10. Approve Preliminary Plat for Minnewashta LandingsCITY O F PC DATE: 3/2/94 /0
`
CHANHAS CC DATE: 3/28/94
�-' CASE #: 94-1 SUB
By: Aanenson:v
STAFF REPORT
1
16, Block 1
Z
' Q LOCATION: East of Minnewashta Parkway and South of Highway 7 and North of Lake
V Minnewashta
CL J
Q. APPLICANT: Kenneth Durr Rick Sathre
' Q 4830 Westgate Road Sathre Bergquist
Minnetonka, MN 55343 106 South Broadway
Wayzata, MN 55391
i
AmA by C1ty Administrsh r
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
✓ ki
ftaa
1 ACREAGE: 19.7 acres (gross) 17.2 acres (net)
� �tbc� to Cc. miss;o�
DENSITY: 1.4 u/a (gross) 1.5 u/a (net)
' Qeit �bmrtied to Co c a
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - Hwy. 7 and RSF
' Q S - RD, Recreational Development - Lake Minnewashta
�- E - RSF, Minnewashta Shores.
W - RSF, Fire Station
W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is below the elevation of Hwy. 7 where it is relatively flat.
There is a significant grade change where the site drops over 30
feet toward the lake. There are a large number of high quality of
trees on the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
t
Minnewashta Landings
g
March 2, 1994
Page 2 '
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
Ken Dun is proposing to develop a 27 lot single family subdivision. This subdivision is '
proposed to be a part of the 1995 "Street of Dreams." This will be an upscale development with
larger homes. The property is bounded by Highway 7 and Lake Minnewashta. Access to the ,
site will be via Minnewashta Parkway. The plat proposes vacating the Ironwood access to
Highway 7 and provide access to the 4 homes it serves via this plat.
lots adjacent to Lake Minnewashta meet the DNR shoreland regulation of 20,000
The of � g square feet.
The remaining lots exceed the 15,000 square foot minimum requirements. The applicant is
requesting a variance from the side yard setbacks on 3 flag lots. The ordinance requirement for
flag lots is 20 foot side yard setbacks and the applicant is requesting 10 feet. Staff is
recommending approval of the variance for the following reasons; all of the lots are well over
the minimum requirement; it provides for tree preservation and a greater setback from the storm ,
water ponds.
There are significant trees on the site and the subdivision plat has worked to provide the most '
preservation. Some trees will be lost along the ridge on the northern edge of Block 2. Staff is
asking for more grading detail to ensure minimal tree loss. A landscaping plan needs to be ,
developed for Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7.
A beachlot is being proposed for Outlot A. The lot meets the standards but a separate '
conditional use permit application will be required. This subdivision is well conceived and staff
is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report.
PRELIMINARY PLAT ,
The applicant, Ken Dur, is proposing to subdivide a 19.7 acre site into 27 single family lots with '
two outlots. This plat contains 4 separate underlying parcels of land. At one time there were
3 homes located on the site. Currently, there is one home on the property. This home is vacant
and will be removed from the site. This plat has some minor modifications since it was given '
preliminary approval by the Planning Commission.
The applicant proposes that this plat will be part of the 1995 Street of Dreams. All of the lots
adjacent to Lake Minnewashta must meet the shoreland regulations which requires a minimum
of 20,000 square foot lots with at least 75 feet of frontage. The city's subdivision regulations
requires 90 feet of lot width at the street. All but one lot meets this requirement. Lot 7, Block
2 only has 60 feet of lot width at the street. The lot can meet the lot width standard by
redesigning Lots 6 and 7 of Block 2. 1
The plat proposes direct access to Minnewashta Parkway via a 1,350 foot long cul -de -sac. The
remaining lots will access off of a 900 foot cul -de -sac. To the east is Ironwood, which is a
1
t
1 Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 3
private street. There are 4 homes that access Ironwood directly from Hwy. 7. Staff and the
' applicant have met with the Ironwood residents to try and resolve whether to have access through
this plat and eliminate the Ironwood access. It is MnDOT's objective to try and eliminate the
access points on Hwy. 7. Through negotiations with the neighbors, it has been worked out that
those 4 homes that have access off of Ironwood will now have an access via an outlot (30 foot
right -of -way) onto the main access drive with a long cul -de -sac (Landings Drive) for the Durr
plat . We feel that this makes a lot of design sense by trying to eliminate the access point on
to Hwy. 7 for safety reasons. Although it does create a cul-de -sac longer than we would
normally like, we feel the safety issue overrides the length and also since there will be a light
at Minnewashta Parkway and will have conflicting traffic movements at Ironwood and
I Minnewashta Parkway. A cross access agreement needs to be established between the applicant
and the residents of Ironwood for the use of Outlot B.
J
f'.
L'
PLAT -
The average lot size for the subdivision is 24,800 square feet. The smallest lot is 16,500 square
feet. There are two outlots with the plat. Outlot A will be a beachlot. The applicant is not
requesting a beachlot at this time. If a beachlot is desired it would require a separate conditional
use permit application. Outlot B will be the easement for the access to the 4 residents off of
Ironwood.
There are some possible well and septic sites that we have asked to be checked. If they are
located they need to be abandoned. There also is a water tower on the site that needs to be
removed.
VARIANCE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a variance from the flag lot side yard setback requirement of 20 feet.
Lots 11 and 16, Block 1, are seeking a 10 foot variance to the front yard setback. Lot 11 also
is requesting a front yard variance. Staff supports the variance on Lot 11, Block 1 because this
lot is double fronted allowing a 10 foot side yard provides for more rear yard where there is a
very steep slope in the back (Landings Drive). Lot 16 of Block 1 contains a storm water pond,
allowing a 10 foot side yard which provides for greater separation between the pond and the
house pad.
Section 20 -1253 of the City Code states that the city council, upon recommendation of the
planning commission, may grant a variance from the requirements of this article where it is
shown that by reason of typography or other conditions, strict compliance with the requirements
of this article would cause a hardship; provided that a variance may be granted only if the
variance does not adversely affect the spirit and intent of this article. Section 20 -58 states that
the city council may grant variances only if the following criteria are met:
1
Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 4 '
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, '
physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by
a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision
is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre - existing '
standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards
without departing downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The two lots requesting variances are flag lots. The setback requirements '
for flag lots is 20 feet on the side and 30 feet front setback for the point nearest the
front lot line where the lot achieves a 100 foot minimum width. The home to the east '
of Lot 9 Block 2 is a approximately 5 feet from the side property line. The
proposed home placement are in conformity of the RSF standards of 10 feet side yard
setback. The homes are consistent with the alignment of the other homes in the plat. ,
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, '
generally, to other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The Rsf standard requires a 10 foot side yard setback this is the underlying ,
zoning. The proposed variances will maintain the minimum setback of the RSF zone.
C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or
income potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The proposed variances does not allow for additional lots on the plat but
rather provides for better home placement on the lot.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self- created hardship. ,
Finding: This subdivision bounded by Highway 7 and Lake Minnewashta. The
applicant has provided lots over the minimum square footage requirement. In order to '
minimize grading and significant tree loss this plat carries forward probably the best
design possible. In addition this plat proposes to resolve an access problem to those
residents on Ironwood by an access through this subdivision. ,
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. '
Finding: The proposed variances are consistent with the underlying zoning of the
RSF district and the would meet the RSF standards if the lots were not flag lots. '
Both lots are well in excess of the 15, 000 square foot minimum.
1
t
Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 5
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair
property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variances are consistent with the underlying zoning of the
RSF district and the would meet the RSF standards if the lots were not flag lots.
Both lots are well in excess of the 15, 000 square foot minimum.
' LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION
A tree survey has been prepared for the site. The plat has been designed to provide for
maximum tree preservation of the high quality trees. The largest trees, maples at 44" and
40 ", are adjacent to the entrance road and Minnewashta Parkway. Tree wells may be required
for both trees which are proposed for preservation. There are numerous large cedar, oak,
' popular, ash, walnut and cottonwood on the site. There are two large cottonwoods, 49" and
52 ", adjacent to the lake that will be saved.
1
1
The majority of the tree loss will occur along the ridge of Block 2. Final grading plans
should be addressed by either custom grading or grading with the street and how they will
preserve the trees, i.e. retaining walls, snow fencing, etc.
The plat proposes a larger berm along Hwy. 7 to mitigate impacts of the highway from the
development. Landscaping plans for this area, as well as streetscape along Minnewashta
Parkway needs to be provided.
Update
At their March 2, 1994, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
Minnewashta Landings subdivision. One of the conditions of approval was that a
landscaping plan be approved by the Planning Commission before the preliminary plat
proceeds to the City Council. Additional landscaping was requested.
The applicant has prepared a landscaping plan as well as a plan showing the tree removal.
The Planning Commission reviewed this landscaping plan on March 16, 1994.
At the public hearing, the neighbors were concerned about the amount of tree removal prior
to the platting of the subdivision. Tree removal was reported to the city and a stop work
order was placed on the property on June 3, 1993. It is the city ordinance, as well as the
DNR requirements, not to clear cut trees.
Minnewashta Landings
g
March 2, 1994 ,
Page 6
The city subdivision ordinance requires placement of one tree per lot being created in addition
to streetscape along the collectors, Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway. The applicant has '
prepared a tree survey. The survey does not show trees prior to the stop work order given in
June, 1993. A letter from a neighbor, Charles Zweig, states that he believes that there were
173 trees removed from this property prior to the subdivision submittal. He states that all
trees removed were over 6 in diameter. The ordinance states that for tree preservation, trees
are measured at 4' in height and that are 6" in diameter shall be considered for preservation. '
Mr. Zweig does not state where the diameter was measured.
Staff is aware that trees were cut down. At this time, there is only ,one way the city could '
resolve Mr. Zweig's concern and that is to cite Mr. Durr for violation of the city code for tree
removal. Rather than take that approach, staff had asked the applicant to provide some
additional trees to make a good faith effort to replace some trees taken without city approval.
The applicant has provided one tree per lot. The city could waive this requirement if the
applicant can demonstrate that a suitable tree having a maximum diameter of 2W' for
deciduous and 6' for evergreen. '
Of the 26 lots in this subdivision, only 13 have no trees. Therefore, a minimum of 13 trees
need to be provided. The applicant has provided 26 deciduous /1 per lot, plus 7 evergreens on ,
Lots 8 and 9, Block 2 for screening (see tree list attachment).
Twenty -six 6' evergreens are proposed on the berm along Hwy. 7. In addition, there will be I
a 6' wood fence. The fence will require a separate building permit.
The applicant proposes no streetscape for Minnewashta Parkway. There are numerous trees
left in this area and with the existing grade berming may not be necessary. Staff recommends
additional conifers (evergreens) be placed in the back of Lots 1 -4, Block 1.
The City Y Attorne has stated that since the tree canopy approach as being proposed in the '
new ordinance has not yet been adopted, we cannot apply it to this subdivision. Staff did
review the canopy approach using the proposed formula and the applicant came fairly close to ,
meeting this criteria of maintaining a canopy coverage.
The applicant is proposing to remove a maximum of 35 -38 trees and will be replaced with 50. ,
This does not include additional trees along Minnewashta Parkway. If the Planning
Commission wishes to cite Mr. Durr for tree removal prior to a proposed subdivision, staff
would ask the City Attorney to follow -up on that. Otherwise it may be appropriate to ask the
applicant to provide additional landscaping on the 13 lots proposed as they are only providing
one tree per lot. I
1
k
r
Ll
t
Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 7
STREETS
The site has a couple of gravel driveway accesses from Minnewashta Parkway and Highway
7 which used to serve a couple of cabins on the property. These driveways no longer
function as viable access points to the site and should be removed. Ironwood Road, a private
street which borders the east side of the site, serves four private homes. The applicant is
proposing to develop the site with one access (public street) from Minnewashta Parkway.
The street as proposed will be a 1,340 -foot long dead -end cul -de -sac along with a private
driveway at the end ( Outlot B) to serve the four existing homes which used to gain ingress
and egress to Highway 7 from Ironwood. As with every development with dead -end cul -de-
sacs in excess of 500 feet, staff looks for a secondary access for public safety purposes.
However, due to Highway 7, access is limited to Minnewashta Parkway. In surveying the
surrounding street systems, Linden Circle to the west and Meadow Lane to the north all have
similar street layouts. Staff had explored the possibility of extending the cul -de -sac out to
access Highway 7 with a right- in/right -out only. However, this may create a short-cut or
bypass from local traffic from Minnewashta Parkway in an effort to avoid the existing
intersection of Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7. MnDOT is also considering some
safety improvements within the next two years along Highway 7 such as turn lanes and
closing off access points. MnDOT would not look favorably on having another access so
close to Minnewashta Parkway.
All of the streets within the proposed development will have 60 -foot wide right -of -way with a
31 -foot wide street section and cul -de -sac with 60 -foot radiuses which meets the City's
standards. The street grades range from 1% to 7% which also meets the City's ordinance.
The applicant is proposing medians along Landings Drive at the intersections of Landings
Court and also Minnewashta Parkway. In addition, both cul-de -sacs propose center islands as
well. Staff understands the applicant's intent for a median at the entrance to the subdivision
( Minnewashta Parkway) for monumentation purposes. However, staff is opposed to the other
median at Landings Court. Staff believes this serves no function other than a green space and
creates a traffic hazard restricting turning movements for eastbound traffic from Landings
Court. This intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings Drive and
the median deleted. Staff is also opposed to the island design proposed in the cul-de -sac at
the end of Landings Drive. We believe the current configuration will lead to confusion for
ingress and egress to the private driveway through Outlot B.
Staff has reviewed the proposed access from Minnewashta Parkway and finds the sight lines
acceptable. Staff would be interested in seeing the alignment of Landings Drive and
Minnewashta Parkway refined a little bit to provide more of a perpendicular intersection in
accordance with the City's ordinance. We understand the topographic constraints, i.e. grades
and trees, etc., but we feel the street could be further adjusted to accomplish staff's view and
still maintain the 44 -inch maple tree located in the northeast corner of the proposed
intersection.
1
Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 8 ,
Since Minnewashta Parkway is classified and functions as a collector street, staff recommends
a condition be placed in the development contract that all lots shall take direct access from '
the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway or Highway 7.
Detailed construction plans and specifications prepared in accordance to the City's latest '
Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for the street improvements.
Minnewashta Parkway was recently upgraded to urban street standards. The project resulted ,
in special assessments to the benefitting properties which include this parcel. The assessment
methodology for the project was based on an estimated number of buildable lots on the
undeveloped parcels. The City has calculated on this parcel which involves the westerly one-
third of the site seven assessable units. The assessment rate is $760 per unit. Since this site
has only the one access ( Minnewashta Parkway) the applicant should be responsible for 20 ,
additional units. The property is currently assessed at this time for one unit and the
remaining six are deferred until development occurs.
According to the boundary survey, Minnewashta Parkway encroaches into the parcel. Staff '
recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of right -of -way
from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. ,
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Except for the south end of the site where the lots drain directly into Lake Minnewashta, this ,
site will be mass graded to elevate the houses above the known high water table. Upon
preliminary review of the plan the following issues should be considered: '
1. Additional easement dedication along Minnewashta Parkway and future plans for
Highway 7 should be verified. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the ,
right -of -way.
2. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12,
Block 1 should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. This
may raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff
recommends the applicant reevaluate this and consider the use of draintile around the
exterior house foundation. The draintile should be connected to the proposed storm
sewer along the property line.
'
3. The houses south of the access road alon g the lake should be a minimum of one foot
above the road elevation. All low points should be located between lots to route
overland flow around the houses. Also, catch basins should be located at the low
'
point between homes to help route surface flow away from lots. For example, it is
recommended that a set of catch basins be located in Landings Drive between Lots 3
f
1
Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 9
and 4 and Lots 5 and 6 of Block 1. In addition, property grading contours need to be
shown for Lots 1 through 8, Block 2.
4. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet and
no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes.
' S. In conjunction with the overall site development Ironwood Road, which is a private
driveway from Highway 7 and serves four homes east of the development, is proposed
to be relocated to attach to the cul -de -sac via Outlot B. In doing so the driveway
' entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right -of -way. In
addition, a drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood drainage
from the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond.
' UTII.ITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site. Water is proposed to be
extended from Minnewashta Parkway and sanitary sewer currently intersects the property
adjacent to Lake Minnewashta.
Upon a quick review of the utility layout it appears that fire hydrant placement will need to
' be revised. The fire hydrant spacing shall be in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's
recommendations. Typically, fire hydrants are located 300 feet apart.
' Detailed construction plans and specifications for street and utility improvements will be
required for reviewed by City staff and City Council approval. The street and utility
improvements shall be constructed in accordance to the City's latest edition of the Standard
' Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development
contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation
of the public improvements and conditions of approval. As with other typical City
' developments, moisture content in the soils is relatively high and the City has employed the
use of drain tile behind the curbs for improving both road sub base as well as providing a
discharge point for household sump pumps. The drain tile would be needed on those lots
' which are unable to discharge into either a catch basin or ponding area. The appropriate
drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and
ponding areas lying outside of the right -of -way. The drainage and utility easement width
shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
' Since the site has had previous cabins/homes, it is most likely there are existing wells and/or
septic systems which will have to be properly abandoned.
The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP ,
will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies
from a regional perspective the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to
allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. '
In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for
ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality
portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s PONDNET model for predicting phosphorus '
concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at
each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of
improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus ,
reduction in priority water bodies.
The City's SWMP shows that the majority of the site falls into a drainage area noted as LM- ,
A8.5 which is 18.2 acres (figure 1). Water quality pond (LM -P8.5) is proposed to serve as a
single sediment and nutrient basin and is designed to retain a wet volume of approximately
t
Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 10
LAKE/WETLAND
'
Lake Minnewashta is a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected water (10 -9P).
Therefore, development around the lake will have to meet the DNR's shoreland ordinance
requirements. The lake is designated as a recreational lake and this requires a minimum
structure set back of 75 feet. Alteration of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to
prevent erosion into the lake, fix nutrients, and preserve shoreland aesthetics and wildlife.
Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to
provide a view of the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the
placement of stairways and landing, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access
areas, and permitted water oriented accessory structures or facilities. If an area is to be filled
,
for a beach, a DNR permit may be necessary depending on the size of the beach and the
amount of material placed.
'
It does not appear that there are wetlands existing on -site, however, we recommend that a
wetlands biologist check the site to confirm this information.
EROSION CONTROL
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
'
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the
City for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice
'
Handbook which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the
design process.
