r
I e
4,
� , z
I
o5acres
� f
\ --- AMM
75acres /
i
LtJnDGREn
B Q O Ss OINCTRUCTION
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
March 22, 1988
Mr. Edward Lofstrom
Environmental Review Officer
Minnesota Historical Society
Fort Snelling Historical Center
St. Paul, Minnesota 55111
Re: Proposed development project in northeast Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Lofstrom:
Lundgren Bros. Construction is the developer of Near Mountain, a 31:3-acre
planned unit development in northeastern Chanhassen and southern
Shorewood. This project underwent environmental review in 1979, and the
EO6 issued a negative Declaration on January 10, 1980.
Over the years, Vern rel.men has assisted us in performing archaeological
surveys of each development area prior to the commencement of
construction. Vern no longer is doing this work and recommended that I
co-iitact Sob Clouse regarding a survey of approximately i8 acres which we
are now proposing to add to the project. Bob directed me to contact you.
As shown on the attached, the new property is generally west of Pleasant
View Road and immediately adjacent to land which already has been surveyed
by Vern.
Chanhassen has advised us of a registered archaeological site, Carver
County #68, in the vicinity of the new property and has suggested that we
advise you of our plans. The purpose of this letter is -to solicit your
assistance in determining If ain archaeological survey is warranted and, if
so, obtaining a list of those qualified to undertake it. Our timetable
calls for Fif-lal Plat review by Chanhassen in May, so we are looking for
swift resolution of this i. ;suF..
If further 11-1format:i.on would be helpful, please call, if you would line
to `i:isi.?_ the area, yourself, I would he glad to accompany yo_i.
V __t_
LIAR 2A1988
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
March 22, 1968
Mr. Edward Lofstrom
Page 2
I look forward to hearing .from you by phone or letter in the near future.
Very truly yours,
Lundgren Bros. Con/strut/ty/ior� , Inc.
Michael i1: Pf laum
MAP/md
cc: Frances O'Brien
Barbara Uacy, Chanhassen City Planner ✓
enclosures: Reduced preliminary plat ✓
Aerial photo photocopy vl-
Preliminary plat.
Preliminary utilities plan
v:.
I
PRELIMINARY PLAT
TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN
SATHRE-BERGOUIST. INC.
3RD ADOmON (REVI-SEDt
LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION T*C.
LUnDGREn
OINCTRUCTION
BRoi
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
March 23, i988
Mrs. Frances O'Brien
450 Indian Hills Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Archaeological survey
Dear Frances:
We :are preparing to undertake, at our own expense, an archaeological
survey of your property to determine if there are any remains or
archaeologically significant signs of habitation which could delay or
threaten our proposed use of the land.
Ms. Barbara Dacy, the Chanhassen City Planner, has indicated that the City
is concerned because evidence of such habitation has been discovered along
Lotus Lake only a few hundred feet away. We believe that, as a
consequence, it is almost a certainty that the C'ity Council will require
clearance by the Minnesota Historical Society before allowing Trappers
Pass 3rd Addition to develop. In any event, we would not want to purchase
the property until we were satisfied that no archaeological problems
exist.
Please call me if you have any difficulty with our undertaking such a
survey. What normally is involved is a waiting visual inspection of the
property and shallow shovel testing in the more probable areas of
habitation. If you wish, I will have the archaeologist explain the
procedure.
Please advise if you would have us include in this survey r}-:e property you
are not selling (lots 15 and i6 on the attached plan). If I do not hear
from you, I wi'Ll instruct the archaeologist to exclude these lots.
Very truly yours,
Lundgren nr.os. C011struc"t.i0n, inc.
Michael A. PflaUm
MAP/md
cr. Barbara Dacy v
,ra.c: Thorson
�av Ld K a r i t o r
MAR 2A 1988
CITY OF CHANFiASSEN
D7Y1 MDI1D. DJ 'f0id9 xIw"Af11
l i ---------- — - �,�: coasln3til �toulUr�v aHe
'iSIno9UIU - 3UHIVS•" .,,✓ il-'�I"II1� ��
mvit4 ovi uv3m 1V SsVd su3ddVH1
•-' " 1Y1d AUYNI mI l3Ud
1
U
sa �Z p ;..... a ... s o
-
t
OMB M� / , • —}� / Ijl \ \
oB�
ro
* \f
iD1 \V 3
CNIJ
Lo
o
l 1 11 ; 1 - ; 1 1 , 1, f , \""V,•' /! i � '��- °� � Ir Iit I �! r ir, i �p�i-S ,•r � � � �,
��,, �i)��,1�; j ;��J1{';Jl Jf��;��-fJ I�'•j1��,�I1� \�•• ,s;' � �:_/ � "'
.ff�if
,y {
i,�,JJ
'>>iil
�if
'' (','1 11l�{1�111 fi 171�,1iJi� t�i��1f;�� {�fiJJl��iif;i
NOTICEOFPUBLI HHEARING Affidavit of Publication
PROPCITOFCHANSED ASSENN Southwest Suburban Publishing Inc.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
Chanhassen Planning Commission will
hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday,
April 6, 1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council
Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690
Coulter Drive. The purpose of this State of Minnesota
hearing is to consider the application of
Lundgren Brothers Construction to )SS.
subdivide32.5 acres into 34 single family
lots on property zoned RSF, Residential County of Carver
Single Family and PUD-R, Planned Unit
Development - Residential and located on
the north and west sides of Pleasant View Stan Rolfsrud, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is the publisher of the newspaper known as the Carver County Herald
Road approximately 1/4 mile west of and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows:
Hwy. 101, Trappers Pass Addition. (A) This newspaper have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended.
