79-02 - Near Mountain PUD pt 13CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
.690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739
Action by City/� Admirddf
MEMORANDUM Endorse !_Y
Modil e,' -_ —
Rejecte '
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Date subm 'red to CommftiN
FROM: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner _
Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician Det L Lou"ed
, .„' A r ►�
DATE: March 18, 1992
SUBJ: Summit at Near Mountain Final Plat - Lundgren Bros.
On September 13, 1989, the City Council approved a PUD amendment and preliminary plat
to replace 114 condominium units with 45 single family lots with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a plan showing the exact location of the Class A wetlands
adjacent to Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2 and adjacent to Silver Lake and that the final
plat would provide a drainage easement over the protected wetlands.
2. A tree removal plan, approved by the DNR Forester and 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.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour along Lots 1 through
7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2. The area below the 945
and 910 contour, including the wetland and shoreland, will not be permitted to be
altered.
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake will not be permitted
to have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving a wetland alteration permit.
5. Development of this site shall not take place until roadway, and utility improvements
have been completed on Outlot A.
os
�� �r� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 2
6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District
permit.
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications, including calculations for sizing utility
improvements, shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As -built mylar
plans will also be required upon completion of the construction.
8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities.
9. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize slopes greater than
3:1.
10. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the city standards for urban
construction.
11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the construction of the retaining
walls with the plans and specifications.
12. The city's standard detail for the installation of Type III erosion control shall be
placed on the grading plan and utilized.
13. 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.
14. The plans and specifications shall show .a second street access through Outlot C to
Iroquois as emergency access only.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided with the plans
and specifications for proper surface drainage around proposed buildings and
driveway location.
16. 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.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water pressure concerns.
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of .proposed construction.
19. The developer shall submit a plan set complying to city standards for comparison of
hardship before a variance could be granted.
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 3
20. The developer shall dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8 and 9,
Block 2 in lieu of park dedication fees.
21. Provide a conservation easement over the 30 foot section of the rear lot of all lots
in Block 3.
22. Work with the city to properly finish off the end of Iroquois including a turnaround.
23. Direct staff to review the possibility of integration of trails into an overall trail plan
if possible.
24. Check whether Lots 8 and 9, as part of the park dedication, are to maintain a trail
on Outlot B as far removed from the people's lot in question as possible so as not
to be intrusive with their back yard.
25. The developer shall work with staff to develop some assurance through the use of
covenants or whatever, who is responsible to maintain the retaining walls.
26. All lots shall conform with any future tree protection ordinances.
27. The applicant shall redefine the triangular lot.
28. All trees to be saved shall be staked off prior to issuance of building permits and
approved by the DNR Forester and city staff.
CURRENT REQUEST
The applicant has submitted the final plat for the Summit at Near Mountain. The final plat
is creating 23 single family lots at this time and is platting the remainder of the site as
outlots. The final plat has been revised over the approved preliminary plat in that the cul-
de-sac has been relocated to enter from the north. The relocation of the cul-de-sac results
in improved building sites for the lots and the loss of one lot, for a total of 42 single family
lots versus the approved 45 lots. The other two lots that have been removed from the
preliminary plat have been combined into Outlot C, which will be dedicated to the city for
park land.
Streets
The applicant is proposing to dedicate the full right-of-way for the whole development but
will only be improving a portion of the public street and utilities to service the first phase
of the development. The final plat proposes full dedication of the street right-of-way over
the entire development at this time. According to the construction plans, the applicant is
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 4
proposing to construct only the easterly half of Oxbow Bend together with Summit Circle.
Staff, including the Fire Marshall, are concerned from a public safety standpoint with the
long cul-de-sac and no secondary emergency access. Staff believes that the secondary
emergency access from Indian Hill Road (Iroquois) should be constructed at this time
together with extension of Oxbow Bend to the intersection of the secondary emergency
access. The emergency access shall be 15 feet wide and constructed to 7-ton design, with
12 inches of Class V gravel and 3 inches of bituminous pavement. The applicant should
work with the City in providing adequate barricades to discourage travel and still provide
access for emergency vehicles. The emergency access should also be kept clear of snow and
other debris at all times. A provision should be added in the covenants and/or chain of title
to insure and clarify maintenance responsibilities of the emergency access.
At both ends of Oxbow Bend, barricades should be installed. A sign indicating that "This
street will be extended in the future" shall be installed on the barricades to notify
prospective homeowners of the future street extension. Appropriate notice should also be
placed in the chain of title.
Street grades in this development range from 0.60 percent to 10 percent grade. The
proposed 10 percent street grade exceeds the City's maximum street grade of 7 percent.
Staff is comfortable with the 10 percent street grade in this circumstance due to the
significant change in existing ground elevation combined with environmental concerns such
as tree loss since the project is.a PUD, no variance is required.
Staff is recommending that the street be improved to the emergency access and that the
emergency access also be improved at this time. The exact plans for the construction of the
emergency access including surface, width, and barriers, must be provided by the applicant
for approval by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal.
Site Grading;
The applicant's engineer, Sathre-Bergquist, recently submitted for review and approval
detailed plans for utility and street construction. The construction plans propose developing
"the summit" in separate phases. Although this phase concentrates on constructing the
easterly half of the site, the grading plan proposes grading the entire street configuration at
this time.
The final grading, drainage and erosion control plans incorporate boulder retaining walls
to minimize grading and tree loss throughout the development. The boulder retaining walls
appear to be placed inside the property line. Since these retaining walls are to be located
on private property, maintenance responsibilities will be the property owners'. Staff
recommends, either by means of covenants or chain of title, the property owner be made
aware of maintenance responsibilities and ownership of the retaining walls.
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 5
Erosion Control
The grading plan proposes implementing Type III erosion control; however, it did not
specifically indicate locations where it is to be installed. Staff recommends the applicant
work with staff to prepare an erosion control plan. Due to the significant side slopes,
wood fiber blankets or equivalent should be utilized on all slopes of 3:1 or greater.
Utilities
Municipal sanitary sewer and water is proposed over the easterly half of the site. Municipal
water service is proposed to be extended in three locations, from Iroquois, Oxbow Bend and
Trapline Circle. The applicant's engineer, Rick Sathre, Sathre-Bergquist, has previously
indicated adequate fire flow protection under peak demands. The applicant should
reconfirm that with the new street configuration (Summit Circle) the fire flows under peak
conditions are still exceeding standards and a copy of the calculations should be provided
to the City Engineer for review.
Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the existing sewer main
near Pleasant View Road. The sanitary sewer line will be extended through Outlot C to
Oxbow Bend. No utility easements are provided for this line. It is assumed that Outlot C
will be deeded to the City: If not, an appropriate easement will be required. Sanitary sewer
service will also be extended from Oxbow Bend located in the southeast corner of the site.
Detailed construction plans have been submitted for review and approval. Staff is currently
reviewing the proposed plans and will place approval of the plans and specifications on the
next City Council meeting (April 13, 1992).
Draina,T,
Similar to Trappers Pass 2nd Addition, the plans propose conveying the storm runoff from
most of the mountaintop (approximately 13.8 acres) into the wetlands adjacent Silver Lake
and lying north of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4. Prior to discharging into the wetlands, the
applicant is proposing construction of a National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) pond.
The pond is being constructed to provide pretreatment of the storm water runoff prior to
discharging into the wetlands.
Preliminary details of the NURP pond construction indicate the pond to be approximately
60 feet wide by 320 feet with a maximum depth of 10 feet. This type of configuration would
have side slopes of 3:1 which are fairly steep should an individual fall into the pond. The
City's surface water consultant, Ismael Martinez with Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik &
Associates (BRA), recommends that the pond design be refined to incorporate a bench
system with 10:1 side slopes for four feet and then continue with the 3:1 slopes to a
maximum depth of six feet and a mean depth of four feet. This may involve enlarging the
rk-,O�
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 6
preliminary pond design. The applicant should work with staff and the City's surface water
consultant in preparing final detailed construction plans for the NURP pond. The
construction of the NURP pond will require a wetland alteration permit.
Similar to Lundgren Bros.' other plat, "Willowridge", this site is also utilizing the existing
wetlands to meet the City's ordinance for pond storage requirements. According to Sathre-
Bergquist, Lundgren Brothers has developed the adjacent properties around the wetland and
has provided additional storage areas and retention ponds in the previous Near Mountain
developments to store the increased runoff from this development.
Additional measures are being employed in the storm sewer system by incorporating sump
manholes and catch basins to trap heavy sediments prior to discharging into the NURP
pond. These types of catch basin manhole structures will create additional maintenance for
the City; however, after the initial construction phase (home building) is completed, the
sump basins should not need cleaning as frequently.
Miscellaneous
The final plat should include a 25-foot wide drainage and utility easement over the easterly
portion of Lot 3, Block 4 for the storm sewer to the NURP pond. The developer should
be responsible for fees associated with Bonestroo's review of the proposal.
Parks
As part of the preliminary plat, the applicant was required to provide 4.5 acres of park land.
The applicant is proposing to dedicate Outlots C and A to the city as park land. Staff has
requested verification from the applicant that these areas proposed to be dedicated to the
city contain at least 4.5 acres. Should they not provide 4.5 acres, the applicant would be
required to compensate the difference with dedication of park fees as to be determined by
the Park and Recreation Coordinator. The applicant will be responsible for full dedication
of trail fees.
STATUS OF PRELIMINARY PLAT CONDITIONS
The following is a review of the conditions with comments on whether they have been met,
still need to be met, or have been amended.
The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of the Class A wetlands
adjacent to Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2 and adjacent to Silver Lake and that the final
plat would provide a drainage easement over the protected wetlands.
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 7
The applicant has provided a drainage easement over the protected wetlands
on Lots 2 and 3, Block 4 (as shown on the final plat). The applicant must
also provide a drainage easement on the final plat over the wetland located
on Lot 1, Block 4 and Outlot C and Outlot H (as shown on the final plat).
2. A tree removal plan approved by the DNR Forester and 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.
* This condition will remain as a condition of the development contract.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour along Lots 1 through
7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2. The area below the 945
and 910 contour, including the wetland and shoreland, will not be permitted to be
altered.
* The applicant must still provide this conservation easement for Lots 1-7,
Block 2 (now shown as Lots 1-3, Block and Outlot H) as part of this and
future final plat approvals and will remain as a condition of the development
contract.
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake will not be permitted
to have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving a wetland alteration permit.
* This condition will remain as a condition of final plat approval for this and
future phases and will be a condition of the development contract (Lots 3-9,
Block 2 are now Lot 1, Block 4 and Outlot H).
5. Development of this shall not take place until roadway and utility improvements have
been completed on Outlot A.
* This condition has been met.
6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District
permit.
* This condition still has to be met.
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 8
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for sizing utility
improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. As -built mylar
plans will also be required upon completion. of the construction.
* This condition will be changed to state, "The applicant must receive and
comply with conditions of final plans and specification approval from the
City Council."
8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities.
* This condition has been met except for drainage and utility easements over
the easterly 25 feet of Lot 3, Block 4, which will be a condition of the final
plat.
9. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize slopes greater than
3:1.
* This condition shall remain as part of the final plat approval and
development contract.
10. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the city standards for urban
construction.
* This condition shall be amended to read, "All street and utility improvements
shall conform to the 1992 city standard specifications and detailed plates."
11. The applicant shall submit details for approval for the construction of the retaining
walls with the plans and specifications.
* This condition has been complied with.
12. The city' standard detail for the installation of Type III erosion control shall be
placed on the grading plan and utilized.
* This condition has been complied with.
13. 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.
* This conditions has been complied with.
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 9
14. The plans and specifications shall show a second street access through Outlot C to
Iroquois as emergency access only.
* This condition shall be amended to read, "The public street shall be extended
to service the emergency access as part of the first phase and the applicant
shall be required to provide plans for the construction, barricade, and
signage of the emergency access for City Engineer and Fire Marshal approval.
The emergency access shall be constructed as part of the first phase.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided with the plans
and specifications for proper surface drainage around proposed buildings and
driveway location.
* This condition shall be amended to read, "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."
16. 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.
* This condition shall remain as part of final plat approval and development
contract.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water pressure concerns.
* This condition shall be amended to read, "The applicant shall reconfirm that
the hydraulic study previously prepared is still applicable based on the new
street configurations. A copy of the calculations shall be submitted to the
City Engineer for review."
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed construction.
* This condition is no longer necessary.
19. The developer shall submit a plan set complying to city standards for comparison of
hardship before a variance could be granted.
* The applicant has complied with this condition.
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 10
20. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8 and 9, Block 2
in lieu of park dedication fees.
* This condition shall remain as part of the final plat approval and
development contract.
21. Provide a conservation easement over the 30 foot section of the rear lot of all lots
in Block 3.
* This condition shall remain as part of the final plat approval and
development contract.
22. Work with the city to properly finish off the end of the Iroquois including a
turnaround.
* This condition shall remain as part of the final plat approval and
development contract.
23. Direct staff to review the possibility of integration of trails into an overall trail plan
if possible.
* This condition has been complied with.
24. Check whether Lots 8 and 9, as part of the park dedication, are to maintain a trail
on Outlot B as far removed from the people's lot in question as possible so as not
to be intrusive with their back yard.
* This condition has been complied with.
25. The developer shall work with staff to develop some assurance through the use of
covenants or whatever, who is responsible to maintain the retaining walls.
* This condition shall be amended to read as follows, "The applicant shall
notify property owners of their maintenance responsibilities and ownership
of the boulder retaining walls by means of covenants and verbiage in the
chain of title."
26. All lots shall conform with any future tree protection ordinances.
* Staff questions the legality of enforcing ordinances that have not been written.
We are commending that this condition be deleted.
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 11
27. The applicant shall redefine the triangular lot.
* This condition has been complied with.
28. All trees to be saved shall be staked off prior to issuance of building permits and
approved by the DNR Forester and city staff.
* This condition shall remain as part of the final plat approval and
development contract.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending of the final plat for Summit at Near Mountain as shown on plans
dated March 6, 1992, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a drainage easement on the final plat over the wetland
located on Lot 1, Block 4 and Outlot C and Outlot H.
2. A tree removal plan approved by the DNR Forester and 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.
3. A conservation easement shall be provided at the 945 contour along Lots 1-3, Block
4 and Outlot H. The area below the 945 and 910 contour, including the wetland and
shoreland, will not be permitted to be altered.
4. Lot 1, Block 4 and - Outlot H, which have lakeshore on Silver Lake, will not be
permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving a wetland alteration
permit.
5. The applicant must receive and comply with conditions of final plans and
specification approval from the City Council.
6. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize slopes greater than
3:1.
7. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the 1992 city standard
specifications and detailed plates.
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 12
8. The public street shall be extended to service the emergency access as part of the
first phase and the applicant shall be required to provide plans for the construction,
barricade, and signage of the emergency access for City Engineer and Fire Marshal
approval. The emergency access shall be constructed as part of the first phase.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8 and 9, Block 2
in lieu of park dedication fees.
12. Provide a conservation easement over the 30 foot section of the rear lot of all lots
in Block 3. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over the easterly 25
feet of Lot 3, Block 4. The final plat shall include a drainage and utility easement
over the easterly 25 feet of Lot 3, Block 4 for the storm sewer to the NURP pond.
13. The applicant shall work with the city to properly finish off the end of the Iroquois
including a turnaround. Barricades shall be installed at the end of both north and
south legs of Oxbow Bend. A sign indicating "This street will be extended in the
future" shall be placed on the barricades. Appropriate notice shall be placed in the
chain of title.
14. The applicant shall reconfirm that the hydraulic study previously prepared is still
applicable based on the new street configurations. A copy of the calculations shall
be supplied to the City Engineer for review and approval.
15. The applicant shall notify property owners of their maintenance responsibilities and
ownership of the boulder retaining walls by means of covenants and verbiage in the
chain of title. The applicant shall notify property owners of their maintenance
responsibilities of the secondary emergency access to Indian Hills Road (Iroquois)
by means of covenants or in the chain of title.
16. All lots shall conform with any future tree protection ordinances.
17. All trees to be saved shall be staked off prior to issuance of building permits and
approved by the DNR Forester and city staff.
Mr. Don Ashworth
March 18, 1992
Page 13
18. A variance should be granted for the street grade of 10%.
19. The applicant shall work with staff and the City's surface water consultant,
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates in preparing final construction plans for
the NURP pond. Fees associated with plan review and comment by the city's
consultant shall be paid by the applicant.
20. The applicant shall dedicate Outlots A, B and C to the City.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated March 19, 1992.
2. Memo from Mark Littfin dated March 17, 1992.
3. Letter to Mike Pflaum dated October 9, 1989.
4. Final plat.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 * CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Sr. Planner
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician 4q1—
DATE: March 19, 1992
SUBJ: Final Plat Review - Summit at Near Mountain/PUD Amendment
LUR File No. 89-15/Project No. 92-3
Upon review of the final plat prepared by Sathre-Bergquist dated
March 6, 1992, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
Site Grading
The applicant's engineer, Sathre-Bergquist, recently submitted for
review and approval detailed plans for utility and street
construction. The construction plans propose developing "the
summit" in separate phases. Although this phase concentrates on
constructing the easterly half of the` site, the grading plan
proposes grading the entire street configuration at this time.
The final grading, drainage and erosion control plans incorporate
boulder retaining walls to minimize grading and tree loss
throughout the development. The boulder retaining walls appear to
be placed inside.the property line. Since these retaining walls
are to be located on private property, maintenance responsibilities
will be the property owners'. Staff recommends, either by means of
covenants or chain.of title, the property owner be made aware of
maintenance responsibilities and ownership of the retaining walls.
Erosion Control
The grading plan proposes implementing Type III erosion control;
however, it did not specifically indicate locations where it is to
be installed. Staff recommends.the applicant work with staff to
prepare an erosion control plan. Due to the significant side
slopes, wood fiber blankets or equivalent should be utilized on all
slopes of 3:1 or greater.
j.� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Jo Ann Olsen
March 19, 1992
Page 2
Utilities
Municipal sanitary sewer and water is proposed over the easterly
half of the site. Municipal water service is proposed to be
extended in three locations, from Iroquois, Oxbow Bend and Trapline
Circle. The applicant's engineer, Rick Sathre, Sathre-Bergquist,
has previously indicated adequate fire flow protection under peak
demands. The applicant should reconfirm that with the new street
configuration (Summit Circle) the fire flows under peak conditions
are still exceeding standards and a copy of the calculations should
be provided to the City Engineer for review.
Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from
the existing sewer main near Pleasant View Road. The sanitary
sewer line will be extended through Outlot C to Oxbow Bend. No
utility easements are provided for this line. It is assumed that
Outlot C will be deeded to the City. If not, an appropriate
easement will be required. Sanitary sewer service will also be
extended from Oxbow Bend located in the southeast corner of the
site. Detailed construction plans have been submitted for review
and approval. Staff is currently reviewing the proposed plans and
will place approval of the plans and specifications on the next
City Council meeting (April 13, 1992).
Streets
The final plat proposes full dedication of the street right-of-way
over the entire development at this time. According to the
construction plans, the applicant is proposing to construct only
the easterly half of Oxbow Bend together with Summit Circle.
Staff, including the Fire Marshall, are concerned from a public
safety standpoint with the long cul-de-sac and no secondary
emergency access. Staff believes that the secondary emergency
access from Iroquois should be constructed at this time together
with extension of Oxbow Bend to the intersection of the secondary
emergency access. The emergency access shall be 15 feet wide and
constructed to 7-ton design, with 12 inches of Class V gravel and
3 inches of bituminous pavement. The applicant should work with
the City in providing adequate barricades to discourage travel and
still provide access for emergency vehicles. The emergency access
should also be kept clear of snow and other debris at all times.
A provision should be added in the covenants and/or chain of title
to insure and clarify maintenance responsibilities of the
emergency access. .
At both ends of Oxbow Bend, barricades should be installed. A sign
indicating that "This street will be extended in the future" shall
Jo Ann Olsen
March 19, 1992
Page 3
be installed on the barricades to notify prospective homeowners of
the future street extension.
Street grades in this development range from 0.60 percent to 10
percent grade. The proposed 10 percent street grade exceeds the
City's maximum street grade of 7 percent. Staff is comfortable in
granting a variance from the City Ordinance to allow the 10 percent
street grade in this circumstance due to the significant change in
existing ground elevation combined with environmental concerns such
as tree loss.
Drainage
Similar to Trappers Pass 2nd Addition, the plans propose conveying
the storm runoff from most of the mountaintop (approximately 13.8
acres) into the wetlands adjacent Silver Lake and lying north of
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4. Prior to discharging into the wetlands,
the applicant is proposing construction of a National Urban Runoff
Program (NURP) pond. The pond is being constructed to provide
pretreatment of the storm water runoff prior to discharging into
the wetlands.
Preliminary details of the NURP pond construction indicate the pond
to be approximately 60 feet wide by 320 feet with a maximum depth
of 10 feet. This type of configuration would have side slopes of
3:1 which are fairly steep should an individual fall into the pond.
The City's surface water consultant, Ismael Martinez with
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates (BRA), recommends that the
pond design be refined to incorporate a bench system with 10:1 side
slopes for four feet and then continue with the 3:1 slopes to a
maximum depth of six feet and a mean depth of four feet. This may
involve enlarging the preliminary pond design. The applicant
should work with staff and the City's surface water consultant in
preparing final detailed construction plans for the NURP pond.
Similar to Lundgren Bros.' other plat, "Willowridge", this site is
also utilizing the existing wetlands to meet the City's ordinance
for pond storage requirements. According to Sathre-Bergquist,
Lundgren Brothers has developed the adjacent properties around the
wetland and has provided additional storage areas and retention
ponds in the previous Near Mountain developments to store the
increased runoff from this development:
Additional measures are being employed in the storm sewer system by
incorporating sump manholes and catch basins to trap heavy
sediments prior to discharging into the NURP pond. These types of
catch basin manhole structures will create additional maintenance
for the City; however, after the initial construction phase (home
Jo Ann Olsen
March 19, 1992
Page 4
building) is completed, the sump basins should not need cleaning as
frequently.
Miscellaneous
The final plat should include a 25-foot wide drainage and utility
easement over the easterly portion of Lot 3, Block 4 for the storm
sewer to the NURP pond.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. The applicant shall notify property owners of their
maintenance responsibilities and ownership of the boulder
retaining walls by means of covenants and verbiage in the
chain of title.
2. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized on all
slopes of 3:1 or greater.
3. The applicant shall work with staff to prepare an erosion
control plan.
4. The applicant shall reconfirm that the hydraulic study
previously prepared still is valid with the new street
configurations. A copy of the calculations shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for review.
5. The plans shall include construction of Oxbow Bend to the
intersection of the secondary emergency access from Iroquois.
The emergency access shall be paved 5-feet wide, constructed
to 7-ton design with 12 inches of Class V gravel and 3 inches
of bituminous pavement.
6. Barricades shall be installed at the end of both north and
south legs of Oxbow Bend. A sign indicating "This street will
be extended in the future" shall be placed on the barricades.
7. The applicant shall receive and comply with final construction
plans and specification approval from the City Council.
8. The applicant shall work with City staff in providing adequate
barricades at both ends of the secondary access to limit
traffic to emergency vehicles only. Removal of snow or other
debris shall be the responsibility of the developer.
9. A variance should be granted for the street grade of 10%.
Jo Ann Olsen
March 19, 1992
Page 5
10. The applicant shall work with staff and the City's surface
water consultant, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates in
preparing final construction plans for the NURP pond.
11. The final plat shall include a drainage and utility easement
over the easterly 25 feet of Lot 3, Block 4 for the storm
sewer to the NURP pond.
12. The applicant shall notify property owners of their
maintenance responsibilities of the secondary emergency access
to Indian Hills Road (Iroquois) by means of covenants or in
the chain of title.
13. The applicant shall dedicate Outlots A, B and C to the City.
ktm
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
Ismael Martinez, BRA
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: March 17, 1992
SUBJ: Summit at Near Mountain
Comments and Requirements:
1. Extend road to intersect with secondary emergency access.
2. Provide City Engineer and Fire Marshal with plans for driving
surfaces and roadway width, for approval.
3. Provide City Engineer and Fire Marshal with information on
traffic barriers/barricades for approval.
01
#• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
',
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 0 FAX (612) 937-5739
March 12, 1992
Mr. Mike Pflaum
Lundgren Brothers Construction
935 East Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Pflaum:
This letter is to confirm our agreements of last week. As part of the approval process of the Near Mountain
Seventh Addition final plat, the following conditions will be included. These items pertain only to the areas
of park and recreation.
Lundgren Brothers Construction will provide park property totalling 4.5 acres, including Lots 8 and
9, Block 2, in addition to the two utility outlots. In exchange for this action, the city will provide full
park fee credit to the Seventh Addition ($500.00 per unit). This is consistent with conditions
approved as part of the preliminary plat.
2. Payment of full trail fees ($167.00 per unit) will be made at the time of the building permit
applications.
The land use restrictions which Lundgren Brothers Construction wishes to impose upon the park property
will be acknowledged by the city. These restrictions are consistent with how the city wishes to see this
property used. However, final acceptance of these conditions will be contingent upon City Council approval.
The City of Chanhassen would also like to thank you for your contribution of $4,000 for the purchase of a
second phase of play equipment at North Lotus Lake Park. This neighborhood park provides recreational
and leisure opportunities for many of the residents in the Near Mountain area. The city looks forward to
your continued involvement in the community of Chanhassen.
Sincerely,
Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Coordinator
TH:k
PC: Don Ashworth, City Manager
Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Dale Gregory, Park Foreman
4* PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
F EF:— 2—y.Z TUE 1 1 - 0 r :H:iiTH-RE�.DEE V 0Ll I :_: T , I haG' _ F' _ Cy -
PHASE LINE
FS 4
2
4
3 4 �� 3
9r
2
1 13 2
t
12 0
2
1� 11
3 2
2 1� s 3 0
4
E. 3 8
6
oGy� $ Teti s 6
5 7 1 OXBOw BWO
2 1
6 3 2
O 7
3
90
THE SUMMIT >? 2
AT NEAR MOUNTAIN o'y
2%2 f 93 6
9 10
�
� FN - 2x5�1 _ _ N 1• p
xD'�b
3 -f p E Sx?10
L` � s s D I m � N ZI•
2j• -
V wi
PC �Ae
ilk
.R .fit w \`/aa• �\\;\X tl F
�m/'7
�4. .D •%' o R w� • /j / J� � 20 Sy �&
OD
D
\`, ' o as - % L11 R t °• 11! ° t a 'rQ
_ _ c 8
'-,JN
`
10
Ob
\ S H �w+ •� _ D 1 O t_
0
1 N
Ij
1 II 1d SSdd / '� •�'.
yt R
,off a z o y l�i. }t ,u ? r�
e 8..
¢
o ioN
R'
z
P
H
IH
.M
PREUMINAAY PLAT t
1989 AMENDMENT AREA s '
SAT
NEAR MOUNTAIN P.U.D. I . .-A.~ - RGOUIST, INC. f
1 w '^^ SOV111 BHOAOWAY • wAv?AIA, 4N-DDJ91 . 476-600D
LUNDGREN BROa...9nSTRUC110N INC.
HHASS CHAEN, L N6ALA
m
m
N
O
T
W
cn
rr
(fl
o.
zvv m
a�A
ru-Oi 1
a�u
a— «
� N a
x
a etc m
c
rri� � O
• e �_
c � co.°a� � °tj/
413
rn
\ \Y ;�' ���� �s LN1 •15 NEE,- O
iTe `'• � _ G °6 � Ni1•ae'oo-E .vv. B __'�\ L -Lv 4.
_� �• �ti , - a . i � � 4 �_ SURVEY <irE dU• a � ,\ \� 4� J 4 �,�-a
/1 / i A S6L.Q ' u' •�9'j ir- o p•`'a a`\� 3��
•t _- a :e a ., ti a� "� o
Id e Cl 1j
-7 V • 11
? rn
CJ ti '' R'
ati 5?
(n U
m
4
1i•
"rl �� 1
uWi
._�'`a°'u'
Pof
lv (J7
- r• _ ar• --- rrl•s 5•(s.Lr.cc.v—
e� o i�
-yi�0�y
CITY'OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
October 9, 1989
Mr. Mike Pflaum
Lundgren Bros. Construction
935 E. Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mike:
This is to confirm that on September 13, 1989, the City Council
approved the PUD Amendment to replace 114 condominium units with
45 single family lots with the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of
the Class A wetlands adjacent to Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2
and adjacent to Silver Lake and that the final plat would
provide a drainage easement over the protected wetlands.
2. A tree removal plan approved by the DNR Forester and 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.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour
along Lots 1 through 7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8
and 9, Block 2. The area below the 945 and 910 contour,
including the wetland and shoreland, will not be permitted to
be altered.
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake
will not be permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake
without receiving a wetland alteration permit.
5. Development of this site shall not take place until roadway
and utility improvements have been completed on Outlot A.
6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
ft
Mr. Mike Pflaum
October 9, 1989.
Page 2
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including
calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub-
mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As -built mylar
plans will also be required upon completion of the
construction.
8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all
public facilities.
9. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi-
lize slopes greater than 3:1.
10. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City's standards for urban construction.
11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the
construction of the retaining walls with the plans and
specifications.
12. The City's standard detail for the installation of Type III
erosion control shall be placed on the grading plan and
utilized.
13. 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.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a second street
access through Outlot C to Iroquois as emergency access only.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be
provided with the plans and specifications for proper surface
drainage around proposed buildings and driveway location.
16. 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.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water
pressure concerns.
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed
construction.
19. The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City stan-
dards for comparison of hardship before a variance could be
granted.
Mr. Mike Pflaum
October 9, 1989
Page 3
20. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including
Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 in lieu of park dedication fees.