'
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP ,
will serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies
from a regional perspective the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to
allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. '
In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for
ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality
portion of the plan uses William Walker Jr.'s PONDNET model for predicting phosphorus '
concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at
each drainage area based on projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of
improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus ,
reduction in priority water bodies.
The City's SWMP shows that the majority of the site falls into a drainage area noted as LM- ,
A8.5 which is 18.2 acres (figure 1). Water quality pond (LM -P8.5) is proposed to serve as a
single sediment and nutrient basin and is designed to retain a wet volume of approximately
t
t
Minnewashta Landings
g
March 2, 1994
Page 11
1.6 acre feet. It is generally located at the southeast corner of the proposed site. A 24 -inch
pipe leads into this pond and the pond then discharges into Lake Minnewashta.
' Pond LM- P8.6AB is designed to serve as a two -cell sediment and nutrient basin for the
drainage area east of the site and to retain a total wet volume of approximately 4 acre feet.
The cells for this pond (A and B) are split up. Pond LM -P8.6A is located in the northeast
corner within the boundaries of the proposed development, but is designed to handle the water
' quality and quantity associated with the northern part of drainage area LM -A8.6 (figure 2).
Pond LM -P8.6B is located in the southeast corner just off -site of the proposed development
' and is designed to handle the water quality and quantity associated with the southern part of
drainage area LM -A8.6 (figure 2). A 24 -inch pipe leads into LM -P8.6A and discharges into
LM -P8.6B where the water is then discharged into Lake Minnewashta.
The locations of the above described ponds are not final and may be moved or re- designed to
fit the proposed development as long as they meet the SWMP requirements. Since this site
will be mass graded and the majority of the runoff is proposed to drain to the southwest,
moving pond LM -P8.5 to the southwest comer of the site seems to the best alternative for
handling the development's water quality and quantity system for drainage area LM -A8.5
' The two proposed ponds located in the northeast corner of the site may be combined to meet
the water quality and quantity requirements for pond LM -P8.6A for the northern part of
' drainage area LM -A8.6. In conjunction with the overall site development Ironwood Road
which is a private drive from Highway 7 and serves four homes east of this development is
proposed to be relocated to attach to the cul -de -sac via outlot B. In doing so the driveway
entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right -of -way. In addition, a
drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood drainage from the east of this
development to pond LM- P8.6A.
' The SWMP's location of LM -P8.6B is not feasible since there are houses near the lake. The
City will work on this drainage issue as a separate project since it is not feasible to tie this
system ,,into the proposed development.
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average,
city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed
SWMP culverts and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff
storagei Single Family/Low Density developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per
acre. The proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment
fee of $39,006.
' The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication
will be I equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus
' load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be
�J
Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 12
based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are
calculated using the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50
per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the ponding requirements for this
development are approximately 1.6 acre feet (2,581 cubic yards) and land dedication is not
necessary, the development would then be responsible for a water quality assessment fee of
$6,453 using the $2.50 per cubic yard of excavation rate.
These water quality and quantity fees of $45,459 are negotiable or waived if the developer
would prefer to install all or portions of the water quality and quantity system as required by
the City. The City plans to formally adopt the SWMP by late March 1994.
PARK AND RECREATION
One -third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the
city's approval of the subdivision. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the
time building permits are issued: rate in effect when a building permit is issued minus the
amount previously paid.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot
Lot
Lot
Home
Area
Width
Depth
Setback
Ordinance
15,000
90'
125'
30' front/rear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1
27,100
275
140
Lot 2
19,700
100
197
Lot 3
22,100
165
206
Lot 4
19,400
95
179
Lot 5
21,400
90
166
Lot 6
19,800
102
178
Lot 7
38,200
60
218
Lot 8
25,700
90
183
Lot 9
23,500
90
204
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
Minnewashta Landings
21,000
139
177
March 2, 1994
Lot 2
23,200
135
Page 13
Lot 3
23,800
Lot 10 18,400
90
115
Lot 4
Lot 11 25,700
100
176
FLAG LOT
Lot 12 18,700
175
174
173
Lot 13 17,500
100
162
105
Lot 14 31,100
90
166
26,100
Lot 15 31,100
100
220
Lot 8
Lot 16 66,400
100
215
FLAG LOT
Lot
Lot
Lot
Home Shoreland
Area
Width
Depth
Setback Setback
Ordinance 20,000
90'
125'
30' fron0wr 75'
90'
125'
30' fmnt/rear 75'
10' sides
BLOCK 2
Lot 1
21,000
139
177
Lot 2
23,200
135
234
Lot 3
23,800
138
193
Lot 4
21,000
123
177
Lot 5
21,000
126
173
Lot 6
22,400
105
215
Lot 7
26,100
908
178
Lot 8
32,500
150
172
Lot
Lot
Lot
Home Shoreland
Area
Width
Depth
Setback Setback
Ordinance
15,000
90'
125'
30' fmnt/rear 75'
10' sides
Lot 9
20,000
90
167
Lot 10
16,700
96
163
Ll
Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 14
Lot 11 66,400 90 215
Outlot A 39,400 188 208
Variance Staff supports the variance from the side yard setback (20') to allow for a 10
foot side yard for Lots 11 and 16, and a 10 foot front yard variance to Lot 8
'
Block 1.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
'
On March 2, 1993, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat
for Minnewashta Landings. The Planning Commission was concerned about the proposed
planter islands in the cul -de -sacs. They asked that Public Safety evaluate safety issues for
the planter islands.
Mark Littfin has made the following comments regarding turning of fire apparatus around
islands. He has stated that no parking should be posted on both the inside and outside of the '
curb. He would also like Ironwood left as a secondary emergency access.
The Commission wanted maintenance of the planter island to be the responsibility of a home I
owners association. There should be a condition included in the development contract.
The Planning Commission wanted to see further development of the landscaping plan. Mr.
Zweig, a resident on Ironwood, was concerned with the number of trees that were removed
from the site last year. (See landscaping update in this report.) The Planning Commission
wants to review an additional landscape plan before this subdivision is given final plat. '
One of the other issues the developer is still to work out is the location of the home on Lot 8.
The property immediately to the east, the Hoelkes, is located approximately 5 feet from the '
property line. Location of the house pad as proposed on Lot 8 will block their 180 degree
view from the lake. The developer is working to locate the house as far from the lake shore
as possible to maintain the neighbor's views.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -1, Minnewashta Landings, ,
for 27 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 9, 1994, and subject to the
following conditions: ,
1
Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 15
1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and
disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site
grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate
otherwise. All disturbed areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod
or seed and wood -fiber blanket.
3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and
utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council
approval.
4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory
agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army
Corps of Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the
development contract.
t
it
6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event
and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's
Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
7. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire
hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
8. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile
system in accordance with the construction plans.
9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat
for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width
shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access
for maintenance of the ponding areas.
10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be
submitted to the City for review and formal approval
f
Minnewashta Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 16
11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of- -way.
12. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12, '
Block 1 should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. This
may raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff
recommends the applicant re- evaluate this and include exterior draintile around the ,
house foundation. The draintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer along
the property line. ,
13. The house pads on Lots 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Block 2 south of Landings Dr., along the
lake, should be a minimum of one foot above the road elevation, unless the
developer's engineer provides an alternative acceptable to city staff. All low
points should be located between lots to route overland flow around the houses. Also,
catch basins should be located at the low point between homes to help route surface
flow away from lots.
14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet and
no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes.
15. The driveway entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right- '
of -way. In addition, a drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood
drainage from the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond.
16. Existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned.
17. Landings Court intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings '
Drive and the median deleted.
18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be refined to
provide more of a perpendicular intersection in accordance with the City's ordinance.
19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway
or Highway 7.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments ,
units. The rate per unit is $760.00.
21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of '
right -of -way from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6,
Block 1.
r,
I 31. The developer shall provide for a home owners association to maintain the
landscape islands."
I ATTACHMENTS
J
II
1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated February 24, 1994.
2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated February 23, 1994.
3. Memos from Mark Littfin dated March 22,1994 and February 3, 1994.
4. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated February 23, 1994.
5. Letter from Sathre Bergquist dated January 28, 1994.
6. Letter from Richard Zweig.
7. Fax from Donna Hoelke dated March 16, 1994.
8. Letter from DNR dated February 7, 1994.
9. Letter from Watershed District dated February 22, 1994.
10. Planning Commission minutes dated March 2 and March 16, 1994.
11. Revised Preliminary plat dated March 21, 1994.
Minnewashta
Landings
March 2, 1994
Page 17
22.
The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through
8, Block 2.
23.
A cross access agreement needs to be established between the applicant and the
residents of Ironwood for the use of Outlot B.
24.
Lot 7, Block 2 needs to have a 90 foot lot width.
r 25.
Variance from the side yard setback to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 11 and 16,
Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2.
'
26.
Landscaping plans for the larger berm along Hwy. 7, as well as streetscape along
Minnewashta Parkway needs to be provided.
'
27.
A professional landscape plan be prepared for the site. The plan shall include a
minimum of 4 conifers to be placed on Lots 1 -4, Block 1 on Minnewashta
Parkway with 13 additional tress to be placed on Lots 6 -16, Block 1 and Lots 10
and 11, Block 2. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission before there is any final plat approval for subdivision.
29.
The fence Minnewashta Parkway
wood along requires a separate permit.
30.
"No Parking" signs shall be posted on the inside and outside of the landscape
islands of the cul -de -sacs.
I 31. The developer shall provide for a home owners association to maintain the
landscape islands."
I ATTACHMENTS
J
II
1. Memo from Dave Hempel dated February 24, 1994.
2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated February 23, 1994.
3. Memos from Mark Littfin dated March 22,1994 and February 3, 1994.
4. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated February 23, 1994.
5. Letter from Sathre Bergquist dated January 28, 1994.
6. Letter from Richard Zweig.
7. Fax from Donna Hoelke dated March 16, 1994.
8. Letter from DNR dated February 7, 1994.
9. Letter from Watershed District dated February 22, 1994.
10. Planning Commission minutes dated March 2 and March 16, 1994.
11. Revised Preliminary plat dated March 21, 1994.
ATTACHMENT #1
Trees to be Removed with Site Grading
19" cedar
40" maple
28" maple
27" maple
12" cedar
20" cedar
24" spruce
2 -6" spruce
34" maple
7" elm
7" apple
8" ash
32" calalua
Subtotal 14
Tree Loss With Home Placement
Block 1
Lot 1 (1) 6" elm, (1) 15" spruce and (1) 11" spruce
Lot 4 (7 -8) 14 -20" spruce
Block 2
Lot 2 (1) 21" and (1) 34" box elder (possibility to save both)
Lot 5 (1) 36" oak and (1) 12" box elder
Lot 6 (1) 9" and (1) 11" ash
Lot 7 (1) 6" ash
Lot 8 (1) 13 "cottonwood
Subtotal 21 -24
Total Possible Tree Loss 35 -38 trees
Trees to be Replaced
(27) 2;6" diameter ash and maple
1 tree per lot
(26) 6" high spruce or pine
(7) 6" spruce or pine
50 Total replacement trees
t
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Kate Aanenson, Sr. Planner
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
I DATE: February 22, 1994
1
1
1
1
SUBJ: Preliminary plat review to subdivide 19.7 acres into 26 single family lots on
property zoned RSF, and located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway, Kenneth Dun, Minnewashta Landings
Project No. 94 -4
Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings prepared by Sathre- Bergquist dated January 21,
1994, revised February 8, 1994 we offer the following comments and recommendations:
LAKE/WETLAND
Lake Minnewashta is a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected water (10 -9P).
Therefore, development around the lake will have to meet the DNR's shoreland ordinance
requirements. The lake is designated as a recreational lake and this requires a minimum structure
set back of 75 feet. Alteration of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion
into the lake, fix nutrients, and preserve shoreland aesthetics and wildlife. Limited clearing of
trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees is allowed to provide a view of the
water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and
landing, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water
oriented accessory structures or facilities. If an area is to be filled for a beach, a DNR permit
may be necessary depending on the size of the beach and the amount of material placed.
It does not appear that there are wetlands existing on -site, however, we recommend that a
wetlands biologist check the site to confirm this information.
EROSION CONTROL
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted to the City
for review and formal approval. The City has adopted a Best Management Practice Handbook
which the applicant can purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design process.
MEMORANDUM
r
Kate Aanenson
February 22, 1994
Page 2 '
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has prepared a SWMP that is in the final stages of formal adoption. The SWMP will
serve as a tool to protect, preserve, and enhance its water resources. The plan identifies from a ,
regional perspective the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future
development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the
water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-
year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses
William Walker Jr.'s PONDNET model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water
bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on
projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development
were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
The City's SWMP shows that the majority of the site falls into a drainage area noted as LM -A8.5
tY J tY g
which is 18.2 acres (figure 1). Water quality pond (LM -P8.5) is proposed to serve as a single
sediment and nutrient basin and is designed to retain a wet volume of approximately 1.6 acre
feet. It is generally located at the southeast corner of the proposed site. A 24 -inch pipe leads
into this pond and the pond then discharges into Lake Minnewashta.
Pond LM- P8.6AB is designed to serve as a two -cell sediment and nutrient basin for the drainage
area east of the site and to retain a total wet volume of approximately 4 acre feet. The cells for
this pond (A and B) are split up. Pond LM -P8.6A is located in the northeast corner within the
boundaries of the proposed development, but is designed to handle the water quality and quantity
associated with the northern part of drainage area LM -A8.6 (figure 2). Pond LM -P8.6B is
located in the southeast corner just off -site of the proposed development and is designed to
handle the water quality and quantity associated with the southern part of drainage area LM -A8.6
(figure 2). A 24 -inch pipe leads into LM -P8.6A and discharges into LM -P8.6B where the water
is then discharged into Lake Minnewashta.
The locations of the above described ponds are not final and may be moved or re- designed to fit
the proposed development as long as they meet the SWMP requirements. Since this site will be
mass graded and the majority of the runoff is proposed to drain to the southwest, moving pond
LM -P8.5 to the southwest corner of the site seems to the best alternative for handling the '
development's water quality and quantity system for drainage area LM -A8.5
The two proposed ponds located in the northeast corner of the site may be combined to meet the '
water quality and quantity requirements for pond LM -P8.6A for the northern part of drainage area
LM -A8.6. In conjunction with the overall site development Ironwood Road which is a private
drive from Highway 7 and serves four homes east of this development is proposed to be relocated
to attach to the cul -de -sac via outlot B. In doing so the driveway entrance for Ironwood needs
to be removed from the Highway 7 right -of -way. In addition, a drainage culvert will be
necessary to maintain the neighborhood drainage from the east of this development to pond LM-
P8.6A.
I
Kate Aanenson
February 22, 1994
Page 3
The SWMP's location of LM -P8.6B is not feasible since there are houses near the lake. The City
will work on this drainage issue as a separate project since it is not feasible to tie this system into
the proposed development.
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for different land uses based on an average, city-
wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes all proposed SWMP
culverts and open channels and stormwater ponding areas for temporary runoff storage. Single
Family/Low Density developments will have an assessment rate of $1,980 per acre. The
proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $39,006.
The SWMP has established an assessment rate for water quality systems. The cash dedication
will be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load
leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based
r upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using
the market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for
excavation of the pond. Since the ponding requirements for this development are approximately
1.6 acre feet (2,581 cubic yards) and land dedication is not necessary, the development would
then be responsible for a water quality assessment fee of $6,453 using the $2.50 per cubic yard
of excavation rate.
These water quality and quantity fees of $45,459 are negotiable or waived if the developer would
prefer to install all or portions of the water quality and quantity system as required by the City.
The City plans to formally adopt the SWMP by late March 1994.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
Except for the south end of the site where the lots drain directly into Lake Minnewashta, this site
will be mass graded to elevate the houses above the known high water table. Upon preliminary
review of the plan the following issues should be considered:
1. Additional easement dedication along Minnewashta Parkway and future plans for
Highway 7 should be verified. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the
right -of -way.
2. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12,
Block 1 should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. This may
raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff
recommends the applicant reevaluate this and consider the use of draintile around the
exterior house foundation. The draintile should be connected to the proposed storm sewer
' along the property line.
3. The houses south of the access road along the lake should be a minimum of one foot
above the road elevation. All low points should be located between lots to route overland
flow around the houses. Also, catch basins should be located at the low point between
r
Kate Aanenson
February 22, 1994
Page 4
homes to help route surface flow away from lots. For example, it is recommended that
a set of catch basins be located in Landings Drive between Lots 3 and 4 and Lots 5 and
6 of Block 1. In addition, property grading contours need to be shown for Lots 1 through
8, Block 2.
4. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet and
no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes.
5. In conjunction with the overall site development Ironwood Road, which is a private
driveway from Highway 7 and serves four homes east of the development, is proposed
to be relocated to attach to the cul -de -sac via Outlot B. In doing so the driveway
entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right -of -way. In
addition, a drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood drainage from
the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond.
UTILITIES
Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the site. Water is proposed to be
extended from Minnewashta Parkway and sanitary sewer currently intersects the property adjacent
to Lake Minnewashta.
Upon a quick review of the utility layout it appears that fire hydrant placement will need to be
revised. The fire hydrant spacing shall be in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's
recommendations. Typically, fire hydrants are located 300 feet apart. ■
Detailed construction plans and specifications for street and utility improvements will be required
for reviewed by City staff and City Council approval. The street and utility improvements shall
be constructed in accordance to the City's latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail
Plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements
and conditions of approval. As with other typical City developments, moisture content in the
soils is relatively high and the City has employed the use of drain file behind the curbs for
improving both road sub base as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps.
The drain tile would be needed on those lots which are unable to discharge into either a catch
basin or ponding area. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on
the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside of the right -of -way. The drainage
'
and utility easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be
given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas.
Since the site has had previous cabins/homes, it is most likely there are existing wells and/or
septic systems which will have to be properly abandoned.
1
Kate Aanenson
February 22, 1994
Page 5
STREETS
The site has a couple of ravel driveway accesses from Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7
P g Y Y g Y
which used to serve a couple of cabins on the property. These driveways no longer function as
viable access points to the site and should be removed. Ironwood Road, a private street which
borders the east side of the site, serves four private homes. The applicant is proposing to develop
the site with one access (public street) from Minnewashta Parkway. The street as proposed will
be a 1,340 -foot long dead -end cul -de -sac along with a private driveway at the end ( Outlot B) to
serve the four existing homes which used to gain ingress and egress to Highway 7 from
Ironwood. As with every development with dead -end cul -de -sacs in excess of 500 feet, staff
looks for a secondary access for public safety purposes. However, due to Highway 7, access is
limited to Minnewashta Parkway. In surveying the surrounding street systems, Linden Circle to
the west and Meadow Lane to the north all have similar street layouts. Staff had explored the
possibility of extending the cul -de -sac out to access Highway 7 with a right -in /right -out only.
