The URL can be used to link to this page

2b. Stratford Ridge Subdivision, CUP Recreational Beachlot J5EL__ 1 i C I T Y O F P.C. DATE: Jan. 6 , 1988 ■li, C.C. DATE: Feb. 22 , 1988 \ I _ CHANHASSEN CASE NO: 87-17 CUP �1' Prepared by: Olsen/v I . . STAFF REPORT 14 PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational IBeachlot F- 1 Z a V LOCATION: 6830 Minnewashta Parkway, on the west side of • Minnewashta Parkway approximately i mile south of Highway 7 . 1 Q.. APPLICANT: Pierce Construction Q 3915 Farmhill Circle Mound, MN 55364 1 ' ii PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family 1 ACREAGE: 9 . 04 acres IDENSITY: 5 .9 acres (net acres ) 2 .54u/a (net densi':y) ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family I S- RSF; single family .`_ n_ /dam E- Lake Minnewashta W- RSF; single family 11 2 Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. w2.4z.-ll' -- --- I W PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has a grove of trees on the western side of Lake Minnewashta. The remainder of the site is open field. I (I) Outlot A has a steep slope toward the lake and heavily vegetated. 1 1990 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density 11. v om I . -3,11111 62ND - ST �°ittii V% de or or ilaw*Tow.V ' /4,,,,,./- . . A Ink 4 v.:az Il;giii. LIK?.. clot -.- itA tis II vs zikr4. 02- ---------7--" // 411.6.-■°`‘ r :11-P.Mi InitailLitek . •••611 '. - 1 1/ . . ,:ir,‘ ing_a_ l_m_limogi ,,, 4,4 ....„,,,,,., - m . rt �.Ar - 1 i it AI W.74 kb .14/1111/1„ 1, 011116- 411 \ , • //alimp,,c: N.44,„„.-----alliNgil,.' .■ ��. Liti.%,Av, .••;,4.e":1'.'n',.-prs •: . -.,_ _ _-- iX41. QT1 - • rar-,!pi•■ ji 1 i �� LAKE 1 I r! _/ M / N N E W A S H T A i 0 N_ • • _ IF RD t ICNGS ROA; PUD—R i V I Q LAKE Imo` . ike,;, - i- W /�\ *PON• ? 0Illudlllp�r • � R , - uue i'l >" ,:, Ay MAPLE SHORES ORrvE )L----4. . --' .....„..../..!r4 4 0 i n __ • /...•._1,.1..._1 ,t,i,.:,. 1mi ..,\..,. ....,. 4.1..• .'----z.411__k. .•.. •_,...,,i.. D,,. z.i.k..,._., .s--.y. ,- 7r;..., .‘ . . •4 1...........: • _•;. .., .z,.,.z!i *_. } L I _ ________ iiiimmationtl • Stratford Ridge CUP January 6 , 1988 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS ' Section 5-9-1 ( 11) Recreational Beachlot conditions requires at least 200 feet of lake frontage for a recreational beachlot and requires at least 30 ,000 square feet and 100 feet of depth for any recreational beachlot to have a dock (Attachment #2 ) . ) REFERRAL AGENCIES ' DNR The applicant must receive a permit from the DNR for ' installation of the sand blankets on the beachlot and for directing stormwater runoff into Lake Minnewashta. ' City Engineer Attachment #4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Attachment #5 U .S. Corps of Engineers Attachment #6 Park and Recreation Minutes Attachment #7 Fire Inspector Attachment #8 Watershed District Attachment #9 Soil Conservation Service Attachment #10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot to be located on Outlot A as shown on the preliminary plat. The applicant is proposing a dock with four slips, two canoe racks and a sand beach. The remainder of the site would be left in its natural state. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 30 ,000 square feet, 200 feet of lake frontage and 100 foot depth for a recreational beachlot to contain one dock. Outlot A contains 31,400 square ' feet and approximately 550 feet of lake frontage, but does not contain 100 feet of depth. The northerly portion contains 110 feet and the southerly portion contains 84 feet and, but the ' central area of Outlot A only contains 40 feet of depth. The narrow part of Outlot A is the approximate area where the dock and sand beach is proposed. The Zoning Ordinance permits the overnight storage of three watercraft per dock and one canoe rack per dock. Therefore, a variance would be required to the recreational beachlot ordinance to permit a dock, overnight storage of four watercraft and two canoe racks . 1 11 Stratford Ridge CUP January 6 , 1988 ' Page 3 The Zoning Ordinance requires the Board of Adjustments and ' Appeals to review variances to the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore the Board of Adjustments will decide on the lot depth requirement which determines whether a dock will be permitted, the overnight storage of four watercraft and two canoe racks . At the October 28, 1987, meeting the Planning Commission requested the City Attorney to review several questions con- cerning the variance request. Attachment #12 is a letter from Roger Knutson addressing those questions . , Outlot A is extremely steep from Minnewashta Parkway to Lake Minnewashta and the applicant is proposing a timber wall to build steps to the beach. The Fire Marshal has recommended that a ramp be installed instead of steps to provide access in case of an emergency and to also provide access for handicapped persons . Therefore, staff is recommending that instead of steps, a ramp be installed. The ramp will not accommodate motorized vehicles for parking. Also, Outlot A is heavily vegetated with a higher quality of trees than what were found on the site where the lots are proposed ( Sugar Maples and Red Oaks) . Since these trees are of higher quality, staff is recommending that a tree removal plan be provided for approval by the city and DNR Forester prior to any alteration to the outlot. Staff is also recommending that the applicant provide more detailed plans for the recreational beachlot to the city and DNR to determine if a DNR permit is required. ' RECOMMENDATION - Conditional Use Permit The proposed conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot I meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements for a recreational beach- lot without a dock. Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use ' Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions : 1 . The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock unless a variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City Council. 1 2 . The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City Council. 3 . All additional standards established for a recreational beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met. ' II Stratford Ridge CUP ' January 6 , 1988 Page 4 4 . A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for ' approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 1 The Commission unanimously approved the conditional use permit for the recreational beachlot with staff' s conditions and added ' #5 as follows : 5 . The applicant shall provide a detailed plan for the recreational beachlot for staff approval. CITY COUNCIL ACTION - February 8 , 1988 ' On February 8 , 1988 , the City Council approved the preliminary plat and wetland alteration permit for Stratford Ridge. The City Council tabled action on the conditional use permit until the Board of Adjustments could review the variance request. The City ' Council also recommended that the applicant provide a more detailed plan for the recreational beachlot. The applicant has provided a recreational beachlot plan (dated February 18 , 1988) . ' The plan shows the beach area, location of the dock, canoe racks and trail. The beach will not require grading and the trail will not remove any existing trees . The applicant will provide a ' detailed grading and erosion control plan for city staff appro- val. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION The City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: 1 . The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock or canoe rack( s) unless a variance to the lot depth requirement is ' granted by the Board of Adjustments and City Council. 2 . The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by ' the Board of Adjustments and City Council . 3 . All additional standards established for a recreational ' beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met. 4 . A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A. 5 . The applicant shall provide a detailed grading and erosion plan for the recreational beachlot for staff approval. 1 Stratford Ridge CUP II January 6 , 1988 Page 5 , ATTACHMENTS , 1 . Section 5-5-5 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2 . Section 5-9-1 (11) of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 . Section 6 .5 ( 7 ) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 4 . Memorandum from Asst. City Engineer dated December 31, 1987 . 5 . Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife dated October 27 , 1987. 6 . Letter from U.S. Corps of Engineers dated November 5 , 1987 . 7 . Park and Recreation report dated October 27 , 1987. 8 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated September 25 , 1987 . 9 . Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated September 28, 1987. 10 . Letter from Soil Conservation Service dated October 23 , 1987 . 11. Planning Commission minutes dated October 28, 1987. 12 . BRW report dated December 2 , 1987. 13 . Letter from Roger Knutson dated November 12 , 1987 . 14 . Letter from Craig Freeman dated October 13 , 1987. 15 . Application. 16 . Planning Commission minutes dated January 6 , 1988 . 17. Plans from BRW report. 18 . Recreational beachlot plan dated February 18 , 1988 . 19 . City Council minutes February 8 , 1988 . Alkki ' A, 1 , I' 5-5-4 The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" district: if 1. Churches 2 . Private stables, subject to provisions of the horse ordinance 3 . Recreational beach lots ill 4 . Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of five acres. 5-5-5 Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications IP set forth in this Ordinance. 1. Lot Area: 15, 000 square feet. II 2 . Lot Frontage: 90 feet (except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be 90 feet in width at the building setback line) . 3 . Lot Depth: 150 feet. 4 . Maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces: 25%. 5. Setbacks: ifA. Front yard: 30 feet. il ! B. Rear yard: 30 feet. C. Side yard: 10 feet. if ,,„...______ 6. Maximum Height: A. Principal Structure: three stories/40 feet. B. Accessory Structure: three stories/40 feet. SECTION 6. "R-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT I5-6-1 Intent. Single-family and attached residential development at a maximum net density of four dwelling units per acre. II 5-6-2 The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" district: 1. Single-family dwellings II 2 . Two-family dwellings 3 . Public and private parks and open space 4 . Group home serving six or fewer persons 5. State licensed day care center for twelve or fewer children 6. Utility services 7 . Temporary real estate office and model home 11 . -40- fri . II B. Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from any residential II '} use. J 11. Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum I standards are met in addition to such other conditions as may be prescribed in the permit: II' A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of lake frontage. B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing II II house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored II upon any recreational beach lot. C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized II mini-bike, all-terrain vehicle or snowmobile shall 3 be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. II D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. E. Boat launches are prohibited. II F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring II of more than three (3) motorized or non-motorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is 11 allowed more than one dock, however, the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes, windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may II be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot IIif they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall II be allowed per dock. No more than six (6) II • watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any II time other than overnight. II G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake I frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth. I/ No more than one dock may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200 feet of lake II frontage. In addition, 30, 000 square feet of land is required for the first dock and an additional 11 20, 000 square feet is required for each additional dock. No more than three (3) docks, however, shall , be erected on a recreational beach lot. I _%%2-nw lC 10-'11 II I/ 4C-. „ -48- 11 IH. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the III greater of the following lengths: (a) fifty (50) IIII feet or, (b) the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet. The width (but not the length) of the cross-bar of I any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the III computation of length described in the preceding sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall not measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in III 1 length. I. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, ill I provided, however, that the owners of any two abutting lakeshore sites may erect one common dock within the dock set-back zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock is the I III only dock on the two lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this Ordinance. IJ. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lot unless it has at least 200 I feet of lake frontage. No more than one sail boat in mooring shall be allowed for every 200 feet of lake frontage. I . K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, shall be located within I at least one thousand (1, 000) feet of the recreational beach lot. I L. All recreational beach lots, including any IN recreational beach lots established prior to the effective date of this Ordinance may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming areas I are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to United States Coast Guard standards. II M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, measured both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point one hundred (100) feet landward from the II ordinary high water mark, of not less than four (4) III lineal feet for each dwelling unit which has appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants of I that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the homeowner association or residential housing developers. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of IN. watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or -49- 1 41 . . ii 1 14. Private Streets . Private streets are prohibited. Private drives which provide access to not more than three lots may Ibe allowed. 15 . Reserve Strip. Private reserve strips controlling public 1 access to streets shall be prohibited. ' 6 . 3 Alleys . Alleys are prohibited except for fire lanes in commer- cial and industrial developments. I 6 .4 Blocks. The length and width of blocks shall be sufficient II to provide convenient and safe access, circulation, control Iand street design. Blocks may not be longer than one thousand eight hundred ( 1 ,800) feet, or shorter than three hundred II(300) feet except where topography of surrounding development 1 limits ability to strictly comply or as specifically approved by the City Council to foster innovative design consistent with sound planning principles. Pedestrian ways may be required II on blocks longer than nine hundred (900) feet or in other 1 areas to provide access to schools , parks and other destination points . Easements for pedestrian ways shall be at least twenty III (20) feet wide and shall be located to minimize intersections 1 with streets. -i. 5 Lots. I 1 1 . Location. All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the Zoning Ordinance or on a private drive pursuant to § 6.2 Subd. 14. 2. Side Lot Lines. Side lines of lots shall be substantially III 1 at right angles to straight street lines or substantially radial to curved street lines . If 3. Drainage. Lots shall be graded to drain away from building locations. '14. Natural Amenities . Lots shall be placed to preserve and , 1 protect natural amenities , such as vegetation, wetlands , steep slopes , water courses and historic areas. '1 5. Lot Remnants. Lot remnants are prohibited. '? 6 . Hardship to Owners of Adjoining Property. Street arrange- II 1 ments for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue hard- ship to owners of adjoining 'property in subdividing their own land. 1 7. Double Frontage Lots. Double frontage lots with frontage Ili on two ( 2) parallel streets or reverse frontage shall not , be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector 1 street. Such lots shall have an additional depth of at least ten ( 10) feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage 1 It I -12- . 3 II 4 -- lots should face the front of existing structures across the street. If this cannot be achieved, then such lots shall have an additional depth of ten ( 10) feet to accommodate vegetation screening along the back lot line. 8 . Solar Orientation. Lot layouts should take into considera- tion the potential use of solar energy design features. 6 .6 Tree Removal and Conservation of Vegetation. 1 . Existing healthy trees and native vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible and shall be protected by adequate means during construction. 2. Unless already on site, at least one suitable tree shall be planted in the front yard setback on every lot. The type or species of trees planted shall be approved by the City. 3 . Consistent with approved grading plans , existing trees shall be preserved within any right-of-way when they are suitably located and in good health. 4. No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after development. 5 . All disturbed areas shall be seeded or sodded to prevent erosion. 6 . Detailed landscaping requirements shall be set forth in a development contract. 6 . 7 Erosion and Sediment Control . 1 . The development shall conform to the topography and soils to create the least potential for soil erosion; 2. The smallest practical increment of land shall be exposed at any one time during development; 3 . Detailed requirements for each plat shall be set forth in the development agreement. 6. 8 Drainage. The natural drainage system shall be used to the maximum extent feasible for the storage and flow of runoff. The following requirements shall also apply: 1 . Proposed drainage facilities shall have adequate capacity to accommodate potential runoff from their entire upstream drainage area, whether within or without the subdivision. The effect of the subdivision on existing downstream drainage areas outside the subdivision shall be considered in evaluating the adequacy of the storm water management plan; 2. The drainage system shall be constructed and operational as part of the first stage of development and construction. -13- JI _ ___ t,,_ I"' CITY OF . . II 1 \I ' CHANHASSEN , , , .., . - 1 ,,. •..„` 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 y= (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission 1 FROM: Larry Brown, Assistant City Engineer DATE: December 31, 1987 1 SUBJ: Stratford Ridge Preliminary Plat Approval II Planning Case 87-32 The proposed plat, Stratford Ridge, is located adjacent to 1 Minnewashta Parkway approximately 0 . 6 miles south of trunk high- way 7 . The 9 . 04 acre site consists of a rolling meadow with a Igrove of trees on the north side and a wetland on the northwest corner of the plat. The site is surrounded on three sides by undeveloped property, with the fourth being Minnewashta Parkway and Lake Minnewashta. 