21. Provide a conservation easement over the 30 foot section of
the rear lot of all lots in Block 3.
22. Work with the city to properly finish off the end of the
Iroquois including a turn around.
23. Direct staff to review the possibility of integration of
trails into an overall trail plan if possible.
24. Check whether Lots 8 or 9 as part of the park dedication, is
to maintain a trail on Outlot B as far removed from the
people's lot in question as possible so as not to be intru-
sive with their back yard.
25. The developer shall work with staff to develop some assurance
through the use of covenants or whatever, who is responsible
to maintain the retaining walls.
26. All lots shall conform with any future tree protection ordi-
nances.
27. The applicant shall redefine the triangular lot.
28. All trees to be saved shall be staked off prior to issuance
of building permits and approved by the DNR Forester and City
Staff.
You may now submit ten paper copies of the final plat ten days
prior to a City Council meeting for final plat approval. Should
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
�,4�
Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
JO:v
cc: Dave Hempel
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District
Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co.
8300 Norman Center Drive
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55437
832-2600
Legal Advisor: Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman
3300 Piper Jaffray Tower
222 South Ninth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
333-4800
AGENDA
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Watershed District
June 3, 1992
Eden Prairie City Offices
7600 Executive Drive - Council Chambers
Eden Prairie, Minnesota
Copies of all draft permits and the District's consulting
Engineer's memorandum pertaining to his review and recommendations
for each pending permit application noted below are available from
the Watershed District's staff, both before and during the meeting
of the Board.
1. Call to Order of Regular Meeting:
Present:
Absent:
Board Advisors:
2. Approval of Minutes:
May 6, 1992, Regular Meeting:
3. Matters of General Public Interest.
F,.Z :EIVED
MAY 2 01992
CITY OF CHANHASSu�
4. Correspondence, Publications and Reports:
0
5. Permits:
A. Permit #92-14: Utility Installation - Windfield
Addition; Grading and land alteration permit: Eden
Prairie.
B.
CM
10
E.
Permit #92-16: Site Grading at Scenic Heights Elementary
School; Grading and land alteration permit: Minnetonka
Permit #92-17: Excavation on City of Eden Prairie
Property - Purgatory Creek Recreation Area; Grading and
land alteration permit; Eden Prairie.
Permit #92-18: Silverwood Park; Grading and land
alteration permit; Shorewood.
Permit #92-19: Dell Road Improvement -. T.H. 5 south to
West 82nd Street; Grading and land alteration permit:
Eden Prairie
-2-
1
F.
G.
I.
K.
L.
Permit #92-20: Site Grading at Eden Prairie Community
Center; Grading and land alteration permit: Eden Prairie
Permit #92-21: Eden Prairie Central Middle School
Addition; Grading and land alteration permit: Eden
Prairie
Permit #92-22: Stone Creek; Grading and land alteration
permit: Chanhassen
Permit #92-23: Patricia Lane Construction; Grading and
land alteration permit: Eden Prairie
Permit #92-24: Lake Riley Hills; Grading and land
alteration permit: Chanhassen
Permit #92-25: Bluffs East 12th Addition - site grading;
Grading and land alteration permit: Eden Prairie
Permit #92-26: Utility Installation - Bluffs East 12th
Addition; Grading and land alteration permit: Eden
Prairie
-3-
M. Permit #92-27: Bluffs East loth Addition - site grading;
Grading and land alteration permit: Eden Prairie
N. Permit #92-28; Site grading - Lot 7, Park One Third
Addition; Grading and land alteration permit: Chanhassen
O. Permit #92-29: Utility Installation - Wal-Mart; Grading
and land alteration permit: Eden Prairie
P. MDNR Chapter 105 Work in Protected Waters Permit
Application #92-6182 - Excavation within a wetland for
enhancement on Boutin Property: Deephaven
6. Reports of Treasurer, Engineer and Attorney:
A. Treasurer's Report - Susan Scribner
B. Engineer's Report - Mr. Obermeyer
i. Plans submitted to the District for preliminary
review.
ii. Projects submitted to the District that do not
require permits.
-4 -
iii. Purgatory Creek Recreation Area - Staring Lake
Outlet Project: Status Report
iv. Status of Construction Projects
C. Attorney's Report
i. Annual Report
ii. Legislation
Amendment to Declaration of Covenants for Trappers
/s Pass at Near Mountain 4th Addition
I
iv. Eroded gully repair on property owned jointly by
Thomas J. Meier and City of Eden Prairie
V. Publication of Notice of Interest Proposal
vi. Financial Audit
7. Unfinished Business.
A.
-5-
B.
C.
8. New Business.
A.
B.
C.
Fps
am
4
7. Unfinished Business.
A. Chaska Bluff Creek Corridor Study
B. Metro Council Non Point Source Requirements for Local
Governments
8. New Business.
A.
B.
C.
4
RAH 284
-3-
CITY 4OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
October 9, 1989
Mr. Mike Pflaum
Lundgren Bros. Construction
935 E. Wayzata Blvd.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mike;
This is to confirm that on September 13, 1989, the City Council
approved the PUD Amendment to replace 114 condominium units with
45 single family lots with the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of
the Class A wetlands adjacent to Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2
and adjacent to Silver Lake and that the final plat would
provide a drainage easement over the protected wetlands.
2. A tree removal plan approved by the DNR Forester and 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.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour
along Lots 1 through 7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8
and 9, Block 2. The area below the 945 and 910 contour,
including the wetland and shoreland, will not be permitted to
be altered.
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake
will not be permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake
without receiving a wetland alteration permit.
5. Development of this site shall not take place until roadway
and utility improvements have been completed on Outlot A.
6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
ft
Mr. Mike Pflaum
` October 9, 1989
Page 2
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including
calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub-
mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As -built mylar
plans will also be required upon completion of the
construction.
8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all
public facilities.
9. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi-
lize slopes greater than 3:1.
10. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City's standards for urban construction.
11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the
construction of the retaining walls with the plans and
specifications.
12. The City's standard detail for the installation of Type III
erosion control shall be placed on the grading plan and
utilized.
13. 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.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a second street
access through Outlot C to Iroquois as emergency access only.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be
provided with the plans and.specifications for proper surface
drainage around proposed buildings and driveway location.
16. 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.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water
pressure concerns.
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed
construction
19. The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City stan-
dards for comparison of hardship before a variance could be
granted.
Mr. Mike Pflaum
: October 9, 1989 ,
Page 3
20. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including
Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 in lieu of park dedication fees.
21. Provide a conservation easement over the 30 foot section of
the rear lot of all lots in Block 3.
22. Work with the city to properly finish off the end of the
Iroquois including a turn around.
23. Direct staff to review the possibility of integration of
trails into an overall trail plan if possible.
24. Check whether Lots 8 or 9 as part of the park dedication, is
to maintain a trail on Outlot B as far removed from the
people's lot in question as possible so as not to be intru-
sive with their back yard.
25. The developer shall work with staff to develop some assurance
through the use of covenants or whatever, who is responsible
to maintain the retaining walls.
x 26. All lots shall conform with any future tree protection ordi-
nances.
27. The applicant shall redefine the triangular lot.
28. All trees to be saved shall be staked off prior to issuance
of building permits and approved by the DNR Forester and City
Staff.
You may now submit ten paper copies of the final plat ten days
prior to a City Council .meeting for final plat approval. Should
you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
JO:v
cc: Dave Hempel
City Council Ming - Sep�nber 13, 1989 1
Gas Stations, and Automotive Service Stations back to the Planning Commission
with the request that they come up with some proposals for limiting the
concentration of convenience stores with gas pumps taking into consideration a
distance criteria. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Boyt: Maybe while they're doing that, we can see if Jim has any
questions since he's going to be on the Planning Commission dealing with it of
the thing we just did.
Mayor Chmiel: Jim, do you have any questions in relationship to the direction
we're trying to give back to Planning Commission in relationship to the last
discussion that we had?
Jim Wildermuth: You're talking about density...
Mayor Chmiel: Yes.
Jim Wildermuth: No.
APPROVAL OF NEAR MOUNTIAN PUD AMENDMENT.
Jo Ann Olsen: Just as a brief introduction, the applicant with the Near
Mountain PUD is proposing an amendment to the PUD to replace 114 condominium
units with 45 single family lots. The outlot is currently located on the
westerly edge of Trapper's Pass at Near Mountain. They —north of Lotus Lake
along Pleasant View and Iroquois. This plan shows the proposed amendment with
the single family lots. The Planning Commission reviewed the PUD amendment and
recommended approval to allow the single family lots to replace the condominium
units. The major issues with what staff pointed out first was whether_ or not
this still met the intent of the PUD. Since the PUD was first approved, a lot
of amendments have been approved that have removed the higher density lots and
replaced them with single families. Again, the Planning Commission felt that it
was an appropriate use and recommended approval. One of the major concerns for
discussion was whether or not Iroquois should be, with the outlot, should be
opened up for a street connection to allow a secondary access. This is on a
long cul-de-sac. It is very steep. Heavily vegetated. There is also 10% slope
coming up through Trapper's Pass with retaining walls on either side. Staff is
concerned that it would be very easy for that one ... closed off there would be no
way to access the site. The handout I just passed out was from the engineering
department that is still pushing and in staff we agreed that this should be
opened up as a street connection to allow that emergency access at all times and
a secondary access. The Planning Commission did not agree that it should be
opened up. They felt it should be provided as an emergency access with a break
away barrier or however it was determined through staff that that would be the
most appropriate way to not allow traffic, normal traffic to use it... So that
is one of the major items that we still are pushing that. That Iroquois would
be opened up as a fill street connection. Another item was that the Park and
Rec would like to have at least 4 to 4 1/2 acres of parkland provided to be used
most likely as passive parkland. They are looking at the lots in this location.
Other_ than that... Do you want than to do the slides now?
16
' City Council Meeting - 9-�ntember 13, 1989 -�
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor. Before we get started here, I'd like to give
some of my thoughts on whether we should change this as a PUD. Make this PUD
amendment and where the whole PUD process historically, whatever. If I may? It
might help the presenters think about what to say to me to change my mind. A
PUD is a give and take situation. The developer wants something. -In this case
they want smaller lots. Smaller setbacks so we came up with the Near Mountain
lst Addition, whatever it is, with less than 15,000 square foot lots and with a
25 foot setbacks versus a 30 foot setback. Lots of large houses on relatively
small lots. And what's promised back for that was, one of the objectives of the
PUD is to provide a variety of housing. Right now they've provided fairly large
expensive homes on small lots and some very larger, very expensive homes on
larger lots, Trapper's Pass and Near Mountain. And the third thing they were
offering was the condominium style home so that we provide a variety of housing.
With the condominium, up here at the top of Near Mountain, they were going to
provide a very large area of fairly virgin forest left in a natural state. At
this point that area has now been chopped up and we're going only to 2 varieties
of housing. one meeting the zoning. Be very large houses on fairly large lots
and then the one that didn't meet the zoning where we gave them something, the
smaller lots with the large houses, etc. and the setback. We're no longer
getting the large natural open area. It's not open. It's treed area. The
forest is now going to have houses, streets and the refuge for the animals. The
deer I spooked up out there today. They're going to be moving elsewhere because
there's going to be houses on all these lots. While these are large lots,
there's no longer going to be that large open area to be enjoyed by the
residents of the area. To make this change, they're going to have to give
something because they're taking back what they gave the first time to get a PUD
and that was to preserve the natural environment of that hillside. That top
area. Now they want to, oops. Here, we gave it to you. We want it back. We
didn't really want to put condominiums in there. Let's give it back. So that's
what I'm always afraid of when we get a PUD and then the parts that the City
want of the PUD are the last phase because that's 2 city council's later and
maybe even 3 city council's later. I'm not sure when the first phase was
approved. It was well before me but it's at least 2 city council's later
they're coming back and saying we don't want to do what we originally agreed to
do and give you this large open space here. We just want to build houses. so
that's my introduction to it. You can see that I'm not exactly in favor of
changing the PUD. I have to really be convinced that we, the City, and the
people of the City are gaining something on this. I don't see any gain for us
on this. When they talk about giving us the minimum park area, they better be
talking double the park area if they want to change their PUD. Give us
something. There's no give. only take. I'm through. My soapbox is set down
to the side.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else? Would the developer's like to make your
presentation?
Peter Pfla►.un: My name is Peter_ Pflaum. I'm the President of Lundgren Bros..
The principle owner of the company and I'm the one that did the zoning of the
site in 1978. It really upsets me to come before you and get lamblasted even
before I get up here on a project that we're very proud of. The neighbors
I know like it. The people who live in it like it.. It's been a phenomenal
success. The project happens to be bigger than just your community. It happens
to be in two communities. When I originally zoned the site in 1978, there was a
road running through it on your own guide plan, and it's real unfortunate that
17
City Council Meeting - Ser—yber 13, 1989
everybody here that I'm facing other than their City Manager, wasn't around but
the issue there was that there was a county road. It showed an extension on
your guide plan through the site. Now the only reason I mention this is because
there's a tremendous amount of thought went into that project because it's in 2
communities. The road, the developer, us, myself, working with the neighbors
convinced your City Council that that road wasn't a very good idea. The
reason I mention this is because some of the neighbors here tonight are
concerned about the access on Iroquois. From the day we bought the site in
1978, I've been working on it all these 11 years after that, one of the main
concerns of the residents has always been traffic on Pleasant View. The reason
why we wanted an emergency access and the reason why the previous Council
approved it is because they agreed there should not be anymore traffic on
Pleasant View. And that has been a major issue from day one on this site. It's
hard for I know new council people to see everything in perspective but in terms
of that Iroquois access, I mean that's something that was fundamental to the
previous Council and if you remember, there are access on Pleasant View. Our
main access in your community was always sort of gerrymandered to start with
because of the developer and the city trying to figure out a way to keep traffic
off of Pleasant View. So we sort of tried to fix up a way so they couldn't turn
right. Let me back up a little though and talk about whether, you raised a lot
of questions. Whether this was a PUD and why we're trying to cheat the City out
of something. Well first of all we don't have to cheat the City out of
anything. I ask you to just check on who we are and what we're doing. I don't
think we should have to be insulted when we come before you but let me point
this out that our project has been before your Council, I don't know. 7 or 8
times. We down zoned once in your community already. We've downzoned 3 times
in the city of Shorewood and every single time nobody's ever challenged where it
was a PUD. Nobody's every challenged the open space and nobody's challenged our
credentials and why we're doing it so this isn't the first time. As a matter of
fact, before you council and in Your own minutes, and the minutes of Shorewood,
I personally told everybody that we unfortunately aren't smart enough, and I
don't think anyone in this room is smart enough, to know 10 years in advance
what is going to happen. And I told, and it's public record, that the PUD is
going to change. As a matter of fact, the Council did not want condominiums on
the hill. They were fighting me but I said I needed the flexibility of density
because we weren't smart enough to know in 1978 what in the world the housing
market would be today. The history throughout the project, as a matter of fact,
everybody wanted just solid single family and they were fighting me even having
townhouses and condominiums. Nobody wanted that but we said, it's a 300 acre
project in 2 communities. Some 600 units and we needed the flexibility. I
personally had to spend a lot of time with the neighbors on Ridge Road. I know
they'd all be here because they support what we're doing, and if it's necessary
we'll bring them all here so you can listen to them. They happened to be heref
before. Dr. Meyers and his group. It's too bad they're not here now because
Jim Meyers would tell you that I personally had to go to his house and convince
him that maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to have the condominiums up there. I
told him really Jim we don't want to do it. We just need the flexibility. So
my point is, from day one the Council in both communities has known that this
was just an idea. That we never really wanted all that density. We needed the
flexibility. The project has been downzoned numberous times. Once in your
community. 'Three times in another community. Never has it been challenged as a
PUD and never has the open space even been concerned with. There has always
been, Councilman Johnson, concern on slope. You're absolutely correct. The
wooded slope has always been a concern of the neighbors. But I just wanted to
City Council Meeting - F--)tember 13, 1989
give you the historical preference because I know you're not aware of some of
this because you weren't around but believe me, when we started the project, we
really wanted to do single family. It was just we needed the flexibility and
the neighbors wanted single family. The reasons for_ down zoning now I think are
obvious. Maybe it's a good idea because some of you are concerned -whether we're
entitled to even do this so maybe I think what we should do is we have a slide
presentation and the reason we did a slide presentation is I'm always afraid
that people, this is a big project and you may not have seen it or portions of
it you haven't seen. You've got a big community here so I understand you
haven't seen everything. So the reason for the slide presentation is to just
sort of educate everybody basically what we're trying to do and we'll go through
it really quickly.
Mayor Chmiel: We'd appreciate that.
Peter Pflaum: Michael, my brother did the presentation before the Planning
Commission so I'll let him pick it up here.
Councilman Johnson: The reason I asked to talk before you had your chance to
talk was so you would have a better chance to convince me you know. I don't
really mean to make it as a lamblast but other developers are suspected for the
same. There's other places where I wasn't here when you started but there's
other developments I was involved with where we are trying to get the density.
We are trying to get the R-4. The R-12 within their development and they have
more logical places. I have to agree that this is a lousy place for
condominiums.
Peter Pflaum: One thing I should mention is, one of the concerns was originally
that nobody wanted over 2 units per acre on this entire site. If our approval
goes with the condominiums, the density will be 1.6 if we take the condominiums
out. The historic history on this is they wanted low density in this location
and large lots from day one.
Michael Pflaum: I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on this. The
objective of a slide presentation were to give somewhat ... the project the sense
of the community and design. Also give an opportunity I think you'll see the
types of housing adversity... but we've got lots ranging from 7,500 square feet
to over an acre on this one site. We've got two distinct neighborhoods.
Chestnut Ridge neighborhood and the Trapper's Pass neighborhood but they
integrate across one another with open ponds... This is the entrance. The
first thing that you notice is the perspective off in the distance is the
fountains. It's very spacious. A lot of open space. You want a sense that
these people have for this site. It's not a constrained, confined area. It's
open. You're alternating with certain small elements and features of the
subdivision such as the logo on the street signs and the rounded caps on the
posts. The Near Mountain emblem is used throughout the site. Again you see in
the distance a fountain... In this shot you can get a pretty good sensation of
again, openess. Unclutterness. There aren't any fences there. People like
to live there and they like the openess. A different angle that demonstrates
the same point. This is one of the smaller lots that we began with over on TH
101 in the lst Addition that Jay was talking about. This lot is approximately
7,500 square feet. The house is less than 1,000 square feet in size. This is
the smaller house in size. This is the manner in which mailboxes is installed.
This is the view from the other side of that pond looking back at another part
19
City Council Meeting - Sep-,' ber 13, 1989 ^.
of the Chestnut Ridge portion of the site. Those houses are bigger_ than the
ones along TH 101. There's an evolution product line as we went through the
site. Lots had to be a little bit bigger to accommodate bigger houses but it
was basically a semi -production type of housing.
Peter Pflaum: One thing you should mention is they're worried about whether
this a PUD or not. The first house that they showed started at about
$80,000.00. They were aimed at entry level housing at the time so the range of
housing on that site goes from $80,000.00 house to half a million. The range of
lots go, from like Mike said, from 7,000 to over an acre so although they're all
detached single family housing, it covers a whole spectrum of type of housing.
Michael Pflaum: This is another evolutionary form of the country home product
line. As some of you perhaps, all of you are aware, when the project finally
did start, it didn't start until 1983. The market conditions weren't right and
when we finally entered the site we entered it with an innovative product, the
country home. It hadn't been done before. It was a new idea. The zero lot
line type approach. Small lot. Single family home and it replaced quadominiums
which at the time that we were planning the site were very much in vogue in
Chanhassen and by the time we got around to actually building something, nobody
was buying them. This is an example of the use of the existing topography. The
winding streets and in general the approach we take towards development. This
is another pond. Good view across the pond at some of the largest of the
country home product line built on this site. You're looking at a portion of
the site, the development, probably 2 1/2 - 3 years after the initial area.
There's another fountain. This is an award winning house. Peter probably can
give you just a thumbnail on it. We're real proud of it and the City of
Chanhassen is very proud of it too.
Peter Pflaum: This house... project we- have in the City of Chanhassen that wen
national awards. This project won a national award from the America Wood
Council in terms of the neighborhood. It also was featured in the Builder
Magazine which ... top on your list but this particular house was on the cover of
Better Homes and Garden. It was picked as the top house in the United States.
Now I don't know how many of your projects that kind of claim but we certainly
don't get it that often. We're proud of that house because they picked one
builder in the United States and one house and we were it and it was in your
community. That was a feature in 1987 on August Better Homes and Gardens.
Michael Pflaum: This is a country hone right across the street from that
particular house. This is another entrance. This particular entrance to
Near Mountain you may not be aware of because it's in Shorewood but again you
see the same elements. Unity. Again, this is Trapper's Pass again showing some
openess. The rolling nature of the site. The curving of the streets. This is
Trapline Lane and I'm going to go rapidly through this. All this is intended to
do is give you an indication of yes, we develop... This is in Shorewood in the
Sweetwater subdivision and was not built by Lundgren. Wait a minute. I take
that back. That's in Trapper's Pass. Likewise, Trapper's Pass. This is a brief
trip through Sweetwater. We're not trying to sell Sweetwater to you but we feel
that so far as the wooded area of the development and the homes will be closer
to the Sweetwater. Again, the entrance features. Another_ big pond. A street
going by Silver Lake. Open space. This is backyard open space. Normal back
yard open space. All of the homes in the Sweetwater addition are not built by
Lundgren Bros. but a majority of then are. When we have had other builders in
City Council Meeting - - ptember 13, 1989
with us on the project, they are premiere builders in the western suburbs.
Peter Pflaum: This is Chanhassen right here.
Michael Pflaum: No this is the one at the end... Housing types. Variety.
We're back in the woods now. The other ones obviously were out in the open.
Peter Pflaum: Why don't you stop a minute. One of the things that really has
made this a great project on the Shorewood side is we have the cooperation of
three of the best builders in the western suburbs. You're looking at Bob Mason,
Steiner Koppleman, Bruce Bren, the Bruce Brothers and Larry Cramer in addition
to us in here. In anybody's stretch of the imagination, those are the top
builders in the western suburbs and you have 6 of them operating together on
this site in Shorewood. You'd have to go a long ways, I don't even know of
another subdivision of this size, 300 acres, that has had the kind of success,
not in terms of us doing so well. In terms of being so well received in the
community. I think you know yourself in terms of how many homes are sold in
Chanhassen.
Michael Pflaum: What is demonstrated here is this is in Shorewood. This is the
most recent addition of Sweetwater. All it attempts to demonstrate is the
capability to deal sensitively with the environmental problems with building in
the woods. I'm going to go back to that. The house on the left has got trees
in the front yard and trees in the back yard.
Peter Pflalun: Speaking about trees, everybody's concerned about trees, the
wooded slope. I was asked by the City of Plymouth to help them write their tree
ordinance representing all of the developers in the City of Plymouth so I think
we're pretty well respected for our ability to work in wooded areas. You can
just happen to call the City Manager, Jim Willis over at the City of Plymouth
and ask him and he'll tell you because we're working —back yard in a project
called...
Michael Pflaum: This is an interesting picture. That's the mountain that is a
topic of tonight's discussion.
Councilman Johnson: I always wanted to see where the mountain was.
Peter Pflaum: There actually is one.
Councilman Johnson: I lived in Colorado for 4 years.
Michael Pflaum: Okay, small mountain. This is a Minnesota mountain.
Mayor Chmiel: It's a near mountain.
Councilman Johnson: It's a near mountain. Is that like near beer?
Michael Pflaum: This shot was taken through the window of a house under
construction in Fox Chase. Up near the top of Fox Path. If you know the
topography there you'll understand that Fox Path rises to probably one of the
highest points within that particular development. We're starting up the slope
of another hill. But what this does show is looking across at the top of
Near Mountain, you're looking across these houses that are way down below and we
21
City Council Meeting - Sef tuber 13, 1989
wondered how pleased these people are people on the other side who would be able
to see for some distance would be seeing fairly large structures that dominant
the top of the hill. Wie feel from an aesthetics standpoint, tasteful single
family development of the site would be superior, at least in the eves of the
people beholding from down below to condominiums. This is a continuation shot.
The first one was, this is a panorama in other. words. Rotating the camera.
This particular picture is the south of Lotus Lake taken from the park. This is
an establishing shot and it demonstrates that if you were in that park and there
were structures on top of the hill, that dominate the top of the hill, you'd see
it from there. The mountain again, this one is taken from the intersection of
Duck Lake Trail and TH 101. That's a Fox Hollow home in the foreground now.
Again, the purpose is to show that that particular site dominants a fairly large
area and what is placed on it we think should be as compatible as possible with
it's environment... I think that's it.
Peter Pflaum: Let me answer a few more questions. There was a comment whether
we as developers gave enough. The question is whether should have to give
really but whether gave enough. The Park Commission requested that 2 of our
lots become a park. They also requested some trail. What we did and really
don't get credit for, before we ever talked to Planning Commission or your
staff, we met with all your neighbors who border the site and their concern was
that there be some kind of buffer between our project and theirs that would be
preserved because they were afraid that if you sold single family homes, that
somebody would have the right to come back in the back yard and cut down the
trees so we've agreed to put a buffer in the back yard of all the property on
the Lotus Lake side of our site. That would give them the security of knowing
that that vegetation would be preserved and we did this by having protective
covenants that goes on the deed that would preserve the trees forever. The
other question was... -
Councilman Johnson: There are no trees.
Peter Pflaum: Oh yeah. There's, what the neighbors consider valuable foliage.
It's sumac and trees and high brush. Their point was they didn't want to see
that destroyed because they liked that as a buffer so we agreed to do that and
put on the deed. I don't know exactly where it came in with the concept that
maybe we should also preserve the slope by some kind of protective covenants so
we agreed, Rick what elevation is that that we would put protective covenants on
the slope preserving the slope that cannot be cut down even if somebody bought
single family lots. They would not have a right to cut the trees down.
Councilman Boyt: 945 I think is what I read.
Peter Pflaum: And the reason for that was to preserve the slope and the wooded
character of the land as much as possible and yet allowing development. Rick,
can probably point it out.
Rick Sathre: I think it was Jo Ann's idea probably basically to preserve the
north facing slope below an elevation of 945 which is right here. I guess the
issue of preservation down in the western area is ... Park Commission's
recommendation to take that land for park. Then along the southwesterly face of
the plan, what Peter mentioned was conceived of as that other_ buffer strip. I
guess that preservation area is the northerly 20% or something of the land.
Probably more than that.
22
City Council Meeting - " itenber_ 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: 997.
Robert Rojina: My name is Robert Rojina. I live at 480 Indian Hill Road. The
amount of traffic that's on Pleasant View Road now is pretty substantial since
the Near Mountain has started and the new residents have moved in.- By putting,
was it 45 units in up there? The average family has 2 cars. That's what, like
90 vehicles. More vehicles will be using the road than there is now and I
really feel that there's got to be another access out of Near Mountain as they
have it planned now other_ than what they have.
Rick Sathre: Your honor. My, name is Rick Sathre. I'm the engineer for
Uuxlgrens. I work for my own company, Sathre-Berquist. When we plan the single
family neighborhood, we were trying to be consistent with the way the concept of
the condominiums or the multi -family structures were planned. All along since
the first effort at this site, the planning effort, we've tried to find the best
way up to the top of that knoll, that mountain. That near mountain. We chose
the spot to go up the slope that was the most gentle and there aren't any gentle
slopes out there on that site. A secondary access to the site would be, I guess
the next most gentle spot to come up to the knoll is Iroquois or Indian Hills
Road. I think that street grade's probably around 150. It's excessive. I'm
not sure what the gentleman meant exactly by where else we could go down but a
point I wanted to make. Alright, well that's very steep. If you walk through
there.
Robert Rojina: I grew up in that area but if you do put it down through Indian
Hill Road, Iroquois, whatever, that's defeating the purpose to give the people
easy access out because you still have a great deal of traffic coming all the
way through Pleasant View here were actually people have no purpose other than
to get to Excelsior or out to TH 101.
Rick Sathre: Our proposal has never been to connect that as an actual street.
The proposal is to provide for emergency access in the event of a fire or heart
attack or something of that nature. I agree with you that there are no direct
links. Pleasant View Road is a circuitous route. That's some of the chazan of
it I guess.
Robert Rojina: It's not very practical is it?
Rick Sathre: Well we've tried to direct our traffic towards TH 101 recognizing
that the majority of people would use that thoroughfare to go to downtown
Chanhassen or to go to Minneapolis.
Peter Pflaun: The answer is that from day one the vast majority of the
residents insisted we have no access on Pleasant View Road. As a matter of
fact, they were adamant about it. They'd fill this room. They're still upset
about it so what we did is we said the only access we wanted was in case of an
emergency. The other is just a trail, walking trail so we're just responding to
what, and this goes back to 1978 when there must have been, I don't know, 300 or
400 people. There was a lot of people very upset and they sided with us on our
project because they felt it was the best use of the land but they made it very
clear that thev didn't want any traffic on Pleasant View so that's been from day
a
one. The over riding concern.
23
City Council Meeting - Ser'_'��ber 13, 1989 �
Rick Sathre: The other big issue to think about is what we're really proposing
to do is reduce the traffic by changing the land use. The approved use is 114
multi -family dwellings which largely have 2 vehicles too.
Peter Pflaum: on the average.
Rick Sathre: Right. 43 or 45 single family homes would generate much less
traffic than the multi -family use.
Robert Rojina: I don't know. Since like you said, since Lundgren Bros. have
built the Near Mountain additions, the amount of traffic on Pleasant View at any
...there's probably, I'll bet you it's at least double. The amount of more cars
and traffic on Pleasant View, I don't know if you ever go out there and watch
and count cars. You hear a lot of cars that travel Pleasant View during the day
and it's not a very big road. It is a very curvy, windy road. I really think
Near Mountain needs another access to ease the flow of traffic going all the way
through Pleasant View to get to CR 17 or Excelsior, to Powers Blvd..
