The URL can be used to link to this page

07-21-93 Agenda and Packet AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMI, FILE WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 1993, 7:30 CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULT. CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Non-conforming use permit for Colonial Grove Homeowners Association Recreational Beachlot. The permit shall describe the nature and extent of the use allowed. 2. JMS Development for a preliminary plat to subdivide 6.1 acres into 12 single family lots on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located south of Pleasant View Road, west of Troendle Circle, east of Peaceful Lane and north of Lake Lucy Road, Tower Heights. 3. Heritage Development to subdivide 37 acres of property into 57 single family lots located on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family and located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway. PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING 4. Discuss the North Access Boulevard project. The project entails the construction of a 2- lane boulevard between Powers Boulevard and Hwy. 41 on the north side of Hwy. 5. The boulevard will be an extension of West 78th Street and is designed to serve local trips and potential new development. It is anticipated to be a joint project between the City and Minnesota Department of Transportation. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS OPEN DISCUSSION ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 11:00 p.m. as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first 1 on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: July 12, 1993 SUBJ: Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Recreational Beachlot UPDATE This item appeared before the Planning Commission on June 2, 1993. The Association has asked that the Planning Commission reconsider this issue for the following reasons: no one representing the association was at the meeting; Mr. Whitehill, who is representing the Association, stated that he did not receive his packet until the Thursday after the Planning Commission meeting; and finally, staff was in error stating the association was requesting nine (9) boats. The association is in fact requesting eight (8) boats. In light of these concerns, staff concurs that this item should be revisited by the Planning Commission. The process that the City Council set out for the non-conforming use permit is that the Association have a representative who submits the application and keeps the Association informed of the meeting. To ensure communication between the Association and the city, staff has notified the entire Colonial Grove Association of the Planning Commission meeting. At the June 2, 1993, meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of three (3) boats to be stored at the dock overnight. This recommendation was made based on the information that was given in the 1981 survey of the beachlot. Again, staff has always stated that this survey is based on one day during the summer of 1981 and may not be a true representation of the level of use for the beachlot. Staff has requested that the associations supply any documentation that can provide better information as to the level of use during the summer of 1981. Mr. Whitehill has supplied staff with five (5) affidavits. These affidavits state that the person is familiar with the dock and the number of boats that were moored at the dock during the summer of 1981 and for most years subsequent. They believe, to the best of their knowledge, es mi. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission July 12, 1993 Page 2 that the number of boats in the summer of 1981 at the dock was eight (8) and in subsequent years, the number of boats generally ranged from seven to nine. BACKGROUND Colonial Grove was first approved in 1956. Additional phases were approved in 1979 and 1980. There are approximately 73 homes in both additions of Colonial Grove. A Non-Conforming Use Permit for the Lotus Lake Betterment Association (the Colonial Grove beachlot) was approved by the city in June of 1981. This Non-Conforming Use Permit gives the terms and conditions for the level of use for the beachlot. (Please see attached Non-Conforming Use Permit.) The non-conforming permit issued in 1981 omits the use of boats being docked overnight. Staff's interpretation of the permit is that no boats are allowed to be docked overnight. The association is stating that they have been grandfathered the right to dock boats overnight. The non-conforming use permit was amended in 1984 to allow for 2 canoes rack to be located at the beachlot. The only issue staff is asking the consideration or interpretation of is the number of boats that can be docked overnight. In 1981 when staff surveyed this beachlot, it was noted that there were 3 boats at the dock and _ 3 boats on land. The association has included the minutes from an association meeting in April of 1984 that states the number of boats approved was nine. The inventory by staff in 1986 showed 3 speed boats at the dock as well as 3 jet skis on the dock. The non-conforming use permit specifically addresses the following: 1. A one hundred foot dock — 2. Permits swimming, tennis and picnicking 3. No buildings can be erected 4. No boats are to be moored — 5. No airplanes are to be moored 6. No swimming platform is permitted 7. Camping and motor vehicle parking is prohibited Minutes from the Planning Commission and the City Council meetings regarding the intent of the non-conforming use permit regarding boats to be docked overnight is inconclusive. The Planning Commission minutes state that a conditional use permit would be required to dock boats overnight. SUMMARY The association is requesting the approval of eight (8) boats to be docked overnight at the beachlot. Planning Commission — July 12, 1993 Page 3 ATTACHMENTS _ 1. Letter from Cliff Whitehill dated March 2, 1993. 2. Five (5) Affidavits. 3. Non-Conforming Use Permit. 4. Conditional Use Permit #84-2. 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 2, 1993. /I� •'� — R l•'• '0-16-iii`♦!� �JJ7"�� _j 0 *'s'�"Arm ii;sf.4•CL'�'.�: �. '`' -�.114/0 041, r>�. L =nirr 7� r1 , rag u�s]�� IIIA �.1 +� 1�•�S��F/I �� _,♦:1rkl.�\'pa x7:Poppa��- 4:= I �.. 4/11111*riff*� Y !�,•Pt . "41.-...-- ►�.�f', ��If � Biu4. —� N �, •Im r. �.-,- N. i-..4p _ _�... • ,.e,ll� y, 40 . ..d111.1111 te ,, 1 ' ' 6 j . "" en rtt:icaa2.1 11017:NAPS laWill:v!JAW.':--'7_,..1.02'"1-1;44.-i. .11:,r7"-ts \J 4 .•... R7 \ k I .. L &EN it 401“: 7P.Z.rp•44 r. ife-:driire r .•/ -k--- -- -, ' ir NO,�. �, s AN. , }, !� .:t �� I'/ < i (/'"1":,,,, ',may. _ 1 • jIP 1 a 'kill _ s /, � 1111 w 13 1111' 2 '��Est 14 OIL ►c II " i r e.11 r A ,` ' r, ,. WI 41I, �� _ -—=:/ • it fal\ I D menu:3 �..1 ,,� _ p ,--./re ��.�'�'1` ��ij r' - rIa C enu 1.urs r_..r ` +4,� wooing- `,r.;j ;i ` �, =,_=-1.1n........... „_.• on �' b ` .., . j��44`14141,.•,.p. ' V`;iLt�r`�f.• �[: , '_2 .`7• �l a .us, may:. a.�k , laj1 $/ •:PeIIil"'. :1= 74 11 k\, ^ � `' �%L'i� �� << e.1. 41, 1 WO=7711iRa- l %,••11111118111•0 I% ` TT•'''M .�'" kl '' '''.4' AU le"..uA.• ^lel,`I� IOW -84-411tat- I. *sem• i` Cle# '�1 i 111 ]t nl , w' � ♦ , fa•�P� i@ iw` .. 7,'�1'!t.dkit /ice _ i 44 -�f.- 1 Y �t �] b► - J e t" J \ DEN• - PRAIRIE a �-- FI - I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I�� I yl 1,I I I t I e � O ^ 2 / 7.4> r- m m N..,..„.��/ o K. O.33 j Ilk 6 7-C)) m n 'll �1 — • _ N m I oma o U ��. s P... a 14, U < _ 13, , ir , t ��,-.))27%.4,7.-4.4.- 0 • 1 dt°rIPPE. ? rl--'I L., i/1, % i m ayo 9�o N 1 I z 1 / ,1 + . � �� Z v' n<i 1,, .., W �� _ i - \ 4 , /////014, A _ \ ,...bc Al > o9 - oI .S --� nno 0 j 0• v c - 1111111 _ - r ,... -Ili 1 in N m ti (teriiil ., .... —_ - 2 v to n I.Ailiall t... m J WI o i V I IP O AF W e.' 441 °11111111 1 • be o a I t 1 irr Nf ; 60 NW 2. 0 Alt° -O CpONW Cl _ IO f '° 10 pu ] j-4 _ -i-La-->: NO. ... 101 in ,_ L ` •S: - �m��, , . , " LI CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT INVENTORY 1981 1986 1991 Colonial Grove 44 homes Lotus Lake 2 acres 25 ' of shoreline Motor Vehicle Access yes yes yes Off-Street Parking yes yes yes Boat Launch no no no Permanent Buildings no no no Setbacks Temporary Buildings no no no Portable Restroom no no no Picnic Tables no no 1 Grills/Campfires no no no Seasonal Docks 1 35 ' 1 35 ' 1 35 ' Approximate Length Canoe Racks no 1 6 1 6 spaces spaces Boats on Land 3 7 9 Boats Moored no no no Boats Docked 3 3 4 Swimming Beach yes no no Marker Bouys no no no Swimming Raft no no no Comments: well tennis maint. court sandy basketba beach 11 the tennis entire court lot fenced lt- r RECREATIONAL BEACH LOT SURVEY EXISTING CONDITIONS Date : L VL 1 '(%I Name of Home Owners Association: Ua(5\AA4 ttiAR Number of willing Units: T� Lake: (,01k4, Approximate Size of Beach. Lot: 2 0(24. (71443X) Width of Lot at Shoreline: 1415w Motor Vehicle Access: Yes: No: Off-Street Parking Area: Yes: No: Approx. Size of Parking Area: 15 - Boat Launch: Yes: No: Permanent Buildings : M51/1 Approx. Setback from Lake : Temporary Buildings: mem_ Portable Restrooms: Yes: No: Picnic Tables: PO09,- Grills/Campfire Sites: (A &L Permanent Docks: A Approximate Length: 35 Seasonal Docks: 1111�L. Approximate Length: —� Canoe Racks: NZa (# of spaces) # of Boats Stored on Land: # of Boats Moored at Buoys: WN W- # _ # of Boats Moored at Docks: v SwimmingBeach:: Yes: No: Marker Buoys: Yes : No: Swimming Raft: Yes : No: 1.7 Approximate Size: .i Comments: M M kt:v4;e,"4\itt �ItI�1.Y Mt.( I '� GENERAL MILLS, INC. • EXECUTIVE OFFICES Number One General Mills Boulevard • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 March 2, 1993 C.L. WHITEHILL r Senior Vice President General Counsel and Secretary Tel. (612) 540.3862 Fax (612) 540.3778 Kathryn R. Aanenson Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Ms. Aanenson: This letter is in reply to yours of September 18, 1992, as well as the subsequent discussions that we have had on the subject of the Non- Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot - Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day of June, 1981. Accordingly, please accept this letter as a request to the City of Chanhassen for an amendment or expansion of Section 2.11 of the referenced Non- Conforming Use Permit to read as follows: 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on — three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be [tr : constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. The preceding request for the amendment or modification to the referenced Non-Conforming Use Permit is made on the basis that the present use of the dock, the canoe racks, and fences are all in accordance with the existing use and structures which have been on this outlot for approximately the past 10 years or, as to the canoe racks, is covered by a subsequent Conditional Use — Permit. Mailing Address P 0.Box 1113,Minnsspolis,Minnesets 55.640 Kathryn R. Aanenson March 2, 1993 Page 2 C C Attached hereto as further support of the requested amendment or modification are (1) an excerpt from previous minutes of the Lotus Lake Betterment Association noting nine individual boats to be moored at the "common dock," and (2) the letter of the City of Chanhassen dated Apiil 23, 1984 approving the two canoe racks. Your attention to this matter will be sincerely appreciated. If it is recommended that representatives from the Colonial Grove Addition appear _ at any public hearings on this matter, we will be most pleased to be present. Yours truly, 12 CLW/do C t L ( t C 1 GENERAL MILLS, INC. • EXECUTIVE OFFICES Number One General Mills Boulevard • Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 June 24, 1993 C.L. WHITEHILL s 1 Senior Vice President General Counsel and Secretary O Tel. (612) 540-3862 r 1 Kathryn R. Aanenson FAX (612) 540.4480 C Senior Planner t 1 City of Chanhassen C 690 Coulter Drive ` 1 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ` O Dear Ms. Aanenson: — Under cover of this letter are four Affidavits concerning the use of the — Beach Lot at Lotus Lake during 1981 and thereafter. The Affidavits, including my own, are from persons who served as President of the Association and therefore are completely familiar with the background and history of the use of the Lot and the intent of the Use Permit granted by the City in 1981. It will be appreciated if you will add this letter and the attached Affidavits together with my letter of March 2, 1993 for a rehearing by the Planning — Commission. It is clear from the minutes of the meeting on June 2, 1993 that substantive misinformation was received by the Planning Commission, which obviously was prejudicial to their determination. — Hopefully, with these Affidavits and by personal discussion at the next meeting of the Planning Commission we can achieve the intent of the application for clarification of the 1981 Use Permit. In this regard, I would appreciate adequate advance notice when this — matter will again be on the agenda of the Planning Commission. C Yours truly, CLW/do (` TJ nr (` .• Mailing Acdress P 0.Box 1113,Minneapolis.Minnesota 55440 GENERAL MILLS, INC. • EXECUTIVE OFFICES — Number One General Mills Boulevard • Minneapolis. Minnesota 55426 � j i C.L. WHITEHILL Senior Vice President 0 July 2, 1993 General Counsel and Secretary t I I Tel. (612) 540-3862 0Fax (612) 540-3778 c 4 O (-. L 0 I Kathryn R. Aanenson — ` 0 (. Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive — Chanhassen, MN 55317 _ Dear Ms. Aanenson: Further to my letter of June 24, 1993, enclosed please find a fifth — Affidavit concerning the Lotus Lake Beach Lot. Hope you have a most pleasant 4th. _ Yours truly, . Y CLW/do — Enclosure Cr _ C. S ( _ Ll a ( CL • . Moiling Address.P 0.Box 1113,Minn••polis,Mi to 55440 AFFIDAVIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN The undersigned person gives the following affidavit in support of the request to the City of Chanhassen for a clarification, amendment or expansion of Section 2.11 of a Non-Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot in Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day of June, 1981, as follows : 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 1. The undersigned is presently and was a resident of Colonial Grove in the year 1981 and a member of the Association formed to govern and manage the use of the said Beach Lot. 2. In particular, the undersigned was familiar with the dock extending into Lotus Lake from the Beach Lot and the number of motor boats that were moored at the dock during 1981 and for most of the subsequent years until today's date. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, in 1981 the number of motor boats moored at the dock was eight, and in subsequent years the number of such boats generally ranged from seven to nine. This number of boats is consistent with the length of the dock, such dock being "T" shape in configuration, and thereby when the lake was at its normal level such dock was and is easily able to accommodate seven to nine such motor boats. 2. The undersigned, being familiar with the practices and membership of the Association, asserts that it would be extremely difficult to allocate and administer mooring spaces for less than eight motor boats among the residents of Colonial Grove and Colonial Grove additions who do not have a lot fronting on Lotus Lake. 3. The undersigned states that the dock is maintained in a safe and good appearance, and further that the undersigned does not know of any complaint during and since 1981 as to any resident of Colonial Grove, nor of any other resident on Lotus Lake, as to the maintenance, operation or any other matter relating to the said dock or any other use of the subject Beach Lot. n Signatur Address: 105- 3A09 �DOI< RS G t+C,N N X35 E J s5311 AFFIDAVIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN The undersigned person gives the following affidavit in support of the request to the City of Chanhassen for a clarification, amendment or expansion of Section 2.11 of a Non-Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot in Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day of June, 1981, as follows : 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 1. The undersigned is presently and was a resident of Colonial Grove in the year 1981 and a member of the Association formed to govern and manage the use of the said Beach Lot. 2. In particular, the undersigned was familiar with the dock extending into Lotus Lake from the Beach Lot and the number of motor boats that were moored at the dock during 1981 and for most of the subsequent years until today's date. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, in 1981 the number of motor boats moored at the dock was eight, and in subsequent years the number of such boats generally ranged from seven to nine. This number of boats is consistent with the length of the dock, such dock being "T" shape in conflguraticr., and thereby when the lake was at its normal level such dock was and is easily able to accommodate seven to nine such motor boats. 2. The undersigned, being familiar with the practices and membership of the Association, asserts that it would be extremely difficult to allocate and administer mooring spaces for less than eight motor boats among the residents of Colonial Grove and Colonial Grove additions who do not have a lot fronting on Lotus Lake. 3. The undersigned states that the dock is maintained in a safe and good appearance, and further that the undersigned does not know of any complaint during and since 1981 as to any resident of Colonial Grove, nor of any other resident on Lotus Lake, as to the maintenance, operation or any other matter relating to the said dock or any other use of the subject Beach Lot. Address: AFFIDAVIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN The undersigned person gives the following affidavit in support of the request to the City of Chanhassen for a clarification, amendment or expansion of _ Section 2.11 of a Non-Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot in Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day of June, 1981, as follows : 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 1. The undersigned is presently and was a resident of Colonial Grove in the year 1981 and a member of the Association formed to govern and manage the use of the said Beach Lot. 2. In particular, the undersigned was familiar with the dock extending into Lotus Lake from the Beach Lot and the number of motor boats that were moored at the dock during 1981 and for most of the subsequent years until today's date. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, in 1981 the number of motor boats moored at the dock was eight, and in subsequent years the number of such boats generally ranged from seven to nine. This number of boats is consistent with the length of the dock, such dock being "T" shape in configuration, and thereby when the lake was at its normal level such dock was and is easily able to accommodate seven to nine such motor boats. 2. The undersigned, being familiar with the practices and membership of the Association, asserts that it would be extremely difficult to allocate and administer mooring spaces for less than eight motor boats among the residents of Colonial Grove and Colonial Grove additions who do not have a lot fronting on Lotus Lake. 3. The undersigned states that the dock is maintained in a safe and good appearance, and further that the undersigned does not know of any complaint during and since 1981 as to any resident of Colonial Grove, nor of any other resident on Lotus Lake, as to the maintenance, operation or any other matter relating to the said dock or any other use of the subject Beach Lot. Signature Address: AF'F'IDAVIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN The undersigned person gives the following affidavit in support of the request to the City of Chanhassen for a clarification, amendment or expansion of _ Section 2.11 of a Non-Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot in Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day of June, 1981, as follows : — 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two — canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; — no other structure shall be constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 1. The undersigned is presently and was a resident of Colonial Grove in the year 1981 and a member of the Association formed to govern and manage the _ use of the said Beach Lot. 2. In particular, the undersigned was familiar with the dock extending into Lotus Lake from the Beach Lot and the number of motor boats that were moored at the dock during 1981 and for most of the subsequent years until today's date. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, in 1981 the number — of motor boats moored at the dock was eight, and in subsequent years the number of such boats generally ranged from seven to nine. This number of boats is — consistent with the length of the dock, such dock being "T" shape in configuration, and thereby when the lake was at its normal level such dock was and is easily able to accommodate seven to nine such motor boats. — 2. The undersigned, being familiar with the practices and membership _ of the Association, asserts that it would be extremely difficult to allocate and administer mooring spaces for less than eight motor boats among the residents of Colonial Grove and Colonial Grove additions who do not have a lot fronting on — Lotus Lake. 3. The undersigned states that the dock is maintained in a safe and good appearance, and further that the undersigned does not know of any complaint during and since 1981 as to any resident of Colonial Grove, nor of any other resident on Lotus Lake, as to the maintenance, operation or any other matter relating to the said dock or any other use of the subject Beach Lot. ignature Address: _ /off S/-f(L uI 1< AFFIDAVIT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN The undersigned person gives the following affidavit in support of the request to the City of Chanhassen for a clarification, amendment or expansion of Section 2.11 of a Non-Conforming Use Permit, Beach Lot in Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake and Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition dated the 15th day of June, 1981, as follows : 2.11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for (a) the existing "T" dock of 100 feet at which not more than eight pleasure boats may be moored; (b) two canoe racks, each designed to hold six canoes; (c) the existing chain link boundary fence; and (d) the existing fence on three sides of the tennis courts; no other structure shall be constructed or erected on Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 1. The undersigned is presently and was a resident of Colonial Grove in the year 1981 and a member of the Association formed to govern and manage the use of the said Beach Lot. 2. In particular, the undersigned was familiar with the dock extending into Lotus Lake from the Beach Lot and the number of motor boats that were moored at the dock during 1981 and for most of the subsequent years until today's date. To the best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief, in 1981 the number of motor boats moored at the dock was eight, and in subsequent years the number of such boats generally ranged from seven to nine. This number of boats is consistent with the length of the dock, such dock being "T" shape in configuration, and thereby when the lake was at its normal level such dock was and is easily able to accommodate seven to nine such motor boats. 2. The undersigned, being familiar with the practices and membership of the Association, asserts that it would be extremely difficult to allocate and administer mooring spaces for less than eight motor boats among the residents of Colonial Grove and Colonial Grove additions who do not have a lot fronting on Lotus Lake. 3. The undersigned states that the dock is maintained in a safe and good appearance, and further that the undersigned does not know of any complaint during and since 1981 as to any resident of Colonial Grove, nor of any other resident on Lotus Lake, as to the maintenance, operation or any other matter relating to the said dock or any other use of the subject Beach Lot. jc- Signature Address: & L' �'.�` Mk) >\ f\ -2- — no cash reserve . In light of that , the Board is proposing that the present dues of $50 per household be raised to $100 per household beginning with this years dues . This will better defray costs and build a budget reserve for our more high cost items in the future . Better to pay a little more now, than big assessments downlinel Unpaid and Delinquent Dues . The Board has unanimously agreed that households that owe back dues or who do not pay current ones , will not be welcome to use common Association facilities . Dues — statements will be forthcoming and we would ask that you please pay in full promptly so that the Association can better serve you. Bear in mind that whether or not you use the dock or use the tennis courts , having that valuable property available to you significantly increases the overall value of your home . Many realtors value lake access at $10 ,000 alone . Boats and Canoes . Chuck Hirt and Chris Engel are in charge of scheduling the dock for boat parking . As far as we know, the following families have boats to be parked at the common dock — area - Hirt , Engel , Brown, Lewis , Booth , Blechta, Heer, Sorbo , Jamieson. If anyone else owns a boat that is not listed, please contact Chuck or Chris . We would like to have an accounting _ of who has canoes at the dock area . Canoe owners please contact Chuck or Chris ASAP. Dock and Tennis Court Security. It is imperative that we — keep the gate area locked, especially if you are the last to leave the area . Please try to enforce this , and if you happen to drive by at night or early evening and see the gate open , please stop and — lock it . We need to protect our area ! There have been cases of minor vandalism, especially around the dock . We all need to pitch in on this ! Children are welcome on the dock to fish , etc . However, we the Association assume no liability for their safety and strongly encourage life jackets for the kids . The water is only four feet — deep but the muck is also four feet deep , and a child would not be able to walk to shore ! ! Also , please advise your kids to absolutely stay out of, and off of the boats . We 've had some problems in this — area in the past . . We need your help in asking our neighborhood rollerbladers and bicyclers to not skate or ride on the tennis courts . We understand — that the surface is ideal for skating and riding, but the wear and tear on the courts is significant and greatly increases our maintenance costs . Please pass this along to your kids . New Board President and Board Members . Chuck Hirt is vacating his position as Association President which he has held for the last — six years . We thank Chuck for his years of service to us ! The Board has appointed Chris Engel to replace him as President . Presently there is one Board position open which will be filled at the annual meeting next month . The present Board consists of the following : — Rev.CMM/9-23-80 AtkehrAt Ai 447— CITY OF CHANHASSEN NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT BEACH LOT - COLONIAL GROVE AT LOTUS LAKE AND COLONIAL GROVE AT LOTUS LAKE SECOND ADDITION This permit and agreement, made and entered into this /S day of 7TZNt- , 19V) , by and between Bloomberg Companies Incorporated, and Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc . , (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Applicant) , and the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the City) ; WITNESSETH: That the City, in exercise of its powers pursuant to M.S . Chapter 412 & 462 , and the Chanhassen Zoning -Ordinance, hereby grants to the Applicant herein a non-conforming use permit to maintain and operate a private neighborhood association recreational area upon Outlot A, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition, Carver County, Minnesota (hereinafter Outlot A) , subject to the following terms and conditions, all of which shall be strictly complied with as being necessary for the protection of the public interest : Section 1 . Recitals . 1 . 01 Prior Platting of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake. Prior to the adoption of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 47 adopted February 8 , 1972) , the plat of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake (hereinafter the First Addition) was filed with the Carver County Minnesota Registrar of Titles . Said plat included two outlots designated thereon as Outlots 1 and 2 . 1. 02 Prior Usage of Outlot 1 . Said Outlot 1 included frontage on Lotus Lake, and has, since the time of platting of the First Addition, been continuously used by the residents of the First Addition as a lake access , boat launching area, swimming beach, tennis and recreation area; and as such constitutes a "recreational area" operated by a residential neighborhood association for which a conditional use permit is required under section 7 . 04 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance. 1 . 03 Status of Outlot 1 as a Non-Conforming Use. Because the establishment of said recreational area pre-dates the adoption of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, said recreational area constitutes a non-conforming use, the expansion of which is prohibitied by section 20 of the Chanhassen Zoning Ordinance, unless a conditional use permit has been obtained first from the City for such expansion. 1 .04 Platting of The Second Addition. Bloomberg, as the owner _ of Outlots 1 and 2 in the First Addition, has made application to the City for the approval of the plat of Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition (hereinafter the Second Addition) . By said plat, Outlots 1 and 2 in the First Addition are divided, so as to create 31 new lots and one new outlot, designated as Outlot A. Said Outlot A encompasses that portion of the First Addition which has been and is now being utilized as the aforementioned recreational area. Bloomberg means Bloomberg Companies Incorporated. 1.05 Conveyance of Outlot A to Association. Bloomberg, as the owner of Outlot A, has informed the City that it has incorporated the Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc . (hereinafter the - Association) as non-profit corporation to which Bloomberg will convey ownership of Outlot A. Bloomberg has informed the City that neither it nor the Association will make any alteration of said Outlot A, and that said Outlot A will be made available the residents of the First Addition, and the Second Addition, and to the residents of so-called John C. Lovetang tract (more particularly described in the documents filed in the office of the Carver County Recorder at Book 83, page 23, and Book 84 , page 215) . 1 .06 Purpose of This Permit . The within permit has been drafted for the purpose of memorializing both those recreational uses which may be conducted by the Applicant upon Outlot A in the absence of the issuance of a conditional use permit and those activities which would constitute an expansion of the use of said Outlot A, and thus , require the Applicant to seek a conditional use permit from the City prior to any such expansion. Section 2 . Special Conditions . 2 . 01 Permit Not Transferable . This permit is personal to the Applicant and to the Association, and is not assignable or transferable except upon the written consent of the City. 2 .02 Release of Bloomberg. The City, upon written request, shall release Bloomberg from its obligations hereunder upon receipt of documentation which demonstrates a) the proper incorporation of the Association pursuant to Chapter 317 of Minnesota Statutes, and b) the conveyance of title to the Subject Property in fee simple to the Association for the benefit of all owners of lots in the First Addition, the Second Addition, and the above described John C . Lovetang tract. No such release shall be given until such documentation has been approved by the City Attorney as to legal sufficiency. No such release as to Bloomberg shall have the effect of releasing the Association from its obligations , covenants, and agreements hereunder. 2 . 03 Rights Under This Permit Not Expandable to Other Owners . This permit is issued for the benefit of the owners of the forty-one lots in the First Addition, the thirty-one lots in the Second Addition, and the one homesite in the above described John C . Lovetang tract. The Applicant agrees that the use and enjoyment of Outlot A shall be limited to said owners . The use and enjoyment of Outlot A may not extend to persons other than such owners . - The term "owners" as utilized in this §2 . 03 shall mean and refer to any natural person who is either a) the record owner of a fee simple interest, or b) the record owner of a contract for deed - vendee' s interest, or c) the holder of any possessory leasehold -2- Rev.CMM/9/23-80 interest, in the whole of any such lot or tract, including authorized guests and family members of any such persons . In the event that the above described First Addition lots , Second Addition lots , or John C. Lovetang tract are further divided subsequent to the date of this permit, the Association shall not extend usage rights to the owners of the resultant parcels unless a conditional use permit for a recreational area shall have been first obtained from the City Council . 2 .04 Description of Property Subject to This Permit. The premises subject to the within non-conforming use permit are described as follows : Outlot A, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Second Addition, according to the map or plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder , in and for Carver County , Minnesota . 2 . 05 No Alteration of Outlot A. No portion of Outlot A shall be developed, altered , or disturbed in any way, except after first having obtained a conditional use permit from the Chanhassen City Council for any such development, alteration, or disturbance . For the purposes of this permit, normal maintenance of the existing ctie ,iu Hei• cQ/ foot dock and the existing tennis court and other existing improvements , normal maintenance and routine mowing of existing improved lawn areas on Outlot A shall not be deemed to be an alteration requiring issuance of a City permit. 2 . 06 Swimming and Picnicing. Outlot A may be used for tennis , swimming purposes and picnicing purposes by "owners" as that term is defined in section 2 . 03 above . 2 . 07 Buildings . No buildings , ice fishing houses , tool sheds , or tents may be erected or stored upon Outlot A. 2 . 08 Mooring Buoys . No mooring buoys shall be placed upon Outlot A or in the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 2 . 09 Airplanes . No airplane or seaplane shall be driven upon, taxied upon, or parked upon Outlot A. No seaplane shall be moored in the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 2 . 10 Swimming Platforms . Neither the Applicant nor any owner as hereinabove defined shall erect or maintain any swimming or diving platform on Outlot A or within the waters adjacent to Outlot A. 2 .11 Certain Structures Prohibited. Except for the construction of a chain link boundary fence not exceeding five feet in height, no structure may be constructed or erected upon Outlot A. No docks , piers, boat racks , or canoe racks shall be constructed or erected upon Outlot A or in the waters abutting Outlot A. 2 .12 Camping Prohibited . No owner, as defined hereinabove , or other person shall camp overnight on Outlot A. -3- 2 . 13 Motor Vehicle Parking. No motor vehicle or trailer shall be parked or stored overnight or on a permanent basis on Outlot A. Section 3 . Miscellaneous . 3 .01 Severability. In the event any provisions of this permit shall be held invalid , illegal, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render - unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 3 . 02 Execution of Counterparts . This permit may be simultaneousll executed in several counterparts , each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 3 . 03 Headings . Headings at the beginning of sections and paragraphs heree-of are for convenience of reference, and shall not - be considered a part of the test of this permit, and shall not influence its construction. 3. 04 Proof of Title . Upon request, the Association shall furnish the City with evidence satisfactory to the City that it has acquired fee title to Outlot A. 3 .05 Notices . All notices, certificates and other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as indicated below. The City and the Applicant, by written notice given by one to the other , may designate any address or addresses to which notices , certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this permit. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties , all notices , certificates, and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows : To the City: City of Chanhassen City Hall 7610 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Attn: City Manager To Bloomberg: Bloomberg Companies Incorporated 551 West 78th St Chanhassen, MN 55317 To the Associa- tion: Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc. c/o Bloomberg Companies Incorporated 551 West 78th St Chanhassen, MN 55317 3. 06 Owners to be Notified of This Permit. The Association shall furnish each of its members with a copy of this permit within thirty (30) days of any such member ' s initial membership in the - Association. -4- 3. 07 Term of This Permit. This permit shall be perpetual . Section 4 . Enforcement Provisions. 4 . 01 Reimbursement of Costs . The Applicant shall reimburse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal , planning and administrative eenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within permit and the performance thereby by the Applicant. Such reimbursement shall be made within fourteen - (14) days of the date of mailing of the City ' s notice of costs as provided in §3 . 05 above. The Applicant' s reimbursement obligation under this section shall be a continuing obligation _ throughout the term of this permit. 4 .02 Legal Proceedings . The City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to prevent violations _ of the within permit or to restrain or abate violations of the within permit. - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on this i5 day of ,Le ,c— , 19 d! . BLOOMBERG COMPANIES INCORPORATED LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSOCIATION, INC By 7iii ` A By 71 LL 4A'14" 2 c- // its G its jlj..,(,_ v-` And :L And ?`��+or its lit. its V, (:', - CITY OF C ANHASSEN , 1/, / ,/ i its Mayor _ ATTEST: ' ^', // f/ r/ n City Manager - STATE OF MINNESOTA) < grc ) ss o s 0 AIAA3 C. C- w 0 - COUNTY OF ) , z _ ° f ° On this ( Sr. - day of 'Iuw.J( , 19181 , IL 0, 00 ' before me , a notary public , within and for said County, personally zc : m a appeared tj e.� - ti . 1J�SCcrav,l 55 and w, /1� . Lt-I i��fr� Z < to me personally known, who, baling, each by me duly sworn did say , u " < 0 that they are respectively the i rY ci d....-Cf- and Ut u. v' s'cl 'I J zt of Bloomberg Companies Incorporated, and that said instrument was 7€. signed in behalf of sai corporation by authority it its Board of '-; 1' Directors , and said 4- A.J. fL61,-ti--1,- and U. A,14t Lt - i )7 f acknowledged said instrument to be the :Tree act and deed of said corporation. j �, .,� ,7 Fc--cam-z Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss COUNTY OF QkrW E 1-- ) On this ( ,r� day of U- NC , 19€, , before me, a notary public , within and for said county, personally appeared (x_\:((c,„„„ 6. S13(iYtk.cJ� and 6J . 44 . 4c ►?,z)-fz=e.. to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the dr-e_c:(71 , and U, c. ‘i...,5,-,d_,4 — of Lotus Lake Betterment Association, Inc. , and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors , and said Cul(,&,..{,',C,N.A11.] and (,4, • btu . YuC ✓ 54-,:e, acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. 7 r Notary Public LEANNA M. FORCIER STATE OF MINNESOTA) ° : CARVER COUNTY NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA ) SS !AY CCMM!55-.^..'. EXP.RES FEB. 18, 1388 COUNTY OF ) — On this /PA day of , 19 8 / , before me, a notary public within d for said county, personally appeared Tan Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth, to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are — respectively the Mayor and City Manager of the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its City — Council , and said Tom Hamilton and Donald W. Ashworth acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. E.,~404.• ENJ. _LHARDTjotary Public A1;Y 1. _ .:• ' .NESOTA �\/ A• ..:P C.;.!NTY ...55 J•' L•. -� ,,.t 71, 1485 r-r., ,_• (=:7*'''.