PROPOSED WETLAND
ALTERATION PERMIT (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. was published on the date
CITY OF CHANHASSEN or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice, and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Af-
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the fidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case
alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the . d and size of type used in the composition
Chanhassen Planning Commission will and publication of the Notice:
hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, abcdefghijklmnopgrstuv
April 6, 1988, at 7:30 p.m, in the Council
Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 690 /
Couulter Drive. The purpose of this
hearing is to consider the application of By:
Lundgren Brothers Construction to Sta offs d, P er
develop within a Class B wetland and
develop within 200 feet of a Class B
wetland on property zoned RSF, Subscribed and sworn before me on
Residential Single Family and PUD-R,
Planned Unit Development - Residential
and located on the north and west sides of Pleasant View Road approximately 1/4 this day of/ ass
mile west of Hwy. 101, Trappers Pass IClSCUTT
Addition. BEC
NOTARYPUSLIC. MINNESOTA
A plan showing the location of the SCOTI COWTY
proposal is available for public review at
City Hall during regular business hours. % MY COMMISSION exPIF! s s 2-ss
All interested persons are invited to
attend this public hearing and express /
their opinions with respect to this
proposal.
JoAnn Olsen RATE INFORMATION
Asst. City Planner
Phone: 937-1900 Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space .... $7.00 per column inch
He ald Thursday, March Carver
24, 1988; NCounto Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter......................................$7.00 per column inch
2616) Rate actually charged for the above matter...................................................$4.94 per column inch
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
Vicki Churchill, the duly qualified and acting Planning
Secretary of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota, on oath and
deposes and says that on _ `� C�% �7` 19a
she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of hearing
in the City to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by
enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such
owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners
in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon;
that the names and addressess of such owners were those appearing
as such by the records of the County Treasurer of Carver County,
Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Ns
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, April 6,
1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City
Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to con-
sider the application of Lundgren Brothers Construction to sub-
divide 32.5 acres into 34 single family lots on property zoned
RSF, Residential Single Family and PUD-R, Planned Unit
Development - Residential and located on the north and west sides
of Pleasant View Road approximately i mile west of Hwy. 101,
Trappers Pass Addition.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning
Commission will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, April 6,
1988, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City
Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this hearing is to con-
sider the application of Lundgren Brothers Construction to create
a pond within a Class B wetland and develop within 200 feet of a
Class B wetland on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family
and PUD-R, Planned Unit Development - Residential and located on
the north and west sides of Pleasant View Road approximately i
mile west of Hwy. 101, Trappers Pass Addition.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for
public review at City Hall during regular business hours.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public
hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal.
Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the Carver County Herald on March 23, 1988)
Near Mountain Properties /e) B. Lawrence & S. Tivy Donald W. Jo:-inson
4900 IDS Center 370 Pleasant View Rd. 335 Pleasant View Rd.
Minneapolis, MN 55402 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kenneth & J. Fricke Ronald & L. Harvieux Frances O'Brien, et al
350 Pleasant View Rd. 6605 Horseshoe Curve 450 Indian Hills Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Mary E. Rojina, et al Gary & J. Kendrick ; Robert & L. Sathre
480 Indian Hill Rd. 550 Indian Hill Rd. j 365 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
i
Mark & D. Vanacek A. & M. Schroeder R. & M. Nelson
195 Pleasant View Rd. i 6430 Pleasant View Lane 135 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 i Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Peter & K. Whatley John & C. Pugh Bruce & M. Norby
201 Mountain Way 260 Mountain View Ct. 241 Mountain View Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Karl & A. Banga James E. Kelley Walter A. Knosp
221 Mountain View Ct. 6330 Near Mountain Blvd. 200 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Scott & J. Grieger Michael & E. Anderson Jeffrey & C. Johnson
260 Mountain Way 250 Mountain Way 240 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Karl & K. Bickler Joseph & K. Casey Dwayne & F. Sigler
230 Mountain Way 220 Mountain Way 210 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & E. Zima Keith & C. Sherer S. Prokosch/N. Beresni
271 Mountain Way 261 Mountain Way 251 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
J. James & S. Wehrle James & L. Gapp Rick & L. Johnson
241 Mountain Way 231 Mountain Way 221 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & C. Kadlec Lundgren Bros. Const. Robert & I. Stevens
211 Mountain Way 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. 6614 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Gregory & D. Cray James & E. Holte Bloomberg Companies
320 Pleasant View Rd. 330 Pleasant View Rd. 545 W. 78th Street
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Steven & M. Boyd Timothy S. Anderson dba Jos. & B. Kenyon
5710 Pleasant Park Drive ABA Homes 400 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Box 114 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Blue Earth, MN 56013
Gary & M. McCauley Gerald & F. O'Brien Russell & V. Knowles
