6. Spinnaker Wharf Comprehensive Plan Amendment & Concept Planned Unit DevelopmentJ
CITY OF 6
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
DATE: February 24, 1994
SUBJ: Spinnaker Wharf
BACKGROUND
?ME by City AdministmW
bee to Cormisslotl
Date St' . to Council
This item appeared before the City Council on January 10, 1994. The applicant, Boyer Building
Corporation, is proposing a 26 unit single family PUD. The request as proposed would require
amending the PUD zone. The minimum lot size for single family detached housing under the
PUD is 11,000 square feet, whereas this project proposes 5,000 square foot lots. The trade -off
that the PUD provided substantial common open spaces. Staff supported changing the ordinance
to allow this to occur. The Planning Commission raised concerns with this recommendation.
Staff is recommending against other alternatives that would allow this project to happen which
include rezoning or a comprehensive plan amendment.
At that time the Council held a public hearing, they recommended tabling this item to allow the
applicant to develop a concept illustrating a standard 15,000 square foot lot subdivision. The
council wanted to be able to compare a traditional subdivision with the proposed PUD. The
applicant has developed a subdivision under the standards of the RSF zone for your
' consideration. Their request the PUD (26 unit 5,000 lot development) is what the applicants
are seeking approval from the City Council.
t ANALYSIS
Ile applicant has prep :E -zed a subdivision that could be developed under the RSF (residential
' single family zone) District. Because this plat is for discussion purposes, the review has been
cursory. The plat proposes 22 lots. A public street off of Dartmouth Drive via Arbor Lane
would provide access for 19 of the lots. This street should have a 60 foot right -of -way with a
60 foot turning radius. The concept proposes a 50 foot ROW. The three lots west of the channel
would gain access off of a private drive via Washta Bay Road.
MEMORANDUM
I',
F1
Don Ashworth
February 24, 1994
Page 2
Eleven of the lots would have to meet the shoreland requirements of 20,000 square feet with 75
feet of lot width at the shoreline. These eleven lots would have dock rights consistent with the
City Code allowing for one dock with a maximum of three boats to be docked overnight. The
lots adjacent to Highway 7 are impacted by a severe change in grade and are very undesirable
lots. The storm water quality and quantity (ponding) has not been addressed.
This plat could potentially be developed as proposed pending review and approval of other
pertinent data that would need to be provided (grading, wetland mitigation, road construction
details etc). To resolve the previously mentioned design problems, alternatives would be required
and another lot could be lost.
This plat has 4 less units than the PUD request, but does propose 3 lots west of the channel.
Staff believes the cluster concept is still superior in design and makes better use of the land.
The subdivision plat also allows for development of the lake shore (natural or unnatural).
One issue that several of the neighbors have raised besides the number of docks is the amount
of traffic on Arbor Lane. Under the subdivision, plan only 19 homes with access onto Arbor
Drive with three homes having access onto Washta Bay Road. The traffic impact of the 19
homes proposed under the concept is likely to be higher than the 26 lot PUD. The single family
homes will be occupied by younger families who are likely to be full time residents as opposed
to the less active empty nesters envisioned with Spinnaker Wharf. Therefore, the PUD
development provides a different type of single family detached use. There has been a lot of
discussion about connecting Dartmouth Drive with Washta Bay Road. Staff always supports road
connections where is possible. In this circumstance, staff is of the opinion that the environmental
degradation to the site does not does not merit the cost or benefit of connecting the roads.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff is continuing to recommend that the City Council approve the PUD plat with the conditions
as outlines in the staff report on page 11.
Date: 11/30/93 1
To: Chanhassen City Council '
From: Jim and Jo Ginther
3131 Dartmouth Drive
Chanhassen MN
Subject: Proposed Development
Boyer's Spinnaker Wharf
We are familiar with the Boyer family and their reputation as responsible and quality real estate ,
developers in the Minnetonka area. The entire family lived across the street in our first few
years in Sterling Estates. '
We do have very strong concerns regarding three specific aspects of the proposed development:
1. Changing the zoning from low density R.S.F. to zero lot line PUD medium density
g g g Y
2. The singular access to the project via Dartmouth Drive
3. The proposed 26 boat slip dock '
Well established R.S.F. zoned neighborhoods are contiguous to the property on both the east and
west boundaries. Present home owners bought and developed their homes with the assurance
that the undeveloped property was zoned for R.S.F. low density development. It was the i
applicant himself who developed Sterling Estates to the west with single family homes on large
lots. Now, the same developer is proposing to have the zoning changed, to completely change '
the character of the entire north shore Minnewashta neighborhood and create a severe negative
traffic impact on the existing Sterling Estates area and to the lake itself.
Why have zoning regulations if every time a developer comes along they simply petition to '
change the classification, and the character and integrity of the area is completely changed? Is
this fair to those neighbors who invested in homes and paid taxes with the confidence that zoning '
was in place to protect their investment, their lifestyle and in this case their safety? If zoning
means nothing, then the integrity and very value of having a Planning Commission and City
Council to protect the existing residents of the community is questionable. '
The congestion that will occur from an additional 52 cars (two per household) making multiple
trips in and out of the subdivision daily from one access will have a significant negative impact ,
on the residents of Arbor and Dartmouth Drives. Currently, there is often a two-three minute
delay in exiting Arbor Drive onto Highway 7 during morning hours. The addition of potentially
another 50 cars using the same street to access Highway 7 definitely will cause unreasonable
delays. Also, exiting Highway 7 from the east, onto Arbor, is already a very dangerous left turn
in front of high speed oncoming traffic due to high density and poor visibility. I
1 Page 2
Additionally, the safety of Sterling Estate residents will be threatened by such a congested access
route since the subdivision does not have sidewalks, and both Arbor and Dartmouth Drives are
commonly used by residents, children and guests for foot traffic. Since Highway 7 borders
Sterling Estates to the north and Lake Minnewashta to the south, there are no other alternatives
' for pedestrian traffic.
The only reasonable solution is to add a second access to the east border of the property
onto Washta Bay Road (this option was in the developer's original plans) or create a
frontage road that would access the property from the north.
Our third concern regards the excessive amount of boats contemplated to be docked in front of
the proposed subdivision and added to the boat traffic on Lake Minnewashta. In comparison to
' the public park directily across the bay that has 400 acres, two public boat landings and a mile
of shoreline which is limited to 35 boats, the request to add 26 boats is totally unreasonable.
' The DNB's incorrect interpretation of the channel as lake shoreline and the developer's resulting
leverage of that faulty definition to request a boat slip for each residence in a cluster home
development where in reality, 18 of the 26 homes are truly off the lake, is not consistent with
' any reasonable standards of boat regulation. In other Lake Minnewashta developments in the
past there has been far more conservative regulation of added boat congestion.
' A workable solution would be to limit the number of boat slips to the same number of
cluster homes that actually front on the lake. In addition, one or two boat racks to store
small sail boats and canoes, accessed through the channel, would be consistent with the
' location of the off -lake homes and a reasonable addition to lake boat traffic.
We have been Lake Minnewashta residents for over twenty years. We have developed and
' maintained an expensive home on the lake and have paid well over $100,000 in real estate taxes
for this property with the confidence that protective zoning was established. We are not opposed
to progress or development that meets a community need and enhances a very special natural
' resource. We do believe that it is the responsibility of Chanhassen, Carver County and
Minnesota State officials to be conscious of the concerns of those Lake Minnewashta residents
' who currently live their daily lives there, who raise their family's there and who will be
impacted most by the proposed development. We have worked hard to maintain the special
natural qualities of the lake and its surrounding area and we request that our concerns receive
' your strongest consideration.
-� se
o / ° o o ° o
M N �
P 1 � P9
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
4Rr
CITY COUNCIL MEETING = - --
Monday, February 28, 1994 tl
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
rive I
ect: Spinnaker to
Developer: Boyer Building Corporation
Location: South side of Hwy. 7 between 46
N
r �
r _
� 1 �
i
Washta Bay Road and Arbor [. AKE \
Drive
rn ,
Notice: You are invited to attend a continued public hearing about a development
proposed in your area. Boyer Building Corporation is proposing a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the land use designation from Residential Low Density to Residential
Medium Density and Conceptual Planned Unit Development for 26 single family zero lot lin
units on 13.47 acres of property zoned RSF and located on the south side of Hwy. 7 betw
.1VA chtn Rav R nark anti ArhnT Drive_ Sninnaker Wharf.
What Happens at the Meeting:
you about the dlvelo er's request
project. During th eting, th e
steps:
gThe urpose of this public hearing is to inform
tai put from the neighborhood about this
the public hearing through the following
0 1. Staff wKnis ov view
12. The Dl present
3. Comm eiv fr
4. blic lo ounc n
it you
hours, 8 :00
this vroiam
public hearing has been
e proposed project. '
nee project.
_.
ublic.
1 rJ .1
Council dis-cu roject. The
proposal.
o s before the meeting, please '
m., Monday through Friday. If you
:ase o Kate Aanenson at 937 -1900. If you
1 0 v e copy to the Planning Department
pies to the Commission.
in the Chanhassen Villager on February 24, '
I �
I �
_ M
i
y
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING :
or
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, March 2, 1994 - 7:30 P.M. '°--
City Hall Council Chambers b
Project: Minnewashta Landings
Developer: Kenneth Durr
0
Location: SE Corner of Hwy. 7 and
Minnewashta Parkway
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. The applicant is proposing a preliminary plat to subdivide 19.7 acres into 27
single family lots, with possible front yard setback variances, on property zoned RSF, and
located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 7 and Minnewashta Parkway,
Minnewashta Landings.
What Happens at the Meeting:
you about the dev request r.
project 1 g, la
,01 throu wing st
ive ar&
1
g closed and
will ..l
The purpose
I' LAKE
M/ N NEW A s N r A
- Sub3er -4
' �•, s rff
r inform
,t this
hearing
Rct. The
Council.
Wshto � r If you w ant to before the meeting, please
i all ce hours, 8: Ptaa m., onday through Friday. If you
to s e about this pr K ate at 937 -1900. If you choose to
subVIen comments, it is helpf ff t ne copy to the Planning Department in
va f the meeting. Staff will pro copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on February 17,
1994.
The Park and Recreation Commission will also be reviewing this item on
February 22, 1994 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers.
public hearing
rd ghborho
lead th V
OI
DEC 1 '93 09:5 FROM CONTROLDATA CONTRACTS TO 9- 9375739 PAGE . 002,'002
3231 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
November 34, 1933
City of Chanhassen
pWW*g Commission
ago Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
: Spinnaker Wharf
Gentlemen:
My ale prevents attendance at the public hearing on Wednesday= December 1, 1M.
regarding the Spinnaker Wharf projed development proposed by Boyer Sukft CorporMbn- As
a resident of Chanhassen directly affected by this proposed development, I would Ike to submit
my comrnents for your consideration.
LAND USE DESIGNATION: I object to the change in land use designation fraResidential Low
to Residential Medium Density. The adjoining neighborhoods to
development are single family with above - average lot sizes and values.
Sterling Estates, which is directly West of the proposed development, contains 13 private
residences on approximately 17 acres of land (without any wetlands). This high - quality
residential area, also developed by Boyer Construc ion, has stringent buH*V codes, covenants
and regulations. This proposed development of 26 duster homes on 13.4 acres is double the
density of the Sterling Estates
ACCESS TO THE DEVELOPMENT: One acCAW to this proposed devebpmem from Dartmouth
Drive wilt more than double the use of this road. With an average of two automobiles per
residence and an average of two trips per day per automobile, creates over 100 additional
automobiles on Dartmouth Drive per day- This is urptable, unsafe usage of this road. A
seoond primary access to the development must be ceded If this development is approved.
it is my understanding that the DOT will not allow access from Highway No. 7. Therefore, I
recommend that the second access be located on the East side of the ske from Wasttta Bay
Road.
LAKE USAGE AND DOCKAGE: I have been actively involved with the Chanhassen Lake Usage
Ordinance since the early 1980s and must again state my opposition to expanded use of Lake
Minnewashta. The residents with d(AW lakOst M should be the only residents alk wed to
Install a dock. These docks must also be in compliance with the setback zones and the number
of boats allowed -- The same regulations that are unposed on other Lakeshore owners.
CONCLUSION: Development of this naturally beautiful property is inevitable. We must,
however, consider the impact to adjoining properties and neighbodmods, our lakes and the long
range goals of our beautiful city. I request approval of this development be contingent on
retaining the low density zoning. two road aocesses and restricted dockage.
Thank you for your review and ooitsideration of my Concerns.
Sincerely.
' cry J. e
1
1
� -1
� i
PC DATE: Dec 1, 1993
CC DATE: Jan. 10, 1994
CASE #: PUD #93 -7
By:. Aanenson:v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Conceptual Planned Unit Development to rezone 13.47 acres of property zoned
RSF, Residential Single Family to PUD for a 26 single family, zero lot line cluster
development.
LOCATION: 3100 South of State Highway 7 between Arbor Lane and Washta Bay Road
APPLICANT:
Joseph and Eileen Boyer
3630 Virginia Avenue
Deephaven, MN 55391
John Blumentritt
Boyer Building Corporation
18283 A Minnetonka Blvd
Deephaven, MN 55391
PRESENT ZONING:
ACREAGE:
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND S WER:
RSF, Residential Single Family
13.47 gross 11.18 net
1.92 units /acre (gross) 2.3 units /acres (net)
N - Residential, City of Shorewood, north of State Highway 7
S - Lake Minnewashta
E - RSF, Residential Single Family
W -RSF, Residential Single Family
Available to the site.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a large wetland complex that is bounded on the
north by State Highway 7 and on the south by Lake Minnewashta.
The property slopes from the north to the south and is void of any
significant trees.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density - Dens Range 1.2 -4.0 units /acre
Spinnaker Wharf PUD
November 22, 1993
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant, Boyer Building Corporation, is requesting conceptual PUD approval to build 26
single family, zero lot line homes on 5,000 square foot lots on 13.47 acres of land. This property
is currently zoned RSF. The 2000 Land Use Plan guides this property as low density with a '
density range of 1.2 -4.0 units /acre. This project is consistent with the 2000 Land Use Plan. The
project proposes gross density of 1.92 units per acre and a net density (excluding wetlands and
roads) of 2.3 units an acre. The homes are designed to appeal to higher income "empty nesters" ,
seeking to move out of larger, high maintenance residences.
Access to the site is gained off of Dartmouth Drive via Arbor Drive via Highway 7. An earlier
,
version of this site showed the connection of Dartmouth Drive and Washta Bay Court. This
much larger proposal was eliminated by staff for environmental reasons including the wetland
impact and the poor soils. There appears to be sufficient access for the site to the west. The
'
interior streets are proposed to be private with a surmountable curb and 20 feet wide. Staff is
recommending that these streets have a minimum of 24 feet with sufficient turnaround to meet
emergency needs.
'
The Building Official has made note of the fact that there are poor soils, peat and muck, adjacent
to the channel. The applicant's development proposes the rear of some homes in this area. Soil
engineering will be a requirement with any future review.
The developer is requesting approval of a dock that would have 26 dock slips. The beachlot
,
ordinance allows for one dock with docking for 3 boats based on 20 feet of shoreline and 30,000
square feet of property. Each additional 300 feet of shoreline would allow an additional dock
and another 3 boats. This proposal has over 1900 lineal feet of shoreline (the channel has been
,
interpreted by the DNR as shoreline) and has more than the required square footage for additional
docks. If this were to be platted as a traditional subdivision, there would be approximately 6 to
7 lots along the shoreline, excluding the channel. This would allow for a total of 18 boats with
'
3 boats allowed per dock. Staff is recommending that only 12 boats be allowed to be docked
overnight and that two storage boat racks allowing for up to six boats (canoes, sailboats) be
permitted.
'
Utilities are available to the site and on -site storm water ponding will be required. Specifics on '
the plan must be presented at the next level of review. There are two wetlands on -site. One
wetland is located around the existing channel and is classified as an agricultural/urban wetland
according to the City of hanhassen's wetland classification scheme. The wetland is ,
approximately 3.5 acres as indicated by the 949 foot elevation contour. The existing channel is
included as part of this wetland. The other wetland is located along the shore of Lake
Minnewashta and is classified as a natural wetland according to the City of Chanhassen's wetland '
classification scheme. The wetland is approximately 0.5 acre as indicated by the 947 foot
elevation contour. The applicant will need to consider total runoff drained from Highway 7 and
�I'
u
Spinnaker Wharf PUD
November 22, 1993
Page 3
north of the highway when designing the retention ponds and storm sewer capacity for the
project.
The PUD ordinance states that any zero lot line or cluster development requires a medium
density designation. We do not believe the ordinance adequately anticipated this type of
development. In order to develop this project as proposed, a Comprehensive Plan amendment
would be required as well as a rezoning. Staff would recommend against upzoning or change
of the 2000 Land Use Plan, but would support amending the PUD zone to allow for zero lot lines
re- guiding developments in areas guided for the low density land use.
Staff has discussed this proposal with the applicant for many months. We recognize that it will
be viewed by some as a departure from the type of single family housing that has become the
norm in many projects. However, this is a difficult site and cluster development offers a lot of
advantages. The homes are attractively designed and the net density really isn't very different
than it would be with standard single family homes. The homes and site plan are attractively
designed by a developer with a good track record with similar projects elsewhere. The type of
resident is expected to be lower impact than standard single family since their children will
generally be grown and many will likely leave the area during the winter. Finally, through the
use of the PUD, the site's impacts from Highway 7 can be minimized and its quality enhanced.
It also gives the city additional control over areas such as limitations on boat dockage.
Staff is recommending that the concept be approved with appropriate conditions.
Site Characteristics
The site is bordered on the north by State Highway 7 and by Lake Minnewashta on the south.
There is a narrow channel of Lake Minnewashta that extends into the site. This channel has been
classified by the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) as shoreland and may be a fish
spawning area. There are two wetlands on the site, one around the channel and one on the
southwestern shoreline. Staff is recommending that this area be left in its natural state. The
channel wetland is classified as Ag/Urban and the western shoreline wetland is classified as a
Natural Wetland. The homes as shown appear to meet the wetland setback requirement.
' There is a home currently on the site which is located on the central westerly edge of the
property. This home receives access from Highway 7 via a private driveway. This home shall
be removed prior to any new development.
There are trees located on the site and they are primarily box elders, aspen, eastern cottonwood
and elm with some maples, oak and pine. The plan does not address where these trees are
located and the applicant should prepare a tree preservation plan. In addition, staff wanted to see
a re- vegetation plan for the wetland adjacent to the channel.
11
Spinnaker Wharf PUD
November 22, 1993
Page 4
The development falls within the jurisdiction of the DNR Shoreland Regulations as well as the
City Wetland Regulations. Approval permits must be obtained from the DNR and possibly the
Army Corps of Engineers.
REZONING
Justification for Rezoning to PUD
The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 13.47 acres from RSF to PUD, Planned Unit
Development. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review
criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance.
Section 20 -501. Intent
Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of
most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater
variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower
development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that
the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than
would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts.
Findiniz. The PUD zoning will allow for the internal transfer of density, allowing for
smaller lots with common open space. The development costs should be lower; and the
clustering of units should allow for lower public improvement costs. Private streets
should also lower the public costs of improvements. The enhanced flexibility will provide
for greater protection of the shoreline and the wetland, and in addition, greater setback
from Highway 7 and its negative impacts.
It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be
realized as evaluated against the following criteria:
Planned unit developments are to encourage the following:
1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive
environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and
scenic views.
Finding The project proposes avoidance of all of the wetland on the site except for a
possible boardwalk for access to a common dock. Mature trees will be preserved and the
development offers the potential for reforestation. There is a significant amount of
drainage that flows over the site from Highway 7 directly into the lake untreated. The
I
1
1
Spinnaker Wharf PUD
November 22, 1993
Page 5
project offers the potential for incorporating water quality basins that could resolve this
pre - existing condition.
Findine. Staff is recommending that the channel area be left in its natural state.
2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing
of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels.
Finding The development of the site proposes clustering of units. This clustering
provides for more common open space, the majority of which will be left in its natural
state. Use of standard development patterns would increase the number of homes
impacted by Highway 7 and likely result in lower quality development.
Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along
significant corridors within the city will be encouraged.
Finding The land use is consistent with the abutting land use which is single family.
This project proposed clustering of the units. This clustering allows the units to be pulled
further away from Highway 7 and the negative impacts of all the noise in addition to the
clustering allows for preservation of the shoreline.
4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding This development is within the density range of the Comprehensive Plan. The
plan allows a net density range of 1.2 to 4.0 units per acre. This project has a net density
of 2.3 units per acre.
5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city.
Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and
overall Trail Plan.
Finding. The Park and Recreation Commission has reviewed this proposal and is
recommending that land for a future trail along Highway 7 be considered.
6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD.
Finding The project does not propose to provide affordablc " The homes will
be upscale and fall into the upper income price range.
7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings, and
the clustering of buildings and land uses.
Spinnaker Wharf PUD
November 22, 1993
Page 6
Finding The homes will be clustered. The homes will have a southerly exposure, with
the largest number of windows facing south.
8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic
conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. '
Finding Road access to the site will be from existing Arbor Drive and Dartmouth Drive
via Highway 7. Access to the site is sufficient for this development. All internal streets ,
will be private.
Summary of Rezoning to PUD ,
Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to
request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The '
flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features
of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving:
Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, water quality in lake, trees)
Sensitive development in transitional areas
More efficient use of land
GENERAL SITE PLAN /ARCHITECTURE I
The homes are proposed to be single family, one story high, and will have basements. All units
will have attached two car garages. The main level will have a living, dining, kitchen, dinette, '
laundry, den, master bedroom, bath, and on the lower level a family room, bedroom, bath,
storage, hobby and mechanical space. The units will have a large deck area with options for a
three or four season porch. The main floor finished area will be from 1,400 to 1,800 square feet '
with the entire unit having approximately 3000 square feet. Copies of a similar product are
attached to this report.
The developer's intent is to reserve or add to the existing perimeter planting for landscape
'
P P gP P g e P
buffering. No landscape plan has been prepared, but the developer has established a $3,000 /unit '
allowance for landscaping. We expect considerably more to be invested in screening from
Highway 7 buffering adjoining single family homes and potentially reforestation.
WETLANDS '
There are two wetlands on -site. One wetland is located around the existing channel and is ,
classified as an agricultural/urban wetland according to the City of Chanhassen's wetland
classification scheme. The wetland is approximately 3.5 acres as indicated by the 949 foot
Spinnaker Wharf PUD
November 22, 1993
Page 7
elevation contour. The existing channel is included as part of this wetland. The other wetland
' is located along the shore of Lake Minnewashta and is classified as a natural wetland according
to the City of Chanhassen's wetland classification scheme. The wetland is approximately 0.5
acre as indicated by the 947 foot elevation contour.
' The soil types within both wetlands and extending beyond the elevation contour used to estimate
the wetland edge are described as peat, muck, and marsh. These wetlands must be delineated
' by a professional and the accurate wetland boundary included on the grading plan to verify that
the wetlands will not be impacted as a result of development.
I
1
Even if there is no indication that these wetlands will be altered as a result of the project, there
will be direct runoff impacts as a result of the development. The City requires that a buffer strip
be maintained abutting all wetlands in order to protect the basin from the effects of fertilizers,
chemicals, sedimentation, and other runoff problems. The buffer strips are to be identified by
permanent monumentation acceptable to the city in order to inform the public of this protective
measure. The following table shows the city's setback limits for buffer strips and structures.
Wetland
Buffer
Buffer Strip
% Native
Structure
Average
I
Type
Strip
Minimum
Vegetation in
Setback from
Setback from
Average
Buffer Strip
Outer Edge of
Wetland
Width
Buffer Strip
Edge
Pristine
20- 100
50 ft
Entire
100 ft
150 ft
ft
Natural
10 -30 ft
20 ft
Entire
40 ft
60 ft
Ag/Urban
0 -20 ft
10 ft
Optional
40 ft
50 ft
The City is in the process of developing specific re- vegetation criteria including emergent,
grasses, shrubs, and trees for both buffer strips and wetland mitigation areas. Most likely, the
City will require native vegetation landscaping within and around the buffer strips of both
wetlands.
Permitting Agencies
Minnesota�Department of Natural Resources
One of the wetlands on the project site is shown on the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MnDNR) Protected Waters Inventory; and therefore, this project must meet the
MnDNR protected water requirements. If there is any work performed below the established
ordinary high water mark (OHWM), a protected waters permit application will have to be
completed.
Spinnaker Wharf PUD
November 22, 1993
Page 8
Army Corns of Engineers
The wetlands on the project site are within the permitting jurisdiction of the Army Corps of '
Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps has issued a nationwide
Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in isolated 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)]. It is recommended that the Corps be notified of the activity in order
to verify compliance with the permit. I
City and State Wetland Rules
Staff has briefly reviewed the proposed project to ensure compliance with the Wetland '
Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991 and city ordinances. Responsibility for administering the
provisions of this legislation falls to the City of Chanhassen as the local governing unit (LGU). '
The city must certify that the project has complied with the provisions of the WCA. These
provisions require that all wetland impacts incurred be offset by wetland creation or restoration
(mitigation). Applications received prior to December 31, 1993, will require 1:1 mitigation '
acreage ratio, preferably on -site, within the same watershed or county. After December 31, 1993,
the mitigation acreage ratio will increase to 2:1. The WCA also dictates that restoration or
creation of replacement wetlands only be considered after an applicant has demonstrated that the ,
impacts cannot be avoided, further minimized, corrected or eliminated over time. In this case,
the requirements of the Act are essentially the same as those contained in the Corps rules. Even
if impacts can be reduced to under one -half acre in order to obtain a Corps nationwide permit,
the City will still need to require the avoid - minimize- compensate sequence and the provision of
the appropriate ratio compensation. '
SHORELAND ISSUES
The applicant shall prepare a development plan indicating the type of dwelling and elevation of
structure on each lot. The lowest floor elevation should be placed at least three feet above the
highest known water, or three feet above the ordinary high water level (OHWM), whichever is '
higher.
Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore zone is not allowed. Shore impact zone is land '
located between the OHWM and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure
setback. 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 minor accessory structures, etc.
Impervious surface coverage and lots shall not exceed 25% of the lot area. I
11
Spinnaker Wharf PUD
November 22, 1993
Page 9
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
' The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) calls for two water quality ponds (LM 8.9
and LM 8.10) to serve as a 2 -cell sediment and nutrient trap and a single basin sediment and
' nutrient trap in this watershed district, respectively. Pond LM 8.9 is designed to be
approximately 0.55 acre and located at the southwest corner of the existing channel. Pond LM
8.10 is designed to be approximately 0.45 acre and located at the northeast comer of the existing
' channel. The locations of these ponds are not final and may be moved or re- designed to fit the
proposed development. All storm water ponds shall be designed to trap nutrients in accordance
with the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
' The SWMP proposes a 30 -inch pipe to carry storm runoff through the site into LM 8.9. These
ponds and pipes are designed to pretreat storm water runoff from the subdivision and watershed
district (LM -A8.9) which is 36.9 acres. The City is in the process of establishing a storm water
trunk fee to contribute towards oversizing of trunk storm sewer systems. For example, the
developer may be compensated by the City's SWMP for construction of the proposed 30 -inch
storm sewer which is intended to convey storm runoff generated from outside this development
over and above which naturally drains through the parcel.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance to 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 could purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design
process.
The applicant's narrative refers to design of the storm sewer system to accommodate a 5 -year
storm event. The City requires that the storm sewers be designed and constructed for a 10 -year
storm event. The applicant will need to consider total runoff drained from Highway 7 and north
' of Highway when designing the retention ponds and storm sewer capacity for the project. Staff
encourages the applicant to review and follow the City's subdivision ordinance criteria as it
' relates to the required improvements.