Rick Sathre: Let me assure you that we've tried to choose the two most
reasonable access points already and they're farther east on Pleasant View. I
think the other thing to remember is that when Near Mountain was conceived of
and first started, there was very little development except for right around the
lake, Lotus Lake and Silver Lake and Christmas Lake. Large areas of Wen
Prairie and the rest of northern Chanhassen have developed during this same time
and I certainly agree that the traffic on Pleasant View has increased but I
don't think in fairness that you could say that it's the Near Mountain
neighborhood alone. I think it's an accumulative thing and I think the traffic
will increase even further.
Councilman Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we seem to be getting into an extended
discussion on Iroquois and Monday night we had residents in here. We discussed
this Monday night. Monday night we gave these residents assurances that
Iroquois was not going tobemade into a street. If it's now being recommended
by planning and engineering that it is made into a street, maybe we need to put
this to bed real quickly. My personal point of view on Iroquois is, looking at
the grades and everything, it's the only logical place for an emergency access
but that is as an emergency access and not as a street. Similar to what we're
trying at Centex. I don't know if it will work but I don't see any reason to go
28 feet wide. I think we've got 2 people that don't know why. Neither of than
want it. We're not hearing from the people who do want it. fI'd like to hear_
from Gary as to why he wants a full street right there and why we can't do it
with a smaller, single lane emergency access? That's kind of a pedestrian path
most of the time, an emergency access if needed.
Gary Warren: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead Gary.
Gary Warren: Staff 's position, engineering's position has been I think
consistent in the matter and we've met with Rick and talked about it and tried
to kick around ideas. I know it's no surprise to Rick that engineering still
supports a full secondary access there. The grade, the tough grade on Iroquois
already exists. The 15% grade which it is is for the existing roadway in front
of the existing properties which is being used. As you get up into the slope
24
City Council Meeting - ''-ntember 13, 1989
into Near Mountain, that grade is far more gradual and we get back to even
within the city standards of 6% to 7%. So I think that should be kept in mind.
We've looked at what the Near Mountain, the summit proposal here, we closely
looked at the 10% grade that's being proposed by the developer to come in and
see if that could be improved on and get closer to City standards.
Realistically grading and impacts to the site would not allow that to happen so
we bought into the fact that compromising city standards on this 10% but what it
has got, I guess a concern from an engineering standpoint, and I think it's
supported by the public safety department here, is that we are bringing in roads
into the site on some tough grades. The actual full access is a 10% grade
proposed with retaining walls in some pretty extensive areas in this 10% grade
area and a large density, or small community up here up on the mountain. I guess
we all have our own impressions about what calamities and environmental hazards
are and what's the worse case scenario that could happen but it continues to
point I think to public safety's interest and engineering's to be able to access
that site. Maybe you can compromise somewhat on the road section from the 28
foot section but it wouldn't be from an environmental harm standpoint. The
Centex, Curry Farm issue maybe, from my perspective has somewhat tainted me on
compromising on our road sections. Once burned, twice cautious here. We're
still working on that one. I guess that's the engineering position on it. We
think in order to adequately service that site, we really believe that the
detriment to using that as an access more than putting any barricades or
anything else on that site is that it is relatively an obscure access. When you
drive Pleasant View Road, a lot of people don't even know that Iroquois even
goes up in that way and we wouldn't be changing that attractive entrance or to
make that entrance anymore attractive and the slope and such so there are some
natural aspects of this that I think would make it a deterrent from a comnon use
standpoint. Full city section out to Pleasant View Road would be the more
desireable.
Councilman Johnson: What's the street that goes down after Indian Hill Road or
whatever? The street you get down and then you get to that 2 way stop, that
T intersection. That's probably one of the worse intersections in our city as
far as visibility and traffic.
Rick Sathre: It's called Vallhalla.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah, Vallhalla. Whatever. It's not a place that I'd
like to see any kind of increase in traffic. That's why I'm, if there's some
way to make that an emergency. This is a lot different than Centex in that
there's no easements and there's only one owner involved.
Rick Sathre: Your Honor. If I could, I'd like briefly to show you what we've
tried to do in the design of the single family subdivision to lessen the
likelihood that there would be a need for using that secondary access. The
cul-de-sac, the dead end without secondary access really starts down on
Trapper's Pass and a section of the street that's not built. Then it was a one
way in and a one way out all the way up to the top of the knoll where the
buildings would maybe cluster. This distance was over 1,000 feet. I don't know
exactly what it was but the previous Council recognized the need to have some
other_ way to serve that knoll other than just one dead end. When we did the
single family planning, we wanted to get away from one way in and one way out.
We previously had put in a secondary exit and this just got paved in the last
few days down on Pleasant View but now what you see is on the knoll, up on the
25
City Council Meeting - Sep' fiber 13, 1989
mountain we've got this looped street so there's really only about a 600 or so
foot long area that could get blocked and cause problems. If blockage occurred
somewhere else, we don't have a problem. There's two ways in and out so there's
less likely to be a catastrophic problem. With decreased traffic and everything
else, we j-ust felt it would work without a whole street. But I agree very much
with Mr. Warren that we're not talking environmental harm by making the
secondary connection. We're only talking need.
Councilman Boyt: I have a question. You said only 600 feet so it's not a
problem. Did I hear that right? That's what I heard.
Rick Sathre: I'm sorry. 600 feet is long too but there's a big difference
between a 600 foot one way in and out versus over 1,000 feet. 1,500 feet.
Councilman Boyt: How are we now down to 600 feet? Where's the secondary
access?
Rick Sathre: The street loops here and there's more than one way to this point.
Once you get to this point, there's more than one way to get to every home above
that point so if there was a blockage in the road which would prevent access, it
would have to occur in this one little segment of the road. That's what I mean.
That was the point. 'We tried to make it a less likely event that the road would
be blocked.
Councilman Boyt: Except if it is blocked, you'd still block 37 homes. If it
blocks in that 600 feet.
Rick Sathre: Then that secondary access, emergency access would be used or
should be used.
Councilman Boyt: Can you guys talk to this. I'm real concerned about, the
emergency access when it's flat and we've got some room like say the Centex
thing here, it becomes manageable to get in there and plow it but now we're
talking a narrow road and a grade and I'm a little concerned that our emergency
access isn't an access at all.
Gary Warren: Iroqouis is plowed right now.
Councilman Boyt: Well I'm talking about, we're talking about putting some kind
of breakable barricade in there. Now I know you're not. They are. If they put
some sort of a breakable barricade in there, can we keep that clear?
Gary Warren: I don't know if I'm understanding you completely Bill but the
grade of the road on the stumnit area here is actually within the City's
standards, 6% to 7% grade could be built there.
Councilman Boyt: But you're going to have to put some kind of a turn around at
each end of that barricade right or wrong?
Gary Warren: You're saying if you put in a barricade?
Councilman Boyt: If you put in a barricade. We're not talking thru street
here. We're talking about some kind of an emergency only access. That means
barricade to me. Is that the only way we can control that?
City Council Meeting - F--)tember 13, 1989
1
Gary Warren: If you're going to put in a barricade, then you'd need to make
provisions for vehicles to turn around. j
Councilman Boyt: Okay. Let's talk about that a little bit.
Rick Sathre: Our proposal has been to create a 30 foot wide corridor that would
go through between the lots. It's angled off from the current Indian Hills or
Iroquois so that we don't have headlight intrusion one way or the other. we
propose that there be like, what we talked about a one lane wide paved what
would be used normally as a trail. I think that the gate that blocks the thing
wouldn't have to be a break away barrier. It could just be a gate that swings
and anybody that wanted to swing it open, could swing it open. If it's meant to
be an emergency access and that's abused, then there's a problem and then you
police it but I think locking it is too cumbersome on police and fire people. I
think it should be easily moved or not there at all. It would be plowed in the
winter_ by one pass of the City plow.
Councilman Boyt: I can tell you from my perspective, I can't ever conceive of
voting for the City to build an 8 foot wide road or for the City to have
responsibility for cleaning a driveway. I just can't imagine it from my
perspective.
Kevin Peeper: Could I make a point please?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure. Go ahead.
Kevin Peeper: My name is Kevin Peeper. I live at 541 Indian Hill Road and just
looking at, I'd like to point out here with this overlay. If you made this a
thru street, full section street, headlights from this, cars exiting will shine
down on 2 existing homes right here. Direct light into those houses. We were
originally told that this would never be a thru street. It was emergency only.
We have a steep grade here. Steep lots as well. There's a lot of small
children in this area. If you're accessing 45 houses out here, it provides a
very good way of access for these people to come down here and go over to Powers
Blvd.. I think you should not overlook the safety aspect of jeopardizing the
people that are already living in this area. Not only that but the fact that
the headlights on these two houses. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other further discussion? Does anyone else wish to address
anything from the audience?
Al Kraemer: My name is Al Kraemer and I live at 531 Indian Hill Road. I just
want to make reference to the obscure nature of Indian Hill Road as referred to
by .the engineering department. I'd say that the dead end street sign at the
bottom of the street right now contributes somewhat to the obscure nature of the
road and obviously if that were a thru street, you would no longer have a dead
end sign and I think people would discover that it's a road.
Gary Warren: I guess I would agree that at this point in time a dead end sign
obviously is a deterrent to that aspect. However, the fact that when you look
at that intersection and you can't see anything except a sharp left also to the
people who aren't familiar with the area, wouldn't expect to see that as a
convenient route. Another point just briefly that from my perspective we've all
27
City Council Meeting - Ser^�;mber 13, 1989
talked about, not only with this subdivision but with our Van Eeckhout
subdivision, about Pleasant View Road and how if we all could do it over we'd do
it over. The point has always been, the less that people have to travel
on Pleasant View Road, the better we all are. By not having an access at this
location or one of the secondary benefits maybe of having an access in this
location is that people who are interested in going westbound to get to Powers
Blvd. and getting to Excelsior and such, will be spending less time on Pleasant
View Road and some of the tougher parts of Pleasant View Road. Without that
acess, the westbound traveler has to go to the access currently now by our
North Lotus Lake Park area. Get on Pleasant View Road. Come down through the
chute there so to speak and then on out so an extra distance traveled. I think
that should be recognied on Pleasant View Road instead of coming out here.
Councilman Johnson: But with 45 homeowners in there, or 43 homeowners will
discover that road very quickly and all their guests and maybe some service
vehicles.
Bruce Nord: I have one last comment. It looks like you're all getting ready to
go home so I'm just going to jump up here. My name is Bruce Nord. I live on
551 Indian Hill Road. I'm on Lot 11 right there. I'm going to be having
probably the most affect by having a road through there. The road itself is,
everybody said the grade is so steep. Sometimes we can't even get up there in
the wintertime on a bad snow. In order for you to make a road through there,
you're going to have to change everything. I mean you're going to have to
regrade the whole road. Have to make it wider_. At certain times, if you get a
car parked on either side of the road, you can barely fit a car down the middle
of them. It's a road. It's not an upgraded residential street. It was made 25
years ago and it's the way we like it. I don't mind walking up the hill a
couple times a year when it snows but the whole safety factor of having people,
potentially 90 cars using that road. There's a lot of little kids on the road
and you know, anybody that's on the road and they're not familiar with it and
they're not familiar with little kids on there, any road with a grade like that,
if you're not riding your brakes down the hill, you get going pretty fast.
Unless you live right there and you're aware of this, there's people going to be
flying down that road. I mean you probably could take your foot off the gas,
off the brake and you could probably be doing 45 mph by the time you hit that
curve if you weren't aware of that. I'm just real concerned for everybody's
safety. There's a lot of kids there. People walk their dogs. Whether you
access to Pleasant View a few hundred yards down or right there, you're still
going to have, you're right in the heart of Pleasant View Road right there.
You're still going to have the same amount of traffic so it's just a real bad
idea and everybody on our street is against it. If any of you want to drive up
there and take a look at it, right at the bottom of it there's a big curve too
and it's a really bad curve. You have to be going really slow around it. If
you're shooting 90 cars, potentially 90 cars down that hill, hitting that curve,
you're just going to buy yourself a lot of problems I'm afraid. As Kevin said,
we understood when we bought our house 5 years ago that that would never go
through. That it would just be an emergency access. As far as a turn around
for a plow, heck. It's a dead end now and they use our driveways to turn their
trucks around now. They could feel free to do it in the future so as far as a
turn around access, that isn't a real problem. Once you do reach the top of
that, the grade is quite smaller_.
City Council Meeting - Sitember 131 1989
Peter Pflaum: I have two quick points. One is, you're not really talking about
45 homes using it. This would be a short cut for a lot of people in the project
once they learned about it. Second of all, I think you're doing a real
injustice. If the Council's really serious about running Iroquois through, if
that's really what the vote's going to be, I think you owe it to the rest of the
people. I know what a big topic of concern Pleasant View is. It's not as big a
topic for me but I know the residents that live there. They would fill this
room and if you were really serious about running that through, if that's the
consensus, then you really owe it to your citizens to table it and have them
come here and speak. It doesn't kill us if you run it through but I know they
don't want it.
Councilwoman Dimler: I guess I'm ready to comment on this. I'd like to say
that I agree with Peter Pflaum that none of us are wise enough to see 10 years
into the future. That's the point that I was trying to make with our last item
on the convenience store ordinance. I think they've done a great job. Not only
in Chanhassen but in all the other communities that I've seen their developments
in and I think a major concern for me is that the neighbors are all in favor of
this. Therefore, and I think it's in conformity with the existing PUD so I move
that we accept the PUD amendment to replace 114 condominiums with 45 single
family lots and that for safety concerns, Indian Hills which is formerly
Iroquois, will be emergency access only. y
Mayor Chmiel: I'd second that.
Councilman Boyt: I'd suggest to you that that will fail. It takes a four -
fifths vote.
Councilman Johnson: Well, for discussion purposes, there's a lot of other
issues to be decided beyond just let's let this go. We've got the park issue.
We've got a triangular lot in there which I'm surprised there hasn't been a lot
of talk about that triangular lot yet because every other place we've had a
triangular lot, the planning staff's jumped up and down about. I'd also like
to see some design of that emergency access. Whether we put a, half way through
it we put a turn around where we...
Councilwoman Dimler_: Can that be discussed later?
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Councilwoman Dimler: We don't have to get the details on that now.
Councilman Johnson: But we want to know that there's going to be more design to
that and the builder needs to know that. It's not just going to be a trail.
The. way I see it is that half way through it, there's a place for snow plows to
go up, move some snow and there's a barrier at that point so they can plow it
coming from either direction and there's a barrier halfway through that in an
emergency you can go on through that barrier then.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can we recommend that they get together with city
engineering to design?
Councilman Johnson: Stuff like that but we also need to look at the park
issues.
29
City Council Meeting - September 13, 1989
O
Councilwoman Dimler_: I think they've been well enough addressed.
Councilman Johnson: What are they? How are they addressed? Are we taking 8
and 9?
Councilwoman Dimler: Park and Rec recommended 4 1/2 wasn't it Jo Ann? We'll
take their recommendation.
Councilman Johnson: Okay. What about the triangular lot? What do you think
about the triangular lot Jo Ann?
Jo Ann Olsen: I love it.
Councilman Johnson: You love it? You've hated it every other subdivision now
you say you love them?
Jo Ann Olsen: That was one, there are a lot of other issues we were looking at.
I didn't really focus in on that.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. I know. 'There's 26 conditions which is a heck of a
lot conditions but it's a big place.
Mayor Chmiel: Is that buffer on the 26 conditions?
Councilman Johnson: Also the buffer. I'd like to see that. There's a couple
other things. The buffer. The clear cutting of trees throughout in this whole
area. I know you've got the 945. It seems inconceiveable that people would buy
a wooded lot and clear but it but I can show you two examples that have happened
in the last 2 years of people buying a completely forested lot...
Councilwoman Dimler: But can't we, with the history of this particular
developer, he seems to know how to work around the trees.
Councilman Johnson: It's not the developer. It's the homeowner that cleared
the trees. One on Lake Riley.
Councilwoman Dimler: We're talking about the development right now. We're not
trying to regulate what the specific homeowner is going to be doing in the
future. We're trying to get the PUD changed right now.
Councilman Johnson: And this is the point that you do that regulation. You're
going to say, one of our things for this is that no homeowner can be allowed to
clear cut his lot.
Councilman Workman: Isn't that item 2 Jay?
Councilwoman Dimlar: Sure it is. It's covered because later on it will be,
the City has to approve, with each permit the City has to approve a particular
site. Okay? So that's covered.
Councilman Johnson: No, that's not covered.
Councilwoman Dimler: Sure it is.
W
City Council Meeting-?tenber 131 1989
Councilman Johnson: When they build their house, they can't cut the trees down
but 5 minutes later they can.
Councilwoman Dimler: They come in for a permit and the City works -with them at
that time.
Councilman Johnson: okay, the next homeowner buys the lot and cuts every tree
off the lot.
Councilwoman Dimler: You can't control. Can you see 10 years down the line? 20
years? Jay, if you can, I wish I could. That's wonderful.
Councilman Johnson: What I'm saying is, I don't want to see those lots clear
cut 10 years from now or 5 years from now.
Councilwoman Dimler: But you can't control what people are going to do 10 to 15
to 20 years from now.
Mayor Chmiel: As most people do when they get their own lots, it probably
happened one time and that's a problem but just as evreyone else has done, I
came out to my property and I had 4 trees totally. I now have 43 trees since
I've lived there. Ewen if they're existing, how many people will cut them down?
Councilman Johnson: But in the last 2 years we've had 2 people clear cut
totally wooded lots leaving in one case no trees and in the other case a couple
trees tossed here and there.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we're going to stay here and discuss this forever and
hold up this? That's not what we're here to discuss in my opinion.
Councilman Boyt: Jay, maybe you could suggest a possible way to cover your
concerns?
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah, what is your concern on Jay?
Councilman Johnson: I need Roger here is what I need. For how to make item 2
go beyond the original builder of the lot. How do we put a covenant upon the
lot. Don't tell me we can't. Are you a lawyer?
Councilman Workman: Well we can't enforce a covenant later anyway.
Gary Warren: It's recorded against the property.
Councilman Johnson: I mean you're already saving the 945. That we can enforce
the 945 which is a real good start for what we're doing.
Michael Pfla►mn: Excuse me, may I ask a question? There is a prohibition
against cutting any trees below the 945 elevation on those lots.
Mayor Chmiel: That's something that you're going to have registered?
Michael Pflatmn: Right. And the City of Chanhassen is working on a tree
preservation policy and ordinance is it not?
31
City Council Meeting - Sep — ber 13, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: That's right.
Michael Pflaum: Well it seems to me that the application of what Councilman
Johnson is saying should be city wide.
Councilman Johnson: Exactly.
Michael Pflaum: And if that's the will of the City Council, it should be done
by ordinance and govern everybody in the city of Chanhassen. Not just the
people that live in this particular subdivision.
Councilman Johnson: Agreed. Agreed and we are trying to do that but that is
not before us tonight. What's before us, as you showed in your pictures, is the
Near Mountain that is visible all across this area and if the top, what is it
Block 5, Lots 1 thru 15 are almost totally treed lots except for 4, those lots
aren't protected at all from clear cutting.
Michael Pflaum: Biucate me. What is the definition of clear cutting so I know
what we're talking about? Is that taking all the trees down?
Councilman Johnson: Take all the trees down and putting in sod.
Jo Ann Olsen: Anything over 4 inch caliper, 4 foot height is what we define.
Councilman Johnson: Right. Bushes and sumac, that's one thing. Clearing brush
is not considered clear cutting but taking out your maples and your oaks and
stuff so that you can play croquet in your back yard. The green area showed
around the circle is all solid trees.
Rick Sathre: The green area there is the mature trees I can say it right now.
Peter Pflaum: The reason for that area, we put the protective covenants on is
that is the most visible. That has always been the one of most concern
throughout the history of the project so we felt if we can put a covenant on
that and protect it, and if you know the slope, it's very severe and anybody
buying there would buy with the knowledge that they couldn't take trees down.
But the other area is pretty much similar to anybody in your community who's got
a wooded lot. So we thought it would be unfair to penalize those people when
the benefit is really a neighborhood benefit. The benefit with the area of the
protected covenants is community benefit and that's why we chose to do it that
way.
Councilman Workman: What is the green?
Peter Pflaum: The green area is the actual one ... the trees are and what Michael
was saying, I'm going to direct you to a point. One, the area that is most
concern to the residents is the area that we've shown right where we're willing
to put protective covenants that cannot be cut in the future and that goes on
the deed. The other area of woods we feel is only really a benefit to the
neighbors and I don't feel, what Michael is saying, we don't think it's fair
that those people who buy those lots should have to have a covenants on their
property when anybody else in the community does not. If those trees were a
major concern to all the people around it, that'd be true but in this case it
32
City Council Meeting - #ember 131- 1989
isn't. The ones that are a major concern, we have protective covenants on.
That's all we're trying to say.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes. It's covered.
Councilman Johnson: In your opinion it's covered.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
Councilman Johnson: So you're saying that the view from the south, the view
from the west don't count? Only the Shorewood view and the Meyer's view count
because those are the people that are the most concerned.
Peter Pflaum: No. We're saying...
Councilman Johnson: A loss of trees, the loss of the environmental benefits of
trees.
Peter Pflaum: No we're not saying. we're saying that if you're out on the site
you can see what we're talking about. The Silver Lake side is where, first of
all that's a nature preserve area. The slope there really goes down 60-70 feet.
Almost solid down and the stand of trees there is very significant. on the
other side where we showed a little protective area, there really aren't any
mature trees in that particular area.
Councilman Johnson: I'm not concerned about that area. I'm concerned about
this area. There you go. The top of the mountain.
Peter Pflaum: And I think the issue there is, is it really fair for them buying
the lot?
Councilman Johnson: We've done it elsewhere. It didn't work.
Councilwoman Dimler: So why are we trying to do it again?
Peter Pflaum: I guess that's the issue. Is that really of significance to the
community? I mean we have never had a problem. That's not saying it couldn't
happen but people buying out here are paying a premium because it's a wooded
lot.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. And then they cut all the trees down.
Peter Pflaum: What we're sort of saying that we tried to protect it where we
knew it was of community benefit and nature preserve area. And the other areas
we're just saying, hey, it really isn't any different than the trees in
Trapper's Pass.
Councilman Johnson: Nobody in Trapper's Pass has clear_ cut their lot you know.
It was two other neighborhoods that did it. It was the individual homeowner.
Peter Pflaum: I think really the only solution for that is to have some
protective covenants are not effective, you have to have an ordinance against
it. You treat everybody the same. That's what Michael was saving.
33
City Council Meeting - Sep' 7ber 13, 1989 "�
Councilman Johnson: We are trying. We are working towards that ordinance but
you're up before us before the ordinance is through.
Peter Pflaum: But the truth of the matter is, it won't be built before. I
mean, this project won't get built this year for example. I mean your ordinance
will be well in effect before and there has to be another subdivision built
before this one gets on it's way because there's a project inbetween it. So
you're looking at a minimum of a year, year and a half before anybody ever gets
up here to build.
Mayor Chmiel: Any other discussions on this Jay?
Councilman Workman: Ultimately what do we, I guess it's all in the package but
ultimately what can we leave out as far as decision items tonight? Can we come
back to trees? Do we need to discuss sidewalks tonight?
Councilman Johnson: We can do trees and all that stuff in the development
contract. We're going to see this thing a whole lot more and the platting.
Mayor Chmiel: You're going to see the platting come back anyway.
Councilman Boyt: That all has to be worked out tonight because I could be wrong
but I don't think the PUD is going to pass unless this is worked out. I don't
know that it takes any big changes. I think it's awfully close. I'm curious if
Jay has some ideas on how he can protect those trees. I'd like to hear them.
As he said, we've tried a couple things that hasn't been real successful. That
doesn't mean we shouldn't try something else.
Councilman Johnson: The only thing I would like to put in here maybe is that
this does not specifically grandfather to where they don't have to comply with
future woodlands ordinances. So somebody can't come in and say, hey this was
already subdivided and PUDed so I don't have to comply with that. Just
eliminate a defense. Historically, like you say, it is a good example of the
saving of trees. The builders in there hav worked very diligently to do that
and the homeowners have gone in there because they don't want to mow lawns and
put in trees ... but there's always that one radical.
Mayor Chmiel: Vbuld the developer agree to that? What Jay was saying.
Peter Pflaum: We would be willing to go along with that. I think legally we
couldn't grandfather it in anyway. We'd have to go along with the concept
of ... that we abide by it.
Councilman Johnson: Now this isn't the platting? We get the platting come up
later right?
Jo Ann Olsen: This is the prelimnary plat actually. Final plat would be coming
in.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, so this would be the time to untriangle Lot 1?
That's a concern to me. It's not a huge concern in that it's a side of the
hill.
Rick Sathr_e: This Lot 1, Block 1 that you're concerned about?
34
City Council Meeting - ?tember 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Yes.
Rick Sathre: It's about 175 feet wide at the street and it's about 22,000 plus
square feet and it's in the woods too. We didn't realize you'd focus on it
but I can change it.
Councilman Johnson: Well we've not allowed them elsewhere in the last 2 years.
Jo Ann Olsen: It's difficult to enforce the setbacks.
Peter Pflaum: If you want to put in a condition to change that before final.
Councilman Johnson: Right. So your triangular, where is your rear yard setback
of 30 foot? There is no line to set back from. There's a point.
Councilman Workman: It's the Colby's lot.
Councilman Johnson: So that would be condition 26.
Councilman Boyt: I don't see a good quick solution to that because you're not
going to eliminate the lot I wouldn't imagine.
Councilman Johnson: Oh no. Basically you move that lot line slightly to the
west and you have a small back yard.
Rick Sathre: I think there's a few ways to draw a line. I'll try one and if
you don't like it.
Councilman Boyt: I'm just curious as a concept. It looks to me like you're
going to make the lot smaller.
Rick Sathre: I think that's safe to say. The lot that we had drawn, it's about
2,000 or 3,000 square feet bigger than the smallest ones in this particular
subdivision. I think one thing we could do would be to change the angle of some
of the other lines. Perhaps draw this line this way and this line across this
way to create more of a rectangle out of it. I don't think it would hurt Lot 2
or 3. I would think we could balance the square footage even on that lot too if
we tried.
Councilman Boyt: 3 looks a little bizarre doesn't it? Jay I think the times
when we've been concerned about triangle lots is when they're been turned around
so the narrow end is at the street.
Councilman Johnson: No. There's Chan Vista they had like 5 of them coming
together and it was in an area where if everybody put fences up, you know. This
isn't the same type of area but I think it could be worked out and said...
Mayor Chmiel: Jay, is that acceptable?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. It's even better than what I drew.
Mayor_ Chmiel: Can we move on this then? You've got condition 26 then or is
that 27?
35
C4ty Council Meeting - Se ember 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: 26 would be that useless one about future tree ordinance.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so 27 would be redefine Lot 1.
Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to see that 20 foot nature area increased to
30. 20 foot's not very much. That's as far as from me to you. In fact we're
probably 25 foot or 30 foot.
Councilman Boyt: How deep are those lots?
Rick Sathre: Here they average around 200 feet so the rear of the homes we
would anticipate the rear of the homes being back not more than 100 feet I would
guess.
Councilman Johnson: You've got a 30 foot setback in the back there anyway.
Building setback. Now we'd have a 20 foot nature setback and a 30 foot building
setback. Why not make them both the.same so you don't have too many lines
drawn?
Councilman Workman: Which number Jay?
Councilman Boyt: That's 21.
Councilman Johnson: Right. Item 21. Change it to 30 foot. It's one less line
when you get to the final platting to draw on each of those lot things.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, change that from 20 to 30? Is that agreeable?
Councilman Johnson: Yes. The minimLin lot there is 188.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay with those additional changes? I'll call a question.
Councilman Boyt: Wait. Wait. We've got to get down to the other end of the
table here. Real quick and Michael you may want to wait to raise your concerns
until I finish here. Item 2. Tree removal plan. I would like to add in there,
approved by the DNR and City Staff.
Councilman Johnson: Or forester?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. DNR forester. I'd also like to add that all trees to be
saved are to be staked off before the ground is disturbed. So once we decide,
when you've got your tree removal plan and we stake off the trees that are to be
saved, in that way maybe there's a chance that they'll survive.
Rick Sathr_e: This is when you get to the building permit stage you're talking
about?
Councilman Boyt: Item ni.unber 2 talks about right. Each lot prior to issuance
of the building permit. You raise a really good point though and I don't know
if this Gary needs to be a separate issue or if it's covered under standard
development contract language elsewhere but I would like assurance that the DNR
forester is reviewing the cutting plans of the development. That's now standard
language or do we need to put that in here?
36
'City Council Meeting - tember 13, 1989
`i-
Gary Warren: It's not specifically written that the DNR forester would review
that. That would be added or it's a staff, we normally defer to them to get the
expertise. It's our adminstrative policy.
Councilman Boyt: It's become pretty standard to have the DNR forester, Alan
Olson is it, review these things.
Gary Warren: Right.
Councilman Boyt: Does that become condition 29?
Councilman Johnson: It'd be 28. We've got 26 and 27 already.
Councilman Boyt: Alright. 28 then is the tree cutting plan for the
development, however one would phrase that, would be reviewed by the DNR
forester and City staff. Again, I think that's pretty standard. We're just
bringing it up. I remember we had a big discussion about that the last
Trapper's Pass addition. Then last point. I would suggest Jay that one way to
protect a few of the trees is to use this idea of the conservation easement that
is already in place but to use it in the back yards of the lots on top of that
hill. Not the whole back yards but if we could use 15 feet on either side of
the property. The property line between Lots 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 and 1 and their
back door neighbors. Now on 8 that's not appropriate because they have it looks
like two front lots. 'That's an interesting situation.