1 Submittal of the subject plat prompted a study by BRW to analyze future access to undeveloped parcels, access onto Minnewashta II Parkway, future utilities, and storm water runoff ( included in staff report) . The application of the report is not to dictate specific lot layouts for the surrounding parcels but to analyze 1 the requirements of Stratford Ridge such that future development may be accommodated. Of the two options presented in the report, option B was pre- 1 ferred over option A for the following reasons: Minnewashta Parkway serves as the collector road for the parcels I on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. The number of accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway is limited to two additional points for the review area. Option B provides for greater access from the east while providing a "back door" access from the north via II trunk highway 7 . Option B also facilitates the location of the existing lift sta- tion south of King' s Road, while keeping additional required sanitary sewer capacity in the existing sanitary sewer along Minnewashta Parkway to a minimum. IIIn light of the report conducted by BRW as it specifically re- lates to Stratford Ridge, the following items are presented for your consideration: 1 1 r I . Planning Commission December 31, 1987 Page 2 ' Sanitary Sewer ' Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to this site from an existing 10-inch line which extends along Minnewashta Parkway. The proposed manhole #2 should be lowered to its minimum elevation to provid future service north of the easterly ' proposed cul-de-sac. Trunk sizing of the sanitary sewer shall be reviewed as part ' of the plans and specifications submittal. Water Service Municipal water service is available to the site by an existing 12-inch watermain which also runs along Minnewashta Parkway. The plans propose a 6-inch watermain along the common lot line of Lots 7 and 8 , Block 1, for future service of areas to ' the south and to the west of the site. Again, trunk sizing will be investigated as part of the plans and specifications review. ' Roadway The applicant has provided for a 50-foot right-of-way for the ' access along the southeast corner of the plat and through Stratford Ridge Drive. This is in accordance with the City standards for urban construction. ' Although the access road does not intersect Minnewashta Parkway at right angles, the intersection is acceptable for the proposed use. Any additional traffic volumes which may ' be generated by future development would require provisions to be made for the access road to intersect Minnewashta Parkway at right angles. The gravel driveway shown on the south side of the plat serves as access for the parcel adjacent to the west side of Stratford Ridge. The applicant has provided for a 33-foot ' right-of-way to accommodate the driveway and a 17-foot per- petual road easement to facilitate the extension of the access road to the west should the need arise due to future ' development. Since the width of the proposed right-of-way along the ' southerly plat boundary changes from 50 feet to 33 feet, the westerly curb radius should be trunkated (refer to attachment #3 ) . The proposed curbing could serve as a traffic hazard to west- bound traffic. 1 Planning Commission December 31, 1987 ' Page 3 Drainage , The existing drainage pattern can be characterized by overland sheet flow. At present, 4 . 23 acres of the 9 . 04 acre site drains towards the northwest corner of the plat, while the remainder flows into Lake Minnewashta. The proposed stormsewer design redirects a portion of the drainage which used to flow to the wetland on the northwest corner of the plat, to the proposed retention pond on the southeast corner. This plan would reduce the offsite runoff to the wetland area by 44% . The applicant has provided a sedimentation/retention pond to ' maintain the predeveloped runoff rate. Although the pond meets the required capacity for a 100 year storm, the loca- tion will have to facilitate an eight-foot wide trail. Drainage easements for the retention pond should be adjusted should shifting of the pond be necessary. A revised plan should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer. Grading and Erosion Control The proposed grading plan indicates grading of the entire site. The applicant should provide the City with a tree removal plan. Additional erosion control should be placed along the south ' side of Lots 1, 9 and 10 of Block 1. Erosion control shall consist of staked hay bales and snow fence. The City' s stan- dard detail for Type II erosion control should be added to the grading plan. Staked hay bales will also be required around all stormsewer inlets. Recommended conditions : 1 . The applicant should supply the City with a tree removal plan. 2 . Type II erosion control, staked hay bales and snow 1 fence, shall be placed along the south side of Lots 1 , 9 and 10 of Block 1. 3 . A typical detail for Type II erosion control, staked hay bales and snow fence, shall be placed on the grading plan. ' 4 . Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3:1. 5 . All streets and utilities shall be constructed in accordance to the city standards for urban construction. , 1 Planning Commission ' December 31 , 1987 Page 4 ' 6 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading. ' 7 . The applicant shall enter a development agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial sureties as a part of this agreement for completion ' of the improvements . 8 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all con- ditions of the watershed district permit. 9 . The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to i=s mini- mum possible elevation such that service from the ' north of the easterly proposed cul-de-sac may be facilitated. 10 . The applicant shall provide for a 20-foot trail ease- ment along Minnewashta Parkway. If shifting of the ponding site is necessary, a revised plan shall be ' submitted for approval by the City Engineer. 11. Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the entire ponding site should shifting of the pond be ' necessary. 12 . The curb radius as shown in attachment #3 shall be replaced by a curb transition section as shown in attachment #4 . ' Attachments : 1 . Location Map 2 . Curb Detail 3 . Transition Detail I J ./( 2ND WI1 T �1�► • 4l4ti illtibillifillki\:) - I di . . a■ %jam` ♦ . • ' trz2 *is.,A Ima ' � �� . 31S �n!!A� ■ jl.. ..v. . ,_ 0 LL ; ■O� M� a War � LAKE �-�1 1 iy.y. , 144 7 M / N N E W :T,'�T.. ' A S H T A 1 RD �� PUD-R KINGS ROAD R - i \ 111) 1 •ST✓ E Elk._ 7 I - � R 1-t:- 4 lopoN• ; x - i ..`",./ripar, :pituniWINU0, . ' 4 iv _ v• ,,,---- , . ■�,`, MAPLE SHORES �- t 1. DRIVE c 1 „. _.., . . _.. ._ _.. . I� i, /,. -,,„„r: .:• _,„..i....„....,, .....,.- , --a_ IRMO MEW iMiNik i V�; � ' , „ , -„&,/,.. MOM WNW I ..., .,. wg*4L- _ , (,...., 1 1 - - _ _ _ .y..�.. .....:..: .,.- - - _rte,-.-. _ :" ( 1 f I . I sAo- „„.....•..., f • ;i . f• .-, , I 1 --...,..„.,.....„.„,,, I 7 _---_.-.----,-..-- i --^--.•...,_.,._...,„,,,...„..., _,...,. ,....„....„...., i ( f -...„, I ••10' \ \ III. =mamma • : . 011111■1, . M-61.1”....... 988 ........ ...... .... -,...... \ .., ---...„,.., IS: . , \ ,... ,...... ,..s ..k.. .... I . 1 ' •'------- ss\ \ • , \ . r.' ›"....,„„...„ I . —4,--111. x ri .. . •.7.17 ,46.....■..■... 5 A -- - 1 ...,----..,, .............,,„ I I 1 '\ 1 1 -,....._;,.__ . :4, \ ,,, \ \FL 11' 1 , 1: ''..-- ------'\\B‘L:K.\\I, \ ‘.1 I\ ‘ ,, \ FL, 93:4:: l.- ....,--f 1 , I r 2 • a<C137.4 984. ..., FL .... -...„.„ ,-( ,. • 1 .,.. , . ,....„_,,...,(,\ tar? i- I -, .4,.,•20(;':.:3 I \' 1 984 ' 984.5 I - • 984.5 • 9:4.5 .11, ' \am ........, 7.1.0\........ oir,,-I • 9'841 ( I .9.1) \., I.:- \ STRATFORD RIDGZ DP I --*.(.2421) --.. 980A , -.. - - . ‘,- 400' (982.3) (981 ) . ' • 4) f ,..t ,-, Lsiteiliz.v..7 IN. _OW a -N. e " • .:, ve .'- _I(9820 • ‘-) I 1,0 9 \... \ ...-- .... _ \ A „ .., „N... • _.......____ 992. .. 4 1 ,......._ 98 .5 \ .4 9855' ,. . . o-...1 -...., . .,..t. I S E WO , \ WO , ....•° '11'7-41 Tn CDi - ----74---we ... —.. ........- ......,912' ''', 1... .'- i ......____ ...........■ ni ■ 1 -------,- ,.. •••••• •••••= ••••1•0 ••••••• I MP . ■•■•• amINEND 411111111 INOWNINP- 98w 1-'97 7.5"'".""1■4 -. / .....__ . . ( i 1 , I ! \. \ 9 ,\-.0” . '\ ..e. •,,,,,,..JO i 30' ...,,,, 41•....awse # 30' --- K. I/ 976 II •' ''.(:.r't 1.•.'.,-,••-- , '',. i.. Li,,-;.;.....m. 6. ,....■• - _ ". . ,,..... ,... - I - .._ . 2 - ix - END Cog‘- -to -...., - , ____. _ ___ • a _ - ...... I r .4- ,...4 ..-C7 in. ' ■...,, 2 I n, ' 1_Ltiz_17(' ./ MATCH EXISTING I ...s..., . !, ,1 - LITle_ Parchei WI t I) ROADWAY 1 Cit. SUMOUNTABLE CURB AND GUTTER • cy 2 • CURB TAPER TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT ENDS OF ALL CURB AND . GUTTER THAT DO NOT CONNECT TO IN PLACE CURBS. CONSTRUCT TAPER BEYOND END OF CURB RETURN RADIUS AT STREET INTERSECTIONS. COST OF TAPER TO BE INCIDENTAL TO SURMOUNTABLE CURB AND GUTTER. • TAPER ' R DET,aIL 1 1 1 1 1 1 I is I �i iC . l�'42L. . Al W # /J H L. t CITY OF CHANHASSEN WETLAND EVALUATION WORKSHEET IREFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS COMMENTS 0./24 G 32-4/3 . . ICYe-a-rvz,��. �C (5 /2-4-4, O'C c own o✓t �-t �� ' RECOMMENDATION 2_e .Lt ti at _ /vi 4- c.v.-L._ is,. 1 DATE OF INSPECTION / 0 /�r'-,�� SIGNATURE �t L , ef2A.r-c-et kt6 I . 1 i General Specifications for Construction of Wetland for Wildlife The basin will have: • freeform (not even-sided) shape to increase shoreline 1 length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting birds; • shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for at 1 least 30% of the shoreline to encourage .growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife; • uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation; 1 • layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin and the slopes to provide a suitable substrate for-aquatic vegetation; 1 • water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland; • fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the b asi n to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � NTOFO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY \tit ST PAUL DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS ,?,N�l,€t 1n, 1135 U.S.POST OFFICE&CUSTOM HOUSE ai �I ST PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101.1479 November 5, 1987 SrA Tl50l"r REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Construction-Operations Regulatory Functions (88-217N-74) 1 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen ' City of Chanhassen Assistant Planner P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Re: Stratford Ridge by Robert Pierce -- place sand for beach enhancement; Lake Minnewashta; Sec(s). 5, T. 116 N. , R. 23 W. ; Carver County, MN. ' We have reviewed the information provided us about your project. The work is authorized by a nationwide Department of the Army permit, provided the enclosed conditions and management practices are followed. This determination covers only the project referenced above. Should you change the design, location, or purpose of the work, contact us to make sure a violation would not occur. Our telephone number is (612) 725-7557. It is your responsibility to insure that the work complies with the terms of this letter and the enclosures. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CONFIRMATION ' LETTER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR STATE, LOCAL, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS. This authorization expires on January 12, 1992. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Vern Reiter at (612) 725-7776. Sincerely, Enclosure(s) en Wop 6 Chief, egulatory Functions Branch ' Construction-Operations Division Determination: Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations 330.5 (a) (26) CITY OF CHANHASSEN At° .n NOV� 9 1987 r CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. I MINNESOTA ' 1 Authority for the following activities is given at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): I] 330.5(a)(26) Discharges of dredged or fill material into the waters ' listed in paragraphs (a)(26)(i) and (ii) of this section except those which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 10 acres or more of such waters of the United States, including wetlands. For discharges which cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of one to ten acres of such waters,including wetlands, notification to the district engineer is required in accordance with Section 330.7 of this section. (Section 404) (i) Non-tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes an impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located above the head waters. (ii) Other non-tidal waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands, that are not part of a surface tributary system to interstate waters or navigable waters of the United States (i.e. , isolated waters). Regional Conditions [ ] Majority of the Project Requires State Permits and/or Approvals Any person intending to discharge dredged or fill material into Minnesota- designated "Protected Waters" shall submit an application to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) before beginning work. Activities are authorized under this nationwide permit after the applicant obtains all applicable Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and/or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permits and approvals. Work may proceed upon receipt of all applicable MDNR and/or MPCA permits and approvals. Other State and local authorizations may be required. This discharge of dredged or fill material would cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of: [X] Less than one acre of waters of the United States [ ] Between 1 and 10 acres of waters of the United States 1 Encl 1 (See reverse side. ) I 11 - f 1 1 ' Regional Conditions (continued) [ ] Majority of the Project Does Not Require State Permits and/or Approvals This nationwide permit is subject to Regional Conditions that allow only ' projects that would drain, fill, or inundate an area of LESS THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET of waters of the United States. The project involves a discharge of dredged or fill material into the following area(s): - [_] TROUT STREAMS - the head waters (and adjacent wetlands) and the IItributaries (and adjacent wetlands) of these streams. [ ] FEDERAL WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS (ST. CROIX RIVER) - all head waters ' (and adjacent wetlands) of these streams. [_] LAKES/WETLANDS LARGER THAN 10 ACRES - all wetlands adjacent to these head water lakes and wetlands. These areas are identified by MDNR on their "Public Waters/Wetlands Inventory" maps. [ ] STATE PROTECTED WATERS LARGER THAN 10 ACRES - wetlands 1 adjacent to these isolated waters. These lakes are identified by MDNR on their "Public Waters/Wetlands Inventory" maps. i 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 • The following SPECIAL CONDITIONS must be followed in order for the nationwide permits to be valid: • 1. That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake; 2. That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by paragraph (a)(4) of this section; 3. That the activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered Species Act or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. 4. That the activity shall not significantly disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound water); S. That any discharge of dredged or fill material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollu- tants in toxic amounts; 6. That any structure or fill authorized shall ba properly maintained. 7. That the activity will not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; nor in a river officially designated by Congress as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status; 8. That the activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with navigation; 9. That, if the activity may adversely affect historic properties which the National Park Service has listed on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the permittee will notify the District Engineer. If the permittee encounters a historic property that has not been listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register, but which may be eligible for listing on the National Register, he/she will notify the District Engineer. 10. That the construction or operation of the activity will not impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights; 11. That in certain states, an individual state water quality certification must be obtained or waived; 12. That in certain states, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived; 13. That the activity will comply with regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer; 14. That the management practices shall be followed to the maximum extent practicable. (See reverse side.) A NE UN MI IN i ES MI MN NE MI ! EN MI N - MI NM The following MANAGEMENT PRACTICES shall be followed, to the maximum extent practicable, in order to minimize the adverse effects of these discharges on the aquatic environment Failure to comply with these practices may be cause' for the District Engineer to recommend, or the Division Engineer to take, discretionary authority to regulate the activity on en individual or regional basis pursuant to Section 330.8 of this part. 1. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States shall be avoided or minimized through the use of other practical alternatives. 2. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons shall be avoided. • 3. Discharges shall not restrict or impede the movement of aquatic species indigenous to the waters or the passage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the /IN fill is to impound waters). • 4. If the discharge creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of water and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized. 5. Discharge in wetland areas shall be avoided. 6. Heavy equipment working in wetlands shall be placed on mats. 7. Discharge into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl shall be avoided. 8. All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety. Nationwide permits do not obviate the need to obtain other federal, state or local authorizations required by law, do not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges, do not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others, nor do they authorize interference with any existing or proposed federal project. Modification, Suspension or Revocation of Nationwide Permits: The Chief of Engineers may modify, suspend, or revoke nationwide permits in accordance with the relevant procedures of 33 CFR 325.7. Such authority includes, but is not limited to: adding individual, regional, .or nationwide conditions; revoking authorization for a category of activities or a category of waters by requiring individual or regional permits; or revoking an authorization on a case-by-case basis. This authority is not limited to concerns for the aquatic environment as is the discretionary authority in section 330.8. I. ITY OF tic DATE: Oct. 27 , 1987 1 C.C. DATE: ClIANEASS:111 CASE NO: 87-32 SUB Prepared by: Sietsema/v II 1 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 9 .04 Acres into 15 Single Family Lots" z 1 LOCATION: West side of Lake Minnewashta, approximately $ mile south of Highway 7 APPLICANT: Robert Pierce 1 440 North Arm Mound, MN 55364 1 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family Y ACREAGE: 9 . 04 acres 1 ADJACENT ZONING RSF EXISTING PARKS: There are no parks in this area. Minnewashta Regional Park is located on the east side of Lake Minnewashta. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this as II a park deficient area. The trail plan W identifies Minnewashta Parkway as high priority for a trail system. This development lies within the MUSA line. (f' 1 I _ Robert Pierce ( Stratford Ridge) October 27 , 1987 Page 2 ' BACKGROUND This area is a park deficient area, most significantly in neigh- borhood park facilities. However, this area has not been iden- tified as potential parkland and it may be unreasonable to require dedication of over half the total site. Efforts should continue to be made to acquire the land around Lake St. Joe ask depicted in the Comprehensive Plan. Trail needs should not be overlooked. Minnewashta Parkway has ' been identified for a linear system in the trail plan. Current residents in this area have made it clear that a trail system along Minnewashta Parkway is very important to them. ' It has not yet been determined where the trail along Minnewashta Parkway will be located, most likely it will have to cross the road at some point. As the grades are prohibitive for a trail ' system on the east side of the road, a trail easement should be obtained along the west side. ' RECOMMENDATION It is the recommendation of this office to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to request a trail easement of 20 le feet along the west side of Minnewashta Parkway. As this trail easement will have minimal impact on the development, it is recommended that trail dedication fees be required as well. Update, October 27 , 1987 ' The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the City accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to ' request a 20 ft. trail easement along the west side of Minnewashta Parkway. As this is an easement along the rear lot lines , the Commission recommended no credit be given toward trail dedication fees . 1 (7 47 . ' Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 27, 1987 - Page 12 Curt Robinson: Are you saying a typical gravel then and not bituminous? Jim Mady: Since all it's going to be is basically an access to the park, there ' s no reason to right now. Curt Robinson: So it 's Lori Alternative #1? 