2. Neumann Subdivisiont
CITY OF
�', C8AN8ASSEN
Z
U
d
Q.
�a
1
1
1
1
' W
Cn
H
1
1
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat of 25.95 acres into 9 single family lots with variances on
property zoned RSF; Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational Beachlot;
Wetland Alteration Permit for construction and mitigation of a wetland; and
vacation of right -of -way located on Minnewashta Avenue, Neumann
Subdivision.
LOCATION: South of Highway 7, South of Sandpiper Lane, West of Piper Ridge
Lane, along the northeast shoreline of Lake Minnewashta.
APPLICANT: Mrs. Henry Neumann Schoell & Madson, Inc. &i-
2841 Sandpiper Trail Suite 1, 10580 Wayzata Blvd. J
Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55305 �,e
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District
ACREAGE: 23.95 Acres Gross 23.42 Acres Net
DENSITY: 0.38 Units per acre (Gross) 1.38 Units per acre (Net Upland) Actim by CAri M,
ADJACENT ZONING dome �l
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family MDdif+ed
S - RSF/RD, Lake Minnewashta D e at e -
� _ g _
E - RSF, Single Family tote submitted to
W - RSF/RD, Lake Minnewashta
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the property
PC DATE: May 4, 1994 C:� a4
PC Update: June 1, 1994
CC DATE: June 13, 1994
CASE #: 94 -3 SUB, 94 -2 CUP
94 -2 WAP 94 -2 VAC
Date Submitted to
&—/3 -9 4
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The northeast portion of the property is characterized by gentle
rolling slopes, a small Inland Shallow Fresh Marsh Wetland and sparsely wooded areas. There are
also two existing homes upon this portion of the parcel. The south and western portions of the
development area contain portions of severe slopes and may be recognized as 'Bluff Impact Zones"
by the DNR along the Lake Minnewashta shoreline. At the bottom of these slopes are natural
wooded wetlands lying adjacent to the shoreline of the lake.
I
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 2 '
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to develop a 9 lot single family subdivision. This subdivision is a '
replat of Lots 19 -27 in the Minnewashta Park Addition, which was platted and recorded on
November 14, 1887. The proposed development also includes a request to vacate and '
abandon the unimproved right -of -way from this original plat known as " Minnewashta
Avenue." Two of the proposed 9 lots will contain the existing homes presently located upon
Lots 1 and 3, Block 2 owned by Mrs. Neumann and Ann & Arnold Weimerskirch (daughter ,
and son -in -law of Mrs. Neumann).
The proposed access to the development will occur from the proposed 360' cul -de -sac which
aligns as an extension of Tanagers Lane to the north. Access to Lot 1, Block 1 along the
easterly edge of the property will be the only lot which will gain its access from Piper Ridge '
Lane. In general, the overall density and large lot single family use of the land is found to
be a quality approach to land development in an area that may be classified as "sensitive"
from an environmental perspective. '
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot. The beachlot
does meet the standards to allow 3 docks with 3 boats. Staff is recommending that there be '
one dock with nine slips to lessen the impacts to the wetland.
The applicant is also requesting a wetland alteration permit. Another engineering issue is the I
location of the storm water ponds. Staff is requesting that they be relocated.
BACKGROUND I
The subject property was a portion of the Minnewashta Park Addition platted in the late
1800's. The portion of the original plat has remained on the books since this time and was '
never developed according to the plat of record, except with regard to the homes built upon
the two lots in the development which presently access Sandpiper Lane via a private drive.
Minnewashta Avenue is a platted, undeveloped right -of -way which circumscribes the '
perimeter of the Lake Minnewashta wetlands area. This roadway was never built from a
practical engineering perspective as well as from a strong ecological rationale. To staff's
knowledge, there have been no other formal development proposals for this property. '
SUBDIVISION DESIGN
The subdivision is laid out so that there is minimal street improvements planned, large lot
features, preservation of wetland areas, etc. The variances identified in this proposal are ,
limited to the following:
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 3
1. Street ROW width at 50' vs. the 60' required.
2. Lot 1 Block 2 existing house front set back 17' vs. 30' required and Lot 3, Block 2 at
20' front yard setback from the cul -de -sac ROW. (Staff supports platting variance due
to existing conditions and ability to minimize impact upon wetland across street).
SUBDIVISION COMPLIANCE TABLE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home Wetland
Area Width Depth Setback Setback
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear
10' side
Block 1
Lot 1 35,560 345' 290' 40' avg.
Block 1 (con't)
Lot 4* 40,900 125' 241'
Block 2
Lot 2*
35,130
126'
218'
10' buffer
Lot 2
23,320
157'
145'+
40' avg.
125'
250' (flag)
Lot 5*
44,010
10' buffer
Lot 3
38,116
100'
234'
40' avg.
20' buffer
Block 2
Lot 1
20,300
128'
130'
l7' front existing home
Ordinance
20,000
90'
125'
30' front/rear75'
10' side
Block 1 (con't)
Lot 4* 40,900 125' 241'
Block 2
Lot 2*
35,130
126'
218'
Lot 3*
40,750
90'
250' existing home
Lot 4*
41,220
125'
250' (flag)
Lot 5*
44,010
130'
295' (flag)
I-
Neumann Subdivision t
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 4 t
* Lot area based upon Lake Shoreline - Must subtract waterward portion of lot below
OHW Elevation
FINDINGS
Preliminary Plat - Section 18 -39
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential '
Single Family District and the RD Shoreland Zoning District for Lake
Minnewashta. The variances requested can be alleviated with revisions to the '
plat.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional I
plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable land use plan
element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, '
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site may be suitable for development provided the
design issues as identified in this report, can be effectively addressed and
resolved to the satisfaction of the city. A more detailed tree survey needs to be '
provided.
4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, ,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this
chapter;
subdivision is served b adequate '
Finding: The proposed y uate urban infrastructure, q
provided the design for required storm water improvements, and streets can be '
effectively addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the City. The
location of storm water ponds needs to be changed. The wetland alteration
permit needs to be revised. '
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
1
L
I
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 5
Finding: The proposed subdivision is not anticipated to cause environmental or
structural damage provided the proper re- design of the project can be achieved
by the applicant.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements,
but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements and vacate and
abandon an inappropriate unimproved right -of -way. As a part of this
application, a paper street will be vacated.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban
infrastructure and provided the proper storm water drainage system design can
be achieved by the applicant.
SHORELAND REQUIREMENTS
The entire development falls with the Shoreland Zoning District of Lake Minnewashta, which
is entitled a Recreational Development Lake. All lots meet the minimum 20,000 sq. ft. lot
size requirement where adjacent to the lakeshore. The upland area of the lot is the standard
imposed by the DNR relative to meeting the minimum lot size area requirements in the
Shoreland District. According to the DNR, the upland portion of the lot begins at the OHW
(ordinary high water elevation) which is 944.5' (NGVD, 1929) for Lake Minnewashta
(please reference the letter from Joe Richter of the DNR dated April 18, 1994). For Lot 2,
and all other proposed lots with lake frontage, the OHW level occurs out into the wetland
areas. Therefore, all lots are found to be in compliance with the minimum shoreland lot area
requirements. These same provisions hold true for the recreational beachlot which will have
a total lot area in excess of 70,000 sq. ft., but below the 233,805 sq. ft. gross area which
follows the shoreline as identified on the preliminary plat. Based upon these requirements as
established by the DNR, staff recommends that the applicant resubmit the lot area
calculations based upon a property line which follows the OHW Elevation of 945' (NGVD,
1929).
r
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 6
,
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
,
The development site presently contains a very substantial quantity of mature and young trees
of varying size, species, quality and locations.
The applicant has prepared a tree canopy plan. The subdivision has a 50% base line canopy
coverage (upland). The ordinance allows a 35% canopy coverage. The plat proposes
approximately 10,000 square feet of tree loss. The canopy coverage should remain above
,
45 %. No additional trees will be required. Staff is recommending tree conservation
easements for each lot outside of the 1,000 square foot building pad to ensure preservation of
trees.
'
WATER RESOURCES
Lake Minnewashta is a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected water (10 -9P). ,
P P
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.
WETLANDS
The following is a discussion of the two wetlands associated with the proposed project:
A wetland designated by the City as natural surrounds the proposed project on the west and ,
south side and lies adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. The wetland is identified in the City's
Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) as A4 -6(2). The wetland is superficially
characterized in the SWMP as a wooded swamp (Circular 39; Types 7) or as a seasonally '
flooded palustrine forested wetland (Cowardin PF01C). The value and function of this
wetland as identified in the City's Wetland Ordinance highly discourages alteration to this
wetland. '
A wetland designated by the City as agricultural/urban is located in the northeast corner of
the proposed project (Lot 1, Block 1). The wetland is identified in the SWMP as A4 -6(1).
The wetland is superficially characterized in the SWMP as a combination of inland shallow
r
1
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 7
and deep fresh marsh and wooded swamp (Circular 39; Types 3/4/7) or as a seasonally
flooded palustrine emergent/forested wetland (Cowardin PEM/FOlC). The value and function
of this wetland as identified in the City's Wetland Ordinance may allow some alteration to
the wetland under the use of the Wetland Conservation Act's (WCA) sequencing criteria.
City Wetland Ordinance - Permit Requirements
The City will require a wetland alteration permit for any impacts to associated wetlands. In
general the ordinance follows the guidelines of the WCA with the additional requirement of a
buffer strip and a structure setback from the buffer strip. The structure setback and buffer
strip widths are as follows:
Wetland
Buffer Strip
Buffer Strip
% Native
Structure Setback
Type
Minimum
Vegetation in
from Outer Edge of
Average Width
Buffer Strip
Buffer Strip
Natural
10 - 30 ft
20 ft
Required
40 ft
Ag/Urban
0 -30 ft
1 10 ft
Optional
40 ft
WCA
The WCA permanent rules have been effective since January 1, 1994 and the City of
Chanhassen is the Local Governing Unit (LGU) administering the WCA permit process. A
replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size wetland
replacement ratio of 2:1. The notification process is a minimum of 60 days after the
replacement plan has been submitted to the LGU. Replacement plan forms are available at
City Hall.
The LGU may not consider or approve a wetland replacement plan unless the it finds that
' the applicant has demonstrated that the activity impacting a wetland complies with the
principles associated with sequencing (WCA rule 8420.0520). If this is considered a minor
project by the LGU, however, where the functions and values lost due to the proposed drain
or fill are less than that of the proposed replacement, an elaborate search for practicable
alternatives will not be required.