The concept plan provides no information on grading or drainage improvements. The applicant
shall prepare a detailed grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed ground contours
for staff's review and formal approval.
UTILITIES .. ;;..
The site is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Municipal sanitary
' sewer and water service is available to the site. Detailed construction plans and specifications
in accordance to City standards will be required for staff review and formal approval. Since
there will be some public improvements, i.e. storm sewers and ponding areas, the applicant will
F
Spinnaker Wharf PUD '-
November 22, 1993
Page 10
be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. The applicant should provide ,
adequate easements on the final plat to provide access routes for City maintenance crews to the
ponding areas.
STREETS
The internal street system will be private. Staff recommends that the applicant provide an ,
acceptable turnaround for the City maintenance vehicles at the end of existing Dartmouth Drive.
Private streets are proposed to be 20 feet wide back -to -back width. Staff recommends the
minimum be 24 feet wide and restrict parking on one side of the street. The City's Fire Marshal '
may dictate additional parking restrictions as necessary.
PARKS AND RECREATION I
On November 16, 1993, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this development
proposal and recommended the following: accept full park fees in lieu of land dedication at the '
rate in force upon building permit application. Regarding trails, the city should ensure that
sufficient land is available along Highway 7 to accommodate any future non - vehicular trail
routes, but the city should accept full trail fees in lieu of trail construction at the rate in force
upon building permit application.
Beachlot ,
The developer is requesting approval of a dock that would have 26 dock slips. The beachlot
ordinance allows for one dock with docking for 3 boats based on 20 feet of shoreline and 30,000
square feet of property. Each additional 300 feet of shoreline would allow an additional dock
and another 3 boats. This proposal has over 1900 lineal feet of shoreline (the channel has been ,
interpreted by the DNR as shoreline) and has more than the required square footage for additional
docks. If this were to be platted as a traditional subdivision, there would be approximately 6 to
7 lots along the shoreline exclusive of the channel. This would allow for a total of 18 boats with '
3 boats allowed per dock. Staff is recommending that only 12 boats be allowed to be docked
overnight and that two storage boat racks allowing for up to six boats (canoes, sailboats) be
permitted. '
Staff supports the use of a common dock as opposed to four docks with three boats each. TtFe
common dock should reduce impacts to the shoreline and the wetland.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The Planning Commission spent a lot of time discussing the merits of amending the zoning '
ordinance to allow for cluster development in the low density residential zone. During the
n
I
1
Spinnaker Wharf PUD
November 22, 1993
Page 11
public hearing there were objections raised from neighboring property owners about the
additional traffic on to Arbor and Dartmouth Drive. The other issue that generated a lot of
discussion was to limit the number of boats at the dock. Strict interpretation of the beachlot
ordinance states that no dock can exceed 50 feet in length nor more that 3 boats at any dock.
This interpretation would permit 9 boats to be docked overnight. The applicant is requesting 26
slips for overnight docking. Because there is a wetland on the site, staff would support the one
common dock. Originally staff had recommended no more than 12 boats and is now
recommending 9 boats.
The Planning Commission moved to pass this proposal on without conceptual approval to the
City Council. They requested that the Council review the merits of allowing the 5,000 square
foot lots in the RSF zone under the PUD ordinance, before they make a recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the concept for PUD #93 -7 with the following
conditions.
1. The applicant shall work with the City in designing the interior storm drainage system in
accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant may be
compensated for oversizing costs on the 30 -inch trunk storm sewer line through the site.
' All internal storm sewer pipes shall be designed and constructed for a 10 -year storm
event.
1 2. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat
approval process.
' 3. Detailed grading and drainage and utility construction plans and specifications will be
required as a part of the preliminary and final plat approval process. The construction
plans shall be proposed in accordance with the City's construction standards.
' 4. The private street system shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide.
' 5. The applicant shall provide the City with an acceptable turnaround at the end of
Dartmouth Drive.
i 6. The applicant shall have the wetland delineated by a qualified wetland specialist and the
wetland boundary accurately denoted on the grading plan.
r
it
Spinnaker Wharf PUD
November 22, 1993
Page 12
7. The applicant will be required to apply for and comply with the necessary permitting
agencies such as MnDNR, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Health Department, City of Chanhassen, MNDOT, MPCA and MWCC. '
8. Soil engineering on lots shown with peat or muck will be a requirement with any future I
review.
9. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official letter dated November 10, 1993. '
10. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal's letter dated November 9, 1993.
11. Only 44 9 boats be allowed to be docked overnight at a common dock and two storage '
racks allowing up to six boats (canoes, sailboats) be permitted.
12. The existing home on the development site be removed prior to any new construction.
13
Amendment of the PUD Ordinance allowing for cluster of zero lot line homes low- density
designation of the 2000 Land Use Plan.
14.
A tree preservation plan and wetland re- vegetation plan shall be submitted for approval.
'
15.
Park and trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the rate
currently in force.
,
ATTACHMENTS
'
1.
Memo from Dave Hempel and Diane Desotelle dated November 22, 1993
2.
3.
Letter from MNDOT dated December 10, 1993
Memo from Steve Kirchman dated November 10, 1993
'
4.
Memo from Mark Littfin dated November 9, 1993
5.
Narrative from Boyer Construction dated November 1, 1993
6.
Hearing Notice
,
7.
Planning Commission minutes dated December 1, 1993
8.
Plans dated November 4, 1993
'
i
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
C8AN8ASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator 1_
i
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer .r
DATE: November 22, 1993
' SUBJ: Spinnaker Wharf Conceptual Plan
Planning File No. 93 -7 PUD
t Land Use Review File No. 93 -24
I WETLANDS
' There are two wetlands on -site. One wetland, is located around the existing channel and is
classified as an agricultural /urban wetland according to the City of Chanhassen's wetland
classification scheme. The wetland is approximately 3.5 acres as indicated by the 949 foot
' elevation contour. The existing channel is included as part of this wetland. The other wetland
is located along the shore of Lake Minnewashta and is classified as a natural wetland according
to the City of Chanhassen's wetland classification scheme. The wetland is approximately 0.5 acre
' as indicated by the 947 foot elevation contour.
The soil types within both wetlands and extending beyond the elevation contour used to estimate
' the wetland edge are described as peat and muck and marsh. These wetlands must be delineated
by a professional and the accurate wetland boundary included on the grading plan to verify that
the wetlands will not be impacted as a result of development.
1
1
Even if there is no indication that these wetlands will be altered as a result of the proje there
will be direct runoff impacts as a result of the development. The City requires that a bu- . yr strip
be maintained abutting all wetlands in order to protect the basin from the effects of fertilizers,
chemicals, sedimentation, and other runoff problems. The buffer strips are to be identified by
permanent monumentation acceptable to the city in order to inform the public of this protective
measure. The following table shows the city's setback limits for buffer strips and structures.
Kate Aanenson
November 22, 1993
Page 2
Wetland
Buffer
Buffer Strip
%Native
Structure
Average
Type
Strip
Minimum
Vegetation in
Setback from
Setback from
Average
Buffer Strip
Outer Edge of
Wetland Edge
Width
Buffer Strip
Pristine
20- 100
50 ft
Entire
100 ft
ISO ft
ft
Natural
1 10 -30 ft
20 ft
Entire
40 ft
60 ft
Ag/Urban
0 -20 ft
10 ft
Optional
40 ft
50 ft
The City is in the process of developing specific re- vegetation criteria including emergents,
grasses, shrubs, and trees for both buffer strips and wetland mitigation areas. Most likely, the
City will require native vegetation landscaping within and around the buffer strips of both
wetlands.
PERMITTING AGENCIES
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
One of the wetlands on the project site is shown on the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MnDNR) Protected Waters Inventory; and therefore, this project must meet the
MnDNR protected water requirements. If there is any work performed below the established
ordinary high water mark (OHW), a protected waters permit application will have to be
completed.
Army Corps of Engineers
The wetlands on the project site are within the permitting jurisdiction of the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps has issued a nationwide
Section 404 permit for up to a half acre of fill in isolated 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)]. It is recommended that the Corps be notified of the activity in order
to verify compliance with the permit.
City and State Wetland Rules
The City of Chanhassen has briefly reviewed the proposed project to ensure compliance with the
Wetland Conservation Act of 1991 and city ordinances. Responsibility for administering the
provisions of this legislation falls to the City of Chanhassen as the local governing unit (LGU).
We have reviewed the various exemptions contained in the Act and find that, unless the project
I�
P
C
Kate Aanenson
November 22, 1993
Page 3
' has a pre - existing approved preliminary plat or other local governmental approval, none of the
exemptions appear to apply. This being the case, the city must certify that the project has
complied with the provisions of the Act that apply to the interim period ending December 31,
' 1993. These provisions require that all wetland impacts incurred during this period be offset by
wetland creation or restoration at a 1:1 acreage ratio and in the same watershed or county as the
impact. The Act also dictates that restoration or creation of replacement wetlands only be
' considered after an applicant has demonstrated that the impacts cannot be avoided, further
minimized, corrected or eliminated over time. In this case, the requirements of the Act are
' essentially the same as those contained in the Corps rules. Even if impacts can be reduced to
under one half acre in order to obtain a Corps nationwide permit, the City will still need to
require the avoid - minimize- compensate sequence and the provision of 1:1 compensation. After
' the wetlands are staked and surveyed, the City will review the project to verify the amount of
impacts, if any, to the wetland areas.
' SHORELAND CONCERNS
The applicant shall prepare a development plan indicating the type of dwelling and elevation of
' structure on each lot. The lowest floor elevation should be placed at least three feet above the
highest known water, or three feet above the ordinary high water level (OHW), whichever is
higher.
' Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore zone is not allowed. Shore impact zone is land
located between the OHW and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure
' setback. 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 minor accessory structures, etc.
' Impervious surface coverage and lots shall not exceed 25% of the lot area.
I GRADING AND DRAINAGE ISSUES
The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) calls for two water quality ponds (LM 8.9
' and LM 8.10) to serve as a 2 -cell sediment and nutrient trap and a single basin sediment and
nutrient trap in this watershed district, respectively. Pond LM 8.9 is designed to be
approximately 0.55 acre and located at the southwest corner of the existing channel. Pond LM
' 8.10 is designed to be approximately 0.45 acre and located at the northeast comer of the existing
channel. The locations of these ponds are not final and may be moved or re- designed to fit the
' proposed development. All storm water ponds shall be designed to trap nutrients in accordance
with the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards.
I The SWMP proposes a 30 -inch pipe to carry storm runoff through the site into LM 8.9. These
Kate Aanenson
November 22, 1993
Page 4 ,
ponds and pipes are designed to pretreat storm water runoff from the subdivision and watershed
district (LM -A8.9) which is 36.9 acres. The City is in the process of establishing a storm water
trunk fee to contribute towards oversizing of trunk storm sewer systems. For example, the
developer may be compensated by the City's SWMP for construction of the proposed 30 -inch
storm sewer which is intended to convey storm runoff generated from outside this development
over and above which naturally drains through the parcel.
The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance to 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 could purchase from the City at a cost of $25 to assist with the design
process.
The applicant's narrative refers to design of the storm sewer system to accommodate a 5 -year
storm event. The City requires that the storm sewers be designed and constructed for a 10 -year
storm event. Staff encourages the applicant to review and follow the City's subdivision ordinance
criteria as it relates to the required improvements.
The concept plan provides no information on grading or drainage improvements. The applicant
shall prepared a detailed grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed ground
contours for staffs review and formal approval. ,
UTILITIES
The site is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Municipal sanitary
sewer and water service is available to the site. Detailed construction plans and specifications
in accordance to City standards will be required for staff review and formal approval. Since there
will be some public improvements, i.e. storm sewers and ponding areas, the applicant will be
required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial
security to guarantee compliance with the conditions of approval. The applicant should provide
adequate easements on the final plat to provide access routes for City maintenance crews to the
ponding areas.
STREETS
It appears the street system will be private. Staff recommends that the applicant provide an
acceptable turnaround for the City maintenance vehicles at the end of existing Dartmouth Drive.
Private streets are proposed to be 20 feet wide back -to -back width. Staff recommends the
minimum be 24 feet wide and restrict parking on one side of the street. The City's Fire Marshal ,
may dictate additional parking restrictions as necessary.
Kate Aanenson
November 22, 1993
Page 5
ktm
Charles Folch, City Engineer
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.
The applicant shall work with the City in designing the interior storm drainage system in
accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant may be
compensated for oversizing costs on the 30 -inch trunk storm sewer line through the site.
All internal storm sewer pipes shall be designed and constructed a 10 -year storm event.
2.
The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat
approval process.
'
3.
Detailed grading and drainage and utility construction plans and specifications will be
required as a part of the preliminary and final plat approval process. The construction
plans shall be proposed in accordance with the City's construction standards.
4.
Private street system shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide.
5.
The applicant shall rovide the City with an acceptable turnaround at the end of
P h' P
'
Dartmouth Drive.
6.
The applicant shall have the wetland delineated b i
PP y a qualified wetland specialist and the
wetland boundary accurately denoted on the grading plan.
7.
The applicant will be required to apply for and comply with the necessary permitting
agencies such as MnDNR, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Health Department, City of Chanhassen, MnDOT, MPCA and MWCC.
ktm
Charles Folch, City Engineer
�`
�3
OF
Minnesota Department of Transportation
Metropolitan Division
Waters Edge Building
1500 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
582 -1387 1
December 10, 1993
Kathryn Aanenson
Planning Department
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
PO Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
Dear Kathryn Aanenson:
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review
Spinnaker Wharf
South of TH 7, between Washta Bay Road & Arbor Drive
Chanhassen, Hennepin County
CS 1004
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) has reviewed the Spinnaker Wharf site
plan. We find the proposal acceptable for further development with consideration of the
following comments.
• Drainage from the development is not expected to have any effect on TH 7 right of way.
However, approval from the US Army Corp of Engineers, the Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be required.
• We strongly endorse the planned access to Arbor Drive. We request that the owner close
two openings in access control by dedication to TH 7 right of way plat or other means.
The enclosed portion of the right of way map indicates the location of the openings.
• A reconditioning project for TH 7 is scheduled for 1996. The proposal includes a right
turn lane for Arbor Drive and a continuous, two way left turn lane through the area.
However, final approval has not been granted. You may contact Terry Humbert of our
Preliminary Design Section at 582 -1286 for more information regarding the
reconditioning project.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
o
C
I
I
RECEIVED I
DEC I '? 1993
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Kathryn Aanenson
December 10, 1993
page two
Turn lane improvements are important to accommodate additional traffic in this area.
If Mn /DOT is unable to build them with the proposed reconditioning project, it may be
necessary to discuss other means of implementing them. Please keep us informed about
the status of this development and any others in the area.
If you have any questions regarding this review please contact me.
Sincerely,
( �fuz E /��' he7
Cyrus Knutson
Transportation Planner
cc: Les Weigelt, Hennepin County
Attachment
bcc: P. Keen
'
W. Warden
B. Kelly
K. Jennings
'
PreDesign
Division File
LGL— Chanhassen
'
r
PJ
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
' DATE: November 10, 1993
SUBJ: 93 -7 PUD (Spinnaker Wharf)
' I was asked to review the concept plan, project summary and
narrative dated November 1, 1993 for the above referenced project.
My only comment at this point would be to indicate the likelihood
of poor soils at the east and south of the proposed lots. The
Carver County soil survey indicates marsh (Ma) soils and peat &
' muck(Pd) soils , both of which are unsuitable for building. While
it is likely these soils can be corrected, doing so must be done
very carefully to avoid adversely impacting adjacent wetlands and
' waterways. Unsuitable soils could occur as deep as 20' which would
make correction expensive and sensitive. Foundation engineering
would also likely be required.
' I don't believe it is appropriate to add a condition to the staff
report at this early stage , but thought the possibility of poor
soils should be pointed out to the developer and Planning
Commission. ends I have no comments or recommendations concerning
this application at this time.
26
,7UlL OU
511, 6/1, dry) silica coatings; friable; many roots;
medium acid; clear, smooth boundary.
B21 -16 to 21 inches, very dark grayish -brown (10YR 3/2)
and dark grayish - brown (10YR 4/2) clay loam; very
dark brown (10YR 2/2) organic stains; moderate to
strong, very fine and fine, subangular blocky struc-
ture; continuous, distinct clay films on vertical faces
and patches on horizontal faces; firm to friable; me-
dium acid; clear, smooth boundary.
B22 -21 to 26 inches, dark grayish -brown (IOYR -2.5Y 4/2)
and very dark grayish -brown (10YR 3/2) clay loam;
very dark brown (10YR 2/2) organic stains; moderate,
fine, prismatic structure breaks to moderate to strong,
fine, subangular blocky structure; continuous, distinct
clay films on all faces; firm; medium acid; clear,
smooth boundary.
B23 -26 to 30 inches, dark grayish -brown (2.5Y 4/2) clay
loam; few, fine, faint. light olive -brown mottles; very
dark brown (IOYR 2/2) organic stains; moderate, fine,
subangular blocky structure; continuous, distinct clay
films on vertical faces and patches on horizontal faces;
firm: medium to slightly acid; clear, smooth
bolmdary.
C1 -30 to 23 inches. dnrh grayish -brown (2.5Y 4/2) and gray -
ish -hrmvn (2.5Y 5/2) clay loam: many, fine, distinct,
light olive -brown (2.5Y 5/4) mottles: massive; friable;
slightly calcareous: clear, smooth boundary.
C2 -33 to 40 inches, grayish -brown (2.5Y 5/2) clay loam; many,
fine. distinct. light olive - brown (2.5Y 5/4 and 5/6)
mottles: massive; friable; calcareous.
The A horizon is typically clay loam, but in places it is loam
and in spots silty clay loam. It ranges from 6 to 12 inches in
thickness. The incipient to distinct A2 horizon is 1 to 4 inches
thick. It has weal; to moderate, fine, granular structure or
weak. thin, platy structure. The B horizon is typically clay
loam but shows a marked increase in clay content in compari-
son with the Al horizon and the underlying material. It has
moderate to strong. fine and medium, blocky structure to fine
and medium prismatic structure. The uppermost part typically
has silica coatings that have filtered down from the A2 horizon.
There are patchy to continuous clay films on the peds. Typically,
the zolum is 30 to 42 inches thick. The B horizon is typically
medium acid but in places is strongly acid. There are a few
stones and boulders on the surface and throughout the profile
and varying numbers of shale fragments.
LeSueur soils have a thicker, darker colored surface layer
than the Nvell- drained Lester soils, and their subsoil is more
grayish and has variable degrees of mottling. They are more
intensively mottled than the poorly drainer] Cordova and Web-
ster soils and lack the distinctive gray coloring in the subsoil.
LeSueur clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (LSA). —In-
eluded 'with this soil in mapping were spots of poorly
drained Webster or Cordova soils and a, few areas in the
south- central part of the county where the soils have a
somewhat finer textured subsoil.
This soil is well suited to crops. If well managed, it can
be farmed intensively to row crops. It is also good for
pasture. (Capability unit I -1; woodland group 1; building
site group 3)
LeSueur clay loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes (LsB). —In-
eluded with this soil in mapping were hummocky areas
and small wet depressions.
This soil is very good for crops and pasture. Erosion is a
hazard. (Capability unit IIe-1; woodland group 1; build-
ing site group 8)
Marsh
.11arsh No) occupies shallow lakes and ponds that are
dry during periods of less than normal precipitation. Most
areas are wet throughout the ,year. Recently, a few areas
have been artificially drained. The vegetation consists of
cattails, rushes, sedges, and other water- tolerant plants.
nvLx
Marsh is ideal for wildlife. It makes very poor pal -ri
Drained areas can be used for crops. Wild hay can be cr
alon the edges of the marsh. (Capability unit VIII�1
woodland group 9; building site group 10)
Mayer Series
The Mayer series consists of loamy, nearly level, p ]
drained soils that are moderately deep over limy sane n
gravel. These soils are on flats and in draiilage,vays o:
outwash plains and stream terraces. Fairly extensive W.1
occur on outwash plains of the South Fork Crow ei
The original vegetation was prairie grass.
The surface layer is black to very dark gray, f
loam. It is about 14 inches thick and has weak to mod t
blocky structure. It contains fine fragments of snail l
and is limy. The subsurface layer, which is about 4 i e
thick, is very dark gray, friable loam or sandy clay loar
that has lighter colored grayish streaks. It also is limy�a
weak blocky structure, and contains a. few fragmen o
snail shells.
The subsoil is mottled olive-gray and olive, friable sand
clay loam or loam and is about 15 inches thick. The 1 e
part is massive, limy sandy clay loam or sandy loam.
The underlying material is brownish and grayish, l sc
limy sand and gravel.
Natural fertility is moderately high. The organic -nl e
content is high. Runoff is slow, permeability is modes l:
rapid, and the moisture- storage capacity is moderate.
water table is seasonally fairly high.
Afayer soils are used for general farming. Drained lWa
are well suited to all of the common crops, especially ri
and soybeans. Undra.ined .areas are used mainly o:
pasture.
Typical profile of Mayer loam (bluegrass pastu
percent slope; SE / sec. 34, T. 117 \., R. 26 N)
A11-0 to 10 inches, black (N 2/0 to IOYR 2/1) loam; weal
to moderate, very fine, subangular blocky structure
friable; many very fine fragments of snail shells ; n;
roots; calcareous; clear, smooth boundary.
Al2-10 to 14 inches, black (10YR 2/1) to very dark a�
(10YR 3/1) loam; weak to moderate, very fine, sub
angular blocky structure; friable; few fine fragments
of snail shells; few roots; calcareous; gradual, v�
boundary.
Aft-14 to 18 inches, very dark gray (10YR 3/1) loam or ht
sandy clay loam; streaks of dark gray (IOYR to 51
4/1), gray (5Y 5/1), and olive gray (5Y 5/2) ; weak.
very fine, subangular blocky structure; friable �w
fine fragments of snail shells; few roots; calcar s
gradual, wavy boundary.
B21g -18 to 25 inches, olive -gray to light olive -gray (5Y 5/2
to 6/2) sandy clay loam; few, fine, faint and distinct.
olive -gray (5Y 4/2) and olive -brown (2.5Y 4/4) Itt-
ties; weak, very fine, subangular blocky structure ri-
able; calcareous; clear, smooth boundary.
B22g -25 to 28 inches, olive (5Y 5/3) sandy clay loam; some
fine gravel; many, tine, faint, olive -gray (5Y 5/2 and
4/2) mottles; massive; friable; calcareous ; r,
smooth boundary.
B23g -28 to 33 inches, olive (5Y 5/3) sandy loam or s. y
clay loam; some fine gravel; many, fine, faint olive -
gray (5Y 5/2 and 4/2) mottles; massive; friable; cal-
careous; clear, smooth boundary.
C-33 to 48 inches, dark -brown (IOYR 4/3) , brown (1 R
5/3), and grayish -brown (10YR 4/2) fine gravel d
coarse sand; single grain ; loose; calcareous.
The A horizon is typically loam. The Al horizon ranges f
12 to 24 inches in thickness. In places it is high in lime r has a distinct grayish cast when dry. The B horizon is mo
I
i
0
CARVER COUNTY, MILAN L'
ulicc, d:ul: r:, or olive - ray loom or sandy clay loam. Its
c1; lc • is bef\yeen Is and 27 percr11t. 'Pile underlying
luat,•risl co11sists of coarse s:uul, y -1 -oarse . tll(l, a11d )tl e
ercl\rl or strata of ra\el and sand. Il is at a depth of _'4 tii'42
inches. The prolile is \%cakly to stro11_Iy calcareous.
.Nlayer soils differ front the poorly drained Biscay soils ill
being c;Jlcoreolls ill the Material above the substrattuu. They
llav,• co:osl r leXturod ulawrial abo\'c fl,c• subslrafunl than the
por.rlc dl :lined T:Ucot sails, \% Ili' are lucre likely to he
I : rolldod. ild In(ye a tllickcr, d:lrker colored s111 layer all i it
u,oro al.ru1111Y and illtellsively _locod subsoil. Nfayer soils are
ro:lrser textured than the poorly drained Cauisteo suits, which
for1111•11 ill glacial fill.
Mayer loam (My). — some areas, especially (ill the
sli_rhtl\ elevated riots around depre ;siofls, this soil has
tine sht'II oil the surfiwe. Included ill nl:lppillg
were a few shot; where the ;1111are layer is Strongly lint
I f adequalelN drallied, this soil i well suited to corn
alld soO'cans. The cont(�nt of li111e is a millor 111111tatioll
that ran he ofl:�et h\- appl llig lar_rc atllounts of potash
:Intl phosphate. Excess water is a moderate limitation.
(CapahilitY licit II\\' -1; woodland group S; building site
Oshawa Series
The O-hawa series consists of (deep, silty, \ poorly'
drallwd roils on flood l,lnins. Tllcse soil; occupy Old strealll
channels and oxho\\- lakes aloe_ the
Minnesota River.
'I'lle\• are fre,lliently p 'The iiati\ \•egetation Coll -
- istell of rllshrs, sr11_rr, \\ illo\y ;,:(i111 rank _rrasscs.
The suri'a1 e l:t\ is dilrk _era\' to \ dark ( rav f'ri-
::hle sllt it is lint\• :ul(1 nlas;i\'e :111(1 is J)f)nt 7
inch('.s tlil un11t'rl\ in_ material :11so is lint\•, nntssi\'e
silty (.] ;I\ loan). It i= very ,lark alld (lark tern\'
tllottletl \\ it11 (Ctrl; hro\yp arl(1 oli\r r:l\. It contains it few
fine fr ;I_ new of ncclk.
At if 41,'1 ,r1 ah(II1I :i 1111'111•; l; 11a1'ic ollvo- _r l•:l\' silty
rla\• 1,1x11 11 1110111/ \\ ii!1 11:Ir1; hrm\ 11. It i; liul\, feint lc, and
I If: i \ 1'.
\:11111:11 fortilil\ is hi_11. '1'lle I IFLIInic- matter c(nitent is
`:I�11. 1'ci'Ini•:Ihilil I; Iil�nlcl'�11('lC sill\\-• alld the lliolsture-
rnl:I_re r:Il,a, il\ is hi_h. 7Ile \\atel' tahle is always hi rll.
1 hose ;oils , ':11111nt he Ilse,) 11 cr little;; they afro 1) 1 ro-
te1tell 1'roul Iloollin_ :ulll t hen :trl li;� hall\ tlt•:liue,l. \one of
file x _I' Ir1'lllt! \ - :Ii o �io ;T (1f II i� 1111 C.
•l � 11i' ill 1•rlllilr 1.f O ;lul\\ ;1 silt \• ,'1:1\ lo:lul (old stream
rllannt I: It, ;1r -h \r_et ;Minn: les>
01:111 1 percent slope:
I• : ' \ 1 :I i ;er. 12. T. 114 \.. I;. 24 AV. )
A -o to T dark gra} (. l 11 it, very dark grad• 1'5Y
11 silly cloy loam: 111:1ssivc: friable \\•hen moist.
111asiic and sli:rllily stick) \\ hell \eel: calcareons.
iII bcs. yenw dart: gray 1 - 3,'1 j , fit (1 dart: gray
1 11 silt.\ clay lo:ou: f,•\\, fit,(', faint_ olive -gray
.l' 4 21 ;111,1 dark oli\r -_r ;1y 1 5Y :i;", mottles:
111:r11y. fille, distinct. (ark- l.rmvii 17.5YR 4/3 and 3/2)
uu.tl dos: 111;1ssivv: frialdt. \cheu Moist, plastic and
sticky \\•hell wet: few. fine shell fragments: caleare-
ous.