However, this may create a short-cut or bypass from local traffic from Minnewashta Parkway in
an effort to avoid the existing intersection of Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7. MnDOT
is also considering some safety improvements within the next two years along Highway 7 such
as turn lanes and closing off access points. MnDOT would not look favorably on having another
access so close to Minnewashta Parkway.
All of the streets within the proposed development will have 60 -foot wide right -of -way with a
31 -foot wide street section and cul -de -sac with 60 -foot radiuses which meets the City's standards.
The street grades range from 1% to 7% which also meets the City's ordinance. The applicant is
proposing medians along Landings Drive at the intersections of Landings Court and also
Minnewashta Parkway. In addition, both cul -de -sacs propose center islands as well. Staff
understands the applicant's intent for a median at the entrance to the subdivision ( Minnewashta
Parkway) for monumentation purposes. However, staff is opposed to the other median at
Landings Court. Staff believes this serves no function other than a green space and creates a
traffic hazard restricting turning movements for eastbound traffic from Landings Court. This
intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings Drive and the median
deleted. Staff is also opposed to the island design proposed in the cul -de -sac at the end of
Landings Drive. We believe the current configuration will lead to confusion for ingress and
egress to the private driveway through Outlot B.
Staff has reviewed the proposed access from Minnewashta Parkway and finds the sight lines
acceptable. Staff would be interested in seeing the alignment of Landings Drive and
Minnewashta Parkway refined a little bit to provide more of a perpendicular intersection in
accordance with the City's ordinance. We understand the topographic constraints, i.e. grades and
trees, etc., but we feel the street could be further adjusted to accomplish staffs view and still
maintain the 44 -inch maple tree located in the northeast corner of the proposed intersection.
Since Minnewashta Parkway is classified and functions as a collector street, staff recommends
a condition be placed in the development contract that all lots shall take direct access from the
interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway or Highway 7.
r
Kate Aanenson
February 22, 1994
Page 6 ,
Detailed construction plans and specifications prepared in accordance to the City's latest Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for the street improvements.
Minnewashta Parkway was recently upgraded to urban street standards. The project resulted in
special assessments to the benefitting properties which include this parcel. The assessment
methodology for the project was based on an estimated number of buildable lots on the
undeveloped parcels. The City has calculated on this parcel which involves the westerly one -
third of the site seven assessable units. The assessment rate is $760 per unit. Since this site has
only the one access (Minnewashta Parkway) the applicant should be responsible for 20 additional
units. The property is currently assessed at this time for one unit and the remaining six are
deferred until development occurs.
According to the boundary survey, Minnewashta Parkway encroaches into the parcel. Staff
recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of right -of -way
from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 5 and 6, Block 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grading
unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
All disturbed areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and
wood -fiber blanket.
3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of
Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event
and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's Surface
Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
it
Kate Aanenson
February 22, 1994
Page 7
7. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants
shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
8. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain file
system in accordance with the construction plans.
9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for
all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall
be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for
maintenance of the ponding areas.
10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with
the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be submitted
to the City for review and formal approval
11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way.
12. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12,
Block 1 should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. This may
raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff
recommends the applicant re- evaluate this and include exterior draintile around the house
foundation. The draintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer along the
property line.
13. The house pads south of Landings Dr., along the lake, should be a minimum of one foot
above the road elevation. All low points should be located between lots to route overland
flow around the houses. Also, catch basins should be located at the low point between
homes to help route surface flow away from lots.
14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet and
no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes.
15. The driveway entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right -of-
way. In addition, a drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood
drainage from the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond.
16. Existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned.
17. Landings Court intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings Drive
and the median deleted.
I 18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be refined to provide
more of a perpendicular intersection in accordance with the City's ordinance.
r
Kate Aanenson
February 22, 1994
Page 8
19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway
or Highway 7.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments
units. The rate per unit is $760.00.
21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of
right -of -way from the center of existing NIinnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, S and 6,
Block 1.
22. The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through 8,
Block 2.
ktm /jms
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g:\eng \diane \planning \landings.ppr
�S
2•
J
s sb': :.rig �•� '�- t r 1
•
lo t
�-tee
:/ 41
• • 7" A` -f� ��( .err '! <.
ti
Surface Water Management Plan
Drainage Area Map
(NOT TO SCALE)
N
A
jam I
Lm— Ji
'\ SITE £
op I
+ �C/ ti\w `• . • ••• ;rti�. • �wr .............s\\y,rwv.,w+.:.... wwipn: «. •.\\•.• L .f
t Ii
s !�
Lum*-MA LAKE
' MI NNEwASKrA .
ii •w��riv'w.• .^.'r'.. I
ty—,ALt FIGURE 1
.:: iiri , ;ilNliii %1 r .. • • :.iii ?)i:y /
it
t
1
1
1
1
t
r
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM:
Steve A.
Kirchman, Building
Official' ),
DATE:
February
23,1994
SUBJ:
94 -1 PUD(Minnewashta
Landings)
I was
asked to review
the development
proposal dated January 21,
1994 for
the above
referenced project.
I have
no comments
or recommendations
concerning this application
at this
time.
r
CITY OF r
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739
r
TO: Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: March 22, 1994
SUBJ: Kenneth Dunn Minnewashta Landing
Highway 7 and Minnewashta Parkway
Planning Case 94 -1 Sub. I
The following are requirements and comments based on actual driving of fire apparatus in
commercial and residential cul -de -sacs.
1. If center islands are to be built into the cul -de -sacs, both the inside and outside curbs
must be posted with "No Parking" signs. Even the cul -de -sacs built with a 49 foot
radius the aerial truck had to be jockeyed 2 to 3 times to negotiate the turning radiuses.
If a single car was parked anywhere in the cul -de -sac, it would seriously jeopardize any
turn- around options. With a proposed street length in excess of 1350 feet, backing up
would not be acceptable.
2. 1 would also recommend that the existin g Ironwood be left in to be utilized as a
secondary means of access. In being consistent with other projects where secondary
access has come up, the Fire Department has tried to get it in. In this case Ironwood is
already there and could easily be utilized for emergency access. A chair or gate could
be installed to limit access to authorized vehicles only.
S.WetftaP94- 1sub.mem I
r
MEMORANDUM
1
1
1
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Kathryn Anderson, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Chanhassen Fire Marshall
DATE: February 3, 1994
SUBJ: Kenneth Durr, Minnewashta Landing
Hwy 7 and Minnewashta Parkway
Planning Case 94 -1 Sub.
I have reviewed the submitted proposed subdivision and have made the following comments
and /or requirements:
1. Currently the Fire Department requires spacing of fire hydrants at 300 foot intervals.
P q P g Y
Currently what is proposed there is some spacing in .excess of 400 feet. In order to
tighten up the spacing, particularly in lieu of the size of homes being constructed, I am
requiring that (1) an additional hydrant be installed between Lots 9 and 10, on the north
side of Landings Drive; (2) an additional hydrant be installed near the middle of Lot 11
on the Northwest side of Landings Drive; and, (3) the hydrant located north of Lot 1 be
relocated approximately 160 feet further east. Please submit new drawings to the
Chanhassen Fire Marshal for approval.
2. Cul -de -sac turnarounds: If center islands are to be used, submit drawings to the
Chanhassen Engineering Department and the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and
approval in order to facilitate the turning around of fire apparatus; pursuant to Minnesota
Fire Code 1991 Sec 10.204 (d).
3. A ten (10) foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants; ed. NSP N.W. Bell,
,
cable T.V. boxes, trees, shrubs, street lamps; pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Sec
9 -1.
4. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
loads of fire apparatus, and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all- weather
driving capabilities. The road shall be in place prior to construction of new dwellings.
MEMORANDUM
t
Kathryn Anderson
February 3, 1994
Page 2
This applies only to homes which are in excess of 150 feet of Minnewashta Parkway.
5. Remove or redesign the proposed traffic island at Landings Court and Landings Drive to
accommodate a left hand turn off Landings Court to Landings Drive.
6. As a fire prevention suggestion, may I strongly recommend to the architects, contractors,
builders and homeowners, the option to install residential fire sprinkler systems. The fact
that the aesthetics of fire sprinkler heads have greatly improved in the past few years,
coupled with the fact that a number of these homes will be valued at $500,000.00 plus,
prompts me to recommend that a residential fire sprinkler system at least be considered.
It could save lives and prevent a major structure fire. I would be more than happy to
assist the architects, contractors, and/or homeowners with video and written literature to
show the extreme effectiveness of a residential fire sprinkler system.
cc: Scott Harr, Public Safety Director
Steve Kirchman, Building Official
Jim McMahon, Fire Chief
ML:eb
g:' , safety\mlW4.1
r
1
I
1
t
r
5
1
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner _11K
FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director
DATE: February 23, 1994
SUBJ: Minnewashta Landings
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned preliminary plat on Tuesday,
February 22, 1994. Mr. Ken Durr, the applicant, was present during the commission's discussion.
From a parks and trail perspective, the subdivision is straightforward with the acceptance of park
and trail fees being recommended in lieu of parkland dedication or trail construction. My report
to the commission in this regard is attached for your information. At the conclusion of the
commission's discussion, Commissioner Lash moved and Commissioner Roeser seconded to
recommend the City Council accept full park and trail dedication fees in lieu of parkland
dedication or trail development. Said fees to be collected per City Code, Chapter 18, Section 18-
79(P):
One -third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with
the city's approval of the subdivision. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid
at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect when a building permit is issued
minus the amount previously paid.
RS SV9`11�-
2 O
W c
tiF Q �,P
January 28,1994
SA THRE - BERGQ UIST,INC. I
150 SOUTH BROADWAY
(612) 476 -6000
WAYZATA, MN 55391
FAX 476 -0104
Ms. Kate Aanenson
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box #147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Subject:: MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
This letter is written to provide the City staff, Planning Commission members, and City Council
members with background information, a description of the proposed neighborhood, a listing and
justification of each variance requested, and an understanding of the goals and objectives of Mr.
Kenneth Durr, the property owner and proposed developer.
The development site contains 4 separate parcels of land. Mr. Durr bought the first of these
parcels in the 1970's and used it with his friends as a summer getaway for years. When the
larger parcels on the east and west of the original acquisition became available in the 1980's, Mr.
Durr acquired them also. His ownership is approximately 20 acres. The 4th parcel contained in
the Preliminary Plat is Tract D, R.L.S. #9, a 40 foot wide strip of land extending from Highway 7
south to Tract C. Tract D is owned by Mr. & Mrs. Thomas Wright and serves as the common
driveway corridor for the 4 homes which enjoy the lakeshore immediately east of the Durr
property.
Mr. Durr is a man with a vision. His goal is to create a new gateway neighborhood called '
MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS. The hope is to create a large lot, upscale neighborhood of fine
homes. Mr. Durr has 40 years experience as a builder of custom designed homes. He has built
in the Street of Dreams neighborhoods in addition to areas throughout the western metropolitan ?�
area. Mr. Durr is one of the 10 exclusive estate homebuilders within the Jack Nicklaus "Bearpath"
Golf and Country Club community. MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS will be the 1995 Street of
Dreams site if Mr. Durr's project is approved and constructed in a timely manner. r
The conversion of the property from three large homesites to the upscale neighborhood we
propose raises two questions which we address in the planning. The first question is how to
reasonably access the 20 acre Durr site. The homesites that existed in the past received their
access via long private driveways. The westerly most homesite (with it's house still standing)
accessed Minnewashta Parkway near it's intersection with State Highway No. 7. The easterly two
former homesites (whose structures have been razed by Mr. Durr) each has a driveway entrance
directly to Highway 7.
RECEIVED
JA►N'. 31 1994
i:1lY
Of CHANHA,�.*$F-N
it
Early in the planning process we recognized the need to move all access away from Highway 7.
We propose to internally serve all homes via new streets built easterly from a new Minnewashta
Parkway access point located well south of the Highway 7 intersection. This access point was
chosen not only for its safety benefits but also to take advantage of the outstanding lake views
which all of the new homeowners will enjoy. This access point and the curvalinear nature of the
entrance roadway will also maximize the views of several magnificent entry area trees, most
notably 2 large walnut trees.
The single access as located allows us to create a berm and landscape buffer zone along
Highway 7 which will enhance not only the new lots, but also the experience of Highway 7
travelers.
Within the Durr property, we propose to close the two existing and potentially dangerous private
access driveways from Highway 7.
Mr. Durr, myself, you, Mr. Paul Krause, Mr. Charles Folch, Mr. Dave Hempel and the easterly
neighbors have spend many hours thinking, site inspecting, and discussing the issue of whether
the easterly neighbors driveway access to Highway 7 should remain. It is safe to say that this
issue has been difficult and time consuming to deal with. Collectively we, together with input from
MnDOT, have spent over 5 months in an attempt to find a best option. The Preliminary Plat
expresses our collective best option.
The proposal is to eliminate the neighbors common private access to Highway 7 and shift it
westerly through Outlot B to the Landings Drive cul -de -sac. Tract D, their current access corridor
would be deeded to Mr. Durr and included in the most northeasterly lot (Lot 15, Block 1). The
berm and pond would be extended easterly into the old Tract D to both provide additional
screening for all and to obliterate the current driveway.
Why eliminate the Tract D corridor? One: to eliminate a potential safety problem. Two: to
permanently minimize the potential to construct a through street through Tract D and
MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS. Why? In a very few years the intersection of Minnewashta
Parkway and Highway 7 will be signalized. If another through street could "short circuit' this
intersection, non - neighborhood traffic would intrude, disrupt, and jeopardize the safety of the
existing and future residents. This is unacceptable to Mr. Durr and his neighbors.
I
The MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS subdivision contains 26 lots which meet or exceed the RSF
zoning district standards and the Shoreland Regulations for setbacks and lot area. The lake lots
have a nominal width of 125 feet while the off lake lots are typically 90 to 100 feet wide. In both
types of lots, these widths are measured at the proposed homesite location (which in some cases
is greater than the 30 foot minimum front yard setback location.) These lots are served via a
proposed cul -de -sac street system which is 1350 feet long. This exceeds the ordinance standard
of 900 feet and requires a variance. The justifications for the length of this cul -de -sac are public
health and safety concerns and site configuration and location constraints which would be
compromised if a through street is built to Highway 7. No other reasonable options exist.
MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS contains a 200 foot wide "beach lot" at the entrance. This Beach
Lot will be platted as Outlot A. The area will be available for the enjoyment of each new resident.
s
r
r
Lots 10 & 15, Block 1 and Lots 7 & 8, Block 2, could be called neck or flag lots. These lots have
their designated building sites as shown on the Development and Grading Plans. The building
sites are chosen where lot widths meet or exceed ordinance standards. Technically these lots do
not meet ordinance standards, since they are "necked down" at the minimum front setback
distance of 30 feet. The alternative to these neck lots is to extend the street right -of -way closer to
the future building sites. This extension merely results in increased pavement area, hence
increased long term maintenance cost. The justification for the variances needed for these lots is
the hardship that the extra, otherwise un- necessary paving imposes on the land and the lake.
The Ordinance imposes a more restrictive side yard setback of 20 feet (instead of 10 feet) where
neck lots are utilized. We seek variances to allow a 10 foot setback from side lot lines for each
neck lot and with the justification again being that to avoid the variance condition we would cause
hardship to the land due to the additional paving and grading strict ordinance compliance
mandates.
Significant mature trees exist on a small portion of the site. The Development plan and Grading
plan each depict the preservation of the most important and significant of these trees. In addition
to this preservation work, Mr. Durr will pursue an aggressive landscape effort to replant the berm
areas as well as selected internal clustering.
We are proud of the joint efforts of City Staff, Neighbors, and the Development Team. We hope
all involved in the review and approvals are pleased and supportive.
Sincerely,
SATHRE- BERGQUIST, INC.
Richard W. Sathre, P.E.
RSW /dm I
L�
1
1
1
r
IYIAR -1 '94 WED 17:40 ID :,NWA PURCHASING TEL NO: 612-726-3277
KATE UA/u UWAI 17 673�
F&fn : DONAIA
Dear Kate:
March 16, 1994
tt017 PB1
I spoke with Joe Scott earlier today and we discussed the issue ofs h9ve had discussions
on Lake Minnewashta and how h relates to our adjoining property
on whether the City of Chanhassen should consider adopting an ordinance to restrict the
location of new construction on lakeshors tots as it relates to existing homes on
adjoining lots.
I have spent some time doing some research on the ordinances in surrounding communties
with lakeshore property. As you can see on my grid below, the vast majority of communities
which have significant Lakeshore properties have adopted ordinances to protect existing
homeowners from new construction obstructing lake views. I would suggest the City of
Chanhassen consider adopting similar ordinances in order to protect it's homeowners as
most of the other lake communities have done.
Also, as an information item: Steve Emmings, a former member of the Planning Commission,
has indicated that the Planning Commission did make a ruling on Lotus Lake about three yea
ago in favor of a new homebuiider who wanted to build closer to the lake so as to avoid
having to view the back of the adjoining home. This is the reverse of our issue, but
nevertheless the Planning Commission did act outside it's usual realm of power.
If you are interested, I would like to invite you to our home to tour our property and
see first hand what our concerns on this Issue are about. Please contact me at 470 -6871 (home)
or 726 -2903 (office) if you have any questions. &-Htlm /�.
CIT N11ME,' f~It3f+�8ER. =�3LS.Ti1l.CTiUNS .,...::.
Excelsior 474 -5233 New structure cannot block view of ammen
Ter So ft, setback from lake
Tonka Say 474 - 7994 75 ft setback or avg. setback of adjoining t
Dave
Minnetrista 446 -1660 75 ft, setback or avg. setback of adjoining t
nrnnn 473 -7357 75 ft, setback or avg. setback of adjoining I
Spring Park 471 -9051 unable to obtain
Minnetonka 939 -8200 75 ft. setback — /City of Mtka only has a few homes
Katy on Lake Mtkil an d most are already close to lake,
thus no need for ordinance
a7s -0234 75 ft. setback or avg. setback of adjoining houses
z -2184 [ process of adopting new rules to restrict bull
John to avg. setback of adjoining houses. Due to be
fl
-1155
7 -2262 75 foot setback
Steve
houses
474 -3236
cuau►ni ...,—
No rules for existing homes - can get .