Councilman Johnson: So's 7.
Councilman Boyt: That's another thing we normally don't approve but I'd like to
see except for the portions of Lot 8 and Lot 7 that border on the road, it would
seem to me that a conservation easement, I doubt they're going to cut those
trees anyway but a conservation easement would just give the City some way of
assuring that the top of the hill stayed wooded. I would think that would be a
selling point in your development actually. So those are my concerns. What are
your reactions to those?
Michael Pflaum: I guess I was jotting notes and I didn't get exactly where the
conservation easement would be drawn. Was it along the rear lot line?
Councilman Boyt: Yes. The thought being that is they each gave 15 feet, that
would create the same 30 feet we're doing down that other strip. I don't think
it's much of a sacrifice if any.
Michael Pflaum: I think we can work that out.
Councilman Boyt: I think we've got a good development. I know as Ursual
started it out.
Michael Pflaum: May I make two small comments?
Councilman Johnson: Where is the access for Lots 7 and 8?
Rick Sathre: From the cul-de-sac.
37
City Council Meeting - Sep' nber 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: Is there anyway to assure that?
Councilman Boyt: I'm sure it would be.
Jo Ann Olsen: There's a retaining wall going along. i
Rick Sathre: This is a typical mountain development see. We have a high side
and a low side. We're going to access from the high side.
Councilman Johnson: That's right. That's got the double retaining wall at that
point doesn't it?
Rick Sathre: Yes. It's pretty safe.
Michael Pflaum: The first point is this. I believe I made it last night at
12:30 and it was so late that I hardly remember it myself. The 4 1/2 acre
figure for park dedication came from misinformation at the park commission
level. The park commission was recommending 10% of the land. 10% of the land,
they believed to be 4.5 acres. It's a 39 acre site and it so happens, as
I pointed out last night, that Lots 8 and 9 and the trail outlots combined are
3.9 acres. That's my first point and I would request that rather than the
acreage, that specific allocation of land be, those specific lots and outlots be
taken. The other thing is there's been no discussion today, which may be good or
ominous, of the trail. The sidewalk. Perhaps I should hold my tongue. I just
was going to say that the history of the sidewalk has been that there have been
no sidewalks. As recent as last year the City Council elected not to have
sidewalks in Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition which is an extension of the project
and as inappropriate as we felt it was to have sidewalks in Trapper's Pass 3rd
Addition, we feel it's much more inappropriate to have them up on top of the
hill. I guess I'll leave it with that unless Peter wants to say something more.
Councilman Workman: I guess my very quick comnents. I'm still not quite sure
where Council is leading with Iroquois. I think if we can get a tree ordinance
or tree protection in there, I think that's great. My concern is also with
sidewalks. As it sits now, we've got sidewalks, 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk?
Is that listed under 22?
Councilman Boyt: It's 20.
Councilman Johnson: 20 and 23.
Councilman Workman: I would suggest removal of the sidewalk as it doesn't fit.
It goes against my I think already known philosophy of large lots, expensive
homes, sidewalk leading to nowhere. I would suggest correcting number 2. With
20 ending with in lieu of park dedication fees. Period.
Councilwoman Dimler: Thank you.
Councilman Workman: Bill, I understand your concern about wanting sidewalks but
I don't think you want townhouses.
Councilman Boyt: Oh, I'll take them.
m
City Council Meeting - ptember 13, 1989
Councilman Workman: That's great. If you want townhouses on top of this hill,
that's fine.
Councilman Boyt: I didn't say I did. I said I'll take them though.
Councilman Workman: You will take then over sidewalks?
Councilman Johnson: How wide's the street section?
Gary Warren: 31 back to back. 28 gutter to gutter.
Councilman Johnson: The one thing we should have done a while back was with
sidewalk, one street with. Without sidewalks, a wider section so there's more
room for the people who then have to walk in the streets.
Councilman Boyt: We tried that Jay...kids to get out there and mix it up with
the cars.
Councilman Johnson: Yeah. It still is. The one thing on sidewalks here,
within the mature tree area, which is Block 1, Block 5, Block 2, most of Block
2, and Block 3 doesn't have some trees. Putting a sidewalk in there. To take
out the trees to put the sidewalk in is a problem. We spent a lot of time
tonight talking about protecting trees and then we start taking them out to put
a sidewalk through.
Councilman Workman: I guess I don't see where they're going to fit in there. I
don't know. I think Jay, you've added some of the things. I don't know Jay
where you were coming from as far as the emergency exit. In regards to the
emergency exit, is that an emergency exit for emergency vehicles coming in or
emergency exit for people trying to get out of the neighborhood?
Councilman Johnson: Mostly emergency vehicles coming in.
Councilman Workman: Because if they're trying, where's the fire truck going to
come from if a house is on fire on this hill? Downtown?
Jim Chaffee: Right. Downtown.
Councilman Workman: I don't know how they're going to get there any quicker
going any other way.
Councilman Johnson: But what they're saying is if it's blocked, you need
another way in.
Mayor Chmiel: That's right.
Councilwoman Dimler: Blocked by what?
Councilman Johnson: The only place I want to see, I'd like to see a trail
( developed in Outlot B over to the park area. Maybe from Trap Lane in Outlot A.
A going across so the people over there can make their way to the park.
Then Outlot C of course the emergency access there becomes a trail. There will
be people wanting to go to that park from the other parts of Trapper's Pass.
39
City Council Meeting - SeE 1 nber 13, 1989
Councilman Workman: Basically as entrances and exits, blocking entrances and
exits?
Councilman Johnson: Right.
Councilman Workman: I don't have a problem with that. Are you talking about
wood chip or something?
Councilman Johnson: I'm not designing it.
Councilman Workman: You already designed the lot and a couple of houses
tonight. I'm kidding.
Councilman Johnson: I don't like wood chip. Especially in Lot 8 because the
woodchips are all going to be down on the cul-de-sac on Trap Line. The city
crews will be pickin up woodchips everyday at Trap Line every time it rains.
Councilman Workman: I think Jay, to add into number 2, I could go with a trail.
I think that's natural. It's like up by the water tower on Murray Hill. It's
going to be an area that you want to get through anyway. But I would propose no
sidewalks on Trapper's Pass.
Councilman Johnson: I have to in this case, because of grade and tree cover on
the places they're proposing it, it's going to be difficult to put it. Lot 1,
Block 2. That thing is steep. Right at the edge of the street, it's dropping.
I think it's dropping down. It'd be tough to put, it's going to be tough to put
a house in there no less a trail. Sidewalk. It's not impossible but I'm not
totally sure if it's going to cause more damage than is necessary. In that case
I'm, I hate to say this but I'm not in favor of the trail in this neighborhood.
Especially since we already lose the trails next door.
Councilwoman Dimler: You mean sidewalks?
Councilman Johnson: Yes, sidewalks. Trails. I use them interchangeably within
this type of neighborhood. I want the trails in the outlots to connect in. I'm
not too wild about the sidewalks through the forest. If this is open cornfield,
I'd be arguing very strongly to put the sidewalk from the trail in O►itlot A to
the trail in Outlot B to get to the park. Okay? Because I don't see providing
a safe trail, put somebody out on a .residential street. If we're leading
somebody to a park, I'd like to see a sidewalk but in this particular case, the
topography of the area and the trees in the area, it'd be difficult to put the
sidewalks in. I would like to see the streets slightly wider_ but I don't think
that's going to work either.
Councilman Workman: I have no more comments.
Councilman Boyt: I would like to respond to Jay's concern if I might. As we
pointed out several times here, this road is kind of an interesting situation.
Partially because we're talking about rock walls. Some double rock walls.
We're talking about heavy trees and we're talking about bad sight lines. We're
talking about 37 homes that are going to access through Otitlot B to a park so
there's a draw. There are going to be kids on that street. We just heard the
guy from Iroquois talk about all little kids in his neighborhood. Now I'm not
proposing that they're going to go up the mountian in order to get to the park.
City Council Meeting - "--?tember 13, 1989
What I am proposing is that this development is not going to be any different.
They're going to have their little kids and what we're saying when we don't put
a sidewalk in there is that we believe it's alright to put those kids on the
street. 5o that's why I'll vote against this. I supported trails in the
earlier addition and it lost. I guess it can lose here but this is the time to
build those trails. It certainly isn't the time to go back and try to build
than after the houses are built. But before people buy those lots, they have a
choice of which side of the street they want to be on. It's one of the nice
things about the way we're laying out sidewalks is they're on one side of the
street.
Councilman Johnson: But what about from Outlot C to Outlot B? There the
topography isn't there and the trees aren't there. It's only a small section of
trees. Compromise.
Councilman Boyt: Compromise.
Councilman Johnson: Put a sidewalk in Block 3. Lots 1 thru 10.
Councilman Boyt: I think that looks a little bizarre. If we put than around
the mountain and we're saying to all those people, you've got a safe place to
stroll your kids. I can assure you that what's going to happen is that these
people are going to come in here sometime in the next couple years and they're
going to say, we want you to control the speeds of people going around our loop.
We've got the sports car nuts up there and they're driving around. We want you
to stop that and part of their argument's going to be our kids are driving or
riding their bicycles and walking on that street. If we have a chance to put a
sidewalk in before houses are built, I think we ought to take it and that's why
if you can't agree to that, then okay. It looks like you've got the four votes
to pass it. y
Councilman Johnson: Gary, do you think it's engineering wise feasible to put
sidewalk from Outlot A over to Outlot B through Block 2?
Jo Ann Olsen: Along Block 2?
Councilman Johnson: It's hard to tell just looking at it.
Gary Warren: It's hard to tell just from a map I guess.
Councilman Boyt: You can put it right in the road right-of-way Jay.
Councilman Johnson: It would be in the road right-of-way but they're not
necessarily going to clear cut the road right-of-way. This is a heavily treed
area. Aretheyrequired to clear cut the road right-of-way?
Gary Warren: Not necessarily. It's pretty hard not to. Depending on soils.
Councilman Workman: I move approval with all the changes that we've made.
Mayor Chmiel: We already have a motion on the floor.
Councilman Johnson: We made a whole lot of changes to it. You need to modify
your motion technically to include all the additions. J
41
City Council Meeting - SeptQmber 13, 1989
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, I will modify that motion then to include all of the
conditions that have been discussed and consensus has been gotten on. --
Mayor Chmiel: And I will modify my second.
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Mayor Chmiel seconded to approve the amendment to PUD
#79-3 to replace 114 condominium units with 45 single family lots on Outlot D as
shown on the preliminary plat dated "July 14, 1989" and subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of the Class A
wetlands adjacent to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 and adjacent to Silver Lake
and that the final plat would provide a drainage easement over the protected
wetlands.
2. A tree removal plan approved by the DNR Forester and city staff will be
required for each lot in the subdivision prior to issuance of a building
permit. There shall be no clearcutting permitted for any lot except for the
placement of the house pad and utilities. Clear cutting is defined as
removal of any vegetation with a 4" caliper or more at four feet in height.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour along Lots 1
through 7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2. The area
below the 945 and 910 contour, including the wetland and shoreland, will not
be permitted to be altered.
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake will not be
permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving a wetland
alteration permit.
5. Development of this site shall not take place until .roadway and utility
improvements have been completed on Outlot A.
6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for
sizing utility improvements shall be sulznitted for approval by the City
Engineer. As -built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the
construction.
8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities.
9. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize slopes
greater than 3:1.
10. All street utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards for
urban construction.
11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the construction of the
retaining walls with the plans and specifications.
12. The City's standard detail for the installation of the Type III erosion
control shall be placed on the grading plan and utilized.
M
City Council Meeting - P-ntember 131 1989
13. 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.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a second street access through
Outlot C to Iroquois as emergency access only.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided with
the plans and specifications for proper surface drainage around proposed
buildings and driveway location.
16. 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.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water pressure
concerns.
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed construction.
19. The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City standards for
comparison of hardship before a variance could be granted.
20. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8 and 9,
Block 2 in lieu of park dedication fees.
21. Provide a conservation easement over the 30 foot section of the rear lot of
all lots in Block 3.
22. Work with the City to properly finish off the end of the Iroquois including
a turn around.
23. Direct staff to review the possibility of integration of trails into an
overall trail plan if possible.
24. Determine whether the trail on Outlot B will be as far removed from the
existing residences as possible so as not to be intrusive with their back
yard .
25. The developer shall work with staf to develop some assurance through the use
of convenants or whatever, who is responsible to maintain the retaining
walls.
26. All lots shall conform with any future tree protection ordinances.
27. The applicant shall redefine the triangular lot.
28. All trees to be saved shall be staked off prior to issuance of building
permits and approved by the DNR Forester and city staff.
43
City Council Meeting - Sep�__-Aiber 13, 1989
Mayor Ctnniel, Councilwoman Dimler_ and Councilman Workman voted in favor.
Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in opposition and the motion failed
with a vote of 3 to 2.
Councilman Johnson: I'd like to talk on the trails a little more, or the
sidewalk.
Mayor Chmiel: Go ahead.
Councilman Johnson: In looking at it with the rock walls on Block 1, Lots 2 and
3, at that point, it's not feasible at all to put a sidewalk in unless it's in
the right-of-way in front of the block road. Yeah, I guess it is feasible then.
I think it's feasible.
Councilman Boyt: I think we're pretty used to putting them into the
right-of-way.
Councilman Johnson: It would have to be in the right-of-way. You can't put it
in the yard.
Councilman Boyt: Either the street right-of-way. We've typically done that.
If they need to move along Block 2. If they need to move a little bit more
towards the top of the mountain where there's less geography to deal with, then
now is the time for them to be thinking about that. I'm just saying from the
concept standpoint, Jay, that we're doing these people a favor safety wise.
Councilman Johnson: Bill? Let's look at, is Block 1. I can see sidewalks from
the two outlots over. In other words, do Block 2 and Block 3 but leave off
Block 1 and Block 4 from sidewalks because that's just three houses there.
Councilman Boyt: Leave what off?
Councilman Johnson: Block 1 and 4. So it's about two-thirds of it has
sidewalks which go from trails to a park. What you don't have is a sidewalk.
You don't have one along Trapper's Pass once it gets out of this neighborhood so
it doesn't make sense to me to start one, just start it in the middle of
nowhere.
Councilman Boyt: Well let's finish the whole loop. It doesn't have to go down
the hill but let's move it around.
Councilman Johnson: Okay, just loop it around but not the Trapper's Pass?
Councilman Boyt: Yep.
Councilman Johnson: Eliminate it from going up.
Councilman Workman: What we've got is we've got now a race track around one
portion of an 8 Addition neighborhood. We're basing a sidewalk on safety.
We've got 108,000 square foot lot and we've got to guarantee them 5 feet of
concrete in the front of their yard for safety? I think it was just this past
simmer in Madison, Wisconsin four girls got killed walking on a sidewalk. We're
not going to guarantee anybody any safety on a sidewalk.
44
City Council Meeting - .�oterrber 13, 1989
Councilman Johnson: We're not trying to give anybody a 100% guarantee.
Councilman Workman: I hope not.
Councilman Johnson: But are you going to say you're just as safe with a baby
stroller on a city street as you are on a sidewalk?
Councilman Workman: If it's 3 feet off the road. My neighborhood doesn't have
any sidewalks in it and people are playing on the streets and driveways and
that's where I grew up. Not that that means I have to give that to these
people but these people are spending, how much do you figure per lot and house
average on this hill?
Peter Pflaum: Probably $400,000.00 or $500,000.00.
Councilman Workman: Boy, these are some pretty silly people lip here. You know.
I don't know...I don't think this density is conducive to traffic. This
sidewalk issue, I'm wondering when we're going to talk about this sidewalk issue
because it keeps coming lip and now it's holding up something. I think it's a
small part of it. Holding up a rather large deal here. I just don't see where
we're going to, I would be very disappointed if my 54,000 square foot lot had
this sidewalk in front of it.
Councilman Johnson: So you're saying a more dense neighborhood that has a more
logical connection to a park, you may be more willing to go towards a sidewalk
but in such a...
Councilman Workman: Well Jay, it's like Curry Farms. Those people, all except
one resident, and those aren't in the caliber of this, they aren't interested in
that sidewalk.
Councilman Johnson: But they bought houses with the sidewalk planned in front
of their house.
Councilman Workman: And now they don't want it. So the proof is kind of in the
putting.
Mayor Chmiel: It's a suit.
Councilwoman Dimler: That's what they said last night.
Councilman Johnson: Who are they suing?
Mayor Chmiel: The developer.
Councilman Workman: I'm just saying, I think that it's a small issue that's
made big. And why these people now have to be shown they need a sidewalk while
all these other idiots to the east failed.
Councilman Johnson: So comparing this to Curry Farms, which would you put a
sidewalk in? y
Councilman Workman: Neither_. I'd rather mow my front yard and put some bushes
45
City Council Meeting - Ser ^N,Zber 13, 1989 ~'
up and some trees and keep the traffic off the front of my yard as a through
way.
Mayor Chmiel: If it were a major roadway creating a lot of traffic, then I'd
say yes, we need it.
Councilman Workman: In talking with the Finger's down on TH 101. They're
frustrated as all get out. People are talking about putting 5 foot concrete
sidewalks on cul-de-sacs and they don't have a place to go down TH 101. We
still haven't addressed that.
Councilman Boy
t: We tried.
Councilman Workman: Yeah sure but what you did was you drew everybody else in
from areas like this that had no interest in it so they're going to say no.
Sure. So TH 101 was part of the package. They'll cut off their nose to save
their face you know so I think it would look, I just don't see where a sidewalk
going around in a circle around right here for these expensive homes is going to
do a whole lot. I think this is a beautiful area and there's a lot of beautiful
trees. I don't see where the sidewalk fits into the plan. Sure, I think you
can may have a little bit more safety but I think for the aesthetics of it,
the cost of it, it just to me, it just doesn't add up and I don't know, has it
been measured? I don't know. This is not a Pontiac Circle.
Councilman Johnson: Let's recall the question.
Councilman Boyt: But may I respond to what 3 people have talked about here?
Mayor Chmiel: I'd like to call the question Bill. I think we've had enough
discussion back and forth and it's time to call it again. I recall the
question.
Councilman Boyt: Well it's your decision.
Mayor_ Chmiel: We have a motion on the floor with the acceptance of all the
additional conditions that Jay has put into it and Tom and everyone elses.
Jo Ann Olsen: If you're approving it, number 14 is saying that there will be a
second street. I don't know if you... y
Councilwoman Dimler: I did address that.
Councilman Johnson: She did mention number 14 but she said that it'd be
emergency access only. There has to be some more design work on it to figure
out exactly what it's going to be as emergency.
Gary Warren: Plans and specs will be one of the steps here.
Councilwoman Dimler_ moved, Mayor_ Chmiel seconded to approve the amendment to PUD
#79-3 to replace 114 condominium units with 45 single family lots on Outlot D as
shown on the preliminary plat dated "July 14, 1989" and subject to the following
conditions:
46
City Council Meeting - I -)tember_ 1311989
1. The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of the Class A
wetlands adjacent to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 and adjacent to Silver Lake
and that the final plat would provide a drainage easement over the protected
i wetlands.
2. A tree removal plan approved by the DNR Forester and city staff will be
required for each lot in the subdivision prior to issuance of a building
permit. There shall be no clearcutting permitted for any lot except for the
placement of the house pad and utilities. Clear cutting is defined as
removal of any vegetation with a 4" caliper or more at four feet in height.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour along Lots 1
through 7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2. The area
below the 945 and 910 contour, including the wetland and shoreland, will not
be permitted to be altered.
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake will not be
De to have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving a wetland
alteration permit.
5. Development of this site shall not take place until roadway and utility
improvements have been completed on Outlot A.
6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed
District permit.
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations for
sizing utility improvements shall be submitted for approval by the City
Engineer. As -built mylar plans will also be required upon completion of the
construction.
8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all public facilities.
9. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabilize slopes
greater than 3:1.
10. All street utility improvements shall conform to the City's standards for
urban construction.
11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the construction of the
retaining walls with the plans and specifications.
12. The City's standard detail for the installation of the Type III erosion
control shall be placed on the grading plan and utilized.
13. 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.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a second street access through
Outlot C to Iroquois as emergency access only.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided with
47
City Council Meeting - Sef tuber 13, 1989
the plans and specifications for proper surface drainage around proposed
buildings and driveway location.
16. The applicant shall enter_ into a development contract with the City to
provide the City with the necessary financial sureties to guarantee the 4�
proper installation of the improvements.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water pressure
concerns.
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed construction.
19. The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City standards for
comparison of hardship before a variance could be granted.
20. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8 and 9,
Block 2 in lieu of park dedication fees.
21. Provide a conservation easement over the 30 foot section of the rear lot of
all lots in Block 3.
22. Work with the City to properly finish off the end of the Iroquois including
a turn around.
23. Direct staff to review the possibility of integration of trails into an
overall trail plan if possible.
24. Determine whether the trail on Outlot B will be as far removed from the
existing residences as possible so as not to be intrusive with their_ back
yard.
25. The developer shall work with staf to develop some assurance through the use
of convenants or whatever, who is responsible to maintain the retaining
walls.
26. All lots shall conform with any future tree protection ordinances.
27. The applicant shall redefine the triangular lot.
28. All trees to be saved shall be staked off prior to issuance of building
permits and approved by the DNR Forester and city staff.
All voted in favor except Councilman Boyt who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of 4 to 1.
Councilman Bovt: In the future in a debate that it should certainly be possible
to respond when 3 councilmembers raise a point and objection. Any one of us
should be able to counter that.
Mayor Chmiel: Bill, we've been talking about it all night. Back and forth and
it still didn't go.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Dave Hempel, Sr. Engineering Technician
DATE: September 13, 1989
SUBJ: Update on Recommended Conditions
Near Mountain PUD Amendment "The Summit"
File No. 89-15 Land Use Review
The Engineering Department would like to clarify and reinforce
its position regarding the second access through Outlot C to
Iroquois. As previously mentioned, without the second access
Trappers Pass becomes a very long cul-de-sac. The Summit is
approximately 2000 feet away from its closest access to Pleasant
View, although it would be approximately 700 feet from the Summit
to the 4th Addition alternate access point (yet to be built).
The secondary access would provide 1000 ft. distance to Pleasant
View Road.
In the event that an obstacle should block Trappers Pass it would
be virtually impossible to gain access or exit the site because
the high retaining walls, steep grades and heavily wooded con-
ditions. From a management position, we advise a 28-foot wide
urban street be constructed as a second access to the development
via Outlot C. This may be reduced to a narrower rural street
section to lessen environmental impacts to the area. Although,
Outlot C does not contain the heavily dense trees as some of the
other areas of the site. The street grade proposed within Outlot
C would be within the recommended street grades according to the
subdivision ordinance, approximately 6% to 7%. Iroquois is pre-
sently a 20-foot wide bituminous mat within a 40-foot right-of-
way with a very steep street grade which varies from 10% to 15%.
Since Outlot C is the only feasible secondary access to the
development, we are recommending this access be constructed as a
full urban street section (28-feet wide) to be extended to
Iroquois from proposed Trappers Pass. For environmental reasons
and traffic circulation, as a compromise, the street section
could be reduced somewhat and still adequately serve as a secon-
dary access for emergency vehicles to the site similar to Teton
Lane in Curry Farms Addition.
4
RlDcr
A
PPERSI ?Ass TRAPPERS PASS
5 4 3
OUTLo-f A
19
mo4
3
A1N2 4
AT i NEAP MOUNTA%
?Pss
E.- T
cl
Q
-N&TS
3
CHESTNUT RID
[/ < l� 2
\ / \ �� 3 APPER ss
NEAR 2 MOUNTAIN
4 5 3
---- --- ------
----------------
lbo
2-
AT I EAR
el) 2
z
T� 1 F '
-A D VA V \0 3RD
�JION
s:
APO_ S P'JIN4
X 10
V,
hi 8
20 7 3
\� sr
21
6
IA 22
23 X 4 ii
24
3
THOMAS M. SEIFERT
600 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
To: Chanhassen Mayor Don Chmiel
Chanhassen City Council Members
cc: Pleasant View Home Owners
,'* C C. GNC /�S.t'v1,G
My wife (Susan Seifert) and myself Tom Seifert have lived at 600 Pleasant
View Road for eighteen years. After four (4) automobile accidents,
three (3) property incidents, that amounted to $6,000 in damages, we
can fully attest to the jafety problem and the dangerous conditions
that exist on Pleasant View Road.
This road and the various multiple usage of this road is not similiar
to any other road, in the whole Chanhassen area and possibly all of the
-aunty.
My purpose of this letter is not to repeat and acknowledge the obvious
problems of Pleasant View with the automobile and pedestrian usage,
but rather focus on the history of what previous councils and Mayors
have tried to accomplish in the development of the acreage around
Pleasant View Road. When Peter Pflaum, President of Lundgren Bro-
thers first developed this property he wanted to know from everyone
if the proposed four lane 62 Crosstown thru street made any sense going
thru his property and how that would effect the surrounding Pleasant
View area.
When previous councils and Mayors viewed these alternatives,to trying
to keep the beauty and the integrity of the area, they, local neighbors
and the developers at that time, knew keeping traffic off of Pleasant
View Road made sense and that careful development would keep us from
harming the beauty of the area by not developing a four lane thru street.
Lundgrens first near mountain development and proposal was originally
outlined to keep all access off at Pleasant View Road, to the delight
of hundreds of people who attended the special council meeting at the
school building next door. The Mayor at that time told the special
hearing we are here to decide how we should be planning if we don't
build this four land road so as to keep traffic off of Pleasant View
Road.
So now Mr. Bedder has come up with another helpful solution in trying
to help a developer develop his property in relationship to the problems
of controlling traffic on Pleasant View Road.
So please review the history of how some developers have tried to keep
increased traffic off of Pleasant View Road, with innovative options,
and how previous Mayors and Councils supported this type of careful
long term planning.
Thanks for your concern,
Tom and Sue Seifert
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Z
Q
n�
CL
a.
a
0
LW
f
►A
'ITY OF
f CHANHASSEN
STAFF REPORT
I
P.C. DATE: Aug. 2 1989'
C.C. DATE: Aug. 28, 1989
CASE NO: 79-3 PUD
Prepared by: Olsen/v
PROPOSAL: Planned Unit Development Amendment to Replace
114 Condominiums with 45 Single Family Lot,
�..-.JV Chy AdMtnFlMar
Endorsed
Modified -
Reject
er
Dates `7 t'"b'1
LOCATION: Outlot D, Near Mountain PUD ,Date Submitted to Commission
APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros.
935 E. Wayzata Boulevard
Wayzata, MN 55391
9"t SU6MON! to QAM.
Rick Sathre q--- i
Sathre Bergquist
106 S. Broadway
Wayzata, MN 55391
PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development
ACREAGE: 39.4 (gross) acres / 34.6 (net) acres
DENSITY: Gross 1.1 u/a / Net 1.3 u/a
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- Shorewood; future single family
S- RSF; single family
E- PUD-R; single family
W- RSF; single family
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARAC.: The site is heavily vegetated with very
steep slopes and a Class A wetland on the
northern edge. The site is between Lotus
and Silver Lakes.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential High Density
a
ON.
.=2
J
ivtriiLr*:-
•�•• ��« in
&IV
� !I N■� •1T��p fe
.�. 1
• �� �� tee- �'
� 15-
ML
r
flit
C
a
MUNK,
��
; .. A.Pomwmlw�j
Near Mountain
August 2, 1989
Page 2
PUD Amendment
REFERRAL AGENCIES
City Engineer
Public Safety
Park and Recreation Commission
BACKGROUND
Attachment #1
Attachment #2
Attachment #3
The original PUD was approved in March of 1981. The original PUD
contained 64 Type A lots (100 foot minimum width -average lot area
of 30,800 s.f.), 70 Type B lots (75 foot minimum width -average
lot size 17,700 s.f.), 36 quadrominiums and 120 condominiums, for
a total of 290 units on 147 acres with 1.97 gross units per acre.
The PUD was first amended in July, 1983. The amendment removed
the 36 quadrominiums and replaced them with 31 Type C lots (67
minimum width -average lot size of 10,900 s.f.). The total number
of units was reduced from 290 to 285 for a gross density of 1.94
dwelling units per acre.
The PUD was amended a second time in February, 1984. The second
amendment reduced the number of Type B lots from 70 to 27 and
increased the average lot size of the Type B lots from 17,700 to
19,900 square feet. The second amendment also increased the
number of Type C lots from 31 to 40 and increased the average lot
size from 10,900 to 11,300 square feet. The condominiums
remained the same with a total number of units of 308. The
second amendment also incorporated the American Lutheran Church
property of 6 acres into the PUD area, to increase the total
acreage of 147 to 153. The gross density of the project
increased from 1.94 dwelling units per acre to 2.01.
The PUD was amended a third time in February, 1985. The third
amendment reduced the number of Type A lots from 64 to 51 and
increased the average lot area of Type A lots from 30,800 to
33,300 square feet. The number of Type B lots were increased
from 27 to 46 with a reduction in the average lot area from
19,900 to 19,300. The Type C lots remained as amended in 1984
and the condominium units were reduced from 120 to 114 to main-
tain the number of units at 308 with a gross density of 2.01
units per acre. Table 1, as part of the letter from the appli-
cant, lists the existing and proposed amendments.