1 Lori Sietsema: This item will be going to City Council within the next two weeks to a month and I will send out a letter with the staff report on the agenda to that meeting. If you'll leave your name and address here I'll make sure I get that to you. I won't be doing a mass mailing again so if you're not on my list or you don't call me and tell me you want to be notified, you won' t be. Thank you. SITE PLAN REVIEW, STRATFORD RIDGE, ROBERT PIERCE. ' Lori Sietsema: This subdivision is along Minnewashta Parkway and I thought of trails. Basically, it's 9 acres and they are proposing to subdivide it into 15 single family lots located on the west side of Lake Minnewashta about 1/4 mile south of TH 7. This is Minnewashta Parkway. I called up Mark immediately and asked him, when he was driving by and checking out Minnewashta Parkway, which side he thought the trail would likely go on once we got to that point and he said quite honestly it's going to have to cross. We're not going to be able to get it on one side or the other all the way down. It's just inevitable but in this section you can see the contours. It's quite steep down to the lake. The other side didn't look nearly as steep but I think there still is contours in there. What I'm proposing to get a trail easement along Minnewashta Parkway. Because that trail should have a minimum impact on the homes there, because it will be their rear lot lines, I'm proposing that they still would be subject to the trail dedication fee. We are park deficient in this area. Lake St. Joe has been earmarked on the land use plan as eventually some day owning that for a park in that area. Again, our policy has been to have neighborhood parks of no less than 5 acres. If we were to take 5 acres from this site, he'd have less than half of his development left to develop and I don't think that's right either. I'm recommending that we accept park dedication fees in lieu of land and still keep our eyes on Lake St. Joe. I don't know that we're going to get an active park in this area but if we get a trail along Minnewashta Parkway and get a passive park at Lake St. Joe, I think we'll have served those people to a pretty good degree. I think they'll be pretty happy with that . With that I ' ll take any comments or questions . Carol Watson: I think you were quite right. It would be unreasonable to have him dedicate over half of his potentially developable land for park use. Besides that, when you look at this piece of land, it's really weird . Jim Mady: It is halfway between the two roads and that would be nice I rom that respect. However, I think Lake St. Joe, if we went with the 1 Park and Rec Commission Meeting October 27 , 1987 - Page 13 north side of Lake St. Joe, that would be the best place to put a park if Iwe could get it which is something that will be discussed later on in the agenda. As far as I'm concerned, you're right. We need to take a little money. I don't believe that getting a 20 foot easement hurts the Iproperty owner in any way and there is no reason . . . Lori Sietsema: And again, if we can put the trail within the street right-of-way, that's optimal as always, that's what we would do and then Iwe would be able to give that easement back. Larry Schroers: I like direction that things are going and I also like Ithe idea of a passive park by Lake St. Joe rather than an active but I think that area is park deficient as far as active parks are concerned also. I'm wondering about that area directly to the north of King's Road Iwhere it says RSF. As far as I'm aware, that's a pretty large open area back in there. I think that we should maybe consider looking at that area. Keeping out eyes on that with the intent of possibly having a more active type of park in that area. IJim Mady: Maybe just combine the two. Put the two together. All we really need is one ballfield and something big enough for a soccerfield Iand then put a large passive area in the back by the road and a path down to the lake. Sue Boyt : Is the area to the west developable? ILarry Schroers: No. That's farmland. Kind of like abandoned farmland back there mostly. There's really nothing going on there at all. There ' is an abandoned railroad right-of-way further to the west back there that goes from Excelsior to Victoria . Robinson moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission Irecommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and request a trail easement of 20 feet along the west side of Minnewashta Parkway and that trail dedication fees be required as well. All voted in favor ' and motion carried . REQUEST TO UPGRADE HOCKEY RINKS AT CITY CENTER PARK. I Lori Sietsema: Dave Hansen was the gentleman that was sitting over there and he left with me what he wanted to say. Originally his request included turning the hockey rinks so we wouldn't have to go through one ll to get to the other. I realize that that is an inconvenience if you're playing a game, to stop play everytime somebody wants to get across. It's ii ill unfortunate that it was designed that way. I believe that most hockey rinks are faced the way that our rinks are simply because when the sun reflects off of the hockey boards, you end up having a wet spot on that side of the ice rink. If you turn them the other way, you're going to ki.., have one whole length of your ice rink that's going to have water on it nd that's why you try to keep it to a smaller spot. Dave realizes that I . tr 47 .., CITY OF I 1 `` _ . „ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector 41 1 1 DATE: September 25, 1987 1 SUBJ: Stratford Ridge It is the recommendation of the fire inspection department that a 1 ramp be installed in the area of the proposed timber wall. This would replace the steps . The ramp would aid greatly in any II rescue that might occur. Also, this would be an advantage to any handicapped person who might use the area. All other aspects of the plan that I reviewed meets the Fire Code. 1 it 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 II II �N ;,,I, WATERSHED BOUNDARY N N ; - _ l� ,�,0, M l N p fy y A�`F 9 I HED 0\ C044. MIRINIEHAHA CREEK LAKE MINNETONKA I WATERSHED DISTRICT P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MU ESOTA FINER IBOARD OF MANAGERS: David H.Cochran,Pres. •Albert L.Lehman •John E.Thomas Camille D.Andre •James R.Spensley • Richard R.Miller • Michael R.Carroll II II September 28, 1987 City of Chanhassen I Attn: JoAnn Olsen, Asst. City Planner 690 Colter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 II Re: Stratford Ridge IDear Ms. Olsen: We have received the information you forwarded concerning the 9 acre sub-division called Stratford Ridge. IIThe development appears feasible and will require a permit review and approval by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. ISome of the District's concerns in development of this type include that: 1. The rate of stormwater runoff from the site shall not increase as a result II of the proposed development. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with return frequencies of 1 and 100 years. 1 2. The quality of stormwater runoff leaving the site after development shall be equivalent to runoff quality for the existing condition. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with a return frequency of one year. 3. Appropriate erosion control methods are in place to prevent the transport of sediments off-site during and after construction. 1 4. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area be completed with seed and mulch or sod. IIThank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 473-4224. II Sincerely, EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES II Engi eers /for t e District 6 ` REC W ED IKevin Larson, Engineer OCT 0 5 1987 cc: Board CITY OF CHANHAN T G. Macomber II United States ( Soil Department of Conservation 219 East Frontage Road Agriculture Service Waconia, Minnesota 55387 subject: Stratford Ridge Date" October 23, 1987 (87-32 SUB, 87-17 CUP) ' To Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner File code City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, P. 0. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 Attached you will find a soil map sheet with approximate plat boundaries marked and single sheet interpretations for each soil on the property. Soil information in this report is for general planning uses and is not site specific. Specific questions at specific locations should be addressed by a qualified engineer. ' The Hayden soils (Ha) of the site are generally suited to building site de- velopment. Shrink swell and frost action in this soil may damage paved sur- faces and footings if not properly designed. Temporary high water tables ' may be encountered in the Ha soil type. The principle limitation to development appears to he site slope. Erosion during and after construction should be controlled. Please consider the following recommendations: 1. An erosion control plan should be prepared and specify the type and timing ' of erosion control practices to be applied. Grading and stabilizing the site in stages would reduce the total sediment generated at any one time. 2. The beach and bank area east of the parkway could become unstable if foot traffic is not confined to stable areas. Any construction on the bank should be done with the approval of a qualified engineer. , 3. The responsibility for inspection and maintenance of beach area facilities should be assigned so people and money will be available to provide up keep in the years ahead. 6 .nle Wendland Distr ct Conservationist OCT 2 6 1987 7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' The Soil Conservation Service £ I h 0 is an agency of the CJ I) United States Department of Agriculture \bt.,rpe CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA r r HENNEPIN COUNTY R.23 � • 3.� LsA' i Ali•.....�k '=.e° yy fT 1 • ti 4 H8�2 �(}la8 i LsA Nit c -"ti , • - ( )CX44HaZT r ``, ---1';'-1 :-. 1.1::} " F' 'L 1 ss Paz ti - _ � ' 9 rtr� _'• a� ..rrd ,.r -Hae2 Il- Iia6 � „�-1 ✓� �. r tip+ -,tr- - i. ' %�,�' I -,, D+ r S+s+a r t • 7Y * *Sr H2G2 `Y f�]3.∎ _ 47 M x A r .. 7-;;,,ial' --.a y,. ;.e ry} i i ¢ V{� 9\; -..i• Y's�' is t,..� •.• 3.. '4, /y �; -� �� 3 r. . /,fir•�,• ' � cS_ _.. ; 1 . r tj�/7r/✓r,K--� -'+s ,.rf ,�`5 11M - ' .- '' •�e,HaB s.• i it”:" .•i x -�iTt ^^y'4 - Ha6 In ki`_ t - 1 �; -may t° drl� e.`t` k � s'..+ t L ��w. �� 1 S _ ._ HaC /i- 1,rj � 1„ y z; Yl A e A. _ y . �HaC2 • rSa;4� t7 Pd ` t t ; it Eit,. ..F4,:=:= _ HaE2 r y +• ; Y,-:--`. HaE2 y °{tp°- aD �P r'1 a ., s O - oo s. -/ '�'Y \<"'. - A. .{ of .j`'b o. , . ' ✓ .. yr ft r�, - .t.,i A . . ,t u,,;:,,,,',:f.-.4.,-. .' , _ FF �/ , rn 9 1,4+M1if'1lY+i�► •`i�a [y -� r�i �,,/� Ie�''`'--.,..4,-, -. Pd /, r1.. ► e 6 •14 a ;. a y •.t' HaL � HaD , 11 HaB_., . II, ti�D ii °o° HaC2 0111r; 1� �� szaF;'t` %. E,, ` `'i„ Plat. • -e i .. a...4. +y .. I tinit '` dat; • , Ge �nii}'Breeding Far f� � ,.H G2 Ha + u►� HaC2 d\- t f 11Ia6 y,y 4� a ��c ,7sl�t�y7� HcD3`Ha82 7-''' 4 s \ r k r c 0, ldl�: '-HcD3 HAD d�c ... f LsA '.• T r� 4� P�'� HaE2 I I I 0 I 'I Mile Scale 1:1 C. C . III MR0060 SOIL INTERPRETATIONS RECORD • PC.RA(S): 90, 103, 91 • RATDER SERIES I REV. LLB, 6-84 ' TTPIC BAPLADAL.FS, FINE-LOAMY, NIXED, MEDIC . THE HAIDERN SERIES CONSISTS OF DEEP WELL DRAINED SOILS FORMED IN GLACIAL TILL UNDER DECIDDOOS FOREST OW GROUND AND I TERMINAL MORAINES. THE SURFACE LAYER IS VERY DARE GRAY LOAN 2 =HES TRICE. TEE SUBSURFACE LATER IS DART: GRATIS!! BROWN LOAN 7 INKS TRICE. THE SUBSOIL IS BROWN AND TEL,) ISM BROWN LOAN AND CLAY LOAN 34 INCHES THICK. TEE SUBSTRATUM IS LIGHT OLIVE BROWN LOAM. SLOPES RANGE FROM 0 TO SO PERCENT. ARLES ARE DSID FOR CROPLPIIE), PASTORE:LAID AND WOODLAND. 1 ESTIMATED SOIL PY)PELIIES (A) DEPTH', TRRCT'PLRCDFT OF MATERIAL LESS -LIQUID FLAS- I (IN.)I USDA TEXTURE 1 UNIFIED UNTO >3 IN THAW 3" PASSING SIEVE NO. LIMIT :TICITT (POT] 4 1 96-1170615-96 IO 40 1 700 - INDEX 0-9 L, SIT., SCL EEL, CL-EL, CL A-4 0 100 0-50 20-30 i1 4-10 0-9 ESL, SL BM, SM-SC, SC A-4 0 100 95-100 65-85 35-50 20-30 WP-P 0-9 CL CL 1-7 0 95-100 90-100 80-95 70-80 40-50 115-25 9-43 CL, L CL 1-7, 1-6 0 95-100 90-100 80-95 55-75 30-50 15-26 43-601L, SL, ?St CL, SC A-6, A-4 0-5 95-100 90-100 75-90 35-70 20-35 8-15 DEPLFICLA1 NoIS1 sou; PE/WA- } AVAILABLE SOIL 1 SALINITY nit- EmsION*WIND ORGANIC` MOST\ITT CT MVl (IW.)'(P1' DENSITY 1 SILITY 'WATER CAPACITY REACTION'( OS/CM) SWELL I?ACTORS'LtOD.IMATTER 1 1 CO/CREW) (IN/BR) 1 (1'N/IN) (PH) P4YDR'IALi GROUP' (PCT) ' - 1 0-9 $10-2511.40-1.60 0.6-2.0 0.20-0.22 5.6-7.3 - ROW .32 5 6 .5-1 LOW Roomy!! 0-9 1 5-15 1.45-1.70 2.0-6.0 0.14-0.18 5.6-7.3 - LOW .32, 5 3 .5-1 0-9 08-3511.50-1.65 0.6-2.0 0.16-0.20 5.6-7.3 - MODERATE .32 5 6 _ .5-1 9-43118-35'1.50-1.65 0.6-2.0 0.15-0.19 5.1-7.3 - MODERATE .32 43-60;15-27,1.65-1.80 0.6-2.0 0.14-0.19 7.4-8.4 j - LOW .32 11llSSii..EEi FL0CD1RG' - HIGH FAMES T - CEDE TED PAN ' IDRDCK 'SUBSIDENCE OTYD1PD'YENT'L (PT) :,\•.,`i •e• .,\••..• t` _t iCRP' TEOS:ACTION I >6.0 (ILL) 1 , (0) 1 1 WIN (IN) f E (MODERATE: SANITARY FACILITIES j CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL 0-8%: NODERATE-PERCS SLOWLY 0-154: GOOD SEPTIC TANK 8-15%: MODERATE-PESOS SLOWLY,SLOPE 1 15-25%: TAIR-SWPE ABSORPTION 15+%: SEVERE-SLOPE I ROADFILL 25+%: P00R-SLOPE FIELD 1 , 0-7%: MODERATE-SIMFAGE . W �; IMPROBABLE-EXCESS TINES SEWAGE 2-7%: MODERATE-SEEPAGE,SPE I III LAGOON 74.%: SEVERE-SLOPE ,, SAND AS ARE 0-8%: MODERATE-TOO CLAYEY , IMPROBABLE-FECESS FINS SANITARY 8-15%: MOD ERATE-SLOPE,TCO CLAYEY LANDFILL 15+%: SEVERE-SLOPE y( GRAVEL (TRENCH) 1 0-84: SLIM' 0-8% L,SIL,FSL,SL: FAIR-SMALL STONES SANITARY 8-15%: MODERATE-SLOPE 8-15% L,SIL,TSL,SL: FAIR-SMALL SYONES,SLOPE LANDFILL 15+1: SEVERE-SLOPE TOPSOIL 0-8% SCL,CL: FAIR-TOO CLATEY,SMALL STONES (AREA) 8-15% SCL,CL: FAIR-TO0 CLATET,SNALL STONES I 0-8% FAIR-TOO CLAYEY 15+t: POOR-SLOPE DAILY 8-15%: FAIR-T00 CLATEY,SLOPE RATER MOAGENDM COVER FOR 15+%: POOR-SLOPE 0-3%: MODERATE-SEEPAGE LANDFILL I POND 3-8%: MODERATE-SEEPAGE,SIAPE I RESERVOIR 54%: SEVERE-SLOPE AREA BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT D-8%: SLIGH7 SLIGHT SHALLOW 1 8-15%: MODERATE-SLOPE MUNIMENTS YJ(GVATIONS ' 15+4: SEVERE-SLOPE DIKES AND III I LEVEES li 0-8%: I406ERATE-SHRINE-SWELL SEVERE-W0 MATER DWELLINGS 8-15%: MODERATE-SHRINE-SNELL,SLOPE EXCAVATED . WITHOUT 15+%: SEVERE-SLOPE PONDS NASD EWTS AQUIFER FED III 0-8%: MODERATE=SBRINT=SWELL DEEP TO RATER • DWELLINGS 6-15%: ERATE-SLOPE,S RINK-SWELL RITE 15'%: SEVERE-SLOPE DRAINAGE 1 0-41: PODERATE-SHRIRK-SWELL ' 0-3% L,SIL,SCL,CL: FAVORABLE SMALL 1 4-8%: MODDXTE-SHRINA-SWELL,SLOPE 3+% L,SIL,SCL,CL: SLOPE III COMMERCIAL ' 8«%: SEVERE-SLOPE IRRIGATION 0-3% FSL,SL: SOIL BLOWING BUILDINGS 1 1+% FSL,SL: SOIL NEOWING,SLOPE 0-151: EEVEP.E-IOR SIRE GTRR 0-1(% L,SIL,T+CL,CL: FAVORABLE I IACAL 154%: SEVERE-LOW STRENGTH,SWPE TERRACES 8+%L,SIL,BCL,CL: SLOPE ROADS AND Alt 0-8% ESL": SOIL BLOWING STREETS DIVERSIONS 8.4 FBL,SLI SOPL,BOIL ELOWIRNE LARKS, 0-8%:3LIG°T D-J%: FAVORABLE I LANDSCAPING 8-15%; MODERATE-SLOPE GRASSED 8+%: SLOPE AND GOLF 15+%: SEVERE-SLOPE WAITERNESS /AIRWAYS AND ) D-`P% UP� -RESTOREL IRfERPRETATIOS harm l ISATLAND 1 18-251: GROUP 2 I 1 25+%: GROUT 8 . III t HAYDEN SEAT'S 0-81: SLIGHT 0.n: 8-1st RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODERATE-SLOPE 2-6%: MODERATE-SLOP! CAMP AREAS : 1541: SEVERE-SLOPE PLAYGROUNDS 64%: SEVERE-SLOPE I 0-81: SLIGNTT 0-151: BLIGHT MODERATE-SLOPE PATHS 15-25%: IUDLRATL-SLOP' PICNIC AREAS, 154%: SEVERE-SLOPE A!D 25.1: SEVERE-SLOPE I I I CLASS - CAPABILITY CAPABILITY ANL YIELDS PER ACRE OT CSSIPS• -PASTURE .BIGHT3VE,MANAGEMENT) CAPA- CORN SOYBEANS OATS GRASS- i -; F DETERMINING BILSTT LEGUME HAY ALFALFA BLUEGRASS 1 PHASE (BD) (BO) (BO) (TONS) (ADM) (ADM) I D-b1 IE 1 112 35 76 4.5 { 6.5 3.5 ' i . �•� 2-6% ERODED 22 110 34 74 4.3 6.5 1.5 3.5 6-17ERODED 3L 108 33 72 4.1 6.5 4.0 6.0 6-12% ERODED 3E 103 31 68 6-12% SEE' ER 42 85 20 50 1.4 4.6 2.5 12-18%. 12-18% ERODED 4E 95 30 60 3.8 5.2 3.0 I 18-24% 6L - - 3.0 4.5 3.0 18-24% ERODED 6E 3.0 4.5 2.0 17-24% SEV ER 24-50% n ' - - -- - 1.5 24-50% ERODED 7E - - - 1.5 I WOODLAND SITE B1LI'T CLASS- DETERMINING ��"'�T PROBLEMS POTENTIAL PRODUCTIVITY DLTT'R�IINING STS LAOS'h1Ex)UIP.1SEEDL.IVINDTB)PLANT 1 C0MON TREES IISIT''PR061 TRIES TO Pt7W7 PHASE RAZAIm'LIHIT 1BORT'YIBAZARD1COPO'E : 'I1DI CLAS 1-15% 4A,SLIGHT�SLIGHTISLIGf�Y:SLIGET,SLIGHT;NORTHERN RED OAT 69 4 INACB WALNUT 15-35% 4R !DOER. S DER.ISLIGHT:SLIGHT:SLIGHT:AMER/CAN BASSWOOD 69 3 NORTHERN RID OAF 35'l 49 SEVEREISE'VERE SLIGBT'SLIGBT'SLIGHTISDGAR MAPLE AMERICAN BASSWOOD IBLACK WALNUT 62 SILVER MAPLE EASTERN WHITE PING 64 9 SMITE CAR WHITE OAT 62 3 i 1 • IMASS-DL^.ETdIIN'G PHASE SPECIEH 'HT SPECIES �)*RTI SPECIES BT ' EASTERN RFT;E PINE 30�GREE21 ASP SPECIES AT, 1t REDOSIER DOGWOOD 12 RUSSIAN-OLIVE �25iiAIOA MAP 25'GRAY O REDCIDAR 161 SIBERIAN PEASIIRUB 10 LILAC 251AMUR MAPLE 21 GRAY DOGWOOD 11 I �13 NORTHERN WHIT'-CEDAR 16 BLITZ SPRUCE 22 11 I i7IIDLIFE HABITAT SUITASTI ' i CLASS- POTENTIAL POT FABITAT =MUMS POTENTIAL AS HABITAT FOR: CLASS- DETERMINING •It` trill. , - • •01.4.1 )ale` a• q:1` • •• :1 11h ••.'•1 •W••• • •• /1 •, I 3-61 PHASE ' SEED LEG1j)a HERB. ' TPffi PLANTS I - ' WA �WIIDLF NILDLF NTLDL.F 'BADLY }6-Net FAD GO o ( OODD i GOOD � I 'v PODR1v. p GDaD GDGD v. PooRI 16't GOOD POOH FAIR GOOD - V. POOR V. POOR GOOD GOOD V. POOP - GOOD GOOD V. POORIV. POOR FAIR GOOD V. POOH POTETIAL p1TIVE 1 C0MNITY IRANIGELANDNOR MUST ''.,,q. •• VrttrTATiofr, PLANT PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION CURT WE 0PY7 BT�CLASS DETERMINING PHASE COMMON PLANT NAME SYMBOL 1 - (WLSPN) 1 . I • . ■ I IPOTENTIAL PRODUCTION (LSS./AC. DRY NT): FAVORABLE ORM YEARS YEARS IQRI.AL I UNFAVORABLE YEARS A BASED OW TEST DATA of 7 PEDONS. OTES YUCTI ! WINDBREAK GROUP 3. ' I a 140024 BOIL IMTERPIETATIOMS RECORD _III MLRA(S)t 90, 103 NOVA SERIES REV. EV,ELB, 2-87 TYPIC ARGIAQUOLIS, "/NE-LOANLY, MUD, MSIC I TM! CORDOVA SERIES CONSISTS 0? DEEP, POORLY DRAINID BOILS PC18!O IR LOAMY GLACIAL TILL ORDER MIXED BAIDIIOODS AND GRASSES IN DRAINAGIYAYS AND IN FLATS IN UPLANDS. THE SURFACE SOIL IS SLACK AND VERY DARR GRAY SILTY CLAY LOAM 14 I) THICK. THE SUBSOIL IS OLIVE GRAY SILTY CLAY LOAN IN UPPER 8 ACHES AND DARK GRAY AND GRAY MOTTLED CLAY LOAM IN LOITER 17 INCHES. THE SUBSTRATUM IS OLIVE MOTTLED CLAY LOAM. SLOPES ARE 0 TO 2 PERCENT. OMAN) IS THE MAIN USE. ESTIMATEVSVI rp)Oi w IES (A) DMA; TTRACT PERCENT OF MATERIAL LESS LIQUID -PLAS- (3N.)I USDA TEXTURE 1 UNIFIED AASHTO >3 IM' TRAM 3" PASSING SIEVE ) ) LIMIT TICITY 0-14f1SICL OL AL MH OH A-6, A-7 (I'CT)' 4 10 40 j I-8� INDEX , . . , 0 95-100)5-10090-100 70-85 25-40 T8-20 I 0-31'L CL, ML A-6, A-{ 0 95-100 95-100 90-100 70-85 25-40 8-20 0-14ICL CL, ML, MS, OH A-6, A-7 0 95-100 95-100 90-100 70-85 38-60 12-25 14-35 SICL, CL CL A-7 0 90-100 90-100 85-95 65-90. 40-50 20-30 35-60ICL, L CL A-6 0-5 90-100 90-100 80-95 55-70 30-40 ``12-20 DEITTH,CIAY )MOIST (MU' PUMA- AVAILABLE SOIL - SALINITY �tINt- IRDSIUM'WINND 'ORGANIC' �t)SIVITY (IN.)l(PC?)' DENSITY I BILITY WATER CAPACITY,REACTION (ANHOS/CM)i SWELL IPAC'ORS1ER00.IMATEER III (G/CH3) (IN/HR) (IN/IN) (PH) POTENTIAL GROUP' (PCT) STEEL imACRP'EI 0-14,27-30,1.25-1.45 ! 0.2-0.6 0.18-0.22 6.1-7.3 ■ MODERATE 28 5 7 4-7 SIGH I LOW 0-11{15-27)1.25-1.15 0.6-2.0 0.18-0.22 6.1-7.3 ■ MODERATE 28 5 6 4-7 0-3{;27-30`11.25-1.45 j 0.2-0.6 0.18-0.22 6.1-7.3 ■ MODERATE 28, 5 6 4-7 35-f0I18-3011.45-1.70 0.6-2.0 •0.14-0.16 7.{8.4 ■ MODERATE .28 FIAODINI' RIGS RATER TABLE Ci' 1T) PAN r• IVACO( 'SUBSIDENCE IHTD"POTEN'T'L 1 ,I(PT) APPAREH',AJV-JON(TN) RDlle55�DLP1H HARDTTE95�IIII) SAL GRP FROTTow SANITARY FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL I S1VERE-WEITTFSS,PERCS SLOWLY FAIR-LOW STRENiTS,SHRINK-SRELL,NETNESS SEPTIC TANK ABSORPTION RGADnLL FIELDS , I SEVERE-WETNESS IMPROBABLE-EXCESS FINES SEWAGE LAGOON SAND AREAS SEVERE-WETNESS ' IMPROBABLE-EXCESS FINES SANITARY LANDFILL GRAVEL .. (TRENCH) SEVERE-WETNESS IMOD I SANITARY LANDFILL TOPSOIL (AREA) POOR-WETNESS DAILY RATE! NANASE027T I COVER FOP MODERATE-SEEPAGE LANDFILL ! POND RESERVOIR AREA ! BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT 1 j SEVERE-WETNESS 10 SEVERE-WETNESS I SHALLOW P )AN IX N!S EXCAVATIONS DIKES AND rams SEVERE-WETNESS SEVERE-SLAW WILL EWELLINW EXCAVATED WITHOUT PONDS BASEMENTS AQUIFER ETD SEVERE-WETNESS FROST ACTION SWELLINGS MIEN pRATMp�y I BASEMENTS ■ SEVERE-WETNESS WETNESS SMALL COMMERCIAL IRRIGATION I BUILDINGS SEVERE-FROST ACT ION,LOW STRENGTH WETNESS LOCAL TERRACES ROADS AND AID STREETS DIVERSIONS I UNNS, MODE7.ATZ-WITNESS HEINFSS LANDSCAPING GRASSER AND GOLF MATERWAYS FAIRWAYS RZGT0)01L IRTIItPRLTATIO S I H AND - GROUP 3 I I I IC , CQmOVA SERIES MWCO24 1 RLCRTATIOIRL DLVELOPkI r CAMP AREAS PIAYGRDOIDS MODERATE-immusS,FERCS bLOWLT maamlniEloss I PICNIC AREAS PATHS AHD TRAILS CAPABILITY AND TIMES PER ACRE!F L IRS AND PASTURE .HItii LLVL1--WARAGMELT1 • CLASS- ' CAPA- CORN SOISDINS OAT'S BRCiTEGRASS-1 REED EA85-- DETERMINING BILITY ALFALFA HAT'OUgRYGRASS ALFALFA I PHASE (50) (50) mu) (TONS) (AUM) (AUM) ALL Ti 110 36 f 75 4.0 5.2 6.0 I WODLOD SUIOIBILIT CLASS- ORD i AANAGMDT PROBLEMS POTt}TTIAL-PRODUCTIVITY DETERMINING HIT,./4•■ *,A' a>, IP •,••I• ••,•1' y„:, • :1.1 TREES TO PLANT ' PHASE IRAZARD'LIMIT MORT'Y,HA2.ME)'COMPEY DDx,CLAS xLL 3W,SLIGHTIMODER. MODER.,SLIGHI` SEVERE$A?