-1-6- 8-13-80 Chanhassen Planning Commission Minutes - page 4 The Planning Commission encouraged the applicant to proceed with his plans and recorded no major opposition to the proposal at this time . DISCUSSION , FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN , COLONIAL GROVE II , BLOOMBERG COMPANIES , INC . Mr . Waibel introduced the subject item referencing the proposed Development Contract and noted that the proposal is unique in that it does have parcels in the proposed plat which are immediately developable . Mr . Craig Mertz explained his letter of August 8 , 1980 , referring to the Beach Lot Covenants and Restrictions . Mr. Mertz stated that the Covenants appear to be in order although they do not specifi - cally talk about over-night parking , over-night storage of boats , or erecting structures ; however , it was explained that any changes requesting any of the above would be required to under-go a public hearing for Conditional Use Permit . It was additionally noted that the beach lot in question has been established for some time and has been used by certain homeowners within the Colonial Grove 1st Addition . Mr . J . Thompson moved the City Council accept the Development Contract as drafted with the provision that the Lake Study Commission recommendation for Outlots be included in the Restrictive Covenants and/or the Development Contract for Colonial Grove 2nd Addition . Motion seconded by Mr . M . Thompson . All voted aye . Motion carried . Mr . J . Thompson moved that staff document an inventory of structures on the beach lot in order to determine any intensifi - - cation of usage brought on by Colonial Grove 2nd Addition . Motion was seconded by Mr . M . Thompson . All voted aye . Motion carried . DISCUSSION , OVERLAY ZONING CONCEPT FOR DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT . Mr . Waibel had informed the Planning Commission that Bather- Ringrose-Wolsfeld ( BRW) has submitted a proposal for a work plan to accomplish the subject item and that a similar approach should ultimately be carried out . LAKE ANN BARN PROPOSAL In discussion , the Planning Commission discussed the placement of a pole barn in Lake Ann Park and had no objections to such . Council Meeting September 22, 1980 -3- REVIEW PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, CHRISTMAS ACRES: Dale Hamilton, Suburban Engineering, and Brack Ward were present requesting that the Council delete the requirement of looping the watermain through Christmas Acres because of the cost involved (approx. $16,000) . Councilman Geving moved to deny the request and that the Council reaffirm the position that there will be a looped watermain from Pleasant View Road through Christmas Acres _ back to Pleasant View Road as prescribed in the development contract. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. __2919DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT APPROVAL, COLONIAL GROVE SECOND ADDITION: Bill MvRostie was prese t to discuss proposed changes in the development contract. RESOLUTION #80-36: Councilman Pearson moved the adoption of a resolution approving the development contract for Colonial Grove Second Addition as submitted in the September 22, 1980, Council Agenda with three amendments. _ 1. Page 3. That the amortization period for the 1980 special assessments be eight yrs 2. Page 4a. That Option #1 on the letter of credit expiration date be selected. 3. The developer may apply for letter of cresdit reductions on a semiannually basis — as reductions in the unpaid principal balance on the 1980 project assessments occur Resolution seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. — Councilman Pearson moved to approve the non-conforming use permit for Beach Lot - Colonial Grove at Lotus and Lake and Colonial Grove at Loti1s Lake Second Addition as submitted in the September 22, 1980, Council Agenda with the addition of tennis coux in section 1, subsection 1.02. Motion seconded by Councilman Geving. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. SATELLITE FIRE STATION: The Miller's have presented a counter offer of 1. 1 acres, instead of 1.5, for an amount of $27,500. The Council directed staff to present $27,5011 for 1. 5 acres. BIT,LS. Councilman Swenson moved to approve the bills dated September 22, 1980. Checks_ #12008 through=12083 in the amount of $692,874.51 and checks #15628 through #15730 in the amount of $227,925.02. Motion seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. — EIDE FILL SITE: Mr. Eide is not happy with the job that was done in taking fill out of his property at Lyman Blvd. and Lake Riley Blvd. Staff was instructed to meet with _ Mr. Eide and explain that the design for the reconstruction was drawn by the DNR. Staff, DNR, and Department of the Army have inspected the site and have approved it. MERLE VOLK PROPERTY: Mr. Volk will appear before the Planning Commission to ask if they would entertain same sort of zoning amendment for his property on Galpin Blvd. Councilman Pearson moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Councilman Swenson. The following voted in favor: Acting Mayor Neveaux, Councilmen Pearson, Geving, and Swenson. No negative votes. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 12:00. Don Ashworth City Manager CITY OF H >,�� 1 cHANHAssEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 April 23 , 1984 l` /1;„oar Mr . Charles Hirt , President CITY OF0-1 Lotus Lake Betterment Association 7007 Cheyenne Trail Chanhassen , MN 55317 Dear Mr . Hirt: This is to formally notify you that the City Council at its meeting on April 16 , 1984 acted to approve the Beach Lot Conditional Use Permit for the construction of two canoe racks on outlot A, Colonial Grove Second Addition , as presented in planning case 84-2 CUP. Attached for your information is the _ copy of the draft Conditional Use Permit . The actual Conditional Use Permit will be delivered to you as soon as it is signed by the Mayor and City Manager . I have verified with the Carver County Recorders Office that on April 4 , 1984 , outlot A of Colonial Grove Second Addition was conveyed to the Lotus Lake Betterment Association from Bloomberg Companies , Inc . • Should you have any quer tions or comments , please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely , ./112,-7/c= "11,- Bob Waibel City Planner cc : Don Ashworth Scott Martin CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1 . Permit . Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein , the City of Chanhassen hereby grants a conditional use permit for : The construction of two canoe racks having a storage capacity of six canoes each, to be located as shown on the plans in Planning Case 84-2CUP. 2 . Property. The permit is for the following described property in the City of Chanhassen , Carver County, Minnesota: Outlot A, Colonial Grove Second Addition. 3 . Conditions . The permit is issued subject to the following conditions : 1 . ) That the applicant constructs the canoe racks in compliance with the plans submitted in Planning Case 84-2CUP. 4 . Termination of Permit . The City may revoke the permit following a public hearing under any of the following cir- cumstances : material change of condition of the neighborhood where the use is located; violation of the terms of the permit . 5 . Criminal Penalty. Violation of the terms of this conditional use permit is a criminal misdemeanor . Dated : CITY OF CHANHASSEN By: Its Mayor By: Its Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19 , by Thomas L. Hamilton, Mayor , and Don Ashworth , City Manager of the City of Chanhassen , a Minnesota municipal corporation , on behalf of the corporation . Notary Public City of Chanhassen — Carver and Hennepin Counties , Minnesota In the matter of Chanhassen Planning Case : 84-2 Conditional Use Permit — Owner: Lotus Lake Betterment Assoc. pplicant • Charles Hirt , President Street Address : P. I .N . : Legal Description : Outlot A, Colonial Grove Second Addition Purpose: To construct two canoe racks having a capacity of 6 canoes each on Outlot A. Zoning District: R-1 Single Family Residence District — The above entitled matter was heard before the Planning Commission on March 28 , 1984 and up for final — action before the Chanhassen City Council on April 16 , 1984 • The City Council ordered that a conditional use permit (-no-t) be granted based upon the documentation contained in Planning File 84-2 Conditional Use Permit . State of Minnesota ) )ss Carver County ) — Ir City Planner for the City of Chanhassen, _ do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing with the original record thereof, and have found the same to be a correct and true summary thereof . Witness my hand and official seal of Chanhassen , Minnesota, this day ofr 19 Chanhassen City Planner NOTE : rct {Z+�CX el.- • �5D FEET ,�'%\Ah i - ♦ �,.� , jL. h • i P' /• 4). �`\ -wo i -v 'T 7.1.-1 ` �-*-� ROA - CAt)oa RAc.K5 w. WATER 1+'�.''ic7 ti63. - _ s'9•`_ e.� NG9, T'- T. .wo 'TXJ. . / Fes. ':1 s ''Fn ri E4.1ifeyr , ..1, ,Ck 4'.1. \` r 4S *)• _ Z �c,�\-' '•• ., -,- 2 1 , $ • TLOT ,A5' I r . z • h.o �b Or/AC s,9- '''\\\\ J �,�N�,°•L. Szs 41•9Is.,, 4 a,9 . A. -A .7 rs CK 411 3 � 20.x\ gy14_- s ?fir rs`� I `1 `� 25, 5/ a. 0 ,.% M cb` T I L /72 4' to`\ jj7�9�-• • /W *9'9. \ase ^' �J 0 r 1 1 -' t •SToa•w!\<- ♦ \" 04 ,in.-0 , �. 4i.'v )...2. -06 .' i �� t 054 s, /.g \2 \ .p.0 /�`,��`f In'' •'1aI�Z39...I- ��sW ops\` 0�0 IS,S/ c19 /�I O. J I / () :� R-�� C 9a�`--l'�ti' .9 mss \ �:9:t 3 �' V�M^ • 1% Is1 lo o �' V I ' 4-. ,% °�3.• -....."4”"t47 4.J e��, (CARVE Tri*TAW LtI Oax . I ,7-116,R2D.�' 11.._ p .��..Op1 \ /Jq w • a,�c\ 2S 1 _ �•-�v e I t�- FNoRm IMIE QF ./2,T.//6,Q.23.`I, 1O / it 8.07�� `N • gi.`., \ 11 --L. •f` i L:J; 1p 1 1 % dCP 1 �i••••.-7-1� L „- I-1 ' Imo' c x /5p-bp-CC E 1 A 1` i, /ZS c8 ' ;5 1`:.f,Qs S Za 1 r R: \ 7='-07 .Al 2 N I- Z -4 N'51.113'E i�'_ >� 1 " 1 t I%Tt1 �- 18 °i I r; t. 10 1�: 1 r2• o$2.` 7 0� 1�si v I .5.:,...„, i 10 3 0.1 •W N75 07 z�0 01 Is, l ,32 • le 1O oo \ a-6 122.79 -- t N 80•42:z7 a ms's 1° 60 N 07'" 11• 11a 3 $'w Al 81 E �k N ,� $I N : �,�I1g•-1 4 8� 18 T -° o 4T g g I NI t� p �/ gt .J al .1 r► -7.- 1 Lam,01 N 75.07 i�0N6!18•� ` I A187'47.33',./1 1; 1 1 '5°07'6-8\ 50 00 T \e' /4.7O -0.' !S,t//9.29 ' NORTH 1 N75•o7 6-81 N m / ,-, h I �I , • ;o o ioo zoo A 11- -I $�1 ,_II. 'R�-r,-ig ,ST•94$ .ti i@N 16 pj 5. _E is EE H 1 r 4• ;1• \\oa3�� 's/r, ,1NQ,. Tf�' ��I <i . 1- S 4 ci. p �. '" .I aml 37 5 IRON MO N UM ENT 1 , \ ....-0 t►' ly5 ,1 v ` , --`.1�3 �A /royh /obi+ ' �1`v • - vcr. SHOWN ARE A55uMED s N� ' 'j• s\ )-' 3.90 k°/ /V'�.�. �' i :en IP -IF rpE A 1. 1 Ig\/ o� 4 3�%e st r 31•��T - 151 gl � IL •E-AND 4SE EN1/ �` L '�3> \ � �*T 8� 4..g1► .r/ �°� ' I 01 I �`- T �2 'h �r :j51 2b Q �t I 1 `...\1; ..... t' .�� 1111. ' �3)2'L CI aGr iAc AND� 'r!4.1D 14 .V7'1 • NI Q 1 • / 55 . _ aJ� • 1 �m 1i53•°O I p 4 I 1(1 0 I �� 1,� , 8 �� 41.4.., 'ion �v)is3i � � • sr AND UTILITY b^7� c�,� 9 0 h� es4�z,z,4%-i. c. gi I�P I 5 ARE SAlowN THUS : •N \ `� CP kl 'lc frl tiiiilOr‘i I I F»eT IN W/f�T,� N\F-Y ✓E s N85zo'W Ia,Z9, , mac. it 6', -0/,V/N G RIGArr OF WAy 'P A:D `%t: A 12 ,. � "i 'S OTHERwiSE ••q , \ s• T ,, PLATOWN oN ��95'43 t . I' h - . �� I - -2-\--„, c1) 13 \ sp I 'K • 70P NUT HYDRANT AT - �p�. �s' �i �s) 1s L- \ f. .' is /,/3o_a?_I fI I -R'e0F 'SANDY HOOK ROAD / Hwy. NO. 101. E L E V-'32,.12 FE E T. \ ��S 391` .../4S.Q8 -� •8 �• M/Cir I Attachment #2 ou CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 2 , 1993 Chairman Batzli called the meeting to order at 7:40 p .m . MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts , Ladd Conrad , Matt Ledvina , Joe Scott , Brian Batzli , Jeff Farmakes and Nancy Mancino - STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson , Senior Planner ; and Dave Hempel , Asst . City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR COLONIAL GROVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT . THE PERMIT SHALL DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT 01 THE USE ALLOWED . Public Present: Name Address Jeff Kvichaug 6681 Horseshoe Curve Harold & Kathy Dahl 6631 Horseshoe Curve Art Bofferding and Phyllis - Pope Bofferding 620 Carver Beach Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Chairman Batzli _ called the public hearing to order . Batzli : Is the applicant here tonight? The applicant for Colonial Grove is not here tonight? Is anyone here who would like to address the - Commission on this issue? Yes , please come forward . Phyllis Pope Bofferding: My name is Phyllis Pope Bofferding and I live on_ Lotus Lake . 620 Carver Beach Road . Would like to speak against going ba, < to any more boats or any boats at that dock . I think the lake is already over crowded . The size of boats that we 're seeing on the lake today are much , much larger than in 1981 or even several years ago . It 's a hazard go out . We haven 't had any nice days this year but the first nice day , I think you take your life in your hands going out on that lake and I would hate to see any higher level of useage than there is right now . - Batzli : Would anyone else like to address the Commission? Jeff Kvichaug : I would . My name 's Jeff Kvichaug and I live at 6681 Horseshoe Curve on Lotus Lake . I 'd like to go on record also opposing thy_ non-conforming use permit that 's been applied for . It seems to me that when they applied for this , given the facts and circumstances that have - surrounded it thus far , the burden of proof rests with the applicant to prove the amount of boats that were moored or stored overnight there back at the 1981 survey . At that point in time . I don 't think that that - question has been proven at this stage through the application or the information that I have available . The applicant isn 't here tonight to discuss it . And I think the Planning Commission has made a pretty regular basis or judgment that they have to have a pretty sound basis for not following the survey that was taken in 1981 . Again , I 'd like to reiterat Planning Commission Meeting June 2 , 1993 - Page 2 the fact that what a previous person said is that there 's a lot of boats on Lotus Lake already . And I just don 't think it 'd be good precedent to set with the amount of homeowner associations that we have on the lake to start amending those standards that we have adopted . Batzli : Thank you . Would anyone else like to address the commission? Harold Dahl : My name is Harold Dahl at 6631 Horseshoe Curve . I 'd also like to go on record opposing any additional boats on Lotus Lake at this place . I 'm concerned in terms of setting precedent . I believe that there are approximately 7 other beachlots that could be effected by this precedence if we allow Colonial Grove to have boats docked at their site without a proof or evidence that they had already had a non-conforming use permit that covered that property . So when I moved on the lake several years ago , that lot , outlot had already had boats stored there . From my perspective I don 't really care if the boats are there or not but I 'm very concerned about the precedence that it might set in terms of any other outlots that might come and ask this commission to provide for space for them as well . So primarily precedence . Harberts: I have a question . Do you have a boat? Harold Dahl : Yes . Harberts : And how do you store and how do you get your boat to the lake? Harold Dahl : I put it on the public access and I store it at my home . Harberts : Okay , so you go down TH 101 to that public access? Harold Dahl : Yes . Batzli : Thank you . Is there anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Scott seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Farmakes: . . .spent more time on this than is necessary . We 've discussed this , this is the second time . I 'm going to maintain that the boat launch is an expansion of the use . I think it 's clearly an expansion of use and should be denied . 45 foot dock was in place . It seems reasonable to me . That could handle a couple of small boats . I don 't have a problem with the 2 boats docking . It seems reasonable that that size dock could handle that . The fact that those boats may have been out on the lake , I ' ll buy that . Batzli : Are you referring to Colonial or Schmid 's there Jeff? Farmakes : Pardon? Batzli : Are you referring to the Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake or Schmid 's? Farmakes : I 've got Schmid 's here . Planning Commission Meeting June 2 , 1993 - Page 3 — Batzli : Okay . Colonial Grove is in front of us right now. Farmakes: Why don 't you pass on to the next . Batzli : Okay , Nancy . — Mancino: Kate , do any of the , can you tell by any of the inventories , these beachlot inventories , whether a boat has been there overnight? I — mean do they , there 's no way of . Aanenson: I did the one in '91 and I 'm assuming that the one , that the way they 've done it is someone went out during regular city hours and went an saw how many boats were at the dock . Whether it was a sunny day and all the boats were in the water or not . Mancino: So it 's during the week . It 's not on the weekend and all that kind of stuff? Aanenson: Yeah. I can just give you the date . Mancino: Okay . So we have here that in 1981 that they had 3 boats docked . I have no problem with continuing that use in 1981 from now on. And that— is that 3 boats can be docked overnight . That 's all I want to say . I 'm i favor of 3 boats docked overnight . Batzli : Okay , thank you . Jeff , are you . Farmakes: Give me another minute here . Batzli : Joe , do you want to go ahead? Scott : Sure . Kate , which day , as far as day of the week? Do you have — that info? Aanenson: June 6th . Scott : Pardon me? Aanenson: It was June , the '81 date? — Scott : '81 and '91 . Or if you have all three . Aanenson: '81 would have been June 12th. '86 was July 14th. '91 , I don have the exact date . I believe it was right after Labor Day weekend . First part of September . Scott : That seems like we will be seeing probably every beachlot in the next however many months and I 'd agree with Commissioner Mancino that we should maintain the level of useage and not expand it . So I would suppor`- maintaining it at 4 , per the '91 survey . That 's the end of my comment . Mancino: Oh, I said 3 . I went back to '81 . — Planning Commission Meeting June 2 , 1993 - Page 4 Scott : So we ' ll use , so from a precedent standpoint , then we should use and I ' ll go with 3 . Use '81 . Ledvina : Kate , in the background part of your report you say a non- conforming use permit was approved by the City in June of 1981 . Now this is different from many of the other beachlots in that a permit was issued . Is that correct? Aanenson: Correct . Ledvina : Okay . So were there other non-conforming beachlots where a permit was issued or is this the only one? Aanenson: Some of them have conditional uses that meet the other criteria . That have enough frontage and have enough square footage . This one is insufficient in square footage and frontage so I 'm assuming that when they received this , it was kind of simultaneous with the non-conforming permitting process going through because they were in the process of subdividing that property . Ledvina : Okay , so they were under the spotlight because they were establishing this beachlot and the ordinance was coming into play during the whole . Aanenson: I 'm assuming that . That 's my best guess . Ledvina : Okay , so really if we take a look at this permit . I guess in my mind this permit represents the level of use that was allowed by the city and agreed to by the Homeowners Association . I guess your interpretation — is that that no boats are to be moored . I think in this case that perhaps the survey is not a worthwhile piece of information because of this formal permit . Further in your report you state that the Planning Commission Minutes state that a conditional use permit would be required to dock boats overnight . Was that permit ever granted or applied for? Aanenson : Well , that 's in 1980 when they were subdividing the property . So I 'm assuming , and just drawing some conclusions here that in 1980 , when they were subdividing the property , it was noted that if you 're going to have a beachlot there , you 'd have to go through the non-conforming permit because the permit was issued in '81 . Ledvina : Okay , so that 's why . Aanenson : Right , there was a directive to go through the process . Ledvina : Okay . Alright . Well I guess in general I feel that I would support the staff interpretation of that permit and view that as the , I don 't know , controlling factor in this instance . And I would support no boats docked overnight . Batzli : So you 're basing that on the non-conforming permit that they had and not the level of activity in 1981 , which was our initial charter when we entered this exercise to determine . Planning Commission Meeting June 2 , 1993 - Page 5 — Ledvina: Right . Well , they may have had 3 boats at that dock but if that was not consistent with the permit , we shouldn 't condone the use of that — beachlot if that wasn 't allowed. I guess this is different . I view this as different because there was that permit that was issued June 15th . When was the survey done? — Aanenson: June 12th. During the day . It was during the day so no one 's ever witnessed whether or not they 're overnight . — Batzli : Well it 's my understanding , is it correct that they were prohibited from having a dock as well? Aanenson: No . If you look in the permit , it does say you can have a doc . It specifies 100 feet . Batzli : Where 's that? Aanenson: Section , on page 3 of the permit . Section 2 .05. Where it 's _ handwritten in 100 . Batzli : Why in 2 .11 does it say no dock shall be constructed or erected? Anyway . Nice permit . Okay , was that . — Ledvina : It 's different than the other ones and I think that because this permit occurred almost simultaneously at the survey , I think this is a mud, more substantial piece of evidence in determining the appropriate use . S I would defer to staff on their interpretation of this permit . Batzli : Okay . Ladd . — Conrad: Yeah , I agree with Matt . I think this supersedes the inventory . I think based on the documentation that 's been supplied , that the — conditional use permit doesn 't allow for overnight storage . Batzli : Okay , Diane . — Harberts: I agree Matt and Ladd , and I don 't have anything to add . I guess what I 'm not hearing is someone from the Association in terms of convincing us any different . We 've heard from people in that area that — feel that they , well express their desire not to have it approved so I 'm going to concur . Ledvina : I have a question Mr . Chairman . Batzli : Yeah . Ledvina : Kate . Did the applicant see this report prior to tonight? I presume they did and they know what the City 's or your interpretation is and , okay . — Batzli : Okay , Jeff . Farmakes: Apologies for getting this switched around. But my comments a s the same on both of these . I 've always taken a position of '81 . Unless = Planning Commission Meeting June 2 , 1993 - Page 6 there 's a reasonable way to believe otherwise . In light of the conditional use permit , I will change my statement on that . It has always been my comment that if there 's a dockage space of 40-50 feet , at least and they used a couple of boats . The boats didn 't happen to be there at the time of the survey , it seems to be reasonable that there may be boats during the day out on the lake . So I 've always allowed for that . If there 's a conditional use not allowing overnight storage , it seems to me going back to '81 , that those numbers are apparent . . . Batzli : I don 't know . I look at this and I really think to myself that , several boats is not an intense use of this particular outlot in view of it 's previous history of having that many boats , regardless of whether the city had initially condoned it or not . I find it fascinating over the years that we go out and we do surveys and we find that there are boats out there and we don 't do anything about it for 10 years . And now we say , well they didn 't have the right to do that . Well , I 'll give them the benefit of the doubt . We did surveys . It wasn 't like we didn 't know they were there . My feeling is let them have 3 boats . That 's what they 've been doing for over 10 years it looks like . Conrad: And as a lawyer , what do you think a legality? Basically you 're saying , does that negate the contract that we have with them? Batzli : Well clearly there was you know , you can look at UCC law and say that , regardless of the written terms , you look to the actions of the parties which may modify the contract . And here we 've known for over 10 years that they are acting outside the scope of the contract . Without a very intense use and I thought our initial purpose here was to determine what the level of use was in '81 and to I think in part determine whether that 's a reasonable use for the particular piece of property . Here , they 've been acting that way . We didn 't do anything about it . We acquiesced over a period of 10 years and I don 't find it unreasonable , so . Conrad : Kate , were there complaints by the neighbors? Aanenson: I did get calls from people after this notice went out but , no . Conrad : There 's probably never been complaints over the years by residents and then the only other thing that I would say is , have you looked at this area? And do you recognize that maybe the sensitivity and proximity to the creek and the lily pads and the habitat that 's there . That is what 's different about this and a 25 foot lake , that 's what is different . Batzli : But what 's the difference between having 3 to 8 people mooring their boats there during the day and allowing 3 of them to park it there overnight? You 're going to get traffic in and out of there . As a matter of fact , you 're going to get additional traffic if you make them pull it out . I don 't know . By allowing the boats there , they 're going to park right on the dock so you 're going to get the traffic in and out . If the issue is whether this will intensify the use by allowing 3 of them to be moored overnight , or tied to the dock . I shouldn 't say moored . But I don 't know how that intensifies the use . Now we can talk about whether we 're going to enforce the contract and if there 's a waiver provision in there that says , you know , if we forgive your trespasses once that doesn 't Planning Commission Meeting June 2 , 1993 - Page 7 - mean we 're going to do it in the future , which is also a nice little legality . We can talk , you know we can take either side on that and we c.-.1 argue it and let a Judge decide , if it got down to that . I don 't know ho strongly the applicant really wants to moor boats at the docks , since they didn 't show up today . It seems that , counting noses here , we may have a 4- to 3 decision one way or another and that may raise their attention for when this goes in front of the Council . Conrad : The only last point is Brian , because the condition , the non- conforming permit that was granted didn 't address , it didn 't say you coul . It didn 't say you couldn 't . Correct . So legally , what do you think that means? - Harberts: I think it 's clearly two issues . You 've got your permit here that says one thing and then you can take it to the next stage where you _ talk about what have been the actions . . .may not have done anything , were they aware of it? You know you can certainly argue that point but I don ' - think that creates the right to , you know clearly when it 's spelled in terms of what the permit said . I think that 's the discussion point right here is , this is what the permit says . Is this what should happen? Scott : Well it seems like we 're focusing on . Harberts : I mean it 's pretty black and white . Scott : I think we 're focusing on intent and the way I take a look at thi is that , there 's plenty of things in here where it says you can 't do this , you can 't do that and you can 't do that . The dock is fine , and I think most people would assume that a dock is going to be used for a number of - different purposes . Perhaps keeping a boat overnight is one . Perhaps it isn 't . It specifically says no mooring buoys . But that 's about as close as it comes and my interpretation of a mooring buoy is usually something - that 's out farther into the lake and maybe that was addressed because of the possible traffic problems with having boats out that far . They also say no swimming platforms , which I think would be in about the same sort of proximity . But there isn 't anything in here that expressly forbids boat dockage overnight and that 's kind of where I 'm coming from . Because if i would have been forbidden , obviously they would have been here but then the survey would have had a little bit more meat to it I think . Harberts : Well and I guess just to maybe belabor the point a little bit in terms of , you know the survey says 3 , 7 and 9 and if we say okay , 3 is the_ threshold . What if we go out and do the survey again and in 1992 or 1993 they have 9 boats out there? Do we just , would 9 be the magic number the„? Batzli : No . We go to 1981 , and according to our charter here , we go bac to 1981 and if they want more than was shown on our survey , they have to provide evidence that it was there . What I think some on the Commission might be saying is that they will take that at face value because it 's no expressly forbidden under the permit and since the applicant isn 't here , they 're going to be given the 9 that they requested since there was no evidence to say that there were actually 9 there being parked . I don 't know if it 's a good result . As Ladd said , this might not be a very good area but I don 't know that , I don 't know . I guess in view of Planning Commission Meeting June 2 , 1993 - Page 8 the circumstances , the way I see it , I don 't know why we would deny it based on no express language that said you can 't do it . The fact that they 've been doing it for 10 years and I don 't know they 've really increased the intensity of , it looks like , at least this one record here of these Minutes indicate that several people have boats that they want to be _ parked at the dock . I don 't know if they actually did it . Well , I mean how many boats are there Ladd? How long have you lived on the lake? Conrad : There 's quite a few . Harberts: More than 3? Ledvina : Mr . Chairman . A question for Kate . What , if you have it , what specific section were you referencing in the permit that states that , or where you draw your interpretation that no boats be docked? I gues is it just an overall thing that it doesn 't allow or is there a specific element within the permit that leads you to believe that? Aanenson : Well it says specifically that you can have a dock . It says — that you can have a dock . Then it also says that under 2 .08 , no mooring buoys shall be placed upon the waters . No airplanes , seaplanes . And if you go through all the lists , it doesn 't say you can have x number of boats at the dock which raises two issues . They came back in '84 and said if you want to go beyond that , you have to come back and go through the conditional use . They did come back in 1984 and got 2 canoe racks . The issue here is , if you look at the number of residents that belong to the association , which is the number of lots is 73 homes . Where then do you draw the line as to what the maximum number of boats that can be at the dock . Where does it stop and that 's the intent of the ordinance is to say that there is a maximum number of permitted . If there 's complaints , we can go down there and say you 're exceeding the number of boats that are allowed at that dock . We don 't have a magic number of what the limit is . Scott : Well I think we can talk about physical limitations because that 's a very shallow , the lake 's very shallow but it 's very shallow there and a 100 foot dock , depending upon water level , is not going to give you enough draft to put boats in . And from , I was down there a couple weeks ago and there is a physical limitation to the number of boats that you can have at the dock . Also , I don 't think we should confuse . . .so I think there are some physical limitations and I always put more confidence in physical limitations than I do on legal limitations because it seems like the physical ones will hold sway . Harberts : What does the City do to enforce the permit? Aanenson : How many boats , go out and inspect them . Harberts : And what do they do if there 's more than 3 or whatever? Aanenson : Send the Association a notice that they 're in violation of the ordinance . And if they don 't rectify it , then we proceed to prosecute them for violation . Harberts : Has the City ever done that? Planning Commission Meeting June 2 , 1993 - Page 9 _ Aanenson: Well we just issued them . This will be the first summer that we 'll be inspecting them all . — Batzli : Is there a motion? Mancino: I move that we approve that 3 boats be allowed to be docked overnight at the dock . To be tied to the dock overnight . Scott: I ' ll second that . Batzli : Any discussion? Conrad: Don 't call the question yet . Batzli : I 'm not going to. — Conrad: I 'm just thinking . That 's the only thing . I 'm not going to say anything . Batzli : Normally Kate we have a little chart here that we approve these : 1 accordance with based on what they 're requesting . Aanenson: I didn 't put that in only because we 're looking at , we ' ll issue them a permit but all we 're looking specifically is just the number of boats . — Batzli : Just this one item to modify their . Conrad : That 's kind of confusing . When did we , we looked at them . Are r—� amending what we had approved before? Aanenson: Well this was given to them in 1981 . _ Conrad: So they have not been in recently? Aanenson : No . No . Batzli : They haven 't been in since '84 for their canoe racks . Aanenson: Correct . Mancino: If there 's only one canoe rack up right now , and the second one _ has not been added since 1984 , do they still have the right to put the second one up? Aanenson: Well that 's a philosophical question that the Council has kind — of said , that 's the same question if we say you can have 10 boats . Then one year they only put in 8 . Does that now say they can only have 8? Because for some reason someone 's traveled that year and hasn 't put their — boat in . And at this point I think the Council feels like , unless it 's a substantial change in use over a number of years they 're going to change it . But if they 've gone under one year , or if you feel like you want to call it back , if there 's complaints or issues and you want to call it bacl Planning Commission Meeting June 2 , 1993 - Page 10 and revoke it , otherwise I don 't think the Council at this point wants to go back and every year relook at them and lower them down . Farmakes : I think if we look at our past practices of these things , we haven 't been critical . Batzli : No , and we view that as a low intensity use . Farmakes : Correct , and the major issue that we argue over has been how many docks but the footage of the dock and how many boats are there . So I don 't know if I want to get into picking . . .canoe rack . Batzli : So I assume your motion is to amend the existing non-conforming use permit? Mancino: Non-conforming use permit and making it clear , yes . Batzli : That they 're limited to that number of boats . Okay . Is there any other discussion? Mancino moved, Scott seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approving that three ( 3 ) boats be allowed to be docked overnight at the Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake Beachlot . All voted in favor except Harberts , Conrad and Ledvina who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3 . Batzli : I think it passes 4 to 3 . You voted aye? Scott : Yes . Batzli : Okay , your reasons for voting nay? Ledvina : Well , personally I think that their conditional use , well this permit should apply and I would defer to staff 's judgment in enforcing or working with this permit . That 's my basis for voting against the motion . Batzli : Ladd , do you want to? Conrad : Same as Matt . Batzli : Okay , Diane . Harberts : I would concur and also again make the point , the discussion tonight from the residents was , their desire to not have it approved and no one from the Association was here in support of this . Those are my reasonings . — Batzli : Okay , thank you . i C I TY 0 F PC DATE: 7/21/93 _ C H A N H A EN CC DATE: 8/9/93 I - CASE #: 93-12 SUB By: Al-Jaff/Hempel — STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 6.1 Acres into 13 Single Family Lots, Tower Heights Addition LOCATION: South of Pleasant View Road, East of Peaceful Lane, West of Troendle Circle, Z and North of Lake Lucy Road. A portion of Lot 5, all of Lots 6 and 7, Vineland _ Q Addition, and a portion of city owned Water Tower property. U _ J APPLICANT: JMS Development 0. 4806 Park Glen Road Minneapolis, MN 55416 _ Q PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 7.1 acres (gross) 6.5 acres (net) DENSITY: 2 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family S - RSF; single family E - RSF; single family W - RSF; single family — . Q WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. _ 1,1.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The northern and northwestern portion of the site is heavily �• vegetated with mature trees. The site generally slopes to the south. Some steep slopes are located along the west. An existing single _ family residence and a swimming pool occupy the northeastern portion of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 7.1 acres into 13 single family lots. The property is _ zoned RSF. The average lot size is 21,780 square feet with a resulting gross density of 2 units per acre. The site is located north of Carver Beach Estates and west of Troendle Addition. Access to the subdivision will be provided by an extension of Nez Perce Drive. The extension of Nez Perce Drive is consistent with a conceptual access plan developed by the City during review of the adjacent Troendle and Vineland Forest plats. The extension will connect Nez Perce Road to Pleasant View Road via the currently dead end Peaceful Lane. A cul-de-sac, Tower Heights Drive, extends south from Nez Perce to service all of the proposed lots. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lot 13, which has a lot frontage of 75 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a 90 foot lot frontage. Also, the proposed grading of this parcel appears to remove all the existing mature trees on the site. Unless the grading and frontage issues are resolved, staff recommends this lot be deemed unbuildable. Proposed Lot 12 has an existing garage on it. The zoning ordinance does not allow accessory structures to be constructed without a primary structure. This situation will create a nonconforming situation. Staff is recommending the garage be removed prior to or concurrent with approval of the final plat. Proposed Lot 1, Block 1 has an existing residence, a swimming pool, and a shed. Presently, access to this site is gained from Peaceful Lane and a private driveway that encroaches onto the parcel to the north. There is an existing driveway access easement for it. When Tower Heights Drive is constructed, the existing residence will gain its access of off the cul-de-sac. All the existing structures on the site meet the zoning ordinance setback requirements. The site has a dense concentration of mature trees on the north and northwest corner of the site. The plans indicate that the majority of those trees will be removed. The applicant must use design measures to preserve the trees. We are recommending the applicant provide an inventory of all trees proposed to be removed. Those trees will then have to be replaced on a per inch caliper basis. A preservation easement over the area where tree concentrations exist will be required. This easement will prevent any construction from taking place and subsequently preserving the trees. The access issue relative to the extension of Nez Perce to Pleasant View is a primary concern and the focus of considerable city input and support for the past four years. Recently the City Council acted to initiate condemnation of the right-of-way required to complete the connection. Mr. Beddor, the developer of Troendle Addition and owner of the lot in question, currently objects to the connection in spite of the history of the street and written and verbal commitments to support the connection in conjunction with his Troendle Addition. He requested that the City Council reconsider their action to initiate condemnation. The City Council declined and Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 3 condemnation is currently proceeding. Based upon these actions, staff believes that issues concerning the Nez Perce connection have been resolved. In summary, staff believes that the proposed Tower Heights Addition represents a good quality plat that is generally consistent with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and with city plans concerning this area. While revisions are required, we believe they can be accommodated prior to City Council review. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. BACKGROUND On September 11, 1989, the City Council approved an access concept plan for Vineland Forest. The background of the city's involvement in the access issues concerning the plat are very involved and explored in earlier reports. A number of hearings were held with extensive public notice and input at every stage. The concept plan would loop Nez Perce Drive to the west parallel to Pleasant View Road and hook up with Peaceful Lane (Attachment #1). As designed, the access concept created a road that provided access to the Troendle site when it was going to develop. The Vineland Forest plat was approved on December 18, 1989. The plat was constructed with Nez Perce terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the Troendle property line. On August 12, 1991, the City Council approved the Troendle plat. Again, the plat was constructed with Nez Perce terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of the Owens' property. At that same meeting, the Carver Beach Estates neighborhood appeared before the City Council and voiced their concern regarding construction and residential traffic which would be generated due to the development of the Troendle subdivision. The end result was that the developer of Troendle subdivision posted a Letter of Credit in the amount of $10,000 towards assessments for the ultimate extension of Nez Perce Drive to Pleasant View Road. The Council requested that the residents seek to have a meeting with the applicant to discuss issues of concern. The neighborhood meeting took place on October 2, 1991, and staff attended the meeting. Representing the applicant, Frank Beddor, were Attorney Julius Smith and Daryl Fortier with Fortier and Associates. Council members present were Mayor Chmiel and Councilwoman Dimler. Mr. Fortier opened the meeting by presenting a summary of the Troendle plat. He then stated that Mr. Beddor had made an offer to the State of Minnesota to purchase the northerly half of the Owens' property located to the west of the Troendle plat. A draft plan was presented that showed the Owens' property divided in half by the extension of Nez Perce. The northern half was divided into two lots with frontage on Peaceful Lane to be purchased and developed by Mr. Beddor. The southerly half was divided into four lots and proposed to be served by a private driveway extending from Peaceful Lane and to be developed by another developer. Mr. Fortier did not indicate the name of that developer. Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 4 — A second subdivision scenario prepared by Fortier was produced, which showed a road connection between Nez Perce and Lake Lucy Road via the southerly half of the Owens' — property. Staff was asked if this was an option. Staff replied that this proposed connection would have to cross a steep hill to make that connection. The city has adopted a policy that would limit street grades to 7% or less. Furthermore, at the time Vineland plat was approved, the City Council adopted an access concept plan. The option proposed by Fortier was reviewed and dropped. The approved concept plan would loop Nez Perce Drive to the west, parallel to _ Pleasant View Road, and hook up with Peaceful Lane. Currently, Nez Perce terminates in a temporary cul-de-sac at the easterly property line of the Troendle plat. When the Troendle Plat appeared for subdivision before the Council, the access concept plan was implemented. When — the Owens' property develops, city staff will request that the City Council consider and complete the adoption of the access concept. A resident of the neighborhood pleaded that the city not change this plan. On April 13, 1992, the City Council authorized staff to prepare a feasibility study for the extension of Nez Perce Drive through the Owens' property to Pleasant View Road. The cost was — not to exceed $10,000. On August 10, 1992, the City Council reviewed the feasibility study and official mapping for the extension of Nez Perce Road. The Owens' property was in bankruptcy court at the time the hearing took place. Jules Smith, who was representing Frank Beddor, stated that they intended to purchase the northern portion of the Owens' property and they are ready to proceed as soon as the bankruptcy court settles. He also stated that he had some concerns about the location of the street in terms of its broad sweep or its straight cut into Peaceful Lane. He requested that the hearing be tabled until the property has been purchased by Frank Beddor, at which time, the — applicant would meet with staff to work on an appropriate location for the extension. On April 21, 1993, staff met with Jeff Schoenwetter, the developer of the proposed Tower — Heights Addition, who was interested in subdividing the southern half of the Owens' property. Through the meeting, the applicant was briefed on the history of the parcel and informed about the street extension. Staff also explained that the desired alignment falls entirely within the northern portion of the site which is owned by Frank Beddor. Staff setup a meeting on April 26, 1993, with representatives of Frank Beddor and Jeff Schoenwetter. Frank Beddor's representatives stated that after a closer look at the property, they have come to the decision that the only location where a house could be located on the property _ is where the city intends to locate the Nez Perce extension. The party interested in the southerly portion of the subject property explained that they would work with Beddor's representatives to allow for a smooth process. However, it appeared that the intention was not to allow the extension to go through. Staff informed all parties that this item will be brought before City Council for discussion. Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 5 On May 24, 1993, the matter was brought before the City Council for review. After some discussion, the City Council voted to condemn the northern portion of the Owens' property, currently owned by Frank Beddor, and complete the final piece of Nez Perce as was approved in the 1989 concept. On July 12, 1993, Frank Beddor appeared before the City Council and spoke during a visitor's presentation, requesting that the Council reconsider their decision. He presented an option that would connect Nez Perce with Lake Lucy Road via Tower Heights Drive. The City Council maintained their position on the condemnation and the implementation of the Nez Perce Road alignment concept plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 7.1 acre site into 13 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 0.54 units per acre gross, and 0.5 units per acre net after removing the roads. There are no wetlands found on the site. All the lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 21,780 square feet. The applicant is also - requesting to trade land with the city. This trade would take place between the city owned water tower parcel and Lots 8 and 9 of the Tower Heights Addition. The city can relinquish the land in question but has no need for the piece of land proposed for the trade, however, the applicant will benefit greatly from the trade by creating a buildable lot. Staff is recommending the applicant purchase the land rather than trade it for equal square footage. The value of the land shall be determined by an appraiser. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception of Lot 13. This lot has a frontage of 75 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a 90 foot frontage. The proposed grading of this lot appears to remove all existing mature trees on the site. Unless the grading and frontage issues are resolved, staff recommends Lot 13 be deemed unbuildable and merged with adjoining parcels. Proposed Lot 12 has an existing garage on it. The zoning ordinance does not allow accessory structures to be constructed without a primary structure. This situation will create a nonconforming situation. Staff is recommending the garage be removed prior to or concurrent with approval of the final plat. Access Access into this area of the City was explored in detail as outlined earlier in the background section of the report. During review of the Vineland Forest and Troendle subdivisions, it became clear that the City wished to maintain continuity of north/south flow between Pleasant View Road and Nez Perce Drive and points further south to maintain reasonable access for emergency vehicles and residents. At the same time, residents along Pleasant View Road were concerned Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 6 — that if traffic were introduced too far to the east that Pleasant View Road would have an undue burden from increased traffic. Consequently, an access concept was developed whereby Nez — Perce Road would be ultimately extended through the Vineland Forest plat and over to adjacent parcels where it would intersect with Pleasant View Road at the current site of Peaceful Lane. The ultimate completion of this roadway connection was to be contingent upon the development of adjoining parcels. Vineland Forest plat was consequently built with Nez Perce Drive terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the east property line which it shares in common with the Troendle property line. The Troendle plat was also built with Nez Perce Drive terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the east property line which it shares in common with the Owens' property line. The current proposal is fully consistent with the approved access concept. Nez Perce Drive would be extended through the Owens' property, currently owned by Frank Beddor, and connect with Pleasant View Road via Peaceful Lane to implement the last piece of the concept adopted by the City Council in 1989. The temporary cul-de-sacs were barricaded with a sign indicating that the road will be extended in the future. In addition, this condition was placed in the _ development contract which is recorded against the chain of title. This was done to put all future residents on notice of the City's intent to extend the street. A new cul-de-sac called Tower Heights Drive will extend approximately 600 feet south from Nez Perce Drive to service all of the lots in the subdivision. Preliminary Street Design — The preliminary street designs are generally consistent with city standards. Tower Heights Drive needs to be increased from the proposed 50 feet to the current 60 foot requirement by ordinance. — All the lots will have direct frontage on Tower Heights Drive and will gain access from this street. An existing driveway serving the existing home on Lot 1, Block 1 should be removed. This lot will gain direct access from Tower Heights Drive and there is no longer the need for the — driveway connection as a result of the driveway being relocated to Tower Heights Drive. The address of Lot 1 (Owens' property) will need to be changed accordingly. Street grades are proposed between 6% and 2% which are within the city's standards. Final street plans should be developed for approval by the City Engineering Department. Peaceful Lane currently serves three existing homes. The realignment of the road will require relocation of the driveways. One of those driveways is within the proposed subdivision which serves the existing home, and the — other two just outside. As a result of this development, the southerly two driveways will need to be relocated so they are perpendicular to the new street alignment of Peaceful Lane. With relocation of the driveways it is recommended that the applicant be required to have the new driveways paved with a hard surface. Peaceful Lane currently dead ends off of Pleasant View Road. Peaceful Lane consists of a 24- foot wide bituminous surface without curb and gutter or storm drainage improvements. The city has begun condemnation proceedings on Lot 5 (Beddor property)to extend Nez Perce Drive from Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 7 the Troendle Addition to Pleasant View Road. It is anticipated that condemnation proceedings will take up to 3 months and construction scheduled for next spring. Peaceful Lane will also be upgraded to city urban standards with the extension of Nez Perce Drive which includes concrete curb and gutter, and storm drainage improvements. In conjunction with this project, additional street right-of-way will be provided to access this proposed subdivision from the extension of Nez Perce Drive. The easterly 33 feet of Peaceful Lane right-of-way was vacated in 1987. The applicant is proposing to dedicate a trail easement along the vacated tight-of-way, out to Powers Boulevard. The City will also want to have a drainage and utility easement dedicated for existing sewer and water lines lying along the previously vacated Peaceful Lane. The city has received a petition from the applicant to have the city construct the street and utility improvements necessary to serve up to the proposed subdivision. The city has previously performed a feasibility study for officially mapping the alignment of Nez Perce Drive. The study laid out two alternatives for the upgrading of Nez Perce Drive (Attachments #3 and #4). Both alternatives provide access from Nez Perce Drive into the subdivision (Tower Heights Drive). Staff supports Alternative "A" which the applicant has shown for access to the development. The segment of Tower Heights Drive between the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the subdivision will be assessed back to this development, as well as their fair share for the upgrade of Peaceful Lane. The estimated assessment against this development will be determined with an updated feasibility study forthcoming. The applicant has expressed the desire to begin construction on the development as soon as possible. However, due to the anticipated delay (3 months) expected with condemnation of Lot 5 which the applicant needs for full street access, construction will not be possible this year. Utilities Municipal sanitary sewer and water service is available to the development from Peaceful Lane. The applicant is proposing to extend municipal utilities into the site. The existing home on Lot 1 (Art Owens' residence) is currently connected to city sewer and water. As a result of utility construction in this development, it will be necessary to relocate the connection point for the sewer and water for this residence. The applicant should include the relocation of the sewer and water service as a part of the utility construction. Fire hydrant spacing should be in accordance with the City's Fire Marshal. Typically, fire hydrants should be spaced 300 feet apart. It appears an additional fire hydrant will be necessary just north of Lot 13 along Tower Heights Drive. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be required for review by staff and City Council approval. Both street and utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the city's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 8 and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. Grading/Drainage The majority of the site is proposed to be graded which will result in tree loss in the northwest quarter of the development. The overall site grading is consistent with the neighborhood drainage from the site. The proposed grading on Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13 are such that runoff will be directed fairly close to the adjacent house pad. It is recommended that drainage swales be constructed along the common property line to divert lot drainage away from the neighboring _ property. The plans propose a series of catch basins to collect storm runoff generated from the street as well as the front yard portions of the lot. Proposed storm sewers will carry the runoff to a discharge point which lies west of Peaceful Lane into a small ditch section which runs into a retention pond/wetland near Powers Boulevard. Staff is concerned with the quantity and quality of water proposing to be discharged into the ravine area. According to the City's subdivision ordinance, the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision is to be retained at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event through the use of surface water detention/retention facilities. This may result in creating a temporary on-site water quality and quantity retention pond by the developer until the storm drainage improvements involved with the extension of Nez Perce Drive are constructed. In lieu of constructing permanent on-site storm drainage facilities, the developer would be assessed their fair share of the drainage improvements constructed in conjunction with the Peaceful Lane/Nez Perce Drive upgrade. The storm drainage plan will have to be looked at in greater detail by the developer's engineer in order to meet city standards. In this case, water would be discharged into the pond located near Pleasant View which would need to be modified for the purpose. It is anticipated that this will be possible after the condemnation is completed. — The City has not received soil boring information on the site as of writing this report. As with other typical developments in the city, moisture content in the soils is relatively high and the city has implemented the use of drain tile behind the curbs for both improving road sub-base drainage as well as providing a discharge point for sump pumps from the new homes in the development. The applicant should be aware that the city will require that street construction plans include a drain tile system. Park Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat of Tower Heights (JMS Development) on June 22, 1993. A copy of the staff report presented to the Commission is attached. Mr. Jeff Schoenwetter of JMS Development was present responding to questions of the Commission. The construction of a trail in the right-of-way of Peaceful Lane was discussed. Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 9 Both the applicant and Commission were in favor of this trail segment. The construction of this trail will allow for an off-street connection from the neighborhoods in this area to the future trail _ corridor on the east side of Powers Boulevard. The easement necessary for this trail would be the same easement called out for utilities. The present description shall be amended accordingly. At the conclusion of their discussion that evening, the Commission made the following recommendation. Parks: It is recommended that the City Council accept full park fees in lieu of land dedication. These fees to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current park fees are $600 per lot. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council require the following conditions of approval in regard to trails: 1. A 20-ft. easement for trail purposes shall be reserved during the abandonment of Peaceful Lane. 2. The applicant shall construct an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail in this easement per city specifications. 3. The applicant shall be granted full trail fee credit in consideration for this construction. Documented expenses above and beyond the $2,400 in trail fee credits to be paid by the city. Easements The following easements and rights-of-way should be provided: 1. Right-of-way for all street improvements. 2. Standard drainage and utility easements. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 27,000 119' 223.5' 45'/120'/30 Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 10 Lot 2 19,000 110' 227' Lot 3 17,300 100' 160' Lot 4 15,100 73' on curve 145' 90' front setback Lot 5 26,000 70' on curve 213' 90' front setback Lot 6 25,000 106' cul-de-sac 235' 110' front setback Lot 7 18,700 71' cul-de-sac 161' 94' front setback Lot 8 17,700 65' cul-de-sac 150' 105' front setback Lot 9 26,100 80' cul-de-sac 260' 96' front setback Lot 10 16,500 177'corner lot 140' 70' Lot 11 20,000 102' 199' Lot 12 28,600 104' 375' — Lot 13 26,600 75' 300' * Lot 13 has a frontage of 75 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a 90 foot frontage. The _ proposed grading plan appears to remove all existing mature trees on the site. Unless the grading and frontage issues are resolved, staff is recommending the lot be deemed unbuildable and merge with adjoining parcels. _ Tree Preservation The grading plan shows the vegetated areas and the amount of tree removal. The site contains significant concentrations of mature trees along the north and northwest areas of the site that should be preserved as best possible. The forested areas contain large, mature hardwoods. The — Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 11 = forested areas are on the steeper elevations of the site. Some of the vegetation is in locations where extensive grading is required to develop the site. The grading of the site for streets, utilities and lot preparation is resulting in the loss of a number of trees. Custom grading on Lot 12 is required to allow the site to be prepared for the individual house rather than mass grading the site at the beginning of the project. The same condition will apply to Lot 13 should the applicant resolve the grading and frontage issues. A tree preservation plan will be required. All of the vegetated areas that are being saved shall be preserved by a conservation easement. Staff is also requesting a tree inventory of all trees proposed for removal on the site. This list should show what type and size of trees that are on the site and the type and size of trees being removed. A reforestation plan will attempt to replace all those trees being lost due to grading and placement of services. The city can require caliper replacement of trees. Staff is recommending that the applicant work with staff to develop a reforestation plan to replace the tree removal. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves Subdivision #93-12 for Tower Heights Addition as shown on the plans dated June 8, 1993, subject to the following conditions: 1. All lots are required to have access from Tower Heights Drive. 2. The developer shall dedicate to the city the utilities within the right-of-way for permanent ownership. 3. Parks: Full park fees shall be accepted in lieu of land dedication. These fees to be paid at the time of building permit application at the rate then in force. Current park fees are $600 per lot. Trails: a. A 20-ft. easement for trail purposes shall be dedicated over the vacated section of Peaceful Lane. b. The applicant shall construct an 8-ft. wide bituminous trail in this easement per city specifications. c. The applicant shall be granted full trail fee credit in consideration for this = construction. Documented expenses above and beyond the $2,400 in trail fee credits to be paid by the city. Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 12 4. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the city's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 5. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a reforestation plan on the site. This plan shall include a list of all trees proposed to be removed and their size. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation — easement. The conservation easement shall permit pruning, removal of dead or diseased vegetation and underbrush. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan which shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. 6. Lot 12 shall be custom graded and shall provide a tree preservation plan for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The same condition is applicable to Lot 13 should the applicant resolve the frontage and grading issues. Staff shall have the right to require a change in house pad and location if it will result in saving significant vegetation. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of the tree preservation easement prior to grading. — 7. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed street and utility — plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, — i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 10. Street right-of-way shall be increased to 60 feet in width. 11. The preliminary and final plat approval should be contingent upon the City upgrading Peaceful Lane and extending Nez Perce Drive out to Pleasant View Road from Troendle Addition. The final plat may not be recorded nor site construction proceed until the city has authorized a public improvement project for the extension of Nez Perce Drive. 12. The applicant shall be responsible for relocating the two existing driveways (6500 and 6535 Peaceful Lane) to be perpendicular with the new street and paved with a bituminous or concrete surface. — Tower Heights July 21, 1993 Page 13 13. The applicant shall be responsible for disconnecting and reconnecting the sanitary sewer and water service to the existing home on Lot 1 (Art Owens). 14. The grading plan shall be amended to provide drainage swales along the common lot lines to convey drainage away from the house sites along Lots 10, 11, 12 and 13. 15. The applicant shall supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with City ordinance for the City Engineer to review and approve. 16. An additional fire hydrant shall be incorporated into the construction plans just north of Lot 13 along Tower Heights Drive. _ 17. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a drain tile system in accordance to City standards with the construction plans. 18. The garage on Lot 12 shall be removed prior to or concurrent with the approval of the final plat. 19. The city may sell a portion of the Water Tower land to the developer. — 20. The address for the existing home on Lot 1 (6535 Peaceful Lane) shall be changed an — address on Tower Heights Drive. 21. The segment of Tower Heights Drive between the extension of Nez Perce Drive and the — subdivision will be assessed back to the developer as well as their fair share for the upgrade of Peaceful Lane." — ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo dated September 8, 1989. — 2. City Council minutes dated September 11, 1989. 3. Nez Perce Alternative A 4. Nez Perce Alternative B — 5. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated July 8, 1993. 6. Preliminary plat. CITYOF ._ __ Ikrt: _ k i CHANHASSEN _ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 — MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, Director of Planning Dave Hempel , Sr . Engineering Technician DATE: September 8 , 1989 SUBJ: Alternative Access Concepts for the Vineland Forest Subdivision #89-8 BACKGROUND On August 28 , 1989 , the City Council reviewed the preliminary — plat request for the Vineland Forest subdivision (see location map) . The plat as proposed illustrates the creation of 21 single family lots accessed by a cul-de-sac from Pleasant View Road that is approximately 1250 feet long. The proposed plats and existing — homes are shown on an attachment. Access into the plat is the primary issue. Area residents raised — concerns over traffic on Pleasant View Road at the Planning Commission meeting with the result that the Commission was unable to reach a consensus on the plat. Staff recommended approval of the plat conditioned on the addition of a southern outlet from — the plat, using Nez Perce right-of-way to intersect with Lake Lucy Road. The inclusion of the southern outlet would result in the creation of a north/south connection between Lake Lucy Road — and Pleasant View Road and also provide a second access as requested by Public Safety. At the City Council meeting further discussion on access issues was heard. A series of revised access concepts were introduced by an architect representing homeowners located on Pleasant View Road. The City Council ultimately voted to continue the item to — give staff an opportunity to review access alternatives . Development of Alternative Access Plans — Prior to preparing alternative access plans staff considered a number of issues . These are described below as follows : 1 . Access plans for Vineland Forest should be designed to serve not only the site but also adjoining vacant and under- developed parcels in a comprehensive manner. For the pur- — poses of this analysis, we have defined the study area as the ..._ _ E c.:, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 0 c 0 4DD in Q IO O O p Op O O O O p O► 03 ti c0 If " I :•••0 • , I IIfLAG LANE I _ 1 ? I CHRISTMAS I HENNEPIN ' ' —' ��' 'r LAKE /�' — — . , . • IMF T� z �_ r\�� Tit E . i 2111. 63-.0 _.,----- 1- IIII . Ilir = $T �^ 'OM� �_ � �y1 / ' ; ,. CIRCLE ...„ .... T . STUD -R. Itt_,L ,,,,,,,l,„„h„, Avant . 11., ..... .....„ ,_ \ Y AREA , , / IF me - • ° W.\ L.-..„.. ,,,, ....--- _ ,14„„. ... , . A. .... i 41/4,,,,,, lip ... II t 1 r_Ji , TTI7 \ViAlf 11-itioill V"7.0......-:-.,,„ \ , , l'iriir Wka Ilika\ ',,,,% 4 7‹ -A ._.. r VAR,.`itio-42A -.. '#., _ . 1 r----?-2-, __-- 6211111. _r. u_ L t IJ_�• .t; ,`. �� _ PROJECT LOCAeP .----_-": • 1 . . 1 / I A oil 7 .\W"P / TION .l2��i11 "111.9 '\ OF/ t ''' vitt I i lip imo„,..10 . H ,_ . , , . .. II __ _ -....0 . 7,___________ _I ,N,.. ..74.47 _, 4 ..k 11141A ---.UN:a -.. , \ ibro . Mir Itt-i-it . , , ,, 1 is IL.,�a �lip /111 I � \ - dr 41 lit' I . I � ' '4,4TO ' i all1'2%10 '!. __.• . 1111111111111 —n - , ,„„,, ki , i • . vjaVio oR. L 0 — lett...41. likilaN14 • .- ?_. -1" 0111 , .A KE LUCY 'Ur a e 1 ;,it inc.,11r 10 ilqrr - —' ��- `._' Ai • o E ,0 in./RE -5 ----j Fri --42 t'itilltrlik #1021.1 lag . ..--, ---, ,_ ___..__,__ilk,mai elw,w; 1H---' r.1 ce.4,.,-----.,_E .--"In onto .-- vet_ - A" -•,,-- IIi��■ �.;• •1► *gm 4 '40111 1 �r m • Ai c subWi ' 111111( - LOCATION MAP ` �� .� e .. 1 um 4KE ANN �l 6 ofipi�� I� y10 \ 1),if kidiV a miA &w% jt � �,',., r�Lrriol.to 1 FIMI17, lati;_e mow/ ow a 16714111111 r ',. a N 'wt..,7.; p� *--...,/ acs do vo ,,___,,.........„///1// A,EAzrAtAi r V/Ew 1 i I -------------7 r-4 P ‘r 1 lip ,- . 1 'I, \ I i 1 ' I 1 i ` P4 OL ` 1 T --- - t E A C E LtL 11-11% ?,c)."7 ..` c) VINELPND FAL►A1---- -, `� `moi 4 / _ — , e:- -FORL�� VII 1 I 1 f' PLAT > > - C I • ..... ./\-- \ • %. j \ / \ /-N -- ft:. 111 IIIII • (IA9E Lucy .e o 4.O 111 ) . .. ZF t� PROPOSED PLATS / EXISTING HOMES 1. Mr. Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 2 land located between Peaceful Lane on the west , Pleasant View Road on the north, the Fox Path neighborhood on the east, and Lake Lucy Road on the south. We acknowledge that these par- cels may not be developed in the same time frame. However , we believe the overall access plan is essential if adequate levels of service are to be provided while minimizing neigh- borhood and environmental disruptions . Existing platting and neighborhood ' s development pattern should be taken into account to maximize feasibility of the concept and minimize neighborhood disruption . 2 . Given the size of the study area , staff estimates that approximately 55 homes could eventually be built . Each single family home will generage approximately 10 trips per day. This estimate is based upon the access and development concept plans that are presented in this report . The plans attempt to provide lots consistent with city development standards . In our opinion, to adequately serve this large an — area a through street connection is warranted . The connec- tion is important to being able to provide adequate levels of service for local residents and reasonable emergency vehicle response times . From the standpoint, of the larger , surrounding neighborhood a north/south connection is con- sidered to be of benefit for traffic flow and emergency vehicle access since it would be the only connection between — Powers Boulevard and Lotus Lake. 3 . Traffic levels on Pleasant View Road are a consideration. The street carries a fairly high traffic volume and is on the city' s state-aid system. Recent counts taken by the city show traffic levels of somewhere between 960 and 1300 ADT _ ( average daily traffic) at the Vineland Forest site. An ADT of 1000 is commonly thought to be the dividing line between local and collector streets . Portions of the street exist as a substandard design exacerbating traffic problems . 4 . The access concept should result in a high quality residen- tial environment . Significant stands of trees and wetlands should be protected . Cul-de-sacs should be created where feasible . Potential Access Points into the Study Area There are a series of roads and undeveloped rights-of-way that could provide access into the study area ( see attachment) . Each was reviewed to assess its feasibility for extension into the area . These are described below: 1 . Pleasant View Drive Advantages - Street functions as a collector with east/west access . Grades and sight distance make access feasible along much of the frontage . �,?' r .a..,••. 3 I I , : .LS\-,- ...., ',.t \ ' 7 ,// • � v` :in "'°' s I ro ..c� ,Is� 'o r • to.P • N. _r4°0- RfJ 747701.5 A °. ti' _r9 ;.•n.••a. .— -is _ . 4 2 R. J k '. IN - -- - - 9 -P i •:' • it„ A. ••. .. _ / \se: • C= s+•< � • n...w... ; 4. NsAIEW 3 - ROAD• RSTMAS ° : s %e , � CHI ,�. � sI0 ', ,� 4. • tax . , \-• , • ' O Z \ kyr t - 0 • :7 i le .. / Y I V : - --- - \ 9 a, a :a S 7C• •:! W ..v.]t.FIE r[*u:r 17 '!� r• .. ----t -- -L^'4- •• - S 1 =j' d' ' J• 1 , �`0 ;in ' 2 II SOX 5 Ci 7 • 3 11 0 'Atli • I iii gyr- 1611 TI C2. lia coco Q EIllp f oligi, il RN I ip Ar ID ithir,:".:. .".. All . i . ,:. .. T7nT I i — - 1111111"1611111111111114311111.1.1.1W I II 1.J I i 1 LUC• ROAD w Ol C— !Ef•e ® . •u. _ Ii .�' :7O ®�� i• .. . • _, • Wim_ _:___,_, .. , . r_:. - _ ' L ' `. .• A� ,r ��/� NIAMyTNA OAO • \\\•:• �L I... I POTENTIAL ACCESS POINTS Mr . Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 3 Disadvantages - Street is built to substandard design and carries high traffic volumes . Neighborhood impact and traffic safety considerations . 2 . Fox Path Advantages - Ability to use an undeveloped , dedicated right- of-way, north/south alignment that could serve to create street connection , while eliminating an existing over-length cul-de-sac . Disadvantages - Connection is extremely difficult to make, due to severe grades and environmental impacts . Also, potential neighborhood opposition in Fox Chase if through street considered. It is not considered to be feasible. 3 . Park Drive (Nez Perce) Advantages - Provides good access to the south via undeveloped dedicated right-of-way ( 40 foot) and has access to Powers Boulevard via Lake Lucy Road. Disadvantages - Grade on Park Drive is a concern. However , upon further investigation it was concluded that a maximum 10% grade with a 40 foot long landing area at 2% grade at the street inter- - section could be provided and that grading limits are acceptable . Staff believes this is a reasonable alternative from a design stand- point . Sketches showing street profile options and grading limits are attached . 4 . Kiowa Drive (Hopi Road ) Advantages - Undeveloped dedicated right-of-way following similar alignment to but east of Park Drive . Disadvantages - Very difficult grades are present . Street construction would result in extensive tree _ loss . Staff questions if construction is feasible. Access to Powers Boulevard is not direct . The street is presently constructed as a dead end serving several homes . Although right-of-way is dedicated to make a connection to Powers Boulevard it is unlikely that such a connection is feasible due to wetland and ponding areas . --.7 (;) ) L \ i !co J S ..ra■11011 _ 1 — \----;-/ . ..,: , v.7 6 , / -IT:PUSSUBM11 OO r O • __�•..■mU.S..... - = :,■.■, —— itri -_•_ --1,•_-__ / / • W _N.••NN._� ••� ____.....___��__ 0011111MIMPIFOO 1----7."1-- / NN■•Ot•6■IL,■,N / 11 ...- ........11171::!11:111 7::::777-771-If •.•f•• .. • ..//t NN.,■M rI I / ■■NN■. •N — / U/ .• ii _ 1•N••.1 .. PM q.■�N■■■11 / / I NN N ��•, I - 1101allMil Si.■■■■■/.■■/,f■■f■■NSi A1C%L%.i■■■ 11:11 m• * 2� Fooriamosimg .111 ■■.. N.■ ■.■ms \ .af/aN.wf .. .Nreasons • 5CALE .N1 \ � �•••� ------� / '.:■••f % - .. +....... - I I Iv C K = S O F E E� / / . • = rM "Arrow ... n ///// \ / ■.■.•.■NM •.. _• Yi:: .•1.11NMMEanal MOS NY■Nv ■. ■NN..1N_rN ■1 .._. .f1N.. Q M 110111.00111M f•■■M Millan mwlmallla MOS MOWS NN / ■f... / Nf ■ . U.S mamma• 11 NN■1•. 1■■.1.N■• N MIMMIAPSMI .N•/■.■1N■..■N.11N■ •N osmium...■.■ ....•■■1/• . N..■Nr. . t•r\ MEMOS Men -- - s MMMMM ass _ / ■N■N•N...NM :�::1 . 11100• •...••. N.,•M .•1.1f an011•N•• YN. fY■NM.f■•1■ • ll.— NY . N.N.•■.■.1. N •1.■■N. .1 ..1. 1 .•NYN1N...N...1N■1...•/■.. 1N..,. • ..■■.Nf.f. • —ft1•••..1■...,N ••■.N■,1M1•a .Y..N• N...__■/p...N1fY..11 II /�_ .Y1••..■N■=IMO .1■N■1..MrMP•Y• 1.■■ ■11.1.11 =..._N •NN1 _ 1 �1.•.f.r ..■.N.. rT 0 YGA• .M ■•YN.•YY_■■M�. . •S� Z ...N.Y•NY _ _ O O _ , _' N 87° 5 C-``• T LAKE �I►�i______!-_ .___-_ 1- .. .,... _ - _ - �r : - - ----- -- / AAs r i LEGEtiD1 1__ � • — / � '4 f ' •••••• Developer ' s Grading9 _ t n • � // t �. , T, 10% Grading Limits iS p i 1 �II� 7% Grading Limits 41PA, • savd`; 44""g:\\X / J 0 3.N M 0 D R VE „.... 1 o37loB - R M s l 0 2 4 4 2 ...i .. .O1 I7 171 to A.N. M H. R.i ww : %D 8.j 8 t• tu.r. n 1028 49 .---------- ____---. --------- L ,_. _ • 0 __ GRADING LIMITS P.Q ,04-098 - 144-Luc', trG1. 1 o 49mo57-Roe7- • I I // / 8 -; . tt ,/// / 14 o b 2 // I // / M -/ . . . . . • /4) / 11$ . . . . .gi . . . . . . ' Q i 0 N44t, " __ 1 i I/ I" ,:A''I I a 4r _ V! In 1 y . . '"ii T 1I _ em 17 oi / z o 2, 1 It • o - i r 1 sow f ‘ , ,- .„ r o IN _ 0 N, t•4 crtl Ze et M a Mr. Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 4 S . Peaceful (Redman) Lane Advantages - The street is intended to serve the Pleasant Hills plat. The plat was given final approval but has not been filed. Plat approval will expire in October. Access through this area is reasonable and without serious difficulty. — Provides reasonably good connection to the north with east/west connection via Pleasant View Road at a good location. Disadvantages - Approved plat (which probably will expire October) may limit design options. Would still result in the introduction of traffic — onto Pleasant View but this is off-set by short distance to Powers Boulevard. 6 . Outlot A, Carver Beach Estates Advantages - Undeveloped right-of-way to Lake Lucy Road. Provides good access to the south. — Disadvantages - Grades make access difficult. Proximity to Powers Boulevard may make connection redun- — dant. Alternatives/Comment _ There are a large variety of alternatives for serving the study area. Staff has attempted to limit the number of alternatives to those which have been discussed previously and a new alternative, that in our opinion, represents the most reasonable remaining option. The alternatives that have been studied are described below along with comments derived from review criteria _ established earlier: 1 . This alternative is essentially the access option proposed by the developer illustrating serving Vineland Forest by a long cul-de-sac from Pleasant View. The concept has been expanded to illustrate how the balance of the study area could be served in a comprehensive manner. Comment - The option illustrates the ultimate construction of a street loop between the originally proposed Vineland Forest/ _ Pleasant View intersction to the Peaceful Lane dead end to the west. The alternative will ultimately provide a street loop that should offer adequate service internally within the study area. Construction of the street loop would be con- tingent upon the decisions of other property owners to develop their land. As illustrated, the northern stub street in Vineland Forest has been eliminated since, as proposed, it — N 0 . j C44414e-S.dee VA /2 E-AbrAtA/r ✓E w 1 / 0 p 1 , I VII. ), NI V I.— —A QI I i \\\\\.„.....IF / .....• Poo, • EACE 1 - F.6_ /- WEI . a II P IA VINEL ND • RE T T Pr --41.7:11 LAT 1 - C I 41 I 1 ■ igh Eh ' N... z.r/tz Lucy ,e0.4-.4) e1 ALTERNATIVE 1 V-74; p I /0.6.E.b4vr Ogg,' 7---- ______ i A 14, 1 1_01 / 1 1 t IP...L Ii 1 1 '_FACE 4?LLS4'1 -1.--- % �I F�' IN ` L ' ND „ a Y PLA I1 Vi/ t ii 1/6 fl ct I ., \ .. ., , %%. N a re 11111 Ns......._. =____ •(JACZ Lucy 2c,41-x) -7C-4-1.1 ALTERNATIVE 2 N L.......mmowenne.— ____.... .... ................ .., Jt pG 6.40AN T 0 E se-' 1I fIlk ` , ,.1-.. • , I v ' � n vk I 0 I / I W • '! ' . ; i i 11 \ \ t 4 ' \ • Pal,l0 iiii0 :1I / r/ T _ - r WpTi.Si: T•w[fz 1 \N MI gib all \N•• . .C.li L Lucy 20,40 . --. \44--Cl ALTERNATIVE 3 �S / v 411**`..74; p \I e e r 4 V • A r....."''''''"jt AGE/tSiaN r ✓E� T T-1 I ,. ..... i' l 1 . p ...- i, s p ,t1,. _.., NI • io - -I 1 I , I a I ' EACE U . 1 Pil 'I1VINELAND P 'A OR.& T 4111_ PLAT 4'15E71 [ i r ___C i � I ' N.. • q, • .,,,,t, I uGy 2e,04-.0 1111 AcI ALTERNATIVE 4 Mr. Don Ashworth September 8 , 1989 Page 5 cannot be built without the removal of a home on the adjoining parcel . This revision has been repeated in the three remaining alternatives as well . Connecting to Pleasant View from Peaceful Lane rather then the original Vineland location to the east, could have a beneficial traffic impact. We believe this would result from Pleasant Lane ' s proximity to Powers Boulevard that should help orient traffic to the west rather then east along Pleasant View. The streets appear to be feasible from a grading standpoint and environmental impact is not excessive . There are two significant problems with the alternative. The loop street concept results in the fact that all of the traf- fic in the study area will be required to use Pleasant View. The second concern is that it does not provide any access of the south thus eliminating the potential for a north/south street connection . 2 . The second alternative is the dual cul-de-sac option illustrated by an architect working for the Pleasant View area homeowners . To allow for a reasonable comparison the alternative was expanded to create a comprehensive access plan for the study area. Comment - This option tends to split the access burden with most of the traffic exiting south to Lake Lucy Road. Ultimately a connection would be made to the west to Peaceful Lane . A small portion of the traffic would exit directly onto Pleasant View at the original Vineland Forest intersec- tion . This alternative can be reasonably constructed based on gra- des and environmental impacts are consistent with normal residential development . There is a north/south street con- nection but the alignment is quite convoluted which presents a problem for through movements . Distance traveled will be higher as will emergency vehicle response times . Again, construction is contingent upon the development decisions of adjoining property owners . 3 . Staff attempted to start with a clean sheet of paper to create Alternative 3 . The concept is based on a street loop running from Lake Lucy/Nez Perce to Peaceful Lane. Comment - The alignment is more direct then the one described in Alternative 2 . Street construction is reasonable, all study area parcels are served and high quality residential environments will result. The south } of the Vineland plat remains largely unchanged. The Peaceful Lane connection is contingent upon the vacating or expiration of the Peaceful Mr. Don Ashworth September 8, 1989 — Page 6 Hills plat (due to expire in October) . As with Alternatives 1 and 2 the construction of the street loop is •contingent upon development decisions of adjoining property owners. 