Shorewood
patty
to build neW -homes
Prior Lake
447 -4230
76 ft setback or avg. setback of adjoir
Horst
Plymouth
550 -5050
Waiting for Information
Saret
rtaanhavan
474 -4755
100 Ft. back from water
-1155
7 -2262 75 foot setback
Steve
houses
r
3601 Ironwood Rd.
Excelsior, Mn. 55331
Dear Commissioner:
Last Wednesday, March 2, I was unable to attend the meeting
where partial approval of the Durr development took place.
Since then I have heard much of what went on at that meeting
and find myself concerned about two issues relating to the
same subject - trees.
On March 8th I walked the Durr property and took inventory '
of the trees that were removed by Mr. Durr last fall. The
total number of trees cut down that were approximately 6
inches or greater in diameter was 173. At least half of
those trees were within 300 feet of the Lake Minnewashta
shoreline. While counting those trees I was careful not
to count those stumps that appeared to be from dead trees.
The trees, as you should be aware, were removed without city
approval. At last weeks meeting I understand that city
councilman Richard Wing spoke and stated that although the
trees were removed without following city ordinances, only
trees of little value were removed. I disagree.
There are two issues here. First, softwood and hardwood
trees both have biological and esthetic value near a lake
shore. Second, city ordinances concerning tree removal
should be adhered to.
After lengthy discussion with the Minnesota DNR, I am convinced
that when lakeshore developement is concerned all trees are
"good" trees. They are good for protecting the lakes ecosystem
and they are instrumental in screening structures when viewed
from the lake. 1
The majority of the homes on the north shore of Lake Minnewashta
are set back 200 to 300 feet from the shoreline following a
natural plateau. The proposed development will place eight
houses well below the plateau only 75 feet from the shoreline.
The existing plateau will then be graded to make room for a
road and additional houses. If this is done it is essential
that there be considerable natural screening of the houses
closest to the lake.
There can only be one reason why Mr. Durr had the underbrush t
and many trees removed without city approval. He was afraid
the city would be too restrictive. This leads me to the
second issue I mentioned earlier.
1
1
0
1
1
The city ordinance concerning tree removal is rediculous.
It allows a private land owner to remove as many trees as
he likes, but a land developer must have city approval to
do so. This then becomes a "no brainer." A developer simply
purchases land as a private owner and then alters vegation
anyway he pleases. Later he comes to the city and says he has
decided to become a land developer. Does this kind of ordinance
make any sense? I think not.
What then am I asking of the Planning Commission? First,
hold Mr. Durr accountable for the trees he has removed.
Second,see to it that the city rewrites the ordinance concerning
tree removal.
There is very little lakeshore left to build on surrounding
Lake Minnewashta. I beg you to do your utmost to preserve
and protect it.
Very truly yours,
Richard L. Zweig
r
Location
Date
6� /��
Inspector
1
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG �
City of Chanhassen �
937.1900
Contact F�Ej(__�E�C'1.— Dept
i
I
� I
STATE OF
DEPARTMEN OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 551��`
PHONE NO. 772 -7910 I EN =
February 7, 1994
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Senior Planner
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS, LAKE MINNEWASHTA (10 -9P), CITY OF
CHASKA, CARVER COUNTY, (CITY CASE 194 -1 SUB)
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
We have reviewed the site plans (received February 1, 1994) for the
above - referenced project (Section 5, T116N, R23W) and have the
following comments to offer:
1. Lake Minnewashta (10 -9P), a Public Water, is on the proposed
site. Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) level
which alters the course, current or cross - section of Public
Waters /Wetlands is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may
require a DNR permit. The-OHW level for Lake Minnewashta is
944.50 A DNR permit will be required for the stormwater
outlet (invert 936.49 that is shown discharging into Lake
Minnewashta.
' 2. It appears that the stormwater is routed through settling
basins, which is good. We would object to having stormwater
routed directly to Lake Minnewashta.
3. There should be some type of dedicated easement, covenant or
deed restriction for the properties adjacent to Lake
Minnewashta. This would help to ensure that property owners
are aware that various agencies (including the city, watershed
district, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) have
jurisdiction over Lake Minnewashta and that the lake cannot be
altered without appropriate permits.
4. It is our understanding that Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District uses a 100 -year flood plain elevation of 945' (versus
the 944.8' elevation that is noted in the plans and in the
Flood Insurance Study for Chanhassen. Since the lowest
building in the project is at an elevation of 948', flood
plain concerns for this project appear to be minimal.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
r
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson
February 7, 1994
Page 2
5. Lake Minnewashta has a shoreland classification of
recreational development. The shoreland district extends
1000' from the OHW. The development must be consistent with
the city's shoreland management regulations. In particular
you should note:
a. The project area contains steep slopes (lands having
slopes of over 12% for a horizontal distance of 50' or
more). Topographic alterations should be minimized in
these areas.
b. The vegetation and topography should be retained
in a natural state in the shore impact zone. The
minimum shore impact zone is an area within 37.5'
of the OHW. See state shoreland management
guidelines for more details on what can be allowed
in the impact zones.
C. The structures in the development should be screened from
view from Lake Minnewashta using topography, existing
vegetation, color, and other means approved by the city.
6. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during
the construction period. The Minnesota Construction Site
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water
& Soil Resources and Association of Metropolitan Soil and
Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent,
should be followed.
7. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000
gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor
will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. You are
advised that it typically takes approximately 60 days to
process the permit application.
8. If wetlands that are not under the jurisdiction of the DNR are
on the site, then the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Gary
Elftmann @ 290 -0355) should be consulted regarding pertinent
federal regulations for activities in wetlands. In addition,
impacts to wetlands must be evaluated in accordance with the
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
9. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of
land, a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (Scott Thompson @ 296 -7203) is needed.
J
1
' Ms. Kathryn Aanenson
February 7, 1994
Page 3
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at
' 772 -7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Joe Richter
' Hydrologist
c: Minnehaha Creek Watershed, Ellen Sones
I U.S. Corps of Engineers, Gary Elftmann
Chanhassen Shoreland File
i
iL�
MINNEHAHA CREEK r
NAHA C WATERSHED BOUNDARY N
4
WATERSHED DISTRICT A�9,P,
MILAN 9
y �Q 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Fy4ygc9���
DO Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 -1597
office: (612) 939 -8320 fax: (612) 939 -8244 LAKE MINNETONKA
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATOR: Ellen B. Sones
MI,RIESOTA RIVER
BOARD OF MANAGERS: Thomas Maple, Jr., Pres. - C. Woodrow Love - John E. Thomas
Clarkson Lindley - Thomas W. LaBounty - Martha S. Hartfiel - Pamela G. Blixt
February 22, 1994
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 017 Y Uf
Re: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Comments on 94 -1 SUB Development Plans '
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
Thank you for allowing the District an opportunity to comment on the above - referenced
'
development proposal. The District will require that the applicant submit a permit
application and appropriate exhibits for District approval under Rule B. The District has the
following comments:
'
1) The District will not require rate control due to the proximity of
Lake Minnewashta.
'
2 The OHW of Lake Minnewashta is 943.5 and not 944.5 as
indicated on the preliminary plan.
Lake
'
3) The District has data from a private resident on
Minnewashta indicating lake levels in excess of 945 in both
1992 and 1993. The District requests that information
documenting recent lake levels be forwarded to the District and
,
the reported 100 -year flood elevation be re- evaluated.
4) Other design details that should be incorporated into the final
'
Stormwater Management Plan include:
• Outlet that skims floatables from pond discharging to Lake Minnewashta '
Minnetonka;
• Engineered emergency spillway with designated
spillway route from each of the three stormwater ponds;
and
■ Best Management Practices during construction.
If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please call me at 479 -4224.
Sincerely,
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
En ineers for strict
4
drew E. Syve '
Environmental Engineer
AES /aec
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: So what we'll be doing is dealing with our sign ordinance at our next meeting. Okay.
In 2 weeks.
PUBLIC HEARING:
KENNETH DURR FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 19.7 ACRES INTO
27 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS.
Public Present:
Name Address
Gary Carlson
3831 West 62nd Street
Mary Colleran
6560 Minnewashta Parkway
Kevin Ellsworth
9601 Flatlock Trail
Tom Wright
3611 Ironwood
Zoe Bros
6631 Minnewashta Parkway
Donna Hoelke
3621 Ironwood Road
Ann Zweig
3601 Ironwood Road
Steve Emmings
6350 Greenbriar Avenue
Rick Sathre
150 So. Broadway, Wayzata
Kenneth Duff
Applicant
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Okay, questions or comments for staff.
Harberts: Did those green things.
Aanenson: The islands.
Harberts: Yeah, thanks. It's been a long day. Are all three of them proposed, or four. Four
proposed to save significant trees? All of them? Or some of them just decorative.
Aanenson: I'll let Rick answer that.
Rick Sathre: When I speak I'll answer your questions. Unless you're really wanted to know.
.•
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: Oh, tell me now. Thank you. I
Rick Sathre: At the entrance we had saved a spruce tree in the island. The other islands
would be to add greenery that isn't there. ,
Harberts: Oh, so that would be decorative?
Rick Sathre: Yeah.
Harberts: Oh, I thought I was reading a maple tree. '
Aanenson: The first entrance will save trees.
Rick Sathre: There's a nice spruce tree here. '
Mancino: I'll ask landscaping questions. I think there's a lot that isn't here that we normally '
do get on a landscape.
Scott: That we need. '
Mancino: That I don't feel comfortable passing without getting it.
Aanenson: I think what Rick and I talked about is these o le have been waiting a long
'
Pe P g g
time. Before Rick goes through it, maybe give them an opportunity to speak. '
Scott: Okay. Because he'll want to take their comments into consideration. Okay. Are
there any other questions or comments for staff? ,
Farmakes: The issue that you raised on the cul-de -sac as Outlot B? Currently it shows, it
kind of looks like it shows like there's a road there currently. That it meets up on another
adjacent piece of property. '
Aanenson: Right. That's where the existing Ironwood is right now. There's four homes off ,
of that private drive. What we're saying is that these homes will now have access through
this subdivision and this will be incorporated into their plat.
Rick Sathre: Plus a new driveway.
Farmakes: That was my question. Does it meet up then with an existing road? I
70 1
t
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Rick Sathre: Yes. That road is existing.
Aanenson: Well it's a private drive.
Rick Sathre: On this drive, this is a new driveway that ties into the existing driveway
through to the homes of these people.
Farmakes: That is a private drive then to the adjacent piece of property?
Aanenson: Yes.
Rick Sathre: They own, yes. It is a private drive now that would be rerouted.
Farmakes: Is that also a single entrance? Do they have access?
Aanenson: They direct access onto Highway 7.
Scott: Yeah, now.
Aanenson: Right now. Through this we're bringing two subdivisions getting over to the
light, eventual light on Minnewashta Parkway.
Farmakes: So that then would meet our side ordinance then?
Scott: No.
Aanenson: Well what we're saying.
Scott: Yeah, it's 900 and some feet.
Farmakes: Well but they'll have two entrances.
Aanenson: No.
Scott: Ironwood is going to be vacated and then the 4 homes to the west, or to the east, their
only access, ingress and egress will be coming through what's called Oudot B out to
Minnewashta so they're going to lose their direct access to Highway 7.
Mancino: So it's going to be along cul-de -sac.
71
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: Yeah, I think it's 953 feet or something. I don't know what it is but it's.
Aanenson: It's 1,320.
Scott: Okay.
Mancino: Kate, can any of those houses, those 4 houses. I walked over there. It's
wonderful, lovely area. Can any of them further subdivide so that there would be more than
4 houses over there?
Aanenson: I think all of the lots...
Mancino: That would be my concern.
Aanenson: The other issue right now, you'd have to amend the city ordinance because they're
still kind of off of a private drive issue ... so you only have 4 homes off of that private drive so
that's kind of...
Mancino: Good.
Scott: Any other comments or questions for staff?
Farmakes: Do we use the criteria then, as I understand in reading the report, that the criteria
then for a variance?
Aanenson: For a cul -de -sac length?
Farmakes: Yes.
Aanenson: There isn't, we looked at recommendation for 600 or 700 feet and there isn't
anything in the ordinance. What we do is rely on the Fire Marshal's review of that.
Farmakes: Okay. I thought we had 600 feet or something.
Scott: We did.
Farmakes: It never did pass?
Scott: We passed it onto the City Council. I remember it well. That was like the first
meeting in January.
72
1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Farmakes: It was actually an existing ordinance, wasn't it?
Conrad: It was 600. 600 was the old one.
Farmakes: But I think the old one was never passed onto Council, was it?
Conrad: No, the 600 was there.
Scott: We passed it on.
Conrad: But then I thought we changed it.
Mancino: I do too. I don't think we ever came to a conclusion.
' Farmakes: Well I still, it would not qualify, if we did not pass the ordinance, it would
qualify as a variance.
Aanenson: I don't think there's a requirement of a minimum right now. Or maximum,
excuse me. We try to tie them up when we can ... and it works well. Provide a safer entrance.
Mancino: Than off of Highway 7.
' Aanenson: Correct.
Farmakes: Well yeah. It has criteria that the normal development doesn't. It's a highway
boxed on one side and a lake on another. If we passed that for that reason, I guess I'd like to
know that there's criteria for that. Although it might not be an official variance but there is a
public safety issue either way.
Scott: Well I know that was our major concern at the meeting where we discussed the
variance, or discussed the ordinance shortening the maximum for cul-de -sacs. Are there
' additional comments or questions for staff at this time? Seeing none, would the applicant or
their representative care to speak, and please identify yourself.
Rick Sathre: Yes Chairman Scott, I'm Rick Sathre. I'm an engineer and planner with
Sathre - Berquist in Wayzata. I'd like to hold my comments and let the neighbors speak first
because then maybe they can go home. And I'm going to be here anyway so if you don't
mind, I'd defer to them first and then I'll come back and I've got a few comments.
Scott: Sure, that's fine. Then what we'll do is we'll open the public hearing. Can I have a
73
I
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 f
motion to do so please?
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was open.
Scott: At this late hour we're going to be using Bob's Rules of Order so the public hearing
is not open. Please state your name and if anyone would like to address us, please do.
Tom Wright: My name is Tom Wright. I live at 3611 Ironwood Road. I'm one of the four ,
homeowners. We've got two others here this evening. We've met with Rick and Ken Durr a
couple of times since this project has evolved. I think we've looked at it pretty carefully. '
One of our concerns has been the access onto Highway 7. We've been pretty happy the way
we are with a private road but there's always been the concern on the access to Highway 7.
This eliminates that concern. There's a lot of very positive things about this development. ,
Maybe first choice for us would be to leave the land raw as it is but that's not going to
happen. Second choice, the way this lays out is, and they can speak for themselves, but us I
think we're all generally very supportive of it. We like the way it lays out. We like the '
landscaping that's been done. We like the effect that it has on the overall environment so we
are supportive. We know a change of our access over to Minnewashta Parkway, we think on
balance that's a plus and so that's my comments. ,
Scott: Okay, thank you sir. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
Donna Hoelke: M Y name is Donna Hoelke. I live at 3621 Ironwood Road with my husband ,
Dave who had to leave. A couple of comments and then a question for the Commission.
First I'd like to echo the things that Tom said. That we are, inasmuch as we'd probably like '
to leave the land as it is, if we are going to have a development that this by and large this
looks like a good layout for us. One of the concerns that we have, we're on the first property
here on the east side of the development. Our property goes on Lot 8, 9, 10 and 11. We're '
450 feet deep there. Currently as we understand it, there's no ordinance through the City of
Chanhassen which would preclude where building a home would be in relation to our's. Our
home is about midway in our lot which would put us about here. If a home on Lot 8 is built '
at the 75 foot setback, that's going to, as far as we're concerned, that has a pretty big impact
on our panoramic view of the lake. We bought the home understanding that the land would '
eventually be developed but I know at least in our neighborhood, as each of the homes were
built, there was a lot of care taken in not obstructing the existing home's views. There are
other cities in the area, Minnetrista has city ordinances that says you can put a home up, you '
have to build it at least equal or behind any existing homes. So I know that's something
we've expressed to Ken and I don't know where he's gone with that but that's a serious
concern of our's. We bought the home and enjoy the view and would like to maintain that. 1
74 1
L
1
1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
The other concern that we had, we think about this development and the question I wanted to
pose to the commission is, what is the responsibility of the commission to insure the
' environmental impacts of this on the lake. I heard a lot of discussions tonight about whether
there's going to be 3 trees or 5 trees in a parking lot and what the window coverings are
going to look like and I've looked at the lake and the quality of life that it provides to my
family and the community and how do you insure that there's not a big impact to the
ecosystem and the whole quality of the lake.
' Scott: Well I think, and I'll take a stab at this and I know one of our engineering staff is
here. Is that there's a couple of things and I believe it has to do with our surface water
management policy which is something that is pretty far ahead of what a lot of other cities
do. Not all but most. One of the items is a setback from the lake. Obviously because of an
impervious surface such as a driveway or something, we want to make sure that there's ample
vegetation inbetween the property and the lake so that we don't have a runoff problem or an
erosion problem. The second thing is that you'll notice that there are several retention ponds
on the property which are basically designed to convey runoff from these impervious surfaces
and as Director Aanenson was mentioning, conveying that runoff into the street through storm
sewers to those ponds and then the purpose of those ponds is basically to settle out any
particular matter, phosphate reduction and so forth. Also, in a lot of cases we try to preserve
as much vegetation as we can because obviously that has a positive impact. And I'm sure I
have left out some other issues and items if you'd care to amplify on the ones that I've
touched on.
Hempel: ...covered quite a bit of it. I'll just add a little bit more on the water quality aspect
of it with these settlement ponds which are proposed. We're looking at altering now maybe
further as part of our surface water management plan ... designed for water quality around the
state. That we are nearing approval here in March...
Harberts: Didn't Chanhassen Dave, kind of were the role models or really led the cause with
regard to that what the State is looking at? Wasn't Paul?
Hempel: Yeah, the City of Eagan has now already entered into it but we're.
Harberts: But we were really out ahead of the curve on this one.
' Hempel: Right. That's correct.
Harberts: So we've talked about this a lot so and I know Paul was involved quite
extensively. But it certainly is an issue that we're all very sensitive to so you certainly raise a
good point.
75
J
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 1
Scott: Kate is there, I mean I don't have m code book in front of me but is there anything
Ything
on our books that has to do with having similar or equal setbacks of adjoining residential
properties? '
Aanenson: No, we don't. I
Donna Hoelke: Do you know if there's been any precedence set in Chanhassen? I know
there have been in surrounding communities. ,
Aanenson: No.