' Clean Water Act Section 404
The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires
' authorization, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers. The
Corps has issued a nationwide Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in isolated
t
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 8
'
wetlands without notification to the Corps and between a half acre and three acres in such
basins with predischarge notification [(see 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(26)(ii)]. For impacts to areas
,
between a half acre and three acres, the Corps requires that the applicant demonstrate that the
impact cannot be avoided or minimi before considering compensatory mitigation. The
wetland for the proposed project can be considered isolated if the impact to the wetland is
'
less than 10,000 square feet. Staff believes impact to the wetland can be avoided by
adjusting the lot lines to the south which may eliminate one lot.
,
GRADING & DRAINAGE
The preliminary plans propose grading for the street, storm pond and around the wetland on
'
Outlot A. The wetland mitigation is still proposed along the north side of the wetland. Staff
believes this will still remove trees unnecessarily when better alternatives exist such as
adjacent to Lot 2.
,
The wetland located on Lot 1 currently drains through a culvert underneath the existing
driveway on Lot 1, Block 2 along Minnewashta Avenue to Lake Minnewashta via an open
ditch. Staff recommends that this culvert be eliminated so that the wetland outlet will limited
to the proposed storm sewer system. '
The City's ordinance requires the lowest floor elevation in the homes adjacent to wetland
areas be 2 feet above the wetlands ordinary high water level. This would at a minimum '
require that on Lot 2 the lowest floor level be at 963 which will require additional fill be
placed on Lots 2 and 3 to provide the adequate grade separation. The plans still show a
building pad with a first floor elevation of 963. Both Lots 2 and 3 are designated as "flat" '
lots which do not have a basement or lower level. This will meet the city's ordinance
requiring the lowest floor elevation be 2 feet above the ordinary high water mark.
The majority of lots contain significant stands of trees. The grading plan does not indicate '
the grading limits on the lots. It is suspected that the lots will be custom - graded when the
individual homes area constructed. It is recommended that individual grading and drainage ,
plans be required for the treed lots for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to
building permit issuance. Both Lots 2 and 3 are proposed as "flat" lots. Lot 1 is proposed
to access from Piper Ridge Lane. A portion of the driveway grade for Lot 1 will be around '
16% which exceeds the city's requirement of 10% maximum. Staff recommends that Lots 1
and 2 be combined and access be from the new street (Tanagers Lane). Staff believes by '
combining Lots 1 and 2 will give more flexibility in building on the lot as well as minimizing
disruption to the area. The existing "knob" on Lot 1 gives some added difficulty to build on.
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
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 9
load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be
' 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 applicant is proposing to construct the
water quality basin, these fees will be waived.
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. The applicant still will be required to pay the appropriate stormwater trunk fees
associated with this project. Currently, the single - family/low- density rate is proposed at a rate
of $1,980 per acre. Using the applicants lot tabulation sheet, this equates to 6.54 acres at
$1,980 or $12,949. This fee would be required at the time of final plat recording. If the fees
have not been adopted yet by the City Council then a letter of credit or cash dedication could
be escrowed until the Surface Water Management Plan has been formally adopted by the City
' and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment
methodology.
The plans do propose collecting stormwater runoff through a series of catch basins which
carry the storm runoff to a stormwater pond. The applicant has relocated the storm water
pond behind the Weimerskirch house (Lot 3). Staff believes if the pond is shifted slightly
further to the south towards Lot 4, more substandard trees could be saved. In addition, the
storm sewer pipe from the cul -de -sac to the pond should be shifted to minimize impact to the
trees along the common lot line of Lots 3 and 4. Stormwater calculations for ponding and
piping shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Stormwater ponds shall meet
Walker standards. The storm sewers shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event.
Erosion control measures are shown around the wetland area as well as the stormwater
retention pond. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and
drainage plan. 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.
The applicant is also proposing a retaining wall to be built in front of Lot 1 and part of Lot 2,
Block 2. The retaining wall should be built outside of the City's road right -of -way and
maintained by the property owner.
r
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 10 ,
UTILITIES
The site is located within the City's Urban Service Area. Sanitary sewer and water service is
available from Sandpiper Lane. The applicant is proposing on extending the sewer and water
lines into the site. The utility installation shall be in accordance with 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
installation of the public improvements and conditions of final platting. '
There are two existing homes on the parcel. According to the City's records, one home is
connected to city sewer and the other one is not. Both homes will be required to be
connected to city sewer within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The
homes may utilize the existing wells on the site until they have failed at which time the
properties must be connected to city water. '
STREETS '
The preliminary plat proposes a 50 -foot right -of -way along with a 60 foot radius on the cul-
de -sac. The City's ordinance requires that a 60 -foot wide right -of -way with a 60 -foot radius '
on the cul -de -sac for residential urban development. The applicant is requesting the reduced
right -of -way to minimize the impact to the wetland on Lot 1. However, additional right-of-
way will not require additional filling of the wetland. The filling occurs with construction of
the street and utility installation. However, staff feels due to the close proximity of the
existing house on Lot 1, Block 2 along with the existing right -of -way in the neighborhood,
the street right -of -way may remain at 50 feet. '
The street appears to be a continuation of Tanagers Lane south of Sandpiper Lane therefore it
may be prudent to require the street be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court to maintain a ,
consistency in street names and addresses. As a result of platting the two homes may be
required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and City's address
grid. '
The applicant is also requesting vacation of Minnewashta Avenue which exists as a paper
street and is located in Lake Minnewashta. The street will never be built and therefore
vacation of Minnewashta Avenue is recommended.
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT I
The development proposal includes a conditional use permit request for a private recreational
beachlot. The beachlot area contains a total of 233,805 gross sq. ft. with a total net upland '
area of 45,165 sq. ft. excluding wetland area. The lot area calculation will need to be
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 11
recalculated as previously identified. The private beachlot would include a boardwalk which
will extend 190' across the wetlands and into the lake area where a common dock would be
located with 9 boat slips. Staff strongly supports the combined approach to providing a
common lake access via a single boardwalk through the lake wetlands area. This proposal as
presented complies with the requirements prescribed by the city's beachlot requirements and
the standards as set forth by the DNR. The location selected for dock access is also the most
practical from a positioning point as being the shortest path through this important ecological
area.
RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT CUP COMPLIANCE TABLE
Association
Item Request
Association Neumann Sub,
Lake Minnewashta
Compliance
Standard With Standard
M
Number 9 80%/ Yes
of Homes 1000' rule
Size, Sq. Ft. 233,805* 30,000 s.f. Yes
1 st Dock
20,000 s.f.
each add'1 dock
up to 3 max.
P.C.
Recommended
* Size to be reduced based upon area to be recalculated relative to OHW Elevation
Shoreline 1,200 l.f** 200 l.f. per dock Yes
** Shoreline distance to be reduced based upon calculation relative to OHW Elevation
Motor Vehicle
Access No Prohibited Yes
Off - Street Pkg. No Prohibited Yes
Boat Launch No Prohibited Yes
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 12
Buildings
No
Permitted
n/a
Seasonal Dock
1
3 Permitted
Yes
Dock Length (190' Bdwk.)
50' or 4' Depth
Depth
(90'
dock, plus whichever is
Unknown?
cross bars)
greater
Dock Width
4 ft.
4 ft.
Yes
Cross Bar
20 ft.
25 ft.
Yes
Length
Dock Set Back
500
10 ft.
Yes
Canoe Racks
None
1.5 racks
n/a
1 Rack Slip per
lot (9)
Sail Boats
None
3
n/a
Moored
Boats at Dock
9
9
Yes
Swimming Beach
None
Permitted
n/a
Marker Buoys
None
Permitted
n/a
Swimming Raft
None
Permitted
n/a
Beachlot
Buffering
Yes
Required
Yes
Urban 80 %/
100%/
80%/
Yes
1000' Rule
500'
1000'
Port-a- Potties
None
Permitted
n/a
I
1
L
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 13
PARK AND RECREATION
On April 26, 1994, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this plat and made the
following recommendation:
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that the City Council accept full park and
trail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail
construction. One -third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously
with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the
time building permits are issued: rate in effect for residential single family property when a
building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid. Current residential single family
park and trail fee rates are $900.00 and $300.00 per home, respectively.
Section 20 -232, General Issuance Standards
1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience
or general welfare of the neighborhood or city.
Finding The dock will be a boardwalk reducing the impacts to the wetland. A
combined dock with 9 slips will also lessen the impact.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
Finding: The beachlot is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance.
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not
change the essential character of that area.
Finding The applicant needs to provide details about the trail to the dock as well as
specifications about the dock.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Finding There are several beachlot associations on Lake Minnewashta. This
subdivision is just to the east of Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Association.
5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer
f
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994 ,
Page 14
systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
'
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed
use.
,
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding There will be a trail off of a public street to access the beachlot. The
,
members of the subdivision should form an association.
opportunity as well as protected open space.
6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
,
Finding: The beachlot should provide members of the association a recreational
amenity.
'
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents,
'
or trash.
Finding The subdivision needs to form an association to keep the beachlot
maintained.
8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion
or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding Members of the association all live within close proximity. Boats will be '
launched at the regional park.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or '
historic features of major significance.
Finding The development of this site will not result in the loss of any features. '
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
'
Finding The beachlot should be properly maintained to remain compatible with the
surrounding uses.
,
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
,
Finding The beachlot should be an asset to the neighbors by providing recreational
opportunity as well as protected open space.
r�
�J
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 15
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding The request meets the beachlot ordinance standards.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission reviewed this subdivision on May 4, 1994 and at their June 1,
1994 meeting. Upon the first review, staff had recommended tabling this subdivision and the
Planning Commission concurred. The subdivision was modified to meet the concerns of
staff and the Commission. The modified issues included relocation of the storm water pond,
more detailed tree survey, elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots,
elimination of the variances, a 60 foot radius needed for the road, a sketch plan needs to be
provided for the beachlot including trail and dock specifications.
The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to provide tree
conservation easements. The applicants have met with staff and are working to develop a
woodland management plan.
According to the City's Treasurer's Office, this property has deferred assessments. The
' assessments were for sanitary sewer and water improvements back in 1973 (Northwest
Service Area). Three sewer and water units were assessed against the property. One unit
' was paid in 1973 and the other two units were deferred until the property connects to sewer
and water or the property subdivides. The amount deferred including the 1994 interest is
$18,749.90. Upon platting of the property, the city typically respreads these deferred
' assessments over the newly created plat on a per lot basis. Staff is open to alternative
methods in respreading the deferred assessments if desired by the property owner.