ANALYSTS
The applicant is proposing a final amendment to the PUD which
would remove the 114 condominium units and replace them with 45
single family lots. The average lot size is 33,476 square feet
(20,000 square feet using the PUD requirements of not counting
any area over 20,000 square feet). The net density proposed is
Near Mountain PUD Amendment
August 2, 1989
Page 3
1.3 units per acre with an overall gross density of 1.56 units
per acre. The proposed amendment reduces the number of units
from 308 to 239. The subject site, Outlot D, is very heavily
vegetated with mature vegetation and contains very steep slopes.
The applicant is proposing to service Outlot D through an exten-
sion of Trappers Pass. Trappers Pass would circle the top of the
outlot and contain one cul-de-sac, Summit Circle. Because of the
steep slope from the existing street, Trap Line Lane in Trappers
Pass at Near Mountain 2nd Addition, the applicant is not pro-
posing to provide a second street connection from the existing
PUD. Instead the applicant is providing Outlot C, which will be
used as an emergency access connecting to Iroquois Road. The
applicant is also providing Outlots A and B for trail access from
the existing PUD to Pleasant View Road. Outlot D is being pro-
vided for transfer to adjacent property owners to provide them
with additional land for their driveways. The proposed amendment
provides large lots which exceed the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance and is consistent with the size of lots existing on the
adjacent properties.
The applicant is proposing to replace the condominium units with
large single family lots due to the existing market for
single family lots over condominium units. The applicant has met
with the neighborhood to get their reaction to the proposed
amendment. The neighbors did not have any objections to the pro-
posed single family residences if the applicant provides some
sort of buffer to screen the residences. The applicant is pro-
viding a 20 foot natural buffer strip along the westerly lots to
screen the proposed single family homes from existing property
along Pleasant View Road. The applicant stated that the single
family residences would be built into the woods and would not be
able to be seen from surrounding properties, whereas the con-
dominium units would have to be a higher structure which would be
able to be viewed from surrounding properties.
The PUD was first approved in 1983 prior to the new PUD regula-
tions of the zoning ordinance. If the proposed PUD plan was sub-
mitted for Planning Commission and Council review today, it would
not be approved as a PUB. The applicant did originally provide
clustered housing, housing diversity and open space which would
have allowed it to be reviewed as a PUD. Through the amendments
that the applicant has received, the clustered housing has been
removed and replaced with single family lots. The only areas
remaining as open space are existing ponding areas, a Class A
wetland which is protected as part of the wetland ordinance, and
Outlot D. Through the previous amendment proposals, Outlot D as
condominiums and open space was offsetting the complete develop-
ment of the site. The proposed amendment will convert all of
Outlot D over to private ownership and does not guarantee the
preservation of open space.
Near Mountain PUD Amendment
August 2, 1989
Page 4
As part of the review of the proposed amendment, staff also took
into account the physical aspects of the approved condominiums
versus the proposed single family lots. The approved condominium
units would result in massive grading of an area at the top of
the outlot and will be more visible because of their height.
(The Shoreland Ordinance restricts the height of any structure
within the shoreland district to a maximum of 40 feet.) Although
there would be massive grading as a result of the condominium
units, a large and sensitive area of the site including shoreland
and wetland areas will be preserved as open space. The con-
dominium units will also result in higher traffic counts on and,
around the site.
The proposed single family lots can be designed to tuck the home
into the existing wooded areas and the height of the structures
will not be as visible as the condominium units. But as has been
seen with past subdivisions, it is very difficult to control tree
removal, wetland alteration, etc. once the lot is under single
ownership.
GRADING, DRAINAGE, STREETS AND UTILITIES
Please refer to the City Engineer's report for discussion on
grading, drainage, streets and utilities.
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the PUD amendment on
July 25, 1989. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended
the single family lot proposal and that there be dedication of at
least 4.5 acres of parkland (Attachment #3). It was suggested
that Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 and a portion of Lot 7, Block 2 be
dedicated as parkland.
WETLAND
The Class A wetland is located between the open water of Silver
Lake and the proposed lots, specifically, Lots 3 through 9, Block
2. The proposed plan show the lots ending at the edge of Silver
Lake. The open water of Silver Lake does not occur until further
beyond the lot lines, with the Class A wetland existing between
the end of the lots and the open water of Silver Lake.
Therefore, it should be made clear that Lots 3 through 9, would
not be permitted access to Silver Lake unless they receive a
wetland alteration permit. It should further be understood by
the applicant that such a wetland alteration permit would most
likely not be viewed favorably by the city. One option to pre-
vent future requests for dredging of the wetland between the open
water of Silver Lake would be to require a conservation easement
along the edge of the rear of Lots 1 through 9, Block 2 which
would prevent alterations to the lots adjacent to Silver Lake and
adjacent and within the Class A wetland.
Near Mountain PUD Amendment
August 2, 1989
Page 5
The storm water which is being directed to the Class A wetland
along Lot 1, Block 2 will either require a holding pond for storm
water detention prior to it entering the wetland or sediment
traps along the storm sewer line. If the pond is required by
Engineering, a wetland alteration permit will be required.
SUMMARY
There are two issues that need to be addressed with the amend-
ment. The first is whether or not the proposed amendment of
removing the condominium units is consistent with the original
PUD approval. The second is the physical and marketing impacts
between the proposed amendment and the approved plan. Planning
Staff has a difficult time recommending approval of the amendment
in that it is removing clustered housing which will preserve a
large portion of the property as open space and will preserve the
intent of the original PUD. In looking at the physical aspects
of the proposal, it is difficult to say which proposal is less
damaging to the outlot in the long run.
The Planning Commission must determine whether or not the intent
of the PUD as approved in 1983 is still being maintained by the
replacement of the condominium units with larger single family
lots. Should the Planning Commission feel that the proposed
amendment is in keeping with the PUD ordinance or that they
prefer to see large single family lots rather than condominium
units on the site, staff is recommending the following conditions
be imposed which will help preserve the more sensitive areas of
the site and help maintain some of the original and existing
intent of a PUD. Should the Planning Commission recommend appro-
val of the proposed amendment, staff is recommending the
following conditions:
1. The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of
the Class A wetlands adjacent to Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2
and adjacent to Silver Lake and that the final plat would
provide a drainage easement over the protected wetlands.
2. A tree removal plan will be required for each lot in the sub-
division prior to 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.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour
along Lots 1 through 7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8
and 9, Block 2. The area below the 945 and 910 contour,
including the wetland and shoreland, will not be permitted to
be altered.
Near Mountain PUD Amendment
August 2, 1989
Page 6
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake
will not be permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake
without receiving a wetland alteration permit.
5. Development of this site is premature until development of
Outlot A is complete.
6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including
calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub-
mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As -built mylar
plans will also be required upon completion of the
construction.
8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all
public facilities.
9. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi-
lize slopes greater than 3:1.
10. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City's standards for urban construction.
11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the
construction of the retaining walls with the plans and
specifications.
12. The City's standard detail for the installation of Type III
erosion control shall be placed on the grading plan and uti-
lized.
13. 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.
14. The plans and specifications shall show a second street
access through Outlot C to Iroquois.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be
provided with the plans and specifications for proper surface
drainage around proposed buildings and driveway location.
16. 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.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water
pressure concerns.
Near Mountain PUD Amendment
August 2, 1989
Page 7
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed
construction.
19. The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City stan-
dards for comparison of hardship before a variance could be
granted.
20. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including
Lots 8 and 9 in lieu of park dedication fees and a 5 foot wide
concrete sidewalk be constructed on the outer side of the thru
street and along the trail outlots, in lieu of trail dedication
fees.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the
PUD amendment to replace 114 condominium units with 45 single
family lots on Outlot D with staff's recommended conditions with
Condition #5 changed and added Conditions #21-#25:
5. Development of this site shall not take place until roadway
and utility improvements have been completed on Outlot A
of Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd Addition.
21. Provide a conservation easement over a 20 foot section of
along the rear lot line of all lots in Block 3.
22. The developer shall work with the city to properly finish off
the end of the Iroquois including a turn around.
23. Staff shall review the possibility of integration of
trails into an overall trail plan if possible.
24. Determine whether the trail on Outlot B will be as far
removed from the existing residences as possible so as not to
be intrusive with their back yard.
25. The developer shall work with staff to develop some assurance
through the use of covenants or whatever, who is responsible
to maintain the retaining walls.
The Planning Commission also did not feel it was necessary to
have the 5' wide concrete sidewalk at the thru street as recom-
mended by the Park and Recreation Commission and that the park
should be used for passive activities (see Condition #20).
STAFF UPDATE
The Park and Recreation Trail Plan integrates the trails
requested into an overall trail plan (see Attachment 8). If the
requested parkland is dedicated as part of Lots 8 or 9, Block 2,
the trail along Outlot B will be placed away from existing resi-
dences. Staff will confirm through the development contract that
the developer is responsible for maintaining the retaining walls.
Near Mountain PUD Amendment
August 2, 1989
Page 8
CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the amendment to PUD #79-3 to replace
114 condominium units with 45 single family lots on Outlot D as
shown on the preliminary plat dated "July 14, 1989" and subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of�`��
the Class A wetlands adjacent to Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2�
and adjacent to Silver Lake and that the final plat would
provide a drainage easement over the protected wetlands.
2. A tree removal plan will be required for each lot in the sub-
division prior to 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.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour
along Lots 1 through 7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots
and 9, Block 2. The area below the 945 and 910 contour,
including the wetland and shoreland, will not be permitted
be altered.
to
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake
will not be permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake
without receiving a wetland alteration permit.
5. Development of this site shall not take place until roadway
and utility improvements have been completed on Outlot A.
6. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including
calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub-
mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As -built mylar
plans will also be required upon completion of the
construction.
8. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all
public facilities.
9. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi-
lize slopes greater than 3:1.
10. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City's standards for urban construction.
CI
Near Mountain PUD Amendment
August 2, 1989
Page 9
11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the
construction of the retaining walls with the plans and
specifications.
12. The City's standard detail for the installation of Type III
erosion control shall be placed on the grading plan and uti-
lized.
13. 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.
0-7_ Lr_65 S
F 14. The plans and specifications shall show a second street
access through Outlot C to Iroquois.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be
provided with the plans and specifications for proper surface
drainage around proposed buildings and driveway location.
16. 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.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water
pressure concerns.
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed
construction.
19. The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City stan-
dards for comparison of hardship before a variance could be
granted.
20. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including
Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 in lieu of park dedication fees apid&-5WOA1904
»-5\�A
feet n the -eaters i de b"T'' Y6bt
o-€- the-��Lr-eet and a1eng thetrailoutlofs,in I J au- of
-tr&L _ded L a-t}on fees .
21. Provide a conservation easement over the A foot section of
the rear lot of all lots in Block 3.
22. Work with the city to properly finish off the end of the
Iroquois including a turn around. J
23. Direct staff to review the possibility of integration of
trails into an overall trail plan if possible.
Near Mountain PUD Amendment
August 2, 1989
Page 10
24. Determine whether the trail on Outlot B will be as far
removed from the existing residences as possible so as not to
be intrusive with their back yard.
25. The developer shall work with staff to develop some assurance
through the use of covenants or whatever, who is responsible
to maintain the retaining walls.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Sr. Engineering Technician dated July 26, 1989.
2. Memo from Fire Inspector dated July 6, 1989.
3. Memo from Park and Recreation Coordinator dated July 27,
1989.
4. Letter from resident dated July 12, 1989.
5. Letter from applicant dated July 7, 1989.
6. Application.
7. Planning Commission minutes dated August 2, 1989.
8. Memo from Lori Sietsema dated August 10, 1989.
9. Plan amendment dated July 14, 1989.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Warren, City Engineer
FROM: Allan Larson, Sr. Engineering Technician
DATE: July 26, 1989
SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review for Planned Unit Development
Amendment - Near Mountain
File No. 89-15 Land Use Review
LOCATION
This site is part of Outlot B, Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd
Addition located west of Trap Line Lane and north of Pleasant
View Road.
This site is comprised of rolling topography with mature vegeta-
tion scattered throughout the site. This site rises some 107
feet.
BACKGROUND
The parcel was part of Outlot A, Near Mountain PUD that contained
114 condominium units and was approved by the City Council in
1981.
The Near Mountain PUD has been amended four times since its final
development plan. First, to replace quadraminiums with smaller
single family lots; second, to add land; third, to improve sub -
neighborhood transitions; and fourth, to adjust lot size to mix
with changing marketplace interest.
SANITARY SEWER
The municipal sanitary sewer service proposed for this site is
from Trappers Pass. This portion of Trappers Pass has not been
built (at present it is Outlot A, Trappers Pass at Near Mountain
3rd Addition - see Attachment #1). Outlot A will need to be
developed before utility service can be extended to the site.
The proposed sewer main has been adequately sized to accommodate
the anticipated development.
'1�
Gary Warren
July 26, 1989
Page 2
Appropriate utility easements shall be required on the plat over
all public utilities.
WATERMAIN
Similarly, the plans show a looped watermain network through the
site by the extension of the watermain along existing Trap Line
Lane and Iroquois, and the proposed extension of Trappers Pass.
The proposed watermain is 8-inch diameter. The applicant will
need to verify and document specific valve requirements and
watermain sizing for proper fire protection with submittal of the
plans and specifications. A water pressure analysis shall also
be conducted by the applicant to verify that adequate water
pressure will be available to the site in accordance with
accepted standards. NOTE: Due to the height of this site, this
was a candidate site for the City's ground storage reservoir
which was built on County Road 17 and Lake Lucy Road.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Both for its dramatic topography and for the mature maples and
basswoods which adorn this site, earth work should be held to an
absolute minimum. Therefore, single family homes placed among
the trees is preferable to the mass grading and clearing of trees
which would have been needed to construct the condominium option.
The applicant is to provide a sediment ponding site to maintain
the predeveloped runoff rate and provide adequate storage for a
100-year storm event. The storm sewer network that is proposed
to drain this site will be directed to this sediment pond before
entering Christmas Lake proper. Details and calculations will be
required with plans and specifications submittal. Access ease-
ments will also be required.
EROSION CONTROL
The entire site needs to be wrapped with erosion control fencing
in accordance with the City's Type III standard. All side slopes
greater than 3:1 shall be stabilized using erosion control
blankets. Vegetative cover shall be established in accordance
with the conditions of the Watershed District permit.
STREETS
The applicant has provided a 50-foot right-of-way for the exten-
sion of Trappers Pass and Summit Circle.
The roadways of this subdivision shall be built to the City's
urban standards and dedicated as City streets. The single family
proposal will reduce the amount of traffic within Near Mountain
Gary Warren
July 26, 1989
Page 3
and local residential streets compared to the 114 unit con-
dominium as shown on the original PUD.
A second access through Outlot C onto Iroquois should be pro-
vided in the catastrophic event that an obstacle should block
Trappers Pass from the existing roadway system of Near Mountain
4th Addition. Without the second access, Trappers Pass becomes a
very long cul-de-sac, exceeding City standards. Iroquois pre-
sently has a 20-foot bituminous mat which would need to be
upgraded to the full City standards if traffic becomes a problem
in this area. The neighborhood in the past has resisted any
request to upgrade this roadway. A possible alternative would be
to make this second access an emergency/trail similar to Teton
Lane in Curry Farms Addition (options to consider are barricade,
width of road and trail use).
The applicant, in an effort to save the trees, has created street
grades from 0.6% to 10% with extensive use of rock retaining
walls ranging in height from 2 feet to 8 feet.
The 10% street grade exceeds the City's maximum grade require-
ments and a variance would be needed for construction.
The retaining walls shall be constructed on private property and
be the maintenance responsibility of the property owner. Due to
the height that is being proposed, a structural engineer should
be used at the design stage, along with a review of alternate
material for the wall construction (such as keystone) before sub-
mittal of the plans and specifications.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS
1. Development of this site is premature until development of
Outlot A is complete.
2. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District permit.
3. Detailed construction plans and specifications including
calculations for sizing utility improvements shall be sub-
mitted for approval by the City Engineer. As -built mylar
plans will also be required upon completion of the
construction.
4. Appropriate utility easements shall be provided over all
public facilities.
5. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stabi-
lize slopes greater than 3:1.
W
al
Gary Warren
July 26, 1989
Page 4
6. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the
City's standards for urban construction.
7. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the
construction of the retaining walls with the plans and
specifications.
8. The City's standard detail for the installation of Type III
erosion control shall be placed on the grading plan and uti-
lized.
9. 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.
10. The plans and specifications shall show a second street
access through Outlot C to Iroquois.
11. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be
provided with the plans and specifications for proper surface
drainage around proposed buildings and driveway location.
12. 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.
13. Lot by lot tree removal, grading, drainage and erosion
control plans are to be submitted with each building permit
application.
14. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water
pressure concerns.
15. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed
construction.
16. The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City stan-
dards for comparison of hardship before a variance could be
granted.
ATTACHMENT
1. Location Map.
I-)
mm
a
rm
T.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Inspector
DATE: July 6, 1989
SUBJ: 1985 Amendment (Approved) Near Mountain P.U.D.
Comments and/or recommendations:
1. Distances between instal: J fire hydrants shall not
exceed 300 feet;
2. Street names must meet the approval of the Chanhassen
Public Safety Department;
3. A 10 foot clear space shall be maintained around
installed fire hydrants.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator
DATE: July 27, 1989
SUBJ: Near Mountain Proposed PUD Amendment
The Park and Recreation Commission recently reviewed the proposed
Near Mountain PUD amendment. The Commission expressed a great
deal of concern for preserving the mature trees and natural amen-
ities. Although the originally planned condominium units would
preserve a great deal of the wooded slopes, they felt that the
single family units would be more suitable for the area.
The Commission was also concerned that there is no park/open
space in this entire PUD. They felt that a parcel of no smaller
than 4.5 acres should be set aside for park purposes. They iden-
tified the area around Lots 8 and 9 as the desired area.
The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend approval of
the proposed amendment with the condition that the developer
dedicate at least 4.5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8
and 9 in lieu of park dedication fees, and that a 5 ft. wide
concrete sidewalk be constructed on the outer side of the thru
street, and along the trail outlots, in lieu of trail dedication
fees.
City of Chanhassen
Planning and Zoning Commission
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN. 55317
To the City Planner,
I am writing to you in preparation for the Public
Hearing on Wednesay, July 19 concerning the Proposed
Amendment by Lundgren Brothers construction to replace 114
multi -family " condominiums " to executive housing at a 45
lot density.
I have reviewed the plans submitted to the city and
have great concerns about developing lots 9 and 8 on the
Silver Lake side.
Not only will developing those lots put severe
pressure on the water fowl and other wildlife in the area,
but the slope and the builability of the lots really comes
into question. Does anyone from the planning commission plan
on visiting the site before the meeting? I think this would
prove to be very beneficial. I feel those lots specifically
should be set aside as a natural area and should not be
included in the buildable lots on the plan.
I also would like some information on how the city of
Chanhassen plans to enforce or currently enforces covenant
restrictions concerning natural buffers and clear cutting.
I feel the city of Chanhassen is not looking into
their developments from an overall affect on environment,
water supply, lot density, natural wildlife , and mature
trees. Shouldn't the city have a vested interest with their
residents on "preserving" the quality of life in
Chanhassen?
Thank you and I will be looking forward to your
reply.
Sinc rely,
1q . �v
Holly T. Broden
Chanhassen resident
7�L1gy
J 9 L 1 _� 1989
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
LUIIDGR(n
BROSNC.T�«bN
935 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD • WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 • (612) 473-1231
July 7, 1989
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
Chanhassen Assistant Planner
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Near Mountain P.R.D.
Dear Jo Ann:
I have discovered several typographical errors and minor inaccuracies
in the narrative explanation of our proposal to amend the Final
Development Plan for subject project.
I am herewith therefore enclosing two copies of the 7/06/89 revision
of this document -- a clean copy and one on which the changes from the
earlier version have been underlined.
Very truly yours,
LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
-/) ' , //�" 1-4
-d
�.
Michael A. Pflaum
MAP:bf
Enclosure
J U L 10 1989
i it Of CHANHASSEN
PROPOSAL BY LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
FOR AMENDMENT OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE NEAR MOUNTAIN P.R.D.
(7/06/89)
PROPOSED CHANGE.
Replacement of 114 condominium units with 45 large lots for construction
of executive bracket single family homes.
BACKGROUND.
When the initial development plan was being created, there was little new
home construction in the Near Mountain area. In 1979, the only homes in
the immediate vicinity were along Pleasant View Road, Ridge Road and on
Town Line Road in Minnetonka. To the north and east, the land was still
being farmed, as were sizable parcels to the south.
The project site had great aesthetic appeal -- woodlands, wetlands,
rolling crop land, and, of course, its dramatic namesake "mountain". It
seemed perfectly suited for single family homes, and in certain areas
amenable to multi -family attached applications as well. But no one on the
design team could with confidence project what besides single family
housing the marketplace would accept. The most prudent approach seemed to
be to design as much density into the project as the site could reasonably
absorb, and to seek amendment to the plan as housing trends developed and
the northeastern Chanhassen housing market became more clearly defined.
The two most logical repositories for increased density were the crest of
the mountain and the easternmost portion of the property. The latter,
1
ri
which was initially approved for 36 quadraminiums, was separated from off -
site single family homes by a grove of trees, State Highway 101 and a
parcel belonging to a church. The mountain was amply broad to provide
substantial horizontal, as well as vertical distance from surrounding
homeowners. From the conceptual standpoint, it seemed an ideal place for
120 condominium units.
Much has changed in the ten years since the Preliminary Development Plan
was approved. The quadraminium has so declined in popularity that few new
units are now being built. Luxury condominiums of the sort which seemed
appropriate for lofty views of Silver and Lotus Lakes have been failures
even in such close in and promising locations as Ridgedale in Minnetonka,
or Kenwood. And, more importantly, surging development in northeastern
Chanhassen and the surrounding portions of Eden Prairie and Shorewood has
for almost six years emphatically demonstrated how strong a single family
housing area this has become.
DISCUSSION.
The Near Mountain PRD has been amended four times since its Final
Development Plan was approved in 1981 -- first, to replace the
quadraminiums with a more competitive small lot single family product,
then to add land, improve sub -neighborhood transitions and adjust the lot
size mix to meet the changing appetite of the marketplace. (For further
detail, please see Table I, attached.)
While the desired action would eliminate multi -family, attached housing
from the PRD, Lundgren Bros. Construction believes that it is recommended
for the following reasons:
2
1. It would further diversify the project's variety of single family
homesites. Within Near Mountain, lots would range from the minimum of
7,600 square feet in the first Country Home subdivision to estate -
sized sites in excess of one acre overlooking Silver Lake. This
range in size and amenity equates to a spread in initial selling
priced of from about $90,000 to over $500,000. (Please refer to
Table 2.)
2. It would speed completion of the PRD. A multi -family use which
would be compatible with the homes in and surrounding Near Mountain
might have to be delayed for many years -- until development acreage
in the area is depleted and Near Mountain is perceived to be much
closer to the metropolitan center. Such a delay would not be in the
best interests of current Near Mountain homeowners, Chanhassen
taxpayers, or Lundgren Bros.
3. It would remove from the view of surrounding homeowners the probably
unwelcome sight of the relatively large buildings which would contain
the condominiums. These buildings would be visible from all
directions and, because of their elevation, from quite a distance.
Lundgren Bros. believes that development with small structures,
carefully placed and sensitively constructed among the trees, is
preferable to the clustering of more massive buildings near the hill's
crest. The latter, by restricting construction to the higher
elevations, has the advantage of preserving a thicker belt of trees
on the slopes below. But it would require clearing and earthwork
3
over much of the upper slopes and three story buildings which with
even the most careful orientation and design would loom much larger
than what neighboring landowners are accustomed to viewing.
4. It would substantially reduce traffic within Near Mountain, on local
residential streets, and at the Pleasant View Road and Town Line Road
intersections of Highway 101.
5. With its mature trees, spectacular views, extensive boulder retaining
walls and dramatic house designs, the new subdivision would be a
showcase of which all in Chanhassen could be proud, one which would
soon take its place, Lundgren Bros. believes, among the City's most
prestigious neighborhoods.
SUBDIVISION FEATURES.
Proposed minimum standards for lots:
Lot Area: 20,000 sq.ft.
Width at ROW (non -cul-de-sac lots): 90 ft.
Width at Front Yard Set -back: 115 ft.
Front Yard: 30 ft.
Side Yard: 10 ft.
Rear Yard: 30 ft.
The "mountain" is impressive, both for its dramatic topography and for the
mature maple and basswoods which adorn its crest and north and east
flanks. Because these trees are such a valuable asset, earth work would
be held to an absolute minimum. Insofar as possible, streets would be set
4
to match existing contours, and where soil removal is unavoidable,
retaining walls would be constructed to limit the area of disruption.
On the more open southwest slopes, a 20-foot-wide buffer of natural
vegetation would be retained to enhance the privacy of neighboring
homeowners along Pleasant View Road and to retard storm run-off from the
back yards of the adjoining homes above.
From the east, a pedestrian trail would climb through the woods from Trap
Line Lane to the northernmost segment of Trappers Pass, which it would follow
to Outlot B before descending to Pleasant View Lane below.
A fire lane through Outlot C would permit emergency vehicles to enter the
site from Indian Hills Road, in the catastrophic event.that an obstacle
should block Trappers Pass west of its intersection with Timber Hill Road.
Proposed Outlot D is a 10-foot wide strip which would be conveyed to the
owner of the property adjacent to Lots 9 and 10, Block 3. This individual
and his neighbor to the east have asked that such an outlot be created to
facilitate widening their driveway access to Iroquois Lane, which, they
have indicated, is now too narrow for adequate snow storage.
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS.
The Declaration of Covenants for the new subdivision would be
substantially the same as that of Trappers Pass at Near Mountain 3rd
Addition, a copy of which is appended.
9
TABLE I
LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC.
NEAR MOUNTAIN P.R.D. CHRONOLOGY
1ST AMENDMENT TO 2ND AMENDMENT TO 3RD AMENDMENT TO PROPOSED
FINAL DEVELOPMENT FINAL DEVELOPMENT FINAL DEVELOPMENT FINAL DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
RESIDENTIAL PRELIMINARY PLAN (1) PLAN (2) PLAN (3) PLAN (4) TO FINAL
UNIT TYPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (APPROVED 5/11/81) (APPROVED 6/21/83) (APPROVED 2/27/84) (APPROVED 2/04/85) DEVELOPMENT PLAN
-------------------- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------
NO.OF AVE./MIN. INO.OF AVE./MIN. INO.OF AVE./MIN, INO.OF AVE./MIN. INO.OF AVE./MIN. 1NO.OF AVE./MIN.
UNITS SQ.FT. 1UNITS SQ.FT, jUNITS SQ.FT. jUNITS SQ.FT, 1UNITS SQ.FT. 1UNITS SQ.FT.
----- ---------- ----- ---------- -------------------- ------------------------- ----- ----------
Type "AA" Lot - - - - - 45 34,100/
(115'minimum width) j I I I 20,000
i I I I I
Type "A" Lot 52 33.000/- 64 30,800/ 64 30,800/ 64 30,800/ 51 33,300/ 51 33,300/
(100' minimum width) j 14,400 j 14,400 j 14,400 j 17,200 j 17,200
I I I i I
Type "B" Lot 92 16,400/- j 70 17,7001 j 70 17,700/ j 27 19,900/ 46 19,300/ 46 19,300/
(75' minimum width) 11,700 11,700 j 12,000 10,900 10,900
I I I
Type "C" Lot
(67' minimum width- - j - i 31 10,900/ j 40 11,300/ 40 11,300/ 40 11,300/
Near Mountain) i j 7,600 j 7,600 7,600 7,600
I I I i j
(68' minimum width- - - - 57 13,700/ 57 13,700/ 57 13,700/
Chestnut Ridge j 9,700 j 9,700 9,700
1st-4th Additions)
1 I
Quadraminiums 36 36
I I I
Condominiums 120 120 j 120 120 114 -
Total Units 300 290 285 308 308 239
I i I I I
Total Acres 147+/- 1147+/- 147+/- 1153+/- 1153+/- 1153+/-
I I i I
Gross Project 2.04 d.u./ac. 11.97 d.u./ac �:. !._., _ 12.01 d u /ac 12.01 d.u./ac. 11.56 d.u./ac.
Density
--------------------
NOTES:
(1) Adjusted lot sizes and moved interface of Type "A" and Type "B" neighborhoods farther to the east,
(2) Replaced 36 quadraminiums with 31 zero -lot -line type, small lot homes.
(3) Reworked area east of Near Mountain Boulevard to incorporate American Lutheran Church property (6+/- acres)
and to convert 43 Type "B" lots into an enlarged Type "C" lot for the evolving Country Home product line.
(4) Increased number of Type "B" lots to accommodate demand for enlarged Country Home plans; reduced number of Type "A"
lots and condominium units; improved pond aesthetics and transition from Type "B" to Type "A" living areas.
7/06/89
TABLE 2
NEAR MOUNTAIN/CHANHASSEN BUYER AND HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS (6/26/89)
APPROXIMATE
DWELLING SIZE DESCRIPTION PLACEMENT BUYER CHARACTERISTICS PRICE BRACKET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------
950-1,600 sq.ft. "Country Home"-- Near Mountain, Chestnut Couples; young families; $90,000-$130,000
2 BR expandable to Ridge 2nd: young families with children;
3 BR plus den Smaller lots, less Empty -nester move -downs.
privacy, less amenity, Typical buyer age: 25-20
mixed or transition
with off -site elements
1,300-2,100 sq.ft "Country Home"-- Chestnut Ridge 3rd-8th: Developing families;
3-4 BR with or without Larger cul-de-sac or move -up buyers; empty
den; greater design interior lots; luxury nester move -downs.
flexibility housing fringe; proximity Typical buyer age: 29-45
to ponds.
2,400+ sq.ft. "Luxury or Custom Home"-- Trappers Pass Additions: Established, executive
3-car garage, 4BR+/- Large lots, woods or marsh, and professional
with more open space and private inner site families; move -up
life style design location. buyers.