420 Pleasant View Rd. I 450 Indian Hill Rd. 501 Indian Hill Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
Barbara A. Martini i Alan & L. Kramer I Harvey & K. Robideau
491 Indian Hill Rd. 531 Indian Hill Rd. 540 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 i Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
I
Kevin & Pieper Bruce & J. Nord Thomas & N. Seifert
541 Indian Hill Rd. I 551 Indian Hill Rd. 600 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
i
Alfonso & C. Correa John & K. VonWalter Donald & C. Snede
520 Pleasant View Rd. 510 Pleasant View Rd. 489 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Todd M. Adams Donn & J. Andrus James & L. Thompson
469 Pleasant View Rd. 449 Pleasant View Rd. 429 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Carl W. Schevenius Joseph J. Smith Ira & S. Rosen
5527 Penn Ave. S. P.O. Box 411 6331 Trap Line Circle
Minneapolis, MN 55419 Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Robert & J. Henderson Roger & M. Schwabe Douglas & S. Dougherty
6330 Trap Line Circle 6311 Oxbow Bend 301 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Edward A. Neer, Jr. J. Richard & M. Simpson Allen & M. Peterson
321 Trappers Pass 341 Trappers Pass 361 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Steven & B. Longren David & J. Welkie Douglas & J. Cook
381 Trappers Pass 6301 Trap Line Circle 290 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
—,
Warren & L. Erdman
431 Trap Line Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thomas & E. Marsh
430 Trap Line Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Joseph & K. Bast
6310 Oxbow Bend
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Keenan & S. Dammen
300 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Donald & M. Jacoby
461 Trap Line Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Owner
420 Trap Line Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dale & D. Fehrenbach
7003 Shooters Hill
JToledo, Ohio 43617
Owner
6311 Trap Line Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey Davis j Michael Mahon
6360 Near Mountain Blvd. 280 Mountain View Ct.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
William & C. Boss
201 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ernest & S. Sampias
481 Trap Line Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Owner
6300 Oxbow Bend
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Owner
251 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Owner
6330 Trap Line Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Hemphill Northern, Inc.
390 Hidden Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
i[I
Flo
I
JC*'':.ISIZZc.
1.\V•-l-=fMW.l 4
nu nu= � � t• j
wilIM:
ui, 11 k ON � Y!,Ipm-
-. rim rir,ter. i�� �•- ��,
• • rir ter.• ra.: .r. � •. �l
ter_ ...•. L.r .LA m" iia MA r.
to, .i ..
(=;III
�r
Irt
.
.
FEB 29 188 15:27 MN TITLE SHAKOPEE
MINNESOTA
TITLE4 to
��
P . 3/7
Title Insurance Company of Minnesota
Scott and Carver Counties Division
1 ; 2 West Third Avenue
P.O. Box 251
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
612/445 3136
Home Offrce: Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
February 29, 1988
According to the records in the Office of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota,
the following is a list of owners lying within 500 feet of the following described property;
See Exhibit "A" Attached
Near Mountain Properties
4900 IDS Center
Minneapolis, Mn 55402
B. Lawrence & Shari Tivy
370 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Donald W. Johnson
335 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn .55317
Kenneth D. & Janine M. Fricke
350 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Ronald E. & Leanne Barvieux
6605 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Frances O'Brien et: al
450 Indian Hills Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Mary E. Rojina, et al
480 Indian Hill Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Gary C. & J. Kendrick
550 Indian Hill Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Robert & Linda 5athre
365 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Mark & Debra Vanacek
195 pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
A.E. & M. C. Schroeder
6430 Pleasant View Lane
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
R.V. & M.A. Nelson
135 Pleasant -View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Peter J. & Kathleen L. Whatley
201 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
John M. & Cynthia L. Pugh
260 Mountain View Court
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Bruce E. & Margaret Nbrby
241 Mountain View Court
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Karl Ermants & Angela Banga
221 Mountain View Court
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
James E. Kelley
6330 Near Mountain Blvd.
Chanhassen, 'tin 55317
Walter A. Kuosp
200 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, Mn 5531.7
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Box 147
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Scott D. 6 Jody L. Grieger
260 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
FEB 29 '88 15:28 MN TITLE SHAKOPEE F,4i7
Michael & Elaine Anderson Robert & Irene Stevens
250 Mountain Way 6614 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, Ma 55317 Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Jeffrey & C. Johnson Gregory D. & Debralee Cray
240 Mountain Way 320 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Karl J. & Karen M. Bickler James S. & Esther M. Holte
230 Mountain Way 330 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Joseph C. & Karen A. Casey Bloomberg Companies
220 Mountain Way 545 West 78th Street
Chanhassen, Mn 55317 Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Dwayne R. & Francine Sigler
Steven P. & Mary H. Boyd
210 Mountain Way
5710 Pleasant Park Drive
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Chanhassen; Mn 55317
Robert J. & Edith M. 2ima
Timothy S. Anderson dba-
271 Mountain Way
ABA Homes
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Box 114
Blue Earth, Mn 56013
Keith F. Sharer Jr. &
Caryln K. Sharer
Jos. & Betty Kenyon
261 Mountain Way
400 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Steven J. Prokosch &
Gary W. & Mary Ann McCauley
Maney J. Beresni
420 Pleasant View Road So.
251 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Gerald & F. O'Brien
J. James & Sandra L. Wehrle
450 Indian Hill Road
241 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Russell & Vickie Knowles