10 311 in--bcs. very dart: gray f5Y 3/1) and dark gray
( .,Y 4 1, silty elay Ion fit : blotches of black (3Y 2/1)
man }. tine. faint. dark - hrown (7.i11 4/2 and 3/2)
hoot I Ics : rtclssiye ; friable when moist, very plastic and
stick } - when \yet: (:alcarocnts.
C;1 -31) to 40 inches, dark olive -gray 15Y 3 silty clay loam;
fe\\ fine. faint, (ark-brown 17.5YR 4/2 and 3/2)
mottles: massive: friable a'h(m tuoist. Very plastic and
sticky when wet : calc:treons.
The entire 1rr1..tile is typical) } - silty clay loiltll. Ia spots it
27
coutaius thin lenses of silt or \vey fille sm,d. In :I fow areas tbo
surface Myer is sill. Io;ull. In s,.luo art:ls Iho surlacc is covert -d
\ tt) fl \\ incho of lilrruus I r•:It of. silly nun I:. '1'111 c uullrinod
Iil(I\il(.ss of lilt surface :11tH subsurface layers r:ulres flow
24 to wore than 48 inches.
Oshawa soils (wellpy deeper. wetter positions on the land -
scape Ihau the poorly drained ('hastca soils. The} are lighter
colored 111:111 the poorly drained C"Illfroy soils.
Oshawa silty clay loam (C.).—'This soil occupies old
st reallt channel; of the - Alinne -ota. River. \)any areas are
poli th rotl- , ;hotlt.Ihe yea 11.
This soil provides \•el;\' ;-rooli hallilat. for \\'ildlil'e. it is
only fair for pns4111v alld wild hay. It is tinsiliiahle for
crops unless I he 1111–vat. of floollin_* is reillo\'ed. \lost oi' t Ile
,lereagc is in p:tslure. The \•e- k- tat loll consists of \\�illows,
gi•:Isst's (if till' lilllds tililt rl 111 lllal�ilt'�, alld se(I_l'ti.
((:n.pahilit.y unit. �'lw -1; \\ group J; I)uiltlillr site
group 11)
Peat and Muck
Peat and nnu•k are dark- browil. organic soils in wet de-
pressioris an(1 dI aIIIage\va.Ns. ]'eat consists of
partly decoutposed plaint reil,:tins. AIlirk has nndvlroue
mote dcconiposiiion than pc:u :old has hi_her perrenta.;e
of silt and rl:t\'.
Peat and muck, calcareous ;PC). —In the uplands these
soils are _reneralh 12 to -2 in, hcs thick. In old channels
of the \I nllesota River. ihe\ :Ire „- eneralk inure than -12
inches thick. There. a re sluall rilell frn!stln'n(s on th(\ sur-
face acid throii_' the mill or' :11.
'These soils are \\�et and urlt• patrt (It I he veni hilt the\'
Irellel•all\' dry' olit h\' n11(kIIIIIlurr. 'The\ :Ire poor for pal'_
lure and ha \' crops. Drained ;Ircas arc well sailed to corn
and to trod: crops, sll(•h as IVlions alld PA:ltoes. Orca-
sionall\•. Crops arc. serionsl�• Ii:11na_''e(l h\' a late sunnoer
frost. Wehu'ss is a s:eveiv hi,iltation. I('npahilily Unit
\\'oodland o.rollp '1: : nil(lin�r site -ronp ]o)
Peat and muck, deep IPc . — 'These soils are ordiunril\•
:3 to (; of- 7 feet I h irk. hot : n
u r u,rr []fall
\'
20 feet. thick. Thc occur tl,rotigrhout Ilie count\. The
largest bogs are in old lake. h The peat is (tic. (More
estensi\•e.'The tlnd(TIVIn`r IWItrrial rain -es frolli sill\ clay
t0 ti :111(1 alld gravel.
These ;oils are \\'et hold Isar -il\' part of the Fear, but they
gelleralh- dry alit b rui(Isnb111: 'r. DI'ained Arras are \\-ell
suited to coal anti to lend: r 1:rs, .inch as onions :Intl po-
tatoes. (kcasionnlIv. crop. are dalliag red by :1 frost 1;Ite
slimmer. 11' is a. severe l:lnitation. (Capability unit
III\\ - -?: \\'oodlaii(l group !I: h site ,rou1) Ili I
Peat and muck, moderately shallow, over loam (Pr
These soils are 12 to 42 inches thick. The\ occur 011
011t. the Uplands. Ill some area- t he%' are Coverc(1 \vIt h :1 t bbl)
mantle of mineral soil (]lilt has he'en washed from nearh\
slopes. Thee a erl ro ] l:tt('1'iill is olive - gray loath to clit
loam. The pet geI '' all\' now. but «here it ha: been
drained -m Lill te(x has undergone more decomposi-
tion. The Beat �is e more estenzi\
Drained areas are well suited to corn and to truck crops,
such as onions and potatoes. t "ndrained areas are fair for
pasture and ha "(:props. Damaze from a. late- summer frost
is It hazard. 11'etiless is a severe limitation. (Capability
unit Mw- :\vootlland group 9: building site group 10)
Peat and muck, moderately shallow, over sand (Ps).—
These soils are 11 .to 4.2 inches thick. They occur mainly in
• • • • • •• • ••• • • ••• • / I •r t •
s o
• • •x
s
• • • � • • III /// • • • • •
• • • •
•
. •. • •
..:'
CITY OF
C3�ANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: November 9, 1993
SUBJ: Washta Bay Road & Arbor Drive Single Family Dwellings
Planning Case #93 -7 PUD
I have reviewed the above project and have made the following comments and /or requirements:
1. As utility plans are submitted, I will review fire hydrant locations.
2. Street names must be submitted for fire department approval.
3. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20
feet. Pursuant to 1991 UFC Sec. 10.204(a).
4. The private drives will be signed for "No Parking Fire Lane ".
Boyer Building Corporation
November 1, 1993
SPINNAKER WHARF
PROJECT SUMMARY & NARRATIVE
CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA
PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT NAME
Spinnaker Wharf
TYPE OF PROJECT
Empty nester single family zero lot line housing
REQUESTED ACTION
Concept PLD
LOCATION
South side of Highway 7 between Washta Bay Road and Arbor Drive
OWNERS
Joseph and Eileen Boyer
3630 Virginia Avenue
Deephaven, MN 55391
612)473 -4921
DEVELOPER
Boyer Building Corporation
18283A Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391
612) 475 -2097
V I a WE" 10 3131 "is K s : Z rr XON
SURVEYOR & UTELITIES ENGINEER
To be selected
RECEIVED
NOV 0 31993
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Project Summary and Narrati
Spinnaker Wharf
Boyer Building Corporation
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Auditor's Subdivision Number 133
Lot 061
Meekers lklinnewashta Lake Lots
Lot 001
Meekers Minnewashta
Lots 8 & 1
Section 04, Township 116, Range 023,
6.25 Acres in Lot 1
and Narrative
Spinnaker Wharf
Boyer Building Corporation
N • 1
Existing Zoning: Residential Single Family
Comprehensive Plan: Residential, Low Density (1 -4 D.0 /AC) t
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment: Residential, Medium Density (4 -8 D.0 /AC)
SITE AREA:
6 658 S.F. or 13.47 Acres '
58 , gross area
111, 470 S.F. or 2.56 Acres wetland area
475, 188 S.F. or 10.91 Acres net buildable area '
PROP )SED DEITLOPMENT: 1
26 Zero lot line "clustered" single family residences
HOL SING,IL.AND USF PROFTLF
Gross site area: 1 7 Acres
'
Gross wetland area 2 56 Acres
Net buiidable area. 10.91 Acres
Residences Proposed: 26
'
Gross Density: 1.93 D.U./AC
Net Density: 2.38 D.U. /AC
Bituminous Street Sq. Footage: 32,300 S.F.
,
Total Residential Bituminous Sq. Footage: 16,930 S.F
Total Residential Sidewalk Sq. Footage: 2,795 S.F
Residential Unit Hardcover Sq. Footage: 2120 S.D. average each
Toi.a! Residential hardcover: 55.120 S.F
Total Residential Deck Area: 13,000 S.F.
PARKaT P $L'PS�Fl2
Garage 52 2 spaces/D.U.
Drve ;av 52 2 spaces/D.U.
'
LAKF HORR DATA
Lakeshore Frontage: Approximately 1935 Lineal Feet '
BOAT DOCKAGE
Proposed Dockage: One Association Dock with 26 Boats Areas
Project Summary and Narrative '
Spinnaker Wharf age
Boyer Building Corporation
PROJECT NARRATIVE
Spinnaker Wharf is a proposed 26 unit zero lot line clustered single family residential
development constructed exclusively for "empty nesters ". The dwellings are structured
for one level living and either walkout or lookout lower levels. Each residence will
' be wood frame construction with two car attached garages.
CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FRAMEWORK/ZONING CLASSIFICATION
' The site is currently recognized as residential low density (1-4 dwelling units/acre)
under the city comprehensive plan and also residential single family under the zoning
' ordinance. The request to revise the comprehensive plan to residential medium
density (4 -8 dwelling units/acre is to allow the zero lot line concept to proceed due
to the circumstance that the residential low density does not provide for zero lot
line construction, with the comprehensive plan revision, it is the developers intent
to build only the 26 dwellings on the site.
' FXISTTNTG LAND USE
The site currently serves as a home site for a single residence that is located on the
central westerly edge of the property. A private driveway that accesses from
Highway 7 along the Northwesterly edge of the property is now used as the means
' to reach the residence. The primary species of trees within the site are Boxelders,
Aspen, Eastern Cottonwood and Elm with several Maple, Oak and Pine also
present.
' PHASING AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
'
Upon satisfactory review by the regulatory agencies and final approval by the
city, construction will begin in 1994. The developer currently retains a "waiting
list" for approximately 100 interested clients so the construction phasing will
market driven on a first come basis. We estimate a two year build out for
the project.
'
OWNERSHIP
'
Boyer Building Corporation is currently the land purchaser from Joseph and
Eileen Boyer.
' Project Summary and Narrative
Spinnaker Wharf Fage 21
Boyer Building Corporation
Boyer Building Corporation was established as Joe Boyer Construction Co. in
1945 and also did business as Joe Boyer and Sons until the incorporation of
Boyer Building Corporation in 1983. The company has been a member in
good standing of the Minneapolis Builders Association since 1959 and has
won many awards including the nationally recognized Award Of Honor from
the American Institute of Architects. Boyer Building has been involved with a
substantial number of the residences on the north side of Lake N innewashta
serving both as land developer and home builder.
All necessary building financing will be secured by Boyer Building Corporation.
The concept plan is generated to take advantages of the existing views while
maintaining the integrity of the existing ground elevation. Shaping of the site
for ponding run off detention and final grading is anticipated.
i�T�'LiTIE�
A,thcug;: the conceptual utility plan is yet to be completed it is anticipated that
the water Service to Spinnaker VA'harf will be from either the inplace watermain
on the -orti err. or westerly edge of the property. The sanitary sewer service
will be t!ed to the inplace sanitary line along the southern, side of the property.
The storm sewer system will be designed to accommodate a 5 year rainfall event
within the street and driveway system.
Biturninous paved streets will be as showr on the conceptual site plan. The private
street will have a mountable concrete curb and gutter and constructed to a 20'- 0"
back to back width.
Project Summary and Narrative
Spinnaker Wharf Page 5
1
1
i Boyer Building Corporation
' An entry monument /signage is anticipated upon entry to Spinnaker Wharf. The
entry sign general design including size, materials and lighting will decided by
the development stage of the PUD.
' LEVEL I ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT
A Phase I environmental site assessment has not been prepared for the site. An
existing well and fuel tank may exist next to present residence. An assessment will
be undertaken and proper abandonment will be completed.
' WATER AND WETLANDS
The site includes parts of two wetland areas identified by the City of Chanhassen
Wetland Inventory. The wetland on the southern side of the property is primarily
dominated as a Cattail Mat. The wetland adjacent to the easterly and westerly
' side of the lake channel is low quality type dominated primarily by reed canary
grass. sedges with a fringe of cottonwood trees. The developer will not be
' disturbing these wetlands and will also provide soil erosion control during the
construction interim.
'
PROJECT ARCHITECTURE.
The final project architecture is currently under review. The design will be modeled
quite similarly to Gideon Cove, a townhome development currently being completed
by the developer in Shorewood off County Road 19 on Timber Lane.
'
The proposed units will be one story high and also have basements. The main level
will have living, dining, kitchen, dinette, laundry, den, master bedroom suite and
'
powder room on the main level and family room, bedroom, bath, storage, hobby
and mechanical space on the lower level. All units will have an attached two
car garage. Additionally all units will have a large deck area with options for a
three or four season porch. The main floor finish area will be from 1400 to 1800
'
square feet and the entire unit will have approximately 3000 finished square feet.
' LANDSCAPE
It is the developers intent to preserve or add to the existing perimeter planting for
' landscape buffering. No landscape plan has been prepared but the developer
has established a $3,000.00 / unit allowance for landscaping.
and Narrative
age
I Spinnaker Wharf
Boyer Building Corporation '
son c
No veo_echn;cal - -Valuation has been undertaker. for this project. These will
be undenaker: prior tc construction. I
PROTECT M ANAGEMENT
All S P innake! Wharf buildings, driveways, streets and grounds will be held and
maintained at homeowners association.
TR,F I I_
Based o. c:i :e,;e `r om :he Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, ,
the trios 2—c-ne cz: d 1", orn residential townhouse /condominium units, the average
At iy 6 trips per residence. Based on 36 units, ,
:n� tot �r;r :.n.':I3rfIc: <(-vo waves, equais 156. The P.M. peak hour traffic
equa approximate N, . 'J.55 trips per unit or 14 total trips. Of that total,
6_° eT ti,e tr. ^;are inbound (9.5 trips) and 33% of the trips are outbound ,
R t iC A,T F - 1 - 131.1 DECISIOL S
?' .;as t:: predominant authority over the development and
se%•4�;:;; npr; rru;aiofv agencies and the City Council are the major '
cnticf PI - - it : sior:= rc be made.
At to r. ' 2 ievel approval process, the most significant issues are '
t .
plan amendment from residential low density
tc °s; ^::,r a r ediu;n densitv to allow zero lot line concept to ,
;;•�:; , •:. R ,`� <-aar.tity and iavout '
S_ •e _ c i-:_, of T ake'�frnewashta reputations and laws.
ln'e: aTl b:kTfe: _o e setback average.
LI
17
L
Project Summary and Narrative '
Spinnaker Wharf , rage 7
The Brighton has everything you need for
comfortable one -level living by the Lake.
this plan for a "Gourmet" center
island kitchen and large living and dining
areas.
• Over 1560 finished square feet of living
space on the main floor.
• Great Lake Minnetonka views from the
living areas and the master bedroom.
• A fireplace on all finished levels.
• Luxury master suite with Jacuzzi tub and
walk -in closet.
T /te Brighton
_ _ _ = GARAGE
I
• This plan may be customized with 2
bedrooms on the main floor.
• Over 2390 finished feet of living ,
with optional finished lower - level.
• Large storage area. Over 3100 total'.
I
FUTURE DECK
LIVING ROOM SCREEN PORCH
FUTURE
i
Y -
� 4
MASTER SUITE
For More Information, Call 24 Hours:
Dave Truax at 476-:1534 or Lee Clark at 476.3642
r
_ _ _ = GARAGE
I
• This plan may be customized with 2
bedrooms on the main floor.
• Over 2390 finished feet of living ,
with optional finished lower - level.
• Large storage area. Over 3100 total'.
I
FUTURE DECK
LIVING ROOM SCREEN PORCH
FUTURE
i
Y -
� 4
MASTER SUITE
For More Information, Call 24 Hours:
Dave Truax at 476-:1534 or Lee Clark at 476.3642
This model is designed to provide the
homeowner with main -floor living and
the advantage of a second bedroom,
office or den on the main floor. ,
Over 1610 feet of finished living
area on the main floor. '
The
i
GARAGE
For More Information, Call 24 Hours:
Dave Truax at 476 -3634 or Lee Clark at 476 -3642
C—) '
II 1=
1
R SUITE
FUTURE
� Over 2550 finished feet with lower
SoUtIl HaMp to n level partially finished - off, plus lavish
storage room. Over 3200 total sq. feet.
0 Fabulous views from nearly every
room in the home, including look-
'
through view from the foyer.
0 A fireplace on both finished levels.
,
0 Large kitchen and dinette adjacent to the
'
garage and laundry room.
0 Master suite featuring double vanity
,
and Jacuzzi tub.
0 This plan may be modified to reverse the
,
kitchen and dinette locations.
For More Information, Call 24 Hours:
Dave Truax at 476 -3634 or Lee Clark at 476 -3642
C—) '
II 1=
1
R SUITE
FUTURE
� Over 2550 finished feet with lower
SoUtIl HaMp to n level partially finished - off, plus lavish
storage room. Over 3200 total sq. feet.
The
830 Feet
1500 Fe
The South Hampton
940 Feet Finished
1600 Feet Total Space
MECH RM
! I �
i
BEDROOM 3
FUTURE
STORAGE
i
up
I I
I I I!
I wetlbar � I!.
I I
I I
I I i
I I I
I
' I .feat
ENTERTAINMENT DOOM
I
I I
I I
I �
I I
I I
i
\ / I
fireplace IWUre
BEDROOM 2
Custom Quality
Standard Features!
EXTERIOR FEATURES:
WELCOME ... TO A LAKESIDA
COMMUNITY OF CARE -FREF1
CAPE -COD HOMES.
"See our unsurpassed location and amenities" ,
• Private Minnetonka Lakeshore Penninsula on Gideon Ba
• A smaller, wooded community with views across the Lall
• Maintenance -free, worry -free lifestyle • Nature Trail
• Main floor master suites • Most lots have walkout to
level • Quiet cul -de -sac with no through traffic • Short
1/2 mile walk on the trail to historic downtown Excelsior or
the Minnetonka Country Club. I
• Argon filled Low E glazing. PELLA
windows with maintenance -free exterior.
0 Completely landscaped grounds
• Custom cedar deck is included
• Custom divider wall and trellis in the
courtyard
• Exposed aggregate concrete walks
• Cedar shingle siding
• Finished garage with 2 openers
• Drain -tiled foundation
MECHAN ?%',;ALS:
• 93% efficient Amana furnace & Amana
Central Air. Below slab basement heat.
• 150 amp electric. 3 TV & phone jacks
Security wiring. Appliance hookups.
INTERIOR FEATURES:
I
• Glamour kitchen complete 9 lete with wood-edged
Formica counters; a center island with Butcher -
Block floor
top; and generous custom allowance'
• Custom -made kitchen cabinets of the highest I
quality
• All homes include Whirlpool range, microwave
20 cu. ft. referigerator with icemaker, Kitchen A j
dishwasher and under - cabinet lighting.
• A gas fireplace is standard on the main floor. 4
Buyer may select wood or gas fireplace in the
lower level of un -built homes '
• All home include a generous allowance for floor
coverings, ceramic and lighting. '
• Hardwood, princeton trim and solid 6 -panel doors
Luxury Master suite with whirlpool tub
THE GIDEON COVE HOMEOWNER'S ASSN.
HANDLES ALL BUILDING INSURANCE, GROUND)
KEEPING, SNOW AND TRASH REMOVAL.
For information call: Dave Truax or Lee Clark at 473 -3000 ,
,Cu�ury
Zw «}fame
witk4Uiew
ife
EXCITING VIEWS OF LAKE MINNETONKA. Enjoy year - 'round views of the
Twin Cities' premier attraction from nearly every room in your home. The view of
Gideon Bay is framed by mature trees with wonderful privacy toward the lake. Imagine
watching the seasons change before your eyes, with the lake vista as a backdrop. Two
homes will have views of a nature pond. ENJOY THE NATURE TRAIL. Located
directly adjacent to Gideon Cove! The trail provides miles of walking, jogging or
biking opportunities. How about a short trail walk to the beach, parks, shops
or restaurants on
nearby main - street
Excelsior? Truly an
enjoy the outdoors,
in your back yard!
LAKESHORE. The
exceptional way to
and it's all right
OVER 400 FEET OF
"peninsula" is avail-
able for the exclusive, private use of Gideon Cove homeowners. The peninsula is
a great place for that family picnic, a little fishing, or just enjoying quiet lakeside
sunsets. MAINTENANCE FREE LIVING. A major concept of Gideon Cove. All
the buildings and grounds will be fully maintained by the Homeowner's Association.
Spend your time enjoying life instead of home and yard work. Your modest association
fee will cover fire and liability insurance, snow removal and trash pickup, as well.
-r
.. 'r ■
i ,
F
LUXURY AMENITIES AND QUALITY CONSTRUCTION. Assured by Boyer
Building Corporation, Lake Minnetonka's premier builder for over 40 years. Enter
your home along a winding exposed- aggregate walkway, complete with lavish
landscaping. Standard amenities include." main -floor master suite with luxury
whirlpool bath, custom oak or maple kitchen complete with center island and deluxe
appliances, gleaming hardwood or ceramic floors from the foyer through the
kitchen /dinette, "smooth finish" nine foot ceilings throughout the main floor,
and two fireplaces. 11 Efficient aluminum
clad Pella "' windows,
and solid six -panel
too. Generous allow-
deck, princeton trim,
doors are all standard
ances for custom
lighting and floor I coverings as well as
other finishing touches are included in your price. Eight of the twelve homes have
full walkout lower levels. EXCITING FLOOR PLANS. Customize your new
lifestyle. All homes are ready for easy, one -level living and include attached double
garage. You may choose a finished lower -level or custom porch as options. Boyer
Building Corporation will be pleased to accommodate your customizing ideas on
models to be built. Enjoy a spacious, open feel in any Gideon Cove Twin Home.
Qual from the
Area's Prem ier Builder.
Boyer Building Corporation is a family owned
business, serving the western suburbs of Minneapolis
for over 40 years. Quality, attention to detail
and follow - through are Boyer Trademarks.
Naturally, the builder fully warrants the workmanship,
structures and integrity of Gideon Cove.
Proudly Marketed by
Burnet Realty.
As Minnesota's, and Lake Minnetonka's, largest
real estate broker, we assure a smooth transition from
your present home to your future home in Gideon Cove.
Lawtonka Drive, Excelsior, MN 55331
For More Information, Call 24 Hours:
Dave Truax at 476 -3634 or Lee Clark at 476 -3642
n
17
7
Directions:
Highway Ito Counnv Road 19 (Oak Street) North to Timber lane
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ISHTA
PARK
°
0
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING I en N
0
0
' Wednesday, December 1st - 7 :30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers
' 690 Coulter Drive _ '
T
Project: Spinnaker Wharf
Developer: Boyer Building Corporation I ;
Location: South side of Hwy. 7 between '
Washta Bay oad and Arbor
Drive
' y
Notice You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in
your area. Boyer Building Corporation is proposing a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
' change the land use designation from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density
and Conceptual Planned Unit Development for 26 single family zero lot line units on 13.47
acres of property zoned RSF and located on the south side of Hwy. 7 between Washta Bay
' Road and Arbor Drive, Spinnaker Wharf.
' What Happens at the Meeting The purpose of this public hearing is to inform
you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this
project. During the meeting, the Planning Commission Chair will lead the public hearing
through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
' 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The
Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
' Questions or Comments If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please
stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate Aanenson at 937 -1900. If you
choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Planning Department
in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on Nevember 18,
1993
0
M 4 1J
�I
Ted Bigos Steven Carl Hall William & Mary Readel
6220 Arbor Lane 6221 Arbor Lane 6210 Barberry Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Michael & Marie Deyerman Peter & J.Walman Robert & J. Roy
6211 Barberry Circle 6220 Barberry Circle 3101 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Donald & Cherlyn Sueker Joseph & Susan Fiedler James & C. Ginther
3111 Dartmouth Drive 3121 Dartmouth Drive 3131 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
F. Merz Mary Stephen & Karen Martin John & Lori Weber
3201 Dartmouth Drive 3211 Dartmouth Drive 3220 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Paula Roettger Arvid & M. Oas Mary J. Moore
3221 Dartmouth Drive 3230 Dartmouth Drive 3231 Dartmouth Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Warren & M. Hanson James & Suzanne Senst Gene & A. Fury
3241 Dartmouth Drive 2820 Washta Bay Road 2821 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Ivan Hielke Kristen L. Ortlip Hansen Samantha
2830 Washta Bay Road 2831 Washta Bay Road 2840 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Harry Niemela Bruce & Jeannine Hubbard Hazel Anderson
2841 Washta Bay Road 2841 Washta Bay Road 2851 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
Wayne Holzer Gladys Ferm Norman & J. Caspersen
2911 Washta Bay Road 2920 Washta Bay Road 2921 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
William John Kilby Alan & M. Tollefson Glenn & Mary Coppersmith
2930 Washta Bay Road 2931 Washta Bay Road 2341 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331
I
7
I
i
George & Eileen Hock
2950 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
I
Sharon Haasken
' 2971 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
' R.K. Monjak
6140 Pleasant Avenue
' Shorewood, MN 55331
J. & T. Christian
24700 Wiltsey Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
Kelly & Pamera Seehan
2951 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Roy D. Deamans
6115 Seamans Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
C & D Nelson
6145 Pleasant Ave.
Shorewood, MN 55331
N. & A. Phillips
24750 Wiltsey Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
S. & J. Mayfield
24875 Yellowstone Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
Donald G. Crensham
2961 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
S.B. Frazier
6125 Seamans Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
A.C. Burkhalter
24650 Wiltsey La.
Shorewood, MN 55331
Donald Willis
24835 Wiltsey Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
William Kelly
25000 Yellowstone Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
Cory Kruckenberg
24850 Yellowstone Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
R. & C. Hume
' 25040
Yellowstone Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
Kelly & Pamera Seehan
2951 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Roy D. Deamans
6115 Seamans Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
C & D Nelson
6145 Pleasant Ave.
Shorewood, MN 55331
N. & A. Phillips
24750 Wiltsey Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
S. & J. Mayfield
24875 Yellowstone Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
Donald G. Crensham
2961 Washta Bay Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
S.B. Frazier
6125 Seamans Drive
Shorewood, MN 55331
A.C. Burkhalter
24650 Wiltsey La.
Shorewood, MN 55331
Donald Willis
24835 Wiltsey Lane
Shorewood, MN 55331
William Kelly
25000 Yellowstone Trail
Shorewood, MN 55331
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
PUBLIC HEARING:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
DENSITY AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 26 SINGLE
FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE UNITS ON 13.47 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RSF
AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 7 BETWEEN WASHTA BAY
ROAD AND ARBOR DRIVE. SPINNAKER WHARF, BOYER BUILDING
CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Bruce Hubbard
Bob Boyer
Dave Truax
Tom & Ann Merz
Joe Boyer
John Boyer
John Blumentritt
Kelly Sheehan
Janis Bremer
Alan Tollefson
Don Sueker
' Steve Hall
Jim & Jo Ginther
Sue Fiedler
2841 Washta Bay
5020 Suburban Drive
4879 Drake Street
3201 Dartmouth
3630 Virginia Avenue, Deephaven
16601 Meadowbrook Lane, Wayzata
22720 Galpin Lane, Shorewood
2951 Washta Bay Road
2961 Washta Bay Road
2931 Washta Bay Road
3111 Dartmouth Drive
6221 Arbor Lane
3131 Dartmouth Drive
3121 Dartmouth Drive
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
' Batzli: This is a conceptual PUD so we're not necessarily looking at this exact configuration.
But in this case, is it required that we vote to rezone or have some sort of findings that this
would be a good PUD site? And this isn't currently zoned PUD, correct?