(ERICAN BASSWOOD 60 3 EASTERN COTTCWW000 EASTERN COTTONWOOD 90 7 BLACK ASH GREEN ASH 52 2 SUGAR MAPLE 55 2 I 1 I 1 AINDAREAKS I ZLAss-DETERMIN'G PHASE' SPECIES Hid SPECIES 'HT) SPECIES HT' SPECI= ))Z'{ j— AORTF�rt. NETT/-c AR`70 W ITTE SPRUCE 7O EASTYR}7 COTTON= 148{SILVER MAPLE 3 I GREEN ASH 35,GO1DT1i WILLOW 30$RACEBERRY 24 TATARIAN HONLYSUC7CIE:20{ { AMERICAN PLUM 10 TALL PURPLE WILLOW 23'AMUR MAPLE 16 RZQOSIF2i DOGiH00D 15; {ILLTE HABITA 7 SUI'7lBIL7�Il POTENTIAL FOR HABITAT EZc'7G37TS POTENTIAL AS HABITAT TOR: { CLASS- DETERMINING 'MAIN 6'GRASS G'-WILD (NARDWD CONITER'SHRUBS WETIARE SHALL '0YENLD WOODED 'WETLAND RANGELD 1/LL PHASE : GEED L GU HERB. TREES PLANTS PLANTS WATER WILDLY WILDLY WILDLY WILDLY (DOD --PAIR /AIR - GOOD MOD GD(I) - FAIR GOOD - 1 pcnt TEAL NATIVE PL'37rC WT7Y (3 TTIIJU7D'OR PORE17 UNDERtTORY V;1EYATIDir I 1 BT NT T PERCDTTAGE�UITICN TORY-LERITT BY DETERMINING PHASE COPOWOW PLANT NAME - - (NLSAi) I • I . ' I POTENTIAL YAU UCTIUN (I13S./AC. DRY WI): FAVORABLE YEARS VORMAL YEARS UNFAVORABLE TZARS Irmturts A ESTIMATES EASED ON ENGINEERING TEST DATA OF 3 MONS FROM CARVER AND HENNEDIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. 1 EXTENSIVE DIKING REQUIRED FOR STORAGE. B VDmERFAK GROUP 2. I . • 4: 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 28 , 1987 1 Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order . II MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad , James Wildermuth and David Headla MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska 1 STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City" Planner . PUBLIC HEARING: I ROBERT PIERCE APPLICANT, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 7: 1 A. SUBDIVISION OF 9.04 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. I B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. Public Present: 1 L Name Address Robert Pierce Applicant II Fred Plocher Box 181, Victoria Chuck & Helen Lawson 5807 So. Hwy 101 IMary Mann 7211 Minnewashta Parkway Gordon Simonton 375 Hwy. 7, Victoria JoAnn Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta Parkway Carol Uppal 11014 Oak Knoll Terrace No. II Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive Barbara Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway I Dell Schott 7034 Red Cedar Cove Jeff Martineau 2565 No. Shore Drive, Orono Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the subdivision request. II Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to table the subdivision—request of 9.041 acres into 15 single family lots on property zoned RSF for Robert Pierce per the applicant's request. Al voted in favor and motion carried. 1 Conrad : Now staff has the report on the conditional use permit for the beachlot. How can we move on this until we see the subdivision? " 1 1 • Planning Commission Meeting October 28 , 1987 - Page 2 Olsen: Make it conditioned upon approval of the preliminary plat. I ' feel we can condition it upon approval of the subdivision. It meets all the requirements . ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the recreational beachlot. Robert Pierce: As we brought this before the City we've been working hand in hand with them trying to develop this and I'd like to say, one ' we feel we're willing to work to the benefit of all around us as much as possible and with the City as much as possible. Again, our thinking is that we have approximately 9 acres of land there and the reason we ' came in with the beachlot and one dock with three stalls in it is that this, as I understand your ordinances, would be the exact same as far as the dock question. A single family home could have three boats on ' one dock. I know and have understood clearly that there is concern for your lake and that you want to limit the amount of boats that can be on it. I can understand that. That's why we came in with this particular , what we feel was a very low usage of the lake and then allow the other people to enjoy a beach. Up and down Minnewashta Parkway, as I'm sure you're aware, there are numerous usages of this manner. Some of them much higher usage than what we're proposing. We ' meet most of the requirements for it. We are a little short on one. On the one side, the northerly side, we have about 120 feet and on the southerly side we have about 80 feet and it does narrow a bit inbetween. Our square footage is over and above what is needed for one ' dock and also instead of 200 feet we have approximately 500 feet of lakeshore. The thing that is really critical to our plan is to get the dock. What we plan is that we would let one of the three lots, like 3, ' 4 and 5 each have one slip on the dock. If we can do this, we can come in here and set a mood for a very high quality or upper bracket neighborhood which will carry right on through. We're looking at homes ' roughly in the $300,000.00 range on the frontage and the $200,000.00 range behind. Without that dock, the value of the property is greatly reduced. We just feel that in order to do that, it changes the whole idea of what we're trying to do. The housing, the cost would certainly be an asset in the idea of valuations for the neighbors and if we're limited without the dock, you just can't begin to think that we can put in that type of homes. It just won' t work. I think from that ' standpoint and in that way, we're trying to keep a minimal use of the lake and bring in a real quality development. I'm aware that people sometimes just plain and simple don't like development and I can understand their feelings but we'd like to do it such that the development can set a precedence for further development behind if that would ever happen or if it doesn't happen, if you have a nice development on the lake front that can move on back, it would do nothing but make it possible to just continue on that price bracket and make their land worth more at a future date. If there are any questions maybe I could try to answer them. 1 Chuck Lawson: I lived there for over 70 years. My folks moved there i.n 1915. For many years they rented boats on this property. We've 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 28 , 1987 - Page 3 always had a dock and I believe that somewhere I read that the City of Chanhassen wants to open up the lake for everybody. Not just a few people living right along the shore and that seems to me what this plan is opposite of what it should be. I guess that's about all. Maybe I should make that clear. I mean the Planning Commission's plan is opposite not Mr. Pierce ' s. Ray Roettger: I live 3221 Dartmouth Drive on the north end of the lake. I guess I've looked at property and new homes going up and some of the areas are thickly wooded. A developer comes in and does a nice job and they're building $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 homes. I've always kind of wondered why doesn't somebody come in and take some lake property close to the lake where you have a view of the lake and relieve us of some of the taxes we're paying. I think we're being overtaxed on the north end of the lake simply because we're sitting on lake property. I think this is a pretty good approach to it. Taking the three lots and putting a dock out. It won't overload it anymore. I guess first of all when I came in here I was kind of against this but I think just looking at the basic proposal it seems quite reasonable. The thing I would be against is a common beachlot which we have, and I have one right along of my home, and that has been nothing but problems. It's in the Sterling Estates area. We have perhaps 10 lots that that outlot would serve and there is a dock and there was one boat, then two boats then three and then there was four. The problem is I'm looking at it and so is my neighbor but nobody takes care of it. They just tie up their boats. Sometimes they break loose. Nobody has cut the grass. Nobody has picked up the cans. Nobody has done anything so I'm against any beachlot that provides for a number of homes because it just doesn ' t work. , Conrad : So you don ' t like this proposal? Ray Roettger: No, I think this man has the right approach. Put some ' high price homes, and I have nothing against people who can't afford the higher priced homes but I'm saying to relieve the tax burden, if you're going to put some high priced homes someplace, you certainly can do it there and provide a single boat, not three boats for each home. If he limits it to that, one boat and he goes on record that he's going to build homes for $300,000. 00 or more. Conrad: This proposal and this beachlot is a common beachlot which you don't like. This is a beachlot. What the applicant is asking for is one dock which houses three boats . Ray Roettger : Three slips . One for each one of them, Lots 3, 4 and 5 . Conrad: Yes. Mary Jo Moore: I feel that the City did a two year study on lake usage. We came up with a plan... accepted by everybody in the area. I see problems with beachlots. It's left up to the residents of the 1 t 1 . Planning Commission Meeting II October 28 , 1987 - Page 4 II area to patrol it. I've also seen the new townhomes go on Lake Minnewashta and dockage has increased. Now they are mooring boats by sailboat moorings. It just gets out of hand if you allow people to stretch the ordinance. IFred Plocher: I'm a developer of the Red Cedar Cove Townhouses, just around the corner from here and I represent the seller of the property II as the real estate broker for this property so I'm not unbiased. As I understand the ordinance, those lot lines could not continue on the other side of the road . Is that right Jo Ann? IOlsen: Not without lot area variances . Fred Plocher : So you have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 to 500 I feet of lakeshore here which I believe staff is recommending not have a boat which sounds like on the surface of that, a bit illogical. Whereas if it were sold as one parcel, it could have one dock. It I could have a dock as one parcel. In other words, Mr. Lawson who has lived there for 70 years has been illegal to have ,a dock on that property? IIOlsen : His dock was grandfathered in. Fred Plocher: So you have 400 to 500 feet of lakeshore on Minnewashta 1 and you can not have a dock on it. That seems to me to be illogical. Given the ordinance to protect the lake and I don't know of anybody who is against that ordinance but there has to be a balance of logic. To have that much ownership on a lake and not be able to have a dock is I illogical. There are several parcels of property along Minnewashta Parkway that have that same condition. It's too bad all those property owners aren't here tonight to hear that. They'll never be able to have I docks there when that property changes hands. I think it's the duty of the Planning Commission and Council to take a look at the logic of ordinances where they were well meaning and well written but maybe did Inot foresee every circumstance . Thank you. Headla moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried. IConrad: For my information Jo Ann, tell me why a property owner couldn' t buy this , or two, and not have a dock . I pOlsen: According to the subdivision ordinance, if a arcel of land is separated by a street, it's a separate parcel. A dock is an accessory structure and you would have to have the principal structure on there I prior to having a dock. Mr. Lawson did have a dock there for many years but it has not been there or in use for ,the past year. If there was a dock still on there, it would be grandfathered in. I - Conrad: When that requirement and the ordinance was set forth, do you think it was considering this particular situation or this type of I I 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 28 , 1987 - Page 5 situation? It was probably anticipating something else and not this particular one. Olsen: There are other communities that have lakeshore lots similar to this that are considered part of the property across the street where the person would have a dock but right now the way our ordinance states, that' s the way we have to look at it. Conrad : Then we can consider this a hardship? 1 Olsen: The way we look at the hardship is that there is no use of the property. ' Conrad : We are telling the applicant that they can' t use the lake. Olsen: They can use the lake but not have a dock. They can have the sand blanket. They can have a swimming beach. Erhart: I agree that it makes sense to somehow figure out a way to put a dock here so I'm trying to look at this hardship as well. It seems to me that if you pick the hardship because you're comparing this to another applicantion made on Lake Riley. 1 Olsen: No, we looked at it specifically. Erhart: Okay, for a moment let's just look at that. The hardship there is a 50 foot wide lot. That 50 foot was created by the developer . Erhart: ' art• So I look at this hardship being different than this hardship. It boils down to the only technical difference is this one is 5%. It meets all the requirements except for one. Where the other one misses at 50o and the fact that it isn ' t even meet. . . Olsen: We weren't necessarily trying to compare. It's just that according to the Attorney' s office, there ' s no hardship in this case. Conrad: Let me get a knack of where you're coming from Tim. Erhart: I was trying to figure out if this was a state highway imposed hardship versus the other one being imposed by the developer himself . Emmings : I guess this case is to different to me from Lake Riley that we don't want to get into extensive comparisons maybe except that it was brought up in the material. Over there you had a 50 foot wide lot width and neighbors living on each side and I think that's a terrible situation. That's where I think beachlots are an abuse. I also live 1 I Planning Commission Meeting IOctober 28 , 1987 - Page 6 C on Lake Minnewashta so I'm not unbiased either. I live on the north end of Lake Minnewashta. We've got a lot of classic examples of how a beachlot should not be constructed on Lake Minnewashta. Be that as it may, in this situation, we've got 500 feet of frontage, to even suggest ' that you could deny a dock to someone who bought that whole parcel to me is ridiculous. I have almost no doubt in my mind that if I owned that parcel I know I'd get a dock. I think if the City wouldn't give ' it to me, I have little doubt that a Court would. And given that, I don't see why there shouldn't be a dock. Now, the other side of that though, the flip side of that is there could be certainly one dock out there and if we limit the number of boats. Use by three different households is not the same as use by one household and you discussed that at length here but still for the amount of frontage that's there and everything else, if it's limited to just three boats, one boat per ' lot then I don't think that's an overuse of the property in any way. I guess I'd be inclined to find a way here to draw the distinction between this and a lot of the bad proposals we've seen and allow there ' to be a dock here. One thing I 'd like to put in here as a condition, I'm concerned about the ramp as providing vehicle access. The ordinance provides that you can't have parking on a beachlot but whenever you make it so easy as driving down a ramp, I think you're inviting it and I'd like to see someway, I almost thing they ought to have it closed off by some means . ' COlsen: I think when they talked about a ramp, they meant more of a ramp for the handicapped and wide enough for a wheelchair and for pedestrians if they had to go down with a stretcher. Not necessarily for cars. Emmings: Oh great. If there's going to be a ramp then it shouldn't be able to be used by cars . Olsen : That ' s prohibited on a recreational beachlot. Emmings: The other thing is, I think there ought to be, we've talked about this from time to time too, there ought to be a specific obligation of a homeowners association to maintain this beachlot such that if the City at any time feels that it's not being adequately maintained , that they can go in and maintain it and charge that back to the homeowners association and to the individual lots that use it so that we're sure that we don't wind up with any messes along there that we can't somehow effectively cope with. Other than that, I think there is a hardship imposed by the road . Siegel : What ' s the definition of a hardship in this case? ' Olsen: Where there is not a reasonable use of the property. It's the section where the enforcement of the ordinance would cause an undue hardship. 1 Siegel : Make it unliveable you mean? I r C Planning Commission Meeting October 28 , 1987 - Page 7 17 Olsen: A true hardship would be where they wouldn't have any use of that property whatsoever. There is the option that they could possibly get a housepad on there. They'd have to get numerous variances for the setbacks but there is that possibility and the possibility of a recreational beachlot without a dock. The biggest hardship is when it's self created, then there's no question but again, this is not self created. Siegel: So when somebody is .designing a piece of property to meet his own design, that is not necessarily determined as a hardship when he is creating it himself or creating what we may assume to be a hardship if we assume that not having a dock on his property is a hardship. It's sort of interesting because a hardship can take all kinds of different forms depending on the piece of property involved. I agree with Steve with the analogy that we would say that a single property owner could not have a dock on a piece of property of this size is a little incongurous. I don't think the courts would go along with it. I'm just wondering if that could be also construed in the light of common sense of stretching our ordinance requirements toa far thereby causing a de facto type hardship in this case. Especially in consideration of the fact that he's asking for a dock with only four slips. It's not like he's asking for four docks with four slips. I would tend to think that we're causing a little more stringency here than is required. If it affects the other decisions we've made, our Attorneys would have to look at that. I can't see how we could not grant a conditional use 11 permit for this purpose. Wildermuth: ...the outlot does not meet the criteria that we've set up in the ordinance in this particular case, I think we either have an obligation to modify the ordinance or enforce the rules . Headla: Are we talking now a beachlot for the whole property? So called 9 acres? Would there two beachlots? One for the three homeowners to put a dock in and then another beachlot? How do you plan to do that? Bob Pierce : At this point , what we did is basically came in with a general idea or concept. We could go either way. My idea was that the dock was for the use of the three homeowners and the beachlot would be for the use of everybody else. To answer the question as far as maintaining it, we'd be more than willing to, in the Homeowners Association to address that so that would be taken care of because once we build it and are gone, it's to the advantage to us too to have that looking nice 5 years from now for several reasons. One, I continue to be in the business and also if we are working with the City, if we hold up our end of the bargain and we do a nice development, it just makes it that much easier to continue to have a good working relationship so that' s just kind of a concept but that ' s kind' of what we were planning . Headla: The access to the beachlot, will it be where the old road is going down to the lake or were you going to put in something? I C Planning Commission Meeting II f October 28 , 1987 - Page 8 Bob Pierce: I assumed, again I think it can be moved. That is where I just saw a natural spot was for it but it ' s not cast in concrete. Headla: You've got terribly beautiful oaks there and there are some ' low spots , do you plan on doing some fill between the road and the lake? ' Bob Pierce: What we had planned on was to bring in some sand. They proposed that we have a plan for what we do down there as far as the trees. I'd like to be able to come in there and to trim some of the trees and just get the underbrush out in the areas that the beach I will be and I just kind of anticipated leaving the end toward the north and the south pretty much wild. Just kind of get the buffer zone between the parks and land . ' Headla: I see the fire marshall recommended a ramp. I disagree with that. I think at that grade, that percent and somebody going down a ' ramp, certainly not a wheelchair you wouldn't want to go down a ramp like that and if someone was walking down there, since my place is right next to it, I have some idea of what a driveway is , and I think somebody is really liable to fall. I'd like to leave it up to the option of the builder what he wants to do there and I'd like to see something, steps like we were at yesterday looking at the duck pond. I „, think that would be by far the more practical. Also, if he can have steps like that, he can control the runoff down into the lake where if he just has a ramp, most of it' s going to go shooting down the ramp and then into the lake. I just hate to see that. The engineering, when you have an idea and you go through a thought process and like you said ' yourself you tend to go to an extreme and let me carry something to an extreme here. I think the Lawson's qualify for a dock and my rationale is I've seen Chuck and Helen have a dock there ever since I've been out ' there. There's been a dock there and the kids would swim there and people would use that to fish. I think the principal that we're looking at is, is there a dock there the last year. Well , my extreme is, why can't Chuck and Helen go out there this weekend and put a dock in. Then they' ve established they had a dock in this year . Conrad: Jo Ann, tell me about the concept of depth in a beachlot. ' Maybe I'll talk to you about what I perceive the depth issue in a beachlot is to be and basically it might be a safety factor. It might allow people space to recreate in. Are there other issues besides those that would be prominent in terms of why we wanted 100 foot depth . Olsen : That ' s essentially to provide good area . Conrad : Would this area have good area to recreate in? Olsen : It' s more or less provides enough space for the beach. II/ Conrad: In staff's opinion then, your opinion, 10 or 12 or however -N_ many houses we've got here, what do we have 15? 