Typical buyer age: 35-60
2,400+ sq.ft. "Luxury or Custom Home"-- "Mountain" subdivision: Established, executive
3-car garage; 4BR+/- Large lots, woods, and professional
with more open space and spectacular lake views, families; move -up
life style design; private inner site buyers.
highly individualized location. Typical buyer age: 35-60
in floor plans, features,
and upgrades
7/06/89
$120,000-$150,000
$190,000-$350,000
$300,000 up
C
C
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 8
R-12. That was not a real popular decision because this community is going
up with residential and I felt, as many people did, that -we needed some
pockets of high density. I felt this was one of those pockets and I still
do. This is just not the right project for this high density piece of
property. Jo Ann, I don't know what we should do. In terms of what we're
being asked to do tonight, the developer wants to proceed and the attorneys
have made some statements obviously. We don't have enough information to
react to some of these issues that we've being asked to react to tonight.
What would your recommendation be? Should we react to the preliminary plat
or would it be smart to table this at this time for more discussion in
terms of what density is or should we try to get this to City Council?
Olsen: The plans that were submitted, I don't think there's enough
information with the other items that have come up. I think it should be
tabled. I don't think that a decision can be made tonight.
Conrad: Okay. Any other discussion? Is there a motion?
Emmings moved, Wildermuth seconded to table the preliminay plat, the site
plan review and the wetland alteration permit on the Cenvesco, Oakview
Heights project. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Conrad: The item is tabled. Jo Ann, what kind of time frame?
Olsen: I'll try to get it back on the next agenda on the 16th.
Conrad: Thank you for coming those of you that were interested in this
project.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO REPLACE 114 MULTI -FAMILY ATTACHED
UNITS WITH 45 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD AND TH 101, LUNDGREN BROS.
CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
Name
Jim Meyer
W. Pat Cunningham
Sharon Graef
Gordy and Patsy Whiteman
David and Holly Broden
Gary and Peg Schelitzche
Dean Wetzel
Don Peterson
Mike Pflaum
Peter Pflaum
Rick Sathre
Address
6225 Ridge Road
865 Pleasant View Road
855 Pleasant View Road
825 Pleasant View Road
640 Pleasant View Road
680 Pleasant View Road
6260 Ridge Road
995 Plesant View Road
Lundgren Bros. Cosstruction
Lundgren Bros. Construction
Engineer for Lundgren Bros Construction
I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 9
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report. Chairman Conrad called the public
hearing to order.
Conrad: Jo Ann, were you around during many of the changes to the PUD?
Olsen: I was around in the first one in 1985 when it was reducing some of
the smaller single family. It wasn't with the quad units.
Conrad: Applying the current PUD ordinance where the City gets something
and the developer gets something, in this particular project in the very
beginning, what did the City get and what did the developer get?
Olsen: I think back then a PUD was required when you had more than 40
acres or 20 acres. I can't' remember but again, parkland wasn't required.
It wasn't given. They did provide different housing units. They did have
smaller lots. They had larger lots. Single family and then they also had
the quad units and then the condos. So they didn't necessarily have to
give more. It was a PUD because it was required to be a PUD and also
because it had the mixed housing.
Conrad: It was absolute. Anything over a certain size had to come in as a
PUD but if we applied today's standards to it, what would we have. You're
saying it wouldn't be yet we did get mixed housing styles and we did get
mixed lot sizes and some very big lot sizes.
Olsen: Yes. The original PUD as it was approved, even then that might not
have been approved unless they had given some parkland more than what was
but as the amendments have been all to have it proposed as all single
family with some smaller single family lots today, that would not be
approved without dedication of some open space.
Batzli: Jo Ann, could you point again to where the wetland is.
Olsen: This is all wetland adjacent to Silver Lake. Then also this is
wetland.
Batzli: Okay. So Oultot D is that area that you just, the wetland up
there?
Olsen: Yes.
Conrad: Okay. Rick, do you have something prepared to show us on this?
Rick Sathre: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce Mr_. Mike Pflaum who will
start out.
Mike Pflaum: I'll ramble a little while and when you get tired of me, ask
me to sit down... One of the things that I think we should do is, just as
kind of a little bit of an overview. This PUD has been amended 4 times. I
guess 3 times. This would be the fourth amendment. The most recent one
was in 1985 and ... in 1985 about it not being a PUD because of the changes
we were making to it. I understanding from reading your ordinance that
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 10
things have changed somewhat. One of the things that I hope to do with the
slide presentation is to show you that perhaps this is not entirely a model
PUD under ordinance. It is classic in many other respects. Overall, it's
over 300 acres. It straddles two communities. It was planned at one time.
Went through review at one time. Chanhassen, currently there are 153 acres
in the PUD and the remainder's in Shorewood. We've almost completed
development in Shorewood At the time that we came in with the project as
a concept, which was the period of 1978-79, there was virtually no
development in this portion of Chanhassen. There was no development in the
adjoining portion of Shorewood and there was no development in the
adjoining portion of Eden Prairie. We did what, for better_ or worse, most
developers will do and that is we tried to design the project with an eye
towards flexibility for the future. That flexibility is translated as
incorporating as much density as would be allowed in both cities. Right or
wrong, the fact that in an older development you never go back to the City
and ask for more density because you never get more density. You give it
up if conditions indicate it was unnecessary. This particular situation,
some of the neighbors who have been involved for 10 years are here tonight
and would probably just as soon we finished the project so they could do
something else with their Monday nights. They will recall but we did quite
a selling job on them to put condominiums on the mountain. The City wasn't
initially all that enthusiastic about the condominiums on the mountain
either but we argued persuasively that putting condominiums on the mountain
would be a means of preserving the maximum amount of the mountain left to
exist. We also knew that by putting density on top of the mountain, we had
built in excellent buffering. ...buffering for example horizontally.
Place the units far enough away from the single family housing surrounding
it so it should be relatively innocuous. At the concept stage we didn't do
a great deal of precise engineering type of design layout and we found
since then in trying to be objective, from the standpoint of preservation
that what the condominiums will do versus single family. We can't call it
a wash. We don't really know. If it affects the mountain in different
ways and it certainly affects people surrounding in different ways. But
today the area surrounding the mountain is more developed and it's
developed in single family homes. We feel that single family use of that
portion of the site is more appropriate. We met with ... the Near Mountain
Homeowners, by the people who preceeded the Near Mountain Homeowners on
Pleasant View Road and Ridge Road and the surrounding area. We feel that
the condominium type development on that mountain is perhaps doomed to
failure. At least in the foreseeable future. It's not the kind of site
that lends itself well to that type of development. It's too far from
shops and services, recreational facilities. Typical condominiums
approaches. I don't want to ramble too much on this. Just kind of giving
you a little bit of an overview of the process and what we did. Throughout
the intermediate years, it wasn't until 1983 that the market permitted us
to start developing anything on Near Mountain. The first thing we did was
revise our development plan to eliminate the quadominiums and replace them
with what was going to be the product at that time and was zero lot line
type of small lot, single family home which was extremely successful. At
that time we were coming out of a housing depression and it was a market.
Sizeable market. Eager homeowners who wanted for a few extra dollars to
own land and free standing single family homes. Could we lower the lights
for contrast here? It's going to be kind of quick tour through the Near
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 11
Mountain project. It will not only show the Chanhassen P j y portion but also
the Shorewood portion. This is from the entrance. Most -of you are
familiar with the island... Down the road is the tip of the fountain with
the fountain spray. One of the things that was extremely important to us
in designing the project was distance. We were not staging spacing
allocated to provide long views. Details. One of the other things that we
prided ourselves on with this project is creating an identity and sticking
to it. Street signs have, they're custom made. They have a logo for the
project on every one. This is again the logo. Here's one of the vistas I
was talking about. We hear a lot about open space and the absence of it.
The ponds on this site were not required by anybody. We constructed the
ponds out of depressions in the fields to provide an amenity to the homes
and open vistas. Another view of the same pond. That's an example of the
initial single family housing type that we constructed over by TH 101 in
the Near Mountain subdivision. That lot is approximately 8,000 square feet
which wouldn't fly in today's city. It has side yards of 5 and 10 feet.
That house is probably about 950-1,000 square feet in size. That's
probably the smallest that's on the site. Here's some more detail. This
is looking back towards the east from the central fountain at the rear of
the homes that evolved out of that first modest one. That was the country
home product line. Much the evolution in lot size and changes in the
planned to amend were to provide lots that could accommodate the...
product. The product presently is about 22,000-23,000 square feet. It
varies considerably if you buy a custom house. This is one of the larger
ones built in one of the later additions. We've had ten subdivisions in
Near Mountain. This is Mountain Way is the name of the street heading
towards the woods to the west. It's demonstrative of the ugulating curving
streets that are kind of a hallmark of this subdivision. We've never been
really strong on linearity. We like interesting configurations. We like
open space. This is the second fountain. Also in the fountain it shows
the back of some more of the country homes in even a later stage of
evolution. This home is a national award winning Better Homes and Gardens
design. Near Mountain was selected and Lundgren Bros. was selected as the
site and appeared in a national publication. One of the later examples.
Here's our repetition of the theme. This particular entrance is on Vine
Hill Road in Shorewood. It's at the opposite end of Near Mountain Blvd.
from the Pleasant View entrance. We're in Trapper's Pass now. Again, you
see the distance, the streets, the rolling approach and developing with the
land. These are some of the more expensive homes in Trapper's Pass. One
of the things that we put in these photos for was to show you exactly the
homes that will be built in trees.
Emmings: Would these be the kind of homes you're thinking, what we're
seeing now?
Mike Pflaum: Yes. It'd be this price range and up. We did not build all
the homes that are in these photos. This is the Sweetwater entrance off of
Covington Road. A closer one with detail and again the repetition of the
logo with attention to point of arrival. This is a pond. There's a
fountain. That's one is kind of awkward. Again, open space. We're
looking south here to the McKinney Place Additions in Shorewood. The
McKinney Place Additions are the next evolution of the country after what
we built in Chanhassen. There's a vista. This is in Sweetwater. Off in
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 13
ic could, in the process of platting, perhaps provide them with 10 extra feet.
That doesn't seem like too much to do. This a basic overview of our
proposal. At this point, I think I might let Rick take over. We'd like to
discuss some of the recommendations. I don't know if this is the
appropriate time to do it but Rick can address the engineering questions
that are bound to come up. I certainly can't answer them.
Rick Sathre: Thank you. From the pictures that Mike took, the whole
mountian is now returning to trees. It's been, parts of it had been
cleared in the past. Part of the tree mass is much more mature than other
parts. Basically this part of the site right now, the part that's green on
there, is the more mature tree growth. The periphery of this site is
getting more dense every year but those trees aren't as tall yet. That
graphic shows the major trees now and this transparency shows the
difference if the condos get built. The only reason I show it is because I
want to show you want the single family neighborhood does. You saw the
other views of how the houses get tucked into the trees. This is a single
family product. It allows us to just cut in the streets using retaining
walls and then tuck the houses into the trees. Try to pick out which are
the best trees on the lot and then work around as many as we can. The
concept here is to not mass grade the site. The concept is to go in there
and take down the trees that we need to for road and utility construction
and to preserve the rest and take the trees on a lot by lot basis as
necessary for the house. We're not proposing to go in and mass grade in
that mature forest and building pads. There will be extra block used on
the houses that were built to accommodate grade difficulties. The staff
report talks about access up to the mountain top. Every since the very
first version of the plan, the road leading up to the mountain top has been
in the same location. The reason that was chosen, that location was chosen
was because that was the best shallow slope, flat slope approach to the
mountain top. We have proposed that the street going up the mountain would
be a 10% slope. In other words, for every 100 feet of road that you
traveled, you'd rise 10 feet. The City normally likes to keep those tree
slopes flatter than that. 6% or 7% is much preferred. We need a variance
as a part of this process to accommodate that steeper slope. This
transparency shows the part of the site that we would need that variance
for. To the right side is Trapper's Pass. We're at the east edge of the
mountain itself right here. We've propose to run a steep street grade up
through this segment and also going to the north. North is up. The
engineering staff asked us to show you what affect there would be if we
didn't use the 10% street slope but rather a 7%. This is a hard to
understand graphic showing what the difference in excavation depth would be
if we went back to 7%. The top line, the dashed one is the representation
of the ground line over 700 foot length from the bottom of the mountain up
to the top. The 10% slope allows us to get up on top faster and to
minimize clearing. 7% grade results in 7 feet of extra cut depth and 12
feet at that point so we can get up there... This other graphic showed 3
places where we, Section A, B and C where we took a cross section to help
you understand the difference in the approach to building the road in 7%
versus 10% grade. Again, this is the ground line at Section AA. The
street right-of-way would be from here to here. The center of the road in
the middle of the graphic. With our 10% street grade, we still at this
spot, we're in need of building boulder retaining walls along the edges of
W
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 14
the road. We're building about an 8 foot high wall to get that road
confined in a narrow band of trees. If we used the 7% grade at this spot,
we'd end up having to lower_ the road about 10 feet. Have to go to a two
tiered wall and our clearing limits would be 15 and 9 feet wide or even
with that increased height of wall. That Section BB, which was where we
got out of the cut on the 10% slope. The street would be up to grade at
that point. We would still be cutting 11 feet with the 7% street slope.
Then on our street going to the north, we'd have about 14 feet of cut that
we don't have if we can use 10%. The rationale for the variance is this is
the best way to get up the mountain and if we don't use that steep street
grade, that 10% which isn't steep on a national level. It's always
desirable to be less steep but the reason that we want the variance is
because of the hardship the land has to endure if we don't go to that
street slope. We end up with more tree loss and.more excavation. Maybe a
great dramatic road but more disruption. In the report the staff talks
about the need for a wetland alteration permit because we're doing a couple
of things. One of them is we're on top of the mountain and everything
around it is lower so the water runs off the mountain. We're proposing to
install a storm sewer system up in the street system up in the mountain and
pipe the water down to the wetland that lies just east of Silver Lake. The
reason we need the wetland alteration permit is we're taking water from the
mountain top and we're piping it down to the wetland that Jo Ann referred
to that's upland of Silver Lake. The engineering department or staff is
worried that we would discharge sediment laden water into that wetland
which we don't want to do either. We would work out the details with them.
We would like to try to trap the sediment in the storm sewer manholes up on
top of the mountain rather than build a pond down at the base of the slope
in the trees or in the wetland. That's our proposal. To build sumps and
catch basins to handle that problem. Just a couple more things. Mike
talked about the street access to Iroquois. One of the concerns addressed
in the report, I'll spend a minute on it. Is there adequate water pressure
at the top of the mountain to serve the domestic needs and also the fire
codes. I guess this would be the highest point in the City east of where
the new water tank or tower got built. The red line is the limit of the
mountain or the limit of this area we're trying to amend. Down in
Trapper's Pass, there's hydrants down there that the City recently checked
water pressure and around the perimeter of the site we've got, down in the
lower elevations we've got about 80-85 pounds per square inch of pressure.
At the end of Iroquois, about 52 pounds per square inch. Up at the highest
point on the mountain after_ development and after the system was built,
there'd be about 41 pounds per square inch. There would be adequate fire
flow, 1,500 gallons per minute flows at 27 pounds per square inch of
pressure. The system that's in place around the site is adequate. The
pipe sizing is adequate to serve domestic and fire flow needs even on top
of the mountain. I guess that's the end of the engineering related issues.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that you've got. Mike, is there
anything else?
Mike Pflaum: I wanted to comment on what was added as conditions of us for
recommendation for approval by the Parks Commission. The Parks Commission
recommended acquisition of land in the area of Lots 8 and 9 for
neighborhood park use. I guess it comes as no great surprise to the
Planning Commission that we're not delighted with that idea. The two lots
C
C
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 15
in question, forget the building sites. I reviewed the Comprehensive Plan
and the City Code and various different things that relate to parks in the
City of Chanhassen and as near as I can tell, I won't argue the point of
whether it might not be nice because it's a nice area. The question I
guess in my mind is is it necessary? Lotus Lake Park is 23 acres. I
calculated just roughly this afternoon a. conservative estimate of the
population within a half mile of Lotus Lake Park would be and that
population is considerably less, they're talking about pre -development. I'm
talking post development population is considerably less than what that
park is sized to accommodate so the question becomes one of is it
necessary. If it is a luxury, a luxury at the expense of the taxpayer
because that's taken off the tax rolls. That's something for the Planning
Commission and the City Council to address. I'm unable and the
Comprehensive Plan was no help either in terms of... The Comprehensive
Plan, in Zone 1 as this is in Zone 1, has got a surplus of neighborhood
parks well into the year 2000 plus so that is a question in my mind at
least. The necessity for it. Now having said that, I've got some very
strong feelings about what kind of recommendation the Planning Commission
should make if the Planning Commission ignores what I've said or evaluates
what I've said and disagrees with me. I think that particular area should
be designated absolutely as a passive use area with no development.
Wildlife area with perhaps a trail through it. No improvement for active
recreational facilities. No improvement for any kind of a launching
facility for Silver Lake. Just let it be as it is area. That's all I'll
say about the park question. The other question I was going to raise is
one that would come as no surprise to the Planning Commission. That
is, I don't really see the need or benefit of constructing a concrete
sidewalk around the top of the mountain. There are no sidewalks in Near
Mountain in the project anywhere. This sidewalk would go no. place. It
would be a loop and it would be a loop on a non-thru street which isn't
even suggested by the Comprehensive Plan. I think it's needless. That
pretty much concludes everything that I have on my list but before I give
up the floor because I know you may not let me have it back, Peter is there
anything that you'd like to add to this? Thank you for your patience. If
you've got any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
Conrad: Thanks Michael. Okay, it's a public hearing and a few of you are
here so if anybody has some comments on what you've seen tonight or things
that you think we should know, I'd sure appreciate your advice.
John Servanis: My name is John Servenis and we're
into 570 Pleasant View Road. We should be there by
want to commend the Lundgren Bros on their concern
wonder Rick if you would show the southeast outlot
just one request.
Batzli: Outlot D? The small one?
Rick Sathre: D is the little driveway outlot?
John Servanis: Right.
in the process of moving
Saturday to move in. I
for the neighbors and I
again please. I have
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 16
Ic Rick Sathre: I've got a graphic that blows that up a little. I guess I
have that up here.
John Servanis: We are one of the two residents who wanted that extra space
there. We live or our property on' Pleasant View Road in such a way that
it's rather dangerous for us to get into the garage and we would like to
shift our primary access to the north and come in from that direction. If
we accept the plan as it is, it still makes it a little bit difficult for
us to turn. We would like, if I can just read here a moment. If there's
no objection, we would like this piece extended to here so that when we
come around this way or this way, we have just a little bit more room so
this line, they extend it up to here. So if the plan is accepted, this is
our request. Thank you.
Dave Broden: My name is Dave Broden and I live at 640 Pleasant View Road.
I own the lot that's between the proposed development and Lotus Lake
itself. I've been there about 4 years, 4-5 years now and I got to watch,
I'm glad you showed the slides of the development that you just did and
it's a very nice development but there's important differences between what
we're talking about today and those developments. That development, Phase
1 if you will, I've heard it that way, was a corn field. It's a flat corn
field. It's got very few trees and it was nice to have open land and ponds
built inbetween and all that sort of thing. What we're talking about here
is one of the steepest hills in Chanhassen and one of the most heavily
wooded areas. We have a few of those and this is one of those. It's a
much different situation. I do not believe that single family homes allow
all the trees to stay magically. I'm not sure how that works. It's
interesting, that street that they showed from the Phase 1, walking down
that the other day, I got to see several of the homeowners clearing the
trees from the back and front that had been left. What we need in place I
think, if we're going to allow this kind of development, is control that
those trees stay. First with the developer and what he does and some
control that they stay afterwards in some reasonable fashion. If that's
possible. I guess my concern, they talked about vistas and such and I
think it's real important that we control that cutting so that views don't
becomes more important than trees. It's very easy for that to happen in a
development like this. A little comment about the park area on Lots 8 and
9. If you look at 8 and 9, they are almost unbuildable. The grade below
the road borders on 20 feet plus. I don't think that's the prime building
lots that you're looking at that was implied. I guess what I'm saying, all
said and done is that we need to enforce buffer zones ... when we talk about
this kind of development, that none of us are qualified to do for it. I
have concerns for it. Thank you.
Alan Wilcott: My name is Alan Wilcott. I live at 6270 Ridge Road.
I guess my questions would be more centered to staff as opposed to you
directly. Like I say, I have in echo to the gentleman who just spoke
saying concerns. I have a question in regards to the environmental impacts
relative to the existing site and the proposed plans. I have a concern and
a regard not only for my own residence but for the nature of the community
in the sense of what I do in my profession and other things. I think.
I have an idea that might transcend, there could be possibly some sort of
compromise. Not having had the opportunity to delve into the planning,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 17
let's say the staff report aspect of it. Not having had read that, the
engineering on the site and holding a great regard for that, the percent
slope value and the variance the gentleman talked about, I have great
concern about those impacts. Relative to those, I would like to see the
City come forth with a verification of the DNR aspects of the ponding. The
sedimentation and this sort of thing and not having seen that, I can't
comment to that directly this evening. Maybe that has been done and I
apologize if it has. I've not seen it but I think there's some pretty bold
issues that have been raised here tonight and I would put that to you
inasmuch as you will be making a decision on this and I'd like further
information myself as a property owner, an adjacent property owner, to see
more information.
Conrad: I think something you could do to just start off is just get the
staff report and go in and talk to Jo Ann tomorrow.
Alan Wilcott: I talked to her just a moment ago.
Conrad: And that's good.
Alan Wilcott: I want those issues known to me and I have not received
them. I'm at neglect for that.
Jim Meyer: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Michael and Peter
Pflaum and his associates have always been very straight forward and I've
lived next to this development as they mentioned when they started and I've
been there for 15 years. My name is Jim Meyer and I live on 6225 Ridge
Road. Just a couple things. I was at the meeting in April. We were right
here. As I recall at that time and perhaps Michael or Peter can address
this, I thought that for example the Western Hills side, that we've all
talked about preserving the trees and I agree 100% , am I correct, maybe one
of you can answer this, wasn't there or is there something that would be in
the deed that the trees have to be preserved? Is that correct or
incorrect? I thought that was discussed at that meeting in April.
Mike Pflaum: I think what you're saying is correct. We talked about that
buffer zone and there's something else. This was interjected by the City
and the City recommended a conservation easement over the lower elevations.
The lower half of the slope would have no cuts in 3 through 9 which is on
the northwest side...natural, untouched zone along the southwest side.
Jim Meyer: As I recall, can you say that people are going to buy a lot,
they really want to preserve the trees or do they want to cut it down and
get the view and if we say, is there a mechanism where in actuality they
can buy a lot but cannot cut the trees and I don't know how you do that and
I think that's what was discussed and I don't know how the Planning
Commission addresses that. The second thing is Lots 8 and 9 are right down
adjacent to my property in essence and they are low as the gentleman
presented. I can understand the developer's thing. I would point out as
you're always going to hear at one of these meetings since I've lived there
for 15 years and I have a deer feed and all that sort of thing, that is of
course right where the wildlife goes through. I would request that if that
is a city park type of thing, that it would be passive. I think it'd be a
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 18
ic great natural conservatory thing for the cross country skier and so on.
Outside of that, I must say that dealing with the Lundgren Bros. and
Michael and Peter over the years have always come to the neighbors first.
At the same time I recognize their responsibilities as a developer. I hope
that we can do something to reach a compromise on (a) preserving the trees,
as he mentioned, and (b) I think those two lots which are well below grade
would make a nice natural conservatory. Thanks.
Holly Broden: My name is Holly Broden and I live at 640 Pleasant View
Road. I just kind of want to read a letter that I wrote to the
City Planner about 3 weeks ago concerning some of the stuff and it
reiterates everything that everybody is saying here. It says, I have
reviewed the plans submitted to the City and have great concerns about
developing Lots 9 and 8 on the Silver Lake side. Not only will developing
those lots put severe pressure on the water fowl and other wildlife in the
area but the slope and the buildability of the lots really comes into
question. I said does anyone from the Planning Commission plan on visiting
the site before the meeting? I think this would prove to be very
beneficial. I feel those lots specifically should be set aside as a
natural area and should not be included in the buildable lots in the plan.
I also would like some information on the how the City of Chanhassen plans
to enforce or currently enforces covenant and restrictions concerning
natural buffers and clear cutting. I feel the City of Chanhassen is not
looking into their developments from an overall effect on the environment,
water supply, lot density, natural wildlife and mature trees. Shouldn't
the City have a vested interest with the residents on preserving the
quality of life in Chanhassen? What I'm trying to say is we can do
something really great here with this development or we can just put a
bunch of houses in. I don't want to see that. Also, on the buffer zone.
They did come out and meet with us and they did put a 20 foot buffer zone
in there but again, if the people that buy the land decide to come and
clear cut it, we don't have anything to say that they can't do that so
that's all. Thanks.
Peg Schelitzche: My name is Peg Schelitzche. I live at 680 Pleasant View
Road. We're located at Lot 1, Block 1 next to where they want to put the
adjoining trail. As they said, I also agree that Lots 8 and 9 would be
wonderful to keep as natural as is but our concern is that if when they
came through and told us about the trail, on their original plat it showed
that the trail is going to go right adjacent to our property and we would
like to, if they are going to put the trail, to make sure that it is set
back so that over our deck and stuff we're not looking at people going on
their skis or their bikes or anything going along next to us. So we'd
appreciate if they do put the trail, that they do go 3.n farther. Thank
you.
Conrad: Other comments?
Batzli moved, Emmings seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in
favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Conrad: For comments from the Planning Commission. Tim, we'll start with
you.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 19
CErhart: Why aren't we putting Iroquois street through on your plan?
Rick Sathre: Ever since the late 70's when the PUD first started in
review, the neighbors on Pleasant View recognized, and the Council did too,
that the road wasn't really built to the super highway standards and
everybody was interested in discouraging traffic on Pleasant View that
would head, as Mike said, towards Excelsior. Iroquois on the approved
condominium plan dead ends into the side of the mountain and we've shown
all these years an emergency access. A trail connection and maybe a place
for a fire truck to drive through but limited access kind of connection.
We're still proposing that. We don't want to encourage traffic to leave
the Near Mountain project via Iroquois. It's a very steep street. It's
substandard and if the people that use that entrance would use Pleasant
View Road. It's a steep grade. I would guess it's well over 10%.
Erhart: You're saying the existing street east of this development is?
Rick Sathre: Yes.
Erhart: In this area here?
Rick Sathre: Yes. It's very substandard and we've tried to develop our
own fully functional road system that would adequate serve the develop
without the need for that road. In fact the action that we're seeking
tonight to reduce the density from 114 condominiums to 45 single family
lots would greatly reduce the traffic. The access to the mountain was
deemed adequate in the past and reducing the traffic burden to and from the
mountain which seemed to be an enhancement to the roadway system that we
already built.
Erhart: Then Trapline Lane, if that was a second access, that's just too
steep in that area isn't it?
Rick Sathre: We chose the best grade, the flatest slope to locate the road
on. That east face of the mountain. The north face and the west face down
towards Pleasant View are all much steeper than the southeast.
Erhart: Iroquois was not part of that? That street was not part of the
Near Mountain subdivision at all?
Rick Sathre: No. That's a real old subdivision and a very old street.
Erhart: Right not it joist ends?
Rick Sathre: It ends with no t►.irn around.
Erhart: No turn around?
Rick Sathre: Yes, that's right.
Erhart: I realize we're probably asking, maybe out of line to put a burden
of putting a cul-de-sac on, I mean not you people but is an appropriate
time that we're going to make the final decision not to extend that street,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 20
Ic this is probably the time to get a turn around in there. Perhaps also help
your situation out there. Maybe it's something you can work with the City
in getting that accomplished at this time. Get it finished off. I don't
think we like to leave streets just dead end nowhere, particularly when we
are deciding in finality on this subdivision that that is going to be the
end of a street so I'll just add that as probably an idea that some of the
other members can play around with here. Can you give me a little bit more
comfort on this 10% slope. Rick you mentioned that, you felt that 10% was
not out of line in other developments around the country and that's more or
less a desire on the part of Chanhassen. Are you saying in areas where
there's steep, traditionally steep, urban areas where there are steeper
slopes, 10% is common? What's the maximum that you'd ever see in an urban
area?
Rick Sathre: In my engineering career, which I've been engineering 20
years now, the steepest street, urban street or suburban street that I've
had a part of building is 12%. 6% and 7%, 8% is typical for a City's
ordinance but if you read the national publications and things that
transportation engineers around the country consider to be in their
publications, they would consider 10% to be a very acceptable slope. There
are many streets in Chanhassen that are steeper than that now but we think
it's reasonable but it is not in keeping with your desirable standard.
Erhart: That would require Jo Ann, a variance to do that?
Olsen: Typically we've, in the past we've always approved that as part of
the subdivision approval.
Erhart: Not required a variance?
Olsen: It's always been having to be proven that it would be too damaging
to go with the lower percentage.
Erhart: But we have commonly approved 10% when the situation warrants it?
Olsen: Right and that's been a few times that that's ever happened.
Erhart: We obviously don't want to have to go in there and tear into that
wooded area more than we have to so if 10%, if the City is prepared to deal
with 10%, I guess I'd favor we go along with that proposal. That makes
sense. The tree band that's shown on your plan there, it's essentially in
the,rear lot line of the second tier of lots or of Block 3. That's a 20
foot section where nobody can tamper with the existing vegetation. Is that
what that is?
Rick Sathr_e: Yes. We had the neighborhood meeting and the neighbors were
concerned about what if those new residents went in there and clear cut.