Aanenson: Correct. You have to, the way the PUD ordinance says, in order to do a zero or
cluster you have to have medium density. So what we're recommending is as a part of this if
you felt comfortable with that, to recommend change to the PUD ordinance to allow cluster
or zero lot line in the single family zone.
' Mancino: And reduce the lot size and the minimum to 5,000.
k
I
LA
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Aanenson: Well, yeah in a cluster situation.
Krauss: But this is a concept. You're not being asked to take any formal action on that
tonight at the concept. Your concept steps are optional but they're the point in the process
that you can give a lot of guidance to the developer of telling them that there's no way that
you're going to proceed or telling them to proceed with modifications or telling them it's
perfect the way it is. It's really a fact finding level in the plan approval program. So that's,
you're giving guidance on that tonight. You're not being asked to take formal action.
Batzli: Normally it troubles me when we change our ordinance like this when one project
comes in. I assume that, have you looked at other instances in the city where something like
this would be done and does it make sense? I mean you've guided us through one other one
that occured, maybe or maybe not under this current PUD ordinance.
Aanenson: Well the obvious implication is once you do that, you're going to have requests'
from a lot of people to do that. I mean that's the first thing that has to ... come in for 5,000
square foot lots. But I think what you're going to have to look at is, what we're trying to say
with this one too is what's exactly, are you getting more units? What you're getting is
clustering of units and more open space. I don't think we're increasing the total number of
units that can be built in this project. What we're doing is we're clustering them at the ... open
space and again, after you approve it, you can still deny any specific project just like you've
done with the other project. You just said you felt it didn't meet the merits of the PUD. So
we go through that same process.
Batzli: Well what troubles me, and I'm just talking out loud here, so I hope I don't foam at
the mouth. Is that if you're going to build an upscale development like this, you're not going
to situate the units right on Highway 7. You can't build in the wetlands and there's
ordinances on how close you can build to the lake. So have we really clustered the units here
given this style of development?
Krauss: Well, you can play devil's advocate here and I don't like being cast in the role of
the devil, and so many developers would want to do, they show you the worst case situation.
But you could get, it's very conceivable that you would get a developer doing standard single
family subdivision, straight 15,000 square foot lots. Jam some of them up against the
highway. You can do that. You don't have any regulation against it. The lot just has to be
a little deeper. They probably wouldn't be very nice lots. They probably wouldn't be very
expensive homes but drive down the highway. You see people that have done just that And
then you would plop in your home where you could live. As Kate points out the net density
in this thing is no different than if you went with the standard single family subdivision. If
you distribute the buildable area here. Not the wetlands. Not the lakes. If you distribute the
6
E
u
1
1
i
�I
1
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
buildable area here amongst the units that they have, they're in excess of 15,000 square feet
units. Clearly these are not 15,000 square foot lots. They're much smaller lots. Everything
else in held in common. There are large green spaces. A lot of the site's untouched and we
think that yes... clustering. And it's substantial clustering.
Farmakes: If they're considering the channel to be shoreland, is the lake setback then
applying to that channel?
Krauss: Yes it would. They're not considering, they would prefer not to I suppose. We got
a read from the DNR that the DNR considers it shoreland.
Farmakes: Okay. But what I'm saying is then, there's a setback then that goes all the way
around that channel, correct?
Mancino: According to the DNR.
' Farmakes: So if there's a setback on the lot line to the, let's see that would be to the east.
How would you build on that property anyway? Traditional or PUD or otherwise. What
would it be 50 feet? 100 feet?
' Krauss: On this site?
Farmakes: Yeah. You need an access road to get there.
Krauss: Yeah, it's on the floor there and I think they'll show it to you. Now when we
reviewed that early draft we pointed that out to them. That the units that they had shown on
the east side of the channel were probably not legitimate units and when they went back in
they refined their proposal to accommodate all the lake setbacks, all the wetland setbacks and
everything else.
Farmakes: So I'm looking at that with the setback and an access road and a setback from the
lot line, and they can still get a house in there. Or are you saying that they could not?
Krauss: On the east side of the channel?
Farmakes: Well on this side of the drawing. I'm looking at.
Krauss: My side over here?
Farmakes: It would be the east, yes.
7
E
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1
I
Krauss: No, we don't think. The ... if there are any building sites on the east side, they're
minimal. I
Farmakes: So PUD, traditional or otherwise, would preclude any building on that area?
Mancino: We could build there is what you're saying?
Aanenson: Or you go through, I mean it's wetland. If you alter it and that is ag urban
wetland which we ... city process to go through the wetland alteration.
Scott: How would you access that via a street? I
Krauss: That was one of the problems they had with the street connection to the east. It
became impractical to do it. However, it wouldn't be the first time and if you really wanted '
to push it, yeah. You build a private drive through the ag urban wetland and you mitigate
what you can take out of the wetland to get there. It's been done. In fact you just reviewed
at your last meeting I think. '
Batzli: Sanda's.
Krauss: To access the island. ,
Farmakes: Is there a road currently there? I'm assuming not. Okay, so it would have to '
access someone else's property then to cross over to get there?
Krauss: It would be easier to access across somebody's property. Otherwise they have to '
build something through that ag urban wetland.
Farmakes: Well, and the upper part is wetland. I'm looking for some open area behind the '
ordinary high water mark and I'm somewhat hearing what he's saying. The only really open
area of the lot is filled with development and can you point out to me what, by using a PUD ,
here you feel that we're opening up.
Krauss: Well I'd like the developer to do their presentation. I mean I can stand here. I
Farmakes: I'm assuming this was part of your discussion when you had this.
Krauss: Yeah, there were substantial common space located along Highway 7 and in the '
northwest corner, down along the lakeshore itself and then there's some common areas behind
some of the units. I
�� 8
.1
C
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Batzli: Okay. Does the applicant have a presentation for the Planning Commission? If you
could come up and give us your name and address and who you're representing for the
record.
John Blumentritt: Members of the Planning Commission of Chanhassen, my name is John
Blumentritt with Boyer Building Corporation and I am the individual that prepared this area
site plan that we're about to review. First of all I wish to thank Kate Aanenson and the
planning staff because we did go through a tremendous amount of different... but it seems like
as we look at right now we have a well constructed report in that we really only have several
concerns that seem to—and yet to be resolved. But we appreciate the Planning Commission
and it's recommendation for approval. Now as we look at the site plan, and I'll just step
around for a moment to show you this. One more refresher again. Highway 7 is on the
north side. The shores of Minnewashta are on the south side. Arbor Lane is at this point.
It's labeled Arbor Drive. It's Arbor Lane. Onto Dartmouth and that's forming the access and
then Washta Bay Road is on the easterly side. Not including the channel of course, as
mentioned, this site is 13.47 acres of property. For a moment please let me give the Planning
Commission a brief history on how Boyer Building Corporation arrived at the proposal you're
about to review. As Mr. Krauss had mentioned, during the past summer we prepared a sketch
of the site plan containing 37 units. Let me just put that up for a moment too if I can. Once
this sketch was developed, we requested a meeting with Mr. Krauss and asked him to perform
a conceptual review. At that meeting Mr. Krauss and other members of the planning staff
had very guarded concerns indicating that the wetlands and the shoreland ordinances and the
boating and other issues may pop up and of course they didn't want to discourage us from
pursuing this thing but they reminded us that there definitely were some things that we
needed to have resolved that obviously there's a series of other regulatory agencies that would
have some say in this thing. And that was fine. We wanted to just test the waters and get a
feel of what that might be. During the Parade of Homes we have another subdivision that
you can see the photographs down on the floor, that's called Gideon Cove over in
Shorewood. What we wanted to do was use this one, if you would, as a test balloon because
the units over at Shorewood, the empty nester homes that we have there, sold out. So what
we decided to do was to put this site plan up and inquire with some of the people that came
through of it's viability and we wanted to test the market. We did want to see if there was
some appeal to this as a potential home site. We had indicated on a no pressure basis that if
people were to be interested, if this was something that may appeal to them, would they
please sign our guest register. Again, it would be something that we'd keep them casually
informed as this went through the planning process and indeed it became a reality, that we
would be'in touch with them. We have over 100 different names sign our register. I guess
that concluded our market study. We refined this 37 unit proposal. Went back to the
planning commission and. fortunately then we found out all the difficulities we were about to
incur. We had a choice. It was either refine the design and resolve all the regulatory agency
6
t
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
issues or limit the number of units and don't infringe on the sensitive areas. So then we went
back to the drawing board one more time and that's this that you're about to look at. With
'
several more attempts we finally arrived at a conceptual plan. That plan that you see of
Spinnaker Wharf. And now as we move to the present we have several issues. When
designing Spinnaker Wharf several extremely important characteristics and criteria needed to
'
be resolved. Because the design is exclusively designed for empty nester lifestyle, the
urgency of clustering and the demand for security and low maintenance were of paramount
'
importance. Issue B. The current comprehensive plan does not allow for clustering of
residences in a low density residential area. Even though our development is well within the
1.2 to 4 units per acre criteria. The negative presence, or Issue C. The negative presence of
'
Highway 7 and the noisy effect generated from 17,000 to 19,000 cars per day definitely is a
big concern. Issue D. The existing of the wetlands on the site. We were instructed by Mr.
Krauss to use the Chanhassen wetlands inventory delineation for planning purposes, or to hire
'
a wetlands consultant. We selected for expediency the Chanhassen map. The wetlands to the
southwest side of the property, that's here, is 4.2. I'm sorry, is .42 acres designated as a
natural wetland and presently appears as a cattail mat. The channel wetland is something
'
else, and that we need to very seriously evaluate, and I mean very seriously. The channel
wetland is created from surface drainage storm water culverts that protrude at the northwest
and the northeast side of the site. And again I'll show you where those are. Up at this point
,
and then there's one underneath this area that comes through there. These culverts were
installed during the construction of Highway 7. From the north side of Highway 7 through
the drainage ditches, through the culverts, now comes fertilizers, chemicals, salts, topsoil
'
runoff and other untreated sediment. These effects rocket down the drainage ditches and into
the channel and ultimately into Lake Minnewashta. To call this even an ag wetland is
unbelievable because in reality it's a lot worse than that. Other issues existed but let us now
,
turn to our solutions that this present. Solution #1. With the existence of 26 units on an
approximately 13.5 acre site, the density is less than 2 units per acre gross. Well within the
lower range of the low density residential limits. We are confident that this solves the
,
density and the traffic issues. Solution #2. By allowing the clustering of homes, we can now
create the benefits of empty nester living. Architectural integrity, common association,
privately maintained streets, consisting of ground maintenance and neighborhood security.
'
Solution #3. The clustering allows us not to distrub the shoreline area or the existing
wetlands. This proposal does not invade the wetlands and leaves ample land for buffering to
the wetlands. Solution #4. With strategically placed NURP ponds and an internal storm
'
sewer, this development will enhance the current adverse ground water effects. The site plan
is an effort to encourage environmental sensitivity by using NURP ponds, by using internal
storm sewers, by using curbs, gutters and topography. Treating the runoff water enhances the
'
water quality before it enters into Lake Minnewashta. There is one negative. To call on
Boyer Building Corporation to pay for the internal runoff generated from this development is
'
fair. To call for us to pay, or to plan, install and pay for runoff generated from neighboring
10 1
1
r1
I J
n
n
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993.
properties, Highway 7 and the neighborhood of Shorewood is not fair. This is an issue that
will need further review and it is our intent to continue this with the planning staff, with
MnDot and with the city of Shorewood. Lastly I'd like us to turn to page 11 of the staff
report and go through the list of recommended items on this report. Item number 1. As
mentioned, we will work with the staff regarding the drainage system but understand serious
financial issues still exist. Item number 2, the development agreement is fine. We have no
problem with that at all. Item 3, it is also understood. Grading, drainage and utility plans
and specifications will be provided during this planning process. Item number 4. The 24
foot wide instead of 20 foot wide street may be acceptable. This appears initially to be
excessive blacktopping especially if item 10, the fire marshal's letter which calls for no street
parking prevails. We will continue to investigate this matter with the staff. Item 5. The turn
around at the end of Dartmouth is not desirable, nor do we see that as being acceptable. We
will continue this issue with the staff and present a reasonable solution at the preliminary
level of the PUD hearing. Item 6. Rather than engaging a wetland specialist to look at the
channel, our preference is to acknowledge the channel runoff is a serious concern. Until a
water system is constructed, this matter will worsen. Our preference is to move along
expeditiously and get this matter resolved. So let us together engage our engineers and
assemble the construction documents and get this water system done. Item 7. With the
current site plan, we doubt if we infringe on several of these areas and agencies but it is our
concern and we will resolve the necessary permitting. Item 8. The soil and engineering,
that's obvious. That does need to be done and we agree that that is a critical issue to resolve.
Item number 9. The building official compliance. Again, that is very acceptable. Item 10.
The fire marshal's compliance needs interpretation but we plan on wanting to resolve
this ... Item 11. I want to divert this issue to Robert Boyer in a moment, but please allow me
to finish just these last final items. Item 12, removal of the house. That's fine. We have no
problem with that either. Item number 13. Amendment of the PUD ordinance, that's great.
We love that one a lot. We hope that happens. Item number 14. The quality of the existing
trees will be inventoried and incorporated at the lowest cost. We don't feelt he wetland
revegetation plan is called for because we will not be disturbing that that already exists. We
will provide a final landscaping plan for approval to the staff, to the Planning Commission
and to the City Council during this PUD process. Item 15. During our investigations we
found, or we now find a problem with what is designated as trail fees. While no clear plan
seems to exist, we feel perhaps a better solution would be to inform the future homeowners
that a future assessment of $200.00 will be charged once the trail plan is put into effect. This
we feel would be far more equitable. As we summarize our site plan design, it's our belief
the plan functions extremely well and presents many benefits and advantages but we have to
leave this decision to your's. We hope that the planning staff will agree with all of the
members who have put a tremendous amount of time and effort into this project. That it is a
good project. Thank you very much and at this point I'm going to turn this one item over to
Bob Boyer.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Batzli: Okay, thank you. '
Bob Boyer: Once again my name is Bob Boyer. I reside at 5020 Suburban Drive in
Shorewood. I think the reason John requested that I address the docking issue is simply from '
the standpoint that I'm a former resident out there. I used to live on the property. In fact the
property directly west of this development was developed by my father, Joe Boyer and this
area over here was where we resided for many years. So intimately aware of the lake and I
think some of the concerns of the individuals here too that probably will speak to this '
particular issue. So rather than get into a lengthy discussion about it right now, what I'd
prefer to do is, I think this is a public hearing isn't it? ,
Batzli: Yes it is.
Bob Boyer: Defer to those people who have come to discuss the issue and let them discuss '
what's been said up to this time. Then as the dockage issue becomes an issue of concern, we
can talk about that in more detail. ,
Batzli: I would actually prefer that, if you have an argument as to why you don't agree with
the staff report, that you provide it now because otherwise we're going to get into a back and
forth thing where residents want to say something and then they haven't heard what you have
to say in support of more docks. So if you could at least briefly provide us the sketchy
details of, if you do have an argument or you are requesting more dock spaces, that you tell '
us that now before I open it up for the public.
Bob Boyer: Alright. I guess suffice to say we do have some concern about what I feel is a
'
fairly arbitrary method for establishing the 12 units, or 12 docks on the lakeshore. Certainly
as the staff has mentioned in the report, the property has in excess of 1,900 linear feet of
lakeshore. The DNR required, at a certain amount of distress for us, we had to live within
,
the constraints of that 1,900 lineal feet of Lakeshore in the process of planning the
development. We would like as well the benefit of that, to be able to use that for the
recreational advantage of the people that are going to be living there. In certain respects I
'
guess I see myself not only as a developer, I'm concerned about our investment here. But
also an advocate for those people, those 26 homeowners that are going to be living on the
property, when I say that we just wanted to be treated fairly. Because we're the last guys on
'
the block so to speak and everybody else has got their docks and got their Lakeshore, I guess
our concern is that we use the framework thaf's n place and the ordinances that are in place
to allow us to have the dockage that I believe we deserve to have. We requested 26 docks
'
and I believe that was, that's a fair amount and a fair figure. We went through a number of
different methods with which to calculate the dockage that we requested. One which is the
simplest, which I understand probably does not apply but it gives a sense of density at least,
'
12 1
n
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
' is this one dock per 75 feet of lakeshore. If you use that particular calculations, which I
believe is the calculations proposed by the Department of Natural Resources and used on
single family residences, that would arrive at 26 boats. Precisely what we recommended
using. The staff has used in their report a recommendation of providing dockage for 6 boats
along that lakeshore. That would, with 3 boats per dock, would allow dockage for 18 boats.
We feel it's fair that if we're considering Lakeshore dockage, of 6 boats along the lakeshore,
' that we also allow if this was in fact a single family development, there would also be half
acre, 75 foot frontage lots, along the penninsula as well. And since that is considered
lakeshore, that there would also be an additional 7 homesites in that Location. So with 6
' homesites and 7 homesites, we're talking approximately 13 single family, contiguous
lakeshore homesites. That would provide in the upper range of 39, ultimately we could have
39 boats. And we're just not asking for that. We're just asking that you give every resident
' in the development, 26 individuals, or homes, an opportunity to use the lake and to enjoy the
lake. I guess that's our viewpoint.
I Farmakes: I have a question. Is the property currently taxed at 1,900 feet of lakeshore?
Bob Boyer: I believe it is, yes. It's designated lakeshore.
Farmakes: Is the property value figured at 1,900 running feet of shoreline?
' Bob Boyer: I'm not sure from a property, I guess dad you'd have to address that. I presume
that the valuation of the property is based upon the lakeshore that's there.
' Joe Boyer: We pay our taxes according to the city assessments, and that's...
Bob Boyer: I'm not sure when the assessor comes out and assesses the property, that he
necessarily says that this is lakeshore or isn't lakeshore. I'm not sure he's actually gone to
the effort of finding that out. Certainly if this were platted out as single, or half acre lots,
people fronting the existing channel would be considered lakeshore owners. I don't have any
' doubt of that.
' Farmakes: The County tax assessor has a formula for calculating lakeshore and assessing the
value to the property based on running feet for each lake in this city. And that's why I
brought it up as a question, and I'm sure that that is calculated based on occasion to access a
' wetland area and not ri,=ssarily usable shoreline. And the reason I ask is what, was the
county assessing that property, were they using the 1,900 feet as a rule for valuating the
property currently. I understand the DNR and I read the staff report in that regard and I just,
' it seems like, I'd like to know if other government agencies here are also towing in line with
the 1,900 feet...
13
Mancino: Yeah. To the west of the channel. You have to go through wetlands to get to the
dock, correct? Muck and peat.
Bob Boyer: There would be wetlands right in this area, that's correct. And the area that's ,
light green is the wetlands area which quite frankly is not untypical around Lake Minnetonka,
or Minnewashta has significant wetland areas between people's property and the actual water
line which, and people do, just run their docks right through the wetlands. We're not
proposing to do that. What we're proposing is to cluster the dockage at the end here. We
really do not want to disturb the shoreline at all. Short of providing a 4 foot dock out to the
boats. '
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Kate and/or Paul. Why are we talking about the number of boats
since what they're trying to do is get one dock space for every home and we're not really
approving the number of homesites on the property right now?
Aanenson: Well, the PUD ordinance says, I mean the beachlot ordinance says, based on '
square footage and frontage you can have x number of docks and what that says is 30,000
square feet for the first dock with 100 feet of frontage, plus additional 20,000 square feet for
additional docks. So really in order to get, you only need 2 acres to get the three docks. '
They could have more than, it's a matter if they had 12 units they could, or excuse me, if
they even had 20 units, they could probably still have more docks. First they do a PUD ... YOU
may want to leave that open ended at this point but I think that's a concern of the neighbors. '
The total number of docks.
Batzli: Well, but this doesn't seem very conceptual if we're limiting it to a number of dock ,
�e 14 1
Planning ommission Meeting - December 1 1993
g g ,
Bob Boyer: I'm sorry, I don't have an answer for you on that.
'
Farmakes: Oka thank you.
Y� Y
Mancino: I have a couple questions. The existing channel is deep enough to get in docks
,
and boats? In that channel.
Bob Boyer: Yeah. In fact people do often times take their boats down through there. It's a
spot where people who fish, so you can traverse it with a boat.
Mancino: And if you live at number 21, to get to your dock, your dock out in the channel,
'
don't you have to go.
Bob Boyer: Right here?
,
Mancino: Yeah. To the west of the channel. You have to go through wetlands to get to the
dock, correct? Muck and peat.
Bob Boyer: There would be wetlands right in this area, that's correct. And the area that's ,
light green is the wetlands area which quite frankly is not untypical around Lake Minnetonka,
or Minnewashta has significant wetland areas between people's property and the actual water
line which, and people do, just run their docks right through the wetlands. We're not
proposing to do that. What we're proposing is to cluster the dockage at the end here. We
really do not want to disturb the shoreline at all. Short of providing a 4 foot dock out to the
boats. '
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Kate and/or Paul. Why are we talking about the number of boats
since what they're trying to do is get one dock space for every home and we're not really
approving the number of homesites on the property right now?
Aanenson: Well, the PUD ordinance says, I mean the beachlot ordinance says, based on '
square footage and frontage you can have x number of docks and what that says is 30,000
square feet for the first dock with 100 feet of frontage, plus additional 20,000 square feet for
additional docks. So really in order to get, you only need 2 acres to get the three docks. '
They could have more than, it's a matter if they had 12 units they could, or excuse me, if
they even had 20 units, they could probably still have more docks. First they do a PUD ... YOU
may want to leave that open ended at this point but I think that's a concern of the neighbors. '
The total number of docks.
Batzli: Well, but this doesn't seem very conceptual if we're limiting it to a number of dock ,
�e 14 1
F—
L
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 ;
spaces when we, it seems apparent to me that this plan, if it's conceptual, may or may not
end up with 26.
Aanenson: I agree with you but.
Batzli: They want the number of boat spaces that they've got units on the property.
Aanenson: I guess the staff's position is we don't feel there should be direct correlation to
the number of units and the number of dock spaces. I guess that's our position.
' Batzli: Okay, but why are we talking about it now? That's my question.
Krauss: Well it is, we've been working around the lake long enough to know that this is a
' major issue for all those that live on the lake. It happens every time anything is being
developed here. It is a concern for us. It is something that the PUD gives you ability to
exercise control over that you wouldn't normally have if this came in as a straight
' subdivision.
And what we're recommending is that under the PUD you exercise it.
' Aanenson: And they would like an answer to know that. That'd be part of whether or not
they want to proceed based on the number of dock slips so they want some direction from
you. Whether you tie it down to a specific number or give them a range. I think that's a
' concern.
Batzli: Okay. Did you have something to add?
' Bob Boyer: Yeah, if I could. I don't want the misconception that we're, Y p e c, that we necessarily
' have a direct correlation from homesites to dockage. The reason we selected the 26
obviously is we do have 26 homes but I think it's obvious to see that because of the
Lakeshore we have, we have the potential for more boats. We're just simply saying, all we
' want is 26 because that's all the homeowners there's going to be. We're not requesting any
additional. We're not requesting pull up slips or any of that stuff that I think under the
shoreland regulation would be allowed. All we want is an opportunity for the homeowners to
' be on the lake if they want to.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. If there are residents or other people who
would like to address the commission, please step forward to the microphone and give us
your name and address for the record.
I Tom Merz: My name is Tom Merz. I live at 3201 Dartmouth Drive. Would you be kind
1 15
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1
enough to put that first map back up where you showed the ... I live in Joe Boyer's first
addition. It's been part of the Boyer family my whole life so as I speak, if this sounds
'
negative, it's more of a protection of my home. These are good people. If somebody's going
to develop it, Boyer's are the finest people. When I look at this project as it was introduced,
you know whether they talk about cluster homes or non - cluster homes, and they talked about
the zoning and they talked about the ... and they talk about 2.3 units per acre. I'm not smart
enough to sit back here and try to tell you whether it's good or bad. As a person, I live in
the adjoining neighborhood and as you look at the impact that this project is going to have,
'
and especially if you just take, let's just talk about Joe Boyer's Sterling Estates on the west
side of it and the Minnewashta Heights on the east side and if you look at all those homes on
each side of it, you're looking at one acre lots plus or minus. You're looking at residential
,
small impact neighborhoods. And now you want to take this unit and they'll take Arbor
Drive and they'll take, the center portion, they'll take all of these 26 units that will generate
probably 180 plus or minus car traffic per day and they'll all come out of Arbor Lane and my
'
objection is that this unit, or this development doesn't stand on it's own. It's impacting the
adjoining neighborhoods and if there was some way that they could find to concentrate
whatever they're doing so they had their own means of access or egress, maybe this is
'
something that's more palatable. But you talk about making all of that impact and putting it
onto our neighborhood, to me that is not in keeping with something that we have, or our
lifestyle. We bought homes in areas that are low density, low impact and you're making all
,
of a sudden this development will make our's into a very high impact and high density. I
think that also if we talk about planning, when you look at the ultimate goal and we listened
to the—about the senior citizens and how they want to get access in and out ... To me it would
'
seem logical that they will take Dartmouth Drive and somehow connect it through Washta
Bay Road so in essence what we are doing is allowing that entire neighborhood to flow down
to some type of a semaphore where all can get access on or off or across Highway 7. By
'
putting this neighborhood in there without any connection access, we are completing
eliminating any further, whatever we want to do. Send our kids down to the shopping center.
Whatever happens, to me that just seems like good planning. If you allow this development
'
road to go through, you are completing impacting what I think makes better planning. To try
to speak about to cluster the homes, I don't know that I have a lot to offer about that. I think
the next issue that we get onto the lake issue, and for all you know that this end of the bay is,
'
of Lake Minnewashta is very ecologically sensitive. It's about a 10 to 12 foot lake. It's got
a lot of silt in the bottom of it. And a lot of boat traffic makes it, the turbity which increases
the weed growth which increases all the many things that happen in the lake. When you look
'
at this project and you go from Boyer's, this addition has got probably 800 feet. As you go
to the west, all the way up to Nagele's point, there's probably a series of 7 docks and there's
probably only 7 boats. As you take from Boyer's addition and we go back into that bay to,
I'm sorry. Nagele's would be to the west. The other one would be to the east. There's
probably, oh let's see. There's probably about 3,000 feet if you go to the east and you I
16 1
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
probably don't see 6 or 7 boats to the east. 6 or 7 docks and 6 or 7 boats. Somebody made
a statement that each boat, or each dock is allowed to have 3 boats. Well I think that may be
true if they are, if it were my dock I could put 3 boats on it but I couldn't build a dock, put
my boat and have 2 of my
friends come up and put a dock. This isn't in keeping with the ordinance. Is that a true
statement?
Aanenson: Yes.
Tom Merz: Okay. So when he made a statement about 3 boats along the shore, you don't see
any boats, or you don't see a typical neighborhood dock with more than 1 boat: What that
means is that you go around the rest of the bay and you look at the regional park that's got
over 15,000 feet of shore and they'd probably have 35 boats in there. You talk about
Minnewashta Parkway that's got 120 homes in there, plus or minus, and there aren't 12 boats
in that neighborhood. If you look at the Minnewashta Heights has got 75 homes and
probably there's 11 boats, plus or minus, and that's would allow for an outlot. Boyer's has
got 10% of this bay and they're asking for between 14 and 28 boats. Well, there's only 7,
there's 14 boats, plus or minus, on this whole mile and a half of lakeshore and they're asking
to double it up in 800 feet, which to me isn't a good thing. Let's see. I guess that those are
the two issues. How do we properly protect our interest on the site if we're maintaining the
quality of our lots and the quality of that lake... We expect that this 10 %, or this 800 feet of.
lakeshore probably could be judged in the same way that we are. Because it is a channel, it
goes through there that some years ago somebody man made and it's not navigable to go
back in with some big boats and if they think they're going to line with docks, that isn't in
keeping with that either. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Brevity would be
encouraged.