15 houses, is this a Planning Commission Meeting October 28 , 1987 - Page 9 C suitable area for a common beachlot? Olsen : It ' s not a whole lot of area. Conrad: So literally what can they do on that property? They can have a canoe rack and a dock and really the land itself would be hard to use otherwise? Olsen: They could also have the beach area. The applicant has proposed that just the lots along Minnewashta Parkway will be the ones using the beachlot. Headla : I thought we were opening up to the whole . Bob Pierce: The beachlot, as far as swimming is for the whole thing. The dock issue was for the 3 homes . That was always my intent. Conrad: Okay, let's say for swimming you need a beach area. Is this suitable property for supporting 15 families to go_ down to the beach? Olsen: There is a wider area on the northern part where they are proposing the dock and the beach area to be right now. It'd be tight . Headla: Let me draw a similarity. Go north about 300 to 400 yards to Pleasant Acres. Take away that parking lot from that beachlot, that leaves what 40 to 45 feet and that's all. They play volleyball there. They swim. They got plenty of room if you take the parking lot out . Conrad: So you feel that here there would be plenty of room? Headla: Definitely. With the approximate number of homes he has and the way we used our lot, and we used our lot a lot in the summertime, what he'd say 31,000 square feet, I think there is adequate room for a park for the number of homes he intends . Conrad: Adequate room on the beachlot for people to enjoy the ' beachlot? Headla: Right. That's no parking. Not putting anything down except for these people. Olsen: But that would require extensive grading and removal of the vegetation. According to the Shoreland Ordinance, that would not be permitted . Headla: With the plan, can't they cut out the brush as long as they ' leave the major trees? Olsen : Yes , they can do that . 1 ii. Planning Commission Meeting IOctober 28 , 1987 - Page 10 C Headla : That's the way I look at it. I can see all the brush cut out. Just right on through and to me, that's what it will be. He's got nice trees and I think that could really add to that whole thing. I think it ' s a positive thing. IConrad: It seems to me we can do two things tonight. Three things. We can reject it because it doesn't meet it and one thing that I'm I really concerned about, this beachlot ordinance, as a lady suggested, it's there. It's not the best but it's something that is also protective of a lot of things that we hold dear to us in Chanhassen. I don't want anything we do tonight to impact how that beachlot ordinance I impacts the other beachlots in the community because they'll all be here if we set a precedent in some means if it's not justified. If it's justified and we can rationalize it, then I'm comfortable. I I think we can do a couple things. The part has got to be able to use the lake and get a dock out there and I think we can alter any subdivision ordinances we've got to allow it. They could potentially I have 3 or 4 pieces of property that would have docking rights if we changed that subdivision ordinance therefore not imposing a hardship on this property so there is an alternative. We can go and change that ordinance and make sure that any new folks that move in on Parkway and I have property frontage, are going to be able to have a dock there. That seems logical to me. Rational. I can't imagine we wouldn't want that to happen. On the other hand, the proposal seems like a less I I intensive use than what I just described and in that light, I would go along with the proposal as long as it doesn't set a precedent for any other beachlot in Chanhassen. That's where I'm at right now. That's why I led in here Jo Ann with my comment , as long as it looks like a I beachlot that people can really enjoy and serves the purpose of a beachlot, the applicant's request seems reasonable, rational and good for the lake. I could go along with it. I would have a real tough I time voting for on something tonight unless I knew that the words and the rationalization and justification granting the variance was approved by an attorney saying that we have not altered anything and I set a precedent for other properties that are already out there. I would have a real tough time right now without an attorney telling me how to justify the variance. I Headla: I think that's probalby the way to go on that. I don't see why we need a variance. IConrad : It doesn ' t meet our requirements Dave. Headla: What requirements? He was grandfathered in . I Conrad : No he's not. As soon as he sells it's gone so there' s no grandfathering there. Ili Emmings: No, he's subdividing the whole property. That's where you get into a problem. He's subdividing that whole property. Where there was one lot, now there are 15. I Planning Commission Meeting October 28 , 1987 - Page 11 f Olsen: And the fact that they did not have a dock in use for over the past year . Headla : But if he put a dock in this weekend? Olsen: It would be non-conforming . Headla : Why if he has a dock every year? Olsen: From I know, that dock hasn't been in place for over a year. It comes back to the subdivision ordinance defining that as a separate parcel. Just to review that, the Attorney and staff, we did review each of the scenarios that Mr. Conrad is pointing out. Whether we could possibly grant 3 or 4 lot area variances and let that Outlot A be separated and each have their own dock or it has a recreational beachlot. This was when we thought that it wouldn't be able to even have a recreational beachlot without a dock, we would have to permit them some use. We were really torn because no, we don't want non- conforming lots along the lake there but then we found we could have the recreational beachlot without the dock. Give him still some use. I know it's not the ideal use and maybe not the most logical use but we did get confirmation from our Attorney that it is not a hardship. ' Headla: If the Lawson's sell it and he's had his dock there, does that k_ grandfather totally go by the wayside? , Olsen: If the dock had remained there and it's always been there, was still there today, that dock would be grandfathered in. Wildermuth : Could he put a dock there today, the original owner? Olsen: No because technically it's a separate parcel and the dock is an accessory use. You have to have your house there first before you have an accessory use. Headla: If he lived there and he's had the dock there for umpteen years , just because he moved away, isn ' t that dock still valid? Olsen : The dock isn ' t there anymore . ' Headla: Right now it isn' t there but what if it was there last year? Olsen: If it has not been used in over a year, it has been removed for over a year, it' s lost it. Conrad: The one dock though, this is a beachlot. We're asking for a beachlot, the applicant is, but the beachlot ordinance governs what can go on it and based on the physical dimensions' of this beachlot, you can not have a dock. Planning Commission Meeting October 28 , 1987 - Page 12 Headla: I hear you say that but I hear Jo Ann say that if a dock had been standing there it would have been grandfathered in. Erhart : Not for the subdivision. ' Headla: Not as a beachlot? ' Conrad : Not for a beachlot . Headla: Okay, so that ' s not a point. I Conrad: No. They're asking for a beachlot. Our ordinance says no you can't have a dock based on the fact that it's not deep enough. The lot does not meet the depth requirements of our beachlot ordinance. ' Erhart: Ladd, I have a bit more basic question now. Are we talking about a variance to have a beachlot here at all? In other words, does our ordinance say that a beachlot has to be 100 feet deep? Olsen : It says 200 feet wide. ' Erhart: And there ' s no depth requirement? Olsen : No. Erhart: How do you tie the 100 feet with the dock? What's the logic? What' s the logic for not having depth requirement for a beachlot g a p q and then having a depth requirement for a dock? ' Conrad: There's a flaw someplace but I think the logic Tim is the fact that, I'm not even sure what the logic was and I've been around enough, ' I've been through the development of these things and I can't remember why. I was just trying in conceptual terms trying to think about it. Again, if you have a dock, it probably means that people are going to swim, boat and play around there and therefore you need some property ' to do that on and therefore you should have enough depth to do that and keep you away from, usually there are adjoining properties and you're trying to keep people away from those adjoining properties. You're trying to give people space so they're not sitting on the property line. When you don't have that depth the assumption is, you may be in a different situation. You may be in a situation like this. I guess I ' could construct a scenario why that 100 foot depth makes sense in many cases for a dock. I'm not sure that's the real reason that we thought of many years ago. ' Emmings: There's another provision in the ordinance that I've never seen before and it says that each recreational beachlot has to have the width measured both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point 100 ' feet landward from the ordinary high water mark of not less than 4 lineal feet for each unit which has apertinent right of access so we would have to have a variance for that provision, dock or no dock. i Planning Commission Meeting October 28 , 1987 - Page 13 Olsen: That's an option if you don't have the width. That you could just go over a certain amount of feet as kind of an option rather than the flat out width. Emmings: That ' s not what it says . ' Headla : On Riley, how many square feet did they have? Olsen: It was 50 by 100, 5, 000 square feet . Headla : 5,000 and now we' re talking about 31, 000 square feet . Conrad: I really have a general feeling that I'd like to table this thing. I'm not sure why. Maybe to outline the options of correcting, just the ability to have a dock in a situation like this. What is it, our subdivision ordinance or our zoning ordinance that is controlling the fact that it ' s a separate parcel? Olsen : Subdivision. It ' s under a definition of a , lot. Conrad: I guess that bothers me. I don't think that is considered, this particular type of situation and I think we should review it. Therefore, we could review that and give the applicant other alternatives in terms of use of that property. On the other hand, we could go ahead tonight and approve it. The staff is saying no dock and that doesn't appear acceptable to me. I think the property has got enough footage there so I guess I'm looking for staff, I personally would be looking for somebody to help me out of this one and rationalize, justify, without us trying to verbalize it here in public . Erhart: I don't think there's any reason to conclude this thing tonight anyway. ' Conrad: It's got to come back but I think we should give the applicant and those people here a general drift of what we're doing. Maybe we have. Maybe in our comments we ' re giving a sense for what we ' re doing . Bob Pierce: In the hardship case, wouldn't just the idea that before these ordinances were invoked, let's just pull a number out, let's say his land was worth $100,000.00 because he had a dock and had lakeshore. Now these ordinances that came about 2, 2 1/2 to 3 years ago, you've taken his parcel and now you've said it's not really lakeshore. It's pretty to look at and all that but you can't put a dock in. It seems to me that would be an incredible hardship because I would guess the devaluation of the value of his property has gone down 40%. I mean that' s how important it is . Conrad: I don't know. I've never found that reduced value creates a hardship as long as you had some reasonable use of that property and I'm not an attorney but as we've watched those things, we've never been able to say that you've decreased value by 10%, therefore it's a 1 II . � Planning Commission Meeting October 28 , 1987 - Page 14 hardship. That ' s never come up in years here. IBob Pierce: But the word reasonable there is kind of the key. I Conrad: I think we all recognize that the property needs access and deserves it and I guess my feeling is, what you've proposed is treating the lake much better than some alternatives that I could see. Therefore, I feel good, I'd like you to maintain that posture at least Iin terms of this beachlot. At least for me. I like how it looks and how it reads right now. I'm not sure, the rest of the subdivision we haven't talked about it but I would hope that there are some I improvements in the rest of it. I guess I would like to table this if everybody feels comfortable with that action and allow staff to mull over our comments and come back with some alternatives and some I justification given the fact that we think that there should be dockage. Staff should recommend to us whether in light of maintaining the philosophy of the current ordinance , how we do that . I Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit Request #87-17 for a recreational beachlot. All voted in favor and motion carried . ' Tom Heiberg: Mr. Chairman, it's , I missed the public hearing. I know at s i closed here this evening. I just have a couple questions regarding I this matter. Would you have time to indulge another citizen for about two mintues? IConrad : Go ahead . Tom Heiberg: The reason I'm here is I'm concerned primarily about I pedestrian and roadway traffic along Minnewashta Parkway. As many of you probably know, there are a lot of us out in that particular area and I come from, I live on Red Cedar Point at 3725 South Cedar Drive. I'm just concerned, I walk on that darn road everyday and people drive I it too fast. I'm guilty of driving it too fast. A lot of people, there are not good sight lines there. I can see the development of the property should not be discouraged. The petitioner should have the I opportunity to do that but I see that we're once again putting pressure, development pressure, traffic pressue, in my judgment on inadequate roads. Then we're also talking about contributing to pedestrian traffic across that way. I don't know who will be_ the owners of those homes but I would suspect there will families involved. We've had too many close calls already on Minnewashta Parkway and I'm very concerned about encouraging additional close calls . IConrad: Could you have our Public Safety Director address those comments in a note to us the next time back? -In terms of crossing . IErhart: You're also aware that there's a 20 foot strip designated for a trail? A walking trail . I ( . 1 Planning Commission Meeting October 28, 1987 - Page 15 Tom Heiberg: No, I was not aware of that. I'm sorry I was not here. This is a 20 foot walkway along Minnewashta Parkway, a 20 foot wide trailway? Headla: That's what the Park and Recreation Commission is recommending which seems to be extremely wide. Olsen : That ' s an easement . It will a 6 foot trail or an 8 foot trail . Headla: Over in Lake Susan Hills they have 5 feet and they have a lot more traffic there. Tom, I've y got a study on that if you want to stop by. Tom Heiberg: I'll be happy to see that and maybe we had been noticed but if you recall I was here maybe 8 months ago with Greg , Phil and Ed Hasek, he's on the Park and Rec Board, and I haven't seen or heard any results yet of our requests to put a trailway in there or walkway with the improvement of that road. It was my error for not doing my homework there but I am just really concerned. Thank you for your time. Headla: Jo Ann, adjacent landowners shouldn't they have been notified of this meeting? On the Lawson property, anybody who has a home that is adjacent to them, shouldn't they be notified? I Olsen: Yes . Emmings : Everybody around the lake too . Headla: I know the people around the lake but I'm not sure that the adjacent landowners were. Olsen : We made sure everyone was within 500 feet . • APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Headla moved, Conrad seconded to approve the ' Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 14, 1987 as amended by Ladd Conrad on pages 12 and 15. All voted in favor and motion carried . ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - TRANSPORTATION, MARK KOEGLER. Mark Koegler: What I've done, if you recall our discussion of the last meeting , we talked about a whole book of topics and one of the things we wanted to take just a little bit of time tonight and focus on was TH 101. I know it's a subject that Tim has discussed both publicly and when we've been able to meet from time to time in the past. We also talked about this concept of doing a little bit further review of some iof these corridor studies and that decision has yet to be made by the City Council. I believe it's going to be made on Monday night just 1 ._1—lf-7 + ; -J PLANNING TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE I BENNETT, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD. JARVIS, GARDNER, INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700 December 2, 1987 II CITY OF Cl A l IIASSEll City of Chanhassen a �� II 690 Coulter Drive M. Eu(LWEM Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Attn: Mr. Gary Warren, P.E. DEC 101°87 City Engineer IRE: Subdivision Review .4. ,, :I�¢�!. .n .T Stratford Ridge 1 Northwest Chanhassen Dear Mr. Warren: .I At your request, we have completed a preliminary overview of the properties surrounding the proposed Stratford Ridge Development in Section 5, Township 116N, Range 23W in the NW corner of Chanhassen. We would like to offer the IIfollowing general comments for your consideration: Site Planning IIStratford Ridge is a proposed subdivision which is to be built on a parcel of land which is less than 10 acres. This particular parcel of land is surrounded on three sides by undeveloped property with the fourth side being Minnewashta 1 Parkway and Lake Minnewashta. Future access to the entire undeveloped area will be provided primarily by I Minnewashta Parkway from either the north or south, with the potential for a "back door" entrance from TH 7. It is our general feeling, however, that pri- mary access from TH 7 is doubtful without some form of agreement with the City II of Victoria and/or MnDOT, and certainly would be limited to one access point between the existing Leslee curve to the north and the railroad crossing to the northwest. I The northern boundary of this area is formed by the Pleasant Acres subdivision with street right-of-ways platted for extension south into this study area. The southerly and westerly boundaries are primarily undeveloped land with the I southerly boundary abutting the low lying lands adjacent to Lake St. Joe, and the property to the west being within the boundaries of the City of Victoria. li II Approximately a dozen homes are currently located within the general study area with most having primary access from Minnewashta Parkway and a few from Kings Road. The general area is currently under the ownership of approximately twelve owners with the parcels ranging in size from a few acres to approximately 15 Iacres. DAVID J.BENNETT DONALD W RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E.JARVIS LAWRENCE J.GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A AMUNDSEN I DONALD E.HUNT MARK G.SWENSON JOHN B.McNAMARA DONALD L.CRAIG RICHARD D.PILGRIM DALE N.BECKMANN DENNIS J.SUTLIFF MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX II 14 to Mr. Gary Warren . II December 2, 1987 Page 2 I It is apparent that the future development of the area is dependent upon the ability of a developer to assemble several of the parcels into a single develo- pable package. Some of the individual parcels