James A. & Laurie E. Gapp
501 Indian Hill Road
231 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Barbara Ann Martini
Rick D. & Lisa Ann Johnson
491 Indian Hill Road
221 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Alan & L. Kramer
John J. & Caroly M. Kadlec
531 Indian Hill Road
211 Mountain Way
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Harvey W. & K. Robideau
Lundgren Bros. Construction
540 Pleasant -View Road
935 E. Wayzata Blvd.
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Wayzata, Mn 55391
FEB 29 188 15:28 MN TITLE SHAKOPEE
1
• Y
P . 5/7
Kevin J. Pieper
341 Indian Hill Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Bruce A. & Jodi L. Nord
551 Indian Hill South
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Thomas M. & N. S. Seifert
600 Pleasant View Drive
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Alfonso & Christine M. Correa
520 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
John R. & K. Vonwalter
510 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Donald J. & Christine A. Snede
489 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Todd M. Adams
469 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Donn F. & Janice Andrus
449 Pleasant View
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
James D. & Lynette Thompson
429 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Carl W. Schevenius
5527 Penn Ave, So.
Mpls. Mn 55419
Joseph J. Smith
P.O. Box 411
Excelsior, Mn 55331
Ira & Shirley A. Rosen
6331 Trap Line Circle
Chanhassen, Mu 55317
Robert A. & Julie A. Henderson
6330 Trap Line Circle
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Roger W. & Marlys I. Schwabe
6311 Oxbow Bend. -
Chanhassen, Ma 55317
Dated this 26tn;•day of February,
1988 at 8 A.M.
�/I/� ff-p—zd�
Barbara Marschall Authorized Signatory
FEB 29 '88 15:29 MN TITLE SHAKOPEE
P . 6/7
That part of Government Lot 3, Section 1, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver
County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said
Lot 3, thence west 682 feet, thence south parallel with the east line of said Lot 2005
feet more or less to the northerly shore of Long Lake, thence easterly along shore of
said Lake 704.8 feet to the east line of Lot 3, thence north 1827.3 feet to the point
of beginning; except that part thereof lying southeasterly of the centerline of Pleasant
View Road.
ALSO
All that part of Government Lots 3 and 4, Section 1, Township 116, Mange 23 as follows:
Beginning at a point on the North line of said Lot 4--1516.5 feet West of the Northeast
corner of said Lot 3; Thence South at right angles to the North line of said Lot 4--
270 feet; thence South 83*23' East 416.7 feet; thence South 240.4 feet; thence East
420.5 feet; to a line drawn parallel to and distant 682 feet West of the East line
of said Lot 3; thence North along said parallel line 525.4 feet; to a point 33 feet
South of the North line of said Lot 3; thence East parallel to said North line 245.5
feet to the West line of the public highway; thence Northeasterly along said highway
to the North line of said Lot 3; thence West 1080 feet to the point of beginning.
ALSO
That part .of Government Lot 4, Section I, Township 116, Range 23, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Government Lot 3, said Section; thence West along
the North line of Government Lots 3 and 4 a distance of 1516.5 feet to an iron monument,
the point of beginning of land to be described; thence South a distance of 650 feet to
an iron monument; thence South 71609' West a distance of 20 feet to an iron monument;
thence North 8*15' West a distance of 663.2 feet to an iron monument on the North line
of said Government Lot 4 distant 114 feet West of point of beginning; thence East 114
feet to beginning.
ALSO
All that part of Government Lots Three (3) and Four (4), Section One (1) Township 116
North, Range 23 West, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of
Government Lot Three (3), said Section One (1); thence West along the North line of
said Lots 3 and 4, 1516.5 feet to the Northeast corner of land deeded by J.S. Anderson
to Oscar Levin; thence at right angles South, 270 feet to point of beginning of land to
be described; thence South 380 feet; thence South 71 degrees 09 minutes West 331.7 feet
to a point in the Northeasterly line of Pleasant View, Carver County, Minnesota, where
the Westerly line of Valhalla Ave. extended would intersect said Northeasterly line
of Pleasant View, Carver County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the Register of Deeds' office, Carver County, Minneosta; thence Southeasterly
along the Northeasterly line of Pleasant View, 269.9 feet; thence North 54 degrees and
19 minutes East 653.6 feet; thence North 240.4 feet; thence North 83 degrees 23 minutes
West 416.7 feet to point of beginning.