When building permits are applied for on future lots, a sewer hookup charge in the amount of
$1050.00 and a water hookup charge in the amount of $1,375.00 will be added to the permit
for each lot. These hookup charges relate to the city's 1994 fee schedule.
' The plat has been revised and the Planning Commission recommended approval with the
recommended conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
' Preliminary Plat
Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion:
I
r
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994 ,
Page 16
"The City Council approves the preliminary plat #94 -3 of 25.95 acres into 9 single family lots '
with variances as shown on the plans stamped June 7, 1994 and subject to the following
conditions:
1. A 13 foot front yard setback variance for Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard '
setback variance on Lot 3, Block 2.
2. Approval of the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue at the time of final plat.
3. Approval of the 50 foot right -of -way for street. The radius of the cul -de -sac shall be I
60 feet.
4.
Lots 1 and 2 Block 1 shall be combined into one lot.
,
5.
Relocation of the storm water retention pond from the rear of Lot 3, Block 2 to
between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2.
'
6.
Erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practices Handbook.
'
7.
The two existing homes within the plat are required to be connected to city sewer
within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The homes may
'
continue to utilize their existing wells until the well fails.
8.
The street shall be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court and the two existing
'
homes shall be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street
name and city's address grid.
'
9.
'I're ccinsety €om easem n is shall be p1A.W all 1 ou sxde o the xi3,t3Q(: sq az
fret building pad as ;shown pn the tree icanc p pun Staff will work with the
,
applicant to create a woodland management plan including tree conservation
easements. Some lots may require custom grading plans.
'
10.
Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet
above the wetland's ordinary high water level.
'
11.
The grading plan shall be revised to show the appropriate site grading to achieve
buildable house pad elevations adjacent to the wetlands. Individual grading and
drainage plans will be required for all treed lots. The plans shall be submitted to the
'
City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance.
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
' Page 17
12. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees or
' provide storm water management improvements in accordance to the City's Surface
Water Management Plan. If the storm water fees have not been formally adopted by
the time final plat is to be recorded, then a letter of credit or cash dedication will be
escrowed with the City until the SWMP plan has been formally adopted by the City
and the fees adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment
methodology. Staff will evaluate the fees according to the SWMP plan
recommendations and review the exemptions of the two existing homes.
13. Storm water calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker
standards. The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event.
' 14. The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage
plan. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance to the City's Best
' Management Practice Handbook.
15. All retaining walls shall be built outside the City's right -of -way and maintained by the
' property owner.
16. All utility and street installation for public improvements shall be in accordance with
' the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed
construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval.
17. The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public
' improvements and conditions of final platting.
18. As a result of platting the two existing homes may be required to change the addresses
' to correspond to the final plat and the City's address grid system. The new street
name shall be subject to approval by the City's Public Safety Department.
19. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e.
Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, MPCA, Minnesota Dept. of Health, etc.
' 20. Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval.
21. Accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in lieu of
parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One -third of the park and trail cash
contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat.
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 18
1
The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are
issued: rate in effect for residential single family property when a building permit is
issued minus the amount previously paid.
23. Upon platting of the property, the city typically spreads these deferred
Y assessments over the newly created plat on a per lot basis. Staff is open to
alternative methods in respreading the deferred assessments if desired by the
a , ' property owner.
Conditional Use Permit
22. The cul -de -sac- island shall be posted and signed as per the Fire Marshal for no '
parking.
r
"The City Council approves the conditional use permit #94 -2 for the recreational beachlot
subject to the following conditions: I
1. Receive DNR approval for dock with more than 4 slips.
2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock.
3. The dock shall have a maximum of 9 boat slips.
4. The recreational beachlot shall meet all of the General Issuance Standards of Section
20 -232, conditional uses."
Wetland Alteration Permit
"The City Council approves the wetland alteration permit #94 -2 for mitigation of a wetland
subject to the following conditions:
1. The area of mitigation shall be located on the north or eastern portion of the wetland
adjacent to the ag/urban wetland on Sandpiper Lane.
2. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size
wetland replacement ratio of 2:1.
3. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires
authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers.
4. The following wetland setbacks shall be maintained:
i
Neumann Subdivision
May 4, 1994
Updated June 1, 1994
Page 19
Natural wetland 10' -30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback
Ag/urban wetland 0 -30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback"
Street Vacation
"The City Council approves the request #94 -2 for vacation of Minnewashta Avenue subject to
final plat approval of Neumann Subdivision."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated April 22, 1994.
2. Letter from Schoell and Madson dated March 29, 1994 and April 20, 1994.
3. Wetland delineation dated March 25, 1994.
4. Letter from DNR dated April 18, 1994.
5. Planning Commission minutes dated May 4 and June 1, 1994
6. Resolution and location of Minnewashta Avenue to be vacated.
7. Preliminary plat dated June 7, 1994.
lip
-168-L lip,
Poll
. � 1
Iff
I
I
I
I I
p
I
I
I I
� � I
I
I
It
I
I I
F
t 1 t � i i a
1
z
rr
r� S
¢
sil.
rn
��� - ! -i! m
IZ
se
iq
QL 1.
4C
n
ir
tr IN , �Sn TATEEE OF U V EPARTMENT
METRO WATERS - 1200
PHONE NO. 772 -7910
April 18, 1994
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson, Planning Director CITY Ur L,rirw4hki,; L_1,
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: NEUMANN SUBDIVISION, PROJECT 94 -3 SUB, 94 -2 CUP, LAKE
MINNEWASHTA (10 -9P), CITY OF CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY
Dear Ms. Aanenson:
We have reviewed the site plans (received April 1, 1994) for the
above - referenced project (Section 4, T116N, R24W) and have the
following comments to offer:
1. Public Water Lake Minnewashta (10 -9P) is on the proposed site.
Any activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation
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 for Lake Minnewashta is 944.50'
(NGVD, 1929), and the activities which may require a DNR
permit are grading, the placing of the dock and the placing of
the stormwater outfalls.
2. It appears that the developer is aware of the requirements of
the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991. We encourage the
developer to continue working with the City of Chanhassen in
preserving wetlands on this site.
J
u
n
3. It appears that most of the stormwater is routed through ,
settling basins, which is good. We would object to having the
stormwater routed directly to Lake Minnewashta.
4. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed
restriction for the properties adjacent to the wetland areas.
This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that
the DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, and the City of Chanhassen have
jurisdiction over the areas and that the wetlands cannot be
altered without appropriate permits.
5. The 100 -year flood elevation of Lake Minnewashta on the FIRM
Map (July 2, 1979) is 945' (NGVD, 1929). All the work that is
done for this project must comply with applicable floodplain
regulations of both the city and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
FILE NO.
C
L
w
t
I
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson
April 18, 1994
Page 2
! 6. Lake Minnewashta has a shoreland classification of
recreational development. The shoreland district extends
' 1000' from the OHW. The development must be consistent with
city's shoreland management regulations. In particular you
should note:
a. The project area contains bluffs (i.e., slopes that
average 30 percent or greater over a horizontal distance
of 50' and rise 25' above the (OHW) top of the bank) and
' steep slopes (i.e., slopes that are greater than 18
percent) . The bluffs overlooking Lake Minnewashta should
not be disturbed and all structures should be setback at
least 30' from the top of the bluff. Topographic
' alterations should be minimized on the steep slopes.
b. The vegetation and topography should be retained
' in a natural state in the shore and bluff impact
zones. The minimum shore impact zone is the area
within 37.5' of the OHW. The bluff impact zone is
an area within 20' of the top of the bluff.
C. Less than 25% of the area of each lot should be covered
with impervious surface.
d. 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.
e. The applicant appears to have lot lines extending far
' beyond the OHW of 944.50' (NGVD, 1929) of Lake
Minnewashta. The statewide standards for the management
of shoreland areas state that only the land above the OHW
should be used to calculate the lot area.
' 7. Lake Minnewashta should be labelled as such in future plans or
plats and the OHW should be noted.
' 8. You should be aware that your project may be subject to
federal and local wetland regulations. The Department may
provide additional comments on your project through our review
of applications submitted under these other regulatory
programs.
9. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed
developments:
a. 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
r
Ms. Kathryn Aanenson
April 18, 1994
Page 3
of Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts)
guidelines, or their equivalent, should be followed.
b. 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.
C. If construction activities disturb more than five acres
of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater
permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Scott
Thompson @ 296 - 7203).
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of
Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These
comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
thereof for a particular project.
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 District, Ellen Sones
U.S. Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta
Chanhassen Shoreland File
1
.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: April 22, 1994
' SUBJECT: 94 -3 SUB, 94 -2 CUP, 94 -2 WAP, & 94 -2 VAC (Neumann Subdivision)
I was asked to review the proposed subdivision stamped "CITY OF
' CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAR 28, 1994 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the
above referenced project.
Analysis:
' Inspection Division's only comment at this time concerns the street name.
The proposed street name must be submitted to the Public Safety
Department for review. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid
redundant or similarly named streets. Staff would like to suggest that
"Tanagers Court" would be the most appropriate name for the proposed
street. The new street will appear to be an extension of Tanagers Lane
and the similar name will provide for quick recognition of it's location.
' It will also provide for a termination point for Sandpiper Lane.
Staff does not think it appropriate to include the suggested name as a
' condition, but would like` the developer to be aware of the
recommendation.
Recommendation:
' The following condition should be included with the conditions of
approval.
1. Submit
I
f inal
I g:\ safety \sak \memos \plan \neumann.kal
view prior to
MEMORANDUM
J
Preliminary
Wetland Classification,
Identification and Delineation
for Mrs. Henry Neumann
Chanhassen, MN
prepared by
SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
March 25, 1994
Summary
7
Wetland Classification, Identification
and Delineation
for the Neumann site located
at
Chanhassen, MN
Based upon the information provided to Schoell and Madson, Inc., we have
identified two wetland basins on the property. The wetlands were field delineated
on January 24, 1994. Review of U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Wetland
Inventory maps indicated the presence of two wetland basins at this location. Based
on review of Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Protected Waters
maps the two wetland basins. Wetland one is located in the northeastern corner of
the property. Wetland two is located along the west and south boundaries is
designated as protected water number 10 -9P. The two wetlands are also identified
on the City's official wetland map.
' Project Location and Site Description
The site is located approximately 1 /4th mile south of the intersection of
' Minnewashta Bay Road and Minnesota Highway 7 in Chanhassen, MN. The site is
approximately 9.2 acres. The southern portions of site have remained relatively
undisturbed for a number of years. The property consists of gently rolling to steep
' hills, currently most of the upland areas are wooded or occupied by two residences
and bounded by Lake Minnewashta on the west and south.