may stand alone in this regard, but at least one-half of the parcels are dependent upon assembly of a collective package. Platting of the entire area may occur in a variety of ways too numerous to summarize. We have considered two options which we have included for your consideration. Both are dependent upon the collective assembly of several parcels by one developer. It appears as though the primary development potential for this area (considering RSF Zoning) is with minimum lot sizes of 15,000 square foot with the potential for larger more expensive lots and an internal road system. Access to Minnewashta Parkway should be limited to a maximum of two connections along Lake Minnewashta. A portion of land which lies in the City of Victoria has access restricted to , the north due to TH 7, to the west by the railroad and to the south because of marsh land. The optimum access to this tract, which could be subdivided into 100-120 lots, is from Minnewashta Parkway through the review site. Another tract of land which is similarily restricted in access lies within the Chanhassen city limits to the south of the southwest corner of the review site. Several residences are currently at this location and the region has the poten- tial to be replatted to contain approximately 20 lots. The present access to the existing residences is along Kings Road which runs along the southern border of the review site. The future use of Kings Road is dependent upon the disposi- tion of the existing homes in the outlying regions. Access 1 With the large number of lots which could be accessed from Minnewashta Parkway, care must be taken to keep the future requirements of Minnewashta Parkway in perspective. It is likely that future development will necessitate the upgrading of Minnewashta Parkway as a collector road with subsequent widening to four lanes. Any development allowed adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway should, therefore, make allowances for such an outcome. The proposed plat submitted by Schoell and Madson for Stratford Ridge includes provisions for an access road at the southern boundary of the property. This concept has been carried through in our Option B. A road in such a location would be well suited as an access to the interior of the review site. In such a situation, there would be a moderately high volume of traffic and therefore a need for a road of sufficient width and section to handle future needs. A 36-foot wide roadway should be considered. Because of the ownership conditions, this access road must be placed within the Stratford Ridge plat, at least up to the north-south entry road (see attached exhibit). After this point, the right- of-way dedication and road section could be tapered down to match the existing driveway. The full width could then await the development of the rest of the area. The future alignment and connection of the proposed access road should be carefully reviewed. A 90 degree intersection with Minnewashta Parkway would be the most desireable, but not absolutely necessary. The two exhibits, which are attached, illustrate how this alignment may be considered with future improve- ments. r 1y C Mr. Gary Warren December 2, 1987 ' Page 3 Future right-of-way dedication should be considered from the Stratford Ridge developer to provide access to the north. Such a layout would reduce the number of cul-de-sacs, (as shown in Option B) , by allowing for continuation of the existing roadway. Utilities Existing sanitary sewer and watermain run along the north and east borders of the review site. Over half of the total review site will drain to the sanitary sewer line along Minnewashta Parkway. A portion of this area will be served by an existing lift station near the southeast corner of the site. The lift sta- tion pump capacity should be considered. Full determination of such a need is beyond the scope of this report. The sanitary flow from the Stratford Ridge plat is planned to outlet into the existing system along Minnewashta Parkway at a point where it can flow by gra- vity to the main regional lift station north of TH 7. To allow for future deve- lopment to the north of Stratford Ridge, it is recommended that the proposed manhole in the eastern cul-de-sac (MH 2) be lowered as much as possible and a stub be extended to the north. Sanitary flow from the remainder of the review site would probably flow to the ' north. A connection could be made to the existing sanitary sewer line along Glendale Drive. This flow drains to the lift station north of TH 7 mentioned earlier. The City of Victoria has requested consideration of property to the northwest of the review site across TH 7- for future sanitary service. This area is low lying and is restricted from direct connection with Victoria facilities by the railroad and TH 7. It appears that the area of concern is predominantly below an elevation of 940. This would preclude a direct gravity flow connection to the review site southeast of TH 7 and a force main to the same area would not be an economically feasible solution. There is, however, an existing sanitary line along Pipewood Curve adjacent to Victoria's site. The invert elevations are about 937 so a lift station would be required or site filling is needed. ' Watermain connections can be made to the existing system at the Minnewashta Parkway access points. An area of concern would be along the access road on the south border of Stratford Ridge. The preliminary design submitted by Schoell and Madson does not provide for service to future development on the south side of the road. Such service might be provided by the installation of a main along the road, as indicated in Option B. Storm drainage from the review area presently flows to the northwest through existing culverts under Highway 7, to the west into Victoria and to the east into Lake Minnewashta. Our recommendation would be to maintain these drainage ' patterns. It is necessary to construct detention ponds to restrict off-site flow to predeveloped levels and to allow for sedimentation. Some of the pond areas could be used as green space or parks during nonstorm conditions. 1 I Mr. Gary Warren December 2, 1987 Page 4 I The proposed Stratford Ridge storm system and street grades should consider the future roadway extension to the north. Catch basins and street grades may need to be revised at the time the temporary cul-de-sac is removed and the roadway is extended to the north. We hope this brief overview of this study area assists you in your site review of the Stratford Ridge plat. If we can offer further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, I B -NNETT-RINGROSE- OLSF !-;/'VIS-GARDNER, INC. t ary A. et, P.E. GAE/sk ' Attachments I r I I 1 I I I 1 J L__ . , ! G Q�P� n Y P 4'O / �� ,. ,/ MARTI .-OY �/1 I /= p HOLY CR• S EN - LTHERA C- i'CH HOME• ■ N-•S CHAR,;,_,J, A�• , / j ASSOC TI \ O _ , JAM / YLA ) �� ` MILffR��DD KER• Oy/& / / SEAfiLE ST'OUt7 STRATFORD RIDGE AREA 41"liIllPIPIIr . O O OWA LTGi • ..HAEN . i I 41. SO4 / -� q I BARBARA MA HEAADLA / Lake Minnewashta " f - ARBARA MAY HEA r A/ - CITY OF CHANHASSEN 'i, RE. == -\,,,, O O DEC/®<,c.7 LAWRENCE 1:4 WENZEL ��NHASSENPIANNN:GDEPT IC / � ' i LAWRENCE D.W ZE� 1 \> i OPTION A 1�-- J-JOHLECLE d jam- i i � I I EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS ELMER Ji,HUNT,INGER i / i ! NORTHWEST CHANHASSEN I SUBDIVISION CONCEPT BIM -~ north 0 100' 20 400 • 11-30-87 NO - - - MI - - - - ON 1100 - i - NE 0011 11110 111111 111111 • ! l-1 MN- ! • ! . ``1-----'\ . a / O / / . . [7(41(.1 • /PLEASENT ACRES X Z'2ND. ADDITION \ .CO I :::': : MILDRED KER ON& MOW _ SEARLE ST OUP STRATFORD RIDGE AREA - MO. 11 { 1 • -D E. AUG'EN ES11. ARSON, 1 1 r / Lake Minnewashta BAR: . •A M_AY HEAD H E A P nARBA3A P A o LA NCE '. ENZEL / <� E, WE ZEL OPTION B illi■ T--JO ilEe ER J•HN ZIEGLER `--i--_,T . — 1 \ EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS IF EL ER JI. NUNS NGER \ - _.,____-___1_.,____-___1 NORTHWEST CHANHASSEN - 1 f KINGS ROAD `, SUBDIVISION CONCEPT i • _ [ BIM north ,-----_ O 1100' 200 400' lb-70-97 i I. LAW OFFICES GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER: DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57 (612) 455-2359 DAVID L.HARMEYER ' VANCE B GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING M. CECILIA RAY VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTC B. KNETSCH PATRICK A.FARRELL DAVID L. GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 MICHAEL J. MAYER ROGER N KNUTSON TELEPHONE: (612)455-1661 November 12 , 1987 Ms. Jo Ann Olsen City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive, Box 147 ' Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Stratford Ridge Development Case No. 87-17 Dear Jo Ann: ' Your November 4, 1987, letter asks a series of questions regarding the Stratford Ridge Development recreational beachlot C.U.P. request: ' Q. The Commission wants to be able to permit the applicant to have a dock on the recreational beachlot. How can they do it? A. The Board of Adjustment and Appeal has the ability to grant a variance. The better approach would be to amend the ordinance. ' Q. How would approving a dock on the recreational beachlot impact the Lake Riley court case and would it set a precedent? The Planning Commission feels there are different ' circumstances and issues. A. The equal protection clause of the Minnesota and United ' States Constitution requires that similarly situated property be treated similarly. The plaintiff in the Lake Riley case would argue that the cases are similar; I would argue that they are not. Granting the variance would give the applicant another argument that the City would not have to deal with if the variance is not granted. The only difference I see between the two ' situations is that one can' t comply with the depth requirement and the other can' t comply with the size requirement. NOV 161387 CITY.OF CHANHASSEN Jo Ann Olsen 'Z November 12, 1987 Page Two I Q. Is there an existing hardship to permit a variance to allow the dock? What is the definition of a hardship, is it no use of the land or no dock? A. The hardship is that without a variance they can' t have a dock. If this is a qualifying hardship, then everyone who fails to meet minimum ordinance requirements would be entitled to a variance. Minn. Stat. § 462. 357, subd. 6 defines "undue hardship" as: The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" applies to the use of the land, not the dock. ' Q. The Commission feels that it is physically impossible to meet the requirement of the 100 foot depth, that a dock existed prior to the ordinance and that the ordinance therefore inflicts the hardship. As a note, the property owner had a dock on the property proposed for the recreational beachlot, but this dock has not existed for over a year. ' A. Since the dock was removed there are no non-conforming rights to put it back. If "physical impossibility" to meet the ordinance requirement was all that was required for a variance, then ordinance restrictions would have little if any meaning in relationship to existing lots. Q. The Commission questioned that if a variance could not be justified to allow the dock on the beachlot, that we should review the Subdivision Ordinance which defines a lot as a separate parcel if it is divided by a street. The Commission felt that it should not be considered as a separate lot. They felt that it should be permitted to be joined with the property across the street. A. The City can change the ordinance requirements. A lot divided by a street, however, doesn' t function as a single lot. You could count both halves of the lot for lot size requirement, but what about setbacks, lot coverage, lot frontage? ' < C Jo Ann Olsen November 12, 1987 Page Three If you need any additional information, please call me. If it would be helpful I will attend a Planning Commission meeting and discuss this with the Commi. •• Ver truly your , GRA NIS, GRA ■ S, 'R EL -- • , P.A. —� Roger( TKnu ' RNK: srn 11 t i I . . CRAIG W. FREEMAN M.D. 5808 CRESCENT TERRACE I EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436 I k Ck ---( Li Cti -) • '' ' ,t- E: - ,1-‘ ' - - • I vs.).„.„,_X\c„..._‘s... ......- ____ VI,\ ..__ I .1 . t.• Li -----L . I N c, - 1-it- I , k C<• *,-,C.-1) '' CLL. -.. )--\(..1;■_t, -7 - Ci — ci —(c) ,--,----_ /L-1:1_, \--\1_,,,,,,,,- ----c-- I i 1 0 ‘.1 I :- ..--,)_.3.---,•-",.-- . ■.-..-•L A, L7,..( ` L --e— - I CiTY OF CHANHASSEN IlECEWED I I.C ( 1 ,11, 1987 .A?VI- I CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. I 1 I C ..r LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION I CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPLICANT:• 2, i*c, .,, `Cf5 OWNER: Griil�� ADDRESS / / / ` / J E9/,5 frrxi` ` l L'�c'/� ADDRESS s3�'1_l5 :ra,0/C1��t .� 100a d /W)1 -5:51. (p� /Sail,/ ft i c5S--3,‘�' Zip ode 7 Zip Code TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 86 7_97-%!› TELEPHONE "7/-- /C jam'-'6j7 REQUEST: Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development I Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan Preliminary Plan Zoning Variance Final Plan ' Zoning Text Amendment Subdivision Land Use Plan Amendment k Platting I V Metes and Bounds A( Conditional Use Permit Street/Easement Vacation I Site Plan Review � ik Wetlands Permit I PROJECT NAME S fr c -c/ , \r c J �� PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION . -,:it.. /j /,I44 IREQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION :Z__ `-),-■-.jJ` ).,0- _.,,, ,,e/ PRESENT ZONING ,37,;(1/ IREQUESTED ZONING 7/ // / USES PROPOSED ISIZE OF PROPERTY apip, 75, .- 4- re LOCATION IREASONS FOR THIS REQUEST --, S, ,/ ;/ - _ I cfS G✓, 2`4 ryanTitcf ort i-A,,wa..,// J4�k-+.ia yh ©h 01 144 walk/mac. 7.,.-A L/A �` /� a Si,t (€ ,./,,c;,e`'- �ian-...e 0 r 2 is 7 b f14.--v..G cZ c c'e 5 S 74a , ZCtc� I D/ "• ,./7e cc c ii_ L t--74a e,,,,5,-5-1- ,,,5,s� D l al,'t° 77q,c k /JO e,r / f I LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary) 050 15 Oar ph,t III -77-7�J h K a d/r r o k/�/feed r o rf teSl 1 a r, ,_-c l ur v o ,e I &4.d e-rn-s ,-t sq "Li -fo g6t 'e. a s47„t-t.,K. $e.z41, City of Chanhasse(- n II Land Development Application Page 2 II FILING INSTRUCTIONS : This application must be completed in full and be I clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and or plans required by applicable City Ordinance II this application, you should confer withvthe oCity Planner to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application . II FILING CERTIFICATION: The undersigned representative of the applicant hereby fees certi I that he is familiar with the procedural requirements of all applicable City Ordinances . II Z-J-77-. - r i Gam/ 1 Signed By &� �' lir . /Date /4- //./.9/47 Applicant II The undersigned hereby certifies that the applicant has been authorized to make this application for the property herein II described. IISigned B 4 y 1-t*- � dA Date Fee Owner �� II II Date Application Received • Application Fee Paid II City Receipt No. II I* This Applicatio Application will be considered by the Planning Commission/ Board of Adjustments and Appeals at their meeting . 1 • _ 1 IPlanning Commission Mee(.g January 6, 1988 - Page 20 I �TRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON dOPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE: A. SUBDIVISION OF 9. 04 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN A CLASS B WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. I — — — — Larry Brown presented the engineering department's staff report P p rt on the Stratford Ridge Subdivision. Headla: That sedimentation basin, when I was looking at it, it looked like it would be 6 feet below the street level . Is that right? Brown: The elevation at the bottom of the pond is 966 and the elevation of the roadway is approximately 972. This invert of the storm sewer pipe is approximately half a foot, well it's 966.5 above Ithis. During the 100 year storm, the maximum capacity that it's expected to maintain, the elevation would be 968. This is well below the provisions of the roadway so we won't be creating a problem there. ' The one problem that does exist is the Park and Recreation Commission had proposed for a trail easement along Minnewashta Parkway. During the normal storm, say 10 year frequency storm , you can fit a trail Through here fairly readily. There's not many obstacles through there. t will be up out of the ponding area and won't be a problem. The problem does come in if a 100 year storm does occur , we may start encroaching upon the trail but I seriously doubt that many people are Igoing to be using the trail during a 100 year storm. Headla : How do you get the water from the sedimentation basin out? II Brown:a culvert under the road? Brown: Yes, the Watershed has reviewed this and with a baffle IIstructure here, it will flow into Lake Minnewashta. Certain provisions can be made to bring this outlet back further and rip rap it out but I don't think that would be very advantageous. The sedimentation is trapped in the basin and there won ' t be anything . . . IIHeadla : Is all the water coming out of there going to stay on the Pierce property? The grade in the land kind of makes it keep on going south. The drainage out of the sedimentation basin. You see it's Iheaded southeast. Why didn't it go more east? If you head southeast, it ' s going to continue flowing to the south when it gets past the road . IBrown: I think they made provisions. The drainage that comes from here is trapped through the roadway system and storm sewer system. It flows into the sedimentation basin and then goes out here . It- i 1 Planning Commission Meet( g I January 6, 1988 - Page 21 feadla: Okay, right there. It doesn't get to the lake. It gets to AL ne east side of the road but then the grade tends to make it flow to the south. Are they going to pipe it right down to the lake? Brown: That was my understanding. Is that correct? Ted : Yes. ' Conrad: There's a lot of property that could be developed around there and I guess I still see a benefit of creating a pond. Not only for this project but for others to the north and to the west. Why not? Is the elevation prohibitive of redirecting the front properties to drain to the rear to a pond and how come that ' s not an alternative? Brown: Basicly the initial submittal had the pond in this area- and , we made them relocate it to facilitate some of the natural drainage path. This area over here, BRW had analyzed that in their report. On their sketch they had picked out specific areas, low lying areas, that a pond could be facilitated. Unfortunately, I don't have an overhead of that but it is in your packet. That was not one of the areas they had picked. Because they met the 100 year frequency, it worked in with the side slopes of these lots and the existing drainage patterns, I felt that it was adequate. That certainly is an alternative that could be explored but I felt that this pond . . . Conrad: Tell me a little bit about, if you had a pond back there, like t can't hold , what would you do with the pond that was there? Would Lae assumption be that it could hold a lot of water or would you still have the same type of outlet into Minnewashta? Without looking at the site I have no idea what the holding capacity would be back there but would you potentially have to have the same type of outlet that you currently have on the holding pond that you planned in this particular map or could a pond be self contained? It flows in and it just stays there. Brown: You would have to have some sort of outlet. Eventually that pond is going to reach capacity. I know that the neighboring properties are very concerned about this area. I think that was one of the major reasons for the placement of the pond over here. Not only that, obviously we're limited by the property boundary and the slopes in the ditch area now. Like I said, I haven't got it down to brass tacks whether a pond is feasible through here. There could be some shifting of the proposed grades but I think you would have to outlet it someplace and I'm afraid that that alternative would be bad for Lake Minnewashta . I Conrad : How does a study, like BRW, how did this get funded? The BRW portion of alternatives . What prompted a study and who funded that? , Brown: BRW has been one of our consultants, for a while, to explore this, we used BRW because we're concerned with Minnewashta Parkway 1 1 Planning Commission Meet( g 1 January 6, 1988 - Page 2z 1 being a collector street. We're worried about the aspects of access ito Minnewashta Parkway. There are certain problems, as you're robably more than aware of, of sight distance and speed on Minnewashta IParkway. For that very reason, we wanted to explore what restrictions we needed for Stratford Ridge such as this entrance and also to facilitate future development. If this piece goes, it's fairly inevitable that the surrounding pieces will do that so we had to look Iat once these pieces start coming in, how are we going to facilitate utilities through there , the roadway patterns . 