Then it was mentioned, Peter Pfla►.im and I went out and met individually
with a lot of the neighbors who were home and it was a common theme that
they wanted some sort of a preserve area. A no cut zone between their
homes and the new proposed ones. I believe the way it would be structured
would be in the form of a covenant or conservation easement that would be
placed by Lundgren Bros. on those lots so those people were put on notice
Oki
Planning Commission Meeting
August
, 1989 - Page 21
Ic
that that was a no touch area.
Erhart: Why would anybody clear cut their lot?
up there would clear cut their lot?
Resident: They do it.
Batzli: Mr. T did it.
Erhart: I know Mr. T did it.
Would you expect someone
Olsen: With other subdivisions such as Shadowmere, there they have lake
view but they do go in and clear it.
Emmings: Now developers do or the lot owners?
Olsen: With that one we had control over the developer to not do it but
once they were released from the development contract, then they did still
clear cut.
Erhart: The developer?
Olsen: The home owner. That's where we a lot of time lose contact or lose
control.
Erhart: I guess I like the idea. I think it's a real novel solution to
the problem. Why did you pick 20 feet? Why not lg? Why not 30?
Rick Sathr_e: I think it just was a reasonable distance that we all arrived
at.
Erhart: You know the real challenge in this hill is to, excuse me
mountain, I don't want to insult the neighborhood, is from a distance. How
to put home on there. How to develop the property without changing the
appearance,from half a mile away. The thought, that concept also lends
itself to preserving the view from a ways away, those parallel rows of
trees. Even if somebody goes in and does some clear cutting. My thought
is, it's such a good idea that you might consider applying that to all the
rear lots and then really you're looking at 2, the lot lines in Block 5
between, the whole thing is intrusive...but you may also want to apply it
to these rear lots to try to preserve that view. You see what I mean.
Perhaps extend the concept a little bit further in the whole development.
Putting some lines that are essentially horizontal with the perimeter of
the hill insuring that you don't get, just trying to maintain I guess that
visual view from half a mile away. Again, I find it hard to believe
somebody would clear cut but given you have 40 some lots, I suppose a few
of those people will do it so.
Rick Sathre: Let me tell you what the plan elements are that helped to do
that. We talked about the 20 foot strip here. If you look at the design
of the subdivision, this is the highest point on the mountain up here.
This street as it gets to this portion of the site right in here, these
lots are double frontage. You have street on both sides. Because of the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 22
slope here we've chosen to put a retaining wall on the mountain side of
that street so there would only be homes on the one side.- Then there would
be a big step up with a wall and trees above it before you get to these
home so we get that banding that you're talking about with trees, a road,
trees, homes and the street even without what you're talking about. We
wanted very much to preserve the character. Selfishly it's better for the
developer if we save the trees. We've been working in the trees in both
Shorewood and Chanhassen for the last couple of years. We're into
Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition and parts of the first two additions and the
third addition in Chanhassen were in the woods. I think if you look
closely at the slides or if you drive through there, you'll note that
there's been greater attention to preservation. In Shorewood the same
thing is true. Once we got through the farmland and into the trees, we
tried to match the street grades to the terrain as best we could and
Lundgren Bros. and the other builders have done a magnificent job I think
of working with the site. We can do that here. This would be, I hope this
would be the finest neighborhood in Chanhassen. I hope I don't offend
anybody by saying that but I think it has every chance to be. It's a great
piece of land and what Lundgren Bros. are proposing would be fantastic
there.
Erhart: I'm just suggesting it. You might consider taking a good idea and
extending it a little bit. It's no expense to the developer and given that
we're already doing these easements, it's probably really no more headache
for the City so I'll just again, leave that up to the rest of the
commission if they want to pick it up. I'd also encourage the use of, it
really has nothing to do with us but natural colors and cedar shingles on
these homes. Again, trying to make this without losing the view that you
get. I'm sure your professional judgment, you've probably thought about
that. Going back to this, how are you planning on getting, on this
Iroquois thing again. Are you actually planning on opening that Outlot C
up so you can get an emergency vehicle through there or grass strip or what
is the plan on that?
Rick Sathre: We haven't drawn anything in there but there's Outlot C.
Iroquois comes up and it just stops and there is a driveway here right now.
The homes on this side of the road set way back. The ones on this side are
closer. We angled the outlot first of all away from the straightness of
Iroquois so that we can protect the views back and protect the trees and
not have a straight view. What we've talked about is a passive kind of
trail that would have to serve the emergency vehicle needs but something
that's relatively narrow with some sort of a barrier. We don't want
motorcycles to go through there either. Something that's maybe 8 feet wide
would be adequate. I don't like asphalt. Maybe we could get by with
something other than asphalt. That's been the thought but to try to
develop a trail for it would also serve as...
Erhart: But finishing that, you consider that part of the development? I
guess it goes along with O►itlot A or is Park and Rec going to do that? Or
is that not defined yet? Who's actually going to go in and put the trail
in?
Olsen: That would be part of the development.
^�
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 23
if
Erhart: It would? So you actually have to do some work in there anyway.
Again, it think it would be an appropriate time to finish that street end
off of it.
Olsen: If it's going to be accepted as, at the very least as an emergency
access, it has to have all weather. It can't just be grass. It has to
have something that can be maintained and be cleared at all times for
emergency vehicles.
Erhart: It could be rock.
Olsen: It's all weather surface is what the fire department. I think it
could be rock if it could be guaranteed that that will be passable at all
times and remain clear.
Rick Sathre: One little point. When you get to this magic line here where
the old neighborhood stops and the new neighborhood will start, the trees
are growing up again. To stick a bubble in the cul-de-sac into this
property would be kind of a shame. There's plenty of space on this side of
the road in a wide open area. The house is back 100 feet or something off
the road. If the need is there for a turn around, there's open space to
put it in.
Erhart: I just asked that staff and you work together on that. I think it
would be nice to finish that. Lastly, well not lastly. I'm I guess a
little suspicious of use of traps instead of a sediment pond I guess. I
think they always have a tendency to work okay for a few years. Again, not
being an engineer, a civil engineer...
Hemphill: Excuse me. If I could make one comment to that. I think part
of the Watershed approval, they would demand the sediment pond versus some
sort of catch basin.
Erhart: Another thing is, on the Park recommendation. I'm very much in
favor of the use of Lots 8 and 9 as a passive park and would suggest that
we would change, even go as far as to change the condition to read passive
park but I just simple do not understand why we would put a sidewalk in
here. I suggest that we talk that up a little bit and my recommendation is
that we strike that from our conditions. I just don't see why we would do
it. I think the people buying these lots would be opposed to it. In fact,
some other developments going on right now where we did end up putting
these kinds of sidewalks in the plan, the citizens are coming back again
and ask the City to take it out of the plan. I think we really ought to
think about that. Number 19 Jo Ann. Can you explain that? Condition 19.
Olsen: What I essentially want is to say that it has shown us, is that the
engineering department wanted some plans to show exactly how wide the
right-of-way and the construction. That's what he showed us.
Erhart: Number 5, what's that one?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 24
Olsen: That one is the property that's platted right up against it has not
yet been developed and the engineering department is just- stating that
development of this outlot cannot take place until the improvements have
been made up to that site.
Erhart: So what you're saying is you want this complete before you do this
one?
Olsen: Well, the road and utilities have to be in place. Right now
there's no road there.
Erhart:
Number 5 is
clear to
you right, the
way it's
written?
Batzli:
It's still
not clear
to me. Let's
see if you
can clarify it.
Olsen: That is a prior development that's been platted but it's not been
developed yet. The street does not exist there. What is shown in
Trapper's Pass is not there.
Emmings: Are you saying there should not be development of this site until
the development of Outlot A is completed. Is that what you're saying?
Olsen: I think they can further explain but I think that meant until the
road and utilities are there to access the site.
Headla: I agree with Tim. It certainly isn't very complete. We're
wasting a lot of time trying to figure out what it meant.
Emmings: So you don't want the road and utilities to go into this outlot
until all toad and utilities are in Outlot A is what you're saying? If we
said it that way, would it be clearer?
Batzli: Where's Outlot A? That's my confusion.
Rick Sathre: Let me help you a little bit. This is the Chanhassen part of
the Near Mountain PUD. This is the mountain itself, the dark area. This
is the road Trapper's Pass. It leads back and stops right here right now.
Right now under development is what we call Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition
which is, we're building streets over here. There's no linkage right now
between this stub street and that stub street and the mountain itself. I
think what the staff is saying is gee you guys, we want you to understand
that you have to build the sewer and water system from the end of this
street to get to the mountain and build a road there. You can't leave out
a piece.
Olsen: That is Outlot A on the plat.
Emmings: Can you show us Outlot A?
Olsen: It's part of Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition.
Batzli: Then it's Outlot A of Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition so we should at
least add that much.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 25
Rick Sathre: It was a little ambiguous to me too. I think we knew what
the intent was.
Erhart: I've got one more thing. Procedurally, I know and we've talked
about this before, but we've got in my opinion, just to make these a little
easier for us amateurs to follow these, I think there's a lot of conditions
on there that are really standards and I would submit that 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13 and 16 are not unique to this subdivision and are really city
standards and it would really help me and I think I can speak for the other
commissioners because we've talked about this before with Steve, if these
would be left off, these conditions and simply emphasize that these are
city standards. Now I might be wrong on a couple of them but I believe
most of these are standards. So that's the last of my comments. I'll pass
it onto Steve.
Emmings: Is it necessary to have, I didn't look this up but my
recollection is you've got to have a wetland alteration permit for
development within 200 feet of a wetland. How is that being taken care of?
We don't have it here?
Olsen: Because the wetland hasn't been determined yet, well number one,
it's not certain that there's going to be actual development within 200
feet of that wetland. The road is way beyond that. The house pad's may be
on that also. Number 2, with the storm water that's going to be directed
to it and whether or not there will be a retention pond has not been
determined that will make them have to go through the wetland alteration
permit for that.
Emmings: Okay. So that's something, if you later determine that any of
those things happen, that there will be development within 200 feet of the
wetland, then that will have to come back to us again?
Olsen: You'll have to see it and the ponding area.
Emmings: So we don't have to say anything about that at this point in
time?
Olsen: No. I know they have to come through. If you want to make that a
condition.
Emmings: No. I guess as long as everybody's aware of it. First on that
broad question. There's a broad planning question here I guess and that
is, whether this proposed amendment, moving the condominium units is
consistent with the original PUD approval. I guess I come down on that, I
don't think there's any reason to evaluate the proposal that's in front of
us under today's ordinance. I don't think we should do that so I don't
have any problem. What they're proposing to do seems to me to be a
reasonable way to develop this piece of property but I guess I'd like to
say at the same time that any PUD that would be approved under today's
ordinance certainly would not receive that kind of treatment or that kind
of a reaction from me. If this had been approved under today's ordinance,
I think we'd make him stick to it. I don't see any reason to do that here.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 26
Number 3 is the conservation easement. That's back by Silver Lake. I
think that's a very good and very important thing. Oh, I've got a question
on 7 and 8 off the cul-de-sac. Summit Circle. Those are double frontage
lots and I just want to make sure, again I didn't look up to see how we
handled double frontage lots but have all of the concerns that we have with
double frontage lots been met in those two?
Olsen: If they are approved, they have to have additional length.
Additional depth for landscaping.
Emmings: They have it? You're satisfied that they're all fine? Alright.
I think maybe number 5 seemed to bother everybody. It bothered me too and
I guess instead of saying the development is premature...
Batzli: Shall not be allowed.
Emmings: Yes, shall not take place is what I wrote down. Development of
this site shall not take place until development of Outlot A of Trapper's
Pass 3rd Addition is complete. Until development of roadways and utilities
is complete. I guess that's what we're really talking about. The
development. On the Outlot C going out to Iroquois, I don't see any reason
to put a street in there. I think that a limited access that would be
appropriate for emergency vehicles would be fine. I don't know though who
would have the responsibility for keeping it clear of snow in the winter
time and stuff like that. Who would do that?
Olsen: I think we usually .maintain, that the city crews. When it's in a
public like Teton Lane, it's city crews.
Headla: What was that Jo Ann?
Olsen: Usually when it's in a residential subdivision, it's the city crew
that does that unless it's a private street and private drive but this
won't be.
Emmings: Then I'd like to ask the developer, the gentleman in the front
row here asked about that little corner. Could you put up that thing that
shows Outlot D? He's concerned about that little corner piece in there. Is
there some way you can accommodate him in all of this? I would imagine if
that's, whatever that turns o►.it to be, he just doesn't want something that
would impede his turning and so forth and I don't imagine there will be
anything there will there?
Rick Sathre: Right over here now there's a hydrant and there's a mound.
The earth is mounded up and there's trees there. I guess it wo►.ild bother
me a lot if that was cut down so the driveway could be, I don't know, made
easier. There is a driveway right here now and I guess I'd need to see the
tree lost to make the driveway swing a little easier. I think it's
something we could probably work on to try and make it work somehow but I'd
like not to have to cut those trees down. When you drive up to the end of
Iroquois, it's on the right?
John Servanis: No, it's on the left.
C
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 27
Emmings: Would you point to where it is.
John Servanis: It's right here.
Emmings: Do you have problems getting in and out of your driveway now?
John Servanis: It's just a bit tight and I felt, maybe it'd be more
comfortable. I think it was only about 15 feet there and it's 15 feet the
other way and I'm just afraid that we'd be driving on property we don't own
and I just felt it would be better just to, as long as they're vacating
Iroquois, to run the vacation from that other, in a northwesterly line
rather than having it the way it is.
Emmings: I guess I wouldn't make it a condition but if there's some way he
can be accommodated, I think that'd be a good thing to do here. On the
variance on the 10% street grade. Can you, I'm sorry to make you shuffle
these things but can you put the plat back up there again and show me
exactly where would be 10%.
Rick Sathre: Okay. Let me use Jo Ann's for a minute. Outlot A of
Trapper's Pass 3rd Addition is this area down here. We're proposing to
start the 10% grade, we've always proposed it but we're continuing to
propose to start that 10% slope down in Outlot A and run it up to about
here.
Emmings: How long a distance is that?
Rick Sathre: It's about 700 feet from the flatter grade here to the flat
spot up here.
Emmings: So there will be 700 feet at 10% and then some going up to the
north also right?
Rick Sathre: Right. It would not quite 700 feet of 10% but maybe 700 feet
from flat spot to flat spot. It rounds off short of that.
Emmings: Well that doesn't seem unreasonable to me but that's basically an
engineering issue and I think that ought to be, I suppose left between the
City Engineer and the City Council what they want to do on that. On the
parkland. On number 20, we ought to add in, we're talking about Lots 8 and
9. ,Block 2 is not written in there and it should be so we know what Block
we're talking about. It sure sounds like a good area for a passive park.
As far as the sidewalk's concerned, that's a Park and Rec issue and we're
not supposed to really delve into that but I like sidewalks. We've heard
from people who move into places where they're putting in sidewalks and we
heard in the one place the guy sold his lot and moved across the street
because they were going to put a sidewalk in but there was somebody across
the street who wanted his lot because they wanted the sidewalk so it's kind
of a real personal issue. Whatever the developer wants to do is okay with
me. I wouldn't be opposed to them. I think there ought to be a condition
21 added that specifically states that there will be a conservation
easement over the 20 feet. I'm not sure how it's going to be described.
,-1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 28
Staff will have to think of something but basically it's over the back end
of all of the lots in Block 3 on this plat so they get recorded against the
deed so at least the landowner when they buy the property, they'll be made
aware of the fact that there is a conservation easement there. Whether of
not that keeps them from cutting down the trees remains to be seen. It's
very difficult to police as you can imagine. As a general principle, if
I own a lot I don't want people telling me what I can cut down or not. I
want to cut down what I want to cut down and I want to plant what I want to
plant. I think that is an issue for an individual that owns the land but
I think preserving that strip is a very important thing to do with this
plat. I don't have anything else right now.
Batzli: Steve, I was wondering. I was trying to think of the overall
planning issue of this being a PUD and we're amending it for the numerous
time. You feel comfortable looking at this under the old PUD ordinance and
why is that?
Emmings: I don't know. I guess it seems to me the reason that this is a
PUD is because, from what I've heard here, is because everything over a
certain size was designated PUD at that time.
Wildermuth: 40 acres.
Emmings: At the present time under the present ordinance, the effort is or
the whole thrust of the PUD is the City gets something for giving something
ic and usually the giving that - we're doing is giving them smaller lot sizes.
In exchange for the smaller lot sizes, we get back amenities of various
kinds. Open space, whatever. First of all, I don't think it should be
treated under the new ordinance. We didn't give them anything. There
wasn't that swap there. Also, all these lots really are quite large. They
could be 15,000 or maybe smaller but there are lots ranging here from
100,000 square feet. I don't see anything under 20,000. I haven't looked
but I don't see anything Linder 20,000 and a lot of them are real big. I
guess the other thing to me is, I'd rather see this kind of development
than you see. I think this is a better use of this property.
Batzli: Than the condos? Well I agree. I think it is a better use than
the condos would be. I think it would actually, although I think the
condos left some more open space and perhaps saved some trees. I think we
would have been much more noticeable and looking at the mountain you would
have seen condo regardless of whether there's a strip of trees around the
outer edge. So from that perspective, I think it will actually be a better_
use of this particular piece of land. Jo Ann, I asked you earlier during
your report where Outlot D was and you pointed to the northwest corner. I
now to my surprise find that it's this little narrow strip. In your report
you talked about wetlands in Outlot D. What are you talking about there?
Olsen: Outlot D is what the outlot is right now.
Batzli: This entire piece?
Olsen: This is Outlot D.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 29
Batzli: This entire piece is Outlot D. So when you say, the only areas
remaining as open space are existing ponding areas, a Cla-ss A wetland which
is protected as part of the Wetland Ordinance and Outlot D. Are you
talking about the entire development? What are you talking about?
Olsen: Outlot D is the last area that has not been developed includes the
slopes and the wetland.
Batzli: Okay, so what we're looking at now is, the only open spaces left
once this is developed are the wetlands?
Olsen: And then the ponding areas that will provide as far as the drainage
and storage.
Batzli: So no parkland was set aside? No neighborhood parks were set
aside as part of this? Fees were collected or it was either before the
requirements? I was curious on the deed restriction on the easement,
conservation easement. Is that enforceable by the City?
Olsen: Conservation easement? Yes it is. It's recorded against the
property. Homeowners Association, Covenants and Restrictions are not.
Batzli: I was going to come up with a very creative way to handle that but
I'll save it for next time it comes up. The width of Outlot B for this
trail, it's 30 feet at Pleasant View it looks like. How wide is it when
we're running by the deck here? It widens out for some berming or
something. Are we talking about a lot of feet? A couple feet?
Rick Sathre: Let me wade through my transparencies and maybe I can find
one that shows it.
Batzli: Are the trails proposed gravel? Asphalt? Natural?
Olsen: The trails recommended by the Park and Rec are bituminous for those
trails. The sidewalk around the interior is concrete.
Mike Pflaum: We would recommend wood chips.
Rick Sathre: Peggy's house is right here. It's the last one when we go
west or northwest on Pleasant View. We've got their home set well back
from the street. They've got a nice screen porch and a deck on the
northwest end of the home. We widened out the trail corridor there so we
could get a separation of about 36 feet from the deck to the trail and then
we were talking with them about, suggesting to them that they plant some
evergreen trees in there or something so it wouldn't be such an intrusion.
Peg Schelitzche: Actually if you went to 36 feet from where our property
line ends, there are a lot of trees 3.n there.
Rick Sathre: But you go over the edge of that whole flat spot too. You
get them over into the slope more so the trail would be hidden partially by
the fact that they're on the slope down too.
C
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 30
Peg Schelitzche: Right and there are a lot of mature trees right along
there.
Rick Sathr_e: That's why we wanted it so we could get farther away than
just 10 or 15 feet.
Batzli: It sounds to me like you've thought about that and worked with the
homeowner on that.
Erhart: If Lots 8 and 9 will be turned into a park, the whole thing would
probably be rethought anyway wouldn't it? So that's really a moot issue.
Batzli: As far as placement of the trail?
Erhart: Right.
Batzli: I guess I didn't look at, is the creation of Outlot B dealt with
in the conditions in light of turning 8 and 9 into passive park?
Emmings: It's part of the plat. It wouldn't be a condition.
Batzli: Well, he's saying it would be rethought but it's handled here as
if we're going to go ahead and do it right? Then it wouldn't be rethought.
Emmings: Could be.
Olsen: When it becomes parkland, it will all become an outlot.
Batzli: I think the 10o grade is appropriate in this particular instance
unless there's some down side that public safety or engineering can come up
with.
Wildermuth: Has the Fire Department looked at that 10% grade? They don't
have any problem with it?
Olsen: They felt that they could get by with it. They did review the
plans and they didn't raise any objections.
Wildermuth: In terms of the excavation and the additional tree removal,
I'd certainly be in favor of the variance. It looks like a very good
development. I'm kind of curious about these little outlots though for
emergency vehicles. I'm not too clear_ just what those are going to be. I
don't know how an emergency vehicle is going to negotiate those things.
The one map that I have here makes it look like there's going to be some
pretty steep contours.
Emmings: Only C is proposed as being for emergency vehicles.
Wildermuth: Is that right? Only C.
Olsen: To Iroquois.
Rick Sathre: Outlots A and B were just walking trails.
C
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 31
Wildermuth: Okay. What's the grade on Outlot C?
Rick Sathre: I don't have an absolute answer. When you walk out there, it
feels fairly reasonable. Fairly flat. The steepness is in Iroquois
itself. By the time you get up to where Outlot C is, the ground has
flatten out there.
Wildermuth: If you can make it up Iroquois, you can make it up the
outlot?
Rick Sathre: Right.
Wildermuth: I think most of my questions and concerns have been addressed.
Again, it's a great looking subdivision.
Headla: If you were going to school here 50 years ago, you'd know the name
of that gentleman who lives on Iroquois. He's a tradition out in that
area. I haven't seen him for a long time. I'd like to talk about
hydrants. Water hydrants. You say you've got three hydrants. One on
Pleasant View. One on Iroquois and one on top of the mountain. You gave
them the pressures on each. What's the difference in elevations?
Rick Sathre: I think it's on there too. You're asking too many good
questions. Here we go. The elevations of the ground where the hydrants
are shown too. Down in Trapper's Pass, 913, 923. Over on Pleasant View,
908. At the end of Iroquois the ground has risen way up to 994. Then the
mountain top is 1,018.
Headla: So that's 22 feet from Iroquois to the top. And what is it from
Pleasant View to Iroquois?
Rick Sathre: This was 908 down here and that's 1,018 so 110 feet.
Headla: If you drop 30 pounds going from Pleasant View to Iroquois so
you're only dropping 10.
Rick Sathre: From here at 95 psi up to there it drop to 41 up on the very
peak.
Headla: Okay. That's ratio right. When I looked at this, I thought it
was a lot higher going from Iroquois to the top. Okay. What's the width
of the outlot going down to Iroquois?
Rick Sathre: 30 feet.
Headla: You talk about watershed and you're going to pump it into go to
the east, northeast. Are we going to eliminate most that watershed from
going into Lotus that would normally flow to Lotus?
Rick Sathre: The natural break in drainage is about here now. We would be
catching the water_ which is now sheeting down those steep slopes. We'd be
catching it at the road but we would be diverting a few acres of runoff
1
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 32
from Lotus and putting it into the wetlands above Silver Lake. The water
comes back the gutter down in Purgatory Creek. It wouldn't go to Lotus
Lake.
Headla: Will that have an impact on Lotus? I'd like to see that answered.
Emmings: Is that something the Watershed District looks at?
Headla: The Watershed should look at that I would think. I don't know if
it's significant or not but when you start talking about that storm sewer,
it just rang a bell. I'd like to hear some comment on it. It's
insignificant or whatever.
Rick Sathre: I think we are diverting, we're proposing to divert a few
acres of the natural runoff from Lotus Lake. What we've been doing in the
rest of Near Mountain to the east is we've developed a series of pipes and
ponds. Some of that water goes to Lotus Lake. Some goes to Silver Lake.
We've increased the runoff and also the holding capacity elsewhere in areas
that are still tributary to Lotus Lake. I'm sure on an overall net basis,
we've increased the flow but not the rate of flow to Lotus Lake. I think
overall just like the rest of the development... increased the runoff to the
lake. We have to be careful as engineers not to increase the rate of flow
but development always increases the total volumes.
Headla: You think you've increased the volume of flow to Lotus huh?
Rick Sathre: Not from the mountain.
Headla: Overall. I look at Minnetonka and I wonder if it's ever going to
come up again. Supposedly but the way we have all our storm sewers set up
and the way they're running off, I wonder if some of these lakes aren't
going to be permanently low from what we notice. You gave us a real good
sketch on that 101% grade but you gave us the worse case scenario. You
never even talked about or gave us a sketch why you wouldn't start building
up Outlot A, hauling in fill there so you wouldn't have as steep an
incline. Why did you show a sketch on that?
Rick Sathre: All the way through the woods, down in Outlot A and even
beyond it in Trapper's Pass is wooded. We've been consistently trying to
match the street elevation to the natural ground elevation even with nobody
telling us to. We start the 10% proposed grade about where the mountain
slope itself or the hill slope dramatically starts. If we started let's
say the 7% slope out there in Outlot A farther, sure we could fill a great
deal over there and cut less on top or we could balance it but the
disruption of filling is even worse than this disruption of the cutting,
especially since we're proposing these walls. We're trying to find the
least disruptive way to get up on top.
Headla: You didn't show a sketch on it so I hear you but I really don't
know how effective what you're saying, I can't see a picture on it so I
don't know how it really would or wouldn't affect it. I guess I'd like to
'� ask Dave to reconsider if it's worthwhile looking any further.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 33
Hemphill: ...a lot of effort to
p preserve trees in the area with the 10%
grade.
Headla: But you're going to take those trees out anyway. If you're going
to take those trees out, if you're going to put in a goad there.
Hemphill: Some of the trees have to go, right.
Headla: But if you put fill in there?
Hemphill: If you fill the slopes with fill ... around the trees.
Headla: How much farther?
Hemphill: Just the typical road width. Let's say an 8 to 10 foot
boulevard and 3:1 slopes so if he's got 10 feet of fill in there going out,
probably 30 feet from the edge of the boulevard to the edge of the slope
with the fill.
Rick Sathre: I think the other thing to remember is that traditionally you
try to design the road so the water from the lot runs down onto the street
so it gets to the storm sewer. We end up in a fill section in the road,
we're forced then to fill out into the lots either initially or later so we
can get the drainage out of the lots too. We need to get the water to go
somewhere. We try very hard not to fill, especially in a wooded situation
so that we don't have pocketing of water or more work than we have to.
Headla: On that sidewalk bit, I'd like to see us word something that, I'd
like to hear the rationale of the Park and Rec. Why they wanted a sidewalk
rather than say no, we don't see any need for it. I would assume they had
rationale why they wanted it. I'd like to hear that rationale before we
recommend doing anything with that. On this page 4, you talk about trees.
Is it very difficult to control tree removal, wetland alteration, etc. once
that lot is under single ownership? Is it any different than if we had
condominiums? We'd still have the same problem about removing trees
wouldn't you?
Olsen: The difference there is that all would be as an outlot which could
be controlled whereas when you have single family ownership...
Headla: That's how you control that then. Okay. We talked a little bit
about Lots 8 and 9. I guess I'd kind of like to see the wording that no
formal development of Lots 8 and 9. Steve, you didn't ask if that would be
a taking. If we would recommend that it goes to that.
Emmings: It's not.
Headla: It's not a taking? Okay.
Emmings: You heard Roger say tonight on that other one, we always have,
they either take fees or they take land.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 34
Wildermuth: But you've agreed to that right? Lots 8 and 9 would be some
kind of a passive.
Conrad: He didn't agree.
Emmings: They'd rather no.
Wildermuth: it was we'd rather not but it didn't sound like the protest
was too vehement.
Headla: We talked about retaining walls. Over a period of time retaining
walls deteriorate. Jo Ann, if you look way, way in the future, when
you're my age, those retaining walls are probably going to need repair.
Who has the responsibility or who decides that the retaining walls should
be maintained?
Olsen: Dave answered it. I believe they'll be within the right-of-way.
Hemphill: We're proposing the retaining walls to be built outside of the
right-of-way on the private property so the retaining walls maintenance
would be left up to the homeowner.
Headla: If they don't want to maintain it, that could be quite detrimental
to that whole area.
Wildermuth: It's private property and it's a public nuisance, the City
can't maintain it and bill it back against the property?
Headla: I'd feel very uncomfortable. I've seen retaining walls on private
property and after several years, it needs repair.
Emmings: Stone ones?
Headla: I can't think of any retaining wall that's permanent.
Emmings: What happens with the stone one?
Headla: Hydraulic pressure just washes it up. Breaks it up.
Emmings: Even if there's no motar?
Batzli: Runoff of the dirt. It eventually will deteriorate and collapse.
Headla: I'd like to see maintenance of that addressed somehow. I think
you may save a future problem.
Hemphill: Maintenance from the City standpoint would be an ongoing battle
with the city staff and the demand for maintenance of those retaining
walls.
Headla: Why?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 35
Hemphill: Homeowners would be constantly calling for repairs. A stone
came out of place here and there.
Headla: But if we don't have some control over it and the people, maybe
they don't have the means to repair it. Maybe it will be very expensive
and they just flat out won't repair it. That could be detrimental to that
whole area. Maybe you want to comment on that?
Mike Pflaum: I think one solution to the problem is to place in the
Declaration of Covenants the burden is on the homeowner on whose lot the
retaining wall is and stipulate that if maintenance is not performed in a
timely fashion, the City of Chanhassen will do the work and bill the
homeowner and assess the property.
Headla: Something like that. I'd be very comfortable with that..