Bruce Hubbard: My name is Bruce Hubbard. I live on 2841 Washta Bay Road. Just on the
east side of there. I would certainly have to agree with what he said about the boats and the
dockage that are on the lake presently. I also have a similar concern that we seem to be
raising about the number of homes that we should be comparing this to. It seems that if you
look at the way things are plotted up there, and you talk about the wetlands and the amount
of homes that you could put in there with the setbacks, coming out of 26 or any number close
to that, doesn't seem to be at all feasible. And if you used a number that you would be able
to do a single family and then cluster those, then you would have some usable open space but
the open space that we're seeing on this, most of it's wetland that we can't use depending
on... So it just doesn't seem to make sense to use that kind of density that we're starting out
17
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1
with to arrive at the total amount that should be clustered.
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else? '
Jim Ginther: My name is Jim Ginther. I live at 3131 Dartmouth Drive and I sent a fax '
today to the commission. I don't know if any of you have had a chance to get that
Aanenson: Yeah, they do... '
Jim Ginther: So I don't want to belabor the point if you've already had a chance to read it
but I did want to make a couple of points here and highlight that for you. Again like Tom
Merz stated, we aren't really in fundamental opposition to the project that the Boyers have
presented here. Secondly, as I also feel very strongly and if we're going to have a developer
,
there, that we would be hard pressed to find someone better than the Boyers to do this
because like the Merz', the Boyers were neighbors of our's for the years that we initially
moved into Lake Minnewashta and I think they truly do have a concern about that area.
'
Specifically we're concerned about two areas and that is the singular access via Dartmouth
Drive to the project and the proposed 26 docks for boat slips. The congestion that we see
that will occur from this project concerns us since there is only one outlet through Dartmouth
'
Drive and through Arbor Drive. By adding 52 cars, potentially for this 2 car garage complex,
then we're going to have—our neighborhood of over 150 trips daily out that one singular
access road. Now already there is a significant delay in the morning getting out onto
'
Highway 7 from Arbor Drive. It's not uncommon to have to wait 2 or 3 minutes to get out
onto that drive and that's just if 1 or 2 cars are sitting there. Now if you have 6 or 8 or 10
cars sitting there, which I think you're going to have, with one outlet for this whole complex,
'
26 homes, 50 some cars, this wait is not going to be 2 or 3 minutes. It's going to be 10
minutes. It's going to become more dangerous or to have people making an effort in a rush
to get out and I'm concerned about the safety as we think about people accessing onto
'
Highway 7, with 17,000 to 19,000 cars and as we all know, Highway 7's becoming a more
rapidly traveled road all the time. Secondly, beyond the delay part, is that we also have in
terms of accessing Arbor off of Highway 7, we currently have a very dangerous situation. I
'
think it's been recorded to the Department of Transportation where they mislmed that road
just this past summer so literally you come up a hill, approaching on from the highway, have
to make a left turn and it's not a safe left turn right now. Now if we're going to bring 52
'
more cars trying to make a left turn onto something that's already unsafe, we're really
looking for significantly impacting a dangerous situation there. Within Sterling Estates,
which is the subdivision adjoining this property to the west, there are no sidewalks.
'
Consequently there's constant, continual pedestrian foot traffic in the streets, specifically
Arbor Drive and Dartmouth and that's where people walk. Children play out there. People
18
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
walk out there. Guests that come into the neighborhood or taking a walk through the
neighborhood there, and you could not possibly come into this neighborhood on a weekend
and not find people walking up and down Arbor Drive and Dartmouth Drive and now this is
the only singular access that we're talking about for another 50 plus cars traveling that road
150 times a day. So I'm very concerned about the safety within Sterling Estates. I'm
concerned about the safety that it's going to be for both Sterling Estates and the proposed
Spinnaker Wharf people all trying to access the same area off of one outlet. I think a very
reasonable solution is to add a second access at the east border of the property onto Washta
Bay Road, which was the original earlier option as you saw those presented in the original
plan. And we heard here just this evening that it has been done and can be done. That a
private road can be put across wetlands to access another road. I think that's not going to be
a convenience factor only but it's certainly going to be a safety factor that 1 think should be
strongly considered by this commission. The second concern that we have is the excessive
amount of boats contemplated with 26 boat slips. I'm not going to belabor that point but
right across this bay, to the south of this proposed subdivision is a 400 acre, lake regional
park with two public accesses and a good amount of time, attention and planning was
developed years ago when that park was planned to permit only 35 boats. 35 boats from that
400 acre park. Two accesses. Park to accommodate hundreds of people. To put 35 boats
on this lake. And now we're asking for 26 boats from a 13 acre parcel to be put onto this
lake. It just doesn't make any sense. Secondly, as I think there's a little bit of mirrors being
played in the sense of the channel that is on this property. It is a unique channel in the sense
that what it does by the DNR's definition of all of that being lakeshore, is 1,900 feet of
lakeshore, for that 13 acres is pretty unrealistic when you consider that all you can do is
possibly turn a rowboat around in that 3 feet of water that is in that channel. And when
you're considering the fact that the whole east side of the channel is now designated as
wetland that can't be disturbed, how that becomes lakeshore that now is calculated in
determining the number of homes that can be considered as lakeshore. Literally speaking, if
that channel were removed, we would be looking at something that would be about 6 or 7
houses that could possibly at the most front this lake. And now we're talking 26 houses. So
in other developments in the past, on Lake Minnewashta and I would imagine other lakes,
they just didn't happen to have a channel going back into a small piece of property that all of
a sudden gives it 1,900 feet of lakeshore. So I just think it's an illusion as far as considering
that amount of lakeshore for that small parcel of land. Finally, to give you a thought about a
workable solution there is that, what we would like to suggest is that the number of boat slips
be limited to the same number of cluster homes that actually front the lake. I believe
the—plan here shows 8 homes fronting the lake and consequently we think that a reasonable
solution would be 8 boat slips on one dock and then in addition to that, I would concur with
what we saw in the staff's report and that is a couple of racks back in the channel area for
small sailboats and canoes could be kept because that would then allow the people who are in
reality really off the lake, those cluster homes behind the lakeshore homes, they would have
19
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 �.
t� '
,
access to the lake through the sailboats, the canoes and the type of things that other people
use in similar situations around Lake Minnewashta who in reality have homes off the lake.
And in reality those cluster homes that don't front Lake Minnewashta are truly not lakeshore
'
homes and we don't think they ought to be treated as lakeshore homes. Finally, in
conclusion, we've been residents of this area for over 20 years. We have developed a nice
home in that area, as have many other neighbors here. I just sat down the other evening and
'
figured out that we paid well over $100,000.00 in real estate taxes for the property that we
have here on this lake. And we're not opposed to progress. We're not opposed to
development that meets community needs and enhances a very special natural resource that
exists here in Chanhassen. I think we need to remember that that lake is special. It's not
Lake Minnetonka. It's not a zoo out there. It's a special natural resource. Very special by
the lake region park that's been developed on the east side. As we add development, as we
,
add congestion, I think you need to give strong consideration to the amount of boats that you
put on this lake. Consequently I think that it's very important that this body, as well as
Carver County and the State be very consciously concerned of those Minnewashta residents
,
who live our daily lives on that lake. We raise our families on that lake and who are going
to be most impacted by what is done with this property. So I thank you for your
consideration.
'
Batzli: Thank you. You said we several times. Are you referring to yourself and your wife?
'
Jim Ginther: Yes. I'm speaking for my wife and myself.
Batzli: Okay. Okay. I didn't know if you were speaking for other residents. Thank you. Is
'
there anyone else who would like to address the commission?
Janis Bremer: My name is Janis Bremer and I reside at 2961 Washta Bay Road, and if I
'
could use a pointer I'll show you where that property is. I think I can show you where the
property is. It is these two lots, which you can see has about, let's see if I get this right. 400
'
feet of the boundary of Joe Boyer's property. In general I'd like to say that we simply
disagree with changing the zone. That if it's low density zoning, it needs to remain low
density zoning. In terms of some of the points that have been made, we've been living on
'
that property for almost 8 years. The boats that go into the channel are rowboats. They can
barely turn around. Go up there some day. You can walk in and out There is a lot of
designated wetlands. We have constantly checked with the city about what is supposed to be
'
occurring on that property. Joe Boyer may be an excellent developer. I don't know. I don't
know much about property development in this area. What I do know is he's been very
disrespectful of our property, and what that speaks to in the future I simply want you to know
'
that. He's brought heavy equipment in there. He has plowed down trees. He has turned the
equipment around on our property and said, oh. I didn't know where the property bordered.
20
t� '
M
n
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
The wetland expert that came in was ... from the city of Chanhassen, also disrespectful of our
property. This does not speak well in terms of future development. We do not have a dock
on our 100 feet of lakeshore because of the cattails and the natural lakeshore there. The little
square that's emptying, I wanted to mention the fact that that's owned by Pete Boyer, who's
Joe's son. So if you're looking at wanting a road to the north side of our property, the only
way to get onto Washta Bay Road is to use I think it's 50 feet that Pete still owns, that's our
access road that has had no maintenance done to it in 7 1/2 years. Try driving on it. Okay?
He may be a good developer. It doesn't look like it where we're sitting. And do we have to
get involved in that kind of project? The respected wetlands which is the empty property to
the west of us, oh I guess they've had heavy equipment in on it at least 3 to 4 tunes in the
past 7 years. Joe has allowed his son to plant trees there, one suspects in order to build up
the wetland. I don't know that okay but there are planted trees on that land. A long row of
them. It hasn't been left in it's natural state. Now maybe that's ... for development. I don't
know. I know we were told by the city that there is no variance and there hasn't ever been
unless we sell some of our property for building houses on the east side of that channel.
Putting a road into Washta Bay, no disrespect to Arbor Lane. I think that's an enormous
problem but it's going to create an identical problem at Washta Bay Road. Coming out on
Washta Bay Road you've got to, have you guys driven on it recently? Whoomp. And then
you turn right and there's this great little swoopy hill. I suppose you could rebuild that and
fix things like that but I think you're going to have the same traffic density problem even if
you access both ways. And again, there's 50 feet to get from our east edge of our property to
Washta Bay Road. The only non - private property there has got 50 feet that's owned by Pete
Boyer. And you may want to know that.
Batzli: Okay. Thank you for your comments.
Kelly Sheehan: Good evening. My name is Kelly Sheehan and I live at 2951 Washta Bay
Road which would be right on the apex of the right angle there on Washta Bay Road takes a
jog going east. And everything that's been said tonight I guess I can't elaborate a lot. I'm
generally agree with most of it. The only thing I'd like to add is that I do own a Boyer home
and of course they are good builders, however the road that you're discussing as far as
connecting the east and west sides of that property on that channel, there's a little dirt road
that Janis was elaborating on. I would not like to see a lot of excess traffic on that road
obviously because I live in front of it. So the problem you have with the traffic getting on
and off of, I believe it's Dartmouth Drive. I can see just an increase in traffic flow with this
project and I think this ... second the motion to keep it the way it is. Thank you.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission?
Don Sueker: My name is Don Sucker and I live right next to where the proposed division is
21
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 1
to g o, 3111 Dartmouth Drive. I
Batzli: Are you on the north or south side of Dartmouth? '
Don Sueker: The north side. South side, excuse me.
Batzli: South side. Towards the lake.
Don Sueker: Right. I guess I want to agree with everything that Tom and Jim have said as '
far as the accessibility and I think when I, and I've only been there 2 years. When I bought
the property I originally thought I liked the wilderness part of it and all the aspects of being ,
the quiet, nice, quite bay. Now I think with, you know you're talking about putting 26 boats
in. I'm going to be looking at a marina down there. Not really a residential area that is, I
think he built a wonderful area there but I think this is changing the whole concept. And I ,
think I would like to reiterate also that I think they do build nice homes. I've been in a lot of
the homes that he's built in the area but I guess I'm opposed to all the traffic that would be
coming through there. And I did talk to your fire marshal and your fire chief, although they '
would not admit it probably now. They are in favor of a double access road in any addition,
being what it may be. I guess that's all I've got to say.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir.
Steve Hall: My name is Steve Hall. I live at 6221 Arbor Lane, which is the property just ,
adjacent to Highway 7 and south of TH 7. I only wish to address the traffic studies which
give a particular projection on the number of trips. Now I know that that's an exact science.
My problem is that they then average that through the day saying you'll have x number of '
trips per hour. What they're not looking at is those will be clustered like the homes. They'll
be clustered in the morning hours and the evening hours, even if they're empty nesters, unless
they've retired from life, they carry out their duties during the day like the rest of us. They'll '
leave in the morning. They'll be back in the evening. Visitors will be a similar situation.
Those traffic patterns, you can't take the number of trips per hour and say you're only going
to add 4 trips an hour or 8 trips an hour. They'll be clustered in the same fashion that the ,
residents are presently using. And if you do an average, and I'll just ...little story. A man
with one foot in a bucket of boiling water and one foot in a bucket of ice water. On average
he's comfortable but it's not appropriate. '
Batzli: Thank you. Would anyone else like to address the commission? Yes sir.
Joe Boyer: I am Joe Boyer and I live in Deephaven now. I lived in Chanhassen for quite a
few years and at one time I did apply for the Planning Commission for the City of '
22
0
!J
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Chanhassen but as it turns out, because I was an advocate of the shoreline walk system, and
had control on boat motors on the Lake Minnewashta, but anyhow. That's... control but when
I moved in here, the people were ... their sewage pump ... on the weekends. Dumping their
sewage over on my property which would eventually flow into the lake. The lakeshore...
sewage system and I think my project forefronted the sewage system through that area. But
anyhow, we've planted trees and we've been very concerned about the environment. The
development of that area and we have good people living in our areas. Very good people.
We've got an excellent clientele and a lot of these people that will live in this area, this new
area, are going to be neighbors to the people that have tried to keep them out or cut them
down you know. Now if I build 7 houses along the shoreline, as in Sterling Estates, 21 boats
right? Plus canoes and rowboats and swimming docks and all that sort of thing. You know.
Now this whole area, 26 homes, it's almost, it's not quite 2 homes to the acre. That lot...
proportionally is greater than the Heights or Minnetonka Lows or whatever and Sterling
Estates there we have lot sizes with 3/4 of an acre plus. 3/4 of an acre ... They're mostly all
half and in some cases a third of an acre. And these homes will do nothing but enhance the
area. It's good for the area. There is no more land. All the land we had you see you know.
God doesn't build any more you know. So you have to make use of what you have. Good
use you know and it should be functional as well pleasing to the eye. I think with the way
they designed this area, it will work well and probably half the people in there won't even
own a boat. And I think the city of Chanhassen is remiss in not having a trail system around
the entire lake. For the runners, the walkers, and that sort of thing you know. That's my
only concern. Thank you.
Batzli: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the commission? Is there
a motion to close the public hearing?
Joe Boyer: Along the lakeshore I meant. A trail system around on the lakeshore.
Joe Boyer: On the lakeshore, you bet.
Batzli: Right on the lakeshore.
Scott moved, Mancino seconded to clone the public hearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was cloned.
Batzli: Nancy, we'll start with you. Diane successfully avoided eye contact.
Mancino: ...the Boyer Corporation's development in Shorewood, Gideon Cove and it's very
top quality development. Wooded lots. Lakeshore views. Nature trail. Appealing exterior
with the cedar shingles, siding ... quiet neighborhood. Kind of off the beaten track and I think
23
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
there's no question that they would do a quality job here in Chanhassen and I would support
their development here. I'd love to see it. I'm an empty nester. A young empty nester.
However, I am uncomfortable, I think the core issue for me is changing the zoning of land
and modifying the PUD ordinance. Right now it's zoned RSF, single family residential, low
density which means that the minimum size, lot size is 15,000 square feet. Now if we were
to, if they come in and asked for a PUD single family low density, the minimum lot size
could be 11,000 square feet with the average lot size for the entire PUD, maintaining the a
15,000 foot minimum. But that won't work because they're asking for a minimum of 5,000
square foot. That's what the cluster homes have shown the lot sizes to be. So they're asking
for 5,000 minimum square foot lot size so it would be down from our 11,000. They're
asking for 5,000. I don't know what the implications for the average lot size for that would
be. Does that make sense Kate? I'm kind of asking her I guess.
Aanenson: As I eluded to earlier, it'd be the same scenario now with some of the ones that
have requested PUD. You have to go through the analysis.
Mancino: But if we said, yes. Okay, to a 5,000 minimum lot size because this is a cluster
home. Minimum lot line. What would be the average? Would you still have the average,
15,000.
Aanenson: And you can't exceed the density requirements. You still have that range as I
pointed out. What you're doing is you're just creating more open space. You're not putting
in more units.
Mancino: But these are pretty big changes because couldn't anyone where, through the whole
rest of the city, let's say on Highway 41 which is fairly traveled. Someone could come in
RSF zone and say I want to put a PUD in there and I want to do cluster, etc?
Aanenson: Correct.
Mancino: So we have.
Aanenson: You'd go through the same process you do now when you look at a PUD. As
looking at the ... same criteria. Whether you build...
Krauss: I'm not sure if I see the issue as globally as you're implying. First of all I wrote
that section of the PUD ordinance and to be honest I wrote it in another community and I
wrote it for a specific project that's on Minnetonka Boulevard and we adopted our PUD
ordinance. We felt we neede some way to regulate that. So I mean that was the, I mean it
wasn't done to structure any particular situation in Chanhassen. So there's no real derivation
24
U
0
1
n
Planning Commission Meeting - Dec ember.1, 1993_
that you can associate with it. The Red Cedar Cove townhomes were done under an earlier
PUD ordinance that have no bearing on this. I think the critical point though here Nancy is
you keep reflecting on 15,000 square foot lot area and the fact that under standard single
family PUD's you can get it down to 11,000 but you have to average it up to 15,000. I think
' we would argue here that you're doing the same thing. When you eliminate all the wetland
areas on this site. You're only looking at dry ground and you distribute that dry ground
amongst the units that are being proposed, divide it amongst the 26 units, you're getting more
' than 13,000 square feet of dry ground per unit. It's just in a different place. It's not in
somebody's individual back yard or front yard. It's in a common space. This is not the
wetlands we're talking about. This is dry ground and I think if that's a key factor. If you
' continue to look at the requirement that when you take a net distribution, that you still
maintain that 15,000 square feet, I don't think we've done anything...
' Mancino: But that's also minimum. I mean if a traditional subdivision in there, we would
have I think more open space.
Krauss: Well, that's a philosophical argument or discussion we've had a number of times.
personally have argued that when you chop space up into yards, which is typically the case,
you do a fairly crummy job of preserving natural features. You don't have any kind of
common amenities. You don't have the ability to isolate homes from the highway. You
don't have the ability to isolate homes further back from the lake.
Mancino: Well sure they do because they've already got that on Highway 7. If you go down
Highway 7, if you go west on TH 7 to TH 41, a lot of those homes, a lot of those
' subdivisions were put in there are back away from Highway 7. I mean they're not right up to
the highway and they were done as good developments and they were done as single family
traditional and obviously the developer looked and said, none of the single familiy people
' want to live here want to live on Highway 7. I mean that's just a given whether you're going
to do single family or you're going to do PUD.
' Krauss: But for every example that I can show you instances where homes are 50 feet away
from the highway. I don't know what would actually occur here but anything's possible.
Mancino: Do you think we should change the PUD just for this one parcel? I mean
shouldn't we go back into the parcel and say well let's do this medium density then? Let's
rezone it? ...don't we hive enough, when we did the comprehensive plan. When the
' comprehensive plan was done, you know there was all this information gathered about what
we needed for land use and I assume, because I wasn't here, that the Planning Commission
and the City Council went through and said this is how much we need for medium density
' housing. Otherwise we want the rest of it to be single family. And have the numbers
25
t
Planning ommission Meeting - Dec
g g ember 1, 1993
changed so we need more medium density housing in Chanhassen? '
Krauss: I think what the comprehensive plan says is that you want that much land dedicate
to low density uses, and this is consistent with that. It never says that all winds up being '
single family uses. One of the other problems you have with writing ordinances is that
products change. Needs change. It's hard to anticipate everything that's coming down the
pike with an ordinance. The idea of detached cluster single family housing is a relatively '
new one that's been around Minnesota for the last 5 or 6 or 7 years and a lot of ordinances
don't deal with it very well. I think our ordinance in hind sight might not deal with it very
well. '
Mancino: Well I'd like to hear some opinions from the other planning commissioners. Dave,
I have a question for you about the traffic on Arbor Drive. Are Dartmouth Drive and Arbor '
Drive substandard streets or are they pretty good? Are they 32 foot width? Can they take
this amount of traffic?
Hempel: They are an older neighborhood. The streets are not quite as wide as we build ,
them today. I'm actually not sure of the width of the street but I would imagine it's probably
44 feet wide without curb and gutter. MnDot, there's another development proposed west of ,
this which will be coming in this winter on the northeast corner of Highway 41. Or actually
southeast corner of Highway 41 and. Not 41, Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7. Excuse
me, which is kind of the same scenario of accessing onto the highway and providing
secondary access to the adjacent established neighborhood. There's no doubt that the traffic
on Highway 7, it is very difficult to make turning movements into the residential
neighborhoods. MnDot is currently proposing to do some additional turn lanes...in '94 ,
along this segment of Highway 7. There's also proposed traffic signals at the intersection of
Minnewashta Parkway and Highway 7 at some future date which would also help gapping the
traffic to assist in turning movements into these neighborhoods. MnDot's also looking at '
eliminating an access point or two onto Highway 7. Some of these neighborhoods that are
capable of looping interior or whether it's -a frontage road type scenario.
Batzli: Are Y ou suggesting that these people would exit via Dogwood eventually? '
Hempel: Well, it's possible of maybe accessing another street west of Arbor Drive. If that's
Dogwood, that's very well possible. I guess at this point that's conceptual... certainly be in
contact with them if this proceeded..:slong the preliminary plat stage... improvements that were
proposed along Highway 7 as well as access points eliminating along Highway 7. As far as a '
secondary access out of this site, the engineering staff as well as public safety have always
gone for a secondary access site out of a parcel whenever it's feasible. However this
circumstance, due to the impact on the wetlands with the channel area there, we did propose... '
.n
26 1
i Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Mancino: What about, and I think you already said no to me but the north/south private
drive. Why can't that go straight up into Highway 7 and have an access off Highway 7
straight up?
Hempel: MnDot does regulate access points along the highway. Typically they're like a
quarter mile apart, or they are nowadays. They limit access so we don't have all these
turning movements every couple hundred feet down which would really make it hazardous.
So I would seriously doubt they would even allow it. And then the other constraint is the
grade. There's a severe grade difference there so that's the opposition to that.
Farmakes: Is the wetland there natural?
Aanenson: Along the channel is ag urban. But adjacent to the lake it's natural.
Krauss: You mean is it natural as in...
Farmakes: Yeah. In other words, by altering all the land, surrounding land around it.
Krauss: It's hard to tell. It's pretty—that much of the land that's coming through that ag
urban wetland is discharged from developments in Shorewood. Discharge from Highway 7
and it's focused through a pipe. Now there's probably a natural drainage pattern there of
some sort before it ... but it's keeping it a wet a lot more than probably it used to be ... You
know this is a concept and I think we should encourage people to throw ideas on the table.
Kate and I were talking about something that may be a possibility. We know MnDot will
probably kick if there's any additional access points onto the highway but there may be a
possibility of constructing a better access through this development and actually closing
Arbor.
Aanenson: As you mentioned Brian, there is a significant grade change but it may be coming
down. Making this a public street and then closing Arbor off. That would keep that, that's
something that maybe we could investigate.
Mancino: I guess that's about.
Batzli: What do you think about the boats?
Mancino: What do I think about the boats? Well, my core issue is whether I even feel we
should be putting in any ... with cluster homes with 5,000. I'm not sold on changing the
ordinance to justify this development yet.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Harberts: Changing the zoning or the ordinance?
Mancino: Changing the PUD ordinance to allow cluster homes, zero lot size to be in a low
density versus a medium density design.
Batzli: Okay.
Mancino: So the boats follow what comes after that. My other concern about that is, I mean
I like to have a lot of tools and diversity to plan and as things come in but you know if I
lived in an area, in a neighborhood and beside me was undeveloped land and it was zoned
RSF and I went to City Hall and I said, hey tell me a little bit about what can happen ... and I
come down here and do my due diligence and they say, well it's single family residential.
You can have lot sizes 15,000. Besides you can have do it with the PUD ordinance... there
could be some 11,000. Okay, fine. Good, I understand that. Then all of a sudden in the
middle of things we're saying, you actually could have now. You've been here a few years.
You could have cluster home, which I have nothing against cluster homes but 5,000 square
foot lots, I don't know. I think I'd want. I know things change but I think that that would
make a lot of people mad.
Batzli: Well, just to play devil's advocate. They're getting further separation by doing this
because if they did it RSF, they'd probably have a 30 foot backyard perhaps. That's about all
that's required. Maybe 40. Right now they're spaced at least 100 feet from the existing
home, at least according to the conceptual map and.
Mancino: You mean on the east, on the west side?
Batzli: On the west side. On the east side, I mean there's obviously an incredible space
inbetween the houses as a buffer. And it does work out to be nearly, you know if you'll just
take the net property, regardless of how you squeeze it in there. Pie shapes or weird jigsaw
puzzle shapes to get the right footage, it does work out to be nearly a half acre per unit. The
net. Based on the net acreage of the development so.
Mancino: Taking away wetlands and what you do.
Batzli: Well based on our report. The way it says the net. You know .whatever that is. So
zero lot lines was what I had initially, as we were doing the PUD. The clustering. The
squishing in. Allow those people to live next to each other. They're buying into it. They
know what they're getting into. They're leaving open space. You're doing unique things
around the perimeter. I like that in a PUD. I'd want to see that and so I don't, you know the
15,000 square foot thing wasn't a big deal to me provided you were doing something unique
28
n
r
i
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 19 3 ,
that justified it being a PUD. Maybe that's my focus here but I don't have the huge problem
about the 15,000 square feet because this is kind of what I envisioned a PUD to be for. As
opposed to making 11,000 square foot lots and then making one big one so somebody can
keep all the trees in their backyard, which is what we've been seeing. So this excites me.
So, I don't know.
Mancino: In traditional or non - traditional developments?
Batzli: I don't know that, I mean these are going to be you know I think, they're not going
to be inexpensive homes. I think they're going to be nice homes and Boyers build nice
homes so I don't have a problem with that, and I don't know that the neighbors had a
problem with that so much as, you know if it came back in here with a regular development
and they were able to fit 26 homes on there, we might not like it and the neighbors are stuck
with the exact same amount of impact concerning number of daily trips. Because I really
don't see us, although I'm open for suggestions, putting a road through the wetland and
across that other person's house that isn't part of the lot and then this 50 foot access. I kind
of liked Paul's idea but this is going to impact it no matter how they develop it. And I'd like
to see us obviously minimize the impact on the neighbors but I don't know that the fact that
they're on small lots impacts them that much. So I think there is nice buffering around that
side. We can argue. We can have them pull it a little bit or something but that's just my
conceptual feel here. Jeff.
Farmakes: I first of all have to give my sympathy to whoever was decided on this lot. It's
almost like something out of a college exam. What a strange development problem. I, first
of all would like to clarify what it is we're doing here tonight by approving or disapproving
this. Can we do that again Mr. Chairman?
' Batzli: We're merely saying whether we think this would be a good PUD development.
Something along the lines we're looking at but we're not necessarily approving what we're
looking at.