1 Conrad: Did that come from your office or did the City Council direct you to do that? 1 Brown: Yes, it came from our office. Conrad: Okay, and then how does that get funded? Who pays BR",, for doing that? Is that just a budget that the city has? IBrown: That 's a budgeted item, yes. We often use consultants. IConrad: You're just talking to us about engineering facts. Jo Ann, you're going to be talking about other things. Anything else for Larry? IJo Ann Olsen presented the planning department's staff report on the Stratford Ridge Subdivision. Irad : Would the applicant like to talk to us on what was just y presented and any other comments? ITed Kenner, Schoell and Madsen: The two questions that Jo Ann specifically brought up were the area of the property and we have calculated the area of the property to be 9.04 acres. This apparently disagrees with the tax area which is substantially less. Something in Ithe 5 acre area. I have not seen the tax statement, but it is actually a 9 acre parcel. As to Lot 1, Block 2 I understand by looking at it , it does not appear to have the 15,000. If you take the dimensions that Iare shown out of the plat, that does not calculate out but those are the dimensions to the curves. If you take the length of the lot times the width of the lot, which is 140 feet long by 108 feet wide, it calculates out to be 15,120. So when the plat is finally calculated, I that lot will be made to be a 15, 000 or larger and it will be based with that configuration. I guess I don' t have any other issues unless you have questions . IHeadla: On the 9.04 acres, Jo Ann remember early this fall when we had that Halla's property and I asked the question, the area they stated, Idid that include the highway. We were talking about TH 101, and you said no, that's not normally included. When I look at the arithmetic on this property, if I measure strictly the envelope, I come up with it..9.04 acres. That includes Minnewashta Parkway. If I take off I _ _ ;....,._ _ ,,, . 1 _ .. , Planning Commission Meet- 3 January 6, 1988 - Page 2 Minnewashta Parkway and the lakeshore, I come up with 7.56 acres which what the taxable property was and that's really what you're trying o develop. If you take away the outlot, it's really 7 acres that you' re developing. Do you agree with that? , Ted Kenner: It depends on how you figure it. I would say that the developable property is the entire parcel less the area that is in Minnewashta Parkway. The area in Minnewashta Parkway is about three- quarters of an acre so you still have 8.3 acres of land area. Headla : So the 9 . 04 did include the highway? I Ted Kenner: That is correct. You've got three-quarters of an acre between the road and the lake in there or about seven-tenths of an acre and that is not within the plat itself but it's still land - area that is developable and is taxed. Headla: I give you credit for a little bit more area than that. Okay, 1 I wanted to make that point. Can I see your arithmetic on Lot 1? I've tried and tried and tried and I can not come up with the, if you could just sketch it. Give me the overall dimensions and then let me go on to something else . Ted Kenner : Overall , the length is 140 feet . Headla: I get 130. If I take this 100 and this 15 and this 15, that's " 30. Ted Kenner : All I 'm using is the scale. Headla: I 'm using dimensions right off the print. I Ted Kenner: Okay, that's the way I've based it and that's the way the lot was set up is based on scale. ' Headla: I don't believe it's 15,000. Until I can see dimensions on the print that says that, I think you're way under. It does not meet the minimum of 15,000. Ted Kenner : I guess I'm confident that it does just based on my calculations. Headla : What does preliminary plat mean? Ted Kenner: This is a preliminary plat. This has not been calculated ' at this point. Headla : But if we approve this , what are we really approving? Can you slide anything around like you want or are we approving this as it is? L • k 1 IPlanning Commission Meetrg January 6, 1988 - Page I Olsen: They haven't made the final calculations but we check the lot 111,7'mensions with the final plat to match the two. You can ' t change. IHeadla: What do you really change on here? I'm not sure I really understand preliminary. IOlsen: The preliminary you'll establish the lot layout and the lot dimensions and the square footage. The final plat, it just comes in with just the lot lines. That's when you've done the final calculations. So with a preliminary plat sometimes you'll get a lot Ithat's 110 wide and then the final will come in and it might be actually 112. IHeadla: So you're really just fine tuning some of the dimensions but these lots aren't going to slide around anymore. I guess I want to make very sure that does meet the minimum requirements. I don't know how they're going to achieve it. That's all I had on that. On the driveway, on the outlot that you're suggesting, are you going to be doing any grading on that driveway? Are you changing the level of that at all? IOlsen: Right along here. There is concern that this driveway not be blocked at all . ITed Kenner: The plan is to not do anything in this area. Just leave it as is . I :adla: So you won't be doing any grading in there and you aren't changing water flow at all then? ITed Kenner: No. It will only be constructed from Minnewashta Parkway up to Stratford Drive where it goes into the development. That will be finished, the roadway up to there. Beyond that will remain the gravel driveway that presently exists there. IHeadla: Fine, there was some concern and I just wanted clarification on that. When you're doing this, and this is kind of a question that I comes up at different times , there's only one way into that house, what happens if there is an emergency up there? Is there always going to be an access to that place? When you're putting in that 50 foot road, how ' is that person, in case there's an emergency, how does that house get served? Ted Kenner : When you say that house , which are you talking about? Headla: The one directly to the west. Ted Kenner : Hallgren ' s? Headla: Yes . II- I Planning Commission Meet ' January 6, 1988 - Page 2 Ted Kenner : They would maintain the driveway through there so they ' Auld get through at all times. Headla : Even when you' re building that 50 foot road? ' Ted Kenner: Yes. Headla: What about on the northeast corner where I think it's Mrs. ' Campbell lives now, her property goes right into her driveway and I think that's been common knowledge in the area for some time. What happens to her? Is she just out of luck now or maybe the builder can tell me, how is that handled? Robert Pierce: That's been addressed. There is an easement for driveway purposes. Ted Kenner : Just one comment on that. Since that was drawn, we have gotten additional information on the exterior boundaries and they will be shifting a little further from her house on the north side anyway and possibly right to the edge of the driveway. So the drive may not go into our property. ' Headla: How do you people feel about that trail going along Mi.nnewashta Parkway and then that 6 foot drop-off there? Then you've got a 6 foot water pond along the parkway and then you're going to have homes there. Is that going to be a problem for people on the bike rail or the homes that are right there that have small children? Robert Pierce: At this point, I guess I don't really know. It's a little hard for me to visualize how the trail is going to go in until I really see where it's going to go. I do know that with the proper landscaping and the right grades, I think it can be done and made to look very nice. I guess it would be up to whoever is using the trail to use it in such a way that, if they're going at such a speed that they can't stay on the trail or whatever, I guess that's where problems would come in but that could be anywhere along the trail . Headla: Do they grate that thing or what do they do? Brown: There is plenty of room for the 8 foot trail. Where the problem comes in is actually the 20 foot easement area that's normally required. There's a problem with overlapping the drainage easement with the trail easement and that was my major concern. There is more than enough room to get an 8 foot trail in there. That obviously doesn't alleviate the possibility of reaching maximum capacity of the pond and occasionally running over the top of that trail. I think that's the problem at this point. As far as the question we were getting at before about the pond being close to the residential neighborhood right there, we have required ponds on roughly all the developments. One classic example is over here on the Saddlebrook. That's probably the biggest ponding site that we have and that again is 1 Planning Commission M ti.ng January 6, 1988 - Pag 26 adjacent to the rearyard so I really don ' t foresee any direct problem. Headla: So if we set a precedent, it isn't going to be any different than what we've done other places? Brown: That ' s correct. Headla : I was looking at that hoping to have the water go back the other way. The other one, I'm concerned about the wetland to the northwest , but we can talk about that. My only other comment is , I was really disappointed in the BRW maps. They just blatantly went right through the wetlands and they are suggesting these are where the roads should go. I'm not going to belabor the point except that I thought it was inappropriate to do. You heard the discussion tonight. We're very concerned about wetlands and then something that the village -will sponsor , we blast a road right on through. Brown: I think that can be addressed by, initially and Jo Ann can confirm this, initially we didn't think that area was a wetland. As I stated before, when the applicant submitted this at first, that was when we ordered the overview by BRW. Shortly thereafterwards, the area back there in the northwest corner was analyzed as a low class wetland. So it's not a real obvious factor when you're out there tromping through the site, that it is a wetland . Emmings: I've just got a little bit here. On the condition 2, Jo Ann r- it says Lots 1 through 5 and I assume that's Block 2 that you're 3 talking about there so I guess I'd like to, whoever makes the motion, I think we ought to include Block 2 in there so we're sure we know which Lots 1 through 5 we're talking about. Then, going to condition 1, we're talking about the right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 will be designated as an outlot. Do I understand the reason that's being done is to avoid the double frontage question? Olsen: Mostly it's just so the city would not have to maintain a double frontage. It ' s indicated as street right-of-way right now. . . Emmings : Why aren't we doing the same things then at least Lots 8 , 9 and 10 of Block 1 that we're doing on Lot 2 for the double frontage lots? Olsen : Technically right now it ' s not actually a double frontage lot . Emmings: We are creating double frontage lots right? Olsen: It's possible that when streets are approved there that it will just go straight down from Stratford to this driveway but . . . Emmings: As far as the double frontage lots, I don't have a problem with that. I don't think the plan is a bad plan at all for the property. I'm glad that they looked to see how it would fit with the �I � Planning Commission Mef i ng January 6, 1988 - Page x-9 Erhart: Are you talking about the Charles Anderson property is coming in for a subdivision? And they would get access from where your blue line is? Olsen: I haven ' t seen the plans . Ted Kenner : I have talked to them and they are more interested in developing the property to the north. They are looking at the Charles Anderson property and the one just to the west of there which is owned by the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. They are looking at developing those two parcels together tying both of those off of Pleasant Acres. Conrad: I still have a problem. It still looks to me like we're putting a whole lot of stuff on a few acres here. I know that our legal consultants say it meets the minimum as long as they a; l do but when I see the bike trail and I see the holding pond and I see some variances and double frontages, it always means , usually when we have a lot of stuff like that it means we're putting too much on a piece of property. Erhart: Jo Ann are we asking for a variances for double frontage on Lot 7 through 10? How can we do that when there's no street there? We' re not asking for a variance? Conrad: We' re not? Olsen : What you need right now is a variance to that additional feet required on Lots 1 through 5. Headla : What did you say Jo Ann? I didn ' t follow. Olsen: Technically they're getting the variance for that additional 10 feet . Erhart : And the reason for justification of a vari3nce was what? Olsen: Is that that 10 feet could not be provided without altering. They can shift the street up here , that would provide more lot depth but to provide that additional 10 feet, there is no alternative. They would possibly have to remove this lot and shift it up. Again , we were just working with the location of this street for accessing the property to the north . We felt this was a good street configuration. Erhart: And the 10 feet is added to what? Olsen : The lot depth. Right now they would have to have 160 feet . Erhart: And we've sent on to the Council to change that to 125? t I L I l Planning Commission Mee( ng r January 6, 1988 - Page ,jO IIOlsen: Yes, and if that does get approved, then all of these lots would meet without the additional 10 feet. IHeadla : Does it look like that' s going to fly? Don ' t know. Larry Wenzel: Subject to what happens with this given parcel of I property in respect to the other pieces of property with this master layout, that plan, how much of this is cast in stone? It appears that we're pretty well constricted individually, or even as a group, according to the road systems that have been laid out as far as the I lots. You've got some variances on this piece of property. How many built in variances have they laid in for the rest of us that we're going to have to get compliance to even to think of the economics of Iwhether this thing is going to be developed in 1989 or the year 3000 subject to the value of what we can sell our piece of land and therefore a house for. Is this the plan that's going to be maintained Isubject to whether that 's approved or not approved? Olsen: No, the only plan that would be maintained would be this one. The only way that this is altering the impact of the surrounding Iproperties is that it is designating where future roads will be provided to the north and then it will be providing this whole length along here and a road that goes straight to the south and west. That's Ithe only thing that's dictating at this time. These plans are just going to be used for general use to give us a better picture of what the street layouts could possibly have. Staff is concerned with a lot IIrof separate accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway. We were trying to look .mat a way to provide service to all those lots along here without necessarily having separate accesses . ILarry Wenzel: Are they assuming that most of the existing homes will be moved out of there? That ' s the way it appears . IOlsen: There's really no assumption, it was just kind of an overall plan just to lay it on top. This was like if everybody would want to subdivide. There are many possibilities . 1 Larry Wenzel: Can I get a copy of those variances that you have listed? The easement for the trail that's going to run, as I perceived it, along Minnewashta Parkway, running the whole way. That's going to IIbe taken on what , the west side of Minnewashta Parkway? Olsen: At this point it will be on the west side. ILarry Wenzel : And what are they going to do , just cut another swath in there? Another 8 foot swath west of the road? IOlsen : Off of the right-of-way. Larry Wenzel: If they do that, this is the third time they've taken iiour stuff. Along here you've got a major hill and when you cut this I T I Planning Commission Me 1g January 6, 1988 - Page 3�1 away I lost that huge tree from cutting in the road and it died from , ' ack of water. Then they put the new street in and they pitched it wrong and you've got all the water coming down this road at 90 mph going right over a mickey mouse curb that they put in after it washed the whole bank out once and out into the lake. Are they going to put some kind of a storm sewer on this side of the street then along with that so handle that kind of a problem? Because you're increasing that grade dramatically. Olsen: We have not looked at it at this point. Those sort of issues would be reviewed at that time. Emmings: Jo Ann, aren't they just reserving an easement on this plat for a possible future trailway. There' s no plan to build it. , Larry Wenzel: It's not connected to whatever, you approved this development, it doesn't cast that into stone and it is there and setting a precedent? Emmings : Just reserving an easement for a possible future trail . Olsen: The Park and Recreation Commission has a trail plan and Minnewashta Parkway is designated to have a trail so as developments come in, we reserve easements for that. When it will be built , I couldn ' t tell you. .cT,arry Wenzel : I guess I get a little nervous when I see, and our .eighbor John Ziegler of course isn't here, but I see something like that and I 'm wondering how much thought process went into that thing . Olsen: This doesn't show everything. That might have been a pondi.ng I area . Larry Wenzel : That' s all high ground . Brown: As Jo Ann point out, the or000sed plat has really nothing to do with the approval of this. Like I said, a number of these plans could have been drawn up. You could have come in with five of these. The only thing about this plan is that if Stratford Ridge is approved, if Mr. Anderson decided that he wanted to hook into sanitary sewer if he wanted to develop, he may be able to facilitate the sanitary sewer and water from the Stratford Ridge development. That was the only reason that this report was even looked at. To figure out how we can put in piece of the puzzle if they so choose to develop. But this plan, as far as the lot layouts, as far as even these parcels are developed , is strictly up to the lot owner. It's just so if you do decide to develop, you have a way of doing that. But as far as the lot layout, each parcel can come in and propose as long as they meet the 15, 000 square foot minimum and in accordance to the ordinance. But this layout is arbitrary. It's just so future development can be made to facilitate if the need should occur . 