Characteristics of the Wetland Basins
' Basin 1 This wetland basin is approximately 0.8 acres in size. It is classified as a
Type 3 (Inland Shallow Fresh Marsh) as defined in Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FWS /OBS Publication 79/31;
Cowardin et al) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39;
Shaw and Fredine 1971). Based on the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interagency Task Force on Wetland
' Delineation, 1989) and the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual
(1987) the basin is classified as a PEMC wetland (Palustrine Emergent
' Seasonally Flooded). The wetland basin is located in the northeastern
portions of the property. This wetland is also identified on the City of
Channhassen's official wetland map as A4 -6(1). The City of Chanhassen has
designated this wetland as an Ag /Urban Wetland.
Observed wetland vegetation within the wetland boundary consisted of a
number of common wetland indicator species including: Broad - leaved cattail
(Typha latifolia) (obligate wetland), Reed Canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea)
(facultative wetland), Bulrush (Scirpus spp.) (obligate wetland), Sedges
(Carex spp.)(obligate wetland) Redosier Dogwood (Comus stolonifera)
(facultative wetland) and Willow (salix spp.) (facultative wetland).
Wetland boundary areas contained the following species: Kentucky Blue
Grass (Poa pratenses) (facultative -), Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis)
(upland),Box Elder (Acer negundo) (facultative wetland), Willow ( Salix spp.)
(facultative wetland) and Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (facultative
wetland).
According to the 1968 USDA Soil Survey of Carver County, soils in wetland
basin 1 are identified as Hayden loam which contains inclusions that are
classified as hydric soils. The 1968 survey description of Hayden soils states
the following; "The Hayden series consists of deep well drained soils that
formed in friable, limy clay loam or loam glacial till. Permeability is
moderate and moisture storage capacity is moderately high ".
Hydrologic conditions were not determined due to frozen soil conditions.
Once soils have thawed hydrologic conditions will be determined.
Basin 2 The wetland is adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. It is classified as a Type 7
(Wooded Swamp), and as a PF01C (Palustrine Forested Broad - leaved
Deciduous Seasonally Flooded) basin. Further inside the boundaries there
is a transition to Broad leaved cattails (Typha latifolia) and other similar
emergent vegetation (PEMF). Because this wetland is associated with Lake
Minnewashta the size of the wetland was not determined. This wetland is
also identified on the City of Channhassen's official wetland map as A4 -6(2)
and N1 -6(3). The City of Chanhassen has designated this wetland as a
Natural Wetland.
According to the 1968 soil survey soils are classified as Marsh and Glencoe.
Both are listed as hydric soils. Due to frozen soil conditions no soil samples
were taken.
Vegetation included Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) (facultative +), Green
Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) (facultative wetland), American Elm (Ulmus
americans) (facultative wetland -), Willow ( Salix spp.) (facultative wetland),
Redosier Dogwood (Comus stolonifera) (facultative wetland) and Reed
Canary Grass (Phalaris arundinacea) (facultative wetland +).
2
Wetlands were preliminarily delineated according to t`:e Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (Interageis Task Force on Wetland Delineation
1989) as required by the 1991 Wetland Conservation Act. After the soil is free of frost
soil samples will be taken to complete the definition of wetland boundaries. Because the
1989 manual has a more conservative hydrologic requirement than the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, delineated boundaries should be consistent with
or more conservative (drier) than those arrived at using the 1987 manual.
The site is located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management District boundaries
in the City of Chanhassen, MN.
Mitigation will be necessary for any impacted portions of wetland. Replacement of the
filled or drained portions of wetlands is required. When this occurs replacement will need
to be of the same wetland type and within the same watershed and preferably on the same
site.
With the passage of the Wetland Conservation Act, wetlands on this site now come under
the jurisdiction of the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The local unit of government
(LGU) is responsible for administering the provisions of this legislation. In this case, the
City of Chanhassen will be the LGU. We have reviewed the various exemptions
contained in the Act and find that, no exemptions apply. The project must be certified
by the LGU as having complied with the provisions of the Act that apply during the
exemption period. Any wetland impacts must be replaced or restored at a 2:1 acreage ratio
in the same watershed as the occurs. The act also mandates that restoration or
creation of replacement of wetlands only be considered after an applicant has demonstrated
that the impacts can not be avoided, further minimized, corrected or eliminated over time.
This requirement is essentially the same as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit
process.
During the final design process efforts should be taken, whenever possible, to avoid and
minimize wetland impacts. By utilizing this approach wetland replacement costs will be
kept to a minimum and any additional permitting will be more easily facilitated.
3
r
Site Map �
1
r
I \
• I
cz // •• // I
- 3 a ' / •• / I ' 1
I
1 � i
I = / rr,
t J.ii � ' ' - -•
R I
•
x_• N U
�• •
j cz
cu
to `
Li Q
on _,
Soil Survey Map
. . . . . . . . . .
SKIP
is s `. i ` '{ r ' • i -i _'-• �����T �_ \l�� ;Z��'
r
I
DNR Protected Waters Map �
C
SHOREWOOD t� �°
e rnn 15P t� ...... t9.iw.......,..:.:� o
>: Minnewashts :i *: is c :: ;•:,,.•; :: : •: >i; •:.•.; . ;:•;: >:: <:•::• >; :• :• <:•::•
1lI2 00
:...
• :0 0 0 0.
.�:.:•::::•:.::� 0000.. 0000 .
•
.. ......................... 0000• �:�:�:�: .�:• >: :•:. {•: .. 0000.
0000.. .......................... 0000
0000.. ..........................
.. ... 0000... 0000. ..
. . } } }:• }:•' .�:: {w;•; •:. ... 0000. ... -.•.�: ,�:.�: .�.
.. �..
.. 0000. :::. .�. :.•.�.�::.
0000- � . '�•.�.�..... ..- ::00::::::0.0 ...� ::::...::::.. .............:.:.
._...1 /��:'
• • 0000 0000. 0000... ............... ���� ���. �•� '.
0000.., .:...:........................ ... :•:::..........; ................
oject Location
..
r •
. • I rake t o- q •
Red 1nnewaehte '' 7P� •
• I > t.► - :?Ce*r niaon
mint
IN:
Ta ac k::;: >::: CIE t
13 LAP Lake ( Poly+
IV lap
000::0 11
'i ••wnlSpl• I ]
[K•srlrtAl /A•r vneslt' y � Z �+
er o .t
a..$0T CHANHASSE+
k I:nrwwrru rur 1 ro• 50••
H Far. L r CA"11 cc re
............ .......
::'I� ::•�:::. 0000 0000
Z.dr1u1 ZjOW
�1 •
vvteylr Or LSOIA ........
TO 1A 1 T ,jta -
0000.. 0000 I
I
r
1
— •:.
J .I
• •• ••�•- •••�••- - ___ ____ - -1 -__ -__` - r- - - - -- - - - -- ---- ______ 11
II - - - - - - ---------- --- - -� Id -__-__= C'p� -- - - - - -- -- - - -- Ir
n ........
2
` . t9P 1
2164 , 23
aze/trn tb n
a t a
II ��. B van � >i• n
CHASKA
;; I • ro ► 5308 - II
' I 211 W
27
29
25 •
f.A.S.
°� Jonathan �-
219 MW
Cr
20tw 20*
• V
• 31 I 33
35
21 �
�T
• ^ n * r�� == 10 •
.:::•:: ::: s( -X.. I S v V1t
r. t•::.:::•:
1:•::•:. O * •:: 0000.
ka
1 h is
225rJ ::::
5 :> -
ol
r
A
National Wetland Inventory Map �
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
\ j C.
J' — r r -� ei
TONKA r M
Cr
/ 1 • 1
- _
PFac r,
B a w-
0 Tan
'.off E a _ • • J PFO C
� • r.• • •• i" 1, '# PEMG ,•• •
r `
k •'
,- PEMG, - �:•: ; •, �. `r ,.
1 of
I \ i
Pu q
F M G 3
S k i - t
OOW
• all: I !
A ' PEMG _ r'Y/�
• ,
- < � , - -, tom: -- • _„ ..
J " PA
I so
EMS`
po
FEMC
PEMF
i EM f p MF
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Ledvina moved, Harberts seconded that the Planning Commission finds the program
for Development District No. 3 and the plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 3-
1 consistent with the plans for development for the city of Chanhassen, with the
amendment regarding land acquisition consistent with the Highway 5 corridor study.
The Planning Commission also approves Resolution #94 -2 and directs staff to hold a
public hearing on the program and plan on May 23, 1994. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMERSKIRCH FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.95
ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT;
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF
A WETLAND; AND VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED ON
MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF
SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE LANE, NEUMANN
SUBDIVISION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Herb Pfeffer
Harry D. Peters
Ann and Arnold Weimerskirch
Olive Neumann
Art Johnsen
Ken Adolf
Laurie Johnson
Delores Erickson
Mike & Sue Faulk
Chuck Rosenberger
2850 Tanager Lane
18800 Ridgewood Road
2831 Sandpiper Trail
2841 Sandpiper Trail
18300 Minnetonka Blvd, Minnetonka
Schoell and Madson, Inc.
2731 Piper Ridge Lane
2762 Piper Ridge Lane
2791 Piper Ridge Lane
2772 Piper Ridge Lane
Kate Aanenson and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Harberts: Kate, under the recommendation you outline the issues to be addressed. Has there
been a chance to talk with the applicant about those?
Aanenson: Yes, and I'm sure they'll speak to some of those too but we are recommending
11
1
L
w
i
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
tabling because we feel like the relocation of the pond and if we look at the wetland and
where they're mitigating, it may change the configuration of those lots and we thought that
' was a big enough scope that we want another chance to thoroughly review it before you and
get your...
' Harberts: On one of the items with regard to the redesigning of the lots, because of the
variances requested, do you anticipate that you'll be able to bring them into compliance?
' Aanenson: Well I think we can eliminate a lot of those. Certainly you know like if it saves
trees or we can save natural features, that that's certainly a reason to give a variance ... maybe
not all 9 lots are going to work. Maybe only 8 will fit on there and that's the things we'll
' look at. Again as stated, that we ... alteration to that ponding ... so maybe they can get 9 but
maybe 8 works best.
' Harberts: Well I'm just looking at some of the variances that were requested. You know a
17 foot setback. A zero. I guess you know, depending on what the action of the commission
is tonight, is trying to, I guess we're looking at what do we gain by considering the variances
' and what's the benchmark here, especially at 0 and 17.