Batzli: Why would you impose it merely on the property owner that the
retaining wall is on. Why wouldn't it be a burden on the entire
development since it's benefitting the entire development?
Headla: I'd like to see something in there. How they word it, is up to
them but I'd like to see.
Wildermuth: But then how does the entire development repair it? Prevent
the City from repairing and billing it back. Somewhere along the way
somebody's got to be responsible. I think if you can afford a house in
this development, you can fix your retaining wall.
Headla: That's all I've got.
Conrad: I'll try to make this quickly. We've talked about it for a little
bit. This kind of hurts because I was around when we put the condominiums
in here and it seemed like one of the successes we had to preserve open
space and natural space so when I see this coming back, which is not a
surprise, I'm thinking one of the nice things that we've done is falling.
But I do like what I see. I think there are a lot of benefits to it. I
think reduction in traffic is one. I think there may be some benefits in
terms of single family versus the condos I see so I'm not opposed to
changing this. I feel real comfortable doing that. Rick, maybe you can
answer. The one thing that bothers me, and the intent of what we were
trying to do before is to cluster and preserve and I think you carried the
trees that way but one of the things we were looking for before was having
some space for people and now we're going to do it at maybe some, Lots 8
and 9 if you go along with it and we decide that's what should be done but
the question in my mind, what's the negatives? We don't have trails
basically. We've got trails to get out of the development or whatever but
did you ever consider putting a trail system through close to Silver
Lake? A natural trail or is that a real, in your mind, is that really
negative in terms of lot value? I see the Shorewood Park, and that's just
beautiful natural stuff down there and what we were doing before Rick was
trying to have an outlot that people could use and appreciate. Right now
we've divided it up and yes, we may save. Well, no I think there's a net
loss in trees. This plan versus the old but was that ever considered? Any
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 36
kind of a trail system going back by Silver Lake? Going over to the
Shorewood part of your development?
Rick Sathre: Frankly, not really. Silver Lake is a very pristine, private
kind of natural space. We've not wanted to intrude on it either. We've
stayed way back from it and want to leave that slope and lower area
passive. We've tried to keep our activities away from it. The big outlot
that the condo buildings were shown in was always going to be their open
space anyway. It wasn't a public open space or even a development of wide
open space. It was their yard.
Conrad: So now we have a lot of little yards, or fairly good sized yards.
Trade-off, if you had to make a trade. Having Lots 8 and 9 be a passive
park or putting in a trail around there, what's your gut feeling?
Rick Sathre: I think I'll defer to the Pflaums.
Mike Pflaum: I'll give you my opinion and Peter can give his opinion.
Peter's opinion prevails. My opinion would be for the overall benefit of
this portion of the site, I would prefer to see passive around here and
have a trail...
Peter Pflaum: I agree with Michael. The trail's been, to answer your
question specifically. It does devalue the lots. It has been an item
that when we first went to plan this development it was discussed at great
length whether there should be trails and where they should. At one point
in time they wanted trail around the lake and after a great deal of
discussion, it was decided that was a bad idea. So it was started to be
considered and dropped. There was a lot of concern at the time if the trail
went in, who in the world would maintain it and could be a tremendous
liability to the community going through that heavy wooded area. So it was
something that was originally talked about. Originally it was thought that
it was a good idea by I think the Park Commission and after a tremendous
amount of discussion, it was decided that it wasn't a good idea.
Conrad: It's too bad and I'm not going to debate that. It's too bad
because it's really pretty, natural country and we're sort of closing, it's
locked up right now. So your feeling would be, if you had your druthers,
is Lots 8 and 9 would be passive park use versus some kind of a trail.
That's kind of what you said.
Peter Pflaum: That's somewhat correct.
Conrad: Okay. Well I'm not going to beat that to death. I joist think
that would have been a neat system to be able to connect some roads for
people there to walk. Some other thoughts. Are we assuming that the only
way to walk from the top of the mountain down to the 3rd Addition or to the
east, is through Outlot A? Can you walk down this steep incline? Yoii know
we've got boulders and whatever. How are people going to get down there if
they do want to walk? Go out for a walk? Is that a problem? Do we have a
place on the side? If it's a steeper area, I'm thinking winter time. I'm
thinking some other scenarios. How do people walk through this part of the
development?
r
14
^t
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 37
Rick Sathre: Through all of Near Mountain and much of Chanhassen they're
walking on the streets I think. That's been our proposal. That the people
would, to circulate within the individual neighborhoods and get to the
common trails, they would use the streets.
Conrad: Does this pose a certain problem and I'll ask staff. oes this
scenario with the boulders on each side, is that a different problem? We
have no standards for sidewalks here and that's really kind of unfortunate.
Olsen: We're starting to have standards for sidewalks and that's why I
think the Park Commission is being a little bit more consistent in
requiring them. And yes it is preferred to have some form of off-street
path.
Conrad: So Jo Ann, are we saying this Outlot A, is that going to be a
trail system that people can walk through?
Olsen: That would be more, in speaking with Lori, that was going to be
more of the bituminous trail connection.
Conrad: That's part of the overall park trail system basically coming off
from Pleasant View through Outlot B and around on the concrete?
Olsen: I don't know if that's part of the overall park or the trail
system. I know that they've always wanted to have that connection.
Conrad: It's got to be. We've got a trail supposedly on the north part of
Lotus Lake coming over there. Where does it go? Does it go through here?
Olsen: There's a trail that connects to this subdivision from the south,
from the North Lotus Lake Park. It crosses Pleasant View. It's another
subdivision.
Conrad: From North Lotus Lake Park, yes. So on the east we've got a
connection. Where's our...
Olsen: I don't know where there's any...
Conrad: So how do we go through this development and get to? I know
there's some connection on the north part of Lotus Lake. I believe we have
a walking path.
Olsen: Fox Chase?
Conrad: Yes. So how do we connect from there to the east?
Olsen: To the west?
Conrad: From the west to the east.
Olsen: I'm not exactly, I'm sure that the trail probably went along
Pleasant View Road. I'm not exactly sure where that trail...
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 38
Conrad: I don't think anybody would run it on Pleasant View.
Olsen: I know that we don't have any trail easements through any of that
other property on the north side except for. maybe Fox Chase.
Batzli: Is it suppose to be linking up with North Lotus Lake Park?
Olsen: There is that connection.
Conrad: Yes. On the east but on the west, I don't see how we, there is a
trail easement in Fox, what is it, Fox Chase?
Olsen: Fox Chase.
Conrad: Fox Chase. There's a trail. The easement down there and I'm not
exactly sure where it is but I thought we could probably connect these
trails.
Batzli: That'd be a good idea.
Conrad: I guess I'd like to have somebody review that and present that to
City Council. If we can't do it we can't do it but at least we know we
can't do it. Given that the Pflaums really don't prefer a natural trail, I
think Lot 8 and 9 for a, I really think passive park is appropriate. Not
an active park. I totally agree with them on that. Some of the comments
made by, Jo Ann I've got to ask what, item 20 says a 5 foot wide concrete
walkway be constructed on the outer side of the thru street. Now of the
thru street. What is?
Olsen: He provided that illustration to show where they meant for the
sidewalk to go. She was calling the central street, the one that goes
around the top, as the thru street.
Conrad: Oh, that's the thru street, okay. So really it is just a concrete
loop? And it doesn't mean that, because of the way it's worded, it doesn't
mean that the outlots have a concrete trail in them. Outlots B, A and C.
There's not a...
Olsen: My understanding of them was that those would be bituminous.
Conrad: Okay, so the concrete is not applied to that?
Olsen: Yes. I'm sure that could be worked out where if wood chips or some
other type of steps system would be...so a straight bituminous trail might
not be appropriate.
Conrad: It's not bad but I think Michael said something about wood chips
and if you'd let me have my trail back through then the wood chips would be
alright but I think coming down Outlot B, there's a point where we don't
need, I can't imagine wood chips working on that steep a hill but I think
there's a point in time where it can convert and turn into a wood chip
trail. If we decide to go with the passive park to the west there. A
couple other. points. The concern that you have for the land for turning. I
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 39
don't think you're going to hear us make that into a motion. I would hope -
that you could work with the developer on that. It works a lot better. I
don't know that we can deal with that or I don't know that I want to deal
with that issue right now. There's not enough clarity in my mind what is
needed and whatever so I think it's real important that you work with the
developer before this gets to City Council just to satisfy yourself. It's
not that they owe that lot to you. I think if it works within this Outlot
C which, I don't know how it's going to work and I think at this point in
time I would hope you could work that out with them before it gets to the
City Council. The last point, I think it's close to the last point, is
tree removal and I think the residents brought that up real clear and we've
got a couple things in there. Lundgren is, they've done really nice jobs
so it's not like they're new to the area and we're nervous about them.
They've done all the other developments quite well but the neighborhood is
saying well, we're not worried about them. We're worried about the folks
later on that may do some clear cutting. Jo Ann, what leverage, what
ability do we have to control? I think there's a couple issues. Tim
suggested some kind of a green easement.. What was your suggestion on the
back of the lots on Block 3?
Erhart: You could extend the idea to Block 5 in some of the lots. Some of
the rear lots there that backed up to other lots.
Conrad: Where's Block 5?
Batzli: The interior one.
Conrad: Okay. Jo Ann, how do we take care of this particular concern?
Olsen: What I recommended was to have a larger conservation easement along
Silver Lake. Then we should also include their 20 foot strip as a
conservation easement.
Conrad: Okay, that's two things. But as we work our way up the hill,
anything else? I think people are worried about, cutting trees down after
Lundgren has done their building or selling. What do we have?
Olsen: Just continue with conservation easements along those other lots
that you feel are appropriate. The rear of them also face towards the
slope as Tim suggested but I think we're finding the conservation easements
are the best way to do it.
Conrad: They aren't?
Olsen: That they are so far rather than just having in the development
contract that no clear cutting is permitted or things like that. That's
just a little bit too general that people can get around once. What that
means is that each of those lots that we pick are appropriate, would have
to have a conservation easement description and then would have to be
recorded against the lot. It's a lot of work.
Conrad: Is that fair? Is that undue?
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 40
Headla: That's unreasonable.
Olsen: I don't know that it's unreasonable. A lot of those lots that they
still have enough area for a house, deck, porch. There's something that we
can look at.
Conrad: We'll see what kind of motions come up on this. Iroquois
cul-de-sac issue. How do we solve that? It was always thought we were
going to go through there. We're not. Because this development goes
through, how do we solve the cul-de-sacing? Do we need to cul-de-sac
that? I don't see why we do to tell you the truth. It goes into
individual homes but are we just going to let it go? Are we comfortable in
just dropping the need for cul-de-sacs at that end even though that's below
City standards? Obviously every street needs a turn around. Turn around
at the top of this street seems kind of ridiculous but what are we going to
do? Make a recommendation to City Council when this gets back to them
maybe?
Olsen: It should at least be signed that this is a dead end and will not
be a thru street.
Conrad: I think somebody should make a decision whether it's going to come
out of the Lundgren development or out of the property that the street
really serves. If it's not serving them, I'm not sure that the cul-de-sac
should come out of there but technically I think you've got to help us on
that and we should resolve it so we're not here 3 years from now trying to
figure this out. It should be done right now. Those are my comments. I
would look for a motion right now. I don't know that, I guess the issues
that might be outstanding, if anybody made them. I think you've heard most
of the issues but the big one that the neighbors bring up is dealing with
trees and vegetation and if somebody feels that there should be something
extra put in there to help control downstream, the cutting down of the
woods, that's kind of up to you and how you'd like to word that. If you
feel it's fine the way it is and the developer's are going to take car eof
it, then we can leave it as is.
Headla: The people, when they had this development go in on the northwest
side of Murray Hill ... I think the Village and the developer together very
well...
Conrad: Jo Ann, in terms of the drainage. I guess it's not real clear
what we're doing on drainage yet. We don't know if we're doing ponding.
I'm not sure impact on Lotus Lake and I'm not sure impact on Silver. When
do we get, we will never see this again.
Olsen: No you won't. Well, the wetland alteration permit will come back.
The Watershed District has to approve it but you never see that. But
again, once they determine exactly what they're going to be doing with the
storm sewer, initially we were just going to out and out recommend that
they provide a detention pond prior to the runoff going into the wetland
because that's what we usually recommend but the slope there, we just
didn't know how we were going to be able to get into maintain it. So then
it was recommended that the sedimentation catch basin, where it is along,
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 41
that that might be an appropriate alternative. But that's going to be,
it's still in the works to be reviewed and then also the -Watershed District
has to approve it. Most likely it will be coming back for the wetland
alteration permit. They're still going to be directing it.
Conrad: I think runoff is a big deal here. Obviously. Big mountain and
steep slopes and major. I'm real interested in that. I don't know how
much we have to say about it. Is there a motion?
Erhart: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend the Planned Unit
Amendment to replace the 114 condominiums with 45 single family lots of
Outlot D of Near Mountain PUD and include the 20 conditions that staff has
recommended with the following changes. That condition 5 be edited to
state that development of this site shall not take place until roadway and
utility improvements are complete in Outlot A, Trappers Pass 3rd Addition.
Number 20 be edited to read the developer dedicate. Excuse me a minute.
What is this 4.5? Is that Lot 8 and 9 Jo Ann or what is that?
Olsen: And part of Lot 7 I believe.
Mike Pflaum: Can I clarify that? I didn't see anything described what
happened specifically at the Park Commission meeting. The Park Commission
was under the dillusion that the property was 45 acres. I think they
arbitrarily selected 10o as the amount they were requesting. The property
is not 45 acres. It's 39 acres.
Erhart: Okay, then the developers will dedicate Lots 8 and 9 in lieu of
park dedication fees. Strike the 5 foot concrete sidewalk from the
recommendation. Add item 21. Provide a conservation easement over the 20
foot section of the rear lot of all lots in Block 3. Item 22, work with
the City to properly finish off the end of Iroquois including a turn around
and provide. No, just work with the City on that and leave it as that. 23
is get staff to review the possibility of integration of trails into an
overall trail plan if possible. It probably was discussed but just to make
sure that that was reviewed Jo Ann. Whether Lots 8 or 9 are part of the
park dedication is to maintain a trail on Outlot B as far removed from the
people's lot in question as possible so as not to be intrusive with their
back yard. Last item 25 was to insure, work with staff and to develop some
assurance through the use of Covenants or whatever that these walls are
going to be somebody's responsibility to maintain. Leave it up to the City
Engineer and staff to try and work that out but I think we're looking for a
specific solution to that so it isn't left up in the air_.
Headla: Maintain what?
Erhart: Maintain the retaining walls. Make stare that someone is
responsible either through covenants on individual homeowners or is the
City going to maintain it or someone. Then item 14 has to be changed to
say the plans and specification will show an emergency access through
Outlot C to Iroquois instead of a second street access.
Emmings: I'll second it.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1939 - Page 42
Conrad: Any discussion? You didn't deal with any kind of additional
conservation easements for green trees or green space or whatever other
than what staff had brought up.
Erhart: I guess in conversation, you and I are the only ones that kind of
passed that one around a little bit so not much interest.
Batzli: I'd be interested.
Emmings: I could be interested.
Batzli: We were just letting you take the lead.
Emmings: How are you...
Erhart: My general feeling was that I think it was their idea to put the
one down below. I was more or less offering it as an idea. Really not
expecting to force that requirement because there are probably other
considerations but I guess that's my gut feeling on it.
Conrad: Gut feel not?
Erhart: Not putting it in as a condition.
Conrad: Any other_ discussion?
Batzli: To remove the sidewalk, even up and down the Trapper's Pass
entrance with it's steep slope and retaining wall sides, do you want a
sidewalk at least during those portions?
Erhart: I don't think that was in there was it?
Batzli: Didn't it go up and down ther?` I think it went up and down both
sides.
Emmings: Yes it does. According to the diagram. Let me ask a question
about that. I don't think it's probably appropriate for the Planning
Commission. When the Park and Rec makes a recommendation, I don't really
think it's appropriate that we modify their recommendation. I think we can
comment on it but I don't think it's really, that's one reservation I have
about Tim's motion.
Erhart: I'd agree with you Steve.
Emmings: I think we should leave it in there the way Park and Rec does it.
If we don't like it, I think we should comment on it so the City Council
knows but I don't think we should modify it.
Batzli: I'm commenting on it. I'm proposing to leave it in for one but
I'm also proposing that it's a safety issue and not a Park and Rec issue.
The reason that I would propose to put it back in there.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 43
Erhart: I'll amend my proposal to leave the, I think you're right. We
have our comments in the Minutes. I think that does justice to the issue
so I'll amend the proposal to leave item 20 as is.
Emmings: I'll second that.
Batzli: You changed the wording. You're just leaving the concrete
sidewalk in there?
Emmings: Right. That's my understanding.
Erhart: What your statement really applies to the whole thing really. If
this is what Park and Rec's recommendation was, we probably shouldn't
change that condition and just put our comments in the Minutes.
Batzli: But you are amending number 20 to indicate Lots 8 and 9 of Block
2?
Erhart: Yes. For clarification. That's fine.
Conrad: I think that's a good point but I don't know how Jo Ann sorts that
stuff together when it gets to City Council. They see a staff report.
They don't integrate the Planning report with Park and Rec. Don't you
integrate Park and Rec comments with our comments on one staff report?
Olsen: They get the same report that you have with an update on it and the
Minutes.
Emmings: We can tell her, I think it would be appropriate to have the
update state that we have comments on the Park and Rec.
Erhart: You have our Minutes.
Olsen: They've got the Minutes and then if there are issues that are
brought up, I'll point them out.
Conrad: But things really get lost in the Minutes. We've been talking
this one for 2 hours.
Erhart: Then the question is, Ladd why are we, let's talk about this a
minute because this is important. Why do we include the Park and Rec
condition then in our recommendation if we can't change it? If it's
inappropriate to change it, then why is it even in our conditions of
recommendation?
Emmings: Because they're all the conditions that the staff is recommending
in the project. We want to see everything. I think we want to see
everything. I think while we can comment on them, I don't think we ought
to change them.
` Conrad: That's a problem. Jo Ann, I think you've got to tell us how to
solve that problem. It's based on what City Council needs to hear.
Because Park and Rec reports not to us. I don't know that we have the
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 44
right to change their recommendation.
discussion?
Okay. Any other comments or
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Planned Unit Development Amendment to replace 114
condominium units with 45 single family lots on Outlot D, Near Mountain PUD
with the following conditions:
1. The applicant provide a plan showing the exact location of the Class A
wetlands adjacent to Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 2 and adjacent to Silver
Lake and that the final plat would provide a drainage easement over the
protected wetlands.
2. A tree removal plan will be required for each lot in the subdivision
prior to issuance of a building permit. There shall be no clear
cutting permitted for any lot except for the placement of the house pad
and utilities. Clear cutting is defined as removal of any vegetation
with a 4" caliper or more at four feet in height.
3. A conservation easement will be provided at the 945 contour along Lots
1 through 7, Block 2 and the 910 contour on Lots 8 and 9, Block 2. The
area below the 945 and 910 contour, including the wetland and
shoreland, will not be permitted to be altered.
4. Lots 3 through 9, Block 2 which have lakeshore on Silver Lake will not
be permitted to have docks accessing Silver Lake without receiving a
wetland alteration permit.
5. Development of this site shall not take place until roadway and utility
improvements have been completed on Outlot A.
6. The applicant shall obtain an dcomply with all con itions of the
Watershed District permit.
7. Detailed construction plans and specifications including calculations
for sizing utility improvements shall be submitted for approval by the
City Engineer. As -built mylar plans will also be required upon
completion of the construction.
8. Appropriate utility easement shall be provided over all public
facilities.
9. Wood -fiber blankets or equivalent shall be utilized to stablize slopes
greater than 3:1.
10. All street and utility improvements shall conform to the City's
standards for urban construction.
11. The applicant shall submit for approval details for the construction of
the retaining walls with the plans and specifications.
Planning Commission Meeting
August 2, 1989 - Page 45
12. The City's standard detail for the installation of Type III erosion
control shall be placed on the grading plan and utilkzed.
13. All appropriate drainage and utility easements along the side, front
and rear of the lots in addition to all appropriate drainage axed
utility easements for ponding sites and storm sewer facilities shall be
shown on the final plat.
14. The plans and specifications shall show an emergency access through
Outlot C to Iroquois.
15. Additional spot elevations and necessary contours shall be provided
with the plans and specifications for proper surface drainage around
proposed buildings and driveway location.
16. 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.
17. A hydraulic study is required to evaluate and address water pressure
concerns.
18. A soils report needs to be included for analysis of proposed
construction.
19. The developer shall submit a plan set complying to City standards for
comparison of hardship before a variance could be granted.
20. The developer dedicate 4.5 acres for park purposes including Lots 8
and 9, Block 2 in lieu of park dedication fees and a 5 foot wide
concrete sidewalk be constructed on the outer side of the thru street
and along the trail outlots in lieu of trail dedication fees.
21. Provide a conservation easement over the 20 foot section of the rear
lot of all lots in Block 3.
22 Work with the City to properly finish off the end of Iroquois including
a turn around.
23. Direct Staff to review the possibility of integration of trails into an
overall trail plan if possible.
24. Check whether Lots 8 or 9 as part of the park dedication, is to
maintain a trail on Outlot B as far removed from the people's lot in
question as possible so as not to be intrusive with their back yard.
25. The developer shall work with staff to develop some assurance through
the use of Covenants or whatever, who is responsible to maintain the
retaining walls.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior Planner
FROM: Lori Sietsema, Park and Recreation Coordinator '
DATE: August 10, 1989
SUBJ: Trails
I understand that the Planning Commission had questions regarding
trail alignments as they pertain to Near Mountain. The
Comprehensive Trail Plan shows existing on -street pedestrian ways
through the Near Mountain development with trail connections
between lots where necessary. That trail section will eventually
connect to Fox Chase where, again, on -street trails through that
neighborhood lead to Carver Beach.
The connection between Near Mountain and Fox Chase will not
likely be made until Pleasant View Road is upgrading, at which
time an off-street trail is planned.
Attached please find a map of the area with the trails as
outlined above.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE OF HEARING
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
l 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 , 19—,
she caused to be mailed /a/lco y of ' the attached notic-e/ off �hearing
on a vl ( !JLc�L.i,tiC Chi C�' J n 1,2 h i�
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.
i
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, August 2,
1989, 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 Bros. to receive a wetland
alteration permit for directing storm water into -a Class A
wetland and providing a sedimentation basin within 200 feet of
the Class A wetland on property zoned PUD and located in the
northwest corner of the Near Mountain PUD.
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, Senior Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on July 20, 1989)
o
(-IE
�_ u1q, d
Barbara A. Martini `'Alan & L. Kramer �. Harvey & K. Robideau
491 Indian Hill Rd. 531 Indian Hill Rd. 540 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Kevin & Pieper Bruce & J. Nord Thomas & N. Seifert
541 Indian Hill Rd. 551 Indian Hill Rd. 60'0 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Alfonso & C. Correa John & K. VonWalter Lundgren Bros. Construction
520 Pleasant View Rd. 510 Pleasant View Rd. 935 #. Wayzata Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Wayzata, MN 55391
Mary E. Rojina, et al Eric Fleegum Robert & L. Sathre
480 Indian Hill Rd. 550 Indian Hill Rd. 365 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & M. Callaway Gilman & S. Lewison Gerald & B. Cox
6320 Fox Path 6340 Fox Path 6360 Fox Path
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Zachary Development Corp. G. Alan & S. Willcutt John & J. Fess
1055 E. Wayzata Blvd. 6270 Ridge Road 6280 Ridge Road
Wayzata, MN 55391 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Helmut & J. Mauer James & L. Meyer Russell & V. Knowles
5810 Ridge Road 6225 Ridge Road 501 Indian Hill Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Curtis & C. Anderson Gary M. Schelitzche David & V. Rossbach
500 Pleasant View Rd. 680 Pleasant View Rd. 670 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Jerome & T. Frederick Samuel & L. Curnow David A..Broden
660 Pleasant View Rd. 650 Pleasant View Rd. 640 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
David & L. Milburn David & C. Rouse Carl A., III & K. Smith
5747 Colfax Ave. S. 620 Pleasant View Rd. 610 Pleasant View Rd.
Minneapolis, MN 55419 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
John & J. Nickolay Near Mountain Lake Assoc. Warren & L. Erdman
608 Pleasant View Rd. 610 Pleasant View Rd. 431 Trapline Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
i
Donald & M. Jacoby Ernest & S. Sampias Lynn & G. Timgren
461 Trap Line Lane 481 Trap Line Lane 411 Trappers Pass
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Thomas & E. Marsh Ronald & L. Harvieux Frances O'Brien, et al
430 Trap Line Lane 6605 Horseshoe Curve 450 Indian Hill Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Alan & L. Pherson Jeffrey & N. May Susan K. Price
491 Trap Line Lane 745 Pleasant View Road 6250 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
i
Dean E. Wetzel i John Sorteberg Van. P. Cunningham
6260 Ridge Road i 4251 Sheridan Ave. S. 865 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Minneapolis, MN 55410 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Larry J. Flewelling Carl W. Schevenius Joseph J. Smith
305 Trilane Circle 5527 Penn Ave. S. P.O. Box 411
Young America, MN 55397 Minneapolis, MN 55419 Excelsior, MN 55331
Michael & K. Clark John & J. Thielen
695 Pleasant View Rd. 665 Pleasant View Rd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
REFERRAL LIST
Carver County Engineer
Attn: Bill Weckman
600 East 4th Street
P.O. Box 6
Chaska, MN, > 3 318
Carver Soil & Water
Conservation Dist.
Attn: Stan Wendland
City Office Building
Waconia, MN 55387
442-2614
DOW SAT
Attn: Mary Smith
2381 Wishire
- Mound, MN 55364
Hennepin County
Attn: Jim Ault
Buerau of Public Services
320 Washtington Avenue South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Roger Machmeier
29665 Neal Avenue
Lindstrom, MN 55045
Milwaukee -Wisconsin Railroad
Attn: J.P. McMullin
1000 Shop Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Minnegasco
Attn: Richard Pilon
P.O. Box 1165
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 (342-5426)
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Attn: Mike Panzer
Hickok & Associates
545 Indian Mound
Wayzata, MN 55391 (473-4224)
Minnesota Valley Electric Co-op
Attn: Ronald Jabs
Route 1, Box 125
Jordan, MN 55352 ( 492-2313 )
Lower MN River Watershed District
ZauEffen-&-Do fr
Mi nneapG ; e Nrnl ��
(OppVV/
,,��pp��
r
Dept. of Natural Resou
Attn: eud
Metro Region Waters
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
296-7523 /
Northern States Power
Attn: Larry Fortune
pzae '550 ; C �
Excelsior, MN 55331
474-8881
Northwestern Bell Telephone
Attn: Randy Lefebve
6244 Cedar Avenue South
Richfield, MN 55423
344-6565 - 861-8158
Riley Purgatory,"&MWatershed Dist.
Attn: Bob Obermeyer
L
ering Company
y Road
, MN 555
Dept. of Transportation
Attn: William Crawford
District Engineer
2055 North Lilac Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55422
545-3761
U.S. Corp of Engineers
Attn: Colonel Joseph Briggs
Regulatory Function Branch
1135 U.S. Post Office & Custom House
St. Paul, MN 55101-1479
United Telephone
Attn: Karol Nielsen
105 Peavey Road
Chaska, MN 55318
442-5121 (Eng.Dept) 448-8200
Williams Pipeline Company
Attn: Gary Taggert
2500 39th Ave. NE, Suite 246
Minneapolis, MN 55421
U.S. Fish & Wildlife
50 Park Square Court.
400 Sibley Street
".SA i A � St. Paul, MN 55101
5''a -T ,BcL.e"-, 55y�35
Date:
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612)937-1900
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
By: Jo Ann Olsen, Senior planner
Subject: Planned Unit Development amendment to replace 114 condominiums with
45 single family.lots. on Uroj�y 7.onM PUD-R, local -PA in the northwest
corner of Pleasant View Road and TH 101.
Planning Case: 79-2 PUD
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was
filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on June 26, 1989
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission
and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations
concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and pro-
posed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring
public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and
utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a
written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a
recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning
Commission on July 19, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later
than July 12, 1989 You may also appear at the Planning Commission
meeting if you so desire.
Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments
City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c City Park Director
Public Safety Director
e Building Inspector
Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek
Watershed District Engineer
-1 Soil Conservation Service
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. Minnegasco
MN Dept. of Natural Resources
8. Telephone Company
(NW Bell or United)
9. Electric Company
(NSP or MN Valley)
10. DOWDEN Cable System
11. Roger Machmeier/Jim Anderson
12. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
13. Carver County Engineer
14.
Other
a
a
0
0
0
in
City of Chanhassen
Carver and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota
In the matter of Chanhassen Planning Case 88-5 Wetland Alteration
h
Owner: Applicant:-- -
c
Street Address: i
Legal Description:
f, L , v> . ,
P.I.N..
Purpose: To create a pond within a Class B wetland.
Zoning District: PUD-r, Planned Unit Development Residential
The above entitled matter was heard before the Planning Commission
on April 6, 1988 and up for final
action before the Chanhassen City Council on April 25, 1988
The City Council ordered that a wetland alteration permit
XxxibO be granted based upon the documentation contained -in
Planning File 88-5 Wetland Alteration Permit and subject to the
following conditions:
See attached Exhibit A.
State of Minnesota)
)ss
Carver County )
I, _ Barbara Dacv City Planner for the City of Chanhassen,
do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing with the
original record thereof, and have found the same to be a correct
and true summary thereof.
Witness my hand and official seal of Chanhassen, Minnesota, this
llth _ day of Ma-. 19 88.
Chanhassen City Planner
NOTE:
Exhibit A
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 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.
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.