Mancino: So what are the setbacks that this development has to abide by?
Scott: Well there's 75 feet. I
Aanenson: What you have to realize, is what we were just talking about with some of these
lots along this southern side. They've got that steep slope and we're already trying to get
them up higher. Push them closer to the street so we have that positive grade to get them
into the storm sewer system. That's a tough lot as far as development in itself.
Donna Hoelke: To that extent I mean, these homes down here would have no impact. It
would not be obstructing our view. It's really Lot 8 and probably to a lesser extent Lot 7.
And should this really be two lots or should it be one lot. What can be done for placement I
of the home...
Scott: I guess for the benefit of the Planning Commissioners, could you kind of point to '
where your home is. It looks like that white spot on the right hand side is pretty much your
lot?
Donna Hoelke: Yeah. Well, I think Lot 8's about 200 feet deep and our property goes about '
450 feet deep. We're about halfway inbetween so probably just the beginning of Lot 9 there.
Mancino: But _ Y ou're way over on your western lot line. '
Donna Hoelke: Pardon me? '
Mancino: Your house is way over. '
Scott: How far over?
76
1
t
t
1
L
Ll
Ll
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Donna Hoelke: We had to obtain a variance to put the addition on the house.
Scott: Relative to that blank spot here, how far over is your home from?
Donna Hoelke: We're like 5 feet from the lot line.
Scott: Oh! 5 feet from this lot line or that lot line? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you.
Farmakes: To the south of your property, does it run to the lake?
Donna Hoelke: Yes. It will go from almost from the Outlot B all the way to the lake. It's
450 feet deep so.
Scott: So you're just right in the back yard.
Farmakes: Which way does your house face? Does it face east and west?
Donna Hoelke: It faces south.
Farmakes: Or it faces south. So you have a view of the lake.
Donna Hoelke: I have a panoramic view right now.
Farmakes: By panoramic do you mean 180 degrees?
Donna Hoelke: Right. I can't see any other homes from my house right now. And
depending upon, I understand in talking to Rick and Ken that these aren't necessarily what
the houses are going to look like. They're quite wooded and ... foster some discussion here on
whether or not the city should look at an ordinance.
Farmakes: There's a fair amount of trees between the Lot 8 and 9?
Donna Hoelke: It looks like that...
Farmakes: Is your home behind that grove of trees or in front of them?
Donna Hoelke: It's, the grove of trees is right here. It's probably about on the lot line.
We're right here.
Rick Sathre: There's a tree line along the common boundary too.
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 1
Farmakes: The trees but not the lot...
Donna Hoelke: They look like they're spruce but...
Scott: Any other questions or comments? Okay, do you have anything else that you'd like to ,
mention?
Donna Hoelke: Ali no. Just that that's a concern and as I said, there are other communities '
that ... or certain angles...
Scott: Okay, thank you very much for your comment. Yes ma'am. '
Ann Zweig: My name is Ann Zweig. My address is 3601 Ironwood Road and I'm the fourth ,
house in this neighborhood. As Donna pointed out, her house is here. There are four houses
that are all along and I want to echo what Donna said. We're all set back quite a distance.
She's 200, her house is 200 feet back from the lake and my house is about 300 feet back
from the lake so this house here changes the alignment dramatically from the pre - existing
homes in the area. It doesn't really affect my view but so you get an understanding that this
is a high ridge, this right here, that will be changed. It will be graded and I'm sure that
ridge...is probably going to change that grading. My main concern tonight is, I'd like some
clarification on what Outlot A will be, and I know that's not the discussion today but I want
to verify that that is just beachlot use and it's not overnight boat. t
Harberts: Oh she's been around.
Scott: I was going to say, since we've been stepping outside our boundaries left and right
this evening, Councilman Wing. '
Ann Zweig: I understand it's one dock with 3 boats on it.
Scott: Well you probably also know that there is a beachlot next to Outlot A and we're very
familiar with Schmid's Acres.. As a matter of fact, there's a resident here who represents that
organization. Okay, help me out Kate. You can't build a building on an outlot?
Aanenson: Well no. They can come in for a conditional use.
Scott: Okay, conditional use but.
Aanenson: It's a separate process. I
78 1
F
L
I�
i
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: But there's no guarantees.
Scott: No, there's no guarantee and a beachlot is a conditional use anyway. So, if you could
perhaps, what's the worst case scenario?
Aanenson: The maximum they could put on there, I mean if they want to put a gazebo, an
outhouse, they could do that under a conditional use. The maximum based on the square
footage would be one dock with moorings for 3 boats overnight. Swimming beach, picnic
tables.
Scott: Okay, which is as I recall, now on the Schmid's Acres.
Aanenson: A dock with no overnight mooring.
Scott: Okay and that's because it's 50 foot wide versus Outlot A is?
Aanenson: Well what it was was based on historical use.
Scott: Historical use? Okay.
Ann Zweig: Is overnight mooring for one night? Or who regulates that?
Conrad: It's forever.
Ann Zweig: Oh it's forever.
Aanenson: For the season.
Ann Zweig: Okay. My other question is ... information that I've gotten from your office said
that a DNR study be done on that shoreline. And I wonder how that could be done if the
shoreline has already been destroyed. I guess my question is, do you as City Council, that
there was some weeds, some cattails there that have been poisoned and I'd like to know what
the city policy is on that. If it's already been hit, or who authorized that pulling of those
weeds and what the repercussions could be if it wasn't authorized?
Aanenson: We were made aware of it. We called DNR. Below the ordinary high mark is
their jurisdiction. They went out. Yes it was. They couldn't validate who did it. It's up to
the DNR to prosecute. All we did was turn it over to the appropriate jurisdiction. It's our
understanding they need a permit to do that sort of thing but it's up to them to try to build a
case on that. We tried to find out what we could and we were unable to obtain information
79
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
on that.
Ann Zweig: And my other concern is, on the same line is, that there were some, when that
lot was cleared, I don't think any permission was gathered. We also called on that when we
came home one day and saw that the lot was already cleared. What are the city guidelines on
that?
Aanenson: We were also made aware of that ...2 years ago.
Ann Zweig: No, that was just this last fall.
Aanenson: Not this fall, the fall before.
Farmakes: Are you confusing it with the lot adjacent to it where they went ahead and they
plowed their own access?
Aanenson: No, that's Schmid's Acres.
Farmakes: That's what I'm saying.
Hempel: This lot here they cleared a lot of the underbrush.
Scott: Outlot A?
Hempel: No, all three of these parcels.
Ann Zweig: All three of the ... When we called the city there were guidelines given that there
were only supposed to be certain sized trees that are cut and bigger ones were cut.
Scott: Excuse me, I'm still unclear on which lots we're talking about here.
Ann Zweig: The whole lot.
Scott: The whole plat?
Ann Zweig: Yes.
Farmakes: So all the beachlot.
80
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Ann Zweig: No, the beachlot really hasn't been cleared.
Aanenson: We're talking about this whole plat. The three underlying parcels. The whole
plat.
Ann Zweig: What was primarily clear cut was all this in here. I'm sure some of it was cut
down here but they didn't take big trees down here. They took bigger trees up there.
Farmakes: Part of the Shoreline ordinance though, there's a setback line that shows that.
' Mancino: But that is a good question. I mean I've seen those trees. They're parallel to
Highway 7.
Ann Zweig: Yeah, they're all cut down and...
Mancino: It's like they're being ready to be burned or whatever or for somebody to pick up.
1 What do we have about clear cutting? We have an ordinance that says no clear cutting don't
we?
Ann Zweig: And it limits the size of the tree. And my question is, I mean it's too late for
this development because they've already gone ahead and done it but what's the city going to
do for other developments? To stop developers from coming in prior to proposing...
Farmakes: We can. As I understand it, it's an ordinance. If they did that, it's a violation of
that ordinance.
Ann Zweig: That's my question then.
1 Mancino: Can they get fined?
Farmakes: I'm not aware that anybody violated the ordinance.
Ann Zweig: City officials turned it in because when we called there the said that city
g tY Y
officials had gone by and stopped it. Put a stop work order on it.
' Harberts: That may be more of an administrative question that would have y q tobeansw r eed
between 8:00 and 5:00 in case it needs an interpretation from the Attorney or from the City
Manager. But as I understand, there is an ordinance. If it applies to this case, I don't know
if we're prepared to be able to respond to you but I think it's a question that perhaps staff
might be able to investigate and look to the administrative process. Or you might want to
81
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
talk to Todd Gerhardt, the Assistant City Manager. We can't answer that. It's a real good
question but I don't think any of us are prepared to respond.
Farmakes: There are ordinances regarding that.
Harberts: Interesting though, yeah.
Conrad: But that's when you turn it into a subdivision. If it is just one lot before, you can
take down, if you want to take your trees down on your lot Jeff, you can.
Ann Zweig: But if they're on the lake, you can't.
Conrad: Not that I know of
Farmakes: You can't within 75 feet of the shoreline you cannot, not without a permit from
DNR.
Conrad: Yeah but the clear cutting or the taking down was not there.
Farmakes: Are you talking about farther up on the hill?
Conrad: Yeah.
Mancino: But you can't clear cut?
Conrad: Sure you can.
Harberts: It's your own land.
Mancino: I don't think you can.
Farmakes: There's an ordinance in.
Ann Zweig: It's done on this one. I just want you to be aware of that.
Scott: I think we're getting a code book citation here.
Harberts: Is this appropriate right now?
Scott: If it's quick. If it's quick.
82
C
i
I�
J
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Ann Zweig: The other thing I want to add is that I am very happy to have access through
Outlot B to go this way. I think it's very dangerous for us to continue the Ironwood access
onto Highway 7. So that part of the development I like.
Scott: Good. Well thank you for your comments.
Mancino: And we'll follow up.
Scott: Okay. Does anybody else wish to.
Richard Wing: This is a late hour.
Scott: Can you identify yourself please?
Richard Wing: Richard Wing ... Minnewashta Heights. Can I make a totally irrelevant, non
rationale statement at this late hour?
Scott: Please do. I encourage that.
Richard Wing: This is really refreshing to be standing here with this development on my
west side compared to the development going in to the east side that we dealt with Monday
night. The neighbors and Spinnaker and trying to maximize it. This is the first time in my 4
years on the City Council that there isn't a single lot close to 15,000 square feet and it's
really a delight to see some land being left open and the quality of the development coming
in and space and density that we can live with. It's going to be developed and I think
that ... on everybody's behalf and putting a quality development in. They could have come in
with this 15,000 square foot and then we'd have to listen to staff and the PUD arguments you
know down to 11,000. They could have gotten 50 lots in there if they tried so this, I
think ... I'm real happy with that access for Ironwood. That's really I think a plus for our
future also. But welcome. I think also on the issue of trees, I just wanted to comment. It
was clear cut. I think it was maybe done illegally but I was really sensitive about that and
what I did notice was what went was mostly scrub and some of the bigger trees were real
scrubby. I've been over there stealing trees prior to you owning it when the other folks had it
and I couldn't find a tree to steal off of it anymore. ...the issue of trees on other properties, I
think when you talk about very worth while trees, I think we've had some stands of trees in
this city that were significant but on that property, in walking it yesterday, for myself
personally and I was a homeowner, I couldn't find a handful of trees that I would save and
you know how ... I am on trees. There's just a few pines and there's limited this and limited
that and a couple maples but for the most part, pretty limited wooded on that plan so it's not
an area that I would be desparate on. I'd like to see maybe him come in with some
83
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 1
I
landscaping and perhaps add a few trees of a good variety for those that he takes out
because ... but what we take out ... I'm concerned about is maybe we strong arm him a little bit
to get a few more of the other... Thank you.
Scott: Thank you sir. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing? I
Gary Carlson: Just quickly. Gary Carlson. I live at 3891 West 62nd and I use the access
that's on the south edge of Ken's property. And the way they've handled that pond down
there on Lot A is very good because that is the lowest lot on that whole piece of property and
the sewer drains to a big union on that property which proves it's the lowest lot on this whole
piece of property is Lot A. So ponding there is a good idea and it's very well laid out and I
hope to see it come to a rapid fruition. This whole development looks really good from our
point of view. Thank you.
Scott: Oka thank you sir. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission?
Y► Y Y Y g
Okay, could I have a motion to close the public hearing please?
Mancmo moved, Harberts seconded to close the public bearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Scott: What we'd like to do is continue the applicant's presentation. There you go Mr.
Sathre.
Rick Sathre: Thank you and thank you very much for pronouncing my name correctly.
Scott: Oh I wrote the phonetic spelling down on the plans so it has nothing to do with my
'
memory.
Rick Sathre: Well I appreciate it. I've heard it a lot of different ways and as most of you on
I,
the commission probably have been mispronounced. Well, I guess I've got a couple more
graphics to show you. One of them shows, I tried to very early represent Donna's house, and
I don't know if it's really right but it will give you a little idea of where the Hoelke's live.
This is a copy of an early sketch that we had done for the property and I guess the significant
things that are different about it that you'll notice is at this time when we did the sketch we
didn't have the outlot through so the Ironwood access hadn't switched yet. This is what we
met the neighbors with when we first started talking. At that time this was the layout so
what changed this then was they punched the outlot through here and we've reconfigured
some of the lot lines, including the one that would be between Lot 8 and 9. So anyway, this
is approximately where Hoelke's live. Their house is tight up against this west line. As we
were discussing earlier, there's a line of spruce trees that come east/west here and there's a
84 1
i
1
ri
�1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
pretty significant, a nice tree line between this property on Hoelke's that comes right down
this line. An old fence line or, it's a nice demarkation line between the two properties. And
I guess the issue is, the houses in this corner are going to impact some on the view. I guess
we can't do much about it unless we stayed way back from the lake. This is how we've
actually modified the plan. This lot line being more east and west and following a line of
spruce trees that's significant and we want to save. The placement of the home is just a
representation. We don't know if the house is going to sit there or farther north or farther
west or farther east but one thing we do know is we're not going to violate the setback to the
lakeshore. But somewhere in this nice buildable area we would propose to put a home. That
lot is so close to Hoelke's, it's 31,000 square feet I think. So it's, that by ordinance that lot
should be 20,000 square feet. We've oversized it by about 50%. Which still doesn't speak to
their issue, which is their view. The staff had raised the issued about the eastern cul -de -sac
and the access to the Ironwood neighbors let's call them. This driveway coming out and
whether this island should be there. We'd like to put the islands in the cul -de -sacs because
we want to plant. Ken's very serious about establishing a real upscale neighborhood. A
really nice neighborhood and we want to add as much greenery and plantings as is practical,
which means we'd be planting evergreens on the berm, bringing them in where they're
needed and in the middle of the cul -de -sacs there would be plantings placed. Trees placed in
those islands. So we're, Dave Hempel has an issue, a valid issue. When these people come
and go, the neighbors come and go through the driveway, are they going to go this way
around the island or are they going to cut across this way. I don't know but if the island
isn't there, they could chose the path of their choosing also. So whether we put the island
there or not, I guess they'll.
Harberts: Doesn't that argument also hold true though for someone that lives here. Are they
going to go out like this or are they going to go around?
Rick Sathre: Exactly. Whether the island's there or not, you know they're either going to go
the right way or they're going to cheat on it. But the thing that we do know about the island
is, when we plant a 6, 8, 10 foot high evergreen tree or a nice deciduous tree in that island,
it's going to start to break the view. When you drive in the street you don't see this whole
house in the background and the people, this homeowner doesn't see this house fully. That
island in the street breaks that view and it just softens the neighborhood. That's why we're
doing those things.
Harberts: Have you thought then as to talking with staff as to the salt resistent type trees that
really are limited to go in there? I mean you're talking a lot of salt potential.
Rick Sathre: We would tend to plant towards the middle of that The island would be 20
feet across, the way we've designed it. The trees that, they're planted towards the middle.
85
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
They're going to get some of that salt spray.
Harberts: Who'd take responsibility for pruning or if they die or something?
Rick Sathre: Well the homeowners association would own the beachlot and was responsible
for that maintenance plus the islands. And the entrance monumentation and all the little nice
features that will go into the project.
Scott: Mr. Sathre, just a question. What do those green cross hatches mean, if anything?
Rick Sathre: All I was trying to do is represent the greenery that would be yard. As opposed
to driveways that are coming out here, here, here and here and here. Kind of a poor attempt
at.
Richard Wing: ...I can't believe that even the standard Ford engines from the Fire
Department could make that curb cut and there's a couple houses back in there we'd clearly
like to have access to the aerial. And I'd like to protect the islands. My choice is to have
the islands but we've got to have a sizeable curb cut there to get those, any type of fire
equipment in there. I think that's got to be. ,
Rick Sathre: Raised.
Richard Wing: Yeah. I think that we want to access it with the aerial without a doubt and
the aerial would be real limiting. It would mandate the removal of the island or it's a real
sizeable curb cut.
Hempel: That's correct. That's one of the things that was pointed out. For emergency
vehicles is another reason. Another reason, I can't tell you the number of complaints we've
received this winter with a normal snowfall about cul-de -sac plowing. There's no place to
put it when you have all these driveways. With this situation here, Outlot B's going to have
a 20 foot wide driveway coming out and the remaining lots there are potentially all ... it really
limits the green space and snow storage and so forth in this cul-de -sac. The idea with the
island actually will reduce a little bit of the snow but on the other hand when you put a tree
in there and an evergreen's 20 foot across, in 20 years that evergreen will be 25 foot. It will j
actually be curb to curb. It will look beautiful but with all the salt and so forth... Another
issue I'd like to bring up about the islands is that it's, I think we should get some direction or
some, maybe some liability agreement that has to be waived on behalf of the homeowners
association as the islands will create additional liability for the city. If somebody gets hurt,
accidents and so forth. So they're really not for traffic safety purposes. They're purely for
aesthetics, landscaping, and so forth so it's something to think about.
86
I
I
1
F_
L
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Harberts: Well I thought the discussion we had, it was my understanding that center islands
would be allowed if it was saving significant trees or something so that's what I recall. I
thought that was in the same night we discussed 600 feet for the cul -de -sac. Lost that one.
Rick Sathre: I think you're absolutely right to try to ... significant trees and we're hoping to
create something...
Harberts: Well yeah, from a public safety perspective, I don't think the middle of the road is
the place to do it. So you know where I'm going on this one.