1 11 Planning Commission Meetf g IIJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 3 i Ilk- Headla: Just so you folks on the Commission understand where we're 'oming from, none of us had seen this. We didn't even know it was going on. All of a sudden there's two options. What we're going to Ipossibly do with your home, with your property, so it's a little shocking. You can look at it objectively but for us, it's more of an emotional thing the first shot. IIBrown: I think also, as pointed out in the report before, some of these parcels will have trouble meeting the requirements as far as lot area by themselves and this report was a way of informing the neighbors Ithat if they so choose, they can get together and develop this or have somebody develop it for them if they have a smaller parcel. It's just another method of learning, if they want to develop, they should be I informed as to what ' s out there. Larry Wenzel: I think you're right and I'm not disagreeing. It is a shock. When you see your name up there and all these lots chopped up Iand your house doesn ' t exist . Mrs. Wenzel : And no road access . ILarry Wenzel: Each one of us, even though our piece is 10.5 acres, after Dave's explanation, I'm not sure what we've got after listening to what Lawson's might or might not. I don't know who the devil it IIcomes from but in my particular case which is inmaterial to this, we've got a house here and a house here, which is fine because of your lake r rules. You'd probably get it blocked off and get two front water lots III .nd the rest of it you develop or whatever the case may be but there you've got access that exists from the main street now. The way this appears, all of a sudden that's changed , even though it's there. It might not be and I guess that ' s what makes you a little nervous . Erhart: Well , it may not be because the ordinance, I believe on collectors, it's 300 feet separation for street access. So the whole Ipurpose of putting together this master plan is a plan that everybody has future access and still meet the ordinance. You do that by preventing situations like this developer coming in and putting two IIcul-de-sacs with no future extension of the street. So what the plan allowed us to do here is to work with the developer to allow future access of the one street to go up to the Mildred Kirkson property, if that person so chooses to develop without having a direct access onto I Minnewashta Parkway. Larry Wenzel: Yes, but many of the driveways already exist and they Iare two distinct and separate pieces of property, how can you tell me now that this is going to change. IErhart: No it doesn' t, but if you wanted to develop, it doesn't necessarily mean that you can put in a street outlet to Minnewashta . I I Planning Commission Mee3 11 January 6, 1988 - Page 3' Larry Wenzel: I didn't say anything about street outlet, I said two , ( rive outlets that are already there. Jo Ann Hallgren: I was the one that had the driveway. My property is landlocked as you can see. The x on the map there, that is probably what you would consider a wetland. I have a wetland on the north of my property. There's a huge ravine that runs to the western part of my property and all the way to the railroad tracks. What I'm getting at is, on the lot selection, the driveway easement, the one that's not going to be developed into a public street, is considered an outlot. That's what the staff has stated. To me, that is my only access to my property. But the property owners property goes down further than a public street would give more square footage than what would exist with the existing easement. I'm wondering if that would be a problem there If a public street were to be continued back. Can you take acreage from the lots? Olsen : You'd have to work with that property owner . Jo Ann Hallgren: What if he' s the one that says no? Olsen: I think what we were looking at when the additional right-of- way would be required, that it would also be working with the property with this house . I Jo Ann Hallgren: Finally, I would like a condition to serve my f roblem. Erhart : You've got 33 feet there . Olsen: You 've got 33 feet but not the 50 feet . Ted Kenner: We have shown on the preliminary plat reserving 17 foot of additional right-of-way along Lots 7 through 10 for future street expansion in there so it would be 50 feet wide . Conrad: You've never talked about burning the house Dave. Headla: Oh yes, I wanted to thank you. I wanted to discuss that. What happens if they can't come up with 15,000 square feet on Lot 1, Block 2? What happens to all the work that ' s done here? Olsen: To get approval, they would have to receive a lot area variance. What you could probably do, what you probably should do, is establish a condition that Lot 1, Block 2 . . . 1 Emmings: Why do we have to do that? We've approved this plat. This plat says it has 15,000. If it doesn't, than they haven't told us the truth and then they've got a problem so we'll just assume they're going to and it will be up to staff to check and make sure they do. L 1 I IIPlanning Commission Meet 's 7 T January 6, 1988 - Page 34' I1peadla : They have to come back again? Emmings : No. IIHeadla : If they don ' t make it 15, 000. IEmmings: Dave, look at the lot next door is 17,500. They can steal enough over there to make that one 15 , 000 I would think without any trouble at all . If they do need it. IHeadla : I just want to see it at 15, 000. Emmings: Well, that's what the plan says. Staff has to make sure that Ihappens . That ' s what we ' re approving . Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend Iapproval of Subdivision #87-32 as shown on the plat stamped "Received December 14, 1987" and subject to the following conditions : I 1. The right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 shall be designated as an outlot. 2. Lots 1-5, Block 2 shall provide an additional 10 feet of I depth or an approved detailed landscaping plan providing screening from Minnewashta Parkway. Ir f 3. The existing building and debris shall be removed from the site upon approval of the appropriate permits . 4. Provision of a 20 foot trail easement on the west side of IMinnewashta Parkway. 5. Type II erosion control , staked hay bales and snow fence, Ishall be placed along the south side of Lots 1, 9 and 10. 6. A typical detail for Type II erosion control , staked hay bales and snow fence, shall be placed on the grading plan . I7. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1. I8 . All streets and utilities shall be constructed in accordance to the City' s standards for urban construction . I9 . The watermain shall either be looped or increased to an eight inch diameter. No dead-end stubs shall be allowed . I 10. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the commencement of any grading. I Planning Commission Meeti( ' January 6, 1988 - Page 35 11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with , - the City and provide the necessary financial sureties as a part of this agreement for completion of the improvements . 12. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of the Watershed District and DNR permit . 13 . The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to its minimum possible elevation such that service from the north of the easterly proposed cul-de-sac may be facilitated . 14 . Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the entire ponding site should shifting of the pond be necessary. 15. The curb radius as shown in Attachment #3 shall be replaced by a curb transition section as shown in Attachment #4 . All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who opposed and motion carried . ' Conrad: The reason for my opposition is I still think there are too many pieces of land on this piece of property. I would recommend that one parcel be eliminated and I think that would solve a lot of my concerns with the subdivision . Headla: On the building on the property, the Fire Department talked to me and said they were interested in burning it. Did Dick Winger _7" pally get a hold of you? Robert Pierce: I guess I hadn't contacted anybody at this p oint because I wanted to get to this point before I made any other arrangements . Headla : Can we tell them to get in touch with you then? Robert Pierce: Sure . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. ' Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot . ' Erhart : What ' s happened here in the procedural changes? Olsen: We confirmed with the Attorney and the zoning ordinance. . . 1 Erhart: We've been voting on the zoning ordinance since I've been on the Commission. Now all of a sudden that's not the way it is anymore or have we been doing it wrong? • r ' 1 Planning Commission Meeting r January 6, 1988 - Page 36 IC r sen: , g i.vis nth. AN far you as've the been recreational on beachlotvariances, to the es zoning i.ons ordinance and the lot states that variances should be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments . 'Erhart: That ordinance specifically is different than the . . . IOlsen : Under the zoning ordinance. Roger Knutson: There are two ordinances. The subdivision and zoning ordinance. Recreational beachlots are in the zoning ordinance. The ,requirements with a dock is 100 foot depth. If you want to get around that requirement, it needs a variance and the zoning ordinance says that goes to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The subdivision is a I separate ordinance. It doesn't have to go to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals . You can decide that . Erhart: We're not chaning anything, we're just following the rules on this one. It's a lot easier for us. The only thing we're dealing with sere is just simply approving or disapproving the beachlot as it fits our beachlot ordinance? Simply that. The only issue we have to deal With is essentially the plan of the beachlot. Then the only question I !Lave is, in proposing the change from stops to a ramp, are you not inviting 3-wheelers to come driving down that to our nice beach? Illted Kenner: That's always a problem when you have a ramp. At the same i.me, I can see what the staff is suggesting for safety, if you need to (_t down there in case of emergency. II rhart: But in case of emergency, then don' t they guy put the a on a stretcher and they can carry him up the steps just as well as they can him. . . !arry lsen : Stretchers have wheels on them. rhart: I don't know. I'm not an expert on `i -�par one but i'j sure avor the steps over the ramp. I don't know if it's worth getting into a big discussion. That ' s the only tni.ng i ' ve got. 1eadlWho looks at the tree plantings? There are some beautiful a: oaks there and I just want to make sure that the oaks stay. Well , pou 'd have every reason to want to keep them too . lsen: That will be approved by the DNR forester , Allan Olsen . Ionrad: The Planning Commission looks at a conditional use permit, hat are we looking at? What are the conditions that we're measuring this against? It seems like the conditions that we're measuring Iai.nst are not in our power to measure but the Board of Adjustments is asuring . I I -Y .I Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 37 Olsen: We looked at it meeting the conditions of the recreational beachlot. . . Conrad: But not the depth. We' re not looking at area size. Olsen: You look at whether it meets the conditions. Conrad : And it doesn' t. Olsen: When it doesn't, that's when you want it to go to the Board of Adjustments . Conrad : So, what are the conditions that we' re looking at? Olsen: It meets the conditions of just a basic beachlot without a dock. Erhart: The depth is required for the dock but that's out of our jurisdiction. Let me correct this, it does meet all of the conditions for just a standard beachlot? Olsen: Yes. You have the lake frontage . ' Conrad: And 800 of the houses are located within 1,000 feet? Okay. We asked the Public Safety Director to review the safety of this lot, crossing Minnewashta Parkway. Did he ever do that for us? Olsen: He commented on the stairs. Yes and no, people are going to be crossing the street . . . He felt that the bigger issue was . . . Conrad: And the steps simply just for access, emergencies and handicap? That's hard for me to visualize, a ramp. And we're not concerned with where the beach is placed? Headla : Does tne ouw ider zeei :e ,leis r nave a i amp? , Robert Pierce : No, I guess it ' s really up to you . Erhart : Ladd , I think it is within our duties to mane comments about the plan. The layout and where the sand is. I think that's one of the few things we do have input on . Olsen : In the report I did review that we did want more detailed plans , if they review the beachlot. I did not make that a condition. Conrad: Yes, I didn't see that as a condition here. What's staff's ' opinion? I think this is a good outlot for recreation. I think the concern we had last time Jo Ann was the 40 feet. The distance between the lake and the road is 40 feet and is that acceptable in terms of how people are handled? If you get 13 lots, or whatever it is, more than that, 15 lots, can that 40 feet of depth, which we're not looking at, 1 1 � Planning Commission Meeting _ January 6, 1988 - Page 38 ' handle that many people? Originally, I think the 100 feet is simply to separate, give people room away from property and I think with the road there and everything, I have no problem with that. I'm sure the Board of Adjustments will accept that but there is obviously a clear ' separation between the outlot and people's land and therefore it's not going to be a great deal of impact on those Lots 3, 4 and 5. My concern goes back to, are we allowing something, have we designed the ' right amount of space for people who are going to use that? 40 feet is really not a whole lot for a beach. Especially, I'm don't know how much of that is useable for a beach. Robert Pierce: Maybe I can take this a step back, about the steps or the ramp. I guess, if I had my way I'd rather probably put steps in because of ease of maintenance and I think they can just make it nicer ' looking but again, it's not anything one way or the other. It would proably just make it look a little nicer with those steps. Then going to the 40 foot, we have a major length of shoreline there and the kind of beaches that I take my kids to, a lot of them out on the lake, a lot of times where we go we are probably, the sand beach depth and there would be quite a few other boats , a lot of time that beach is not more than just a few feet. And here, we would make it deeper than that plus we would make it 80 to 100 feet . . . Conrad: You're comfortable you can solve the problem that these homeowners are going to put on the beachlot? Robert Pierce: We want to make an attractive situation for everybody. It's to our advantage, as much as anybody's, to be able to have something that will be desirable and that they can see they're going to enjoy. ' Headla : Did you want to fit the point there , Jo Ann? Olsen: About the more detailed plans? ' Headla : Yes . Olsen: Sure . Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot ' subject to the following conditions : 1. The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock unless a ' variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board of Adjustments and City Council . 2. The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by the Board of Adjustment and City Council . 1 ., Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 39 ' 3 . All additional standards established for a recreational beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met. 4 . A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A. 11 5 . The applicant must submit a more detailed plan of the recreational beachlot. ' All voted in favor and motion carried . WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO A CLASS B CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET _ , WI _ :IN WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Wetland Alteration Permit. Conrad: Can you build on a Class B wetland? Can you build a house? A I Class B wetland is not buildable, isn't that right and therefore is not part of area that we use to calculate densities . Olsen : We' ve always used that. Headla : You' ve always included wetlands in your density calculations? I Conrad : Wetlands are not buildable though Jo Ann. Erhart : Yes , but you still include them in your overall acreage. ' Olsen: Yes, I think we do. The developer has done it. I'm trying to think, like for Hidden Valley. When we had that large wetland in that marsh area down there, I beli eve that went into the net densi ty, we did not include that. Conrad: But in terms of individual lot size, not the overall plat or subdivision, but in terms of the overall lot size. A wetland will help make up the 15, 000 square foot minimum? Erhart: The only rule we have is the setback from the building . Robert Pierce: You have in the past because I know of one other subdivision here and they included the wetlands. It wasn't this, it was a Class A wetland and they were included in the calculations of the lots . Olsen: With the Lake Riley Woods subdivision, it was then. Even with that open ponding area in the Lake Riley Woods , we included that. Erhart: I'm not sure it's appropriate for 15,000 square foot lots but it is for the 2 1/2 acre. That ' s how I know I ' ve studied it. • Planning Commission Meeting January 6 , 1988 - Page 40 ' Olsen : Now we have the 2 1/2 acre lot, a minimum of 1 acre buildable. If it wasn ' t shown as a wetland , we wouldn ' t have known. Erhart : What you have is a 6 inch dip there is what it really is on the side of the hill . Headla: There are pretty good swales up there. Jo Ann, Rockwell and I ' walked through it and she looked at it and boy, she locked on that right away. ' Conrad : What's it like off this property? How much more is a Class B wetland? Olsen: It does continue to drain over here to the northwest. There is ' a large, and it shows on this map. I think I might have covered it up with this but there is a larger , better wetland to the northwest . ' Conrad : I don't know how closely related to the permit, :what are we communicating here as we allow filling of the B in terms of the adjacent properties? Are we saying that we don't care for the B's in that area? We've got an alternative, which is acceptable, for another ' holding pond that Rockwell feels is a subsitute but does that communicate anything about the neighboring part of that wetland? What are we thinking Jo Ann? Olsen : When we visited the site she felt that it is important to the drainage and that other wetland was the important wetland. As stated that was our optimum place to provide the ponds and you could maintain the drainage. Headla : We were dumping a lot of water in there that wasn' t affecting , 11 a little bit on the northwest corner but affecting the adjoining properties. You're getting faster runoff into the adjoining properties . Olsen: Now we are? Actually they're bringing over the drainage the other way. So what they're actually doing is taking natural drainage and going to that wetland pond . did look at that , we walked over ' there and looked at that other wetland and that was the important one that she would not want to see filled or altered . Conrad: Okay, I'm comfortable with the exchange but I guess I'm still a little bit not sure . I haven ' t seen the property. Erhart: Addressing your thoughts there, I guess in the Riley Lake subdivision we had a Class B wetland there and that was even marginal , Class E, but what we made them do was essentially move it over a little bit and turn it into a Class A essentially. Now there we moved it over a little bit. Here we're moving it across. I think it would be preferable also to take that little dip and move it down to the edge of that lot. I think that would have been also a nicety. To maintain, I 4 Planning Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 41 lain reduce the amount of runoff on that lot and also to maintain that little Class B or even the small little pond down there into a Class A. It certainly would not have hurt that lot because you know that house is not going to be built right there. Headla: How big is this basin going to be? I don't see anything here on the area. 11 Robert Pierce : I don ' t have it with me at this time . Headla : What would you guess it would be? Erhart: Yes, compared to the old one. Was that area an existing Class A wetland where that basin is? Headla : Class B. Erhart : That was B by Minnewashta Parkway? Conrad: No, that 's nothing. ' Olsen : That never was a wetland . Headla : That would be a quarter of an acre basin in the northwest corner of that property? Is that what we're talking about? That whole "-wale goes up between 5 and 6 but where would this . 26 acres be? Conrad : The drainage g pond is right on the Parkway. Brown: That . 26 encompasses this area here that I have yellowed . ' Headla: Okay, I don ' t have any problem with it . Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Wetland Alteration Permit :=87-16 to eermi_t the alteration of a Class B wetland with the following conditions: ' 1. The proposed sedimentation basin shall be designed to the following six criteria so that it will also be as a wetland area: a . The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and nesting birds. b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of ' 10:1 to 20: 1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. { ;tr __y Ip'ag Commission Meeting January 6, 1988 - Page 42 Itc. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for I species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation . I d . The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being filled) onbottommofbasin to Iprovide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser I pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland . I f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland . I 2 . The applicant must receive a permit from the Corps of Engineers . All voted in favor and motion carried . Ct grad: I guess the only discussion I have is, in concept I wish we F .ld have figured out a way to enhance the wetland that we' re filli ng and use that as a drainage area and also as an asset . lieadla: One of the things I think, there's a subtle thing, we're reventing a lot of water from going into that real wetlands into the orthwest and we've never talked about , what is the real impact on that wetland? I don't know if it's 1% of the water that normally goes in 'here or is it 25% or 40% . Conrad: I think as that area develops, that wetland's going to be axed. I think the other wetlands will be used to drain runoff rough. It will have it's chance to do it's job sooner or later but ere was a potential case of using a wetland as an asset. We didn't do Iit but this is an alternative that ' s acceptable . PUBLIC HEARING: RIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-SITE RECTIONAL SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED-TOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT ND LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE EAST , NORDQUIST SIGNS (DATASERV) . Us item was tabled per the applicant ' s request . I I