E'CFfl31T #W,
FEB 29 'ee 15:29 MN TITLE SHAKOPEE
P . 7i7
ALSO
Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 4, Section 1, Township 116, Mange 23; thence
east along the north line of said Lot 4, a distance of 1130 feet; thence at right angles
south 650 feet; thence in a southwesterly direction 329.9 feet to a point in the northerly
line of Pleasant View according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office
of the Register of Deeds in and for Carver County, Minnesota; thence north 48 degrees
8 minutes west 1108.74 feet to the point of beginning, situated in said Lot 4, excepting
that part of said Lot 4 described as follows: Beginning at a point in the northeasterly
line of Oak Grove Avenue of Pleasant View where the dividing line between Lots 13 and 14,
Pleasant View, if extended, intersects said northeasterly line of Oak Grove Avenue;
thence in a southeasterly direction along the northeasterly line of said Oak Grove Avenue
311.88 feet; thence in a northeasterly direction 527.7 feet to a point in the northerly
line of said Lot 4, 771.8 feet east from the northwesterly corner of said Lot 4; thence
along said north line of said Lot 4, 771.8 feet to the northwesterly corner of said Lot 4;
thence southeasterly along the northeasterly line of said Oak Grove Avenue to the place
of beginning, also except that part of Government Lot 4, Section 1, Township 116. Range
23. described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Government Lot 3, said section; thence West along
the North line of Government Lots 3 and 4 a distance of 1516.5 feet to an iron monument,
the point of beginning of land to be described; thence South a distance of 650 feet to
an iron monument; thence South 71*09' West a distance of 20 feet to an iron monument;
thence North 8*15' West a distance of 663.2 feet to an iron monument; on the North line
of said Government Lot 4, distant 114 feet West of point of beginning; thence East 114
feet to beginning, according to the government survey thereof. Also excepting therefrom
the two following parcels:
Parcel 1
That part of Government Lot 4, Section I, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota,
described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 4,
thence running East along the North line of said Government Lot 4,. 987.67 feet, thence
deflecting 81*42' to the right and running Southeasterly 353.88 feet to the actual point
of beginning of the tract of land to be described, thence continuing Southeasterly along
the extension of the last described course 307.48 feet thence deflecting 79°27' to the
right and running Southwesterly 312.6 feet more or less to a point in the Northeasterly
line of Pleasant View, thence deflecting 61*36' to the right and running Northwesterly
along said Northeasterly line 157 feet, thence deflecting 67°39'27" to the right and
running Northeasterly 306.80 feet, thence deflecting 67008'12" to the right and. running
Easterly 259.99 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
Parcel 2
That part of Government Lot 4 in Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County,
Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Government
Lot 4; thence running East along the North line of said Government Lot 4, 987.67 feet;
thence deflecting 81 degrees 42 minutes to the right and running Southeasterly 661.36
feet; thence deflecting 79 degrees 27 minutes to the right and running Southwesterly
312.6 feet more or less to a point on the Northeasterly line of Pleasant View; thence
deflecting 61 degrees 36 minutes to the right and running Northwesterly along said
Northeasterly line 500_18 feet to the point of beginning of the tract to be described;
thence Southeasterly along said Northeasterly line 150.0 feet; thence Northeasterly to
a point on the North line of said Government Lot 4, 831.34 feet East from the Northwest
cornet of said Government Lot 4; thence West along said North line of Government Lot 4,
100 feet; thence Southwesterly 519.51 feet more or less to the point of beginning.
EXHIBIT "No
57. Douglas & Shirley Dougherty
301 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
58. Edward A. Neer, Jr.
321 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
59. J. Richard & Mary B. Simpson
341 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
60. Allen & Mary Peterson
361 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
61. Steven & Briditte Longren
381 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
62. David G. & Janet Welkie
6301 Trapline Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
63. Douglas J. & Jane C. Cook
290 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
64. Warren & Linda Erdman
431 Trap Line Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
65. Donald E. & Mary A. Jacoby
461 Trap Line Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
66. Ernest J. & Susan Sampias
481 Trap Line Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
67. Thomas & E. Marsh
430 Trap Line Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Carver County AbsttAct & Title Co.,Inc.
LRP:nls
This company does not assume any liability for the accuracy of this report.
Owner
420 Trap Line Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Roger & Marlys Schwabe
6311 Oxbow Bend
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Owner
6300 Oxbow Bend
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Joseph & Kerry Bast
6310 Oxbow Bend
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dale & Dianna Fehrenbach
7003 Shooters Hill
Toledo, Ohio 43617
Owner
251 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Keenan & Susan Dammen
300 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Owner
6311 Trap Line Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ira & Shirley Rosen
6331 Trap Line Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jeffrey Davis
6360 Near Vountain Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Michael Mahon
280 Mountain View Court
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Hemphill Northern, Inc.
390 Hidden Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Uilliam & Carolyn Boss
M Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, VN 55317
Owner
6330 Trap Line Circle
Chanhassen, MN 55317
:¢�L%. United States Soil
%WW,�- Department of Conservation 219 East Frontage Road
Agriculture Service Waconia, Minnesota 55387
Subject: 79-2 PUD, 88-5 WAP
Trappers Pass
To: JoAnn Olsen, Asst. City Planner
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Date: March 31, 1988
File Code:
Enclosed find a soil map showing the approximate plat boundary. The
approximate road boundaries are shown as well. Single sheets with soil
properties are included. Please review these materials. The soil infor-
mation in this report is for general planning. Specific questions at
specific sites should be addressed by a qualified soils engineer.
The soil material is generally suited to construction. However, frost
action and shrink swell can damage footings and paved surfaces unless
properly designed. Additionally, water seepage can be a problem in this
landscape and should be planned for.
The principal soil related limitation to development is slope. Slopes on
the site are steep and long. Recommendations are as follows:
I. An erosion control plan should be developed before earth moving begins.
Location and timing of silt fences should be shown. Disturbed areas should
be mulched or seeded as soon as possible. Silt fencing alone will probably
not be adequate.
2. Silt fences should run on the contour (note fence in lots 9, 10 and 11
in block 4). Some type of storm sewer inlet protection should be provided.
3. Any retaining walls should have positive drainage on the back side and
be approved by a qualified engineer. Some expected life time should be
established.
4. The road dead ending into the hillside north of lot 14 (block 4) appears
ready for erosion problems. The stability of the proposed slope should be
checked. Erosion from this hillside will flow directly down the street and
into the storm sewer inlets.
s
APR 0 7 1988
CITY OF CHANF ASSEiN
O The Soil Conservation Service
`J is an agency of the
Department of Agriculture
City of Chanhassen
79-2 PUD 88-5 WAP
Trappers Pass
Page 2
This potential problem could be mitigated in a number of ways. Some
suggestions (use one, none or all) would be:
a. Terminate the road lower down the hill.
b. Make the cut slope flatter (4:1).