Aanenson: We're not asking. What we're saying at this point is that we're recommending
' that it be tabled and they go back and try to work out the lot design and maybe we can
eliminate a lot of those variances. That's our position too. Obviously there's been a very
' good effort to try to save the natural features and we do commend the applicant for doing that
but we think they could, with a little bit of tinkering, make it even better. That's what we're
asking for, for the reason for tabling it.
' Harberts: Good, thanks.
' Scott: Any other questions or comments for staff?
Mancino: I just have another question for Kate. On page 7, under Water Resources. And
' I'm thinking about Block 2. The houses on the south side is a wetland and then it goes into
Lake Minnewashta. It has under water resources that there can be limited clearing of trees
and shrubs and cutting and pruning. Tell me, on Block 2, those houses. Can they go in in
' their back yards and put a walkway down to the lake through the wetland?
Aanenson: No, that was our understanding in the doing the common beachlot so they
' wouldn't have to do that. That goes back to the monumentation we just approved. Putting
monumentation on this buffer at the buffer setback the natural... maintain the integrity. And
that's another reason looking at the variances. They may be warranted. This is a tough site.
12
J
r
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
We've got a natural wetland surrounding the entire site plus another wetland on the corner.
But again you have to balance those. Is 8 the right number? Is 9 the right number and then
work with fitting in the topography so.
Mancino: It's a beautiful site. Just a wonderful.
Scott: Good. Dave, do you have any comments? Any additional?
Hempel: No, I pretty well covered it.
Scott: Okay, good. We'd like to hear from the applicant or their representatives. Please
identify yourself and speak into the microphone.
Arnold Weimerskirch: My name is Arnold Weimerskirch. I'm Mrs. Neumann's son -in -law.
Mrs. Neumann is here tonight. With her, my wife Ann next to her. Mrs. Neumann is the
owner of the property. She has owned that property for 60 years and lived there all that time.
My wife and I have lived there for 30 years. And so we've seen Chanhassen go from a very
rural community to as the city gradually closes in around us. And about a year ago we
decided it was time to develop. But we wanted to make sure that it was developed right
because both Mrs. Neumann and my wife and I plan to continue to live there so we want to
make sure it's developed properly. So we went to an old family friend, Art Johnsen who is a
realtor. He is our representative and he works with his associate Hang Peters. They are...and
we went to Schoell and Madson engineering firm and Ken Adolf is here tonight to present
our plan in a little bit more detail so I'll turn it over to Ken.
Ken Adolf: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Again I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell
and Madson, engineering... The design of the subdivision was really intended to minimiz the
amount of grading and ... that's going to be necessary so in general what the plan shows is
grading in the streets, grading in the necessary storm water basin and some alteration of
wetland that was occurring to the grades as shown. I'd like to just cover some of the issues.
As far as the tree survey. All of the trees were not located. They're in general the area
behind the two existing homes and the lot inbetween those two homes, which is not planned
to be built on in the near future. There are no construction planned in that area, removing
those trees. And again we're down to the 6 inch size being requested. We will supplement
the previous tree survey with that additional information. There's been considerable
discussion today about the location of the pond. I've discussed that with Dave Hempel and
with the owners and they have agreed to a pond location in the area that Dave had outlined
on the plan so I think that will work out okay. The owners really want to retain 9 lots.
We'll have to see what can be done with that to retain the 9 lots and still meet the goals that
the staff has set forth in their report. One of the things I want to probably let you know that
13
G
i
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
it is eliminated, there will be some wetland alteration just for the street construction. That's
where the big, the setback variances is occurring is on the Neumann residence where the
' street has to be snaked inbetween the residence and the existing wetland. That's the reason
that the right -of -way with the 50 feet is being proposed and a significant variance of the front
setback. By doing it that way, I think as you can see, the thru street or the proposed street
lines up pretty closely with Tanagers Lane to the north. Providing a 30 foot setback up from
the Neumann house and a 60 foot right -of -way would have significantly pushed that proposed
street into that wetland area. So there will be some mitigation required. The owners would
1 like to retain the existing vegetation. That provides a nice screening on the south side of
Sandpiper Lane and we're probably looking at doing any necessary mitigation along the
lakeshore probably right adjacent to where the storm water pond is proposed.. as long as there
will be some construction activity down in that area anyway. I think that for the most part
that covers the main ... I'd be happy to address any questions.
' Scott: Are there any questions for the applicant?
' Harberts: I have a question maybe for Dave or for the applicant. With regards to that
Tanagers Lane and with the new road. Does it line up dead center then or it kind of like
slightly off? What I'm seeing, it looks like it's slightly off.
Ken Adolf: It is slightly farther east but it's not that significant. I think it comes 10 feet
from lining up ... to the center line.
' Hempel: The actual roadway itself I think could probably be adjusted within that 50 foot
right -of -way to be more of a center...
' Harberts: Dead center line.
Arnold Weimerskirch: Could I comment on that? The map I look at are somewhat
inaccurate in that regard. The map show a rather sharp right angle turn between Sandpiper
and Tanagers. In reality that isn't a right angle turn at all. It's a large curve and there's no
way of telling where Sandpiper ends and where Tanagers begins. I'm not sure how
significant that is but I don't think anybody would look at our driveway as an extension of
Sandpiper, or as an extension of Tanager Lane. Then as a matter of fact I would recommend
' that to me it's more logical to call it an extension of Sandpiper than it is of Tanager. We get
quite a number of confused visitors wondering where Tanager is and where Sandpiper is. So
to me it would be more likely to call that Sandpiper rather than Tanager.
' Scott: Any other questions or comments for the applicant?
14
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Arnold Weimerskirch: I do have one other point I would like to bring up. When the sewer
lines were put in we, the property was assessed along Sandpiper Lane or Sandpiper Trail.
And what is now Lot 27 was assessed 2 units on the premise that there would be 2 houses
built fronting onto Sandpiper Trail. That's all wet then. This is 20 years ago when ... Those
lots of course are not buildable now so it does seem fair to me that those assessments be
eliminated now since it is not buildable property.
Scott: Can you respond to that?
Hempel: We can certainly check with the city's assessment clerk and see what, if any,
assessments have been paid on that parcel and if that area is deemed unbuildable due to that
wetland and so forth, the applicant probably does have a credit coming back as the parcel, so
we will take that under advisement and update you.
Arnold Weimerskirch: The assessments haven't been paid. They were deferred based on
being a senior citizen so they haven't been paid but they have them.
Scott: Okay. Anything else? Okay. This is a public hearing. Could I have a motion to
open the public hearing please?
Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was opened.
Scott: If anyone would like to speak about this issue, please step forward and identify
yourselves and we'll go from there. So would anyone like to speak. Is there anyone here for
this particular issue?
Herb Pfeffer: My name is Herb Pfeffer. I live on the corner of Sandpiper and Tanager and
I'm.
Harberts: Which side?
Herb Pfeffer: It would be on the west side of Tanager ... the curve on the lower left hand
corner. And I really haven't seen any of the information about the abandonment of the right -
of -way of Minnewashta Avenue and since it impacts me, as I am the property owner adjacent
to that, I'd like some explanation.
Scott: As far as the.
Herb Pfeffer: As far as if the roadway is abandoned, what happens to my property that's
W
1
i
n
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
adjacent to the right -of -way?
Scott: So you're located, run that by us again. I see Sandpiper Lane, Tanager Lane and I see
just south of, okay. That's what I was thinking.
Herb Pfeffer: Right here. If you're going to eliminate Minnewashta Lane ... exactly what's all
abandoned? Is it from this point further? All the way down or what?
Scott: Dave, why don't you speak to that.
Hempel: At this point we'd be looking at vacating the, probably the portion west, laying
west of Tanagers Lane and reserving a drainage utility easement down to the lake where the
city has utility lines down to.
r
F
Herb Pfeffer: You mean right here? Starting at this point? Abandoning it.
Hempel: That's correct. As long as there's no other homes being serviced by that parcel.
Herb Pfeffer: Well, then we've got a conflict because we've got a beachlot down here that's.
Aanenson: It'd start past the beachlot.
Herb Pfeffer: What's that?
Aanenson: Past the beachlot.
Herb Pfeffer: Oh past. It won't be vacated here then?
Aanenson: No. We've already approved that. The City Council approved a non - conforming
permit for that beachlot.
Herb Pfeffer: That's right.
Aanenson: Right. So we'd start past the beachlot.
Herb Pfeffer: So will where it be vacated? At what point?
Aanenson: Once it starts to take the bend to hear east.
Herb Pfeffer: Over here?
16
r
Manning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Aanenson: Yes.
Herb Pfeffer: Along the lakeshore?
Aanenson: Right. Through their property, yes.
Herb Pfeffer: Okay. Then are these going to, you know you don't show that roadway
coming down here and I really don't understand it. We're going to have additional, these are
lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 and so on. Are we going to be building houses down in this area?
Scott: No.
Herb Pfeffer: No. Okay, so the purpose of the abandonment here is for what?
Hempel: To eliminate the unnecessary right -of -way that's essentially in the wetland. It
serves no function.
Scott: It's more an administrative.
Harberts: It doesn't serve a public function in other words?
Hempel: No it does not.
I
Aanenson: It's a paper street.
Arnold Weimerskirch: It's under water.
Herb Pfeffer: It is. It is under water.
Harberts: So is the Bloomington Ferry Bridge.
Herb Pfeffer: Yeah a portion, well you don't really. I can't really tell from this map exactly
where the lake is or the road is down there but I'm assuming you're going to say it's going to
be abandoned right at the water there.
Harberts: Kate, and I'm guessing that if the commission decides to table this, that this would
be an opportunity to maybe review this in detail so the residents do understand what's being
abandoned. I don't know, it might be easier to show it on other maps rather than
transparencies that have pictures.
17
J
i Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Ken Adolf: The right -of -way proposed to be abandoned is directly behind the Neumann
house that's in the section right here. It's really south of where Sandpiper Lane is.
' Harberts: How far does it go?
' Ken Adolf: Well most of the street has already been vacated. It's just a small area right in
here. It's this area right here.
' Herb Pfeffer: Just that section there. But how far down does it go?
Ken Adolf. Well it used to go all the way around.
' Arnold Weimerskirch: It goes all the way around.
' Ken Adolf: So that's already been vacated.
Arnold Weimerskirch: The land has been platted in the 1800's. Presumably at a time
when ... and that plat is there. It is under water. I don't think that's an issue here. We surely
don't intend to build ... so it would just be vacated. I would presume the city would want to
do that because it's a nuisance for it to be on the map when it doesn't exist in reality. The
' Minnewashta Manor Homeowners do own a lot in the lake.