Rick Sathre: I do and I knew where Dave was going with it too and you know, the public
works guys want to do their job and get it done and I don't blame them a bit. What we're
trying to do is maybe at cross purposes with that. We're trying to create a better living
environment. Our goals are lofty but you know, maybe it's a pain in the butt. You know
you've been modifying the main street of town, from the way it originally got planted but the
idea of the median in town is nice too. It has to work with the traffic flow and it didn't work
so good initially but then you learn and you're doing it better and we want to find that right
level of what makes sense too. But this neighborhood will have relatively little traffic
compared to say the downtown median. We want it viewed by the neighborhood as much as
we can.
Scott: Okay. Any questions, additional questions or comments for the applicant?
Farmakes: I have a quick question. Nothing to do with the road on this issue, I'm just
curious. What is the price range of these houses? What you're looking at for the marketing.
Rick Sathre: It's nothing we can tell you with certainty. Expensive.
Scott: He said $80,000.00 to $100,000.00 a lot.
Ken Durr: I missed the question, I'm sorry.
Rick Sathre: How much would the range of the home prices? What do you think the least
expensive home could be?
Ken Durr: Oh my, I don't know the least expensive. I know the Street of Dreams people
want to do the event there in the summer, or early summer of '95. If that occurs, those
homes would be at least $700,000.00.
Scott: Good, any other? Any other questions or comments of the applicant?
87
F1
f
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Rick Sathre: I guess Mr. Chairman and members of the commission. As I read through the
recommendations I had a few comments and I hoped that you modify, Kate suggested a
couple modifications and I would hope that you would allow us in number 17 to retain our
median at that intersection even though we recognize the need to redesign it. And Dave is
very opposed to it and so I guess we're in cross purposes with it. We'd like to leave the
median at the intersection of Landings Court and Landings Drive. We won't argue this with
you but we have a problem with, or question I guess for the City Council on number 20
about whether or not there should be, the subdivision should pay the additional assessments
for Minnewashta Parkway. In number 21 of the recommendations, staff has asked for
additional right -of -way for Minnewashta Parkway and I feel I must show you that issue.
We'll take it up with the Council as well that we, the preliminary plat shows a small
additional right -of -way dedication for Minnewashta Parkway. When the road was relocated
and widened, the plans, the construction plans showed this. I don't know how to orient this
for you exactly but maybe like that. This is Highway 7. This is Church Road across the
highway. This is new Minnewashta Parkway. The yellow and the red lines are the existing
right -of -way. This is Ken Durr's property here. Okay, in order to get the intersection to be
across from each other, instead of the way it used to be, and make it a little safer, the city
approached Ken and said, we want to run the road right up tight against this property line so
that we can come in at right angles better. And he said okay, fine. The intent was to have
the curb right up against the property line. Well, mistakes happen. On the ground, actually
what happened was the road ended up on his property a little bit and so our preliminary plat
shows the dedication of a triangle of land that would get the road back into the right -of -way,
or back on the city's property. And Ken's happy to do that but the staff has asked for an
additional piece of land, the strip of land so that the city would own 33 feet from the center
of the road. Clearly not the intent when the road was built or upgraded and we would like
the commission to recommend approval of the plat as we have drafted it which would give
you enough land to get the road back in the right -of -way but not give you the extra land.
Ledvina: What was the error in the construction? How many feet?
Rick Sathre: Oh I'd say the curb probably ended up about 5 or 6 feet from where it was
meant to be. Not the end of the world but ...So we would like you to strike number 21 or
substitute that staff, that the Planning Commission recommends the plat be approved as is for
Minnewashta Parkway. I guess a point of clarification on 23 Kate mentions a cross easement
agreement should be done between the Ironwood neighbors and Ken. What he actually
intends is to exchange the track D from, that they own now. The Ironwood access to TH 7
would be deeded to him and he would deed that Outlot B. So they would, either Wright's or
the neighbors as a whole would actually own Outlot B rather than just an easement over it.
They would have fee title to it. I guess the last thing I'd say and I'm sorry I've been so
wordy but in the park and trail fees. We would request that the city only charge us for the
88 1
I
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
24 additional building sites that are being created. And there were 3 homes there to begin
with. There's some question over whether we would end up having to pay park and trail fees
for all 27 lots or whether it should only be the 24 additional lots that are being created that
we're asking for.
Scott: Were, I guess were those, do you know if those homes are, are those the homes that
are not there anymore?
Rick Sathre: Two are down and one is...
Scott: Were we collecting park and rec fees when those homes were built?
Aanenson: No we're not. The replat, that's something that they understand they need to
argue with the Council...
Rick Sathre: It's not an issue for you really.
Scott: Okay. I read the staff report and I thought hey, okay. Good.
Rick Sathre: But I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Scott: Anything else? Good. Would anybody else like to speak as part of the public hearing
on this issue? Mr. Durr? Actually this is the applicant's.
Ken Dun: I'm Ken Durr. I'd just like to, on the median and the cul -de -sacs. I feel for the
type of neighborhood that we wish to develop that they add really greatly to the effect of
being able to get additional green, additional plantings. We plan on doing a lot of plantings.
Bringing in a lot of evergreens and other good trees in. Neighborhoods that we have worked
in, in Edina we have developed that. I know the city there at first was not too keen on the
islands in the cul -de -sacs but we have the homeowners association take responsibility of the
care of those and has been absolutely no problem at all. They're maintained beautifully by
the residents, the homeowners association. I would expect that would be the case here. But
they do add a great deal of aesthetic appeal and I feel value to the property. Instead of
looking out on a big mass of 80 feet of blacktop, having it broken with some green in the
middle is entirely a different effect from all of those homes on the cul -de -sac. And
particularly the cul -de -sac where the Ironwood residents will be entering. We're now going
to have an additional roadway coming into that and it will help to break up that. We want to
accommodate them but on the other hand, if we don't have some plantings in there to break
that island up, break up the site of all these driveways, is going to further devalue the
properties around that cul -de -sac. So I would strongly urge you to consider the aesthetics of
89
F1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 1
the area. Thanks.
Scott: Good. Would anybody else like to speak at the public hearing?
Resident: I just have a question. How big are those medians? '
Ken Duff: 20 feet.
Scott: Okay. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Hempel: Did you want any response back to.
Mancino: Like recommendation number 17.
Scott: How about as part of our comments you can ask him if he has any.
Mancino: Dave, do you have any comments on the medians and you know, I'm very much
in favor of them. I see them in Edina. I have acquaintances that live there and they're
wonderful in the cul -de -sacs and work well. So I'm a big believer in them and they do kind
of cut up the asphalt. The whole asphalt of the cul -de -sac. 1.
Hempel: I will agree with you there. They do look nice. We've seen more and more...but
we're adapting to them. But they're not right in every situation. This one, the very easterly
one with emergency vehicles getting into the private driveway. If we can facilitate them with
the turning radius, it probably will work then. The median on Landings Court, here is
actually Landings Drive. That, the way it's shown on the construction plans or the plat, it's ,
really conducive to a free right turn. No stop, no yield or anything. It's just, you're out
there. We would like to have a little more sense of order, even though it is a very low
volume street. We understand that but it's really, the way it's laid out you're going to
promote additional...
Mancino: And can you work with the applicant to change that?
Hempel: I believe we could but I've earlier stressed to the applicant that I didn't feel it was '
appropriate for this type of intersection to have a median. It is appropriate off of major
collector type streets. We have them off of Kerber. We have them off Powers. Coming onto
proposed TH 41, Lundgren's will have them proposed. Those situations are appropriate to
1
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
have entrance monumentation sin for it but not at eve intersection. It's over doing it
tYPe g every g
a bit and from a liability standpoint and traffic standpoint, I think we don't need it. As far as
the Minnewashta Parkway assessments. That methodology for those assessments was refined
for the area. Each parcel then took access off of Minnewashta Parkway because that's
' essentially the only north/south street in the area for the adjacent property to utilize and they
all benefit from them. This parcel does too benefit from the upgrading of Minnewashta
Parkway. That's how we're assessing our condition here that they should be assessed their
' fair share as well.
Scott: Excuse me Dave, the people who are on Ironwood now, are they going to get assessed
' for Minnewashta Parkway upgrade since they're...
Hempel: That's a good question. Being that they had previous access out to Highway 7 and
' as a result of this development they're altering their access, I guess I ... recommend that they
be assessed for it.
Scott: I'm sorry.
Hempel: I did not recommend it.
' Scott: Did not recommend it, okay. I suppose that's an issue that I'm sure the residents
would appreciate an answer on. I'm sorry, go ahead.
Hempel: As far as condition number 21 with regards to the right -of -way. Whenever a
subdivision comes in, the city typically has an opportunity to obtain the necessary right -of-
' way for the subdivision that we feel is necessary for the development. It is unfortunate
apparently Minnewashta Parkway was graded and the appropriate easements weren't pursued
at that time to acquire it. One thought maybe was the land, that they did just enough
' construction, a temporary easement. Build the roadway knowing well that the plat would be
coming forth at some day and they could dedicate right -of -way at that time. Other
subdivisions up and down Minnewashta Parkway all have dedicated their fair share of 33 foot
' right -of -way so this would not be an uncommon or an undue burden I guess asking this
additional dedication. With regards to item, condition 23. I think it's staff intent to ... ingress
and egress rights for those private property owners along Ironwood. So if there's a different
' way that Mr. Durr will be trading outlots with the residents ... fulfills our needs to get the
access for the residents.
Scott: Let me ask you a question then. If Outlot B is going to be deeded to the residents,
the Ironwood residents, are they going to be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of
that street?
91
1
f
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 1
Hempel: That's true. That's correct. It will be a private street and have to be maintained,
similiar to what Ironwood is now.
Scott: Oh okay. So it'd be a similar situation. Okay.
Aanenson: Actually Dick Wing asked that question before he left. If we were to improve '
that road and made it a public project, then they'd be assessed. So what we're doing just
leaving it the way they are but what we're trying to do is provide a safer access. '
Scott: So financially it's a zero sum game?
Aanenson: Yes. '
Scott: Okay. '
Hempel: There is one valid point though. One of the neighbors mentioned about future
subdividing. A private drive ordinance only allows 4 homes on a private driveway. So
unless there's another private driveway out to the east, or no parcels subdivide, they're
essentially, they can't do anything further without a public street and the outlot that they're
dedicating here is not wide enough to extend the public street on. A public street right -of-
way is 60 feet wide.
Scott: And based upon the comments I think we're hearing from those residents, they would '
prefer not to have that subdivided anyway so perhaps that's good.
Mancino: Kate, what about a trail system? Do we have a trail system up Minnewashta on '
that east side?
Aanenson: The only trail system that Todd had mentioned was the possibility along Highway ,
7. I believe on the Parkway, I guess that's on the fire station side. On the other side of
Minnewashta Parkway.
Mancino: I think I said this earlier that I felt that the landscaping was rather incomplete what
we have in front of us. Meaning that a survey has been done. I differ a little bit from Dick
in that there are a lot of spruces on the property when I walked it that are dead and that ,
won't be around for much longer. But on the south side of the property, which faces the,
which abuts the lake and which is down on the same level as the lake, there are some
wonderful, significant trees down there and I would like to see some sort of a conservation
easement Kate for that area so that those trees are kept. They will help erosion. They'll help
you know so sedimentation won't move down into the lake, etc, etc. So I'd like to see some
92
L
t
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
specifics on what trees will be remaining and if we can do a conservation easement so they
can't be taken down.
Aanenson: They do have a plan. What we didn't do is articulate that. I think you're right,
we missed that on the condition but the lots that probably have the most significant, as we
mentioned, are up on this ridge line up in here which covers Lots 5 and 6. If you turn that
sheet of your plan, it shows... Otherwise I think there's... significant trees. But their largest
trees, as I pointed out in the report, there's some very large cottonwoods down here and you
have some maples up in here.
Mancino: Some big oaks.
Aanenson: Yeah, right. Significant. But basically, all these down here along the lakeshore
are being left. Again, there's some cedars that are being, some of these may be ... but I think
we could put something in there about the conservation easement.
Mancino: And any sort of custom grading that would need to happen to keep those trees or
retaining walls or whatever it takes.
Aanenson: We do know some areas that possibly, as noted in the staff report, that possibly
some tree wells along in this area where those maples are adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway.
That's something that Dave and I had talked to Rick about and some of the other areas where
adjacent to the lake there may be some additional tree wells that need to be placed to save
some trees. But we're not sure how this is going to be graded. I'm still trying to resolve that
issue. Whether it be graded all at once or ... individual parcels.
Hempel: Condition number 2 kind of covers that. We'll work with Mr. Sathre on that.
Which lots will actually be custom graded because there are some trees that the applicant
wishes to save. There's some large walnut trees out there and a couple lots will be custom
graded but most of the lots more than likely will be mass graded. Probably overall
subdivision grading.
Aanenson: So I think what we need to do if that's a big concern, is to say we need ... snow
fence be placed...
Mancino: And be very specific on where the conservation easement is.
Aanenson: Then the other thing that he did identify in the staff report is that we do need
specifics about what this landscaping's going to be and our ordinance does require
landscaping. There is some trees that will be saved but we do require streetscape along
93
1
11
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
collector streets so that hasn't been.
Mancino: Well and on collectors, not only is it streetscaping but it's berming also that needs
to be done and I would like to see some sort of boulevard plantings on these inside. Instead
of doing you know, I think that these are going to be substantial quality houses. They're
going to have their own good landscaping plans but I think that we could use some of the
you know the 1 tree, 2 trees per lot and use some of those as boulevard plantings in this
particular subdivision that I think will help. But it will probably have extensive landscaping.
I just can't tell that yet.
Aanenson: Condition 26 is the one that adds the landscaping plans. You could say as well
as a streetscape you want to see berming along that.
Scott: Any other comments from the commissioners?
Harberts: Also, I'm going to support staff's recommendations with regard to the medians. I
think from a public safety perspective that's got to be one of your priorities. I've seen them.
I think the medians look nice. They probably will add to value but I think there has to be a
stronger value given to public safety as priority.
Scott: Okay. Any other comments?
Conrad: Ah yes. Dave, in terms of a second access. You feel we don't need to keep a
second access on a 1,700 foot cul-de -sac?
Hempel: It goes against what I usually put into these subdivision reviews but this really is a
boxed in subdivision from Highway 7 to the north, the lake to the south and existing residents
to the east. We have similar streets to the north in Gary Carlson's Minnewashta Highlands.
And then the other streets on the west side. Linden Circle, which is probably the same length
and those are the same scenario where they're boxed in by Highway 7 on one side and
similar constraints on the other and ... viable secondary access.
Conrad: So we are vacating. I'm not necessarily for the secondary access but there is a
vacated street. Aren't we vacating the street?
Hempel: No we're not.
Conrad: What are we doing?
94
I]
J
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Hempel: It's a private driveway access for the residents of Ironwood and MnDot has also
expressed some concerns of removing that along Highway 7.
Conrad: For emergency vehicles you wouldn't want that as an access? That's really my
main point. For emergency vehicles with break away, whatever, you don't want that to be
available?
Scott: Say again.
Conrad: We have a private drive.
I Scott: Yes.
i
1
1
Conrad: And it is available for emergency vehicles. This is a 1,700 foot cul -de -sac. I'm
playing on a side of this thing that I normally don't play because I like long cul -de -sacs. But
I get real confused by whether we're concerned with emergency, second emergency access to
a site. We have one here. We could get an emergency vehicle through the private drive if
we keep it, if we some easements through there. With a break away or whatever. Now
again, I am not an expert. I just challenge staff on this stuff and if they way we don't need
it, that's fine with me. But it is there right now.
Scott: I always think of the wintertime when it's not going to be plowed.
Conrad: Maybe you've got it for 7 months.
Scott: Okay, which is fair enough. Fair enough.
Conrad: But again, I raise that point Dave. I don't care. You folks are the experts and I'm
not.
Hempel: I think I'd like to defer that one to public safety maybe for review and see what
their reply would be for that.
Conrad: We get real confused.
Scott: Any other comments?
Conrad: Yeah. Lot 8.
Rick Sathre: Do you want me to add to that?
95
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Conrad: No. It's late. I've got to get out of here. Lot 8. I keep looking at that from the
standpoint of the neighbors. I don't know how to solve that problem. I think there should be
a lot there. I think there should be a house there. I think it's a fair development. I think the
lot sizes are big. I don't know that we can really solve vistas by moving it back 10 feet, 20
feet. It is, based on the situation and how close the neighbor is to the lot line, I don't really
see a solution other than vegetation or whatever. So the only solution I can come up with
there is, the vistas aren't going to be there. They flat aren't going to be there. I don't see
any way that, I know we've never changed anything. We don't have an ordinance to protect
the neighbors. The neighbors went there for the vista but unfortunately this is what happens.
What we can do however is make sure there is some screening to help a little bit but I really
don't see any stipulations on the developer that this can help anybody. Really. If a vista it
goes by one, I just don't think we can make any impact here so that was my comment on that
particular one. My comment on the center islands. You know I love center islands as long
as I know somebody's going to maintain them and if that's worked into the agreement for the
association, that's fine. But I really question the one on the, for the folks going on that cul-
de -sac going towards Ironwood. I just don't know how that's going to work for emergency
vehicles going through there. It doesn't look like it works. It sure works in the other cul -de-
sac. I sure would support the center island there. The median at least in the first, is that a
median going up to the first cul -de -sac? Boy, I sure don't want one there. And then out onto
Minnewashta, although somebody could persuade me on there.
Aanenson: That one does save a tree.
Scott: There'll get an entrance monument.
Conrad: You know if it's, I could be moved one way or another on that one. I think Dave's
got a good point. They're valid issues that he raises. They really are. However, it's part of
this, if the community's taking care of it, I guess we still have a safety problem. I don't
know. That's it.
Scott: Good. Yes sir.
Ledvina: One of the conditions of this development relates to the variances from the flag lot
setbacks and I see essentially just a couple of lines on that in terms of the staff report. I
guess as I read that, as it relates to the trees, tree preservation, various setback from the storm
water ponds, and take a look at the lots that are involved and also the features that we're
talking about and I guess I'm not convinced that those represent valid reasons for granting
that setback. Bob had a good format when we reviewed the variance for the sign ordinance.
He went through the 6 requirements that a variance must meet and I think we should do that
on all variances that we see so I would like to see a little more rigorous analysis of a variance
V .
h�
7
J
L
1�
�1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
as it relates to the criteria and the specific site conditions.
' Scott: Are you in support of the staff's recommendation?
Ledvina: Overall. Yeah overall. It's going to be a very nice development. I guess just
' echoing a little bit the concern for long cul -de -sacs. We had a lot of discussion on that and I
thought we passed an ordinance on this but maybe not, still the concerns still are there as it
' relates to safety. And I think you raise a good point with that. That other private drive.