C. Divert water away from the top of the cut slopes. Caution is needed
in where the water would enter back onto the road.
5. The order of grading should be looked at as a way to lessen potential
erosion problems.
Call is you have questions (442-5101).
Stanley Wendland
District Conservationist
MINNESOTA — SHEET NUMBER 20
R 23 W
z
z
a
w
z
z
w
x
Scale 1:15 840 0 3000 Feet
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1135 U.S. POST OFFICE & CUSTOM HOUSE
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101-1479
REPLY TO / / 7 O / Y _
ATTENTIO' OF
Construction -Operations
Regulatory Functions
�1
P P
R e
We have reviewed the information provided us about your project. The
work is authorized by a nationwide Department of the Army permit, provided the
enclosed conditions and management practices are followed.
This determination covers only the project referenced above. Should you
change the design, location, or purpose of the work, contact us to make sure a
violation would not occur. Our telephone number is (612) angjippM aao- 03r,
It is your responsibility to insure that the work complies with the terms
of this letter and the enclosures. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CONFIRMATION LETTER
DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR STATE, LOCAL, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
This authorization expires on January 12, 1992. If you have any
questions, please call kav,
S incer ely,
Enclosure (s) Den Wopa
Chief, Regulatory Functions Branch
Construction -Operations Division
Determination: 33 CPR 330.5
APR 041988
C"A in ASSEAJ
SAT HRE-BERSQUIST, INC.
106 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 TELEPHONE 61 2-476-6000
March 17, 1988
Ms. JoAnn Olson
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box #147
Chanhassen Minnesota 55317
RE: TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 3RD ADDITION
Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
Dear Ms. Olson:
Enclosed is a completed Wetland Alteration Permit Evaluation worksheet
and a check for $150.00 from Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. for the
above referenced project.
If you have any questions or need further information please call our
office.
Sincerely,
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
c
P7,6�
Robert E. Payette, P.E.
enc.
R r-CLr1 -
MAR 18 1988
CI f Y OR CHANHASSEN
LU11DGREn
�OCTRUCTION
BROJI.
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
March 10, 1988
Ms. Barb Dacy
Chanhassen City Planner
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Trappers Pass 3rd
Dear Barb:
Enclosed, for your files, is th.e attendance list from last night's
neighborhood meeting.
I am glad you could attend.
Very truly yours,
Lund en Bros. Construction, Inc.
Michael A. Pflaum
MAP/md
enclosure
MAR 111988
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
FMWWM9—Ll
--Ztwte
-�Iovgv
AWIIZ5s
3o0
53l I4i�i�cv� 44ilI lZ
I'A j Ch i 2lb
103 �1 coy eow � Nr�
LU11DGR(n
WCTRUCTION
BROi
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
March 2, 1988
Ms. Barb Dacy
Chanhassen Planning Director
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Barb:
Attached, for your files, is the invitation which we have sent to
neighboring homeowners regarding our proposed changes to the Near Mountain
P.U.D.
Naturally, you, too, are invited to attend this meeting.
Very truly yours,
Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc.
Michael A. POaum
MAP/md
enclosure
MAR 3 1988
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Form No.31-M - QUIT CLAIM DEED
Corporation or Partnership
to Corporation or Partnership
No delinquent taxes and transfer entere 'Certificate
of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( not required
is
Certificate of Real Estate Value No.
19
1
ounty Auditor
by
c—
Deputy
c_
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ 1.65
Date: January, 1995
m
W
M
o
o n,
m
¢ 0
x
�
� =
O
g T
d
r
&
Z
C
l
M
CT
IH
0
0
Q
I'
-4
D
m
(vim
a
O
�
y
y
m
m�
W
�•
N
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc., a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, Grantor.
hereby conveys and quitclaims to the City of Chanhassen, Grantee, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, real
property in Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows:
Outlot A, TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 2ND ADDITION
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto.
The total consideration for this transfer of property is $500 or less.
The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the above described real property.
Affix Deed Stamp Here
LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
By 2Q 2a1, nrn�r+�cw�i
Hugh M. Maynard, ice -President
STATE OF MINNESOTA 1
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN I
it
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
27 dayof January, 1995, by Hugh M. Maynard, the Vice -
President of Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc., a corporation under the laws of Minnesota , on behalf of the corporation.
NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK)
�•;v:'n 1NrYJ,M<•Uu\1'W!N\VINMAM•sa
[-i �d✓L-cam ��• W-�1��
.��� •y NANCYLMEEK9
'q
SIGNATURE r ERSON TAKING ACKNOWIJ_DGME I'
pNOTARYP0A!ICAIIt2NESOTA i ti
'r:Ls.c:nemems f,nac real xny Jrscrilmd in ibis in.rnnnem .Hama er I,"" e�
y� WRIGHTCOUNTY 1
(hu9uJrpngn;nnc:nWaJJrtssurGrinh•.•1
myCrmms ionCzpirssJrly23,1(f7
' .,.................-....ter. o+.t�YJYNYvVX
ADDRESS):
Hugh M. Maynard, Esq.
LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
(612)473-1231
LAWIDEVELOPn IM-TRAP 1Q6/95
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
/7
�,� � LF
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
Thomas J. Campbell
(612) 452-5000
RowerN. Knut',0n
Fax (612) 452-5550
Thomas M. Scott
Gary G. Fuchs
February 22,
James R. Walston
Elliott B. Knetsch
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: City of Chanhassen
Outlot A, Trappers Pass at
Near Mountain 2nd Addition
Our File No. 12668/370
Dear Kate:
Andrea McDowell Poehler
Todd L. Nissen
Marguerite M. McCarron
1995 George T. Stephenson
Enclosed please find the following in regard to the above
matter:
1. Duplicate copy of Quit Claim Deed from Lundgren Bros.
Construction, Inc. to the City of Chanhassen for Outlot A,
Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 2nd Addition with recording
information. Note the Deed was recorded February 15, 1995 as
Document No. T87143.
2. The new Certificate of Title (No. 23333) issued in the
name of the City of Chanhassen. Please make sure the Certificate
of Title is kept in a safe place at City Hall.
3. Receipt of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title which
I am requesting you sign and return to this office.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel
free to call me.
Very truly yours,
C
JRW:rlt
Enclosures
CC: Mr. Hugh M. Maynard (w/enclosure)
RECEIVED
�`LR � 4 1995
Suite 317 e Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center Curve • Eaga�!TARFfpA- MHASSEN
22273
.,
RECEIPT OF OWNER'S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
RECEIVED FROM James R. Walston of Campbell, Knutson, Scott &
Fuchs, P.A. was the OWNER'S DUPLICATE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
NO. 23333 in the name of CITY OF CHANHASSEN, fee simple of the
following described land situated in the County of Carver:
Outlot A, TRAPPERS PASS AT NEAR MOUNTAIN 2ND ADDITION,
according to the recorded plat thereof.
Dated: February , 1995.
JRW/CHAN/TRAPPERS #12668/370
22274
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
By:
Kate Aanenson
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.= ®J
AttorneN's at L iw
Th,mm; s J. Gimpbell (617) 452-5000
Ro er N. Knutson
Thumz,s M. Suur Fax (612) 452-5550
Crary G. Fuchs February 9, 1995
mllcs R. Walston
Elliott B. Knersch
CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Registrar of Titles
Carver County Courthouse
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, MN 55318
Re: RECORDING QUIT CLAIM DEED
between Lundgren Bros. Construction —,-Inc.
and the City of Chanhassen
(Chanhassen/Trappers)---�,
Dear Registrar:
Enclosed for recording are the following:
P�
Andre❑ Mc )owell Pochler
TuJJ L. Nissen
XI,n,I'ueritc M. MCCnrmn
Geon-e T. Stephenson
1. Original Quit Claim Deed from Lundgren Bros.
Construction, Inc. in favor of the City of Chanhassen;
2. Copy of Quit Claim Deed;
3. Check payable to Dakota County Registrar of Title for
$54.50 ($19.50 recording fee, $34.50 transfer fee and
50� to have copy of Deed returned with recording
information thereon); and
4. Check payable to Dakota County Treasurer for $6.65
($5.00 conservation fee and $1.65 state deed tax).
Please memorialize the Quit Claim Deed onto the Certificate
of Title and the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title No. 16221
which is in the Registrar of Titles Office. Thereafter, return
the copy of the Deed in the enclosed envelope with the recording
information thereon.
JRW:rlt
Enclosures
CC: Ms. Kate Aanenson
Mr. Hugh Maynard
Ver-_7 trul.• -,.-ours,
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& FUCHS, P.A.
By.
James R. Walston
RECEIV 50
Suite 317 • Eagandale Office Center • 1380 Corporate Center- Curve •
101995
Eagan,C\,W a 5 641APlHAt�S1;- 4
d
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
CITY of
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739
Don Ashworth, City Manager
Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner �60
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
February 2, 1993
The Summit at Near Mountain 2nd Addition Final Plat (79-2 PUD)
Project No. 93-2
'r*ion by Ci~j Administr"
_ubmilte to Com:;ltssion
DOW Submitted to�
-3-93
On March 23,1992, the City Council approved the first phase of The Summit at Near Mountain.
The first phase contained 23 of 42 single family lots. The applicant is now final platting the
remaining 19 single family lots. All site grading and tree removal for the street and utility
improvements for both phases were completed with Phase I of the development. The applicant
has submitted detailed construction plans for staff's review and City Council's approval. The
preliminary plat contained 28 conditions (Attachment# 1). The majority of these conditions have
been met with the first phase. The proposed final plat is consistent with prior approvals and staff
is recommending approval of The Summit at Near Mountain 2nd Addition with appropriate
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
City Council recommends approval of The Summit at Near Mountain 2nd Addition Final Plat
as shown on plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. stamped January 22, 1993, with the
following conditions:
1. A tree removal plan approved by city staff will be required for each lot in the subdivision
prior to the issuance -of a building permit. There shall be no clearcutting permitted for
any lot except for the placement of the house pad and utilities. Clearcutting is defined
as removal of any vegetation with a 4" caliper or more at four feet in height.
2. A conservation easement shall be provided at the 945' contour along Lots 1-4, Block 4.
The area below the 945' contour, including the wetland and shoreland, will not be
permitted to be altered.
If
tuo PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
SCANNED
r-_
Don Ashworth
February 2, 1993
Page 2
3. Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, which have lakeshore on Silver Lake, will not be permitted to
have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving a wetland alteration permit.