' Scott: Sure. I remember seeing that.
Arnold Weimerskirch: But they do nevertheless have a right -of -way to that so we have no
' intention of preserving that. It'd be just to erase the fictious road right -of -v. a,7 that doesn't
exist anyway.
1 Herb Pfeffer: Okay so then that right -of -way will go to your property, be on your property...
Arnold Weimerskirch: Well I presume it will but it's wetland.
Scott: Would anybody else like to speak at this particular public hearing on this issue?
' Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
' Ledvina: Kate, would a wetland alteration permit be required for the construction of the
dock. Do we know that?
18
r
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
Aanenson: Yes. I
Ledvina: It would be required? I
Aanenson: Well, we've done it on other ones just to make sure. Really all we've done in
the past is to say that they ... a boardwalk and that's why we're asking more specifics. How '
it's going to be constructed and looking at that but we've done it on the other ones. We did
require a wetland alteration permit and as a technicality we did insure that it's built, a
permitting process on other lots that do have wetlands when I think you're impacting it. I '
think that's, there will be minimum loss but we want to see the type...
Ledvina: How would you mitigate that type of scenario? I mean for constructing a dock. ,
Aanenson: What we'd look at is any removal and basically that's why you go over the top. ,
It's just the posts going in...
Ledvina: Yeah but I mean if you're restricting the vegetation from coming up, is that altering
the wetland? Maybe you're not filling in it but I don't know.
Mancino: You've got to put the posts in and there's a lot of work to be done in that area. '
Ledvina: Right. How do you get in there? Develop wrecking stuff as you're trying to put
the thing in. Okay, so that's a specific thing that we'll know about when we have details on ,
the construction of the dock.
Aanenson: Right. I
Ledvina: Okay. Now as it relates to the area that's calculated for the recreational beachlot.
Now we're not using any of the area that's wetland, is that correct?
Aanenson: No. It'd be upland...
Ledvina: Okay, the upland area.
Aanenson: But let me make something else clear on that. The ordinance, the beachlot ,
ordinance indicates a grade on that as far as, it doesn't say it has to be upland and staff's
ability to interpret that...upland area.
Ledvina: I would support that as well. And there's a formula as it relates to the number of '
docks and the number of boats.
19
i
u
u
I Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Aanenson: It's on square footage.
' Ledvina: Square footage, okay. And that's what's been determined 9 boats with the potential
of 3 docks. Okay. Well, I would support the construction of one dock with the 9 slips. I
' think that's the less intrusive technique for providing that amenity to the beachlot. I certainly
want to make sure that we have a good handle on what's going to happen to the wetland as it
relates to the construction of that dock and that we take the measures that we need to protect
' that area and also mitigate, if that's deemed appropriate so. I think that I would support the
development and I would agree that the developer's done a good job of trying to be as
sensitive as they can to the wetland near Sandpiper Lane and if staff deems it appropriate that
' the setback on the existing Weimerskirch house is, if we need to compromise that, I would
support that. I guess I would like to see it back again so I would support staff's
recommendation to table.
Scott: Okay. Nancy?
' Mancino: I would like to ask Mr. Chair if we could ask the applicant how they feel about the
one dock with 9 boat slips on it as in the staff report. What their opinion is, etc. Instead of
having 3 docks. Having one dock with 9 boat slips on it.
' Scott: It looks like it's drawn in.
' Arnold Weimerskirch: We're fine with that. That was our proposal.
' Mancino: Oh, that was your proposal?
Scott: Well it's on the plans that way.
Arnold Weimerskirch: Correct. That's what we proposed in our original.
' Mancino: Okay. My mistake. Thank you. I have nothing new to add. I support staff's
recommendation for tabling it and bringing it back with the revisions and the
recommendations that they've made. I would like to just add to it that we do perform a tree
' canopy coverage analysis of the existing tree inventory. And that we be supplied with a tree
replacement plan and use our pending new tree preservation ordinance to follow that. And
that's it, thank you.
Scott: Good, Jeff.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Farmakes: I support staff recommendations on this. I would clarify 5 ... stated the seasonal
PP Y
dock. I believe the DNR, if you leave the posts in the water, the support posts in the water, '
it's no longer considered seasonal. You may want to clarify exactly what kind of dock we're
dealing with there. With this dock specification on 5.
Scott: Okay. Diane. ,
Harberts: I would support staff's recommendation to table it. I appreciate what the applicant '
has done with regard to the trees. The natural amenities here as well as with the dock. I'm
sorry I had to step out but I hope that that road issue was resolved or at least the information
can be brought forward to the gentleman that lives on the corner there. I would really ,
support trying to eliminate as many variances as possible on the redesign of the subdivision.
I don't know, I'm just real uneasy about some of, well at least with some of the variances
that are stated right now that exist right now so I would just encourage to eliminate as many,
if not all of them. But we'll certainly leave that to staff and the applicant to work out. But I
appreciate the responsiveness from the applicant.
Scott: Good. Ladd. '
Conrad: I think the applicant gave us a good proposal. I think staff did a good job of '
analysis. I'm real impressed and I think our ordinance played real nicely with a sensitive
area like this so it's all peaches and cream. I think the staff report is good. I think we
should table it for the modifications. ,
Harberts: Just one other thing Mr. Chair. I would just like to draw emphasis to the road
system lining up. Tanager Lane and whatever this new road will be called. I know the '
discussion by the applicant with regard to the curve. Dave, you made the comment that
maybe we work within the right -of -way. I think it's very important long term, in terms of
circulation, in terms of traffic patterns, that we get it lined up the first time so. ,
Scott: Okay. I support the staff recommendation. Can I have a motion please?
Mancino: I will recommend that we table the applicant's request so that the plat can be ,
FP � P
revised to address the following issues. One, relocation of the storm water pond. Two, a ,
more detailed tree survey and in compliance with the new tree preservation ordinance. Three,
elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can also
be achieved through lot redesign. Four, a 60 foot radius needs to be provided at the end of '
the cul -de -sac. And five, a sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot, including trail
and dock specifications.
21 '
LJ
1
J i
J
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994
Harberts: I'd like to also add Nancy, if it's okay with regard to the lining up of the Tanager
Lane and the new road. I know Jeff had brought up the discussion point about clarifying the
dock, seasonal or permanent.
Mancino: I think that would be under 5.
Farmakes: I think that can be under specifications. It is listed as a seasonal dock.
Harberts: Okay. Was there something Matt that you touched on?
Ledvina: No.
Scott: Do you accept that amendment?
Mancino: Yes. I accept number 6 as lining up the Tanager and the new street. Cul-de -sac.
Scott: Okay. Is there a second please?
Conrad: I second.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the staff's recommendation with the
additional conditions. Is there any discussion?
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table the application
for the Neumann Subdivision #94 -3 so the plat can be revised to address the following
issues:
1. Relocation of the storm water pond.
2. A more detailed tree survey and in compliance with the new tree preservation
ordinance.
3. Elimination of the variance requests through redesign of the lots. Wetland avoidance can
also be achieved through lot redesign.
4. A 60 foot radius needs to be provided at the end of the cul-de -sac.
5. A sketch plan needs to be provided for the beachlot, including trail and dock
specifications.
22
f
Planning Commission Meeting - May 4, 1994 1
6. That the applicant try to line of Tanager Lane with the new cul-de -sac. I
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. I
PUBLIC HEARING: '
LUTHERAN CHURCH OF LIVING CHRIST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A
7,560 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF THE LIVING '
CHRIST ON PROPERTY ZONED OI, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL AND LOCATED ON
LOT 2, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, 820 LAKE DRIVE.
Public Present: ,
Name Address
Don Wagner Architects Professional Association ,
Jim Dewalter Lutheran Church of the Living Christ
Nancy J. Manzey 17229 Round Lake Road, Eden Prairie
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. '
Harberts: Question. The front of the building where the steps go up, is that the part that I
goes into like the narthex into the church part? Do you know?
Aanenson: I'll let the architect. I believe that's the... I
Harberts: Into the church? I guess my real question here is, does that meet ADA? I mean if
someone was in a wheelchair, how do you get them up the steps? I
Don Wagner: Okay, I'd like to answer that. My name is Don Wagner. I'm the registered
architect and I'm representing Architects Professional Association. We're an architectural '
firm in Eden Prairie and we have been selected as the architects to design this particular
addition to this facility. Your question regarding the ADA. What we are providing are,
according to ADA rules, we're providing 5 new stalls. Some of them are 5 foot wide. ,
Access spaces on each side. One with an 8 foot wide stall for a van. Two of those spaces
are located right down there on each side of the drive. They are intended to serve the lower
level. That area's about 4 feet 4 inches higher than the lower level so consequently you '
would need about 90 feet of a horizontal run to drop to that 4 feet. We have 110 of
bituminous surfacing that would go from that area to the new entry that we're providing with '
23
u
id
r
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 1, 1994
Chairman Scott called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Scott, Matt Ledvina, Ladd Conrad, Jeff Farmakes, and Nancy
Mancino
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ron Nutting and Diane Harberts
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; Bob
Generous, Planner II and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
(The quality of the recording on the first tape was very poor and therefore a lot of the
discussion could not be heard.)
ARNOLD AND ANN WEIMERSKIRCH FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF 25.95
ACRES INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY
ZONED RSF; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT;
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION OF
A WETLAND; AND VACATION OF RIGHT -OF -WAY LOCATED ON
MINNEWASHTA AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF
SANDPIPER LANE AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE. NEUMANN SUBDIVISION.
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Scott: Would the applicant or their representative wish to speak?
Ken Adolf: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is Ken Adolf with Schoell
and Madsen, the consulting engineers for the applicant. The applicant... Mrs. Neumann is
here ... Harry Peters and Harry Peterson. I'd like to address several of the recommendations.
I'll just go through them item by item. On the first one, the 13 foot front yard variance on
Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback variance on Lot 4. I believe it should be Lot
3 which is the ... On the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue, I did make a transparency and if
there's any questions on the location of that. We'd like to just make a clarification of what
Mr. Weimerskirch was misquoted in the Minutes of the previous meeting on the vacation of
actually Sandpiper Lane and I believe he's...
Ann Wiemerskirch: On page 18 of the Minutes ... my husband said, but they do nevertheless
have the right -of -way to that so we have no intention of, and he said disturbing that and he's
quoted here as saying preserving that and we don't want the neighbors to think that we have
no intention of preserving that right -of -way to the lake. He...