Scott: Okay, good. Ron. You're on the spot.
' Nutting: I'm still new at this. I don't have a lot of comments.
' Scott: That could be a good answer.
Nutting: I guess on the one point that I'm hearing them say is in regards to the median and
' specifically the one at Outlot B. And I'm hearing the comments and I agree with the
comments so it really just gets down to the question the question of, can there be a median
and can it also meet the safety or emergency vehicle requirements for that. And if it can,
then I see no reason to disallow it entirely. Maybe it needs to be modified. Maybe the size a
little different, you know whatever. So that's my only substantive comment.
l
Scott: Good. Anybody else?
Farmakes: I have no further comments.
Scott: Okay. Nancy, you're okay? The only concern that I have, I guess there's two things
I'd like to see is, would be to have some, as I already mentioned, having some additional
vegetation added along the lot line. The back side of 9 and 10. Possibly 8. For the benefit
of the neighbor next door. And one of the things I had difficulty understanding and this is
some specific direction for staff is that I would believe that the other commissioners would
like to see this any time we have a preliminary plat, we absolutely have to have the building
pad and streetscape and utilities overlaid with the significant vegetation. And also, I think it
would be very helpful to see the existing canopy. I mean we have docks. We have one of
these things.
Aanenson: ...and that's the problem we had with Lake Susan. I think the canopy...
Scott: Well in an aerial. An aerial takes care of that.
97
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Mancino: Which our new tree preservation ordinance will address.
Aanenson: Because what we found is, people are putting the foundation right next to a 40
inch or 26 or whatever caliper and it's basically you're underneath the canopy and you can't
save it so it's misrepresenting that.
Scott: Well see, that's the, I mean generally I'm in favor of this. I'm not going to go over
some of the public safety issues but personally I can't pass this on to the next level unless I
can see that overlay and see what the actual impact is. And I think for the record, I think our
first test case for that was Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and we took that very seriously.
We got the right tools and I think we made some good recommendations that were followed
up on. So personally before I can get serious about passing this on, I need to see what's
really going to happen here.
Aanenson: Okay. That's what this sheet represents.
Scott: Which sheet is that? Is that in the packet?
Aanenson: Yeah ... it's got all the utilities plus, what we did was provide...
Mancino: Yeah, we can't tell which ones will be removed. Which ones were staying.
Which ones would be removed and we didn't get to see the landscape berming.
Aanenson: I agree, yeah.
Scott: I don't know how that impacts. This doesn't mean anything to me because I don't
know how that impacts. But anyway, that's my comments. Can we have a motion?
Mancino: So would you like to see it come back with those things?
Scott: I would but I'd like to entertain a motion. I'd like to have someone make a motion.
Conrad: I'll try. It's probably going to take some friendly amendments on this because I
haven't written down what everybody had said. I'm making a recommendation that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat Subdivision #94-1,
Minnewashta Landings for 27 single family lots as shown on the plans dated February 9,
1994 subject to the conditions in the staff report with the following changes. Item number
17, item 17 stands. Item 21 stands. Kate, you made some changes.
Aanenson: Yeah, on number 13. On 13 it would be the house pads on Lot 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6
98
t
II
C
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
I of Block 2.
L
Conrad: Okay, I accept the staff recommendation. You added.
Aanenson: Number 27.
Conrad: 27 for park and rec assessment. We will take your recommendation for that at this
time. Item number 28. Where vegetation would be placed on the back of Lots 8 and 9 to
screen to the best extent possible the neighbors to the east. That City staff review emergency
access practicality using the vacated driveway to Highway 7.
Mancino: Friendly amendment here. Cul -de -sac center island liability that Dave brought up.
Conrad: Yeah, I don't know. How do we want to say that Dave?
Harberts: Eliminate them and then we're okay.
Scott: The homeowners association will be the sole reliable entity for.
Harberts: I think that needs to be subject to review by the attorney before you make a
statement like that.
Scott: No, we're making recommendations. We don't make decisions.
Hempel: Maybe I can just throw my two cents in there. Maybe how the condition should
' read is like the City Attorney's office address the liability issue with regards to cul -de- sac...
maybe prepare at least a liability agreement or something to that effect.
n
Harberts: And also I think that statement should also include the review and comment by
public safety with regard to the medians, all medians being proposed.
Scott: Friendly?
Conrad: That's okay if you understand it.
Harberts: I want public safety to go in there and say that this is okay for us. This is okay
for us or this isn't.
Scott: Are you talking about the medians?
Vz
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Conrad: I'm going to add a new.
Harberts: Twist? '
Conrad: Yeah. '
Harberts: I want public safety to support.
Conrad: Oka I'll take care of that. Kate the number 30 will, if we can have the liability '
y,
issue explored. Number 31 is to maintain the islands unless public safety can demonstrate
that the island on Landings Drive prohibits safe access for emergency vehicles and private ,
vehicles. Anything else?
Nutting: Does that mean if this prohibits access, that it's eliminated or that it can be '
modified?
Harberts: Let public safety decide that. ,
Conrad: Yeah, I don't know. I don't care at this time. '
Scott: Should be utilized where necessary to preserve significant.
Conrad: Yeah, absolutely. Conservation easements should be utilized where necessary to
preserve significant vegetation.
Scott: Okay Kate, can I ask you a question. Do you need to add a condition that Outlot B '
will be conveyed to the residents?
Aanenson: What I was going to do ... Rick had stated, we'll just change that condition to say
that it was.
Rick Sathre: Outlot B will be deeded to the owners of Tract D in exchange for deed to the
development for Tract D.
Aanenson: Yeah, that would modify number 23. Instead of cross access easement I'll just ,
say, exchange for Tract D for Outlot B.
Scott: Oka an other friendly '
S Y• Y Y amendments?
Harberts: I'll second it.
100 1
r
t
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: All those in favor say.
Mancino: Discussion?
Scott: Discussion, excuse me.
Mancino: Question for you Kate. I agree with everything that's been said but I would like to
see it back again just to see the landscaping part of it and the conservation easement. So can
we put that into the amendment or into the recommendation or do we have to get the whole
thing back again?
Conrad: Well we really would have to table it.
Harberts: Well, the motion's on the table.
Conrad: Well no, my motion is to pass it. Not to see it again.
Mancino: Then I have to say no. If I want to see it back again.
Scott: And we'll just vote on it and see what happens. Any other discussion?
Conrad: Because you want to see it.
Scott: Specifically the.
' Aanenson: The landscaping.
Mancino: And because every site plan that comes in, I want that to be part of our process.
' Because I want to establish some structure about what we want to see and,I mean this would
be the first one that we haven't.
PJ
Scott: Yeah. That was my concern as well.
Mancino: I mean we have set a precedent of making sure and even you've asked for it.
Which trees are going to be removed. Which ones are going to be saved.
Scott: Inventories.
Mancino: It's a key value to our community right now and just to let it go without even
looking at anything, I know the night is late but.
101
f
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994 1
Harberts: A conservation easement won't do that?
Scott: No. Because we don't know what's coming. A conservation easement does not do
anything for trees that are going to be removed because of streets, utilities, and potential
building pads so. I've got the same hang up. ,
Mancino: And we didn't get to have any remarks on the berming and the, because Highway
7 is a busy highway and the collector. 1
Conrad: So you feel that you want to see, they have to do it. I totally agree with what
you're saying, although I made a motion, but. If you just want to see what staff is doing or ,
what.
Mancino: Sure, so we can give. '
Conrad: Because there aren't specific, good enough guidelines?
Mancino: Yeah, I mean conservation easement's a little broad.
Scott: That's not proactive. Conservation easement. That's what's left. That's how you '
save what's left over after the streets and so forth have been in.
Mancino: And I think it's a significant area where, because it abuts a lake.
Scott: Kate? I
Aanenson: I just asked the applicant ... not go to Council until the landscaping plan goes with
it ?...We won't forward it onto the Council until the landscaping is complete and that keeps I
them on track for the 28th.
Scott: Yeah. I don't think we have any, I haven't heard any issues, substantial issues with I
the development per se and my thought is.
Aanenson: ...have their landscaping plan at the next meeting. Just look at that instead of ,
opening up...
Harberts: So it can still go forward if the thing would pass because we would have the '
opportunity to go back to the landscaping?
Aanenson: Well what you're going to say is that your recommendation, if you want to make
102 1
P
r
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
that number 33. That that not go to Council until the landscaping plan and the tree survey is
completed. And if they come in and we get that in here on the 14th, then that will keep them
on track for the 28th.
Scott: So we add that condition. We have a motion on the floor.
Harberts: Well that's a friendly amendment isn't it?
Scott: It's a friendly amendment but if we recommend approval, then that baby goes to the
City Council.
' Harberts: But if 33 is a friendly amendment, then that slows it down.
Ledvina: Yeah but we don't see the subdivision back again.
Aanenson: Right. You just look at the landscape plan. But what you're saying is that the
' plat can't go forward to the City Council until the landscaping comes to you.
Conrad: Which is okay.
Scott: Okay, so let's, do we have any other discussion by the way?
Conrad moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval
of preliminary plat for Subdivision #94 -1, Minnewashta Landings, for 27 single family
lots as shown on the plans dated February 9, 1994, and subject to the following
' conditions:
1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utility and street
improvements within the public right -of -way and drainage and utility easements for
permanent ownership.
2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc -
mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of site grading
unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise.
All disturbed areas with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and
wood -fiber blanket.
' 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest
edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility
' plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval.
103
r
Planning ommission Meeting - March 2, 1994
g g
4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies,
i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of '
Engineers and MnDOT and comply with their conditions of approval.
5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the
necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development
contract.
6. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10 -year storm event
and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's ,
Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve.
7. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Fire
hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart.
8. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile I
system in accordance with the construction plans.
9. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all '
utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a
minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration should also be given for access for maintenance
of the ponding areas.
10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The plan shall be '
submitted to the City for review and formal approval
11. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right -of -way. ,
12. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of the rambler house located on Lot 12,
Block 1 should be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. This
may raise the house elevation to 971 or greater requiring a very steep driveway. Staff
recommends the applicant re- evaluate this and include exterior draintile around the
house foundation. The draintile shall be connected to the proposed storm sewer along
the property line.
13. The house pads on Lots 1, 3 9 4, 5 and 6, Block 2 south of Landings Dr., along the ,
lake, should be a minimum of one foot above the road elevation. All low points
should be located between lots to route overlandflow around the houses. Also, catch
basins should be located at the low point between homes to help route surface flow
104 1
LI
1
f
Planning Commission Meeting - Mach 2, 1994
away from lots.
14. The proposed stormwater ponds must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet and
no more than 3:1 thereafter for safety and water quality purposes.
1
15. The driveway entrance for Ironwood needs to be removed from the Highway 7 right -
of-way. In addition, a drainage culvert will be necessary to maintain the neighborhood
drainage from the east of this development into the easterly proposed pond.
16. Existing wells and/or septic systems will have to be properly abandoned.
17. Landings Court intersection should be redesigned to be perpendicular with Landings
Drive and the median deleted.
18. The alignment of Landings Drive and Minnewashta Parkway should be refined to
provide more of a perpendicular intersection in accordance with the City's ordinance.
19. All lots shall take direct access from the interior streets and not Minnewashta Parkway
or Highway 7.
20. The applicant shall be responsible for 20 additional Minnewashta Parkway assessments
units. The rate per unit is $760.00.
21. Staff recommends that the final plat be adjusted to dedicate a total width of 33 feet of
right -of -way from the center of existing Minnewashta Parkway along Lots 4, 5 and 6,
Block 1.
22. The final grading plan shall be revised to reflect proposed grading on Lots 1 through
8, Block 2.
23. An exchange between Tract D for Outlot B will be established for the use of Outlot
B by the residents of Ironwood.
24. Lot 7, Block 2 needs to have a 90 foot lot width.
25. Variance from the side yard setback to 10 feet on flag lots located on Lots 11 and 16,
Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2.
26. Landscaping plans for the larger berm along Hwy. 7, as well as streetscape along
Minnewashta Parkway needs to be provided."
105
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
32. Conservation easements should be utilized where necessary to preserve significant
vegetation.
33. This item will not go onto the City Council until a landscaping plan and tree
survey has been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
All voted in favor, except Matt Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 6 to 1.
Scott: And your reasoning sir? '
Ledvina: Well I guess, I think we're treating the variances pretty lightly here. I think it's a
real substantial thing. I don't know, we talk about precedence so many times in terms of
these things and variances aren't things you give out.
Aanenson: ...a code amendment to the flag lot variances because for some reason it's 20 feet
and we've never understood why. That's one Paul brought in from Minnetonka... But you're
right, until it's changed it's a variance. '
Ledvina: And the other thing that I thought we'd have more discussion on relates to the
length of the cul -de -sac.
106 1
27.
Park and trail fees in lieu of parkland dedication and trail construction at the
rate in force at the time of building permit application with one -third of the park
and trail fees paid at the time of final plat.
,
28.
Where vegetation would be placed on the back of Lots 8 and 9 to screen to the
best extent possible the neighbors to the east.
29.
That City staff review emergency access practicality using the vacated driveway
to Highway 7.
1
30.
The City Attorney will investigate the issue of liability on the medians and islands
in cul -de -sacs.
'
31.
Maintain the islands unless public safety can demonstrate that the island on
Landings Drive prohibits safe access for emergency vehicles and private vehicles.
,
32. Conservation easements should be utilized where necessary to preserve significant
vegetation.
33. This item will not go onto the City Council until a landscaping plan and tree
survey has been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
All voted in favor, except Matt Ledvina who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 6 to 1.
Scott: And your reasoning sir? '
Ledvina: Well I guess, I think we're treating the variances pretty lightly here. I think it's a
real substantial thing. I don't know, we talk about precedence so many times in terms of
these things and variances aren't things you give out.
Aanenson: ...a code amendment to the flag lot variances because for some reason it's 20 feet
and we've never understood why. That's one Paul brought in from Minnetonka... But you're
right, until it's changed it's a variance. '
Ledvina: And the other thing that I thought we'd have more discussion on relates to the
length of the cul -de -sac.
106 1
1
1
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting - March 2, 1994
Scott: Which Ladd touched on for public safety purposes.
Ledvina; I understand.
Scott: Perhaps then as a comment, since we've voted on this. It would be optional for the
applicant, or be optional, what we'd like to have is have city staff prepare that kind of
variance analysis so at least, I mean we've already voted on it but at least we'd like to take a
look at it. Okay.
Mancino: Yeah, and I didn't understand under those two, the Lot 8, Block 2. I mean it
didn't make sense.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER MODIFICATION NO. 13 TO REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS FOR DOWNTOWN CHANHASSEN.
Todd Gerhardt presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: I've got a question on the construction of I guess for public improvements we've got
$450,000.00 of TIF money. For the construction of the pedestrian bridge and did we not get
a, I mean that looks like the total cost of that bridge.
Gerhardt: The bridge is approximately $700,000.00.
Scott: $700,000.00 and that includes land acquisition?
Gerhardt: Yes. Land acquisition is going to be roughly about $35,000.00.
Scott: Okay. And how much money did we get from, for ISTEA? $375? $350?
Gerhardt: $280.
Scott: Okay. And then administration for $750,000.00. What's that?
Gerhardt: 6% of all the public improvements. Costs up and above. It's just an estimate for
consultants, staff time and that. It's typically around 6%.
Scott: Okay so for staff time, isn't staff time paid out of salaries?
107
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
1
LANDSCAPING APPROVAL FOR MINNEWASHTA LANDINGS AND LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HIGHWAY 7 AND I
MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. I
Scott: Any questions for staff or comments?
Mancino: A couple questions. Kate, where are you, and I'm sorry if I missed it when you '
gave the report and you talked about the conservation easement. You're going to take that
directly to the City Council?
Aanenson: That would be part of the conditions. You had asked that's one of the things we
did—it's not in here but you had asked that that condition be added as one of the conditions
of the plat...I didn't list it as a condition but it will be a condition of their plat.
Mancino: And have you talked with the applicant about where that conservation easement '
would be? I mean what area takes in the conservation easement? Because I am very
concerned about the shoreline of significant trees on the south side that are on the south of
Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 on Minnewashta and those are the ones that, and there may be
other areas too.
Aanenson: The conservation easement should run along the backs of all these plus these are '
the other significant trees in this area right through here on the backs of these lots.
Mancino: Can you also tell me why we have a variance for Lot 8, and it was because of tree ,
preservation? And why is that?
Aanenson: Well, as you recall. They moved this lot line here. There's some significant '
trees up in this area here if you overlay the two.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: Flat lot, this goes back to the flat lot issue. Flag lots for some reason has 20 yard
side yard setback from the 30 foot setback once you get inside that. You're supposed to take
the setback line from here. So that would push the house even further down.
Mancino: Oh okay. I see what you mean. Okay, thank you, And you are suggesting that
additional trees be placed in 13 lots where only 1 tree per lot is proposed. They should be on
lots, do you have any number? Because I can see the mitigation of 173 trees that were taken
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
down prior to this development. Is there a guideline number that maybe we wish to come up
with?
Aanenson: Again, I'll leave it up to the applicant to make a proposal to you.
Mancino: Okay. So I'll ask the applicant. Okay, thank you.
PP Y Y
t Farmakes: In our current ordinance for shoreline, part of that is the screening process
involved as well as other eco reasons. And that just deals with trees but also shrubbery and
so on or the natural state of the shoreline. When we're talking about trees, are we also
dealing with some of the screening elements that are involved with the natural shoreline.
Other than the ones that say trees of a certain caliper. How is that restored or cleared?
Aanenson: As I indicated earlier, anything under the ordinary high water mark.. jurisdiction.
With this plat, with the tree conservation easement, they shouldn't be below the building, the
rear building line. That's where all the significant trees are. There shouldn't be any reason
to have ... It should be snow fenced and.
Ledvina: But they can't go in and prune the underbrush or something?
Farmakes: So from the 60 or what is it, 75 feet setback from the shoreline, the underbrush
and screening there, I know you're allowed to clear out, I think the DNR allows you to clear
out an access or a channel and I know that we've had some arguments in the past about what
you're allowed to clear out. Or how much of a path. Whether it's lot line to lot line or
whether or not it's a 50 feet situation. I'm just wondering if there have been violations of
that there in your opinion from the existing property? Or the way the existing property was
prior to the application.
Aanenson: Well as I indicated what the ordinance says is ... DNR shoreline regulations... What
we felt was being removed at the time was less than the 6 inch caliper. Obviously you show
clear cutting and that was a concern. At that time the...