4. The applicant must receive and comply with conditions of final construction plans and
specification approval from the City Council. All street and utility improvements shall
conform to the city's 1993 Standard Specifications and detail plates.
5. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize slopes greater than 3:1.
6. Additional spot elevations and necessary grading plan contours shall be provided with the
building permit application for proper surface drainage around proposed buildings and
driveway grade.
7. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the city to provide the city
with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the proper installation of the
improvements.
8. The applicant shall notify property owners of their maintenance responsibilities and
ownership of the boulder retaining wall by means of covenants and verbiage in the chain
of title and the secondary emergency access to Indian Hills Road (Iroquois).
9. All lots shall conform with any future tree protection ordinances.
10. The City and watershed district will require that individual lot grading plans be submitted
for all lots proposed along the "outside" perimeter of Oxbow Bend. Upon review of the
individual lot grading plan, including soils information, the district may require that roof
runoff drainage systems be installed to minimize the potential of an erosion problem
occurring along the steep slope areas.
11. Upon completion of construction and restoration of all areas disturbed, the applicant is
responsible for the removal of all erosion control measures installed throughout the site.
Attachments
1. Conditions of preliminary plat approval.
2. Conditions of final plat approval for first phase.
3. Final plat dated January 22, 1993.
Kl3Sl,;Vf4NbH0.j0 A11O
88619 9 M
-r;E)gq0
zaauTbug 4qunoO zanzpD •£T
GgTTPTTM pue
uoszapuv urTr/zaiaugoew zab0g 'TT
uragSAS aTgPO NaaMOa ' 0T
(AaTTPA Nw zo
AupdLuoO OTzq
(PagTuII z TTa� N
�uPdiuoO a�s
oOsebauuTw
SzaauTbug Jo SdzoO AULTV • S • 11
uoTgPgzodsuezy go -gdaa NW
eOTnzaS uoTgeZLzasuo0 TTOS
zaau. a gOTzgSTa Pags-lagPM
,pa-7o jgnTEI F�iogeband AOT-pd
zogOadsul buTPTTng
zogOazTCI rigagPS OTTgnd
1040eaTa N-Ted dgTO
Ai u-104-W • q
zaauTbug dgTO
SaOznosa'd TPzngPN go •gdaa NW
Squau 4apdaa AgTO . T
•pagPTOa.zdde '4geazb ST aOUPgsTSSP PUP uo'ppaadoo0 zno7,
•aaTsap os buTgaaui
uoTssTunuoO buTuueTd agq qP zeaddP OSTP GPM nod 8Z g0 uegq
zagPT ou -,iq squaunuo0 anon buTATaoaz agPTOazddP pTnoM am 'T � uasse ue
qP szaquregO TTOunOD agq UT •ui-d g gO
buTuueTd uassequegO agq �Iq uoTgPzapTsuOO 109 PaTnPagos ST uoTgea?TddP*uo S uy
TTOunoO AqTO pue uoTssTuUIoO buruuPTd agq oq U0Tgapuaunuo0az
P a5rau uPO am gPgq os Pauza0u00 dOuabe agq uiozj: g0ajja STgq oq gzodaz ua
P OAPg oq GNTT PTn0M am ' ggTzM
gsTxa .suraTgozd zo spaau OT�TOads azagM •saTgTTTgn
PUP 'Squauranozc3u. zo Suo?Suagxa gaazgs 'Sa-4Ts Xzed zoj squaurasea 10 SpLIeT OTTgnd
buTZTrlhoe zog paeu. agq PUP 'abPuTezp zageM urzogs 'SaOT
-oAzas AqTT?qn azngnj pasod
zd pup buTgSTxa '(SOTgPTnOZT0 OT;guaq u0 TPSodozd STgq �O gOPcut agq buTuza0uo0
suoTgepuauauoOaz PUP squaunuo0 znod agPTOazdde PTnOm am 'MaTnaz TTOunoZ) dgTO pup
uoTSSTU=Z) buTuuPTd zoo sansST go STSAT"eup agaTduroO P aptnozd 0q sn zoo zapzo uI
seM TPsodozd quau�r3oi anal uo quauigzedaa buTuuPTd uassequPgO agq gq.TM PaTT3
T P PuPT P 30 TenozddP zog uoTgPOTTdde pagTzosap aAogP aqy
d'dM 9-88 PUP Cnd Z-6L :aSp0 buTuuPTd
•ssP szaddezy Ql RL TO gsaM OTTui � iTa-0=xoaddp
pPUT Main alrespaTcl zo uqzou pa e0o 2i-Md P 3S2i uoz
pa gzadoz uo
PUPT74O Q GsPr-) P uzuMTm nuod e zo uoTgPazO -- sqo �TTWP aT uzs t8 oquT
SO -TOP S ZE go U0TSTATpgnS OTgPzagTP pue qaM Pup T P gPTd AzPUTtuTTazd :gOaCgnS
zauuPTd �q?O 'q 'uasTO uuV or :� quaur4aPdaa butuueTd :W0:rj
S131YA, , n � saTOuabV TPzzagag ueTd quaux3oTanaQ : oy
IA N0193 , 8861 'ST uOzeW :aqua
1 iid
0 006T-L86 (ZT9 )
s U ` LTBSS- Nhi ' uassPguec
Li�T xog '0'd 'anTza zagTnoJ 069
uassequPq, go �4TO