Ken Adolf: Okay, I have—additional clarification. In determination of Lots 1 and 2, the
applicant feels that both of those lots ... both of those lots meet the ordinance requirements so
we don't need variances. We feel that the justification... all the mitigation that is necessary is
provided to the street construction. There isn't any ... included for providing a buildable site.
,
And the other, two other items... adjacent to a wetland. One of the items, we don't feel that
that's necessarily a justification for ... There's no justification to require that. So that should be
Lots 1 and 2, Block l...On the, I guess which is now item 14. I had in my notes number 7.
'
Storm water trunk fees. This is something that apparently is something new which did not
appear in the previous report and the applicant is questioning if it's appropriate for them to be
subjected to something that hasn't been ... or adopted by the city. If I guess that's going to be
upheld we would ask that the lots for the two existing houses be exempted from having to
pay that fee. One of the justifications for the question of whether it should be done is if this
'
had been approved at the last Planning Commission meeting... would have been able to avoid
this.
,
Aanenson: If I could just make a clarification. We didn't ...in the last staff report.-that it be
tabled so that's why it wasn't in there—We just put four reasons why...
Ken Adolf: I guess I'm referring to the discussion in the main report Last time there wasn't
any mention of this that I know of On item 11, which refers to the tree conservation
easement and the 10,000 square foot area that would be available to construct a home. That's
'
basically been shown on the tree preservation plan. A 60 foot pad, which is required by law
needs to be shown plus 20 feet around the perimeter of that ...We feel that that's really too
restrictive in that it wouldn't necessarily... larger area than that but.-being just restricted to that
,
specific area ... a tree preservation easement and ... is considerable effort to get that relocated if
necessary. What we're asking for is some additional flexibility for that. We feel each lot
here is unique and that we'd like to just sit down with the staff and identify a tree
'
preservation easement area on each individual lot rather than just using a rule of 100 x 100
square and trying to find that ... lot so we are asking for additional flexibility.
Mancino: Excuse me, what is the tone of the development? I mean do you want it to be, are
you going to market it, advertise it as a wooded area and draw people in for part of that?
,
Ken Adolf: That's correct. That's what the intent is and the initial site grading would be...
storm water pond and the lots would be cleared and graded at this time. That would be done
with the home construction and we're ... homes here which we design to best fit the site.
'
Mancino: Do you see it's an added benefit and an added enhancement, enticement to the ,
people who are going to come to want to live here, to know that their neighbors are going to
preserve their trees too and that there is an easement and so that you know that you won't
have a neighbor next to you that's going to clear cut let's say or take 3 or 4 trees. Want a '
nice front yard instead of this wonderful treed lot that you have already existing there.
Ken Adolf: I think I'll defer that to either Harry Peters or Harry Peters. I
2 1
L�
1
J
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
Harry Peters: I can't quite hear you. I can only hear out of one ear.
Mancino: Okay. Am I loud enough?
Harry Peters: Yeah, that's fine.
Mancino: Can you hear me better?
Harry Peters: Sure.
Mancino: Okay. My question has to do with, in some of these neighborhoods where we
have a lot of trees to be begin with. If they're forested, etc. People you are going to attract
and buyers to these areas, these wooded lots and build custom homes, tend to, one thing ... they
like knowing that the other people in this development want to preserve the trees too. And
they like the idea of having a conservation easement on each lot knowing that the other
neighbors will not be taking down lots of trees. So it is an enhancement. It is an incentive
for them to want to move in this type of area because it is so special and it is unique.
Harry Peters: Well I think this is very true. I think anybody that's going to be interested in
buidling in this area is going to like, appreciate nature because this is a very unique piece of
land. But most of these lots that we are creating are all very, very heavily wooded. You can
say you're going to build a house and not take a tree down. I mean take a tree down to
arrange that. But more importantly, your ordinance calls for a side lot requirement and the
setback requirement from the road, the setback requirement from the rear lot line, so the
configuration that can be built on on these various lots depends on what that side lot
requirement is and the setback from front and rear. And we don't know until someone comes
in and becomes interested in a specific lot, what kind of a house they're going to build.
Somebody may want to build a long rambler. Somebody may want to build a two story.
And some of these lots, the best building site is back away from the road where you get up
on a ridge where you can take advantage of those beautiful southerly views looking out to the
parkland to the south.
Mancino: So would this Kate, conservation easement that we're talking about in 11, restrict
that? Is that that area?
Aanenson: Yes ... if you go in a setback area, you have a lot of flexibility. When we go back
and we look at the tree ordinance, the one we just adopted, if someone's buying these lots
and wants to go in with a swimming pad or cut it down to put in a swimming pool, then
they're in the wrong type of lot. And that's why you try ... and maybe it's not a first time
buyer. Maybe it's the second person that comes in and wants to add on. You try to identify
3
I�
I
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 f
the conservation area. Obviously some trees are coming out We're ... but we're saying
beyond that, that we want ...that's described into the home, is aware that they ... I think we ,
could look at some different...In this circumstance we thought it would be easier to say this is
a 10,000 square area you can build instead of trying to find the ... Here's we're describing the
area you can build in... '
Mancino: ...you will be flexible in listening to what they think?
Aanenson: Well, on their tree plan they show a. ... and we support that ...move around within '
that. We're not saying it all has to be...We're saying within that 10,000 square foot there's
flexibility.
Mancino: That's what I wanted to find out. Thank you.
Harry Peters: Well am I correct, am I correct if we're going to merchandise these parcels of
land, these people should be allowed to build on that lot wherever they wish to dependent
upon the side lot requirements, as required by the building ordinance. I mean people buying
this type of property, a lot of them are going to have an architect and they aren't going to be
restricted to this little square that you're talking about. I think we don't have to restrict them.
Aanenson: I agree but in talking bout, how do you try to do a tree conservation? As they ,
g
come in and do it lot by lot you know. I'm not sure there's a mechanism to do that sort of
thing.
Harry Peters: Well if you're going to restrict these lots to having a building of just a certain
little area, you're going to destroy the value of the lot.
Aanenson: Well that's the same approach we've taken on quite a few with a home placement '
plan. That's the direction, the city has had a home placement plan for years.
Harry Peters: I mean we aren't, to build on this kind of lot that we're creating is a lot more '
expensive than these lots all around on the old farmland where they cut in a road and punch
in basements.
Aanenson: We just looked at the Song property. They had numerous trees on there.
Ken Adolf: Well as I said, what we're asking for is just some flexibility to work with the... '
tree conservation area on each individual lot. The comments we had, a couple items I'd just
like to mention. We did show a center island in the cul -de -sac and we'd like to get approval
for that ... but I think the natural setting and breaking up the big expanse of the bituminous in a ,
i
i Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
cul -de -sac would fit in with the area a lot nicer. An additional comment that was ... in the
record. The property has some deferred sanitary sewer assessments along Sandpiper,
' basically into the wetland area and the applicant is asking that those sewer
assessments... wetland area which is not going to be developed and it's in the same area where
the two lots that are being...
Scott: Excuse me. Was that a particular condition that you're?
' Ken Adolf: Well I think we just wanted to have that on the record that that's being
requested.
' Scott: Oh okay.
Ken Adolf: I don't know if a condition is a proper way to address that. Maybe the Council
' will... On the wetland alteration...and that's where we're kind of sandwiched between the
existing house and the wetland and getting into the wetland with some small amount. As far
' as the mitigation, we discussed this with staff and rather than showing it on the north side...
proposed to do it on the east side ... So we'll work with staff in picking an area that will... Last
time there was some question on the docks. ...if you have any questions on that, Art Johnson
' is here to address those type of dock ... I'd be happy to answer any questions, further questions
you might have.
Scott: Are there any questions or comments for the applicant? I guess not at this point in
time. This is a public hearing and can I have a motion to open the public hearing please.
Ledvina moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was open.
Scott: Are there any members of the public who wish to speak at this public hearing?
Seeing none, may I have a motion to close.
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and
the motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
I Scott: Comments. Jeff.
Farmakes: If the city has verbiage I think in there requiring for dockage, isn't it worded as
being temporary? Being removable.
Aanenson: Speaking to Ceil Strauss from the DNR, their amenable to leaving it in
5
F�
r
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 f
permanently as it appears or it may ,
Pe Y PP Y be taken out and...
Farmakes: I was just wondering. Is this in conflict with the city ordinance? ,
Aanenson: No.
' removed '
Farmakes: So it's not a requirement that rt be ved at the end of the season? e o
Aanenson: No. '
Farmakes: Okay. I
Aanenson: Again...
Farmakes: I don't have a problem with the islands. I know we've discussed these ... city '
engineer has had quite a few problems with it in the past. This is a very small development.
In general the recommendations are ... It seems logical to me how this development's been '
proposed. The areas for the housing. I would support staffs recommendation in the areas
for housing pads ... come forward with a more flexible plan that makes sense and seems to
minimize the loss of trees. I don't have any further comments. ,
Scott: Okay, Nancy.
Mancino: I've got a question Kate about the conditional use permit. We're receiving some
DNR approval for the dock...
Aanenson: They have more than 4 slips ... They're allowed in a recreational beachlot permit to '
have, based on their square footage, to have 3 docks. 3 boats at each dock. We're
recommending, based on the wetland, that they ... one dock. But when you do that now, '
you're taking a requirement for permitting from the DNR. But you have 4 boats at once,
that requires a marina. They do support ... and again the only issue we've got...
Mancino: Okay. Y q . M only other question, and I do support staff's recommendations, is on '
the ... What I'm looking at is, I'm looking... canopy coverage and I assume that everything...
Then we have a house pad. Then you have broken lines that give us the 10,000 square foot '
outside. And I see trees right next to that. What trees are going to come down? I mean
they're not just in that 10,000 square foot area, is that right? I
Aanenson: Right. What we did is look at a driveway and then ... and we figured to have a '
6 '
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
base line of 50% and the ordinance allows 35 %. They were allowed to remove, we feel
confident that removal of the trees in this subdivision keeps them within the 35 percentage.
' But that's why we're concerned with saying, just going with the setback, that would allow in
excess removal ... we're willing to work with them as far as some flexibility but just to leave it
open, that's unacceptable...
' Mancino: Okay. I think the staff recommendations look very good and I support them.
' Scott: Matt.
Ledvina: Last time we talked about the dock and I asked the question, is there going to be
any dredging that's going to be required to access the dock? No dredging, okay. Do we
know if the installation of the dock will require a wetland alteration permit?
Aanenson: I did check with that and no, it does not.