Farmakes: Okay. I think that's now abundantly not clear. I want to compliment the builder.
I also went and looked at I believe the same development. Nice homes and I hope you build
a lot of them in this city. And I like clustering also. And this piece of property would not be
a bad idea for clustering. From a design point I think that you probably utilize this property
to it's maximum potential by doing this. I'm not so sure given that with the surrounding
property to the east and west that that fits in that well. I did not hear extensive comments by
adjacent property owners to the density issue or PUD. I know sometimes when you're
discussing PUD's they say get a little strange. They're not as easy to put your finger on as
some of the single family traditional quotas that developers have to meet. And I am
�I�
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
wondering also, and calculating this property we look at these densities again. I have the
same problem I had last week, or two weeks ago. Four weeks ago when we look at these
issues and we talk about densities in our formula. I think there's something inherently wrong
with our density formula. Particularly on these types of properties. When we get properties
like this that have a high ratio of undevelopable property within the development,. It's your
wetlands, trees, in this case a channel dug years ago. You're getting density ratios that are
skewed. They're really not telling us the same thing that they would be telling us if it was a
piece of farmland. And we don't make allowances for that, that I know of We're using
tables to fall back on things to give us statistical, that it's okay here. We're going to do this
and going back to the first one that I got onto when I was here up on the Lake Lucy Road.
The Willows property. I was looking at these huge property alotments and these huge
density. We were getting a low density but I was looking at these houses and they were all
peppered very close to one another. And all these setbacks played into mind and the lot lines
went into the wetlands and went out. They were calculated as square footage. I kind of
came to the conclusion that these tables weren't telling me the story that I wanted to know.
Anyway, also I'd like to address the comment of the 1,900 square feet used for calculating
some of the concern that was talked about here tonight with the boats and so on.
Batzli: I'm sorry, you're referring to the shoreline? 1,900 feet of shoreline?
Farmakes: Correct. What do we have? 17 issues that we went through here with the
minimum lot size, or we had.
Aanenson: The beachlots.
Farmakes: The beachlots. Non - conforming beachlots. And so we spent the entire year going
over lake access issues to this lake and so we do have some experience with dealing and
hearing with many neighbors on Lake Minnewashta property owners. I know how sometimes
there's cross jurisdiction between this in evaluating what is shoreline and what is boat
averages or the formulas that we use for putting dockage and how many houses and there's
so many formulas they're not to be believed but somehow they come to the conclusion that
the most restrictive formulas apply. In looking at this, I wonder whether or not the County is
evaluating this property as 1,900 square feet of shoreline in taxation. I can't imagine that the
existing channel is not making up the majority of that shoreline that's being figured into the
boating ratio. And I too would agree that it's a mirror situation. I think it's also giving a
distorted view of shoreline. I have a problem with this as a cluster area in this location. Not
in general terms or design terms. The fact that it's market application, whether it's a need or
not is really an issue of marketing and not really something that we should be deciding here.
Whether or not the market will dictate what these homes are, as they often have throughout
the decades of real estate and Chanhassen will be developed between the 60's and the year
�E
1
11
J
1
1]
u
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993 , . ;
2000. And those demands for housing have changed along with the population. And the
skew between these needs now and the needs on either end of it, I'm having trouble digesting
this fitting in there. That's it I guess I would go with the staff recommendation if they had
a dock but I still have the problem with addressing that issue if I'm really having a hard time
supporting the issue of clustering in general in this location.
Batzli: Okay. Joe.
Scott: I think from, to talk about clustering. I think an example of where that really works,
and I can't remember the name of the development but it was part of the Lake Susan Hills
9th Addition. That made tons of sense. I mean it was zoned for that particular type of
housing. I'll borrow a page from Ladd's hymn book. One of the things that is not entirely
evident when you look at something like this is what's-on either side and a lot of times what
we rely upon is not only getting out to the site. Driving around. Walking around. Looking
and going, oh my gosh. This is what RSF means here. That's what RSF means here. So
trying to look at it in a total concept, I always have a problem when something needs to be
rezoned, especially when you've got folks that have made investments on either side. And
especially when you have the same developer who's actually developed the residential single
family. So I would not be in favor of rezoning this particular property. I'm not going to
dwell on other points that have been made that I also agree with. Just one question. Aren't
we creating a heck of a cul -de -sac here with one entrance or shouldn't we just avoid that
because we don't have as much flexibility with access to Highway 7? Is that something we
just blow off? Because much has been made about cul-de -sac lengths and so forth.
Hempel: The looped street system could be employed here by eliminating one of the lots or
Lot 5 to loop back out.
Scott: So that's doable. Okay. I don't really have anything else to add. Everything's been
talked about.
Batzli: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: I think Joe said what my biggest concern is, and that's the continuity of between the
neighbors and this property. In general the cluster housing, and I don't have a real problem
with. I think I would, if I were to design this to protect the neighbors to the west, I would
take off probably Lots 5 and 11 and have an access up to TH 7 out of this development and
not run this development through the neighboring area. I really do have a problem running it
all through the neighboring area right now. I think that's a major impact. That's not what
we try to do here in Chanhassen. We kind of protect the people that are here and I think if
there is a way to run this development out to Highway 7, I think that would, in closing off
31
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Arbor Drive, boy that makes a whole lot of sense to me. If that's possible. If it's not
possible, then I have some real problems with the PUD. So there's some contingencies here.
If I can get you out to Highway 7 without impacting the neighborhood, then I feel that maybe
we can protect the neighbors and the quality of life that they have. Or the style that they
bought into. If we can't, then I have a real tough time with this. In terms of density, this is a
case where clustering I like. Again, and the planning department keeps coming to us saying
this works. This is great. On paper it doesn't look like we've really clustered to preserve
something because on paper it looks like a lot of this stuff has to be there then or preserved
anyway. So if the developer came in and said well, we're going to buffer the development to
the west with 125 foot open space, ah. I get it. I actually understand why we clustered the
houses. I don't see that here. What we've done is run all these units out through the
neighborhood to the west. I guess I'm not in favor of that yet until I know I can't get out
onto Highway 7 out of this development. It is one big long cul-de -sac is what it is and we
fight those every 2 weeks here. I don't like that. Staff keeps beating us up because we, I
don't know. It's just one big long cul -de -sac. In terms of dockage. I think our ordinance
should guide us. I don't count, in my mind and maybe the courts have to figure this one out
but the channel is not lakeshore. The reason we have a lakeshore ordinance and all the things
that we do is to kind of protect the lake and the channel doesn't count so for the first 200 feet
you get 3 boats. For the next 300 feet you get another 3. So whatever the land is on the
lake, that's how many boats you get. I think in my mind it's real clear. We don't have to be
arbitrary about that and maybe our ordinance never considered channels that were dredged
into what we were doing but the channel in my mind doesn't count. So we're someplace
between 9 and 12 boats. Someplace like that and I think staff laid that out. Number 2, or
my final point is, I really don't like to have a development dictate something. Changing the
PUD ordinance. I wouldn't mind revisting the PUD ordinance to see if it should happen. If
we should have zero lot lines in the residential. I think what that would force us to do is say
if we do, then we're looking for this so there would be some give and take in that ordinance
that we develop. But again, I wouldn't mind revisiting that myself. I see some nice things
about this. I don't see it in sync with the neighborhoods surrounding it. I think however if it
can have it's own separate entrance, I think then some of my concerns vanish. And if I saw
Parcel 5 and 11 vanish, maybe we have buffered the neighbors to the west That's my
comments.
Batzli: Okay, thank you. Diane.
Harberts: I guess I like the higher density use of land. Discuss regional issues with regards
to sewer and all that but I'll just leave it at that tonight You put in the 7 or 8 15,000 square
feet lots with ... you've got 48 trips compared to what, 52? So in terms of traffic that's going
to be generated, I think it's to some extent 6 of 1 or half a dozen of the other one when you
look at something like that. Is it more a matter of system management I do have a concern
I �1
0
32 1
Planning Commission Meetin g - Decmt�er, 1, 1993.:
though with the streets are, I guess as I will describe it as maybe substandard because they're
' 24 inches, or 24 feet but again you're putting in your 8 lots. You've got the same traffic
going out on the streets. I think Ladd's point through about access to TH 7, staff's
perspective of closing off Arbor I think has a lot of merit to look at. That would make me a
' little bit more comfortable with that. I'm a little, I'm uncomfortable with changing this to a
PUD simply because again if you talk about affordable housing, I think that's one of the
strong merits of PUD that should be looked at and it's being compromised. I know markets,
' land prices dictate. You know people have to get a buck out of this. I understand that. I
guess from a city perspective, as we talk about our planning goals and objectives, I'd like to
' see a little bit more emphasize in terms of affordable housing. I think it's appropriate for a
community to have more diversity in housing but getting off of that, going back to this
particular project. I'll support it. I'll support the concept. Interesting with clustering. I'm
' guessing there's going to be an association dealing with the snow and things like that. I'm
going to leave it to the expertise of staff as well as public safety or the fire department or
whatever to address traffic. Taking into consideration I think those comments made by
' everyone has a lot of merit on this. With regards to the boats. I also agree that, I don't
count the existing channel. I think staff used at this point a good methodology as I
understand what's available in terms of calculating that. So I'm just going to, I guess I'll
' support this in concept. I will be interested to see what comes back in as a preliminary site
plan.
' Bob Boyer: Mr. Chairman?
Batzli: Yes.
Bob Boyer: As a developer, will we have an opportunity to just address the commission
just one more time? Address just some of the issues that I think we can maybe clarify a few
' things. I guess my presumption is we're going to take a vote here at some point in time.
Batzli: Yes. I have to ramble here for a few minutes but why don't, go ahead. Why don't
' you, I'll give you about 3 minutes if you want to address specific points.
Bob Boyer: I know there's, as I listened to each person present their concerns, probably the
' biggest concern I hear among the Council members is missing this housing type in
sandwiching between existing single family homes, residences. I think if you look around the
lake area you'll see examples of this. Gideon Cove certainly is an example of a development
' of this sort. It was put right smack in the middle of a single family development and yeah,
we had some opposition but I think what we're hearing people saying as demographics
change and people you know, our society's aging and they're housing needs are changing as
well. What all these people are saying is, don't stick us by the highway. I don't want to be
1
33
u
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
along 494. I don't want to be along the corridors and major freeways which is typically
where a lot of cities are positioning their higher density type of housing. And I hear a lot of
these people saying, we don't want it either. That's why there's such a tremendous demand
for this type of housing. People want to continue to be in the neighborhoods they raised their
kids in. The neighborhoods that they enjoyed through the years. They don't want to be stuck
out by the freeway so we've found that there's a tremendous acceptance of this type of
housing amoung the people that we've worked with in the past. Single family homeowners
that are now living adjacent to developments that we've put in, as well as other developments
other builders have done such as Amsbury. Certainly Gideon Cove is one that we've done
and Red Cedar Cove is one that's done on the south side of the lake. We've seen tremendous
success in the acceptance level of those in the neighboring communities. Not only that but
the neighboring communities have actually benefitted from those type of housing
developments because they are a planned development. They know the archtectural style.
They know in the beginning that those homes, those areas are going to be planned and they're
going to be maintained perpetually by professional people. We know that there are going to
be enhanced and attractive for many, many years to come. You don't have that kind of
assurance when you plunk a house on a half acre lot and each person is responsible for
determining how they will have maintained that property. That's just kind of defense of
using mixed housing types. I don't think we need to just, you folks staying on one type of
housing but we can, I think it's appropriate to mix housing types in a neighborhood. As far
as out traffic, I'd like to just kind of reiterate what Diane said. I think originally when
Dartmouth Drive was put in, this little leg of Dartmouth Drive was intended to service this
property someday in the future. It was originally intended to do that. We're doing that and
obviously there's going to be some opposition but if you wanted, if you say okay. Now
we're dumping 26 homes on this property, that's not fair. I think what you've got to do is
say what is the alternative. The alternative was to have single family development with much
higher traffic levels and have them... Obviously we've got to exit somewhere and this
doesn't seem to be appropriate, at least from our standpoint, an appropriate alternative. This
was originally intended and designed for that purpose. I think it's a natural thing to do.
Batzli: Would you be willing to look at trying to develop an access out through this
development and closing Arbor Drive?
Bob Boyer: Well there is an access right here right now. There's a drive that comes out
right through here which we're going to be required to close down at some point in time.
Dave here, is it Dave. Is certainly probably more knowledgable on that than we are. One .
thing I am concerned about however is there is a considerably thick buffer of trees along TH
7 here which we want to retain. I mean that is critical to the success of this property. If that
is destroyed, not only that but there is a significant grade difference as he mentioned from
Highway 7 here to this property here. You've probably got at least a 25 -30 foot grade
34
Planning Commission Meeting - Decembe;.1, 1993:
difference. I would think that ...I don't see how you're going to accomplish that.
' Batzli: Okay, thank you. I guess I've heard several people talk about not wanting to change
the zoning. What I would like to see is something on the order of what Ladd proposed and
' that is, what we really need, if we're going to do it, we need to take a look at it in more
detail to see whether it's something we want to do. It may look good on this one parcel but
we really haven't considered what it will do for other parcels and whether it's good, bad. or
' indifferent. So I have a hard time kind of changing the ordinance based on this suddenly
coming in and maybe it's because the light bulb hasn't gone on in my head as to exactly why
we want to do it or not do it yet. And maybe we just need more education on that as a
' commission. And have it be a separate issue.
' Harberts: But aren't we doing that by the proposal of supporting this in concept? Have it
come back in detail so we can in a sense understand that?
' Batzli: Well one of the conditions would be that we would amend the PUD ordinance to
allow these types of homes in RSF. Is that right?
' Aanenson: Yeah. Well, zero lot lines.
Harberts: Well, I mean it's like.
Mancino: Yeah but we want to deal with it as two separate issues is what we're saying.
Batzli: I would like to deal with it as a separate issue. I don't want to deal with it as part of
this project personally. So if there was a condition it would be that, our approval of this is
contingent on us looking at it separately and deciding that it was a good thing. I don't like
' the way that this is kind of being done.
Harberts: Well basically Brian what we're doing is we've got an ordinance and this is, and
' I've only been on here a short time. Isn't this like a test application of the ordinance? I
mean isn't that what's happening right now and what we're saying is we don't know if we
like what we have. And with your experience and your experience Ladd on here, have you
had experience with this kind of proposal? Looking at that ordinance where it's tested?
Where it's applied like this?
Batzli: Yes.
Harberts: So isn't that what we're doing? Are we consistent or is the logic consistent with
what your experience has been?
35
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Batzli: Well I think normally we've done exactly what, at least I'm trying to suggest and that
is, we normally put the brakes on and say, we need to look at this in the bigger picture rather
than saying knee jerk, well yeah looks good here. Let's do it
Scott: I don't think that, at least personally, I'm not willing to say this is the new ordinance
and then come what may because I don't think that I'm in a position to deal with another,
because you know that people who are really sharp in the development area, and you have
options on property in a particular municipality, you're going to go oh, well here's a change
in the ordinance. And you know, we're going to get more of these things and I think about
the Lundgren proposal that we had a major objection to which was a PUD which had all the
right things but didn't pass the sniff test. I kind of see this as being somewhat similar in that
we were uncomfortable with it. Could quantify it somewhat but I think we need to do, as
you said, is put the brakes on this particular project and then address the ordinance and then
work with that and say what are we going to be getting if we make this kind of change.
Batzli: I think that again it would be nice to somehow be educated as to, you know I like the
concept of clustering. I think that on a lot like this that's going to hard to develop, it makes
some sense. I don't know that the issue with the neighbors is necessarily that these people
are on small lots so much as perhaps the more intense use of the access roads. And like I
said up front, I don't know that it would be any less if it was developed in another manner
with larger lots. So I'm not sure about that. I know that this is an incredibly dangerous
stretch of Highway 7. The turning on and off the road is dangerous and it concerns me and
anything we can do to make that safer or convince MnDot to put in some stop lights or
whatever we've got to do, I think eventually we've got to get that done. To basically put 26
people entering and exiting off of Arbor, I know that's not really Arbor Drive. Whatever the
real name of it is I think, that really concerns me right now. I think that needs to be looked
at, even at a conceptual stage. Boats, I think staff is being consistent actually with what
we've been doing. So if this showed some sort of NURP pond or something with the
drainage coming off from the northeast side, if we had a little bit more buffering to the west,
if we talked about the access issue, I can support this in concept very easily. I did have one
question for Dave and that is, why would we go with private drives here rather than public
streets?
Hempel: That's a good question. I guess just based on the amount of right -of -way required,
certain number of homes designates for net density as well as a wider pavement section.
Typically when you have a cluster type home, condominium type homes ... private drive is...
homeowners association.
Batzli: I assume we need the turn around at the end of Dartmouth Drive so since we're not
going to plow the streets we need some place for people to turn around before they get
36
d
1
0
11�
Planning Commission g ss on Meeting - December 1, 1993r� ? '
' dumped into a private system?
Hempel: That's correct.
' Batzli: Okay. I don't have any other comments. Is there more discussion or a motion?
' Conrad: I'm not sure what our motion would be. I think the developer, this is a sketch plan
review. The developer wants to take it to City Council and see what they think. There's no
reason for us to table it. It's their chance to get feedback. Yet on the other hand, I don't
' think I want to be talking about conceptual approval right now because so much of this is
dependent on whether we want to change the PUD ordinance. So to make a motion in favor
or opposed to the, I'm lost. I can't do that. I think, you know what I'd like to do is note
' what we've said and send it up to the City Council with a note saying that would they like us
to review the PUD ordinance for review of the issue that this brings up.
Batzli: Well let's assume that the Council wants us to look at the issue and that somehow
this is contingent on us passing favorably on that issue. Would then people like this or, now
assume for a minute that the Council is going to say yes, we want to do this to the PUD.
Makes sense to us. Quite putzing around Planning Commission. Say yes or no. Do you like
it or not. Assume for a minute that they want us to do that in a PUD. Do we like this as a
concept or no? Without taking a formal vote. I mean everybody seems hung up on the PUD
issue but, amending it but let's assume that the PUD is going to be changed and the Council
wants us to do that. Do we like it? Do we not like it? From a concept standpoint. Not that
you like this exact plan but does this make sense in this spot.
Farmakes: Are you asking me?
I Batzli: Sure.
Farmakes: I don't think so, no.
Mancino: Because of the east/west neighborhoods? On each side of it.
Farmakes: Yeah. I think it's just stuck in the wrong spot here. I'm not talking about the
cluster or the PUD. I also think that there are other issues. The reason that I didn't address
the traffic, would it have t& be altered from what I can see would be traffic areas outside of
this development and I'm not sure, MnDot would be a major player in that decision and
whether it's traditional or PUD. Because of the way that the development is effectively cut
off on the east side. So I don't know how you're going to get around that short of putting a
bridge over that channel. You're going to have to redo, it would seem to me some of the
37
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
highways to the west. I don't know how you're going to handle that, no matter what goes in I
there.
Batzli: Well if they come in with a standard subdivision, they're going to get out on Arbor. I
Farmakes: Well, no matter whether it's PUD or a standard, if Arbor's already a problem, a
safety issue, no matter if it's intent, we're contributing to the problem and it would seem to
me that outside of this development issue, public safety and highway and engineering need to
address that issue no matter what goes in there.
Batzli: I think what we need to do is basically make, I would like to at least see us make '
two motions. One is basically to somehow or another ask the Council whether they want us
to take a look at the PUD. And then make a motion on our gut feel on this and with the '
understanding that we think it really depends on what we end up doing with the PUD.
Farmakes: I agree to a certain extent. Also, it's not just the PUD. Our shoreland ordinance '
I think needs a little look at. As I recall, ditch digging was not, we didn't cover that on it.
Conrad: That's probably true. I think they can take advantage of whatever it is right now so '
we probably should look at what it means.
Scott: I think it's the spirit of the ordinance versus the intent. Or the zoning. ,
Batzli: The spirit versus the intent? '
Harberts: ...higher level here of intent.
Scott: I just wanted to see if anybody was listening. '
Harberts: Sounds kind of ghostly huh. '
Scott: It is. I'm thinking that we should table the development and use that, and say the
reason why we've tabled this is because of this issue with regard to the PUD. Use this as the '
test case and then, you know they're experienced in this because obviously they're the body
that makes the decision. And I just use this as an example. Say this is the reason why we
think we need to look at the PUD ord✓^.znce because we're probably going to get more of I
these. What do you want us to do?
Conrad: Well does tabling allow us to pass it up to City Council? I don't think it does. I '
think we have to do something.
38 ,
Ln
i,,L1
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Farmakes: Our comments here are on record. This is a conceptual review. It's not, we're
not approving anything here right?
t Aanenson: ... clustering, zero lot line.
' Batzli: Well let's assume for a minute Paul that we tabled it and said, we want to look at the
PUD. We want to be educated more on what those changes mean. How quickly could you
' come back to us with those kind of changes and that kind of report given the fact that we've
just cleared all of our agendas into February.
Krauss: ...sometime in February.
Batzli: And what does that do to the applicants if we sit on this for a while?
' Bob Boyer: Well, it delays our project... we're concerned about getting this project moving.
Anytime it's held up, you said you're waiting until February? ...obviously we're concerned
' about moving along with this project.
Batzli: Okay. The risk, I think you run a greater risk right now. Just to give you my sense
' of what the motion's going to be is that if we move it on tonight, we will recommend denial.
I haven't counted any noses here but that's what I'm hearing. So be that as it may, is there a
motion?
Conrad: Yeah, I would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that the Planning Commission review the PUD ordinance before it makes a
' recommendation on PUD Case #93 -7 with all the conditions of the staff report.
Batzli: Is there a second?
' Mancino: I'll second it.
' Batzli: Discussion?
Mancino: Discussion would be only adding to it the highway problem The traffic that we're
' putting in. Seeing if Dave can check out with MnDot putting in that road.
Conrad: Yeah, in fact I'm glad you brought that up Nancy. I would like to make that point
' number 16 in the staff report. To re- examine access to Highway 7.
' Scott: And also too do we want to re-visit the applicability of including channels and like.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Farmakes: Definition of shoreline.
Scott: Definition of shoreline maybe excluding channels or whatever.
Batzli: I'm sorry, Ladd. Was your motion that you recommend that the Council instruct us
to look at the PUD?
Conrad: Right. The PUD ordinance.
Batzli: Okay. And in the meantime are we tabling this? What are we doing with this?
Conrad: Until, I would have to read my motion back. I only remember a 30 second
retention span.
Batzli: It was just such a clever motion.
Aanenson: What I wrote down is that you recommended the Planning Commission review
the PUD ordinance before you make any recommendation. They can remand it back to you
and they can go ahead...
Conrad: Right. Right.
Batzli: Okay, so our recommendation on this. So this goes up with that as the
recommendation?
Conrad: I think the developer should hear what they think. I don't think we should mess
around with the ordinance if the City Council doesn't want us to.
Batzli: Yeah, that makes sense.
Conrad: We have so many other things to do that if this is a priority, we'll do it.
Batzli: Okay. Now you wanted to amend your motion to include the access onto TH 7.
And our second accepted that?
Conrad: Yeah.
Batzli: And we had another proposed amendment here to shoreland something or other.
Conrad: I don't know that I want that as a motion on this. I'd like staff to look into that and
0
e
J
G
I Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
I make a.
Harberts: A clever way of pushing it up.
Conrad: Well, to review what a channel does in terms of our ordinance. In terms of
lakeshore footage.
' Batzli: Okay. Just so that the applicant knows what we're about to do here. We're going to
vote on, we're going to recommend to the City Council that they instruct us, whether they
want us to look at the PUD or not. We're really not making a recommendation on your
' conceptual plan but it will go along with that as our recommendation up to the City Council.
Correct.
11
Bob Boyer: So the next meeting would be with the City Council?
Batzli: Yes it would and we basically would not have made a yea or nay recommendation
other than our comments on record.
Tom Merz: Can you explain what does the City Council then ... what will be happening with
this?
Batzli: The City Council can then choose to approve the concept, disprove the concept, or
table it pending us looking at the PUD ordinance.
Tom Merz: Will they do that with or without you looking at the ordinance? Would they just
approve or?
Batzli: Yes, they could. They could approve it. Disprove it or as a third alternative, table it
while we looked at something.
Farmakes: But what they would be approving though would be the concept. It would still
come back...
Conrad: It's still in the concept stage.
Batzli: One at a time.
Harberts: Quick, take the vote.
Batzli: Sorry. Okay, is there any other discussion?
41
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Resident: I had one question. You're stating that as it sits then the City Council makes the
decision either way. Are you not advocating your responsibility to provide them with your
expertise? You have just said that you believe that the nay's would have it but instead of
letting the City Council know that, you're simply going to pass it up saying if you want us to
look at an ordinance, we will. Otherwise here it is, you decide.
Batzli: No, I don't think so. I think the record will very plainly speak for itself. I'm having
a tough time counting noses because the initial hurdle that we have to get over is in fact this
PUD issue. And if we can't get to that, we really can't recommend yes or no. And so by
sending it up to the Council in that manner, we are going to see this again as a site plan.
Assuming that the City Council approves it as a conceptual plan. We will see this again and
make a recommendation yes or no in it's final form. But I don't think we're able to say that
it's a good concept or not given the piece of property that it sits on. And that's really what
we're saying.
Resident: You're definitely not through with the issue then?
Batzli: We are not through with the issue. We are going to see this again in all it's gory, in
fact in more gory detail the second time as an actual site plan rather than as a conceptual
review, which is what we're doing tonight. Although you wouldn't know it by the
discussion.
Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the question.
Conrad moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend to the City
Council that the Planning Commission review the PUD ordinance before it makes a
recommendation on PUD Case #93 -7, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall work with the City in designing the interior storm drainage system in
accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. The applicant may be
compensated for oversizing costs on the 30 -inch trunk storm sewer line through the site.
All internal storm sewer pipes shall be designed and constructed for a 10 -year storm
event.
2. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the final plat
approval process.
3. Detailed grading and drainage and utility construction plans and specifications will be
required as a part of the preliminary and final plat approval process. The construction
plans shall be proposed in accordance with the City's construction standards.
42
0
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
4. The private street system shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide.
' S. The applicant shall provide the City with an acceptable turnaround at the end of
Dartmouth Drive.
' 6. The applicant shall have the wetland delineated by a qualified wetland specialist and the
wetland boundary accurately denoted on the grading plan.
' 7. The applicant will be required to apply for and comply with the necessary permitting
agencies such as MnDNR, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Health Department, City of Chanhassen, MnDOT, MPCA and MWCC.
' . Soil engineering n 1 h wn i at or muck will be a requirement with an
8 o o lots shown with peat req y future
' review
9. Compliance with the conditions of the Building Official letter dated November 10, 1993.
' 10. Compliance with the conditions of the Fire Marshal's letter dated November 9, 1993.
I 11. Only 12 boats be allowed to be docked overnight at a common dock and . two storage
racks allowing up to six boats (canoes, sailboats) be permitted.
' 12. The existing home on the development site be removed prior to any new construction.
13 Amendment of the PUD Ordinance allowing for cluster of zero lot line homes low- density
designation of the 2000 Land Use Plan.
14. A tree preservation plan and wetland re- vegetation plan shall be submitted for
' approval.
15. Park and trail fees shall be collected at the time of building permit application at the
' rate currently in force.
16. Staff shall re- examine access onto Highway 7.
' All voted in favor, except Batzli and Harberts who opposed, and the motion carried with
a vote of 4 to 2.
' Batzli: Your reasons for voting n
g Y
43
Planning Commission Meeting - December 1, 1993
Harberts: I support the concept. All we're doing is supporting the concept. I think the
discussion points that were brought up were valid. I think they can be incorporated into more
of a conditions report. I got over the hurdle. I'm over the hurdle folks so, that's it.