4. The final alternative is the original staff recommendation — expanded to illustrate serving the entire study area. The street connection between Lake Lucy Road/Nez Perce and Pleasant View is probably the best alignment for meeting — access needs throughout the neighborhoods surrounding the study area since it is centrally located between Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy. As such it may also have a greater potential for introducing traffic increases onto Pleasant View. A significant advantage is that the connection could be constructed immediately without requiring the par- ticipation of adjoining property owners. — STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff continues to support the original access concept illustrated as Alternative 4 . Our reasons for this position area based on the advantages of the alignment for the north/south con- nection and the fact that it could be built immediately without requiring participation by adjacent property owners . The impor- tance of the last factor should not be minimized. Constructing street extensions after a neighborhood has been developed is — often a controversial process. If this option is not acceptable to the Council we would recom- mend that Alternative 3 be selected since it meets the established criteria while providing reasonable north/south con- nection . Alternatives 2 and 3 would require a substandtial redesign of the Vineland plat. If Alternatives 2 or 3 are selected we would recommend that the required be returned to the Planning — Commission for review of a revised plat based upon your direc- tions regarding access . The Council should be aware that city staff does not have the — capability to prepare an indepth analysis of traffic patterns. We believe the data presented in this report is reasonable based upon our knowledge of the subject. If a greater understanding of this question is desired a consultant would need to be retained to prepare a computer model of the area. While this would pro- vide valuable information, it would involve additional time and — cost. The Council should also be aware that regardless of which option is selected, easements must be provided to construct sewer and water lines north to Pleasant View. City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 APPROVE CONCEPT PLAN FOR VINELAND FOREST ADDITION. Paul Krause: At the last City Council meeting there was discussion on the Vineland Forest plat and at that time, access was a primary issue that surfaced and staff was asked to prepare access concepts to look at how best to serve this plat and adjoining properties. In view of the hour I guess I can cut to the chase but there was a lot of background investigation that went into this in terms of creating a study area and reviewing existing plats that had been approved in this area. There was one in particular to the west side of the study area that has been approved. It has been final approved. It has not been filed and it's due to expire in October. We looked at the variety of ways of serving this area. All the road stubs. The undeveloped rights-of-way. Bordering roads. Whatever and tried to define which of those were feasible. We then tried to develop which sort of issues we were encountering in this area in terms of what sort of goals we would have for the access system. We wanted an access that provided ideally sane thru movement on the north/south orientation through the area. Public Safety's requested that and we feel that there's going to be a considerable number of homes eventually in this area and that it was warranted to provide a north and a south outlet. We're aware of the access and traffic concerns on Pleasant View. Same information the City developed in terms of traffic on this street as it exists today verifies that it is carrying a considerable amount of traffic so providing+another means of outletting that neighborhood becomes a concern. We basically wound up with 4 alternative concept plans. Alternative 1 is basically the original plat as recommended or proposed by the developer. What we did is we tried to take a reasonable ! extension of that. ..how that could serve the remaining undeveloped ground in the area. One thing we want everybody to note though is that the orignal Vineland plat showed two stub rights-of-way oriented to the west. The southern one we think works fine from the grading standpoint but as we got into this, the northern one causes a problem because the only way to build it is to take out the house on the adjoining property which is something we were concerned about. We thought it was presumptuous of us to get into that at this point and assume that that's going to be the case. It's our belief that that's not really an effective means of providing service. . .recommending the position of coming up with something that would lead people to believe that would provide service in the future so we're recommending through all four options that this connection here be eliminated for that reason. Again, this is the original plat. If you basically take that off, you've got the original plat. We show serving the adjoining properties withfa street connection that would come through the Peaceful Hills plat. That is a stub right-of-way that had been provided coming back out from Peaceful Lane back up to Pleasant View. The proposal has some merit in terms of serving internally generated trips. The major problem as we see it though is all the traffic winds up on Pleasant View. It doesn't provide us any means of ingress and egress to the south. We feel the long term is rather short sighted. Again, all these trips... We have not done an indepth traffic study. We don't have that capability in house to figure out where these cars are going to go once they're out here but the more traffic you have on Pleasant View. . .it's reasonable to assume that the percentage of that is going to travel east. . . • Councilman Johnson: Before you move on Paul. Councilman Workman: I was going to say. Could it be assumed that we're down to Alternate 2 or 3? 61 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: I thought they recommended 4? Paul Krause: We recommended 4 with a series... Councilman Workman: I thought 4 with the pass thru was not a real exciting - option. Councilman Johnson: Paul, before you go on. The little stub coming off of Lake - Lucy on the west side by the water towex there. That wasn't considered in any options. What's the problem there? Driving by it and looking in there, it doesn't scam to be too bad of topography in the first couple hundred feet looking north at that point. Is there something that runs into a problem later? I know the current Peaceful Hill plat but if that expires next month, which is again an if, which is a huge 2 letter word. But if it does expire, then would that be a viable second entrance? Paul Krause: Theoretically yes. I should say that we're showing you 4 concepts. Dave and I generated a lot more than that and the waste basket is full of them. There's a lot of different ways of serving this but there is some difficult grade there. It's probably something that could be accommodated. One of the primary concerns we had with that is when you look at the bigger picture. Councilman Boyt: accuse me Paul but if you don't have the microphone, nobody's hearing you out there. Paul Krause: One of the concerns we had is that if you're looking at the bigger picture of how to provide access to the larger neighborhood, we're concerned that there's no means of a north/south connection between Powers and the lake. If you orient that connection at that point there, you're basically serving the area just within throwing distance of Powers Blvd. and that it would be more advantageous to centrally locate this in terms of promoting that north/south movement. Again, we think it's a connection that is potentially viable from a grading standpoint. We just didn't fool it warranted a lot more consideration at this point after scccing how the whole area functioned. Councilman Johnson: So you're saying that you're trying to get a north/south connection up to a road that we don't really want people going on that much? Paul Krause: That's true but what that also does is it helps to bleed off some of this traffic to the south. Right now the way the original plat was proposed and presumably the way individual property owners would choose to develop their property in the future, all of that traffic's going to be introduced onto Pleasant View. The north/south routing allows for another option. Yes, it does have potential of introducing more traffic one way or the other but we think - it's generally a benefit to provide two legitimate ways in and out of an area that's going to have that many homes. There's also questions of emergency vehicle access. That's our public safety folks that also stress that we try to _. get that southern access. Again, routing all the traffic back up to the north doesn't resolve that question for them. Councilman Johnson: The southern access, to get two accesses, that one would also work. Gets you the second access without making it a drive thru. Keep 62 City Council Meting - September 11, 1989 going. Paul Krause: Okay. The second alternative we looked at was a variation of the theme that was presented by an architect working for the homeowners association where they illustrated two cul-de-sacs. One coming in from Pleasant View. The other coming in from Nez Perce. We took that design and tried to modify it again. Enlarging it to serve adjoining properties. What we did is we took the southern cul-de-sac and extended it back through back again to Peaceful Hills. This goes a lot further to providing that north/south routing. We see two problems with it though and the first is that this routing is very convoluted. You've basically got a switch back road design in here, which the+more complicated you make this, the less likely it is that people are going to use it. The second issue, and this will come into play a little later, is that the completion of this loop is contingent up on the decisions of two other property owners to develop. Now, we can and will continue. In the past we have. We would continue to advocate stub rights-of-way being dedicated so we can extend roads in the future and we'll often push for!those things but they're always difficult issues to resolve. Neighborhoods always object and no matter what you do, it's a difficult problem. So while we think this is a step in the right direction, we don't think it's the ideal one. In alternative 3 we basically tried to start with a clean sheet of paper. We took the Nez Perce connection and assumed that the Peaceful Hills plat was voided out or was replatted and what we tried to do is come up with a straighter shot through the neighborhood. Now, one of the advantages to exiting on the north side to Peaceful Lane is that you're quite close to Powers Blvd.. Rather than further to the east and we think the closer you orient people to Powers Blvd. the more likely they will be to exit the neighborhood that way rather than shoot back down to the east. So this is an option that we felt had some merit. The final one is basically the one that was presented at the first meeting illustrating the staff proposed access to the south. The original plat is still over here. We just popped that road through. At the last meeting there were sone questions as to whether or not Nez Perce was a legitimate connection in terms of grade. Whether or not we could make that grade. Dave did quite a bit of work on that and refined the grading plans to the point where we're comfortable that a good safe street can • be built through there and provide that connection. We think this plan has some merits and it has some problems. The meritorious aspect of it for us is that it provides that north/south connection in a very centrally located point between Powers and the lake so we think the utility is there. The second aspect of it is that it can be built immediately. All the land is under the control of one property owner. The down side of this is that it introduces the traffic onto Pleasant View fairly far to the east and does have that factor, potentially encouraging more traffic to use that street to exit the neighborhood. At the last meeting we recommended that this alternative be selected. We're continuing to recommend that it be selected for the two reasons. That it can be built today and that it's appropriately located but we do acknowledge that problem. Our recommendation further though is that if this alternative is not acceptable to the Council, that you look at alternative 3 since it meets most of those criteria that we had established for the design and is generally successful in that. With that if there are questions. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to say that you haven't addressed Nez Perce yet. You drive Nez Perce and you're saying this is almost a one lane road in the first place. If anybody's walking in there, like they were the other evening when I drove it, it is a one lane road. You've got room for one car and 63 City Council Meting - September 11, 1989 somebody walking. If another car comes by, it gets difficult. You take Option 4, making that straight of a route through there, I personally would rather encourage people to go on out to Powers out of these neighborhoods. I think that the neighborhood needs a back door. Every neighborhood needs a back door for public safety purposes. Sometimes you may not be able to get in from Pleasant View so+ I can't sec everything coming off of Pleasant View but I'd hate to encourage increased traffic on Nez Perce. That is even worse than Pleasant View as far as I'm concerned. Especially since your trees overhang it. It's not like, Pleasant View there's some areas where the trees. Pleasant View just seems wider even though pavement wise Pleasant View is probably the same width of pavement but because of the vegetation and everything on Nez Perce, Nez Perce just scams narrower. I really have a problem with 4. Not as bad of a problem with 2 or 3. If we could do 4 to where coming south. That's 3 up there but even 3. Coming south it was a right turn only so it doesn't become a short cut to came from Pleasant View and into Carver Beach area so down here at the intersection of Nez Perce and Lake Lucy. If you're coming south it's a right turn only and going north on Nez Perce, you could leave it to where you have one lane. You've got enough room in there to make an intersection that functions that way. To where you have a one lane to the right both ways. Dave Hempel: Not intersect Jay. We just proposed like a T intersection I guess. That represents road right-of-way. Councilman Johnson: Right. That's what I mean. You've got enough road right-of-way there to bring, instead of a T intersection, to have a single lane that's oriented to where you have to turn right. I want to say right turn only _ so we're not getting people coming off of Pleasant View. Cutting through this neighborhood and then running through Nez Perce to go to the grade school or come to City Hall which is not what we want to encourage people to do is to go through residential areas as short cuts. We want them to use the arterials and the collectors and all that stuff rather than the residential streets especially one like Nez Perce and Pleasant View. If we're going to do that, I would want to see that people coming out of that and going south are forced to go over to Powers instead of cutting through. It certainly isn't the straightest way. Councilwoman Dimler: Jay, do you have an alternate, which one are you proposing? Mayor Chmiel: He said 2 or 3. Councilman Johnson: Yes, 2 or 3 but if 4 is decided on, I want some modifications on 4 so southbound's right turn only. In fact on 3 I would even.. . - Councilman Boyt: It's awfully hard to enforce that right turn only stop. Councilman Johnson: It is. But with street design, you make it difficult to make the left torn. Councilman Boyt: Well You know that doesn't work. Councilman Johnson: Pleasant View? Councilman Boyt: That's right. 64 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Near Mountain. But see the signs never went up there. That was the problem. When you build the road and day one on the road you have a sign saying right turn only. At Near Mountain, 3 years later we put up the right turn only sign. Or left turn only sign. That didn't work after you had 3 years of people making right hand turns+to cane in and do it. If on day one you put up the sign, you're not going to get as much problem. But without that, I won't be in favor of any connection to Nez Perce. Mayor Chniel : Any other discussion? Councilman Boyt: I have a question for Jay I guess. What you're saying is that the right turn only is for people caning out of Vineland? Councilman Johnson: Right. Going south. So they have to go down Lake Lucy Road down to Powers. Councilman Boyt: . . .Option 3. It has a lot of drawbacks. I agree with Paul and we have not shown that we're very successful in making these future road hook-ups. We keep trying to put in systems that guarantee that everybody knows the road's going thru but I'm confident that the people who are living there will fight that diligently when the day comes to put it through. I think if we go with 3, the developer of Vineland has got to give us same sort of assurance that the other property owners agree that that's a reasonable connection. Gary had talked about one way to assure that is to came up with a, what did you call it Gary? Some kind of a comprehensive road plan or something? Gary Warren: Well similar to what we did on the Stratford Ridge. We did a --L-- concept layout here. We didn't take that any further but what I suggested or my comment would be that the concept could be recorded against the properties, remaining properties out there but at least you've got it on record. Maybe it could be done as part of a comprehensive plan for this particular area. Councilman Johnson: Are the property owners of this center property, were they involved in any of this discussion or have they been talked to at all? Frank Beddor: Frank Beddor at 910 Pleasant View Road. Do you want me to answer that question first? Councilman Johnson: Yes. Frank Beddor: Joel Trundle owns the property right down the middle. He's lived there, he's 80 years old. His parent's lived there and he's lived there all his life and at this current time he's not interested in selling. As of today anyway, or developing so that's the status as much as I know on who owns the property. The property next to it is Art Owens and he's here tonight. The property next to it. Councilman Johnson: Did staff talk to Mr. Trundle? r ?. Dave Hempel: Jay, Joe did cane in quite some time ago and spoke with me about it and he did express that he had no desire to sell or subdivide at this time. Councilman Johnson: Right. But we're still talking the future here. 65 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Did he have any objections to the proposal? 1 Dave Hampel: Not to my recollection, no. Frank Beddor: Now that I'm up here can I? Mayor Chmiel: Frank, go ahead. Frank Beddor: First of all I'd like to thank you Mr. Mayor and the council people for giving us the time to look at this challenge. We really appreciate the time and I'd also like to thank staff because they worked veryhardin giving same alternatives. Maybe that's the first time I've seen this happen in all the years I've been here where staff came up with some alternatives so we didn't have to start from scratch so I really appreciate that. And Don, maybe you would thank the Chanhassen patrolman who was parking on Pleasant View Road to try to enforce the speed limit. Last Friday night I drove over and he was parked there and he was parked there so it was kind of a reverse situation. I pulled over. Got out of my car. When over and introduced myself and I thanked — him. His name was Don, for being there. Usually that's the+other way around. Usually they're stopping me but I wanted to thank you. And I also want to thank Chuck,f the developer, for being very patient and working with us on this. The _ issue really, as we're talking about Pleasant View Road, is safety is the main issue and let me just show you a couple of pointers on that. This is our driveway on Pleasant View Road and we, because of the safety and the traffic, we are moving our driveway about 60 feet to the west so that we can see when we came out both ways and also the people can see tis when we pull up. Now we're having to tear up this driveway, tear out all the electrical and then we're going to have to bulldoze a new driveway. This is Joe Trundle's, driveway thru this area and hedge because it is a safety problem. People come up that road. It's wide and so they come up fast and they don't realize it narrows down a little later so safety is a real issue. This is the developer's property directly across the road from, we call it the farmhouse. This is a borderline and this is where the proposed road was set to go was right here. This house sets 30 feet from the road and this driveway comes right out so all those headlights are going to hit the front door and the living room coming out on the — original proposal. When I read the staff report, they said there are 10 trips per day per household so with 21 houses, that'd be 210 trips a day. Now I don't know how many of those are at night but somebody who lives there is going to have a nervous breakdown with all those headlights coming out right smack into their front room. And it's so close to the road and the way the ground is set, I think it'd be hard to diffuse that. It could be done but I think that would _ be very hard. Marilyn and I drove this area from 2 or 3 times on Nez Perce Drive and we clocked it from the southerly access that we could like to see down to Kerber and that's 5/10th's of a mile and that road, as you say Jay, is the same as Pleasant. It might look a little narrower but there's one bad turn and that's where Western Road comes in. Then we went back and clocked it fr_am the proposed entranceway on Pleasant View and we went to TH 101. Now we only went as far to Pleasant View in that direction to where the road opened up nice and _ wide. And the first 5/l0ths of a mile there are 6 tight turns. Either they're tight S turns or blind turns. In that mile stretch there are 11 turns so it's a lot more serious for traffic going down Pleasant View I think, and this is my opinion, than the same amount of traffic coming down Nez Perce road to Kerber. Now I never go that way so I had to drive it 2 or 3 times to check it to see so 66 City Council Meting - September 11, 1989 obviously we are not in favor of any more traffic on Pleasant View. Then on ► this report I read the initials ADT, average daily traffic and I believe staff ', is reporting that there were 360 to 1,300 cars a day going by this area of Vineland development. I understand that a local road is supposed to carry about 1,000 cars and a collector carries more. Well this is a local road so we're already at some point in time, 300 cars over on Pleasant View Road so we are very much against any more traffic on Pleasant View. On the plats, which you've already gone through, we really recommend Alternate 3 and when I picked up'this material last Friday, I realized that this was a rough sketch. It needed to be fine tuned and the first thing we noticed was that in the property that the developer's bought, he wanted 18 lots and then 3 off Pleasant View. Well the way it shows now it's only 15 lots so we had Daryl Fortier take this same plat 3 and refine this a little bit so it does cane out with 18 lots. At the last mooting we were here both Chuck agreed I believe and also the Pleasant View that we do not want a thru street. You still agree to that don't you Chuck? You don't want a thru street? We had such a long wait tonight that we had a lot of time to talk and we know this needs a little bit more work but I don't really think we should have to hold the developer up if he agrees to number 3 and getting the other owners position. I would think that in the future if anybody wanted to develop this property they would have to conform if this road is dedicated to whatever the City plans would be. There is one disadvantage to this route and that is that it's going to be an imposition on the position that live here and here. That's going to put a lot of traffic at sane future date there. While we were waiting I was talking to Daryl and maybe we could leave this way but maybe it's possible to take the end of this cul-de-sac and this is very steep right here but you can come at an angle like this and go over and cane back down so maybe you could have another access here. You'd have this access which would relieve part of the traffic this way. You'd have this access and also the one we're proposing. I asked Chuck tonight before we started. I said would you oppose this plan or if the Council accepted this plan, would you accept it? + It's my understanding that Chuck said he was not opposed to this plan which is, I'll call it 3A so we would hope that the Council tonight would vote on this plan and accept this plan with a temporary cul-de-sac here so the developer could go about his business and develop the rest the property. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Councilman Boyt: I have a question for you. What's the difference between the City's 3 and your 3A? Frank Beddor: Very little. It's just that we redid the lots so we came out with 18 lots instead of 15. See when the City did it, they were doing it and they were under pressure and they were concerned about they roads but obviously the+developer doesn't want to lose 3 lots and he had developed his for 18 so + Daryl Fortier developed this so it would came out to 18 lots in that area. Not counting the 3 that go up here. Councilwoman Dimler: I assume all those lots are standard? You don' t know? Frank Beddor: We just got this late Friday night and Daryl worked on this this afternoon but Daryl, are these all standard size lots? 15,000 square foot? Daryl Fortier: They're all in compliance with the City ordinance for depth and width as well as the square footage. 67 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Councilman Johnson: Does one of those exit out on Pleasant View then? That top green one then? Frank Beddor: Yes. There would be a driveway here to go into this one and this would probably be 2 lots with a driveway coming in serving 2 lots that is not sketched in. One of the things that we did object to in Plan 2 and some of the _ other plans, they had a lot of lots along Pleasant View Road, a half a dozen that would all be separate driveways coming out onto them and we did not want a lot of separate driveways coming out. I don't think the City wants that either. That doesn't help so again I want to thank the stafff or working on this and getting this worked out. Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address this? Chuck Van Eeckhout: My name is Chuck Van Eeckhout. I'm the developer of this proposal. My proposal, which is still before you is as it has been since May or _ whenever I first brought it to the Planning Commission. I still believe that represents the best use of this property after considerable study and evaluation. The proposal that was put forward by the Homeowners Association is acceptable to me if that is what the Council would like to do. It has the — negative of being a little bit more disruptive on the south end with regard to the wooded area and it does leave us in kind of a limbo on that strip going north to Pleasant View which is okay. I'll deal with that either as an outlot or will approach maybe 2 lots from the south and 1 from the north or 2 from the north and 1 from the south or something like that which is workable. I have no further comments. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Chmiel: Are there any questions? Councilman Johnson: What about my, do you understand what I was saying about the access off of Nez Perce and making that to where if you coming down out of that, even on Option 3, if you're coming down out of your subdivision, that it's a right turn only versus going onto Nez Perce? So we're using a full standard city street, Lake Lucy Road instead of Nez Perce. Does that give you much problem? Chuck Van Eeckhout: Not at all. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Any further discussion? Councilman Boyt: Yes. I've got one comment. I think that what I would really be committing to here would be some sort of, call it the S plan if you want but something that would come off of Lake Lucy Road and end up on what we're calling Peaceful Lane and how the lots are configured in there is a whole different topic. Whether the staff or whether the proposal we just saw is better, I have no idea but I think it gives us a lot of what we want. Unfortunately it's not all at one time and that's a serious drawback so I'd like to see Roger directed -- to came up with the strongest assureties that the City could have that we could put into place to assure us that this road will eventually continue on to the west. Councilman Johnson: When in October , or Mr. Owens is here isn' t he? Is he going to let that expire? 68 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 Mayor Chmiel: Do you want to address that? Arthur Owens: There's no way I can develop it now so it will expire. Councilman Johnson: Then have you looked at Alternate 3 and Alternate 2 that affect your property? I'd like to hear from you on those. Arthur Owens: 3A would be the most effective. ..I think for all the properties. Councilman Johnson: That's good. 2 out of 3 landowners in agreement. That's better than usual. Councilman Boyt: Well it's the same concept. How you divide the lots up. Mayor Chmiel: Any further discussion? If not, thanks Chuck. Can I have a motion? Councilman Boyt: I'm not exactly sure how we would ward it. Does anybody got ideas that would convey that we,� I think if the rest of you agree, that the S curvature with one entrance being off Lake Lucy Road and the other Peaceful Lane, and I think that the developer should come back to us with a specific lot layout. Mayor Chmiel : Yes. Definitely. Councilman Johnson: I think the motion would be that the City Council prefers the Alternate 3 type of option would be the motion. Councilman Workman: With, I guess the discussion Jay. I'm not excited about a right only turn and I don't know if we're fully taking into account that park and everything else down there but I have. . . Councilman Johnson: That's true. Those people will be served by that park and to get to it you'd have to do Nez Perce. Very good point. I missed that completely. Councilman Boyt: I'm not a right only fan there either. Councilman Johnson: Yeah. Well when it was a straight through. With Alternate 3 being as crooked as it is, it no longer looks like a short cut. I live next door to a short cut. Most everybody here has probably taken Santa Vera at one time. You haven't? Councilman Boyt: It's not short there. Councilwoman Dimler: It's not a short cut to me. Councilman Workman: I guess it's going to be our next Carver Beach Road. Nez Perce caning down here is going to be the next one because I think it grades down doesn't it a little bit? It does one of these. It's thin and it's going to be the next place where people are going to be screaming for patrols and the park and sidewalk and everything else. It's definitely going to be a chute going down there. 69 City Council Meeting - September 11, 1989 r Councilman Johnson: A lot of people walk that. It is a good, I've seen quite a few people walking that area. Mayor Chmiel: Yes they do. Councilman Johnson: It's a good candidate for sidewalk to the park even though. Councilman Boyt: It's not the consistent best option. I guess it's the best one but it's not that it's necessarily... MIND Mayor Chmiel: It's the most viable option. Okay. We have a motion of item 3A. Councilman Boyt: 3. Councilman Johnson: Item 12, Alternate 3. I'll move that the City Council voices it's preference to using Alternate 3 as the access alternate for Vineland subdivision. Vineland Forest plat. — Councilman Boyt: I'll second that if you'll accept that we also direct the City Attorney to investigate the best way to see this pursued to the west. We should have that. Councilman Johnson: Yes. No problem. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the concept plan for Vineland Forest Addition using Alternate 3 as the access alternative and _ directing the City Attorney to investigate the best access route to the west. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Chuck Van Eeckhout: Cie question. What is the correct procedure at this point? We have a preliminary plat...We take it you will approve a preliminary plat... next time? Jo Ann Olsen: Normally we would go back to the Planning Commission but the Planning Commission essentially gave. ..configuration to the Council so I think we could just bring it back to the Council. Mayor Chmiel: Okay, bring it back to the Council. APPEAL DECISION FOR A LOT AREA AND LOT DEPTH VARIANCE, 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD, CARL MCNUTT. Carl McNutt: Carl MCNi.itt. Curly McNutt everyone knows me by. Mr. Mayor. Councilpersons. I want you to put out of your mind if you can sane of these mathematical figures that have made my lot almost worthless. I have the longest piece of property frau between TH 101 and the curve on Pleasant View Road. It's 315 feet long but do you have a transparency for that Jo Ann? Okay. The legal description says my property is 120 feet x 315. However, the road owns 2 rods -' of that on my side now which makes it only 87 feet deep. Consequently leaving me 1,300 square feet short on one piece of property if I divide it. A little less than that. In other words, when I bought this property in 1952, I didn't 70 I . i _1 `I Z Li r f� a 0 °D J ILi CE J Z (1) (/) rn 0 La►W- a W t co Q< --3a oza z Z0Wdsw = w0 z c� a w w_Joz 3 U Z W w Z z Z 0 I °0 e \ � -- - J w J � • I I / m N .4 N 1 _ Y / �`!�� NT ; VIEW ; ROAD F- 2 a ° Q y LEAs —__—��_ Q I.:',.; ------<-----------<------\.7) ------------------"'---..-..- - ` 09, '''. (9.://` '---2 ,i '. \ \ 4 i I. 0/ / // / ,-""-. ....- - --_ __ -.._ II" V `` \1 Z W= / // // / r/ / \ H / r Q j//_`/ iW oz / // / / / / ! _1� _ / / ! l / / � / . to / / + l-�,fI 1 \ 12Al • -wa W Un / / / /� / � 2H ', -.. - /i i / / / ,._r (\b r * ' \ �_1 1. ,� /- Delo / I ° U,� ��`� \ `-' °° ` /478jr1 � � ' I / / k I N /-— -.; ' \ \, -- kb...„ - • f / / 1 �__ �/ =I \ / / \\ \ Y I ► ° i ` -- \i I f/ o I \ \\` -__ - ///' • /0 '1/ / N I �a /!/ ' moi! /� /� _ //////f f .0,____:" 0--- // / :6t - . / I i///// I ) l ° , ti, \\‘‘-: N 1//// /7/1////////;, ------::----::,l •- 1. oro, --�- - - 1 / / / �- I - I / / / / / / / ' / / f"-• • I \ !1 / /fl / f / / / i' it - 1 I1 I I / / / / / N 1 1 I I it 1 l ! /// ' // 1 W `/// I ! I . • I ATTACHMENT 3 0 N z ao mW I Id ix (n N M 4 W QCCIA� (1) waQ 1- wlA a = aim ( Hz1-- Z Q3 Izvi z- J a � w a www UZwW n `iZZ a oe �ZdNJwJg c I ---- J U2W a � 0 NI Q N I .., ,_ __ 1 r cn ° a \`�� -% �- >- z� z N ° 1 ' ASP 1 VIEW ; ROAD v c a g_ ... y pLE ;- --T Q � -, — 04 Os 1/0 /� .- . ---_-_l1__ - -- ---�� i - \ \\ /7111'-" / /": �� - _- __ \ A / 111 , i / / / -- - - -- \ 1 // / / r. .-_ \ `` ie�\ / /// / / /7,-- .,\\:..,_.../ I :7 - `11$ 1// 1 Irllil / , / / i W / • / �! • l I l i /,/ 'ill/ ��i i / / • C / / I`ll r .'^ 41y / / / I I1 ,- .,I L ,i, CP - ---. ' kti \• aN z I I1 / ie�°i \ \ ..,----741 'la oW NJf / / / —\ \\`- ro W= 1 / 1 1 I I zW1_ 1 - 1 o z z \ \ _ -" 11 I UN \ — — - - _�- - "A'4' -- ten \�- --0- _ -_-_=— _ :T. / Jl1 1/ - z: : - ! ' - - _rte _ '-` - _ ..... , ••, —..„._______ _________ __ ,?; _ ___o . / irlkillir. 17:::::,-"" .--- -- ___ .-- --- I ".,.,, :.--4,1' )1// MI .i //rr -----""'-' ...- --- ' 1 / / / /// / i.� - �� °,�oe �" } S / / � 1I�/// / � I r� I I / / lI 11 I / / L \1 11 — / / 1 / / 1!/%/ / I Z - I 1 / 1 — r1I � / l , I N , �� , 1/ V,/ /y / W 1 I ATTACHMENT 4 CITY 4 F CHANHASSEN \ - • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner I FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official4 -1\ DATE: 07/08/93 SUBJ: 93-12 SUB & 93-4 VAC (Tower Heights) Background: I have reviewed your request for comments on the above referenced planning case, and have some items that should be added as conditions of approval . Analysis: Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) for proposed dwelling types, garage floor elevations and lowest floor elevations should be indicated on plans to enable staff to perform accurate plan review of the project. The approved drainage plan will be used by staff during permit issuance, and standard designations lessen the chance for errors. The lowest floor elevation or dwelling designation appears to be incorrect on lot 9 . This should be clarified. Existing Peaceful lane is proposed to be attached to existing Nez Perce Drive. Different name designations for the same street cause confusion and delays for emergency personnel. Since a large portion of Peaceful Lane is proposed to be vacated and only one house exists on the street, the remaining portion should be renamed to Nez Perce Drive. Please note that the spelling for Nez Perce Drive is incorrect on the preliminary plan. Recommendations: 1 . Submit grading, drainage and erosion control plan with standard City designations for dwelling types. I have included the 01/29/93 memo referencing this subject. This should be done before final plat approval. 2 . Clarify dwelling conditions on lot 9 . tsOr PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Sharmin Al-Jaff 07/08/93 Page 2 3 . Change the name of the remaining portion of Peaceful Lane to Nez Perce Drive. This should be done before final plat approval . �4. CITY of CHANHASSEN • 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 612 937-1900 • FAX (612) 7 ( ) 93 5739 MEMORAN i UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLO or RLO Designates Prost Lookout or Rcar Lookout. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambkr. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SL' Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. SE /Ili StW� WO F/ Lp\ - RLO 111111 Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. i4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER • r r C I TY 0 F PC DATE: July 21, 1993 \ , L . C H A N H A S S E N CC DATE: August 23, 1993 - CASE #: 93-11 Sub. STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 37 Acres into 57 Single Family Lots I- Z < LOCATION: North of Kings Road, west of Minnewashta Parkway to the Victoria City V Limits a. APPLICANT: Heritage Development 420 East County Road D St. Paul, MN 55117 (612)481-0017 PRESENT ZONLNG: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 37 acres (gross)/34.2 acres (net) DENSITY: 1.7 units per acre ADJACENT ZONING _ AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Single Family QL S - RSF, Single Family i - E - RSF, Single Family _ d W - Victoria WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site _ w I.— PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has a varied topography with the high point running north and south through the center of the plat. There is a significant stand of trees in the northwest corner — of the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Heritage Development July 21, 1993 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Heritage Development of Minnesota is requesting approval to plat 37 acres of property into 57 lots. The property is located north of Kings Road and south of the Stratford Ridge Subdivision and the Hallgren property. There are three underlying parcels in the proposed subdivision: Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla. This property is currently zoned Residential Single Family, (RSF). The City of Victoria borders the western limits of the subdivision and Lake Minnewashta borders the eastern property limits. There are several major areas of concern that staff has with the subdivision as proposed. _ First, we have learned that the Kings Road right-of-way was never conveyed to the city and the only right to use is based on the city's past maintenance practices. Based on a staff field check it appears that the gravel road use is 20 to 23 feet wide. The location of the traveled — surface need to be shown of the plat so staff can determine where the additional right-of-way will need to be acquired. This may have a significant impact upon the design of the subdivision and the ability of all the lots to meet the minimum standards and additional — right-of-way and potentially condemnation may be required. The Parks and Recreation Commission at their June 22, 1993, meeting recommend the location of 1.7+ acres of land with the addition of the city 's purchase of 8.3+ acres of property for a park to be located at the corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. The applicant has chosen to ignore this recommendation and proposes a 2.4-acre park in the — northwest corner of the site. There is a significant stand of trees in this area the city would recommend a tree survey be completed. Other concerns that staff has with the plat is that there are 9 lots that are deficient in lot size; 3 lots have access on to Minnewashta Parkway, which is against city code; and provisions for storm water retention is deficient. For all of these reasons, staff is recommending that this plat be denied. BACKGROUND Proposed Plat Heritage Development of Minnesota is requesting to plat 37 acres of property into 57 lots. The property is located north of Kings Road and south of the Stratford Ridge Subdivision and the Hallgren property. There are three underlying parcels in the proposed subdivision: Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla. This property is currently zoned Residential Single Family, (RSF). The City of Victoria borders the western limits of the subdivision and Lake _ Minnewashta borders the eastern property limits. A portion of the Ziegler property is located south of Kings Road. This parcel is 199 feet wide and approximately 500 feet deep. Heritage Development July 21, 1993 Page 3 All adjacent zoning to this site is RSF except for the land in Victoria which is zoned rural density, or 1 unit per ten acres. There are no wetlands on the site except for the wetland adjacent to Lake St Joe which affects one lot. There are two large parcels still left adjacent to this development, the Headla's and the Haligren's property. Future access to these parcels needs to be considered as a part of this plat. The site has a varied topography, changing in elevation over 40 feet. The high point of the site runs north and south through the center of the parcel. The site is primarily grass with a few scattered trees. There is a mature stand of trees located on the northwest corner of the site. This area is currently proposed on the plat as a 2.4-acre park to be dedicated to the city. Access to the park site is via a 21-foot wide 160-foot long trail. The subdivision includes 57 building lots with 3 outlots. Outlot A is located at the intersection of Kings Road and Street "B." Outlot B is the remaining portion of the Ziegler property south of Kings Road. This 1.5 acres will be landlocked by the creation of a lot on the front portion of the parcel. Outlot B is part of a large wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe. Outlot C is less than one-half acre (19,439 square feet) and is located adjacent to Lake Minnewashta and Minnewashta Parkway. This lake front area is not large enough to qualify for a recreational beachlot. The minimum standards for a beachlot are 200 feet of lake frontage with 30,000 square feet of lot area. This property has insufficient lot area. Therefore, the property does not qualify for a beachlot. Lake St. Joe is just to the south of Kings Road. The lake has been designated as a Natural Environmental Lake by the DNR. Compliance with the Shoreland Regulations would mandate that all lots within 1000 feet of the shoreland must have a minimum of 20,000 square feet with a 125-foot lot width. The RSF standards, which is the underlying zoning. requires all lots to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet with a front yard lot width of 90 feet for the front yard. As with the Boley Subdivision, which is south of Lake St. Joe, staff supports variances to the minimum front yard width requirement in the shoreland regulations. The reasons for granting a variance are the same as with the Boley Subdivision and they are: 1. All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125-foot lot width, only lots not adjacent to the lake are recommended for a variance. 2. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement will not affect the density of the project. 3. The MnDNR's shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied within the metro area. Heritage Development July 21, 1993 Page 4 Bill Thibault, the Planning Consultant with the City of Victoria, has reviewed the site plan and made the following comments: Kings Road should be extended, and if it is not, the provision for a road running north and south along the westerly property line should be considered. Staff is recommending that Kings Road be extended to act as the collector street for this subdivision, but also for this easterly portion of Victoria. STREETS/ACCESS Access to this subdivision will be from the main collector of Minnewashta Parkway and streets off Kings Road, Stratford Ridge and Country Oaks Drive. It was thought that Kings — Road was a 33-foot right-of-way. The city performed a title search on the property. In the title research, it was determined that there was no conveyance of easement of this street to the city. City Attorney James Walston gave the opinion that the public's right-of-way for Kings Road is generally limited to the traveled portion of the land along the shoulder, and any lands utilized as support for the public right-of-way. The City can only secure right to use based on the city's maintenance of the street over that portion of the road that the city has been maintaining. This appears to be approximately 20-23 feet wide. If additional right-of-way is required, it may come from the southern portion of the plat and could effect the lot sizes. The subdivision regulations state that, "Where a proposed subdivision is adjacent to a limited access highway or collector street, there shall be no direct vehicular or pedestrian access from individual lots to such street." There are three lots that propose direct access onto Minnewashta Parkway. These lots should have access from an internal street and then on to Kings Road. When the Stratford Ridge Subdivision was platted in 1988, there was much discussion as to how the area to the south would be accessed. Mrs. Hallgren, who lives to the southwest of Stratford Ridge, did not want a street extended all of the way to her property. Stratford Lane was developed with a 50-ft. right-of-way and paved up to the intersection of Stratford Boulevard. At that point, Stratford Lane becomes a 33-foot easement along the southern side of the plat. Homes along this segment have a sort of alley for the lots since they have access to their homes off of Stratford Ridge, as well as the Hallgren Driveway along the rear of their property. When this plat was recorded, the remaining portion of the Stratford Lane right-of-way (33-foot parcel--Outlot B) was recorded in the name of the Stratford Ridge Homeowners Association and not the city. Staff supported the extension of this street west to eventually tie into Country Oaks Drive. In order to make this connection, an additional 17 feet of right-of-way will have to be taken from the Headla property to the south when it develops. The city will have to pursue possession of the 33-ft. right-of-way, Outlot B of the Stratford Ridge Subdivision Homeowners Association, in order for the street to be built. JoAnn Hallgren, who uses Stratford Lane to get access to her home, would like to see this street become a public access. She has submitted a letter stating her desires. Dave Headla Heritage Development July 21, 1993 Page 5 would also like to see this road become a public street and has submitted a letter with his concerns. All internal streets are proposed with a 60-foot right-of-way. Access to the Hallgren property should be considered via Street "C," otherwise the only access to the Hallgren property is from the extension of Country Oaks Drive. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION There is a significant stand of trees shown on the proposed park dedication property, just south of the Hallgren property. This area will be platted when the park is moved. Staff is recommending that a tree survey be done for this site. This information will help to determine the best lot layout in order to preserve the trees. Streetscape, as per the city's landscaping ordinance, shall be required along Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road. GRADING DRAINAGE The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade the entire site. Due to the size of the parcel, it is anticipated that the applicant will proceed with several phases in order to complete the overall development. The applicant is also proposing to grade Kings Road. The City half- section maps did indicate a 33-foot wide right-of-way for Kings Road. However, after further research by the city attorney's office, it appears the City has not been conveyed the necessary right-of-way as shown on the half-section maps. The city attorney's office has advised in cases such as this where the existing gravel road has been maintained (i.e. snowplowing, grading, etc.) by the City for over six years the public right-of-way for Kings Road generally be limited to the travelled portion of the land along with the shoulder or any land utilized as support for public right-of-way. In this situation, Kings Road has been maintained by the City for over the six-year period. The width of Kings Road varies from 20 feet to 23 feet, thus limiting the public right-of-way use to this area. Construction of Kings Road will result in acquiring temporary and permanent easements by the applicant or city. The City could be petitioned by the applicant to acquire the necessary right-of-way, however, it is assumed it would have to go through condemnation proceedings which would take a minimum of 90 days. Depending on exactly where the existing roadway (Kings Road) is located in relation to the property line of the development, will determine how much additional right-of-way would be necessary from the property owners to the south. If the existing roadway lies on the adjacent parcel to the south, then it will only be necessary for the applicant to acquire dedicated with this plat the necessary right-of-way to arrive at a 60-foot wide corridor. Grading for Kings Road appears to extend between 50 and 100 feet into the Borris and Scott properties located south of Kings Road. This seems excessive from an engineering standpoint Heritage Development July 21, 1993 Page 6 and staff recommends that the street grades be further reviewed in an effort to minimize disruption to the adjacent parcels or employ other means to reduce grading limits i.e. retaining walls. Lot 1, Block 3 lying south of Kings Road adjacent Lake St. Joe proposes to be filled with approximately 10 feet of material to make it a buildable lots. Staff is somewhat concerned due to the inadequacies of storm water retention ponds on the site and this location may make an ideal location for a NURP pond prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe. It is recommended that the grading plan be revised showing adequate on-site retention ponds to meed or exceed the City's water quality and quantity standards. Site is divided into two drainage subdistricts with the westerly one-quarter of the site draining west into wetlands located within the city of Victoria and the remaining three-quarters of the site drainage southwesterly towards Lake St. Joe. The preliminary grading plan proposes to increase the amount of contributing drainage areas to the city of Victoria by approximately 4.8 acres which could dramatically affect the downstream ponding/wetland facilities in the city of Victoria. The City's subdivision ordinance requires the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision be retained at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100-year, 24-hour storm event through the use of surface water detention and retention facilities. This will result in creating on-site water quality and quantity retention ponds by the developer. The storm drainage plan should be looked at in greater detail by the developer's engineer in order to meet the City's standards. This may result in the loss of some lots. The utility plan proposes a series of catch basins to collect storm water runoff generated from the street and lots. The proposed storm sewers will carry storm runoff to two discharge points. One area is on Lots 2 and 3, Block 5 which drains west into Victoria. The other discharge point is a small retention pond on Outlot A. The small retention pond on Outlot A will then overflow through a culvert system underneath Kings Road and discharge into Lake St. Joe. An additional storm sewer line should be proposed to collect backyard drainage along Lots 14 through 17, Block 2. A revised grading plan should be prepared to include the lot and block numbers as well as designate the type of dwelling and lowest floor and garage floor elevations. The applicants engineer should supply detailed storm sewer calculation for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's ordinance for review and approval. UTILITIES Site is capable of being serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water by extending utilities from Minnewashta Parkway along Kings Road. The applicant's engineer has indicated the willingness of the applicant to pay for the extension of utilities in order to facilitate Heritage Development July 21, 1993 Page 7 development of parcel yet this year. Typically, when utilities benefit adjacent properties other than the development, the developer will petition the city to do a 429 Statutes project where the improvements are assessed against the benefitting properties. However, in some cases, the developer has chosen install the utilities themselves to avoid the public hearing process and potential delays as a result of the 429 Statutes project procedures. At this time it appears the applicant is intending on extending utilities along Kings Road to service the development. The plans propose to provide adequate stubouts for the adjacent undeveloped parcels to the north, south and west. Upon quick review of the utility layout, it appears that fire hydrant placement will need to be revised. Fire hydrant spacing should be in accordance with the City's fire marshal's recommendations. Typically, fire hydrants are spaced 300 feet apart. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be required for review by staff and City Council approval. The street and utility improvement shall be constructed in accordance with the City latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. As with other typical city developments, the moisture content in the soil is relatively high and the City has employed the use of drain tile behind the curbs for improving both road sub-base drainage as well as providing a discharge point for household slump pumps. The applicant should be aware that the City will be requiring with the street and utility construction to include a drain tile system. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. EROSION CONTROL The grading plan does provide erosion control measures, however, adjacent to all wetland areas the erosion control fence should be Type III. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. PARK AND RECREATION The subdivision proposed a 2.4-acre park located on the northwest corner of the site. This area has a significant stand of trees. The city had considered acquiring the Hallgren property for park purposes. As this subdivision evolved, and through further study, it was determined Heritage Development July 21, 1993 _ Page 8 that a more suitable location for a neighborhood park for this area was adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway. On June 22, 1993, the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed Heritage Subdivision for consideration of park and trail development. The northwestern portion of the city had been identified as park deficient by the City's Comprehensive Plan. As the applicant's subdivision development evolved, the city retained Hoisington-Koegler Group to draft park studies for three defined areas on the plat. A park site 10 acres in size was selected for the southeast corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. This proposal was submitted to the Park and Recreation Commission. The applicant submitted a subdivision with a 10-acre park at this location. At their meeting, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendation: PARK: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the subdivision concept site plan as presented, with the inclusion of acquisition of lakeshore property. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication (1.72+ acres) and purchase (7.8± acres) contingent upon City Council approval. Full fee credit is to be granted as a part of these negotiations. TRAIL: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require as a condition of approval of the proposed Heritage Subdivision a 20-foot trail easement connecting to the proposed cul-de-sac north of the park, in addition to the construction of such a trail segment from the cul-se-sac to the park. The applicant shall be compensated for such construction through the reduction of trail fees at a rate of $12.00 per lineal foot. The remainder of the trail fees to be assessed equally among the proposed 43 lots. This motion was carried unanimously. Since the Park and Recreation meeting, the applicant has decided to submit a plat that they feel meets the park dedication requirements of 1.72+ acres. This park area is located in the northwest corner of the plat. This proposal does not have the support of the Park and Recreation Commission. The applicants have stated their desire to have this plat approved so construction can begin this summer or late fall. Staff has informed the applicant that a plat that does not have staff support or carry forward the Park and Recreation Commission recommendation may not receive approval by the Planning Commission or City Council. In addition, if the Planning Commission and the City Council approve the park 10 acres in size at Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway, a revised preliminary plat would have to be submitted and they would have to go back through the review process. The property being proposed for park purposes includes approximately 480 + feet of lakeshore on Lake Minnewashta. This property is very narrow, being separated from the main proposed park site by Minnewashta Parkway. The area is 19,439 sq. ft. This property wasn't included in the applicant's concept plan of the park. Todd Hoffman is recommending Heritage Development July 21, 1993 Page 9 that this area be included as a part of the park, to be maintained as a small, low impact swimming beach, City Code does not allow the applicant to utilize this area as a recreational beachlot. By taking ownership, both the new development and existing neighbors benefit. Todd Hoffman sent a letter to the applicant's Project Manager John Deitrich, stating that the plat submitted does not meet with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation. Todd stated that it remains the desire of the city to secure a 10+ acre park site within this plat. The City is working through the Attorney's office on a purchase agreement. Park and Recreation therefore would not support this plat as submitted, and would recommend that the plat be revised to show the 10+ acre park at the corner of Kings Road and Minnewashta Parkway. COMPLIANCE TABLE Block 1 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (15,000 s.f. required) (95' Required) 125' Required) Lot 1 15,021 118 127 Lot 2 15,021 118 127 Lot 3 15,021 118 127 Lot 4 15,049 118 127 Lot 5 15,039 100 150 Lot 6 15,000 100 150 Lot 7 15,000 100 150 Lot 8 15,000 100 150 Lot 9 15,000 100 150 Lot 10 15,000 100 150 Lot 11 15,000 100 150 Lot 12 15,000 100 150 Lot 13 15,496 49/70* 150 Heritage Development July 21, 1993 Page 10 Block 2 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth �I (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) 125' Required) . Lot 1 23,084 184 127 Lot 2 20,987 124** 149 Lot 3 27,387 169 184 Lot 4 23,359 105/195 147 Lot 5 22,382 150 147 Lot 6 23,440 116** . 203 Lot 7 21,421 140 153 Lot 8 21,690 160 143 Lot 9 23,256 44/112** 152 Block 2 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) 125' Required) Lot 10 20,609 99** 212 Lot 11 20,029 95** 211 Lot 12 20,949 110** 212 Lot 13 21,072 127 173 Lot 14 20,932 130 162 Block 2 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (15,000 s.f. required) (90' Required) 125' Required) Lot 15 15,067 93 162 Lot 16 15,040 93 161.5 Outlot A 21,146 226 88** Lot 17 16,661 90 136 — Heritage Development July 21, 1993 Page 11 Block 3 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) 125' Required) I Lot 1 29,567 199 199 ' Block 4 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) (125' Required) Lot 1 22,456 116** 114 Lot 2 20,263 127 180 Lot 3 21,960 127 196 Lot 4 19,901* 90** 218 Lot 5 20,264 90** 225 Lot 6 20,250 90 225 Lot 7 20,250 90** 225 3 Lot 8 22,592 110** 197 Lot 9 29,541 83/174 222 Lot 10 23,016 67/98** 194 Lot 11 23,582 69/96** 191 Lot 12 20,792 120 165 Lot 13 16,200* 90* 180 Lot 14 16,200* 90* 180 Lot 15 15,067 90 141 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 16 14,940* 90 166 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 17 14,940* 90** 166 Lot 18 20,003 121** 166 Heritage Development July 21, 1993 Page 12 Lot 19 20,067 1 119 166 Block 5 Lot Area Street Frontage Lot Depth (20,000 s.f. required) (125' Required) (125' Required) Lot 1 20,030 126 161 Lot 2 15,145 92 162.5 Lot 3 15,007 92 163.5 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 4 15,070 92 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 5 15,002 91 168 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 6 15,085 44/70 154 (15,000 required) (90' required) Lot 7 18,245 30*(flag) 148 (15,000 required) (90' required) * Lot is deficient in minimum square footage or minimum lot depth or width **Lot given variance from the 125-foot minimum lot width under the shoreland regulations RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends the City Council deny the request for Heritage Development Subdivision #93-11, for the following reasons: 1. The plat does not reflect the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation for a park to be located in the southeast corner of the site. 2. There are 7 lots that are deficient in minimum lot size requirements. 3. A tree survey needs to be completed for the northwest corner of the site. 4. Road right-of-way on Kings Road needs to be field checked and shown on the plat to determine if any additional right-of-way is required. If additional right-of-way is required, the lot sizes will be affected and will have to be modified. Heritage Development — July 21, 1993 Page 13 — 5. The three lots with access to Minnewashta Parkway must be redesigned to have access via an internal street. — 6. Provisions for storm water ponding must be provided on site. . ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum from Heritage Development dated June 7, 1992 2. Letters from Dave Headla dated July 8, 1992, and JoAnn Hallgren dated July 10, 1993 — 3. Letter from Todd Hoffman to John Deitrich dated June 11, 1993 4. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated June 28, 1993 5. Letter from Bill Thibault dated June 24, 1993 6. Letter from Dave Hempel dated July 16, 1993 7. Letter from Jim Walston dated July 13, 1993 8. Letter from Applicant's Attorney, Winthrop and Weinstine, dated June 17, 1993 I 1 I I —_ illii iii% s KIPP; II 0,..4 LAKE_ �l ■� 61/4 � 11�� , .�.. ■ I[_-i:: A riS7 -1, • ..-- --I ,ANEriiilft...111 . :. .41-- illiiiit'• li al ip r ..p . :.. . 1111 ASTER �/W. 4Pef st i" fie • ` a24ic �� ik a lQzlIE ran"riCillEre !Mr■ p Pr --•impr, _ U.. I. 1� II. Ali r illr ' I. • - laisliq Aff,/ LAKE 44> orY S - :3 _ROAD ..1T,;,, t%�/ M / N N E W A S H ,. :,gin - 4-- PROJECT LOCATION kSilt}S IeAO OHr• Q ib' imi Pr 1 11 944.5 0 ja41 .7 .,„2, 1111111W z - y 'sr✓oE J1.,,pir .: R. •�� pIM` I ;i : ' �--;' 7_, . ..:. Er--eL.:14111110.F.--.---- ' (-R 1\1 LK 922 uainetreet !iODkin4... SITE LOCATION MAP l Assoc:AT'ES LT". i (612) 933-0972 fax! (612) 933-1'53 i FIGURE 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 7, 1993 TO: City Council, City Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission and Staff at the City of Chanhassen FROM: Heritage Development of Minnesota RE: Preliminary Plat Application of the 57 lot Minnewashta Subdivision This cover letter outlines the attached document and plan sheets necessary to make a complete Preliminary Plat Application for a 57 lot subdivision located in the northwest areas of the City of Chanhassen. It is the applicants intent to process this application through the City approval process with the following being the dates of review: June 22 Park and Recreation Commission July 7 Planning Commission July 19 City Council Heritage Development of Minnesota sincerely appreciates the City of Chanhassen's effort to process this application in order to assist the Developer to receive approval of this Preliminary Plat. NARRATIVE Preliminary Plat Submission 57 Lot Minnewashta Subdivision Chanhassen, Minnesota June 7, 1993 Introduction The following index identifies the components of this Preliminary Plat submission: • Completed application form. • Attached application fee (subdivision and development sign). • Property Owners list within 500 feet of the property. • Narrative describing the project. • Plan Sheets Sheet 1 - Preliminary Plat Sheet 2 - Preliminary Grading and Erosion Control Plan Sheet 3 - Preliminary Utility Plan • 81/2" x 11" Plan sheet reduction. • 8/" x 11" transparencies of plan sheet reductions. Project Location Located in the northwest portion of the City of Chanhassen, bordering the City of Victoria, adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road are three parcels known as the Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla totalling 37± acres. The majority of the property is located north of Kings _ Road, which will eventually serve as the main access for the development. Figure 1 identifies the project location and the property included in the proposed subdivision application. Background The three parcels have been secured by Heritage Development of Minnesota through the use of purchase agreements in order to proceed with a Preliminary Plat Subdivision. This subdivision — will provide for 57 single family lots which are anticipated to be developed with homes valued between $150,000 and S200,000. The value and style of home will complement the existing homes in the area. The timing of the project is anticipated to be the Fall of 1993 and be concurrent with the completion of Minnewashta Parkway. Heritage Development has been in existence approximately 8 years and over the past eight years they have been responsible for the development of numerous properties throughout the Metropolitan area. In addition, Heritage Development also has an office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and are experienced in the development of single family properties throughout the Milwaukee Metropolitan area. Attached to the end of this narrative is a list of Heritage Developments achievements within the Metropolitan area. Heritage Development of Minnesota's efforts on the Chanhassen subdivision will be coordinated by Kevin Von Riedel, Director of Development. The Preliminary Plat submission will be coordinated by RLK Associates' Engineers and Landscape Architects. All plans, narrative and drawings will be prepared by RLK Associates, Ltd. Through the course of the project, RLK's Project Manager will be John Dietrich, ASLA, with assistance from Fran Hagen, Jr., P.E. Zoning The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential "RSF", which allows the proposed single family subdivision. The minimum lot size in the "RSF" District is 15,000 square feet. All proposed lots will meet the minimum lot size requirements. A portion of the subdivision is within the Shoreland Overlay District, as designated by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), which identifies a 1000 foot buffer around Lake St. Joe, within this 1000 foot buffer the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. The 1000 foot Shoreland Overlay District is identified on the Preliminary Plat (see figure 2). All lots completely within the Shoreland Overlay District are 20,000 square feet in size, however a few of the lots are narrower than 125 feet in width. It is the Developer's request to allow the narrower lot width provided the aggregate lot size does not drop below the 20,000 square feet. The 57 lot subdivision contains 30 lots at 20,000 square feet and 27 lots at 15,000 square feet. Existing Conditions The proposed subdivision which totals 37± acres is composed of three property owners, those being Ziegler at 24± acres, Wenzel at 7± acres and Headla at 6± acres. The Ziegler property is the southern most parcel which stretches from the Chanhassen, Victoria border to Lake Minnewashta. The parcel south of Kings Road is also a part of the Ziegler property. Existing on the Ziegler property are a couple of single family homes which may be incorporated into the new subdivision. Kings Road is currently an unimproved gravel roadway which serves properties south of the roadway and residential properties in the City of Victoria. Kings Road is the only access to these properties and based upon discussion with City staff, Kings Road is proposed to be a residential collector street. Kings Road is proposed to be the primary access for the Minnewashta Subdivision. RLK Associates has discussed this proposal with the City Planner for Victoria, Bill Thibault. In Mr. Thibault's opinion there is no perceived need to provide for access to Victoria, other than the existing Kings Road. The existing vegetation is primarily grass and forbs with selected overstory trees scattered throughout. The exception is the stand of mature trees on the western portion of the Headla property. It is proposed the stand of mature trees be preserved by earmarking the majority of the wooded property as the subdivision's park dedication property versus a cash donation. North of the subject property is the Hallgren property which may be combined with the park dedication parcel in order to provide up to 10 acres for the future park within this area. Preliminary discussion with City staff indicated it was their intent to have the park in this area. The existing topography varies over 40 feet from east to west with the high point close to the middle of the property. The proposed grades will lower the central mound to provide a suitable foundation to construct the subdivision. Please refer to figure 3, Preliminary Grading Plan which illustrates the proposed grading modifications to the site. Based upon a field review by RLK staff there does not appear to be any wetlands on the site (except as noted below), nor are any wetlands delineated on the City of Chanhassen's wetland map. DNR or Corp of Engineers map. The one exception is the southern portion of the Ziegler parcel south of Kings Road which lies below the ordinary high water elevation of 947. No development will occur below the 947 contour. Currently the site drainage flows to Lake St. Joe, Lake Minnewashta and west to the City of Victoria. It is proposed to maintain these existing drainage patterns as the subdivision becomes developed. Park Location City staff has indicated the need for a 10 acre park within this area of the City. Based upon discussions with staff the area targeted for a park development is the northern portion of the proposed subdivision in combination with the Hallgren property. The subdivision layout has attempted to accommodate the suggested park location by dedicating the only wooded area of the site to the City for park purposes. The 2.41 acre park dedication area is in excess of the required 2.28 acre requirement as specified in the zoning code. Proposed Improvement The proposed Preliminary Plat is for a 57 lot subdivision which will encompass the Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla properties as described in the legal description attached to the back of this narrative. In addition to the 57 single family lots three outlots are being proposed. Oudot A for drainage purposes. Outlot B for Drainage and flood plain purposes. Outlot C for dedication to the Minnewashta Subdivision. To enable residents to gain access to Lake Minnewashta, between Minnewashta Parkway and the Lake Shore. Access to the subdivision shall be from Kings Road which is proposed to be improved by the Developer from Minnewashta parkway to Street B. Kings Road will be constructed to City standards complete with a bituminous base, curb and gutter and street lights as required. All — underground sanitary sewer and water mains will be pulled from Minnewashta Parkway and constructed in conjunction with Kings Road up to Street B of the subdivision. The Developer will be petitioning the City of Chanhassen to construct the remaining portion of Kings Road west of the intersection of Street B, as a public improvement project for 1994. Right-of-way for the street system will be dedicated to the City of Chanhassen as a condition of the Developer's agreement. A 33' wide right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated along Kings Road on the south side of the subdivision. When added to the existing 33' of right-of-way a 66 foot wide right-of-way will be available for the construction of Kings Road. All other streets in the subdivision will be 60' in width with the exception of the 27 foot wide Street E right-of- way servicing four lots adjacent to the Hallgren property. It is anticipated a future right-of-way and access may occur between Country Oaks Road and Stratford Lane. During the interim a private drive on public right-of-way (Street E) is proposed to service Lots 1,2,3 and 4 of Block 1. The cul-de-sac proposed to be constructed on Street A and Street D identify a right-of-way with a 60' radius. Street C is proposed to be a temporary dead end until Kings Road is upgraded. At which time Street C will connect to Kings Road to provide a second access location for the development. DEVELOPMENT DATA Present Zoning - "RSF" Single Family Residential District. Legal Description - As identified on this sheet for the Ziegler, Wenzel and Headla properties. Number of Platted Lots - 57 Single Family Lots, of which 30 are at 20,000 square feet each, and 27 are at 15,000 square feet each. = Gross Platted Area - 37.0+ Acres Right-of-Way - 5.8± Acres Park/trail dedication - 2.4± Acres (per code) Outlots - 2.5± Acres Applicant - Heritage Development of Minnesota 450 East County Road D St. Paul, MN 55117 Property Owner - By Purchase Agreement Heritage Development of Minnesota 450 East County Road D St. Paul, MN 55117 Request - Preliminary Plat approval of a 57 lot Minnewashta Subdivision. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ZIEGLER PARCEL 1 Commencing on Minnewashta Lake Shore on Section line between Sections 5 and 8, Township 116, Range 23; thence running west to Section line running north and south between Sections 5 and 6 said Township and Range; thence west between Sections 6 and 7 said Township and Range, a distance of 80 rods; thence north in said Section 6, a distance of 29 rods; thence east 80 rods to said Section line between Sections 5 and 6; thence still east to Lake Shore; thence south along Lake Shore to place of beginning; containing 20.56 acres more or less, according to Government Survey thereof; excepting therefrom 2.50 acres sold to Florence Trumble by deed recorded in Book 12 of Deeds, page 388, Office of Register of Deeds, in and for said County and State. ZIEGLER PARCEL 2 A. Commencing at southwest corner of Lot 6 in Section 5, Township 116, Range 23; thence due north on section line between Sections 5 and 6, 11 rods; thence due east parallel with south line of said Section 5, to the west shore of Lake Minnewashta; thence southerly along Lake Shore to southeast corner of Lot 6 said Section 5; thence West 15.40 chains to place of beginning situated in south part of Lot 6, Section 5, Township 116, Range 23 and containing about 2.50 acres. B. Beginning at the northwest corner of Section 8, Township 116, Range 23; thence running east 6 rods; thence south parallel with section line to Lake St. Joe: thence westerly along Lake Shore to section line; thence northerly along Section line to place of beginning situated in Lot 1, Section 8, Township 116, Range 23. C. Commencing on the north line of Section 8, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Fifth Principal Meridian, at a point 6 rods east of the northwest corner of said Section; thence south parallel with the west line of Section 8, 550 feet; thence southeasterly to a point 580 feet south of the north line and 199 feet east of the west line of said Section 8; thence north 580 feet parallel with said west line to the north line of Section 8; thence west along same 100 feet to point of beginning. — WENZEL CTF 19248 That part of Government Lot 6, Section 5, and the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 116 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the east line of said Section 6 distant 624.93 feet from the southeast corner thereof, thence northerly along the said east line 80 feet; thence north 89 degrees 53 minutes 42 seconds west (bearing not to control) 1307.49 feet more or less to a point on the west line of the said Southeast Quarter of the said Southeast Quarter distant 695.56 feet northerly from the southwest corner thereof; thence southerly along said west line 237.26 feet; thence south 89 degrees 47 minutes 44 seconds east (bearing not to control) 1306.06 feet more or less to a point on the east line of said Section 6 distant 465.42 feet from the southeast corner thereof; thence northerly along the said east line of Section 6 distant 150 feet more or less to the point of beginning. The bearing of the east line of said Section 6 in the above described description is assumed to be North 0 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds west for the basis of the bearings within the description. Said east line being a straight line run from a stone monument in the southeast corner of Section 6 to a stone monument in the northeast corner of Section 6. Said stone monument as of record in the Carver County Courthouse. HEADLA PARCEL Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter (SE'4) of the Southeast Quarter (SE'4) of Section Six (6), Township one hundred sixteen (116), Range twenty-three (23); thence North on the quarter-quarter line six hundred ninety-three feet (693') to the point of beginning; thence continuing North on said quarter-quarter line two hundred fifteen feet (215'); thence at right angles East and parallel to the South line of said Section Six (6) easterly one thousand three hundred and six feet (1306') more or less to a point on the east line of SE' of the SE14 of Section Six (6); thence southerly along east line of SE'4 of the SE'4 of Section Six (6), Two hundred fifteen feet (215'); thence west on a line parallel with the south line of said Section Six (6) one thousand three hundred and six feet (1306') more or less, to the point of beginning. i '�•-� r.V Pitili.; 1{x;1,; i(1. 1ti:ti ::il1ieW1111!'`11•i +r (111 • ' - litli'.1,! i-iii 'l;� ,iii'' ,.ii(iii•'liil ii ,+.114,1,+{ --+-= - !1; 131 1t i1.t. bjjhiI1. ! I! tii1, 1+ 111;111 -i1tt,.1 . i1 1�+11;+11+: �3 ek' C'a in 1 fl1fiii ill i 11 ii.t 1 {{ 1 , . . .:,111 =i1,; , tl :: �r ,� !1-'1l�•/Ii 11!111 I1!{ •'1'1+ Mil1111.ri11' '11 lil;i• . 1. 1 i. ,. ,l ,•1 .,1 1.,,(,..•6 111%..J11: �� fj -,di - li' } . It i1- t �• 1+1 t'• I j,r1' +•u ! + +•r ., :�w�—� . i .....: < ; il, l {„J,., iil•, +�i�.t� it ,',,, t, ,=I• '!tt �1,, 1 i;� a a- 4411 li 1111 _ . 11i 'ri' iiiiil lfi' l•,,,, t ill] ,ii,iirtl't1. f 1IL'JIII!II • — er i `s1i1l1,ltl t � . i.r� 1:Et1 il�:(1.��i,�,Ili11 II r � •• • ..111_ , W I 111 '.: 11 I 1 : 1 ! # 1 1 qi Ifi< = 1111 lil!I.i1 1 _ �� 3� ,::: Ii? Ill! 13 it b ! la as ` 0-F-- -, -I --L.: .:-.- -.±1 .. 0 l s.1 o fif •� .. W '12_ ,_ 43 g -s'*4:3 et • .- _. ;lie : ke/ ›..\\X. N. a ' 4. ,_.„__. id.....,, 1 I— _ J- I. . "p is i i t� --1 —..—..— /• I •f• ; 4.' •.:+.cam —i i' vs — • :3. m.r om. . 1 :fi re III:'. • _»—..� �._.•— • -• .1 .1__ y•�• • y=� 1 •4 q 1 mom• 'SVC : :�... s� t. I /, 7---- !-..---1 , 1 •3,.4' -am u ult.,., awl : - ' I . jr. :e • -j . _ • ..!1 1124'ri 241 \i rill 1!.Pr)) .:::•• •••i I. Illut 106 .. i 1. :I_. ...; w:--1 :i fid .:. t- � i l'.1 i i - 1,, ! i 1 n f`,7,• . ,. .._- . :_-r4r=---.. . 1- 1•Y � • 1 4 3.- I i; Ii. } • mel I 1. ► C. '/ W :t cc (1) 11 M + ..\\C\\%\k"%q% - .II. 11111/ aillg/ 11 /1 ! I ,1 " g 1.1112. IIill'II 1.........' • _. 1 ? )(i I . .. 4 Oe2 W 2 s o i' 7 r ' \\, . .1 g. 0 .1 ii \ • .. ``� i..rK‹ _N> ,\‘ %, i; ••••••• f,. � t I • -^r----.I i A 11 I .. ' - - 10 f_4, ! Eta ---4 ' Eim-N.W.„ ,/ lii ... ; ; . ' l �: , F---11.!-----47-17 IE-----j: ! 'I I 1`iiiiii •tiA '/ xQ i !ISI i. ., , 4.-...t-.44,-0- -...;,,i,. . /7.: 7 , iiii; h----1. ", , ' I Y ., ,,,,,v„!.I i , ..-0 k: ,i-,0 -- I is _ ' _\•._i t L.. _ : ; ; I, ,t . , AsprWie.-V,,r4-_-10-4',.i.... ,-\:-.\--, _ . g; 1 ) T-__- i lit - lib I+ i xi — .11J Fi '‘ , 111M.:•„7,:.:. . ... ' )2. 1 % • tAr,ft%-•-- - -;',.:.z \ \ r ) 0.ilife./..=_ ,w�,,.w I.1i��o 71 ib. 1.� ( • i -Imo.. -- - arl � � Iii 'I :� � � �'�f•,ole � __ ..�— WIMP IMO L..1.._•1_' I--J Y i • _. I '_ ..1 - � t , + •, '• ;_ t • ....,... 1 rte,* . C 1 i L 1 111 I< ca 11k„ 1r Y 411 1 11 it i iIT ! 11 F. W 6 C — ' WO e N > a •\ t W • ;\ S• w i \ fSi / \\• t I / • \\\ - 31 t:..t t • _\ 1.....4, ;r 1 7----.) -r--j-- 1L_)li *--r:71/.......„...„.,..-. I •rt '' t`•' I i II- �i; -___€:-...__..----1 i :,_____i IPi �-. I i " =j !Ti" i ill —._.._• _..J 1 ai I II I �'' r `I u rl _r ' _f __ 7\._..J --- _-_ i __.'• ; I !