Farmakes: So if dogwood was cleared out, we're not going to see dogwood replaced.
Aanenson: No, I think what we're asking is that they would be replaced with significant
species. Something that ... overstory trees. Not necessarily ornamental but...
Scott: Dave, a e, clanfy on the stop work order. You signed rt.
i
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
F1
Hempel: That was placed by the building inspector at that time on the site...activities being
done.
,
Scott: Okay. Any other questions or comments?
Mancino: Question about the landscape plan. Was this done by a professional landscape
architect?
Aanenson: You'll have to ask the applicant for his credentials.
Scott: Okay, we'll wait for the applicant's report. Any other questions or comments? Okay.
Would the applicant or their representative wish to address the Council? Planning
Commission.
Kenneth Durr: M Y name is Kenneth Durr ... and I think it's appropriate that I address some of
the issues and the accusations that have been leveled that have not been very accurate... I've
been a building contractor for 40 years. This was our 40th year. I've had—working with me
,
for over 30 years who was Chief Building Inspector for the City of Minnetonka...In talking to
him today, I asked him during his experience with the city of Minnetonka, or previous to that
with an architectural firm, Johnson..., whether he had any knowledge of anything permits
necessary to cut trees on property. He said no. He had never come across that, nor have I in
i
40 years. With one exception, we are a builder in the Bear Path, Jack Nickolson ... in Eden
Prairie there has a tree ... and we're well aware of it and it was presented to us and we were
'
made aware of it prior to our doing any work there. But in 40 years we've worked in many,
many municipalities. There have been areas where we've had 40 acre sites. Where we have
cleared out, I mean clear cut 3 acre parcels out of the center so a large ... and there's never
'
been the faintest thought in our mind that permits may be required for that. And we've never
experienced that. So when we approached this site, at the time that I put these parcels
together, I was not certain whether I was going to build there or sell the property. I had
'
offers on 2 parcels that I first owned. I felt it was necessary to purchase the third because
there were lot line discrepancies. Had I not purchased the third piece of the last 30 feet of
the parcel that I did own so I went to a lot of expense and legal work to get that cleared up
to purchase that. At that time_ juncture, just as I was purchasing that, there were other people
interested to purchase at the same time I was. And my intent in going in there was not
necessarily at that point going into it as a development but merely to clean the land up so that
it was presentable. Now what we did there, I had a firm come in who's done work for us in
the past. They do work for a number of the golf courses in town. Interlachen Country Club
being one of them and I trust their judgment as to trees. What is diseased, what is wind
damaged, what is good, what is not. And they just go ahead and do their work for us. They
do work for municipalities. They do our work on all of our sites because we're very
3 '
r
1
1
I
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16 -1994
concerned about preserving trees. We're not there to rape the land. We are preservist in
what we do. It's only to our advantage to preserve and maintain a good tree cover but it isn't
in the best interest to leave wind damaged trees, diseased trees, and that type of thing. Those
are the types that were taken off that site. Had we the intent of just going in there and clear
cutting with the intent of just coming in behind that and pushing roads in, it's very obvious
looking at the property, we would have taken trees down on the hill where we wish to put the
road. That was not done. You'll notice the trees that are there are all of the specimen trees.
Big umbrellas on the trees. The trees that were taken were mainly trees below 6 inches in
diameter, 4 feet up from the base. In looking at the site... something major is 8 inches or 10
inches but 4 feet up is entirely different than what a stump shows. It's 4 feet off the ground,
6 inch diameter. Those are the trees that were taken together with wind damaged trees that
were lodged, I have a couple pictures that show just a tangled mess in part of this property.
There are old buildings in there that my insurance company said I had to get out of there
because they were an attractant nuisance to children. So we removed those at the same time.
Hauled them off the property. But it was a tangled mess. Wind damaged trees. Trees
leaning into other trees. We just didn't simply cut some of those down, we cabled up and
down the sections and pulled them away from the good trees we were saving. It's very
obvious in looking at that site you see good trees. The diseased, the wind damaged, the ones
that were blown over and a few trees, when I talked with my tree people, there were some
box elders growing under large oaks. Large maples that were stretching for light, growing
almost horizontally, coming down touching the ground and then growing up again. Those
were the trees, they were larger than 6 inches and those were taken. Growing under the
umbrella of the specimen trees but they were junk. And he knew they were junk. So that's
the extent. Now we have a house on that property. Better than a year ago the Fire Marshal
wanted to use the house and burn it. I objected to it because I said I don't think you can do
it and preserve trees. The trees around the house that we wish to preserve. You can check
with him and verify this. Now subsequent to that, he has asked me again about it and one of
your people even called me ... looking at the property and assuring me, yes. We can burn this
if we don't damage the tree there. So we have to have absolute certainty that this does not
occur because we had a house burn down, it was badly vandalized on the center property.
And in that they assured us that they would not damage trees. And a specimen maple was
burned to the ground. The fire got away and burned the tree down. I didn't want this to
occur again. That house cost me $7,000.00 to have it demolished and hauled out. If I'm
looking at the very economics of this thing, I'd say go ahead. Bum the thing down. The heck
with the trees because then I'd save $7,000.00. I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in
preserving the good trees and forget the $7,000.00. I'd rather spend $7,000.00. Take the
house down and haul it out rather than risk the burning trees. So these accusations that have
come to you people are entirely false. The number of trees may be accurate. It's a 20 acre
site. There may be 173 trees that were taken down. But we're not talking big trees. We're
talking small trees that were 6 inches and less unless they were wind damaged, the tops out
4
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Kenneth Durr: Very preliminary because I really don't, what I like to do is formulate that
together with a landscape architect and really work on it to get it to the very best that we can
do. We are searching for very mature trees right at the moment and we wish to put a lot of
evergreens in because they have an impact both winter and summer. And we're searching for
large stuff.
Mancino: Okay. So what I see here on the north side that parallels Highway 5 is 6 foot and
they're all 6 foot and you're just in a row and there's no creativity. There's no landscape
design to them on the other side of the fence. Is that what we're going to see?
of them or leaning into other trees or a few exceptions of box elders that were growing
horizontally ... I think the question was raised about whether or not a professional landscaper
would be used in this. Very definitely yes. I talked to Herb Baldwin who's a very well
'
recognized name in landscaping. I'm not sure that Herb will be doing all of this. He's done
some preliminary work. Kevin Koehnen who is a landscape architect. He does a lot of work
for us on upper bracket projects that we do. That involve large acreages, up in the Medina-
Orono area, that are very extensive landscape projects. He has looked at the project and has
given me some ideas of what to do. I've been put in touch with one of the best people in the
area as far as the ponds. As far as what you do with them. How you go about aerating
them. We are planning to do both aeration and—getting air pumped into the bottom of these
so that they aerate well. He knows what can be done without using chemicals in the ponds to
control the growth. And the suggested depths of the ponds, we've gone into things that I feel
are very important to the total concept of the project. And so we are not going into it on a
shoe string and just trying to get the maximum that we can out of this property. We're
hopefully doing an excellent job and that is our goal. We're noted for excellence in what we
'
do and I really resent some of the accusations that have been leveled from, particularly one
individual. We are noted in all the communities we build in, as being highly reputable and
extremely careful of ecology and tend to spend more money than most in landscaping
projects, which will certainly be the case here. What is shown is such an extreme minimal to
what we will be doing and we will definitely be using professional people in it. We want this
to be a very high test, high class neighborhood. Street of Dreams people are very interested
in seeing this developed. Seeing what we've done in the past and we will put everything that
we have into it to make it an established appearing community from day one. Are there any
other questions that you might have of me that I can hopefully clarify or?
Mancino: Well I just have a question. I guess it's Mr. Durr for you and also for Kate.
When we ask for a landscape plans to look at and to say yeah or nay to, and they're not final
and they're not even, I don't know if this is what you, I don't know what kind of plan you'd
call this. Is it a preliminary plan or something?
Kenneth Durr: Very preliminary because I really don't, what I like to do is formulate that
together with a landscape architect and really work on it to get it to the very best that we can
do. We are searching for very mature trees right at the moment and we wish to put a lot of
evergreens in because they have an impact both winter and summer. And we're searching for
large stuff.
Mancino: Okay. So what I see here on the north side that parallels Highway 5 is 6 foot and
they're all 6 foot and you're just in a row and there's no creativity. There's no landscape
design to them on the other side of the fence. Is that what we're going to see?
1 Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
I Kenneth Durr: No.
Mancino: Okay.
Kenneth Durr: This is.
Mancino: So I figure an engineer did this.
Kenneth Durr: I'm song.
Mancino: Did an engineer do this? Okay. Okay. Well I mean I would add to it.
Rick Sathre: We were in represent n
try g to ep esent the umbers. Minimum numbers.
Mancino: I just wanted to know what I'm seeing.
Kenneth Dun: If there are a number of trees that are called out, and I think there was.
Something like, was it 27 or somewhere else I heard 50.
Aanenson: Well the ordinance states that you have to place 1 per lot. You also the
requirement that you're obligated to do is the streetscape. What we're saying is that, and
maybe some additional trees are required and those lots that really don't have any other
1 mature trees on the lots. And this is preliminary. We wanted to see, they did show the tree
removal plan. I think that's what the Planning Commission was concerned. They showed...
individual lots as far as a count idea. Normally when we do see that, I think that's kind of...
If you go back to normal preliminary plat, we don't always see that quite as formulated.
That's something you ask us to follow up on.
r
u
Mancino: But I thought that we usually see more of the streetscape in it's final form, don't
we?
Aanenson: No. Not necessarily ... I think there was concern because of the trees removed and
that's kind of been the focus but now that we've got something under preliminary...
Mancino: I remember like Rottlund and stuff was from a landscape architect. It was Todd
Irvine from Arteka did that so we see it at the point where a landscape architect gets
involved. Or we have.
Aanenson: It depends. On the—plat, on Lundgren's, there was a condition that the
landscaping, the streetscape be in—so it's not always the case. ...I thought you picked up that
n
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 11
we were treating this one differently but sometimes we do and sometimes we don't.
Normally you give us direction. I think again this one came out of the fact that trees were I
removed and we wanted to get an idea as to how they were going to...
Mancino: Okay. Because I just have the problem is that I wouldn't approve this if this were
the landscape plan. I mean it just doesn't meet it for me so.
Kenneth Dun: Well again, I may be repeating myself but if there was, as Rick was saying,
like 26 but I think.
Rick Sathre: That's on the berm.
Kenneth Dun: On the berm, oh I see. And Kate was saying about 50 trees.
Aanenson: Right, in total. Yeah that includes the streetscape and the additional landscaping
between the neighbor adjacent to Lots 8 and 9 ... and that's the minimum required. That would
be the concern.
Kenneth Dun: Well you can be assured we'll...the minimum and if you want a commitment
to that, you could name a number of 100 and I'd be very comfortable with that.
Mancino: Thank you.
Scott: An other questions or comments for the applicant? Thank you sir. Well this is not a
Y q PP Y
public hearing so I guess we can move on to comments. Nancy. Give me an issue.
Mancino: Not right now...
Scott: Pardon me.
Mancino: Not right now but I will.
Scott: Okay. Matt.
Ledvina: I think the sole purpose of us going forward with the plat, the preliminary plat.
One of the strong conditions that and concerns we all had was regarding seeing what the
landscaping would be, as Nancy mentioned, and also the tree removal. I see that we do have
a plan which does show the lot layout and the trees. I guess there's x's here. Those
represent removal as it relates to the road. Trees removed for the road but I don't see what
would be anticipated for tree loss with the building pads. I think that's. I
i
t
I
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Aanenson: That was the Attachment #1...
Ledvina: So there is a discussion, okay. I'll take that back.
Aanenson: ...site grading and the road ... And then the additional 21 and...
Mancino: It would be much easier to tell if we did some sort of an overlay for us. I mean
it's very hard to tell which, you know for us to see which trees per lot actually are going to
be removed.
Ledvina: I guess just to wrap up my comments, I would feel more comfortable seeing a
more detailed landscaping plan. I think that's really what we were looking for when we
discussed this last time...
Scott: Okay, Jeff.
t
J
1
Farmakes: I have no further comments other than what's been mentioned. I guess maybe
one thing. I hope the city staff still uses some latitude in looking at the issue of the
compliance. Whether they were factual or non factual. Use your own discretion with that.
If there's a violation in the ordinance, treat it as such. Ignorance of the law, as I'm told, is
no excuse and that ordinance I know has been on the books for a fair amount of time so the
intent is to protect what tree cover is left in Chanhassen and I think it's a good ordinance
with good intent. It's not to say that the applicant premeditatedly clear cut the issue but if
there was damage done, particularly in the area adjacent to the shoreline, the effort and the
intent is to restore the vegetation so there isn't a lawn down to the lake as you see in some
houses that were developed 40 years ago. With the preference, the intent now has been for a
fair amount of years, is not to do that. Not to allow that type of development and the State
encourages that and ordinances in the city have been there for quite a while so that's it.
Mancino: I'd like to add on to what Jeff just said and I think that a lot of times developers
say well we've saved the big trees. We've saved the significant, the big ones and they take
out all the saplings underneath, which is our next generation of trees for our children and our
grandchildren. When those big trees go, we have another, we have trees there that are ready
to come up and little trees become big trees. So it is, we are trying to also preserve some of
those, most of the saplings underneath big trees also. That they are as important to us and a
part of the ecosystem too. So to go in and clear cut, like they did on Lake Susan Hills a little
bit, under the bigger trees, is not what we want either. That is part of the woodland area and
should remain so. And are for the next generation because those big trees will come down
and we have saplings there that are ready to take over. So I think it's as important to keep
that under canopy coverage also.
8
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994 1
Scott: Okay. Ron.
Nutting: I guess I just haven't—in terms of we approved pending the submission of the
landscaping plan before the plat proceeds to City Council. Is this, I was trying to understand
from Kate's comments, is this the normal procedure? Is this on a case by case basis whether
we get full landscaping plans at this point versus some point in time down the road. I'm just
trying to understand the.
Mancino: We don't see it again.
Nutting: Okay. So if we approve things at this point it's, we will ever see...
Aanenson: Are you asking me?
Nutting: Yes.
Aanenson: Normally, as a part of the process, you articulate to the applicant what you want
to see. You don't also see maybe landscaping in preliminary plats. Some plats yes, you see
it. It's your discretion. What they show is that they met the minimum intent of the
ordinance... we'd recommend additional trees, we've left that open. We certainly feel that
needs to be evolved by a landscape architect and that's something that normally we follow up
on just like the other conditions that we put in the report.
Nutting: So is Nancy, you would not be comfortable with even establishing parmeters then...
or additional guidelines to the.
Mancino: Well I don't want to tell them how to do their landscaping. I want them to come
back with a good professionally done landscaping proposal.
Attorney for Applicant: Would it...
Scott: Let me see. I have to ask a procedural question here. Since this isn't a public hearing
and the applican had their, made their presentation and now we're doing our discussion, I
know how to handle this from a public hearing standpoint but procedurally, go ahead.
rn for Applicant: M question is just procedural too and that is
Attorney o pp y q � p , since both the
Planning Commission and the City Council get to look at this project again, in the final plat
approval process.
9 �
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
' Aanenson: It only goes to Council for final. So the City Council will see it for preliminary
plat and then as it gets approved in whatever phases, they'll come back for final plat. And
' again, a lot of times the Council doesn't see the final landscaping plan until they come back.
They wait until they get approval and then they come back and do the final design. The
engineering of the streets and a lot of those kind of issues. So the Council doesn't always
see the final landscaping plan until even final plat. There's a lot of final issues. I mean that's
up to your call if you want to see it again.
Attorney for Applicant: I'm wondering whether that, the next look that you'd like to have
can be done in the final approval process.
Aanenson: Then the final would come back to them before it goes back?
Attorney for Applicant: Exactly.
Mancino: Okay.
Y
Kenneth Durr: What we really want to do is spend considerable time in that area. For the
planning. It's not something that I just care to rush in just for the sake of coming with a
plan. We want to come with a plan that is really special. We want to do this up really
exceptionally well. And I don't think that can be done just in a very quick, you know few
days or a week. It's something that I think is going to be a process that we do and we refine
it and we come with something that I think you're going to find that is going to be
exceptional. We're not going to spare dollars on this. It's going to be done very, very well.
And if it means that it goes to the Council. If it has to have a special approval with the
blessing of this body, that's fine because I'm not concerned at all about what our final result
is going to be for submission. But I would hate like everything just to spend dollars and
quickly do something that is only mediocre. I want to be special and whatever it takes to do
that, we can proceed and come back with something that is special, that's what we're going
to do.
I Scott: Well I guess that's the, Kate.
Ledvina: Can we see it again after Council then? Is that possible?
Aanenson: Sure.
Ledvina: Okay, so that would be a recommendation.
Aanenson: Before it goes for final plat that you have a chance to review the plan.
10
1
Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
Ledvina: Well the landscaping
Led � lan. P
Scott: Okay. '
Mancino: That certainly works.
Scott: So if I could have a motion. That's one of the luxuries of chairing this body is you
don't have to make any motions.
Mancino: Let's see. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the final landscape
plan after the City Council has seen it? Kate, would you help me.
Aanenson: Before final plat approval is given by the City Council.
Mancino: There you go. And you know that it, and Mr. Durr has said this, but that it be
done by a landscape architecture, landscape professional and that there will be some
mitigation as Kate has said. Well I want to add the staff's recommendations also 1, 2 and 3.
Can I have a second?
Ledvina: I'll second it.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we act on Commissioner Mancino's motion. Is
there any discussion? No discussion.
Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to
approve the landscaping and tree removal plan as shown on the landscaping plan dated
March 10, 1994, and subject to the following conditions:
1. A minimum of 4 conifers be P laced on Lots 1 -4, Block 1 on Minnewashta Parkway.
2. Additional trees be placed in the 13 lots where only one tree per lot is proposed. They '
shall be placed on Lots 6 -16, Block 1 and Lots 10 and 11, Block 2.
3. The wood fence along Minnewashta Parkway requires a separate permit.
4. The final landscaping plan, prepared by a professional landscape archtiect, be
brought back to the Planning Commission for review prior to final plat approval
by the City Council.
11
ri
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 16, 1994
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
1 Scott: Kate timing wise, we're looking at a couple of months?
t
1
Aanenson: It's going to Council on the 28th.
Scott: 28th? Whatever happens after that. Okay.
Ledvina: You anticipate this development to occur this year? Is that correct? You anticipate
that this development's going to occur this year? Okay.
Scott: Okay. Thank you very much.
12