Batzli: I'm over the hurdle as well. I like it in concept. If we have to look at the PUD we
will and the Council will tell us to and I think we should take a vote.
Harberts: I've been in the minority all day so what's one more.
Batzli: So this goes to the Council when?
Aanenson: January 10th.
Batzli: January 10th this will be in front of the Council. We encourage you to follow the
issue up and let them know your concerns as well. Thank you all for coming in tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MULTIPLE BUILDINGS ON A SINGLE
PARCEL AND SITE PLAN REVIEW OF A 64,132 SQUARE FOOT SUPERMARKET,
A 26,100 SQUARE FOOT RETAEL BULLDINGG AND A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT
COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON 13.11 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED BG,
GENERAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED ON LOT 4. BLOCK 1, WEST
VILLAGE HEIGHTS 2ND ADDITION, T.F. JAMES COMPANY.
Public Present:
Name Address
Charlie James
T.F. James Company
John Meyers
Byerly's
Dan Beckman
6895 Chaparral Lane
Craig Hallett
Future Resident of Chanhassen
Vemelle Clayton
422 Santa Fe Circle
Brad Johnson
7425 Frontier Trail
Lyle King
7629 Oakland
Bill King
4801 Minneapolis Ave, Orono
Tim Menning
980 ... Circle, Burnsville
Bob King
6122 Arctic Way, Edina
Arnie Privie
Gateway Foods, Minneapolis
1
n
0
44
to '
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Mayor Chmiel: And I think by the vote it's indicating that to the proposed person going to build on there for a
single family residence. So there's a lot of considerations that are going to be looked at and continued to looked
at and hopefully the building department is going to follow through with that. Okay, that motion is passed and
' we'll move onto the next agenda item.
' RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM LL' N51 l Y ANL a vria.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR 26 SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE UNITS ON 13.47
ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 7 BETWEEN WASHTA BAY ROAD AND
ARBOR DRIVE, SPINNAKER WHARF, BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION.
' Public Present:
Kate Aanenson: The Boyer Corporation is requesting to rezone 13.47 acres of property for approximately 26
zero lot line or clustered single family developments. In order to make this project occur two things are going to
have to occur. Rezoning and a Comp Plan Amendment. Currently the way the ordinance reads, in order to
allow for a cluster of this type of development, the Comp Plan amendment is required because the ordinance
requires... single family, the RSF zone the smallest lot size would be 11,000 square feet. Only the medium
density area are cluster developments allowed. So again ... a Comp Plan amendment would be required. Staff
was reluctant to ... medium density at this point. We felt it would be more ... to do a Comp Plan amendment. But
in doing that you open up the application on the 5,000 square foot lots, which was a concern that the Planning
Commission had, which we'll get into later. If I could briefly walk through the project... bordered on the north
by Highway 7. It's kind of...road topography and it has this unusual dredged channel that comes up through the
property. Instead of having significant.-through a private street. The development itself, the 26 homes that I
mentioned would probably be similar or may be slightly larger than the existing homes that are there. They
range, entirely completely finished up to 3,000 square feet. Again ... the type of homes that are found ... There are
two wetlands on the site. One an ag urban that runs along the existing channel and the other is a natural
wetland. There are some poor soils in the area around the channel, which again this is just concept that we
would need further study on to define whether or not those ... The original plan showed a connection, and this is a
concern of the neighborhood. The connection of Dartmouth Drive over to Washta Bay Road. In looking at that
with the staff and the topography, going across the channel and the degregation of the site, we felt that it'd -
probably be better to leave the existing access off of the Arbor/Dartmouth Drive which again is a concern of the
neighbors going out. There was another issue that the staff investigated that wasn't acceptable to the applicant
and that was using the existing older home on the site. Just off of Dartmouth Drive. It does have direct access
14
Name
Address
Joe & Sue Fiedler
3121 Dartmouth Drive
'
Jim & Jo Ginther
3131 Dartmouth Drive
Joe & Eileen Boyer
3630 Virginia Avenue, Deephaven
Joleen & Rob Roy
3110 Dartmouth Drive
'
Lee Clark
603 Lake Street, Excelsior
Tom Merz
3201 Dartmouth Drive
Mary Jo Moore
3231 Dartmouth Drive
John Blumentritt
Boyer Building Corporation
'
Bob Boyer
Boyer Building Corporation
Kate Aanenson: The Boyer Corporation is requesting to rezone 13.47 acres of property for approximately 26
zero lot line or clustered single family developments. In order to make this project occur two things are going to
have to occur. Rezoning and a Comp Plan Amendment. Currently the way the ordinance reads, in order to
allow for a cluster of this type of development, the Comp Plan amendment is required because the ordinance
requires... single family, the RSF zone the smallest lot size would be 11,000 square feet. Only the medium
density area are cluster developments allowed. So again ... a Comp Plan amendment would be required. Staff
was reluctant to ... medium density at this point. We felt it would be more ... to do a Comp Plan amendment. But
in doing that you open up the application on the 5,000 square foot lots, which was a concern that the Planning
Commission had, which we'll get into later. If I could briefly walk through the project... bordered on the north
by Highway 7. It's kind of...road topography and it has this unusual dredged channel that comes up through the
property. Instead of having significant.-through a private street. The development itself, the 26 homes that I
mentioned would probably be similar or may be slightly larger than the existing homes that are there. They
range, entirely completely finished up to 3,000 square feet. Again ... the type of homes that are found ... There are
two wetlands on the site. One an ag urban that runs along the existing channel and the other is a natural
wetland. There are some poor soils in the area around the channel, which again this is just concept that we
would need further study on to define whether or not those ... The original plan showed a connection, and this is a
concern of the neighborhood. The connection of Dartmouth Drive over to Washta Bay Road. In looking at that
with the staff and the topography, going across the channel and the degregation of the site, we felt that it'd -
probably be better to leave the existing access off of the Arbor/Dartmouth Drive which again is a concern of the
neighbors going out. There was another issue that the staff investigated that wasn't acceptable to the applicant
and that was using the existing older home on the site. Just off of Dartmouth Drive. It does have direct access
14
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
onto Highway 7. We looked at possibly putting a cul -de -sac on the end of this and bringing that street up. This
wasn't desirable for the applicant since he stated that these two homeowners would then be double fronted,
although this would be a cul -de -sac and this street would tie up into Shorewood. Make that a T intersection, that
would be desirable but the developer is reluctant and has stated that those two homes, that was not desirable for
them. The other issue on this was, that was a lot of concern with the neighbors was the beachlot. The applicant
was asking for, again this is a PUD. It opens up what the number of boats they were looking for. One dock
slip per unit which would be 26. Staff looked at this a couple different ways. One being if this was developed
in the traditional single family and you could get maybe 6 lots on the lakeshore and each could have 3 boats,
that would give you a fixed number. And if you look at the beachlot ordinance and said if you had a beachlot,
you could have a maximum of 3 docks, 3 per dock, that would allow you 9. Originally staff had recommended
12 but in rethinking it, we feel that based on the fact that we've gone through that hearing process and the
number of boats, that 9 may be more appropriate. The streets, as I mentioned, would be private internally. The
engineering department is recommending that there be a cul -de -sac in this area here to allow for maintenance of
our streets. The other issue as far as parks and recreation, they recommended taking full park and trail fees in
lieu of park dedication. With that, staff would recommend approval of the rezoning and the Comp Plan
amendment. Just to update you that with the Planning Commission, they spent a lot of time discussing this and
really were reluctant to come up with a consensus. They passed it onto you without any final determination.
One of their major issues is, a lot of the time that we spent to come up with what the smallest lot size would be
in RSF, we came with the 11,000 square feet. In the past they've even turned some of those down and they
were really reluctant to apply this city wide going down to a 5,000 square foot lots. So basically they didn't
make a recommendation. They wanted to get some more feedback from you to see if this is the direction you
really wanted to go with the lot smaller lots in the residential single family zone. As I stated, the only way to
make this project happen would be rezone the property to medium density and the staff felt that was
inappropriate at this time because ... With that we recommend, or the staff had recommended approval with the
conditions. But then the Planning Commission just deferred it to you...
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Kate. Just one quick question that I had. By making this a PUD, what is the
city really getting from this?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Echo, echo.
Councilman Wing: Be specific.
Kate Aanenson: Specifically? All the units are pulled to the interior. You do have units that to the ... will be
adjacent to Highway 7. If you pull those away. There is a storm water problem of storm water that's running
from Shorewood into this area that's going directly into the lake which will be resolved with a nutrient pond
picking this up. Preservation of the natural shoreline. We'd recommend clustering on one... preservation of that
natural wetland. So all the units would be pulled away from that existing shoreline. They wouldn't have direct
access onto that and just the preservation of the channel with all the development on the other side of that also.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard?
Councilman Wing: Is it to Council already?
Mayor Chmiel: Well no. I thought you wanted to say something. You started to move and I thought you
wanted to.
15
1
n
n
1
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Councilman Wing: Well no.
Mayor Chmiel: Maybe I misinterpreted the move.
Councilman Wing: I've just got other questions of staff but I don't think it's appropriate now.
Mayor Chmiel: Fine. Okay, at this time we'll have the developer go through their proposal so we can see what
you're really bringing forth to the Council. If you'd just introduce yourself please.
John Blumentritt: Thank you. To the members of the Chanhasse City Council. Good evening. My name is
John Blumentritt. I am a member of the Boyer Building Corporation design team. I want to thank Kate for a
nice job of the introductory summary. I think that she has touched upon a lot of the basics that we understand
are going to be detail issues that need to be resolved. I'd like to walk us through this Spinnaker Wharf project
and I'd like to do that by, just for a moment digressing and giving the City Council a brief planning history.
About 9 months ago the Boyer Building Corporation office staff got together to discuss what possibilities existed
for the site. We knew that the property was zoned single family residential but we weren't quite sold that this
was the ideal family site. We looked at the existing property to the west. We found single family housing. We
looked to the east and similar family housing. We looked to the south and of course Lake Minnewashta which
has a beautiful view and what else could we ask for. But it was to the north that created the problem and that
being Highway 7. I'm not sure what your opinion might be but to us ... road has a traffic count of between 17
and 19,000 cars per day and children simply don't mix. We decided to look at other housing options where
there was single family around. Out of all the options, what is it that we want to do. Do we want to build low
income housing? Certainly some of the zoning laws encourage some of that. Do we want to build elderly rental
housing? Kitty corner across from this property we saw one other applicant going before the City of Shorewood.
Still ... but we wanted to look at it as being. Did we want to build family? Did we want to build empty nesters?
Did we want to build retirement? Did we want to build elderly? What was it that we actually wanted to build?
Now as you can see we chose the empty nester market for a great deal of reasons but let us be more specific.
A, it uses the land most effectively. B, the clustering offers ... in security as the home buyers, the empty nester
home buyers... C, through establishing an association the grounds and the buildings would be commonly
maintained. Now we recognize in the staff report, that through the staff report, that many agencies need to make
many decisions before we are even able to break ground and indeed this City Council will hear two more
planning, or will see two more planning stages with hopefully all of these agencies delivering a lot of decisions
before you grant your final decision. We made a mistake at the Planning Commission level. We allowed a lot
of unresolved details to interfere with what the true purpose of why we were here. Yes, there's going to be
discussions about traffic. Yes, there's going to be discussions about what is the Lakeshore and not lakeshore.
Yes, there's going to be discussions about boat dockage. Yes, there's going to be discussions about wetlands
and other issues. But these are details to the overall reason of why we are here. This is a concept. An idea. A
vision if you will. And what we need from you tonight is what do you think of it? You know is this is a good
idea to pursue ... get rid of it. Do you care about the growing or the graying of the American people, because this
is indeed what we're trying to pursue. Do we care about providing a house for mom and dad or grandma and
grandpa? And having that integrate with the neighborhood or be segregated from a neighborhood. I think these
are viable issues. I recognize and they're probably difficult issues. We recognize that. We really do. But
again, you'd have to, we have to have your consent on this concept level in order to move on to expending a
tremendous amount of time with ground referral agencies that won't be involved in this. Certainly a whomping
sum of money as far as the Boyer Building Corporation is concerned. And a lot of the details will be brought
up tonight will be viable issues at some point but we think that if the Council does not accept the concept plan,
how could these issues, or...So I urge you. Hear the concerns of the neighbors, because a lot of these concerns
16
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
are viable issues. I think they're completely legitimate. But I also urge you to hear the voices, to hear the
voices of the silent people that are not able to be represented. Those that are going to occupy these homes and
we want this decision based on ... I appreciate your time. Thank you so much.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to address this issue at this time? If anyone wishes to
address, please come forward. State your name and your address and I would like to limit the discussion to at
least 5 minutes per person if I could.
Tom Merz: I think the developer has done, my name is Tom Merz and do you have that map that you could put
back up? I live at 3201 Dartmouth Drive. Let's just talk about that. Let's look at that map. I live at 3201
Dartmouth Drive, which is the housing area to the west. And in that housing area it's approximately 13 acres
and I think there's 10 -11, there's 13 homes. 10 to 11 homes. You look at this 13 acre site and they're talking
about 27 homes. If you look at the housing area to the east, and you look at the density. My concern is that we
get treated, because we came out and bought this home, bought this area and we had a zoning. What you're
doing is you're impacting what I feel is you're taking the impact of this concentrated density and you're running
it out Dartmouth Drive and down Arbor Lane and you're impacting what we say is a very passive lifestyle. So
whether you're going to rezone, I guess perhaps maybe you should take those 3 or 4 lots along Dartmouth Drive
and we can sell that and put 12 condominiums if you're talking about rezoning it. We should have the rezoning
that goes into our, that's, I don't want that. My main concern is number one, the amount of traffic that you'd be
impacting onto our area. And my other main concern is the lake and if you talk, would you put that other map
back up? When you look at that area, that represents about 800 feet of lakeshore and if you go to the area to the
west, all the way out to Naegele's Point, you'll probably see less than 7 docks and maybe 7 or 8 boats. If you
take the area east and you go towards, back in that canal again, you're going to see probably 6 to 7 docks and 6
or 7 boats and what I would ask is that you put the same restrictions on this area. If we have a home along the
lakeshore, that should be a designated home with a designated dock. When we talk about one dock and 3 boats,
we as Lakeshore owners do not live under those conditions. We have one dock and one boat. We cannot bring
two of our buddies out there and put boats at our dock. So my concern again is that you take and treat that area
under the same conditions that you are treating the rest of us who live along the lake. My, ...positive if there's
anybody who should develop this, it should be the Boyer's. They're good people and they're good developers.
If you can find a way to contain that area so that you're not impacting what we call our neighborhood, then I
have no further ... thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Tom. Is there anyone else?
Jim Ginther: My name is Jim Ginther and I'm speaking for my wife Jo and myself who live at 3131 Dartmouth
Drive. We're residents of Sterling Estates and our house is about 3 doors from the proposed entrance to this
new subdivision. And we also are familiar with the Boyers and I concur with Tom that we know that they're
very responsible people and they're quality developers, so that's not our concern is the developers themselves.
In fact, when we moved into this area over 20 years ago, they lived across the street and the boys who are now
developers, were young kids growing up in that household. So we're very familiar with the family and have no
concerns in that area. But specifically we do have three concerns. One is changing the zoning from low density
single family homes to zero lot line type development. Two, the singular access to the project via Dartmouth
Drive. And three, the proposed 26 boat dock slip that is in the proposal to be out in front of this development.
I think it goes without saying that with'`a single family development on the west, which is Sterling Estates, and
another single family development on the east, to put a high density development right smack in the middle of
that is going to dramatically change the character of the north shore of Lake Minnewashta. I think it would be a
completely different kind of neighborhood with that type of development. Now the same developer who
17
I
v ,
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
developed Sterling Estates 20 years ago and who at that point in time we recognized we had single family
zoning to the east of us, is now proposing to change the zoning to fit the needs at this particular time and the
zoning that was established was well in place and that's the zoning that we knew about when we made the
' investment. Bought our lot. Developed the homes and maintain expensive homes in that area. So we believe to
change the character of the entire north shore at this time would really have a very severe negative impact on
the ... and the investments and many of us have lived there now for over 20 years and plan to live there for many
' more. I guess the question we would have to ask is why has zoning regulations, is simply all that has to happen
is every time a developer decides to come along and change a piece of property, the people who have invested
around that property no longer have the protection that the zoning was there and intended to be in the fast place.
Secondly, we're very concerned about the congestion that this particular type of a project would bring to
' specifically Sterling Estates as it's approved. Or as it's proposed. And the addition of 52 cats coming in and
out of that neighborhood through one access street, making multiple trips in and out of the division daily with
one access we believe would have a very definite negative impact on the residents of Arbor and Dartmouth
Drive. Currently there's often a 2 or 3 minute delay in exiting onto Arbor Drive, from Arbor Drive onto
Highway 7. Another 50 cats is going to create truly an intolerable delay to get onto what is already a very busy
and dangerous highway. In turn, exiting from Highway 7 onto Arbor is already a very dangerous left hand turn
against traffic on an uphill basis to get into Arbor Drive. Now what we're talking about is bringing 50 more
i cars a day to make that left hand turn and face that oncoming traffic going uphill. It's a dangerous area now.
It's been already pointed out to the City of Chanhassen. This is going to create, we believe, a very, very serious
safety hazard. One more item on safety that I think is very important. There are no sidewalks in Sterling
' Estates. None. Consequently the people who live there, the residents, their guests, the children who live in that
area, all use the streets, and specifically Dartmouth Drive and Arbor Drive for foot traffic. Now what we're
talking about is an increased amount of highway car access onto those same thru streets which are also our
' sidewalks. And we think that again all the density onto one access is going to present an extreme safety hazard
that is a very real one. The only workable and reasonable solution that we can see, if this development or a
similar one would go in, would be to have a second access on the eastern border of the property, which by the
way happens to have a lot also owned by another member of the Boyer family, that could possibly then allow
access out to Washta Bay Road and then give two accesses onto Highway 7 and we believe to be a very
workable solution to all this congestion coming out of one access or ingress and egress. The other possible
suggestion could be some form of a frontage road along Highway 7 that would relieve the congestion coming out
' Arbor, into Arbor Drive. Finally our third concern is the excessive amount of boats contemplated and I'm
pleased to hear that your staff is suggesting the smaller number because we concur that what has been proposed
is really doing mirrors with the unique particular piece of lakeshore that happens to have a man made lot. Or
excuse me. A man made channel coming off of Minnewashta Lake up into this particular piece of property.
Normally this would be about a 600 feet piece of lakeshore land. The DNR apparently has labeled it 1,900 feet
because they're taking a shallow, narrow channel and measuring all that lakeshore on that channel. It's
unbuildable. It isn't lakeshore. It's been designated already as wetland and to call that channel lakeshore is an
' absolute farce. It's using mirrors and it just so happens to be there and getting that designation allows the
developer to leverage something for concentrated lakeshore boats that just doesn't fit any other development on
Lake Minnewashta anywhere. Consequently we think that a workable solution if something like this were going
' in or single family homes, ought to be limited to those homes that are truly on the lake, be eligible for lakeshore,
as other lake homes are. Those that are off the lake would have to be subject to the same regulations that other
off lakeshore owners have been throughout Lake Minnewashta and which is consistent with the development
totally around the lake. So we think that a workable solution could be... whatever development goes in here to
' the same regulations that apply to a legitimate ruling of what is truly lakeshore and whatever would come off of
that channel, whatever body of water that represents would be limited to something in the form of canoes,
rowboats, or some form of small boat that might be accessed up into the piece of property. But to be considered
18
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994 1
lakeshore is just totally unrealistic. Finally, we've been residents there for over 20 years, as some other people
have represented here this evening. We all have a very sincere interest in maintaining the integrity of Lake
Minnewashta. We think it's a special resource for Chanhassen. I think it's truly the responsibility of this body,
the DNR, the County and whatever other bodies are involved, to maintain a resource that you have in this city
'
that is in the best interest of all of us residents and certainly no one has a greater interest in maintaining their
resource than those of us that spend our lives there and plan to continue there. Thank you for your time. I
appreciate your interest.
'
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Is there anyone else?
Joe Boyer: I'm Joe Boyer. I own the property—and we lived in, I developed Sterling Estates... Anyhow, this
'
land is valuable land according to your tax assessor, as of last Monday ... what they consider swampland ... in
Carver County. And there's nothing wrong with this land he says. Anyhow, if you consider that unbuildable
land, I'd like to have a letter to present to the tax office. Someone called this a pristine area. Well, it all was a
'
pristine area at one time. All these lots, all our members here, all our neighbors... very pristine land at one time.
Now every one of those lots, every one of those owners have improved their lots with dredging, filling back with
sand. I know because it was all hauled across my land. And I understand their concems and I appreciate their
'
comments but everything they're afraid of here are some of the things that they've done themselves. There used
to be, when we lived over there, there was probably every weekend where the shores were washed by skiers
being pulled at 240 horse ... the ski boats and stuff like that. And I'm sure that's part of their concern. But as far
as the people who are going to live there, they're going to be probably retirees like me. We can ill afford an
'
upscale place and we're going to wonder who in the devil said we can't have a boat. We will each own, with
26 homes, we will each own 15,000 square feet of land. On gross area it's 15,000 square feet of land. Now we
don't really claim to be a part of Sterling Estates. We don't want to be a part of Sterling Estates. But when we
'
develop that area with your City Engineer... engineer. 1966. Archie Carter. And the reason that little road
extension goes down between the Bob Roy's, over that land, is because Archie was planning for future
development in there. And so that's already established. And let's see. Like I said, all the existing lots have
been dredged and sand hauled in and chemicals applied to kill the weeds and then they all have 3 boats. Plus a
,
rowboat to get up to the swimming dock, plus canoe for the kids to play with. Snowmobiles and part of the
trouble here are the accesses that have been granted to the existing residents. So they only use one or two boats.
I live in Deephaven. I have dockage. I don't use it. I don't even put a boat on it. So if I don't do that next
'
year I'll lose it but the boat dockage shouldn't be a problem. All we're asking for is one boat per resident. And
if you say 35, 50% of the people will use that privilege, it won't be any more than what you're talking about
now. But what we have to have are some amenities. We have to have something to sell. We can't go in and
'
build $300,000.00 houses and offer nothing. You can't use the lake. The neighbors don't like you using their
lake. Well it's not their lake. And these people will be as responsible as we are. I think our concems are
similar to the people who are complaining. We want to leave the lake in a little better condition than what it
was. That's what I did in Sterling Estates ... When we first moved in over there, the lake smelled like the
,
Excelsior sewer ponds over there. Same thing. Everybody was pumping their sewers into my property and it
went down into the lake. And so Archie Carter and Bill Schoell from Schoell and Madsen decided that that lake
access should be a swaled area with a vegetated swaled area. With the small trees and brush or anything planted
,
on it but...wanted to blacktop it so we blacktopped it. Then later on, after we moved away, somebody
complained and they went underground. A culvert put in there. We went to the city and got stuck for putting
an underground culvert in there. Now you brought the water up to the road, and you have the stale fermenting
water in that culvert which every time it rains more and more water comes down and pollutes the lake. I don't
know who talked the city into that one because Schoell and Madsen and Archie Carter were absolutely dead set
against that one. Then you talk about a trail system. Where are you going with the trail system? Where does '
19
1 City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
the trail system hook into anything? Where is there another trail system? There's no trail system down along
the lakeshore. You can't traverse in front of other people's lakeshore down there because they'd be in big
trouble. But these same people train their dogs on my property, right? And the snowmobile tracks is
'
tremendous ... to put a house on that property, the way it is now with snowmobiles going by every 2 minutes. We
don't need that kind of a trail system. But our lakeshore, like somebody said here, is pristine ... The only reason
it is muddy over where in Sterling Estates was before we bought the property, Mrs. Bodell was there for quite a
' few years. And during World War II, with her austerity program, she brought in steers and talking to the
caretaker, he said that on the warm days that those cattle were down in the water and they just ruin the beaches.
Well they never did recover you know and so it's really what these people had, if they wanted a nice area, they
had to do some work on it. And our area, now it hasn't any traffic on it and the ... nice sandy lakeshore. And
' whether we have docks on there or not, I suppose doesn't really matter. If we had docks on the channel, it'd be
fine. In talking to the assessor's office last Monday, they contend that's all lakeshore and I know I'm being
assessed for it because my taxes on that property, last year were $11,800.00. My taxes this year are a little
'
less ... so I know we have to do something. I can't afford to pay taxes on property that's unbuildable. Or that we
can't get a permit on. And the assessor's office considers it valuable property. Let's see, what else? I think
that's about it.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Thank you Joe.
Joe Boyer: Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Anyone else?
' Mary Jo Moore: Good evening. I'm Mary Jo Moore, 3231 Dartmouth Drive. I'm a resident of Minnewashta
Shores which is adjacent to the west of Sterling Estates and I just wanted to add my objection to the changing of
the zoning for this area. I think it probably is a buildable lot. It's a beautiful piece of property. I would like to
' keep it at the same density that it is zoned for currently and also restrict the boatage. Lake Minnewashta, as
I've been here before you many times, is just getting over crowded with boats as are all of our lakes and I want
to protect that natural resource. Plus the traffic and I'm just adding my opinion to I& Ginther and the others.
Thank you.
' Mayor Chmiel: Thank you.
' Joe Fiedler: My name is Joe Fiedler. I live at 3121 Dartmouth Drive. I've been there 18 years. When we turn
off of Highway 7 onto Arbor, Arbor Road goes directly into my front yard so this traffic is going to be a big
deal for me ... The thing that I like about our lake and we go out there to drive around, there's just beautiful
single family homes just the way we thought it was going to stay. I don't like the idea of always looking up
'
there ... high density housing. So I'm not for the project period. I don't think it should be, that the zoning should
change at all.
r
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Joe. Anyone else?
Bob Boyer. My name is Bob Boyer and I'm representing the developer ...I really do appreciate the concerns of
the neighborhood. Their concerns are important to us, as well as to you. What you've heard is probably not
uncommon. There's usually a certain amount of opposition to any development, particularly at this stage. I
think what we want to do is, by way of reiteration of what John said, was note the concerns of the citizens. The
people living in the area, and we do have some areas of agreement I think obviously on this development. But
20
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
keeping our eyes on our objective tonight, which is to request that the City Council would consider a rezoning of
this area. The reason we're asking for that is simply that if we can all put ourselves back 20 -30 years ago when
a lot of these zoning issues were addressed, we were addressing a different type of demographic group of people.
The post war era. We were concerned about growing families and at the time, most all desirable zoning areas
were zoned single family residential simply because that was the housing type of demand. That's what people
were buying and that's what cities were providing. Today we're dealing with a slightly different demographic
group. We're dealing with a growing, aging population. And these people, by the thousands, by the millions,
are requesting that the cities that they raised their families in, cities like Chanhassen, provide alternative housing
types such as what we're providing here. We're not asking for additional density. The property already is
zoned for half acre lots. What we're proposing is 1.9 units per acre which is slightly less than what it's zoned
for. We're not asking for additional density. We're reconfiguring the housing so as to take advantage of the
unique topographical features of the site. The site does have a lot of wetlands making it a difficult site to build
on. But yet it's got a lot of natural beauty as well and I think by cluster building we can meet needs, the
security needs of the people in the area, of the people that will be living here, as well as maintaining the
integrity of the lakeshore and a lot of the natural beauty. We've done this before. I think we've
got some photographs of the development in Shorewood. We've also recently done some work with. It's turned
out beautiful and I recommend all of you to go over and take a look at it again... Certainly the traffic issue is
something we want to address. The dockage is certainly something we want to address. And there are a number
of other issues the planning staff has brought up that we do want to talk about. But tonight what we're asking
you to do is just simply say is this a viable housing type. Does the City of Chanhassen want to consider this
type of housing in that particular area.