' Ledvina: Does not, okay. Alright, let's see. On number 14. What would the city's status
Dave on exempting the two existing houses from these fees? Would that be standard fare?
Hempel: That's a good question. The surface water management fees were partially based
on the remaining developable land in the city by the estimated construction dollars to arrive at
the rate per acre. Now that would tell me that these homes probably were not included.
' Would not be included in the surface water management fees. Similar to park and rec trail
fees. Dedication fees. I don't think they're claiming these two parcels should be charged
those fees as well. I'd like to do a little more investigation I guess with our consultant who
' put together the fee structure. The proposed fee structure and get some clarification on that.
But my initial reaction is that they should be exempt.
Ledvina: Okay. I think we can add something to that to get staff evaluation on that for the
developer so. Let's see. That's the extent of my comments.
Scott: Good, Ladd.
Conrad: Kate, under condition 4. Would you just give to me the rationale for 1 and 2 being
combined?
Aanenson: As Dave indicated in his part of the report, Lot 1 has a ... pretty steep driveway...
which exceeds the city requirement of 10% and the other lot is right on...wetland. You have
to get ... and again we were recommending that the mitigation be moved over to the other side
of the wetland. That really it probably would make more sense...
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) '
Conrad: On condition number 11. I don't want, I'm not sure what kind of precedence I'd be ,
setting but I guess I would staff to review the alternatives in terms of a per lot canopy
review, and that sounds like a lot. I'm not sure...I think I want you to do that. I don't know
that I'm disagreeing with the condition however. That's all. ,
Scott: Good. Can I have a motion please? '
Mancino: I move that we recommend approval of Preliminary Plat #94 -3 as shown on the
plans stamped, or dated May 17, 1994 and subject to the following conditions. Number 1
reads a 13 foot front yard setback variance to Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard setback
variance on Lot 3, Block 2. Number 2 as is. Number 3 as is. Number 4 as is. Number 5 as
is. Number 6 as is. Number 7 deleted. Number 8 deleted. Number 9 as is. Number 10 as '
is. Number 11 reads, a tree conservation easement shall be placed on all lots outside of the
10,000 square foot building pad as shown on the tree canopy plan. Staff will work with the
applicant for placement of these—on these lots. Number 12 as is. Number 13 as is. Number '
14 reads, staff will evaluate whether the applicant should pay the appropriate storm water
quality and quantity fees for storm water management improvements in accordance to the
city's surface water management plan. ,
Scott: And conditions 15 thru 23 remain as is.
Conrad: I second that.
Ledvina: Friendly amendment? I
Mancino: Sure.
Ledvina: As far as item 4. Or as far as condition number 4 is concerned. Could we add a
descriptor identify Block 1?
Mancino: Block 1. Lot 2 shall be combined into one lot, Block 1? '
Ledvina: Well no. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. '
Scott: Is that acceptable?
Conrad: Yes.
8
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
' Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we recommend approval of the staff report with
conditions. Any discussion?
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Preliminary Plat #94 -3 as shown on the plans stamped May 17, 1994, and subject to
the following conditions:
' 1. A 13 foot front yard setback variance for Lot 1, Block 2 and a 12 foot front yard
setback variance on Lot 3, Block 2.
' 2. City Council approval of the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue.
3. Approval of the 50 foot right -of -way for street.
4. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall be combined into one lot.
I 5. Relocation of the storm water retention pond from the rear of Lot 3, Block 2 to
between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2.
6. Erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management
Practices Handbook.
' 7. Deleted.
8. Deleted.
9. The two existing homes within the plat are required to be connected to city sewer
within 30 days after the sanitary sewer line becomes operational. The homes may
' continue to utilize their existing wells until the well fails.
10. The street shall be named Tanagers Lane or Tanagers Court and the two existing homes
' shall be required to change their addresses to correspond to the plat's street name and
city's address grid.
' 11. Tree conservation easements shall be placed on all lots outside of the 10,000 square
foot building pad as shown on the tree canopy plan. Staff will work with the
' applicant as to the placement of building pads in relationship to the canopy plan.
' 12. Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet
9
fl
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 1
above the wetland's ordinary high h water level. '
13. The grading plan shall be revised to show the appropriate site grading to achieve '
buildable house pad elevations adjacent to the wetlands. Individual grading and
drainage plans will be required for all treed lots. The plans shall be submitted to the
City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. '
14.
The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees er- pfevide
6tefm water- management iaVr-evefneats in accordance to the City's Surface Water
,
Management Plan. If the storm water fees have not been formally adopted by the time
final plat is to be recorded, then a letter of credit or cash dedication will be escrowed
with the City until the SWMP plan has been formally adopted by the City and the fees
,
adjusted accordingly based on the approved fee schedule and assessment methodology.
15.
Storm water calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker standards.
The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10 -year storm event.
'
16.
The erosion control plan may be modified subject to the final grading and drainage
plan. Erosion control measures shall be employed in accordance to the City's Best
Management Practice Handbook.
17.
All retaining walls shall be built outside the City's right -of -way and maintained by the
'
property owner.
18.
All utility and street installation for public improvements shall be in accordance with
the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed
construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City for review and
formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval.
'
19.
The applicant shall be required to enter into a development contract with the City and
provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public
'
improvements and conditions of final platting.
20.
As a result of platting the two existing homes may be required to change the addresses
'
to correspond to the final plat and the City's address grid system. The new street name
shall be subject to approval by the City's Public Safety Department.
'
21.
The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e.
Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, MPCA, Minnesota Dept. of Health, etc.
'
10
,
L
I Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994
' 22. Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval.
' 23. Accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Neumann Subdivision in lieu of
parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One -thud of the park and trail cash
contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat.
' The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued:
rate in effect for residential single family property when a building permit is issued
minus the amount previously paid."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
' Mancino: I recommend that we recommend approval of conditional use permit #94 -2 for the
recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions. 1 thru 4 as is.
' Conrad: I second that.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we accept staff's recommendation on that item. Is
there any discussion?
' Ledvina: I have a small item here. On the first one, the first condition. I think we should
probably say with more than 4 slips because they're looking at 9 slips. We know that so that
would be a friendly amendment.
' Scott: Is that acceptable?
' Mancino: It is.
Conrad: And I would second that.
I Scott: Is there any more discussion?
' Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #94 -2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following
conditions:
' 1. Receive DNR approval for dock with more than 4 slips.
2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock.
3. The dock shall have a maximum of 9 boat slips.
11
r
Planning Commission Meeting - June 1, 1994 '
4. The recreatio n al bea chlot shall meet all of the General Issuance Standards of Section '
20 -232, conditional uses. '
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
Scott: Can I have a motion on the wetland alteration permit please? '
Mancino: I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the wetland alteration permit '
#94 -2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions. 1 thru 4.
Scott: Okay, is there a second? ,
Conrad: I do.
Scott: It's been moved and seconded that we approve the wetland alteration permit. Is there
any discussion?
Mancino moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval ,
of Wetland Alteration Permit #94 -2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following
conditions:
1 The area of mitigation shall be located on the northeastern portion of the site.
2. A replacement plan is necessary for any impacts to the wetland at a minimum size
wetland replacement ratio of 2:1.
3. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires '
authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers.
4. The followin g wetland setbacks shall be maintained: '
Natural wetland 10' -30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback '
Ag/urban wetland 0 -30' buffer strip and 40 foot structure setback
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PATRICK MINGER FOR THE REZONING OF 8.46 ACRES FROM A2, '
12 '
t
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: RESOLUTION NO:
MOTION BY: SECONDED BY:
A RESOLUTION VACATING MINNEWASHTA AVENUE,
ORIGINALLY RECORDED IN THE PLAT OF MINNEWASHTA PARK
WHEREAS, the City of Chanhassen was petitioned to vacate Minnewashta Avenue as
follows:
That part of Minnewashta Avenue, originally dedicated in the recorded plat of
" Minnewashta Park, Carver Co., Minn." and now to be vacated which lies southerly of
the easterly extension of the northerly line of Lot 19 in said plat and lying westerly of the
southerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 21 in said plat.
That part of the East Half of Minnewashta Avenue, originally dedicated in the recorded
plat of " Minnewashta Park, Carver Co., Minn." and now to be vacated which lies
northerly of the easterly extension of the northerly line of Lot 19 in said plat and lying
southerly of the westerly extension of that particular northerly line of Lot 27 in said plat
having a record dimension of 74.2 feet.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said petition on June 13, 1994; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was preceded by two weeks published and posted notice
as required by Section 412.851 of Minnesota Statutes; and
WHEREAS, there is no public interest to be served by the continued public ownership
of that portion of the above described easements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that any and all of the above described
easements are hereby vacated.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 13th day of June, 1994.
I ATTEST:
Don Ashworth, City Clerk/Manager
YES
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
NO ABSENT
DESCRIPTION FOR: Mrs. Henry Neumann 62217 -001
Prepared By:
' SCHOELL & MADSON, INC.
ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS
_ SOIL TESTING •ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
10600 WAYZATA BLVD.
MINNETONKA. MN. 66242
I
161216)6 -7001 FAXi 600 -0000
STREET VACATION
That part of Minnewashta Avenue, originally dedicated iri the recorded plat of
"Minnewashta Park, Carver Co., Minn." and now to be vacated which lies southerly of
the easterly extension of the northerly line of Lot 19 in said plat and lying westerly of
the southerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 21 in said plat.
That part of the East Half of Minnewashta Avenue, originally dedicated in the
recorded plat of "Minnewashta Park, Carver Co., Minn." and now to be vacated which
lies northerly of the easterly extension of the northerly line of Lot 19 in said plat and
lying southerly of the westerly extension of that particular northerly line of Lot 27 in
said plat having a record dimension of 74.2 feet.
Date: 'June 1, 1994
Theodore D. Kemna
Land Surveyor MN Lic. No. 17006
7 8 - O �2 \ \ 13 4
uj
�(, p► 61 0
9 10 i 5
- w 6 bo NINNEW,
U 9 7
Q
OU TLOT B i 10 Q 8 t ° o
I
I sa so
/ 27 2 3 4 5
� R
L
r/ 26 A /'°ER R1ID GE o 7
� � R
P \`y\v.25 22 21
G O .� y 24 i t 10 9
12
19 g
1 23
20
C�
1
1
1
-4
-46
C)
0
z
rD
(Ji
Jo
rT
I]o
)0
0
M
M
>
' � H
0
>
00
(D
w cri
rrl
1 � C)
' z
0
1
• j
I
I
/
9
C)
0
(00
z
co
00
>o
/
9