Rob Roy: My name is Rob Roy. I live at 3110 Dartmouth Drive and I'm probably one of the most impacted by
the development because I'm right at the mouth of it. I understand that the Boyers have built single family
homes on half acre lots and as far as the density issue, one way or the other, I like this program because of the
value of the homes that can be both close to Highway 7 and close to the lake. I'm fine with that. And I've also
seen their work and by the way I'm also related to them. One of the things that, there's a number of issues that
concern me but it's my understanding that this is not the time to talk about the boating or the traffic and so
forth, correct? Or is this the time to voice our concerns about this now?
Mayor Chmiel: Whatever your concerns basically are, it should be expressed at this time.
Rob Roy: So there won't be another meeting or? Well, I'll take the time to do it then. Can I have a map
please of the site plan? The three major areas of pollution into Lake Minnewashta. I hear all of my neighbors
talk about it but they've never bothered addressing it. No, I need the other one fast. There's an open storm
sewer that Joe talked about that dumps a lot of pollution into Lake Minnewashta. It's down on our outlot that
we met about some time ago and I raise it again. This will be the fourth time I've brought this up. That the
City, I don't know hasn't addressed it. Doesn't want to address it or if there's more problems associated than I
have been told. There's also another drainage area which the Boyers are addressing, and now I need that site
plan. Yeah. With the pond here and that's going to take care of those, part of the problem over in Shorewood.
The other part is located down in this area here. And these two are the City's, and the Boyers are addressing
this one. What I would like to see in this development, and it's been discussed before but there's also a chance
for the city to do something right and stop talking about taking care of the lake and doing something about it. Is
putting in a road this way and building another settling pond here so this area totally will be filtered, rather than
what we currently have right now. It would solve two issues. One that's sort of mine is of course the traffic
and you'd have access out to Washta Bay Road. You'd also settle this pollution problem that's coming over,
again it's from across Highway 7 and building a sediment pond. And I think the city should participate in that.
21
1
1
r
' City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
These are existing, I think the city ought to clean up it's act in our neighborhood, which is the drainage that's in
the oudot area. As far as my neighbors feel, my neighbors talk about a pristine and taking care of the lake as
long as, and that issue was never addressed and it should be. So here's a chance to clean up 3 areas. Well, two
' in this one development. If the city would take another access because the land is available from Washta Bay
Road into this development. When you talk about lakeshore I'm reminded of when we were here for our outlot
and the statement was made to me by Councilmember Wing and as he stated ... when you have the proper amount
of lakeshore, which it has been designated by the DNR, to be legal and fully developable. If you meet the
requirements as you did, as you mentioned Richard, you have the legal requirements, you're allowed the boat
dockage. I don't have a problem with boat dockage. They talk about the pollution and so forth with the boats,
I'd just like to see people quit using chemical fertilizers on their lawn and dump more sand on their beach and
' so forth and start, instead of talking the talk, walking the walk. Again, as far as the rezoning is concerned, I'd
like to see it rezoned this way because I think we're going to get a higher quality of development in there on the
dollar basis and on the off ...towards Highway 7 there will be a better value than if there was single family
' homes. I also look at the traffic issue from single family homes. If we have families in there, and the Boyer's
are allowed to develop 26 home sites, of single family homes, then I see teenagers and children. I see a lot
more traffic than I do with this development. If you haven't seen the plan. There's one master bedroom
' upstairs and one bedroom downstairs for guests. 3,000 square feet. So when I look at this development, to me
this is more attractive. Especially the traffic area that I'm located in. And one of the council suggested was to
block off or planning to block off Arbor and to make another access right along my property line. Well then I'll
be bounded by three sides of highway, or road, and I find that very unacceptable. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks. Anyone else?
' John Blumentritt: For the purpose of the City Council knowing why we are pursuing the rezoning, can I request
either from Kate or Paul to explain what the current Comp Plan allows and doesn't allow. Just as a refresher
and also for the purpose of the neighborhood also to understand why we are rezoning this property.
' Mayor Chmiel: Kate, would you like to do that?
Kate Aanenson: Currently this property is zoned residential single family. The way the PUD ordinance allows
' now, the smallest lot you could go would be 11,000 square feet and again you'd have to average it to 15 ... The
only way a 5,000 square foot lot would be allowed would be under the medium density so we'd have to zone for
a higher density. As I indicated earlier, staff would be reluctant to do just a straight board rezoning. If this
' project was dropped and someone else picked it up. We felt that it would probably be more ... if we'd go ahead
and make a Comp Plan amendment allowing clustering in the low density development. So that's what the
issues, part of this rezoning. Comp Plan amendment.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, thank you.
Nancy Mancino: So that would be city wide?
' Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Nancy Mancino: That would be anyplace that there is residential single family right now that would after this, if
' he works through half that thing in those areas, you could do 5,000? With an average of 15,000?
Tom Merz: Could you re- explain that. I didn't get what she was, could you re- explain that? How you're
22
I
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
taking this piece of property and allowing 27, you're allowing 5,000, you're allowing a home for 5,000 square
feet. Is that what you said?
Kate Aanenson: We're allowing the clustering. Yeah, the overall density is still, as we indicated in the staff
report, the overall density is similar to if it was developed as regular 15,000 square foot lots. It meets that
criteria If it was developed as 15,000 square foot lots based on the usable net density, taking out roads and
wetlands, they could get 26 units. What we've said here is, instead of spreading those out over 26, 15,000
square foot lots, we're clustering those units. Putting more common space and allowing 5,000 square foot lots.
26 -5,000 square foot lots and the rest would be common space under the PUD.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Excuse me Mr. Mayor. And would that defacto be saying for all other PUD's, as
Nancy pointed out, that we would be changing our ordinance to a minimum of 5,000 as opposed to 11,000.
Mayor Chmiel: That's just about close. Yes.
Paul Krauss: The average, the 15,000 square foot average is still there so you're not all of a sudden going to see
20 homes on an acre.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: No, we're just allowing more flexibility with our PUD ordinance.
Kate Aanenson: The density's still there. They're just clustering it.
Paul Krauss: One of the problems is the building style itself. Single family detached townhomes if you would,
are kind of a newer phenomenum and aren't really dealt with very well in the ordinance. See if these units were
stuck together and had common walls, we would know how to handle it and ... more specific. But because they
broke them apart, it becomes a free standing single family home and it's treated as a single family, a standard
single family homesite. And clearly that's the problem in this development.
Councilman Wing: One other question I'd have, as long as you have the floor is, the last few that have come
through here, we've been really adamant and you've really supported not having cul -de -sacs. Or the cul -de -sacs
being restricted or multiple access into these areas. And this one, it's not even mentioned. It seems like if
there's adequate room here to map a road and have an access into this area
Paul Krauss: When we fast started working with the Boyers, they had sketched a larger development with a
thru road to the east. We preferred the thru road connection. The problem is it crosses an extensive wetland to
get there and the folks where it would land on the east side are none too excited about that either.
Councilman Mason: Excuse me, it's an ag urban wetland right?
Kate Aanenson: For ... correct.
Councilman Mason: Where you're talking about putting the road through is an ag urban wetland right?
Paul Krauss: Right. That was the earlier plan. Now it turned out given where the wetlands, where we believe
the wetlands to be located, you wouldn't get as many units, nearly as many units on that side. Although there is
23
F
0
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
7
some buildable ground on that side. There's a question of dead heading a road. You know if there are no units
in this ... how do you get the road connection through here? Plus, this woman I believe and this person testified at
the public hearing at the Planning Commission that they were not too excited about that proposal. Now, the
Boyers came back with a considerably smaller development that only had the one leg. We still would prefer a
thru street but it doesn't seem all that realistic. A, to figure out a way across the wetland. B, to support it
financially. And C ... without any development on that side of the wetland.
Councilman Wing: Do you know the history of that channel? I've been there since 1952 and all our
recollection is of the in -laws and the grandparents is that it was dredged illegally and was supposed to have been
filled back in. It's a man made channel. It's starting to fill in. It's becoming non - navigable if you will. I think
the Boyers are talking 1,900 feet of shoreline and you're talking about putting this number of houses on a closed
channel like that that goes to the lake, if we want to discuss pollution issues. Every one of those houses, if
they're going to use any type of fertilizer or whatever, we're really adding. But that's a separate issue with that
channel. I guess if they want to count it as Lakeshore, then I'd just as soon see them use it for boats and docks
because it's not navigable. It's filled with milfoil. Getting worse and filling in and it's going to be non - existent
and they don't have the option now or in the future to ever dredge it, improve it or do anything with it. So if
they want to count it as lakeshore, then I want to use it. Let's call it lakeshore and let's build it and let's put the
docks and boats on that. I mean they're counting it as lakeshore but they want to get the boats and docks out
onto the main lake. Does that seem a reasonable argument?
Paul Krauss: Well, staff's position was somewhat in the middle. I mean we recognized that it was artificial.
We asked the DNR for a read on it and while they acknowledged it was dredged, they're declaring it as part of
the lake. Kate's recommendation did not include that area towards their allocated dockage.
Kate Aanenson: In addition, the DNR is saying that they would consider it natural shoreline and they haven't
used it in their calculations either so.
Councilman Wing: It's just, the area is so dominated by milfoil and infiltrated by milfoil that I'm just concerned
about the use of the lake. The dockage. Boat access and all. I mean for power boats, it's inaccessible this past
summer. It's not going to get any better. I don't want to be approving this and suddenly have these people say
what are you going to do about the milfoil, because we're not going to do nothing about the milfoil.
Paul Krauss: In the channel or?
Councilman Wing: The channel and the entire lakeshore is infettated heavily and it's not treatable. It's not
going to be treated. The City's not going to do anything with it. I want to make sure that that issue's on the
table too that they're building right into a milfoil farm and it's kind of tough luck. We're all living with the
same problem. But that's just another side issue. I just was curious about the history of that channel and how
we were looking at that.
Paul Krauss: We don't honestly know when it was put in. It's just always been there.
Councilman Wing: I was there and I can't remember.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions of staff?
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I have a question just before I forget. Paul, do we have any, where are the, our
24
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
swamp funds or our project's priority list? The ones that Mr. Roy addressed. Are they on our list anywhere?
Paul Krauss: Well actually yeah. We identified those. We've identified this major flowage underneath
Highway 7 down into here. It's on our priority list. As for the other ones, I'm not sure if they are. It's a
problem that I think our staff is aware of We have not allocated project dollars to this area yet. Traditionally,
when we have an opportunity to try to piggy back on a development, I think this one is a case where we had
that possibility.
Councilwoman Dockendorf. Okay, thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any other questions of staff?
Councilman Senn: I guess I'd like to hear your response Paul to, you know I heard the statement made a couple
times now regarding by clustering we're creating open space. You know, where are we creating open space?
Paul Krauss: Well I think you'd be looking at that design in perspective, you'll see that large portions of the site
are being untouched. Now, and that includes both sides of, there is buildable ground on the east side that is
being left open. There's buildable ground up by Highway 7 that's being left open.
Councilman Senn: So you're saying that that strip along the east side is buildable ground?
Paul Krauss: Portions of it, there is buildable ground on there, yes.
Councilman Senn: You can put a street in there and put houses in?
Paul Krauss: It's an ag urban wetland. You can build a portion on it and excavate another portion. It's
theoretically possible. I don't know that it's financially realistic but it's theoretically possible.
Councilman Senn: Without filling in the channel? Huh.
Councilman Mason: How wide is that strip? Do you know off hand?
Paul Krauss: On the east side?
Councilman Mason Yeah. I'm sure it says somewhere.
Councilman Senn: I couldn't find it.
Kate Aanenson: 120 feet.
Councilman Senn: 120 feet. How could you fit it in? I mean I don't understand that. How can you fit it in
with setbacks and stuff?
Kate Aanenson: ...a private drive and if it's a private drive, you only need 30 feet of right -of -way.
Councilman Mason: Yeah. Because it is ag urban, a lot of that can be filled in.
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
everybody
Councilman Senn: I can see why everybody on the east side's happy and on the west side's not
happy.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Michael.
' Councilman Mason: I think some very interesting questions have been raised with this. Alternative housing.
Zoning issues 30 years ago as opposed to now. A side bar, every, before I really get going on this, every PUD
always has a blurb on affordable housing and we have yet to have a PUD come through that addresses the issue
of affordable housing and I'm not going to argue that this is the spot for affordable housing but, and I haven't,
' how many times do we have to go through this with PUD's. I don't personally see what the city is getting on a
PUD on this. I don't know what this will look like when it's done from Highway 5. Excuse me, from Highway
7 or from the lake or from Dartmouth or for Arbor. I do know what I felt when my view of Minnetonka was
' completely obliterated by all those townhomes that went in right in downtown Excelsior. Now I know this is not
as massive but, 5,000 square feet? I think as a Council we really need to talk long and hard about that. I don't
deny that perhaps there should be some zoning changes in this city. I think the people that live around this area
' have some compelling arguments about whether this is the particular spot that should be rezoned or not. So
maybe we need to talk about that.
0
1
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to get some comments back from Council.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: Well I'll go. I'll keep it short and sweet. I mean the purpose of this is concept
approval and in concept I don't like it. I don't think it's a good transition from the neighborhood. I certainly
am open to the study of alternative housing. I think it's a very appropriate and very needed. I just don't think it
fits into this neighborhood, and just for Planning Commission and staff's and the rest of Council's future
considerations, I think we need to look at the minimum square footage on a PUD. And I'm not adverse to
bringing it down to 5,000 to fit in this type of housing. But that's a separate issue. For this piece of property I
don't think this is an appropriate use.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Michael.
Councilman Mason: Well, I raised some of my concerns and I guess right now I'm inclined to agree with
Colleen about whether this is appropriate use for this site or not. Before I reject it out of hand, I guess I'd be
curious to know what it would look like as an RSF. I'm struggling with the transition here between Sterling
Estates and everything around it and this. It looks really nice. I'm not rejecting the development but I'm
agreeing I think with Colleen here about the transition in that whole neighborhood.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, Mark.
Councilman Senn: I like the type of housing that's being suggested but I have to agree, I don't like it on this
site. Basically I spent a long time ... out there and looking at it and it, I just can't, oh I don't know, through any
picture in my imagination make it fit. The real problem I see is that regardless of what the history is in the
channel, it seems to me the channel is what's gumming it up. And the reason I think it's gumming it up is if
you could do reasonable transitions between both of the existing neighborhoods and what you're suggesting here,
it may be more viable. But with that channel there, in whatever form it's there and I don't see how that's really
a comparable, given the fact that I don't think the site really fits. The concept in terms of the housing. The
only way to change my mind is to adequate buffer it and if you can adequate buffer it to the one side but I don't
see any way you can adequately buffer it to the west at all. So I just have a real hard time with this fitting in
26
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
this.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard.
Councilman Wing: Well living out there I concur with the neighbors. I think when you think of Boyers you
think of quality and they go hand and hand, so from that standpoint I'm really comfortable. I don't believe that
Joe would come in here, put in low income affordable housing in this particular piece of property. Like he
stated, it's a very valuable piece of property. So right now I guess I'd like to see that RSF standard subdivision
with the quality work that Boyer does and I think we'd wind up with something pretty presentable there. If I
was to approve it tonight, first of all homes that you see suggesting, I've looked at over in Shorewood and
they're very impressive. They caught my eye jogging down the track and I said, ooh, what's that going on and I
walked up there and I found them to be these old people homes. What did he call them?
John Blumentritt: Empty nesters.
Councilman Mason: That other thing I don't think is what you call them.
Councilman Wing: No it's not. Well I'd like to live in one. So we've got the quality there. Frankly the
clustering I can accept. If we're gaining some environmental issues here. But one thing that I think is the
greatest gift we could give the city in this project is to drop out Arbor Drive, which offsets from Seaman, which
you can't make a left turn in which has always been a nuisance. Drop out Arbor into a small cul -de -sac that
affects almost nobody and then T this development and Dartmouth into an intersection. A T intersection with
Seaman Drive so at someday a light could go in there or access to that highway could be provided with turn
lanes and so on and so forth. So that really concerns me. So to approve this tonight would be, I would accept
the quality. I think I could buy the clustering but with the roads going in, there'd be less homes and maybe this
thing would be a little less obtrusive per numbering. And also the boat issue. I don't want to go back to 1981.
That ordinance was put in there to say you're not going to come in with 13 acres and just put in all the homes
you want and then tie them to the lake and everybody gets a boat. We've discussed that. It's no longer an
issue. It's a dead issue. So we don't have to discuss 26 boats unless they want to come in and develop all this
1,900 feet of lakeshore. Then the docks and the boats are entitled to go on that channel. I don't have any
problem with that. If they want to try and use that channel. But in a standard subdivision, we get 6, 7, 8 lots on
that 800 feet, we know that we're going to have one dock per lot or shared and we also know it's going to be
going through very heavy swampland areas into a very mucky bottom and it basically is unusable. And two
wrongs don't make a right. I believe, I think Sterling Estates has been abusive in the past in filling in and
dredging and so on and so forth but that's the way it was in the 60's and 70's. But it's the 90's and two wrongs
don't make a right and that isn't going to happen here. That option isn't available. They can't dredge it. They
can't mitigate the shoreline so we don't have to discuss that. If Sterling Estates was wrong and Joe Boyer did it
right or wrong, the neighbors that came in did it right or wrong, but that won't happen again. We know have
rules and regulations and we're now thinking visionary and it's the 90's. So let's not back track what people did
in the past. So I'm comfortable with the standard subdivision right now. And before I would look at this
conceptually, although I really do favor it, I think Joe will do an excellent job here with this particular idea.
Even going down to the 5,000 and I'm not shutting it out but I'd like to see what this road connection would
look like. How we could do it and what a standard subdivision RSF would look like before we approve this
conceptually. A standard subdivision RSF may look worse than this and we may say, well this is the way to go.
We don't have to approve it conceptually. This is what we'd like to see done here. So I don't have the answers
in the road issue. I don't have the answers in what this would look like as a standard subdivision. And if I
could just digress mildly on that, express my concern about that is when we approved this townhome above
27
1
u
0
11
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Byerly's, or this new townhome going in, I honestly and truly thought that what we looked at and the pictures
we were shown, that that was sort of in line with the Village Apartments up on the top of the hill and then going
' north. I'm dumbfounded to see that the picture I was shown is nothing like I thought and those are being built
right down into the hill. Right into the city and I don't have enough information to address the conceptual issue
right now. I want to emphasize my enthusiasm for Joe Boyer and these homes. Go look at them. They're first
' class. And if they're going to cluster them and it's going to protect Highway 7 and the lake, I think it's going to
fit in. But I want to know more about the road and I want to know more about a standard subdivision rust.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I guess from just looking at this and changing that zoning from low density RSF to zero
lot line, than PUD medium density, I have some real concerns because we're going to be establishing precedent
and with that, that means that that's going to be the name of the game. I'm not for that game right now.
There's no sense to going into reiteration as to what has been said back and forth here because it's, many of the
' feelings that I still have and I do, in looking at the overall picture of it, and with what staff has recommended,
putting that to even a 9 boat slip dock I strongly would support that and not any different than that. So with that
I would now call for a motion to support, deny or whatever position you'd like to take. But I do want to
' establish one thing. That we would be having a precedent for the approval as to what they're proposing for the
comprehensive plan amendment.
' Councilman Senn: I'm confused. Do we pass a motion on a concept review?
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. Correct Roger?
' Roger Knutson: Sure.
Mayor Chmiel: You have to. You have to have a vote in order to move it.
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. I would move that we deny the concept for the Planned Unit Development to
rezone 13.47 acres of property zoned RSF to PUD.
' Roger Knutson: Mayor, again my suggestion I made before. We should have Findings so when you deny this,
if you're going to deny it, so I'd recommend that the motion be to prepare Findings...
' Councilwoman Dockendorf. So moved.
Mayor Chmiel: Is there a second?
' Councilman Senn: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Michael.
' Councilman Mason: Yeah. I want to back track a little bit to what Richard was saying. I'm right now inclined
to vote with the motion but I think there are some issues that are unresolved here. So I would hope that if it
does get turned down now, we as Council could direct staff and the Boyers to look at what our concerns are.
And see if they can come back with some sort of compromise. Is that kind of what.
Mayor Chmiel: Roger, what's the time period of that once it, if it's a comprehensive plan or the amendment
would be.
1 28
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Roger Knutson: If the motion on the floor passes, and you wanted to take another look, it would have to go
back through the process. Go to the Planning Commission, in front of the public hearing and then back here.
Mayor Chmiel: Right. But is there not a period of time that this is established?
Roger Knutson: Where you'd have to act on a comprehensive plan amendment or rezoning? No, there isn't.
Councilman Mason: We're at the discussion phase right now right? So if this motion doesn't pass, and there
was a motion to table, I'm thinking out loud here.
Councilman Senn: I guess that's what I was coming back to. I mean, and maybe that's where I'm uneasy with
it. It seems to me that we really would like to see some alternatives and a lot more information. If we're being
told to act on this tonight, which is probably a bad way I asked my question before, I'm going to vote no on it.
Okay? If we can go forward and say see some more plans on some subdivisions or standard subdivisions. More
standard subdivisions. As well as some of the alternatives and see some of the questions answered. I mean to
me that's the way to go right now.
Roger Knutson: If you want to keep this, if you want to see more information and more variations and iterations
of this, or compare it what a single family would be, if you want to keep it say alive for now, then I'd
recommend the tabling rather than denial. Unless you want them to go back to the beginning and start all over
again with a new application and new public hearings.
Councilman Senn: And tabling doesn't set any clock in motion or time in motion that forces us to turn around
and take some kind of an action?
Roger Knutson: Because this is not a plat, where you have that time clock running.
Councilman Senn: Okay.
Roger Knutson: On a rezoning and Comp Plan, there is none.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. At this time we have a motion on the floor.
Councilwoman Dockendorf: I'd like to withdraw my motion because I guess I do want to see the lesser or two
evils. I would like to see what an RSF development would look like.
Mayor Chmiel: Okay, and with the motionee making that remark, with the second automatically dead.
Councilman Wing: Then I'd make a motion to table this and the table specifically directs staff to review the
options of a standard subdivision. Assuming quality homes will go in. We can make a map up to show the
maximum we could do to this property and destroy it. 75 feet on the highway. I don't believe Boyers have ever
done that and ever will so I'd like to see a realistic standard subdivision proposal addressed.
Kate Aanenson: Can we ask the applicant if they're willing, if they're interested in doing that before we pass
that? ...maybe they just want the denial. I don't know.
John Blumentritt: I think that's our preference. We don't want to deny this and just have this lag on forever
29
1
I
7
i City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
a and ever. This is one concept. One avenue that we had selected. If there is a multiplicity of avenues and one
that you want us to review with the staff, then please table this. We'll review this to the staff. We'll work this
out with the staff and come back with something that you visually then can see the alternatives and then come to
your decision.
Councilman Wing: Yeah, my motion to table is not to kill the cluster, because I'm not so sure I don't support
that. But I do want to see the options of a standard subdivision. I would like to see Seaman and Dartmouth T'd
and how the roads might work. City roads going through there. What else do we have?
Councilman Senn: Well I'd like to see something that straightens this out more and gives better buffering to the
neighborhood to the west. And negating use of that road system which I think you've already kind of asked.
i
Councilman Wing: I think we've all said pretty clear that this boat issue simply isn't going to be addressed.
We're not bringing the 1981 ordinance back and I think that if that's the case, I'm going to support a standard
subdivision and put in all the lots you want on the lake and then put in your boats at the docks but it's going to
be less than 26 and I'm really, I support the neighbors on that issue. I think that's justifiable.
Councilman Senn: Well to me the boat issue is a non -issue until you decide what the heck ..going to be.
Councilman Mason: So the motion is on the table?
Mayor Chmiel: A motion is on the table to table.
Councilman Mason: I will second that.
Mayor Chmiel: There is a second to table with the additional information that we're looking for to receiving at
whatever the next presentation comes through.
Councilman Mason: If I could. I also, this is a tough one because this is obviously a class act. I share the
Mayor's concern about, if it was just this area that would be 5,000 square feet, I think I could say well yeah.
But if we're going to open up this city wide, that's a whole other issue too so I'm glad we're choosing.
Mayor Chmiel: It's something we have to address.
Councilman Mason: I'm glad we're choosing to table this and certainly not deny tonight and let's see what we
can work out.
Councilman Wing: Mr. Mayor, I think Mike's concerns were reflected by the Planning Commission meeting.
That it's probably the number one concern in this case.
Councilman Senn: I didn't see anything in there though that addressed how we deal with that.
Mayor Chmiel: No, they didn't.
Councilman Senn: I mean did that mean that we create a new section in our zoning ordinance?
Mayor Chmiel: That's the point that's my concern.
30
City Council Meeting - January 10, 1994
Paul Krauss: We were just discussing that. I mean there's a possibility of modifying some of the language in
the PUD ordinance that's quite specific.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. But all these modifications that we keep putting into, we're lowering the standards and I
don't like lowering the standards period.
Councilman Mason: Well are we lowering them or changing them?
Mayor Chmiel: Well that's the point.
Councilman Mason: Right. Well I throw that out too and I'm not disagreeing with you on that.
11,000 PUD a net lot of
'
Councilman Wing: But if I was to bring back my 22,000 square foot lot with an with
18,000 and any options you want, we're still going to get to that density issue. Then after we get to the
density...
'
Councilman Mason: No, no. Affordable.
Mayor Chmiel: By the way, we're going to have some meetings coming up. Maybe you'd like to.
'
Councilman Mason: I would like to be a part of those, very definitely. Please keep my informed.
table. Call the
'
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Motion's on the floor with a second to question.
Councilman Wing moved, Councilman Mason seconded to table the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
change the land use designation from Residential Low Density to Residential Medium Density and
Conceptual PUD for 26 single family zero lot line units on 13.47 acres for additional information. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
THE
'
CONSIDERATION OF THE AMOUNT REQUEST FOR SITE RESTORATION FUND FO
MOON VALLEY GRAVEL OPERATION.
Public Present:
t
Name Address
,
Jerry Rypkin 150 Flying Cloud Drive
Tommy Geekel Attorney for Moon Valley
'
Roger Knutson: At least most of the Council's been intimately involved in this obligation for a number of years.
I won't go through it's history. I believe you art with it. The Judge has remanded Moon Valley issue
} familiar
to the City Council to make a finding on one issue and that is, what is the appropriate amount for a restoration
fund. To help guarantee that the site will be restored to a reasonable slopes when this area is mined out. You
have calculations in your background materials based upon the history of how much aggregate has been moved
in the past. And how much money it will cost to complete the restoration and a suggestion that based upon all
'
those considerations, 20 cents per cubic yard go into that fund retroactive to the date when the ordinance was
31
a;e.. a2 J, i ?Y
11 �"
Ao-lA444.t
1� .'Oolt ,cw..t- 7&1-04r.044c.l
M
M
1
1
1
1
1
v
rompli w,
1
III
r
i
N
� �
n�9an�S -nw+L moo' 7�w� ate• -••-�
cut
0,00
�' w�sLCC MGGtrwL .t..
p� X� lr•w ..G+ -u -,t �,/,,
.�(nw A.�c. av<✓
V
n
I
I
II
A
10
10
1
1
1
1
1
3
—
C
�
d
•
.oz�
:, 0 00�
�
d
[I
N
1
r
r
i
#000 .ttwo
14 t(4
gr
r I �"
J
C W ��
� a
0 AX ,
w lax
f � w
U
.00e - `...L- '.a,.E.. -
�r