# i! I ! -- gi _ ...,... h- - f J.L{�� •_ �, __II YIj i I Ir 1 �•7rI_ i ii .._......1 � .. Ili j •j�rt! 7.4_ .. _ - ,i_te 14 1.1„ I . -lip._ G t:I r" ' ..._. -�-- : ,r. 1 t; \ ' I:� r- ---1 . P ` ., j ( 1 i 1 t I I I ___,.. - � _ 1 .1 `. w 112 o; 1 = - - 1 HERITAGE 11111 DEVELOPMENT Minnesota Developments Completed or in Progress as of April, 1993 Venture Name/ Location Current Gross ,NurJher ofj ots Status luau Heritage Estates 54 Lots Sold Cottage Grove ( 54 Lots) Whispering Meadows 21 Lots Sold Loretto ( 21 Lots ) Croixwood ( Multi- Family) 30 Units Sold Stillwater( 30 units ) Bluff Point 46 Lots Sold Chaska ( 46 Lots ) Heritage Place 110 Lots Sold Shakopee ( 110 Lots ) Highview Heights 62 Lots Sold Lakeville ( 62 Lots ) Seasons Park 18 Lots Sold Maplewood ( 20 Lots ) Minnesota's Eastwoode 4th Addition 41 Lots Sold Oakdale ( 42 Lots ) Minnesota's FaStwoode 5th Addition 37 Lots Sold Oakdale ( 42 Lots ) Nelsen Hills Farm 16 Lots Sold Farmington ( 33 Lots ) Nelsen Hills Farm Farmington ( 29 Lots ) In Final Platt Phase Nelsen Hills Farm In Preliminary Platt Phase Farmington ( 200 Lots ) 420 East County Road D St. Paul, MN 55117 (612) 481-0017 Dear Kate Aanenson: July 8, 1993 City Planner City of Chanhassen This letter is in reference to the Heritage development plan on Minnewashta Parkway and the extension of Stratford Lane to the west. First of all let me say that expressing my opinion has been somewhat difficult for it adversely affects my three neighbors. They have been a positive addition to the neighborhood and one of them probably has been responsible for the nesting of bluebirds this year. The problem, I believe, is an area that previously was designated as an outlot (that is 50 feet wide and extends from Stratford Lane west to the Hallgren property) . The neighbors have been using most of it as lawn, which means it has been very well maintained. — I feel it is in the best interest for the City of Chanhassen and the immediate area to have Stratford Lane extend from Minnewashta Parkway on the east to the Hallgren property on the west, connecting to the appropriate road design used in developing all 49 acres. Rationale for my opinion is: — 1. A few years ago when Stratford was being planned , the city planning department had a study completed to layout the entire area. The plan was _ submitted to the Planning Commission and the Council. All three groups agreed that that was a good plan and the results were documented. That plan had a road coming down from the north, Kings Road fed the development from the south, and Stratford Lane would service the 49 acres from the east. Part of the considerations, as I remember, were there would be way too much traffic coming off of Kings Road onto the Parkway if Stratford Lane did not go through. — As far as I know, no new information has come up and nothing has changed . Why should we not have Stratford Lane go through as planned? _ Why should we pay for studies, go through deliberate planning, have the appropriate groups agree on the direction, and then later arbitrarily change direction? 2. I remember reading through the abstract several years ago on this area. The 12 acres owned by Ms. Hallgren, has an easement across the Stratford outlot. Now if Stratford Lane doesn't go all the way through, and the Hallgren property is developed, all the lot owners from the Hallgren property have access to the outlot. The result being I have a semi—private alley on my northside. One that no one is responsible to maintain, but used by the area residents. Currently, people other than Ms. Hallgren are using this outlot, but I believe Ms. Hallgren is maintaining the road. 3. I have lived here for over 30 years and plan on staying here for many more years. The point being I have a definite long term interest in how this area is developed. I want this area in ten years to look like a pleasant, well organized place to live. Having a 50 foot wide Stratford Lane that is only 100 yards long, neck down to a gravel dead end alley is not positive aesthetics. That certainly would have a negative effect particularily on my home as well as other homes near by. Would any of you feel comfortable with an alley going along side the length of your property? 4. On a pratical matter, there can be a very real problem in the winter after a large snowfall. The gravel road is maybe 15 feet wide, and immediately on the south side of the road I have a chainlink fence just inside my property. On the northside of the gravel road, there is lawn and some parking places. Ms. Hallgren has been very considerate in not blowing snow my way, for it would bring down the fence as the snow settles. However, if the snow goes to the north, it goes on the parking places and lawn. A 50 foot wide street has adequate room for snow placement. _ Ms. Hallgren would like to see Stratford Lane extended to the west and I hope she indicates her position in a letter. I believe looking at the site would be of great benefit and I welcome any calls for any of you to come over and look at the road extension and see what it does to my neighbors. Thank You. Sincerely, David R. Headla 687C Minnewashta Parkway (its shaping up) Excelsior, Mtn 55331 474-7269 cc: Hallgren 2- July 10, 1993 Kathryn Aanenson Senior Planner City of Chanhassen Dear ids . Aanenson: This letter is to support the Planning Commission ' s original plan to extend STRATFORD LANE westward to my property. . . . giving access to my 12 acres and also access to the -western portion of the Headla property and on to the rest of the heritage Development acreage . — When Stratford Ridge was first developed , I had just lost my husband , and I felt vulnerable . Any change that would — affect my property made me feel threatened and I was opposed to the extension of Stratford Lane . Now, 6 years later , I feel the extension of Stratford Lane as originally planned would be very beneficial for the future development of not only my acreage , but for the acres that are south of me . I am definitely IN FAVOR of this road — concept . Sincerely, — JoAnn Haiigren 6860 ininnewashta Parkway Excelsior , MN 55331 — 474-8315 -7_, 0,1 ,, CITY QF w ClIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 June 11, 1993 Heritage Development c/o Mr. John Dietrich RLK Associates, Ltd. — 922 Main Street Hopkins, MN 55343 — Re: Letter of Intent, Minnewashta Subdivision Dear Mr. Dietrich: Per our phone conversation of yesterday, I wish to state the intentions of the city in regard to park acquisition and the Minnewashta subdivision proposed by Heritage Development. First, it = is my desire to clarify the position presented in your narrative that it is the city's desire to develop a park in the vicinity of the Haligren property. The narrative leads one to believe that the city directed you to prepare the preliminary plat as submitted. As you are aware, this is not the case, in fact, explicit directives were given that the plat should react to park locations as discussed in Kate Aanenson's office on Thursday, June 3, and depicted in Attachment A. As such, I reiterate that the preliminary plat which has been submitted does not meet with our approval and will not be considered for review by the Park and Recreation Commission on June 22, 1993. It remains the desire of the city to secure a 10± acre park site within this plat. Moreover, through a process of elimination of options, it is the city's desire to see the park located in the southeastern quadrant of the proposed plat in a configuration more or less represented by Attachment B. It is understood that a portion of this land, approximately 2.28+ acres, would be acquired through park dedication with the remaining 7.72± acres being purchased by the city. — I have contacted the City Attorney's office in this regard and they will proceed with the preparation of a purchase agreement. The preparation of this agreement is contingent upon the delineation of the western property line of the park and a legal description being prepared. I have asked Mark Koegler of Hoisington-Koegler Group, Inc. to confer with you in this regard. Additionally, the execution of this agreement is contingent upon approval by the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council. tus 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. John Dietrich June 11, 1993 Page 2 Thank you for your attention in this matter. If you require additional information in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director TH:k pc: Don Ashworth, City Manager _ Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner Mark Koegler, Hoisington-Koegler, Inc. aummoilmo fi 4 I1.1 _ I .70,..n I 11 lif I ilk! !i N'il:J 1 . _______I Iii 'kr* t' 4: ii, isiiit-bil'• i r; • mit- t.. is •.r'' f ! ` 1 I ` • _ J - i 1 r.r `i, A. LE 2 i . ,fir it* 1 1 -- is .w►. - m .r `rt i I K'.• :mfsw • L_ N . �j . r r. £;rl I J r` • rrge ..s ? 11�� IL..�,� ~1.S}• -r. • ' 1 I J' 1--------; -- ..� • • L % �• . i. { I i i ) : L..M l i iii /i r s} " :: ,9 M ; '..:%.i, t + ;• i-.-.1f i .A ^-_...a ;,, ;!. A 11 ....4.1.3........1,',.. in i ( i I i ......., • , : II' g I! ,t• Z 1 i fif-__., . :1 L r ii _.,,,,,,......1 --.,,, ....„ .„ , 1,_______,_,_=. _ , ' 1r•i PP- j r _ -\ w� i . _r__ - - - i d• \ i rw S { `\ .._%•. a el p e • o M e o t I-7- 1 Ft i pi?, ; ii ; 1J ;Ni it MY rt li f • sr 1 s r r1 r r I j: r - I Iii : 1 1 .f .1 , II : I Y i 1 All - ' 14—} F., i_ IIUIJRIJ 1liHhiillhilUiiff i J!i ? • 1 �rr►lI!'I r. tit � ` Slilt J t f _ = it �r i {l�rl; I�.i triiI [ i tIHH' . jlrftl ( .�� 'rir i tl�: r t:.�� tl rtt trr .1 01;di';Ir! 1;011.10111tft 1;1I!; •Eta h- iifitr,iii • •l ' j i` rI tltrf(fttt f t rtlf,�� •L! ttl_ Fl14IIPItr Itt. trjr!1..,,-..g!; Il • �: 1t • .(1I r. 1 , 1 3 �..r.� —r Y, . - a —. L \ —, �' 1 3 ) ' - Ifiqi .4 11 PE ''' ... 1 ! i• 2 0 , tid, r r ( L ,_ • MI . -,_...-7(e---) 01.?,_ c , '..M.L41.. .11 r&--\. 4, %,- I ./... ....\-• i K- , , c) z.c - Akt.— / '-c e • ---1 1P-.P14. ; V/ ix_ ge‘. / � ; - '� 6 r 0 - - / -� — N cit g/ ) Y I ( M I . 1 0 I :n f • (45 / \,--, c j ) _ 01 \ 3 ri: . , :4, .-\ \ -_ 4 z� t� � _ , � / _/ I 7f_ - '� - CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director DATE: June 28, 1993 SUBJ: Minnewashta Subdivision The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the concept plan for the proposed Minnewashta Subdivision (Heritage Development) on June 22, 1993. A copy of the staff report presented to the commission is attached. Mr. John Dietrich of RLK and Associates was present and spoke on behalf of the applicant. As you are aware, the issue of park dedication had been coordinated with Mr. Dietrich at a staff level prior to review by the commission. The commission reacted favorably to the proposal of the park being located "on" the parkway, concluding their discussion with the following recommendation: Park: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the Minnewashta Subdivision concept site plan as presented, with the inclusion of acquisition of the lakeshore property. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication (1.72± acres) and purchase (7.48+ acres) contingent upon City Council approval. Full park fee credit is to be granted as a part of these negotiations. Trail: It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council require as a condition of approval for the proposed Minnewashta Subdivision a 20-ft. trail easement connecting to the proposed cul-de-sac north of the park, in addition to the construction of such a trail segment from the cul-de-sac to the park, the applicant shall be compensated for such construction through the reduction of trail fees at a rate of $12.00 per lineal foot. The remainder of the trail fees to be assessed equally among the proposed 43 lots. This motion was carried unanimously. In consultation with the City Manager's office, he asked that Jim Walston of the City Attorney's office negotiate the park acquisition arrangements. I am proceeding to facilitate contact between the applicant and Mr. Walston. to lie PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER LI, / C 1 TY 0 F PRC DATE: 6-22-933 r��` CflAA CC DATE: �- r • HOFFMAN:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Concept site plan to subdivide 37+ acres of property into 43 single family lots and L a 10+ acre neighborhood park, Minnewashta Subdivision. QLOCATION: North of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway APPLICANT: Heritage Development 450 East County Road D L St. Paul, MN 55117 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ADJACENT ZONL\G AND LAND USE: N - RSF _ S - RSF E - RSF W - RSF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Q The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as being centrally located in park deficient area No. 6 (see Attachments A and B). The Park and Recreation Commission and City Council Li have focused their attention on this deficiency over the past five to eight years. The critical nature of the need for park acquisition in this area led to the commission's action of establishing v) a park fund reserve for land acquisition west of Lake Minnewashta. This reserve carries with it the criteria that the reserve be used in conjunction with park dedication and that the park be at least ten acres in size. The public's desire for this park was reaffirmed throughout the public meetings held to review the upgrade of Minnewashta Parkway. On at least two separate Park and Recreation Commission February 23, 1993 Page 2 occasions, residents took the opportunity of a public forum to call the city out on the rug as to why no land had been acquired to date. My response echoed the consensus of the Park Commission. The city will acquire a park of at lest ten acres in size through a joint park dedication/purchase arrangement at a time when any combination of the Ziegler, Wenzel, Headla and Hallgren properties were acquired and presented for development. That time has arrived. As the commission is aware, during the period after this goal was established and concluding within the past two weeks, the city explored an alternate land acquisition possibility--namely the acquisition of the Hallgren property. It was the city's desire to investigate the possibility of _ arranging a mutually beneficial "life estate" with Ms. Hallgren. This type of real estate transaction, if certain conditions are in place, can result in lower acquisition costs while at the same time benefitting the seller through the life estate and tax credits. My conversations and dealing with Ms. Hallgren in the area have spanned approximately the past two years. Ms. Hallgren was cordial throughout these inquiries, but in our last meeting she respectfully declined the life estate concept. It is her present position that if the use of her land is to change, it would be through an outright sale of the entire property. I informed Ms. Hallgren, through a follow up thank you note, that the city was not in a position to acquire an _ estate of the size and value of Ms. Hallgren's. With this case closed, I focused my attention to the proposal at hand. Many of the conversations held over the years among commission members, council members, and staff included statements reflecting the desire to locate the west Minnewashta Park "on" the parkway. As negotiations with Mr. John Dietrich of RLK Associates (representing Heritage De.elopment) intensified, the city retained Hoisington-Koegler Group to draft park studies for three defined areas (see attached). Two of these study areas included all or portions of the Hallgren property. Thus, the plan now being recommended, the plan which has been defined and shaped by years of discussion, is Park Study Area A. Plan A was subsequently refined and is represented full size in your packet by the document dated June 17, 1993. The amenities depicted on this plan represent the items identified as desirable for this park in the City's Comprehensive Plan with the exclusion of the tennis court. Recent policy decisions of the commission recognize that neighborhood parks are not the optimum location for the construction of tennis courts and restrict such construction. AN ISSUE OF LAKE FRONTAGE The property being recommended for park purposes includes approximately 480+ feet of lakeshore on Lake Minnewashta. This property is very narrow, being separated from the main proposed park site by Minnewashta Parkway. The area totals 19,439±sq. ft. This property was not displayed on the applicant's concept plan as being included with the park. I am recommending that it be included as a part of the park, to be maintained as a small, low impact swimming beach. City Code does not allow the applicant to utilize this area as a recreational • Park and Recreation Commission February 23, 1993 Page 3 beachlot (see underlined areas of attached Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-263, Recreational Beachlot). By taking public ownership, both the new development and existing neighbors benefit. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN In regard to the Comprehensive Trail Plan, I am pleased to be able to report that the city's efforts to upgrade Minnewashta Parkway included the installation of an 8-ft. bituminous trail. This trail will parallel the entire parkway, switching from the east side of the parkway to the west side at Kings Road. This trail satisfies the Comprehensive Plan requirement of a trail along the parkway. The concept plan also includes an internal park tail with a connection to the proposed cul-de-sac to the north of the park. RECOMMENDATION Park It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council approve the concept site plan as presented with the inclusion of acquisition of the lakeshore property. The acquisition of the park to be accomplished through park dedication (1.72± acres) and purchase (7.48+ acres). This acquisition shall be a condition of final plat approval. Purchase price arrangements to be negotiated by the Park and Recreation Director in consultation with the — City Manager's Office and City Attorney, contingent upon City Council approval. Full park fee credit is to be granted as a part of these negotiations. Trail It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommended the City Council require as a condition of approval for the proposed Minnewashta Subdivision a 20-ft. trail easement connecting to the proposed cul-de-sac north of the park, in addition to the construction of such a trail segment from the cul-de-sac to the park, the applicant shall be compensated for such construction through the reduction of tail fees at a rate of $12.00 per lineal foot. The remainder of the trail fees to be assessed equally among the proposed 43 lots. ATTACHMENTS 1. A - Park Deficient Areas 2. B - Park Deficient Area No. 6 Narrative 3. Service Area Map 4. Trail Plan 5. City Code Excerpt - Recreational Beachlots 6. Resident Letter Park and Recreation Commission February 23, 1993 Page 4 7. Concept Site Plans 8. Revised Park Plan A dated June 17, 1993 9. Park Study Areas A, B1, B2, B3, Cl, C2 10. Applicant's Narrative Dated June 7, 1993 11. Applicants Original Submission dfrjdfeWAreerie/' ,1 - �0c t r~` ~' s ��.miirigi:_ t LtNr=r. omit AI 44411, 1.1 `. .- :i''' IliiI.Jeif nal: , $111 rt.,i'---7 a- . , lac ,„„ .No._.:,s7 ,40#•.At rirk,„ ..„,. - _. .... . . .. _ ._ ii,.., .....• . ,. ,. ...,...0 .......,._ __ .. , 4, _ _ .... .,,,,, a „to . ._ ___,...„, . ......... ,. we . .. At . . . ... . . . , 1 7.416.3-: .41.:-.3 II: .; -"---. ....... Ire t ild.' t=_ t �".4•46�� r 11:1107rrli.„41.- 7-- liff ... -_ _ .7_, . Itiewmr.:Wa. riii_ City OfPI- Chanhassen fes. - Minnesota ' 1647 Park Deficiency Areas . _ _ .. • . . . up_ _ _ III • Existing Parks and Service Areas .-- - — - V- •/ 2000 MUSA Line - - -- rte -_ .. — 1 _ _ .olt - -s�^�'r?!' ="t=.... .27_0_='.7. - -re t-10.,...!•,-,_."-.1....: .cam1,tP•s "e7T/A044101,0f,' ( 9 / 90 ) ZONE 4 Zone 4 , is becoming fully developed with residential land uses . In the west side of this zone , residential areas exist with large lots ( 2 . 5 acres ) . Curry Farms Park was recently acquired in the eastern portion of Zone 4 . Development of facilities in this area will adequately meet the recreation demand of residences in this area . Developments on the western eno of Zone 4 are currently not served by a neighborhood park and acquisition of such is recommended . ZONE 5 • The vast majority of land within Zone 5 is held in public or semi -public ownership such as the holdings of Camp Tanadoona , the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and the Minnewashta Regional Park . Additionally , the area is not likely to receive sanitary sewer service until after 2000 . Because of these factors , no additional major municipal recreational development is recommended within the nex' years . Prior to that time , however , Zone 5 may contain = s part of the City ' s overall trail network . ZONE 6 ' pial areas within Zone 6 are effectively cut off from existing parks by major roaaways on the north and south , Lake Minnewashta on tne east ano by the Chanhassen city limits to the west . At the present time , there are no existing public park facilities of any type within the southern portion of this area . -- In reviewing the needs of Zone 6 , the most significant deficiency is tne lack of neighborhood park facilities . Tennis courts , ball diamonds , open areas and picnic grounds are non-existent . Therefore , future acquisitions should accommodate such activities . A potential future park site is the area around Lake St . Joe . As future residential infill occurs , the City should be prepared through dedication and/or purchase , to acquire an appropriate parcel of land . Prior to that time , efforts should be focused on implementing the Chanhassen Trail plan in order to provide Zone 6 residents with safe , convenient access to existing park facilities . ZONE 7 Chanhassen ' s 2000 Land Use Plan calls for Zone 7 to be developed in a mix of residential and office/ industrial uses . As future development occurs in this area , neighborhood park property will need to be acquired . Development proposals in this area should accommodate the trail Corridors identified in the Trail Plan . 49 I 3� . A CATHCART M/NNEWASHTA PARK HEIGHTS PARK o g m o o o o 7 OO M 1n fn M M !n f I // — - 1 —... — 6200 - .. - 4 gialick ST LAKE . ". ...- A IP .'��" �� `A / �. 7 y iri- /r/ IIIW, /AO rfr41 6400 ' „„....7.r.• //�7/ , �� A� �` ' ASTER " 44it, .v4.0) _. i . 4,41rdips ."-,...___ 7 t 6 -, ....ieztotAss ..7‘.., 4 , -- •.//, Tgol. ritsT sIDE 6600 A10: 401V OLfiOlt"i� �� e fli,' •�' ilRt �` �"'ter` 0 �• �" ii` `) SERVICE AREA 6700 `44Di ; ROM iv El , SITE N O ' - CJS z 1 e/ i 1��a WI ,BEING GeN4t0FRE0\'• 6800 o. L KE�� . ' COUNTRY s -a7 F,�► / OAKS r y ! PDAD s_;� AP t+ - ,/ M /� N N E �A S H T A �1 69• e:1�E' '� / S--F�-:l .E r 1 / p/ 70.• 111111116 B E R M C'� ''" -�— TO�• K 4G5 R: - r t < lik. \ i 0 to N. 7 . . . __ __,,.. ,.. 100 U = LAKE j w: ,;��/fGy �� > Q I Po IJ $Vffl• 4 1 , i \\ 71 7200 `� � _ _ , ri�� _1 ��`� / id - 1 7300 ' 1 _ ' U eS�Tc = `'- r. cou=: S/ ri o .��.,, TRAIL cc 1.:), c,C1? �)� ;� 1400 i4- oo 7 s t0ou •i�, FRS \t 7500A .71 W,40-01\'a"\\ � • , 610 ID ,453 760011164\ .. %( c - ` x`1.1 —7 / Q ammi, — �" 1 A110?I t I t1 C /- ttlt ! -10-, ) 1 , f Eif is II • - apt -� *1 -s . EF --.\ ' -� ,...w��_, _ _ ,'' - v .f :may` ei \ -L _ - l'erz.,f2::=Ii.- ; • __ i ilr NI a SOW • , _. 7, k. _ vs _.., t-.. -- . . ._ . . - -..:-, -- 44 i , "4 + fie "4 1' gib $1.41 -__ T . sk-ig 2 1 • i .1- 'VI _ -e., --11). pi :00eg./11,11)f:- . FT 1 - "'' — ie -4••- i _ 3 ftimist mom L .r • r.. � • dag — x • crrr of -� • _ 4 • - Trail Plan H ,.._ = r " mi Walkway/Bikeway �---I •.• • _.• •-• __ __ a • . • • • • Nature Trail ,_ lor 11.-,..... 5 . c,.� I ,� • • Connection Points - ' - • _ .,�. ' — •••• _ �� • 6 "14141111 IP! adi 147 141 mb - - ; T r.-. I •'• J! 1 1 ) '• I 11 I f l l I ` 1 1 ! 1 1 1 ! 1 11 f l lase - 1989 — l 45 20.263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20.263. Recreational beach lots. Intent. Based upon experience, it is recognized by the city that the use of lakeshore by multiple parties may be an intensive use of Lakeshore that may present conflicts with neigh- boring uses of lakeshore or the use of other lakeshore on the same lake or the lake itself. Further,beachlots may generate complaints if they are not maintained to the same standards as single-family lakeshore lots. Therefore, the city requires the following conditions for rec- reational beachlots, in addition to such other conditions that may be prescribed in the permit: (1) Recreational beach lots shall have at least two hundred(200)feet of lake frontage. (2) Except as specifically provided herein,no structure,ice fishing house,camper,trailer, tent, recreational vehicle, or shelter shall be erected, maintained, or stored upon any recreational beachlot. (3) No boat, trailer,motor vehicle, including but not limited to cars, trucks,motorcycles, motorized mini-bikes, all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles shall be driven upon or parked upon any recreational beach lot. (4) No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight camping. (5) Boat launches are prohibited. (6) No recreational beachlot shall be used for purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring of more than three (3) motorized or nonmotorized watercraft per dock. If a recreational beachlot is allowed more than one(1)dock,however,the allowed number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3) sailboat moorings shall also be allowed. Nonmotorized watercraft such as canoes, windsurfers, sailboards and small sailboats may be stored overnight on any recreational beachlot if they are stored on racks specifically designed for that purpose. No more than six (6)watercraft may be stored on a rack. The number of racks shall not exceed the amount of storage necessary to permit one(1)rack slip per lot served by the beachlot;however,in no case shall there be more than four (4)racks per beachlot. Docking of other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any time other than overnight. (7The maximum number of docks on a recreational beachlot is three (3). No dock shall be permitted on any recreational beachlot unless the beachlot meets the following conditions: a. Shoreline of at least two hundred (200) feet per dock, and b. Area of at least thirty thousand (30,000) square feet for the first dock and addi- tional twenty thousand (20,000) square feet for each additional dock. (8) No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the greater of fifty (50) feet or 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 any "T" or "L" shaped dock shall be included in the 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 length. Supp.No.4 1178 ZONING * 20-263 (9) No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone, provided, however, that the owner of any two (2) abutting lakeshore sites may erect one (1) common dock within the dock setback zone appurtenant to the abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock is the only dock on the two(2)lakeshore sites and if the dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this chapter. (10) No sail boat mooring shall be permitted on any recreational beach lut unless it has at least two hundred (200)feet of lake frontage. No more than one (1)sail boat mooring shall be allowed for every two hundred (200)feet of lake frontage. (11) A recreational beach lot is intended to serve as a neighborhood facility for the subdivision of which it is a part. For purposes of this paragraph,the following terms shall mean those beach lots which are located either within(urban)or outside(rural) the Year 2000 Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary as depicted in the com- prehensive plan. a. L'rban recreational beach lot At least eighty (80) percent of the dwelling units, which have appurtenant rights of access to any recreational beach lot, ah lla be located within one thousand (1,000)feet of the recreational beach lot. b. Rural recreational beach lot A maximum of fifty (50) dwelling units (including riparian lots) shall be permitted appurtenant rights of access to the recreational beach lot. Upon extension of the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary into the rural area, the urban recreational beach lot standards will apply. (12 All recreational beach lots, including any recreational beach lots established prior to February 19, 1987 may be used for swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming areas are clearly delineated with marker buoys which conform to the United States Coast Guard standards. (13 Al: recreational beachlots shall have a buffer sufficient to insulate other property owners from beachlot activities. This buffer may consist of topography, streets, veg- eta::cn, distance (width or depth),or other features or combinations of features which provide a buffer. To insure appropriate buffering, the city may impose conditions to inst.:late beachlot activities including, but not limited to: a. Increased side or front yard setbacks for beach areas, docks, racks or other al- lowed recreational equipment or activities; b. Hours of use; c. Planting and maintenance of trees and shrubs; d. Erection of fences; e. Standards of maintenance including mowing and trimming;painting and upkeep of racks, docks and other equipment; disposal of trash and debris; f. Increased width, depth or area requirements based upon the intensity of the use proposed or the number of dwellings having rights of access. To the extent feasible,the city may impose such conditions even after approval of the beachlot if the city finds it necessary. Supp No.4 1179 § 20-263 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (14) Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or renter/occupant of homes which have appurtenant right of access to the recreational beach lot. (15) The placement of docks, buoys, diving ramps, boat racks, and other structures shall be indicated on a site plan approved by the city council. (16) Portable chemical toilets may be allowed as a condition of approval of a recreational beachlot. The maintenance and use of chemical toilets on some beachlots may be unsuitable because they cannot be adequately screened from residential neighbors or lake users.Any use of chemical toilets on recreations beachlots shall be subject to the following: a. The minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark shall be seventy-five (75) feet. Side and front yard setbacks shall be maximized to achieve maximum screening from adjacent lots and the lake. b. It may only be used Memorial Day to Labor Day and shall be removed from the lot during the rest of the year. c. It shall be securely anchored to the ground to prevent tipping. d. It shall be screened from the lake and residential property with landscaping. e. It shall be serviced at least weekly. f. Only models designed to minimize the potential for spilling may be used. g. Receipt of an annual license from the city's planning department. The license shall be issued unless the conditions of approval or this ordinance have been — violated. All license applications shall be accompanied by the following informa- tion: 1. Name, address, and phone number of applicants. 2. Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilets. 3. Name, address, and phone number of chemical toilet supplier. 4. Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy of any agreement for maintenance, and the name, address, and phone number of person responsible for maintenance. 5. A written description of how the applicant intends to screen the portable chemical toilet from all views into the property, including views from the lake. (17) No watercraft or boat lift shall be kept, moored, docked, or stored in the dock setback zone. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 9(5-9-1(11)), 12-15-86; Ord. No..80-A, § 1, 6-15-87; Ord_ No. Si, § 1, 6-13-88; Ord. No. 121, 2.26-90; Ord. No. 146, §§ 1, 2, 5-6-91; Ord. No. 160, § 3, 2-10-92) • Editor's note—Section 3 of Ord. No. 160, adopted Feb. 10, 1992, added subsection(16)to this section. Inasmuch as there existed a § 20-263(16) added by Ord. No. 146, the editor has renumbered the new provisions as § 20-263(17). Supp.No 4 1180 • CITY 0F .C IIANIIASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 June 16, 1993 Dear Resident: The City of Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission will be reviewing a land development proposal for 57 single family lots located north of Kings Road and west of Minnewashta Parkway. The Park and Recreation Commission will be addressing park and trail issues relative to this proposed development. A copy of the agenda for next Tuesday's meeting is attached. If you wish to provide input to — the commission, but are unable to attend the meeting, you may submit written comments to my attention. This item has tentatively been scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on July 7, 1993. If you require additional information prior to next Tuesday, please contact me. Sincerely, •cv10141- 74,444 ^- Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director TH/ Enclosure 1 • • p PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Y3 A'C)( (tC(-Cr LOREN H. BEAUDOIN BRUCE & JENNIFER LINN TODD & FRANCIS BOYCE 133 SPRING VALLEY CIRCLE 4001 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE 4011 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOREN L. BENSON & - -- JEROME M. BACH LEE & JUANITA HARVEY BARBARA B. WILSON C/O NOR WEST BANK, TRUSTEE 7120 KINGS ROAD 7050 KINGS ROAD 6TH MARQUETTE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - MINNEAPOLIS MN 55479-0046 JEFFRY H. HALLGREN & JENNIFER J. HALLGREN KRISTIN & JERRY KORTGARD - MICHELLE GEORGE 375 HIGHWAY 7 3901 GLENDALE DRIVE 355 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - LINDA A SCOTT & LOWELL & J. CARLSON DAVID & MARGARET BORRIS SUSAN E. MORGAN R. l BOX 822A 4071 KINGS ROAD 4031 KINGS ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN P. BAUMTROG STATE OF MINNESOTA DARYL & DEBRA KIRT 7141 MINNEWASHTA PKWY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 50 HILL ROAD - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 METRO SQUARE BUILDING CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST. PAUL MN 55101 MARK & DONNA MALINOWSKI JAMES & ARLENE CONNOR HOLY CROSS LUTHERA. 7250 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 3901 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD CHURCH OF MINNESOTA EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 4151 HIGHWAY 7 • -' EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LEE ANDERSON JOANN HALLGREN JAMES & R. BOYLAN PLEASANT ACRES HOA 6860 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. 6760 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. RT. 1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES &JEFFREY KERTSON 6810 KENNETH & DUANE E. LUND RLK ASSOCIATES - MINNEWASHTA PKWY 395 HIGHWAY 7 922 MAIN STREET EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HOPKINS MN 55343 HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT ROBERT MOREHOUSE 450 E. COUNTY RD. D. 4410 HIGHWAY 25 ST. PAUL MN 55117 WATERTOWN MN 55388 , -6( itaq LOREN H. BEAUDOIN BRUCE & JENNIFER LINN TODD & FRANCIS BOYCE 133 SPRING VALLEY CIRCLE 4001 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE 4011 COUNTRY OAKS DRIVE _ EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LORENL. BENSON & - - JEROME M. BACH LEE & JUANITA HARVEY BARBARA B. WILSON CIO NORWEST BANK, TRUSTEE 7120 KINGS ROAD 7050 KINGS ROAD 6TH MARQUETTE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - MINNEAPOLIS MN 55479-0046 - JEFFRY H. HALLGREN & JENNIFER J. HALLGREN KRISTIN & JERRY KORTGARD MICHELLE GEORGE 375 HIGHWAY 7 3901 GLENDALE DRIVE 355 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - LINDA A SCOTT & LOWELL & J. CARLSON DAVID & MARGARET BORRIS _ SUSAN E. MORGAN R. 1 BOX 822A 4071 KINGS ROAD 4031 KINGS ROAD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN P. BAUMTROG STATE OF MINNESOTA DARYL & DEBRA KIRT 7141 MINNEWASHTA PKWY DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION 50 HILL ROAD - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 METRO SQUARE BUILDING CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ST. PAUL MN 55101 - MARK & DONNA MALINOWSKI JAMES & ARLENE CONNOR HOLY CROSS LUTHERAN 7250 MINNEWASHTA PKWY 3901 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD CHURCH OF MINNESOTA - EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 4151 HIGHWAY 7 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 - LEE ANDERSON JOANN HALLGREN JAMES & R. BOYLAN PLEASANT ACRES HOA 6860 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. 6760 MINNEWASHTA PKWY. RT. 1 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 _ EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JAMES &JEFFREY KERTSON 6810 KENNETH & DUANE E. LUND RLK ASSOCIATES - MINNEWASHTA PKWY 395 HIGHWAY 7 922 MAIN STREET EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HOPKINS MN 55343 HERITAGE DEVELOPMENT ROBERT MOREHOUSE - 450 E. COUNTY RD. D. 4410 HIGHWAY 25 ST. PAUL MN 55117 WATERTOWN MN 55388 5 - CITY OF VICTORIA Am IAMB P' Wily o/Zziceo and Auk 7951 ,glize June 24, 1993 l/ickta, �� 55386 6/2-443-2363 as 612-443-2110 — Ms. Kathryn Aanenson Senior Planner City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Minnewashta Subdivision Preliminary Plat - Heritage Development Dear Kathryn: Thank you for sending us a copy of the preliminary plat titled Minnewashta Subdivision and requesting our comments. Our comments are these: 1. Kings Road extending south from the plat should be shown. No doubt your ordinance requires identifying roads, property lines, structures, etc. within 100 to 200 feet of _ the plat. 2. Extending Kings Road to the north generally along its existing alignment warrants _ consideration. 3. I discussed such an extension with John Dietrich when he called me about three weeks _ ago and informed him that we were considering such an extension in connection with the Lake Tamarack - Boley property study that was in progress at the time. If the extension of Kings Road utilizing a portion of the property within the proposed plat does not appear to be justified in your view, you might want to consider requiring a 30 foot utility easement along the back lot lines to accommodate at least some potential future needs. — Thank you for the opportunity to review the plat. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerel , William L. Thibault Planning Consultant cc: Miriam Porter John Dietrich Ken Adolf CITYOF CHANHASSEN' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Sr. Planner FROM: . Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer %tA DATE: July 16, 1993 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review - Heritage Ridge LUR 93-15 Grading & Drainage The preliminary grading plan proposes to grade the entire site. Due to the size of the parcel, it is anticipated that the applicant will proceed with several phases in order to complete the overall development. The applicant is also proposing to grade Kings Road. The City half-section maps did indicate a 33-foot wide right-of-way for Kings Road. However, after further research by the city attorney's office, it appears the City has not been conveyed the necessary right-of-way as shown on the half-section maps. The city attorney's office has advised in cases such as this where the existing gravel road has been maintained (i.e. snowplowing, grading, etc.) by the City for over six years the public right-of-way for Kings Road generally be limited to the travelled portion of the land along with the shoulder or any land utilized as support for public right-of-way. In this situation, Kings Road has been maintained by the City for over the six-year period. The width of Kings Road varies from 20 feet to 23 feet, thus limiting the public right-of-way use to this area. Construction of Kings Road will result in acquiring temporary and permanent easements by the applicant or city. The City could be petitioned by the applicant to acquire the necessary right-of-way, however, it is assumed it would have to go through condemnation proceedings which would take a minimum of 90 days. Depending on exactly where the existing roadway(Kings Road) is located in relation to the property line of the development, will determine how much additional right-of-way would be necessary from the property owners to the south. If the existing roadway lies on the adjacent parcel to the south, then it will only be necessary for the applicant to acquire dedicated with this plat the necessary right-of-way to arrive at a 60- foot wide corridor. Grading for Kings Road appears to extend between 50 and 100 feet into the Borris and Scott properties located south of Kings Road. This seems excessive from an engineering n �ot PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson July 16, 1993 Page 2 standpoint and staff recommends that the street grades be further reviewed in an effort to — minimize disruption to the adjacent parcels or employ other means to reduce grading limits i.e. retaining walls. Lot 1, Block 3 lying south of Kings Road adjacent Lake St. Joe proposes to be filled with approximately 10 feet of material to make it a buildable lots. Staff is somewhat concerned due to the inadequacies of storm water retention ponds on the site and this location may — make an ideal location for a NURP pond prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe. It is recommended that the grading plan be revised showing adequate on-site retention ponds _ to meed or exceed the City's water quality and quantity standards. Site is divided into two drainage subdistricts with the westerly one-quarter of the site _ draining west into wetlands located within the city of Victoria and the remaining three- quarters of the site drainage southwesterly towards Lake St. Joe. The preliminary grading plan proposes to increase the amount of contributing drainage areas to the city of Victoria _ by approximately 4.8 acres which could dramatically affect the downstream ponding/wetland facilities in the city of Victoria. The City's subdivision ordinance requires the surface water discharge rate from the subdivision be retained at the predeveloped runoff rate for a 100- _ year, 24-hour storm event through the use of surface water detention and retention facilities. This will result in creating on-site water quality and quantity retention ponds by the developer. The storm drainage plan should be looked at in greater detail by the developer's — engineer in order to meet the City's standards. This may result in the loss of some lots. The utility plan proposes a series of catch basins to collect storm water runoff generated — from the street and lots. The proposed storm sewers will carry storm runoff to two discharge points. One area is on Lots 2 and 3, Block 5 which drains west into Victoria. The other discharge point is a small retention pond on Outlot A. The small retention pond on — Outlot A will then overflow through a culvert system underneath Kings Road and discharge into Lake St. Joe. An additional storm sewer line should be proposed to collect backyard drainage along Lots 14 through 17, Block 2. A revised grading plan should be prepared to — include the lot and block numbers as well as designate the type of dwelling and lowest floor and garage floor elevations. The applicants engineer should supply detailed storm sewer calculation for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention ponds in accordance with the City's ordinance for review and approval. Utilities — Kate Aanenson July 16, 1993 Page 3 Site is capable of being serviced by municipal sanitary sewer and water by extending utilities from Minnewashta Parkway along Kings Road. The applicant's engineer has indicated the willingness of the applicant to pay for the extension of utilities in order to facilitate development of parcel yet this year. Typically, when utilities benefit adjacent properties other than the development, the developer will petition the city to do a 429 Statutes project where the improvements are assessed against the benefitting properties. However, in some cases, the developer has chosen install the utilities themselves to avoid the public hearing process and potential delays as a result of the 429 Statutes project procedures. At this time it appears the applicant is intending on extending utilities along Kings Road to service the development. The plans propose to provide adequate stubouts for the adjacent undeveloped parcels to the north, south and west. Upon quick review of the utility layout, it appears that fire hydrant placement will need to be revised. Fire hydrant spacing should be in accordance with the City's fire marshal's recommendations. Typically, fire hydrants are spaced 300 feet apart. Detailed construction plans and specifications for the street and utility improvements will be required for review by staff and City Council approval. The street and utility improvement shall be constructed in accordance with the City latest edition of the Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of approval. As with other typical city developments, the moisture content in the soil is relatively high and the City has employed the use of draintile behind the curbs for improving both road sub-base drainage as well as providing a discharge point for household sump pumps. The applicant should be aware that the City will be requiring with the street and utility construction to include a draintile system. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Erosion Control The grading plan does provide erosion control measures, however, adjacent to all wetland areas the erosion control fence should be Type III. All site restoration and erosion control measures shall be in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Kate Aanenson July 16, 1993 Page 4 Recommended Conditions of Approval — 1. Upon completion, the developer shall dedicate to the City the utilities and street within the public right-of-way and drainage utility easements for permanent — ownership. 2. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and — disc mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood — fiber blanket. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detailed Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. — 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e. Watershed District, MWCC, Health Department, DNR) and comply with their conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. — 6. The right-of-way for Street E should be increased to 30 feet instead of 27 feet. 7. The applicant shall provide supply detailed storm sewer calculations for a 10-year storm event and provide ponding calculations for retention pond in accordance with the City's ordinance for the city engineer to review and approve. — 8. Fire hydrants shall be incorporated per the fire marshal's recommendations. Fire hydrants shall placed a maximum of 300 feet apart. — 9. The applicant shall submit to the City soil boring information and include a draintile system in accordance with the construction plans. — 10. The grading plan shall be revised to incorporate storm water retention ponds per City ordinance. In addition, shall include lot and block number as well as house — dwelling type with lowest floor and garage floor elevations. Kate Aanenson July 16, 1993 Page 5 11. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. jms CA\IPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, PA. - At:. :,,, • .11 L I1` 4-_ -.:: — F \ July 13 , 1993 — Mr. Dave Hempel City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive — Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: City of Chanhassen - Kings Road Our File No. 12668/292 Dear Dave: — Enclosed please find correspondence from Carver County Abstract & Title Company, Inc. dated July 7 , 1993 regarding the — status of Kings Road lying westerly of Minnewashta Parkway. Please note that the Abstract Company searched the records for any conveyances creating easement rights in the name of the City of Chanhassen and were unable to locate any such conveyances. In a case such as this, the public's right-of-way for Kings Road is generally limited to the travelled portion of the land — along with the shoulder and any lands utilized as support for the public right-of-way. After you have received this correspondence, please contact me to discuss this matter further. CRTC OF CHINHASSEN Very truly yours, UMW CAMPBELL, KNU 2 • , S •- T JUL I 199 & FUCHS, • •4 ` f _ ENGINEERS DEPT James R. alston JRW: rlt Enclosure - • _ Cer,:t: • I i't Concor.1tu Center Curve • Eac'3n, N1N 55121 • - CARVER COUNTY ABSTRACT AND TITLE CO., INC. CARVER COUNTY (612)448.5570 201 Chestnut St.N. FAX(612)448.5155 ABSTRACT &TITLE P.O.Box 106 — Dale B. Kutter Chaska,MN 55318 David E.Moonen July 7, 1993 Campbell, Knutson, Scott and Fuchs, P.A. — Suite 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve • _ Eagan, Minnesota 55121 ATTN: James R. Walston RE: Kings Road Dear Mr. Walston: In searching the records for a conveyance to the City of Chanhassen creating any easement rights or ether interest, we find no documents filed pertaining to that part shown as Kings Road on the Carver County Surveyors one-half ('II) section map and lying in Government Lots 1 and 2 of Section 8-116-23 and lying westerly of Minnewashta Parkway. • I hope this information is satisfactory for your needs. If additional information is — necessary, please feel free to contact us. Thank you again for the opportunity to be of service. _ Very Truly Yours, "i 4(7; ? - Dale B. Kutter President CITY OF a4 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORA P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official 4._ DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of — dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLL)or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its.deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwelling. SE Designates Split Entry This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TL' Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below _ grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade • at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling SE SEw0 - L.10101 Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. t4: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CAMPBELL , VNUTSON , SCOTT 8, FUCHS , P .A Jun 18 ,93 15 :36 No . 008 P . 02 WINTHROP & WEINSTINE A PrASSOCIATION SHERMAN WINTHROP JON J.IUOGANSON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW JULIE WIOLET SCMNELL DAVID A,KRI$TAL RCBLI+I N.WL,N51 IN: SANDRA J.MARTIN THOMAS H.BOYD KARL A-WEBER RICHARDA,HOEL GARY W.sCHOKMILLER 3200 MINNESOTA WORLF7 TRADE CENTER JOSEPH C.NAUMAN JONATHAY D CRAM ROGER D.GORDON TPD:B.URNESS DANIEL C,BECK TOMAS L.STAFFORD STEVEN C.TOUREK SCOTT J.DONOOSKE 30 EAST SEVENTH STREET ERIC J.NYSTROM CARLA J.PEDERSEN STEPHEN J.SNVUEH PETER J.GLECKEL KRISTIN L.PETERSON JAMES W.DIERKING HART KULl EL EDWARD J.DRENTTEL SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101-490i JOANNE L.MATZEN CATHERINE A.DOMINGUEZ DAVID F.PEARSON JEFFREY R.ANSEL WILLIAM L,WINSON CHRISTOYHCR W,MADEL THOMAS M.HART IV LAURIE A.KNOCKE TELEPHONE fall; PSiO-5400 EVAN D.COBS SUZANNE M.SPELLACY (APRON C.KNLITSON LLOYD W.GROOMS THOMAS A.WALKER JOHN A.KNAPP JULIE K,WILLIAMSON FAX (BIZ. 2929J47 GINA M.GROTHE POLLEN JOSEPH S.FRIEDBERG MICHELE O.VAILLANCDURT DEIST J.LOLISHIN PATRICK W.WEBER OF COUNSEL DAVID E.MORAN,JR, MARS T.JOHNSON DIRECT DIAL CHARLES A.DURANT DONALD J.BROWN JENNIFER WIR CA BREITINGEk CRAIG A.BRANOT DANIEL W.HARDY BROOKS F,PO-EV OF COUNSEL (612) 290-8546 June 17, 1993 • Mr. Roger Knutson City Attorney City of Chanhassen Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs P.A. 1380 Corporate Center Cry. #317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Dear Mr. Knutson: Our office represents Heritage Development of Minnesota, Inc., a residential developer, in connection with various real estate matters, including matters associated with a proposed development located at Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road in the City of Chanhassen. As with other developers, the timing of Heritage's real estate investments is critical to the success of a given project. Heritage is purchasing the land in question intending to plat, improve and sell the property during the 1993 building season. City staff, however, has significantly and seemingly arbitrarily stalled this project. At the time of Heritage's purchase, the City represented that it had no interest in the subject property for park land since the City was negotiating with the property owner immediately to the north. In fact, the subject property had been offered to the City three years ago but the City then refused to acquire it. Aware of the park dedication/park fee requirements set forth in the Chanhassen City Code, Heritage made several attempts to obtain the City's park recommendations. Repeatedly, however, the City failed to specify the location, configuration or size of the park land required. Eventually, staff told Heritage just to submit for review a preliminary plat around which the City would work creating a park in the northwest corner of the property. Our client then prepared and submitted its proposed plat. Only after Heritage expended significant amounts on the preparation and submission of the proposed plat did the City finally specify what area it wanted dedicated for park purposes. CAMFBELL , FHUTSON , SCOTT & FUCHS , F .A Jun 18 ,93 15 :37 No .008 F . O3 Mr. Roger Knutson 111111 11 1111 - Page 2 Unfortunately, the land specified not only drastically altered the plans, but it took the lake frontage and street access so critical to the value of the proposed development. Furthermore, under the Chanhassen City Code only 2.28 acres need be dedicated for park land, The City's plans now call for a park four times that size entirely on our client's property, despite the City's earlier representations that no more than two of the 10 acres allegedly needed for park purposes would be located on Heritage's property. According to the City Code, Heritage is entitled to be compensated for any acreage in excess of that required by the Code. We would request that staff reconsider its park dedication recommendation to acknowledge the time and money expended by our client to date in reliance on the City's representations. Please call me if you have any questions or comments about the foregoing. Very truly yours, WINTHROP & 'WEINSTINE, P.A. .y ;, 9 ,A�4 • ••a.:- . Mat n M:slc:6cs b 44 , CITY OF s N 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Planning Director DATE: July 15, 1993 SUBJ: Public Information Meeting on the Environmental Assessment BACKGROUND The city embarked upon an intensive program of developing a Hwy. 5 corridor plan a little over a year ago. The effort was an outgrowth of a number of factors including the adopted 1991 Comprehensive Plan and its implications for the Highway 5 area, the ground breaking work that Bill Morrish undertook in cooperation with the city, and the community's growing sensitivities ... to ensure that development that occurs in the corridor is of uniformly high quality and appropriate scale. One of the interesting factors that had to be accommodated in this program is that it actually covers two separate, but virtually concurrent actions. The primary focus is to develop the corridor plan. This plan involves detailed analysis and policy determinations relative to land use, environmental protection, design of roads and highways, including the Hwy. 5 expansion itself, and development of a new overlay ordinance and plan to help ensure that we achieve our goals. The second element is an Environmental Assessment document for what is variously known as the North Access Boulevard or Arboretum Boulevard. The Hwy. 5 Task Force was appointed by the Mayor and City Council to undertake both projects. Work on the plan itself is nearing completion and we expect to have it available for presentation to the Planning Commission some time in September. MNDOT ROLE _ In some respects, the Environmental Assessment document has been a driving force in accelerating the Hwy. 5 program. MnDOT has agreed to cooperate with the city on the construction costs of the north access boulevard and undertake its construction in conjunction with the upgrading of Hwy. 5 to Hwy. 41. They have also tentatively agreed to share a portion of the right-of-way costs. Their support of this roadway is based upon the fact that it can be built before the Hwy. 5 mainline improvements and used to provide construction access while ILO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission July 15, 1993 Page 2 work is being undertaken on the mainline. This will shorten construction time for Hwy. 5 and decrease its cost. In the long term, the north access boulevard will intercept virtually all local — trips from Chanhassen located north of Hwy. 5 and give them the ability to transit through the community between their neighborhoods to downtown and community facilities, without ever having to go onto mainline Hwy. 5. This will conserve Hwy. 5 traffic capacity for longer haul — trips and improve safety by minimizing turning movements. However, MnDOT had already completed the environmental documentation required for the Hwy. 5 project. Their cooperation with the city on the north access boulevard was conditioned upon the city financing the cost of an Environmental Assessment document which is required for MnDOT participation and to allow the infusion of federal dollars, which is passed through MnDOT to the city. In order to keep the Hwy. 5 project on schedule, it was imperative that the city complete this EA document during the summer of 1993. We have committed to this goal and the presentation before you tonight is evidence of that commitment. The EA document itself only focuses on the north access boulevard since this is the only road where MnDOT has agreed to cooperate with the city. As — most of you are aware, there is a south access boulevard which is essentially an extension of Lake Drive, west to Hwy. 41. However, the city has always believed that this road can be and will be built by developers as properties are developed and no outside assistance or EA was required. MEETING PURPOSE Tonight you are being asked to hold a public informational meeting on the Environmental _ Assessment document. The document was prepared by the Task Force and there was a considerable amount of involvement by affected property owners. However, comments were never attempted to be incorporated on in a coordinated basis at that stage. We were always _ aware that the official public informational meeting would be held at the Planning Commission meeting and the primary purpose of those meetings was to develop the alignment concepts. The purpose of this meeting is to solicit additional input from affected residents and also from the — Planning Commission. The document will then be forwarded to the City Council for its stamp of approval before sending it on to MnDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATION The EA document contains detailed information on environmental impacts and respective — mitigative strategies for the road, alternative alignments that were considered, land use implications, and even some projected costs have been provided. The Task Force is bringing forward a recommendation for what has been referred to as the northern alignment. There are — essentially two alignments that were studied, although with cross overs, there are permutations of each. In the general sense, the northern alignment appears to be more consistent with the goal of making this roadway an extension of Chanhassen's main street, which means that it would have development (but generally not commercial development) on either side of it. A southern alignment takes more of a frontage road type of location. In each case, the road utilizes Planning Commission July 15, 1993 Page 3 unusually high design standards incorporating sensitive design techniques, alignments that follow terrain and incorporates significant landscaping and more possible preservation of existing trees and wetlands, a relatively narrow design width incorporating a grade separated trail, and other measures to ensure that the road is sensitively constructed and offers a high quality experience for its future users. In both cases, pedestrian and bicycle access through the corridor is an important element and a series of underpasses are being proposed. In fact, we have recently submitted an ISTEA grant application for the first bridge which is likely to be constructed on the south access boulevard, adjacent to the new school site at the intersection of Galpin and Hwy. 5. LAND USE IMPLICATIONS When we first started working on this with the Task Force, it was clear that the alignment could not be determined until there was sufficient information to allow consideration of the need for environmental protection and the implications of the alignment on land uses. The environmental aspect was handled in great detail and we are confident that this selected road alignment is highly sensitive to protecting our community's resources. Relative to land use, one of the goals of the Hwy. 5 project was to refine the land use plan. We also attempted to develop what will be incorporated into the Hwy. 5 plan as acceptable site plans to give guidance as properties are developed. The land use analysis, which is contained in the document, will illustrate that land use recommendations are largely consistent with the 1991 Land Use Plan with some minor changes east of Galpin. As requested by the City Council with the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Hwy. 5 study also provides detailed land use recommendations for what is shown on that plan as the 1995 Study Area. Please look at this material in detail. As a general rule of thumb, medium to higher density residential is being shown at various locations along the Hwy. 5 corridor, with single family development in the area beyond. One area that received extensive analysis was the northeast corner of the intersection of Hwy. 5 and Hwy. 41. The city has known for years that Fleet Farm has purchased this property with the ultimate goal of building a commercial center in this area. Their plans, which were conceptually developed and were presented to the Task Force and their recommendation was that this not be allowed to proceed. Through the alignment of the road and the proposed land use plan, little, if any, commercial uses are proposed to be allowed to be constructed in this area. As one final note on this topic, the Planning Commission is not being asked to approve land use recommendations at this time. These will be brought forward along with the rest of the Hwy. 5 plan when you review that document. The sole purpose of the meeting tonight is to focus on the environmental assessment document and the preferred alignment. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the north alignment route selected by the Task Force. Their support of this alignment is based on several factors as follows: Planning Commission July 15, 1993 Page 4 — 1. It appeared to be more consistent with the concept of this road being an extension of Chanhassen's main street rather than a frontage road which they believe to be consistent — with the Morrish recommendations and the best interests of the city. 2. They noted that if the frontage road alternative south alignment was chosen, that in all — likelihood, developers would have to build another road a short distance to the north as a local collector to serve their developments. The location of the north alignment allows for the elimination of that separate city collector street. 3. They believe the physical separation between Hwy. 5 and the access boulevard was — necessary to achieve the level of environmental protection and visual quality of the corridor which was one of their goals. 4. The northern alignment provided the ideal break point between the medium and higher density residential land uses and single family neighborhoods which are proposed to the north. Care was taken to ensure that land left between the north alignment and Hwy. 5 _ was sufficiently sized to accommodate legitimate and high quality, medium to high density residential neighborhoods. ROADWAY COST IMPLICATIONS Development costs for the roadway do have a bearing on this analysis from several points of — view. Information has been provided that illustrates that construction costs of either the north or south alignment is relatively similar and MnDOT has agreed to participate in the cost regardless of which alignment is selected. Where the variance occurs is in acquisition of right-of- — way and potential severance damages. Each of these last two variables tend to offset one another. MnDOT had agreed in the past to cooperate with the city on right-of-way acquisition. However, they have stated a fairly clear preference towards funding those sections of right-of- — way which are in closer proximity to Hwy. 5 mainline. Their position is not based on utilization of the access boulevard which is the same for either alignment. Rather it is one of policy where MnDOT is reluctant to open the door to funding facilities some distance removed from their — mainline in the event that other communities may make similar requests. Staff fully understands that this could well have implications for total costs of the project, but at this time, we are unsure — as to the magnitude. MnDOT's participation and construction costs is not subject to the same limitation. Off-setting the potential loss of MnDOT's participation in right-of-way acquisition is the fact that the south alignment appears to cause greater severance damage. This results from the fact that land located between the south alignment and Hwy. 5 is essentially unusable space. Thus, the _ city and state would wind up having to by it in its entirety and manage it in the public interest. This problem is much less significant in the northern boulevard alignment since it was designed to ensure that land between the road and Hwy. 5 was sufficiently sized to accommodate _ Planning Commission — July 15, 1993 Page 5 legitimate development. Thus, these areas would be privately held and privately developed reducing long range cost implications. Another factor to be considered is that at the time of — writing, staff is of the opinion that portions of either alignment may be obtained from land owners as land dedication for developments which occur prior to the construction of the road. Since both roads are designed to provide access to local streets, we believe that portions of it will — need to be constructed if development is allowed to proceed in the intervening period. Additionally, at the time of writing, we appear to have the entire right-of-way between Powers Boulevard and the west side of Lake Ann Park. The city has been negotiating with the Temple — of Eck for some time and appears to have reached a tentative agreement relative to the 78th Street project. The final agreement appears to include acquisition of sufficient right-of-way to build the access boulevard across the Eck property and the city already owns Lake Ann Park and — can provide access across this facility. Thus, while cost is certainly a factor, we unfortunately will not be able to give you an exact — dollar amount until the project is further developed and land acquisition costs are known with certainty. Still we believe that since the right-of-way acquisition costs of either alignments seem to have a tendency to off set one another and since construction costs are the same, we believe — our recommendation and your action should be based more upon the implications of the road for the urban environmental fabric of our community rather than cost factors. — STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold the public information meeting on the Arboretum Boulevard Environmental Assessment document and forward it to the City Council supporting the Highway 5 Task Force recommendations for alternative alignment#1, with cross over "C" in the vicinity of Galpin Boulevard. 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 7 , 1993 Vice Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7 :40 p .m . - MEMBERS PRESENT: Diane Harberts , Matt Ledvina , Nancy Mancino and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Batzli , Joe Scott and Jeff Farmakes STAFF PRESENT: Paul Krauss , Planning Director ; Jo Ann Olsen , Senior Planner ; and Kate Aanenson , Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN PRZYMUS FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF THE GOLF DRIVING RANGE MAXI-MINI PUTT COMPLEX TO INCLUDE EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING AND A BATTING CAGE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED A2 , AGRICULTURAL ESTATE AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD , SWINGS GOLF . Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chairman Conrad called the public hearing to order . John Pryzmus: First of all we don 't , I won 't entertain that you look at Option 2 . That 's not an option . Conrad: John , would you come up to the microphone and then the people at home can see you . I know it 's a big audience tonight . John Pryzmus : Yes . Option 2 is not something that I would entertain . . . and so I don 't want an interim use permit . That won 't work . Going back to Option 1 . Their request for denial or recommendation that you would deny this . First I 'd like to have Jo Ann explain to you the difference between the holding tank that I have and the septic tank that they think should be there _ And that it would benefit my customers and the city and whoever if I have a different . First of all , the city made me put in the holding tank . Now you explain to them what would be a better reason to having it . Olsen: Well I don 't know that the city made you put in the holding tanks . What happened was that when you first went through this process , you did designate two sites protected for septic sites which were destroyed by the alterations to the site . John Pryzmus: No , they were not destroyed until after the city said I had to have the holding tank . Once you put the holding tank in , there was no reason to . . . Olsen: Well then our facts are different but . John Pryzmus : The reality . . .because they do not know . The holding tank is something that you fill up and when it 's full you pump it . My bathrooms do not work if it 's full so I can 't be open for business if my bathrooms don 't work . So the truck comes and . . . A septic system that they say could have been used , before they changed this to a tank , could possibly now be a hazard because the ground water is so high . They wouldn 't even be Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 2 functional for an expansion so what I have now would never be a problem for the city of Chanhassen or for any of my customers or for anyone else . So that is just something that the city staff was using to do something . The applicant has expanded this site without prior approval . I did put in now a building , two 8 x 10 storage sheds . They weren 't an expansion to my building . They were just storage sheds . You can buy them at Menards . They look like just to see them sitting there so I wanted them to look kind of like the building that I have . So that is the intent . Everytime I get in here before Conrad and whoever else is sitting here , because the City 's — request I come here . Usually either in a letter or summons or whatever , and usually it 's been because on my original plan , which I 've shown these people time and time again , everything was approved and I did do it all at — the same time . . . . I 've owned that property since 1990 , 1980 and I 've been working on it since 1980 . I 've been planting trees . Doing things . I finally opened for business in 1987 and I 've been building on it and making it better every year . The only people that have a hassle with this , not my — customers . They all love it . People of Chanhassen love it . The only people that have a problem with it is city staff . They are continually hassling me and making it impossible for to run a smooth business . First of all because I 've never been able to have a building to put my equipment in . Put my fertilizer in . My seed in . I always have to be moving it around . It 's always getting wet or it 's always a mess and that 's because - the city has decided that they don 't want me to ever have a . . . I thought we had everything done last time . . .Now I guess we don 't have it done again . So like I say . . . I 've already spent half a million dollars making this place nice and they 're going to say that they 're going to take these , next year tell me I 'm out of here because I . . .I won 't do it . You should , from my point of view , look at it as , what is good for the city . Is this going to look good? Is it screened right? Is it bermed right? First of all , I — don 't have to expand my parking . The building I want to add is not for video machines . It 's for video lessons for golf . You set up TV screens in private booths to tell you , you take movies of a person hitting golf balls _ and then you watch it . It 's not going to be a video operation . I have 4 of these machines . I looked at some of . . .but I think from a planning standpoint , is it good for the city? Or is it bad? Is it something that the children can use? That families can come and use . Is it going to be — detrimental to us as citizens of this community? Obviously no . Planning standpoint , they think it 's detrimental because they recommend denial of everything I 've ever asked for . That place has been detrimental to the city and the people of Chanhassen according to Chanhassen staff from the day I proposed it and that 's all I have to say . You make your decision on what you think is good for the city , not on what they dream up every time . Conrad: Talk to us a little bit about the holding tank . Olsen : A holding tank is as he described it . It has to get pumped out . — It 's only allowed as an alternative if you cannot have septic sites . So again , we obviously disagree on how it happened but the two sites were designated and that 's what supposed to be used on the site . Then going back through the records it appears that those sites were damaged . Could not be used and his only alternative was to do the holding tanks . I don 't believe the city required him to . Actually I remember there was a lot of discussion whether or not he could even do anything and the holding tanks - were the alternative that they allowed . - Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 3 Conrad: Yeah I was here unfortunately , and that 's my recollection too . In terms of the use of this property . Yeah , the holding tanks were not the preferred use as I recall . But now that that property may change uses , - does it make sense to have , for us to change it at this point in time , or force him to change it? Olsen: Right . That was an issue from the Building Official and as long as we have the proof that it is being properly pumped and properly disposed of , I think that we are comfortable with keeping it the way it is . With the holding tanks . Conrad: Good . It 's a public hearing . Any other comments from neighbors or residents? Jo Ann , I was looking for a mailing list . Did this go - out? Did we mail to the residents? Olsen : Yes we did . Yeah . We always have one , Partridge , or Art Partridge has always the one person that would show up but he might have moved . Conrad: Build a berm and Art will be here . - Ledvina moved , Mancino seconded to close the public hearing . All voted in favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed . Conrad: Another question before we open it up . Diane , what do you think? You 've got to catch up . This has a lot of history . Harberts: Yeah , it certainly does . Well I guess from , you know I 've - driven by Swings and I think the owner made a positive comment and I support that . I think it is a nice facility . It seems to be used quite a bit by people . It 's certainly in the past 3 years that I 've been out and - about in the area I 've certainly noticed some improvements . I have no problem with the expansion . I welcome development . I welcome business . I have a problem when there 's a process that 's been established . When the process is not followed . That 's the only way that basically can in a sense insure that , basically what 's best for the community . It 's your process in which to manage the development , different things like that . That 's why codes are established . I guess I 've worked with staff myself outside of , - just on a professional basis and I guess I ' ll differ with you on it . I have very positive feedback in terms of that staff always looks out for what 's best for in the community . I guess I 'm not , I 'm familiar with the - 1995 study area . I know it 's a priority for Chanhassen . So I would like to hear from others on the Commission with regard to an interim permit versus what I understand would be a non-conforming permit as the option . The only thing that really bothers me is simply that it seems that the process has been set up . The owner went through the process earlier . Early 90 's and I 'm just having a little difficulty understanding really why the process wasn 't followed for the continued expansion . The way I -- understand it is that when there 's a building permit , it usually has a termination time on it . It 's usually good for a year or something like that . And then they come back and renew it if you haven 't completed , and I don 't know if that 's the issue here or just a misunderstanding in terms of here 's the overall plan and I 'm just going to work on it for a period of time . But we have a process in place , I think communication needs to continue so that 's what I 'm just uncomfortable with . That there 's really a Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 4 good faith effort , and I 'm not sensing that in terms of the communication to keep the city up to date . Or if there 's just a misunderstanding or what . Overall I certainly support the expansion but given the fact that it 's the 1995 study area , and really what is best for the community and that 's really I think , you hit it right on the nose . What is best for the community? When you have a study area , you don't know what that is yet . And the interim permit certainly gives us the opportunity to have more flexibility but from a dollar perspective I can understand where the owner would certainly prefer to have that non-conforming permit . I don 't know if the city 's in a position to want to issue that . Conrad: Well that 's a good question . The applicant is not asking for that . Olsen: Yeah , it wouldn 't be a non-conforming use . His only option is an interim use permit . You don 't have to set a date on that . It can be considered a conditional use permit , similar to a conditional use permit but the interim use permit allows you to put that deadline . You don 't necessarily have to tie it into anything . It no longer is a conditional _. use permit . That 's been switched so if you look under this district , miniature golf , driving ranges are now only permitted as an interim use permit . You have to , as far as what the process is . When this was tabled at the last time it was because he had so many outstanding issues . He did — complete those issues and that 's where we contacted him again and said , Mr . Pryzmus you now need to continue now to bring that into compliance but your other expansion you have to get the interim use permit . And then — during that conversation back and forth to go through that process , we discovered more expansion had taken place and so again that 's where we said you have to get the interim use permit to get permission for what you 've done . There 's not a non , I mean he doesn 't , there 's not a non-conforming use permit that we can give him . Harberts: So that 's not an option then? Olsen: That 's not an option. Ledvina : So essentially an interim use permit is his only option? Olsen: His only option , right . I mean now that it 's going through the process . Mancino: And it could be when we have done the 1995 study area , that a golf range does fit in in the 1995 study area . That it then can be a — regular , what does it then become? Olsen: It 's still an interim use permit . Mancino: It 's still an interim use permit? Olsen: Yeah . Mancino: But it could go on past the date of when we have rezoning or , okay . _ - Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 5 Olsen: Yeah . You don 't necessarily have to assign a date . A termination . It allows you that option . But that 's really his only option now . For any expansion , or else he can have denial of any of the expansion beyond what — was originally approved with his conditional use permit and he can just be maintained at that , the old conditional use permit . But then you have the question , do you have to make him revert back to what was originally approved . Harberts : Does the city feel that they have the understanding of what type of expansion will happen? Olsen: In the study area? - Harberts : Ah no . With regards to all the different things that are going on there . _ Olsen : Well this is what I 've asked him to do his ultimate plan so I think what you 're seeing now is what he wants to do . With the batting cages . He 's always wanted to have those but it was never approved with the original approval . Harberts : And what I understand is that staff can support the septic tank , holding tank as long as there 's documentation? Olsen: Yeah . We just want proof that it 's being disposed of correctly and we are not opposed to the use . We 've recommended approval in the past so . Harberts: You feel that there 's , you know in terms of the process , that you both have an understanding in terms of what needs to occur in terms of communication? Olsen : Yes . I would think so . Harberts: Basically that 's the jist of my comments . Conrad: Okay , Matt . - Ledvina : Well then , just so I understand this perfectly . We can , the interim use permit can be indefinite then? - Olsen: Yeah . There 's nothing that says that you have to tie . Krauss: I 'm looking through the language here . I 'm not certain of that . I think that . . . I mean that 's the difference between . Olsen : Do you have to? Well you could say the year 2020 . - Mancino: It 's got to be between two things . Olsen: So you could say 2050 . If it has to have a deadline . Ledvina : Well what types of ultimate development pressures are going to happen here and what do you see when you look . . . in terms of the timing of the next few years? That 's in the 1995 study area . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 6 Krauss: There 's a couple of things going on . We do not know when this land is going to come into the MUSA system . We haven 't made a request for _ it and the owners haven 't asked for it yet . I 'm not sure if we 'd want to go through it right away . Also the construction of Highway 5 , the upgrading of Highway 5 and Highway 5 access boulevards . Is also scheduled for 1995-96 . . .in that kind of a window . In fact we met with MnOot for lunch today and that 's. . .What I can tell you Matt , instead of gazing into a crystal ball , I can tell you what the Highway 5 Task Force has already essentially approved in it 's recommendation on that property . It shows a variety of medium and low density housing . Olsen: Okay , well the definition . It says a temporary use of property until a particular date , particular event or zoning regulation is no longer permitted . So when I was saying that you don 't necessarily have to tie it to the street or the rezoning or MUSA . If you want to , him to permit it , you can do a date way out there . When we got these interim use permits in — here it was because we were thinking , if we 're not sure if it will still fit in and it 's tough to tie . We had to discuss what kind of event do we tie it to because the frontage road possibly will cut into the northern portion of this and maybe that will make him have to stop his business by itself but if it doesn 't , we 're not convinced that it 's still not a suitable site . You know suitable use . Ledvina : Then just speaking of that time then . What is it , is it the Highway 5 upgrade? Or development? I mean how do we administratively deal with the interim use? — Krauss : There 's a couple of potentials here . I mean if it 's tied to the construction of the Highway 5 access boulevards . It seems that any _ alternative that 's being considered . Olsen: They kind of go through there . Krauss: And that would have to be compensated for at that time but if it doesn 't , one way or the other it becomes . . .You also could tie the extension to the zoning of the property . It 's possible that this land could be brought into the MUSA line and rezoned for development . . . Ledvina : How about something like a re-evaluation of the interim use permit at that time? I mean in terms of if we have to identify a trigger , -- maybe maybe we can do it like , not necessarily that it ends but that it 's re-evaluated . Mancino: And it may end or it may continue . Ledvina : Based on the re-evaluation at that time . I don 't know . Olsen: They can always request for an extension. I mean say that you say 1996 . He could also request and that 's , but you know if you 're considering the approval , we do have to bring it back to you . Well we should bring it -- back to you anyway with the conditions and then we could probably get Roger to come up with some good legal way to allow you that flexibility . Because nobody really knows . _ - Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 7 John Pryzmus : Could I address you one more time? You know here you are deciding when it can possibly be turned into a shopping center and a low income apartment complex . When you 've got 18 acres of trees and grass that — you guys keep fighting for . You just hired somebody to harrass developers so you can 't cut too many trees down . I planted 500 trees there . You should be fighting for me to keep this forever . For 20 years . As long as I want to keep it . For 30 or 40 years . You should be fighting for this to be in the community rather than fighting me to get it out . I mean what did I ever do wrong out there? People love it . I can 't believe you people . I sit here last time and you 're harrassing people , don 't cut any trees down . - I 've planted all these and you sit here trying to figure out how you can possibly get me out in which year . I just don 't understand it . You should be planning on going around me and making sure you keep me there so you 've - got a beautiful corner . No , you 'd rather take the taxpayers dollars and spend a million dollars on downtown and then tear it all back up and just make a mess of everything with our money . I 'm spending my own money and _ you 're trying to figure out how to ruin me . I just can 't understand you people . Conrad: No John , what we 're trying to do is add some planning sense to - what 's happening . Now John , you 've been here long enough to know that the city is expanding . You know the city 's expanding your way . We 're trying to figure out how it happens . We 're trying to figure out . No John , you - haven 't followed any of the things we 've ever asked you to do . Very seldom . John Pryzmus: You decide and then let me know . Conrad : Okay , thanks for attending John . Ledvina : Well I guess , so essentially you 're recommending that the matter be tabled while the conditions of an interim use permit . Olsen: Right . If you feel that we should allow the expansion and get it under an interim use permit , that would be best because then we can really look at the setbacks and make sure he 's meeting the DNR and the Watershed District and yeah . Ledvina: Well I don 't know but I think that route seems to be a fair way of handling this situation . Considering what the future needs of that area - are going to be , I think it 's reasonable to let him use his property to maximize his business while he can . But then again , we 're responsible for guiding that activity as it moves that way so . Mancino : I agree . We ' ll have you come back with some conditions . I am in favor of approval of the interim use permit with the expansion of the site allowing a sign , the 10 video games , the additional building and the - addition to the building . Parking spaces , I think that 's all fine . I have no problem with the expansion but as Matthew said , I would like to see maybe Roger come up with whether we can evaluate it at some point in the time when it 's either in the MUSA line or the northern access boulevard . If we can stop right then and evaluate whether it still fits in with what 's going on there . I would also like staff to work with John on putting a due date for all this expansion . To just say , to ask him how long he thinks it Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 8 will take him to get the batting cages up . To get all this done and I 'd like that to be one of the conditions . That there actually is a due date . The other condition I would like to see is an annual review or inspection of the site so that we are sure and he knows that we 're going to be checking , making sure it is kept to the conditions that we have on it . And _ I think it 'd be great if there was a written report after each inspection so that we have it in our files of what we inspected and exactly what was happening . Whether it 's visual pictures , written , etc . Conrad: Thanks Nancy . I agree . Are batting cages part of this? That 's the only thing I 'm not sure of . What 's the logic? You know there was logic for allowing the driving range there . Agricultural area . Something close to I don 't know , grass and driving range . Agricultural . And now we 're talking about batting cages . And I think we 've resisted in the past . What is his proposal? How many and do we know? Olsen: Well , no . Yeah , that 's why we just really don 't know all the details . All it is is fencing . Conrad: Is it a wire cage? Olsen : It 's a wire cage . Conrad: So top . It 's not just sides , there 's a top to it? Mancino: There 's mesh . It shows . . .mesh and I was going to ask to see whether that was year round mesh or is it something he takes down in the winter? Olsen: You mean on the top mesh? Mancino : Yeah . Conrad: Usually it 's soft so it stops the ball from bouncing . And where is that Jo Ann? Olsen: The new building which you were talking about the video . Ledvina : North is to the right , right? Olsen: This is Galpin . TH 5 is down there . And then you 've got the creek too approximately where the road is going through? Krauss : Right about , well it 's the alternative right now . Actually a little further south . Kind of right through the batting cages . One of the concerns , and I really don 't know to what extent we can legitimately — consider . Having something for Roger to answer . One of the concerns I have is the idea of encouraging additional investment in something that the public is going to have to pay to take down in a few years . Conrad : Yeah . Is there any logic to where he 's putting that building? Krauss: Well there 's logic on his plan for where he 's putting it . And the — access boulevards are working towards being approved but it 's still not an - Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 9 approved concept . Mancino: And that 's , you know MnDot may not have the money until 96-97-98 . Krauss : Well it 's not on the plan to be built until '96 anyway but we just got reassurances from MnDot today that they are still looking to work with - us on it and they 're looking to build it before they upgrade Highway 5 . Harberts: Just a follow-up question . I had read in the Minutes from days gone by here . They talked about the hours of business . Is it still sunrise to sunset? Does it make a difference? I 've seen different . Olsen: Right . It 's supposed to still be sunrise to sunset but I 'm hearing — now that he is doing evening hours with the lighting . Harberts : What I would like to see , even with tabling it , is basically an inventory or a plan or whatever in terms of exactly what 's going on out there . You know I don 't think if he 's going to expand it , I don 't think there 's anything wrong with having some type of site plan . You know the material . Different things like that . It 's nothing less than what we - require of everybody else that comes through . Olsen: This is as much as we 've ever gotten . Harberts: Well I 'm talking about materials . Things like this . Just to have an understanding because you know just being relatively new to the commission , I don 't know . You know I have an idea what a batting cage looks like but I don 't know what someone else 's interpretation is . I would recommend that we get some type of overall understanding . You know what the hours are . If he 's going to put a sign , where the sign 's going to be . — All of that and like I said , I don 't see that any different than what we require of any other developer that walks in this door . Krauss: Is there some kind of consensus on night hours? Olsen: Yeah , it was tied before . Krauss : We 've received complaints from the ballfield lights at Lake Ann , from people living in this neighborhood . - Harberts : Well you know , and I have no problem with the owner in a sense presenting the information to us and basically as we ask everybody else that stands here , just tell us . What you want to do and why or whatever . You know if we got some complaints on files , make him aware of it . Maybe he 's not aware of it . Maybe he needs again , the city has certain standards . That 's all we ask for from anyone . If it 's lights or whatever . I remember when Southwest Metro built the park and ride lot , you know - halfway through the city requested we change our lights . You know that was a cost that we ate and it 's simply because this is what the city codes are and the purpose of the codes isn 't to hassle anyone . It 's simply to , in a — sense enhance the community for the people . I think that 's the only bottom line . That 's the only reason why I 'm sitting here . You know I 'm not here to hassle anybody . So that 's why I don 't think we can , we should ask anything less or anything more . So I would recommend that , if this is Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 10 going to be tabled , is that it comes back with, to give us an understanding of what 's going on there . Like I said , I read sunset to sunrise . I didn 't _ see anything in here that said that it was actually approved . Maybe there 's some loose ends that can be tied up , both between the city , the owner , whatever but I think it will just improve that communication . Conrad: Do we have many complaints? Any? Olsen: Not of this . . . — Conrad: Yeah , I think most every resident is pretty happy with Swings . Harberts: Yeah , it 's a nice place . Conrad: Yeah . I don 't think it 's too bad John walked out of here because I think it 's a good facility . He just doesn 't like to follow any rules . And it 's just unfortunate because we 're probably going to give him what he wants . But he walked out . I still am stuck on the batting cage . It really seems like a different use and I guess as long as staff is feeling _ comfortable , that it 's not really over intensifying . You know traffic . Hundred kids . Whatever . Batting cage is going to , it probably is not going to do anything but I guess I want to make sure that , we 've turned it down in the past because it wasn 't in snyc with a driving range . And you know the logic is real tough to follow . I 'm going back . Driving range . Grass . Agriculture . That 's the logic . But when you put in batting cage , that 's a real commercial use . And it 's a little bit different . Mancino: But I like that better than video games . At least it 's outside . You 're batting . You 're outside . The video games is completely an indoor _ recreation . Conrad: But it relates to golf . Mancino: Not the video games . Are they video , golf video games? Olsen: Well he 's got those now and now he 's talking about the video golf . -- Conrad: Conrad: So it 's beyond golf . Olsen : It 's up there now and that 's gotten approval already . Harberts: Is he going to require lighting with his batting cage if he 's going to operate it after sunset? Mancino: That 's all the stuff we need to know. Harberts: Yeah , exactly and like I said , I don 't think we 're asking anything more of him than any other developer . Olsen: It 's just whether or not we get it . I mean we 've been very clear on what is required and all the information and we 've never received it . Harberts: Well I think in order to understand the , if expansion is in a sense appropriate for this site , appropriate for the community , this is the - Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 11 - information that we need to know . Ultimately I would think that the Council 's going to want to know the same thing . — Olsen: Right . I request it . We don 't receive it . Conrad : It really goes back to , how do you want to leverage this situation to make him come into compliance with some of the things . He 's never in compliance , and that 's a generalization . On some things he 's not in compliance and you know , then we 've got to figure out how to get him there and if we 're comfortable going over some ordinance , we 're basically giving — him more than what the ordinance gives . Olsen: We process an application that is incomplete too . Ledvina : Are you ready for a motion? Conrad: Wait , any other questions? Comments? Anything? Yeah . Ledvina : Okay , I would move that the Swings Interim Use Permit be tabled until such time that sufficient conditions can be developed to define the — operation and the terms of the permit . Also , taking into account the comments that Diane had made . And also , Paul touched on it briefly . If staff feels it 's worthwhile to get an opinion from the attorney regarding the situation of continuing this or even expanding this activity when we might have to take it at a later date by whatever public authority we have for right-of-way , we should know about that and we should have an opinion on that as well . Conrad : Is there a second? - Mancino: Second . Conrad: Thanks Nancy . Any discussion? Ledvina moved , Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission table the Interium Use Permit for Swings until such time that sufficient conditions can be developed to define the operation and the terms of the permit . All - voted in favor and the motion carried . PUBLIC HEARING: NON-CONFORMING USE PERMIT FOR BOYERS STERLING ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT . Public Present: Name Address Scott Remmke 3221 Dartmouth Drive Paula Roettger 3220 Dartmouth Drive Stephen C . Martin 3211 Dartmouth Drive Lori Weber 3220 Dartmouth Drive Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive Arvid Oas 3230 Dartmouth Drive Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 12 Name Address Joe & Eileen Boyer 3630 Virginia Avenue , Deephaven Robert & Joleen Roy 3110 Dartmouth Drive Thomas Merz 3201 Dartmouth Drive Don & Cheri Sueker 3111 Dartmouth Drive Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item . Vice Chairman — Conrad called the public hearing to order . Rob Roy: My name is Rob Roy . I live at 3110 Dartmouth Drive . I am not the applicant . Ted Bigos was the applicant . There 's a couple issues right away that I would address . I do not live on the lake . I think it is inappropriate for that outlot to be utilized as a boat launch . I 'm not sure what the beachlot application is . I 've noticed there were other — notices about this situation from Kathryn . I was not made aware of this until just recently , and if I was I would have had the neighbors get together to discuss this a little bit and at least we could come to some — sort of consensus anyway . But I think the , for a boat launch it 's inappropriate and I think if there can be anything done , and I don 't know if the city can do this or not , but to stop any vehicular traffic on that outlot . The problem I see is there 's a storm sewer that runs at the end of _ the outlot and I don 't know if the city would want anything there that . I know the Heights have put in posts to stop ingress and egress by cars , and I 'm not too sure that the Association shouldn 't do the same thing on that — particular outlot . Just from the standpoint of even in the wintertime people running across the property and then the lakeshore homeowners property also just to get onto lake access . And dragging ice houses out . Going back to the 1981 , I find it very difficult to find that a snapshot of 1981 was the number of boats was then became the basis of decision . We had documentation and letters from the former owners that there was at one point 5 boats down there . Okay , now this goes back to people that lived there and who had moved before this issue ever became an issue . That we had wrote and tracked them down in Florida and so forth to find out how many boats at one time were down at that outlot . So driving by in 1981 to — take a snapshot and determine how many boats should or should not be there , I find very difficult and I guess that 's what we 're trying to resolve tonight . The original intent I believe of the City , going back to the _ original platting of the property was to allow an outlot which would allow people to have access to the lake . Whether that 's an established marina or not . I know there 's excessive marinas around Lake Minnewashta that are not exactly picturesque . But with 10 outlots , the availability of at least 4 boats on a current dock would allow two small boats and two , let 's say 19 foot boats into that area . I don 't think that is excessive . I 'm not sure what the definition however of a beachlot is . I 'm not too sure people want _ to swim where a storm sewer drain is in that particular area but I think the utilization of the property and the original intent of the builder was to allow , as the land had been developed in 1981 or 19 whenever the land was developed , had it developed all at once he would have had a marina there . Now you have 10 lots , I believe it 's 10 . 9 lots that are off the lake but should have some access to boat useages . Conrad : Thanks Rob . Any other comments? _ Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 13 — Joe Boyer : I 'm Joe Boyer . I 'm the original developer of that area and the intent in 1966-67 , when we developed that property , was to have lake access for the 10 inside lots . And at that time I think we had that in our — covenants . We had at one time 3 boats of my own . One of the people I built for , Al Schnurr had 2 boats there and that was in the 1960 's . But we never envisioned , ever , that people from the adjoining area could shut down _ our lake access , or that anybody else could change the covenants to shut out the inside subdivision owners . I still don 't understand how you can cut people out of their lake access when it 's , it was accepted in the original plan . In the original covenants . Conrad: The point tonight , that 's a fairly , we could discuss that item . Is to bring out how can you? The reason there are controls is because — there were abuses and that 's why the controls went in , especially in '81 . That 's when the ordinance went it that basically froze the use and that 's where we 're here tonight to do . Not really to debate the wisdom of that use . Or that ordinance but trying to assess the 1981 status so that we can ..••• tell the owners what to expect . The only other thing that any beachlot owners or recreation beachlot owners should know . The current restrictions are fairly significant . And they 're for a reason . It 's a pretty good - reason but that 's , again we 're not debating that tonight . Not debating what you did in the 60's . We 're trying to figure out what a fair level of use was in '81 and to set that and therefore we kind of , and we 've done this to 16 , well we 've done it to every unconforming beachlot in the city and we 're almost wrapping it up right now . Joe Boyer : Well that lakeshore access was kind of utilized and brutalized ' I 'm afraid by some adjacent property owners you know . And when we originally put that access in Archie Carter , the engineer for the City of Chanhassen , and Bill Schoell , who is my engineer , for my subdivision : • Schoell and Madsen . Agreed that since we had so much water drainage over the area , and sewer drainage from all of the properties in the adjacent area , it was best to drain the water out on the surface of the ground . When the lake was up , a below ground culvert would be full of water anyway , as it is now . It 's useless . The only drainage they have is surface drainage . So somewhere along the line the City of Chanhassen was either coerced or sold a bill of goods on how on a below ground drainage that is • almost lakeshore anyway you know . And the original plan was all drainage was surface drainage on a blacktop surface . It was a 3 inch rock lake access area . A base for the lake access where people could launch their - own boats and then would have a common dock where they could each have a small boat . Minnewashta was never really , as we thought , intended to have 240 horse 18 foot ski boats in it you know . Minnewashta really is about a S or 10 horse motor lake . You should think about that . But anyway , I just think that the people who bought into my subdivision have fully expected to have lake access as the covenants provided . Like a 16 foot motor boat or whatever . At least a fishing boat . I don't think the adjacent property owners should have the right of cutting them out of that . Conrad: Okay , thanks . Other comments . Mary Jo Moore: Mary Jo Moore , 3231 Dartmouth Drive . I 've been before you many times on this issue and I come again . This time it 's very personal to me because I 'm one of the adjacent property owners . I 'm just west of this Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 14 beachlot , which has been in contention really since '78 when Mike Holloway put in this dock . It 's probably the largest dock in the area . I am not _ trying to deny access to the lake . I am trying to deny boats out this lot which is about 40 feet . It was in '86 when my complaint was filed . There was a survey done and it was 40 feet , as I understand at the water line . That 's not sufficient . I , as a property owner on the lake bought the best — house I could afford with one criteria that it be on the lake . I have 120 feet . I am restricted to 3 boats . Maximum on that property . I pay high taxes . Why should 10 people who are off the lake be able to have more — boats on 40 feet of property and this large dock does encroach in the dock setback zone . Now I think there 's adequate documentation in the files that there were two boats grandfathered in , in spite of the fact that this was _ not a legal dock or boat . There were two boats in '81 and one dock and that was grandfathered in . However , when Jim Hoffer moved out of the area , the useage dropped to one boat which is now Tim Bigos , who is the applicant for this . Under the grandfathering law , if useage drops for a significant — number of years , in fact I think it 's only one year , then you lose the right . It 's use it or lose it . So I really think at a maximum there should be one boat and I also request this L section be removed from the dock setback zone . And I have written a letter and outlined my position . I would like to get rid of the whole thing . The city really has eliminated the boat launching , has eliminated the swimming by installation of that storm sewer , which I objected to also because it 's direct drainage of all — the fertilizer and salt and everything directly into the lake . That was not my doing . I objected to it and I had the City people out to see what was happening to the lake in that area because of that storm sewer . Now it — is not accessible as a boat launch or a swimming beach . Like Joe said , who wants to swim when the storm sewer 's dumping into the lake . At any rate , I request that you deny this permit . I think it 's illegal . In fact the _ other residents in Sterling Estates were advised of this permit request . . . joint decision to have a boat or a dock down there from this association . So I request that it be denied and at a very minimum one dock , no L , one boat . Thank you . -- Conrad: Conrad: Other comments? Other people? Before you get back , anybody else? We ' ll give other folks a chance to talk first . -- Lori Weber : I 'm Lori Weber . I live at 3220 Dartmouth Drive and that is the home directly across from this outlot that we 're talking about this evening . As Mary Jo mentioned , there 's only been one boat docked down __ there since Hoffer 's moved out of the area . We replaced Hoffer 's . We also bought a home that was the most we could financially afford and unfortunately it didn 't allow us to buy a boat immediately . We are now in — a position to buy a boat and with there being one boat docked down there already , that leaves no room for us if we were going to drop this down to one . So unfortunately I 'm against it being dropped down to one for that reason , because we certainly would like to enjoy that dock and boat and have access there . Be able to utilize it living directly across the street from it . Thank you . Conrad: Other comments . Anything else? Rob Roy : I would like to also support her position . Back when this was — going on , I was not able to afford a boat . The property wasn 't totally Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 15 - developed . Mr . Bigos has decided to have a boat down there and he 's had his boat down there . I think it 's for the outlot owners to decide the rotation of the boats and that 's why we 're requesting 4 . This property has — not been abused at all . It 's very evident that there 's only one boat down there right now in the middle of the summer . We have not abused the situation one bit . And that 's why the request is for , I don 't think _ there 's been since the Boyer 's and the Schnurr 's and I believe that was it . Had the 5 boats down there . That there 's been any more than 5 boats and recently is 2 and 1 boat . So I think our request for 4 boats , whether the 4 boats show up there or not , allows the people on the 10 outlots to have - access and boat dockage . Conrad: We reviewed a lot of , we 've reviewed a lot of the , and it 's not a - whole lot of fun . But I just want to let you know the process . Most beachlot folks have come in . Again , we 're going to arbitrary as can be . You know this is like a mini court of law here you know and what we 're _ trying to do is get somebody to show us a use in 1981 . Now whether it 's good or bad or whatever , we 're trying to say hey . What happened in '81 because that 's what we 're trying to determine . In front of us we 've got a lawyer , the City Attorney who said there 's a particular use . We have a — staff inventory that set it at a particular number . We 're kind of hoping that somebody would say , show us a use of '81 . And that 's not easy . Nobody goes around taking those pictures but just to let you know , a lot of folks have come in with that and supported their position . And again it being a little mini court here , we try to be as liberal as , we 're fairly liberal but again we need information to make the decision . It 's really not a case of , do we think you should have this because you 're nice or you live across — there . That doesn 't enter our minds . It 's in this case what we 're trying to do is say hey , what happened in '81 and we go from there . So I just wanted to let you know that boy , that makes our decision arbitrary here — when we don 't see anything that 's kind of , and it puts you in a tough situation but that 's what we 're trying to do . Tom Merz : Well I didn 't come here . Conrad : You 've got to tell us your name first . — Tom Merz : My name 's Tom Merz . I 've known these people my whole life and Joe sold me the lot that I bought and it 's been a wonderful place to live . And I do object to the boat access . I don 't think that 's in keeping with the , or not the boat access . The ability to drive cars down and launch boats . I think that Joe , so that you understand , if you know I fought this thing for 30 years when I first got on that Park Board Commission and my whole emphasis has been to try to preserve the quality of Lake Minnewashta . — And we did that by closing down all the accesses around the lake and allowing only access to come through the park . We did that for a specific reason . That the lake becomes used and abused by too many boats . There 's — just riparian which means there could be 60 non-lakeshore owner boats using that lake and beyond that it would become abused . We 've now got a total of maybe we 're double that . We 've got 120 so each time these Planning Commissions and these outlots come up , I 'm up here fighting to maintain this '82 baseline so that we maintain the quality of the lake . Because what happens when they take 1982 Sterling Estates and go from 2 to 4 , then they take Minnewashta and they take each one of these things and we not r Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 16 — only add 4 boats but we add 20-30-40 boats . And in keeping with that , we 're all losing . I mean we 're losing as lakeshore owners . You 're losing — as people who are trying to use that lake . I think , my personal opinion to buy that beautiful lot that you sold me and to think that 3 homes or 4 homes down somebody could build a narrow dock with 5 or 6 boats , I don't _ know if that was in keeping with your plans . I think that that lot should be used for access to the lake . I 'm for the 1982 baseline but again , I 'm for that for preservation of something that 's going on 20-30 years from now for our kids . And once we start with Minnewashta increasing , then -" everybody else increases . Conrad: Thanks Tom . Don 't you miss being on the Planning Commission Tom? — Any other comments? Anything? Anything new? One more crack , sure . Joe Boyer : Well this whole thing appears to me as kind of a I 'm here and - you 're not . You know . A dog and . . .type situation . I have lakeshore , you don 't . And I think the original intent should kind of be adhered to here , at least in part . These people bought into this area with the idea that they would have lake access . How can you kill that? It 's part of the — ordinance . Or not the ordinance but part of the covenants for the property . I really don 't understand this . Conrad: Anything else? Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in — favor and the motion carried . The public hearing was closed. Mancino: Well I am , no this is not fun. My feeling is that we do need to keep the level of the use in 1981 and to look at the beachlot survey that — was done on June 4th in 1981 that is in Barbara Dacy 's letter to our City Attorney in 1986 . And at that survey it says that there is a seasonal dock of 50 feet with a 10 foot perpendicular extension so we do know that in — 1981 there was a dock with the extension so I would be in favor of keeping that dock there the way it is . Conrad: Does the extension go over into the , is that within 10 feet of the — property line? Mancino: Yes but well , to tell you the truth , I don 't know if it is . But — I can say that again the City Attorney said that legal non-conforming docks do not have to observe the dock setback zone . The zoning ordinance provides they can continue at the same location . Now this was written in 1986 . Is — it still? Aanenson: We did pass a dock setback zone requirement . We 've asked for voluntary compliance as we 've gone through this process . It is a concern — of the adjoining property owners . In some circumstances we haven't always been able to do that based on maybe there 's a wetland or something that we don 't want it to but there 's a few circumstances based on the fact that — they 're very narrow that it 's impossible for them , based on the level of number of boats that have been granted that they can always meet that . Although we have pretty much gotten voluntary compliance on that . — Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 17 Mancino: So then what you 're telling me is that it is legal . Aanenson: Roger told me that it would be an interesting challenge if someone absolutely refused to do it . Mancino: So what does that mean? Taking off 10 feet of this . . . Aanenson: We 've done it . We 've asked for compliance on all of them to do that . I 'm not sure that they can all meet it based on the number of boats _ some of those , that we 've given such as Pleasant Acres and the like . It 's pretty tough . Some of those . The Heights where they 're very narrow and we 've given them maybe 10 boats . It 's difficult . Mancino: Well then let 's see if this one can meet it . Aanenson: Sure . Mancino: As long as , I would like to go ahead and have it meet the setback requirements then . The other questions are , let 's see motor vehicle _ access . And in 1981 , it doesn 't say . According to your survey does it show in 1981 whether there was motor vehicle access? Aanenson: Yes . Mancino: It does? Aanenson: You 're talking about boat launch or the access? Mancino: Just the access . - Aanenson: Yes . Mancino: Okay . So if there was in 1981 motor vehicle access , I would be — in favor of continuing that . There was no boat launch in 1981 so I would say no boat launch now . Boats at dock , in 1981 it says there were none . However there is supporting evidence from the City Attorney 's letter in 1986 saying that there may have been boats out on the water . That the Walman 's had a boat and the Hollaways had a boat . So I would be in favor in allowing 2 boats on the dock and to go ahead with the City Attorney 's 1986 opinion . Conrad: Good , thanks Nancy . Matt . Ledvina: I think that letter is , that October , 1986 letter is fairly crucial and I really don 't see any additional information to invalidate that opinion so I think that was , as I went through this thing , I used that _ as pretty much the benchmark and was looking for other information . So I concur with Nancy on the opinion as it relates to the 2 boats . I also think that if we can , we should meet the setback requirement . I think , and I don 't know what the legal requirements are there but if that is an — ordinance in place , that ordinance should have to be adhered to . The situation with the boat launch , I don 't feel that should be allowed . The motor vehicle access , I think that should be restricted or not allowed . I think the applicant , the representative for the applicant has indicated Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 18 — that they 'd like to delete that part of the request . So I don 't know if -- that 's essentially a modification of the application in front of us but I think that the access could be deleted . Let 's see . That 's about it . Conrad: Thanks Matt . Diane . Harberts: My understanding as we , on number 9 . The non-conforming beachlot survey . My understanding is what we look for too though is kind of the responsibility or accountability from the association . I 'm a little concerned . Some of the letters that we 've received that talked about some of the garbage , tires , debris , things of that left there . Isn 't it Kate , _ my understanding that you know these associations in a sense we ask that they take accountability for the area . Am I incorrect or am I correct on that? Aanenson: Well we 've asked that in a good neighbor sense but technically the City Attorney 's opinion is what we 're trying to do is establish the level of use . If there 's a complaint , we can certainly handle that in a -- different forum . Or we 've attached that in some of the conditions where we 've asked them , under miscellaneous to post where they have boat launches , a milfoil sign and I think under the process that we 've gone — through as far as being amicable , they 've all agreed to do such things as keep it clean or post it that this is the association property . Members only . Those sort of things . I think if you want to do that under miscellaneous , I think the parties may be willing to do that . Harberts: Yeah , it 's more of a comment . I guess I 'm just raising that concern for that . I guess with regard to the primary issue at hand , with the beachlot permit , I would concur with the Commission members . Basically leaving it at the 1981 baseline and simply because we don 't want to make decisions on an arbitrary basis . For instance tonight with the extension , _ I would support bringing it in compliance with the ordinance . I didn 't hear anything tonight that would convince me that it 's necessary and that 's all we ask is that , you know if there 's some particular reason or whatever , bring the information to us so we can really look at it in an informed basis and based on the information that I have here , and I agree that the letter from the Attorney is really an important piece to making my decision . That we stay with the 1981 baseline . I would also recommend some kind of restriction on the motor vehicle access . The area doesn 't seem very conducive to a lot of access by vehicles . And I would just encourage the Association maybe to take some steps . I don 't know, a fence or whatever . Gate to control it . — Conrad: So you 're in favor of the access Diane? Harberts: Yes , with some restrictions of use . It was there in '81 . And I haven 't heard a whole lot for or against it in the sense of really swaying me to go against that . So I would just encourage some restriction or control or whatever by the Association if it 's a problem . But based on the information today that I 've received , I don 't have any problem with it . Conrad: Kate , what 's your opinion about the motor vehicle access on this — property? Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 19 Aanenson: It seems to me that they 've stated that they 'd be willing to put a post there , if that seems to be a problem . Maybe they could put a post — up . If they 're willing to do that . I don 't want to speak for them . Put a post up that says , Sterling Estates Beachlot and put it in the middle such that a car can 't get down there . Or people can 't run their ice houses . Mancino: But the applicant isn 't here . Aanenson: Except that these people are also of the Association . Mr . — Boyer 's . They have spoken to the applicant about representing the Association . So I mean if they 're willing to do that , why not put it down as a condition and make both parties happy . We have done that or requested — that on other associations . That they do post it for security reasons . We just did that on Schmid 's Acres . That they post that because that 's another one where it 's . Conrad: So when we say a post , are we closing that down? What are we doing? — Harberts: Putting a sign up or what? Aanenson: Well , putting a post in the center restricting cars from getting — down there . Restricting people from , it seemed to me the concern was , people bringing their ice houses out . Or fishing houses out onto the ice . That would restrict that . That was a concern and if they 're willing to do that , why not put it in as a condition . Conrad: Okay . Are you done? • — Harberts: Yeah . Conrad: Okay . I have nothing has taken me away from the information that _ I 've got . I think it shouldn 't be a boat launch . I think the docks have to be taken out of the dock setback zone . I think two boats is probably more than fair , and it 's substantiated to a degree based on some of the information we have . And if we want to restrict the motor vehicle access , — that 's fine . It doesn 't look like it 's , well . I think if the applicants want to do that , I think that 's appropriate . I 'd like to see it . I don 't have anything else . Any motion? Ledvina: I would move that the Planning Commission recommend the issuance of a non-conforming recreational beachlot permit to the Boyer Sterling _ Estates with the following conditions as we 've discussed . Just briefly going over these . No motor vehicle access . As far as no off street parking . No boat launch . No buildings . A seasonal dock . 50 foot dock with the extension to be reviewed for compliance with the setback — ordinance . No canoe racks . No boats on land . Two boats at the dock . No boats moored . A swimming beach . No swimming raft and I think that pretty much covers it . Conrad: Is there a second? Mancino: Second . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 20 — Conrad: Any discussion? — Ledvina moved, Mancino seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a Non-Conforming Recreational Beachlot Permit to Boyer 's Sterling Estates with the following conditions: No motor vehicle access. — No off street parking. No boat launch. No buildings. A seasonal dock 50 50 feet in length with the extension to be reviewed for compliance with the dock setback ordinance. No canoe racks . No boats on land. Two boats at the dock. No boats moored . A swimming beach. No swimming raft. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS FOR SITE PLAN REVIEWS . Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item going over the proposed ordinance . Mancino: Does it include labor? Harberts: It should exclude labor . -' Mancino: Yeah , thank you . Labor , grading , maintenance . Any of that stuff? — Aanenson: Yeah , this is just planting materials . Ledvina : So previously those things were included and now they 're excluded so? Aanenson: No , it wasn 't defined . In the bold, under minimum landscape — value , that definition is completely new . We never explained what value meant . So I guess if somebody said that includes the site prep . Krauss: Well actually it was pretty nebulous . It did include , if you wanted to put . Aanenson: The project value . — Krauss: If you wanted to put nice pavers in , you could have included anything . Aanenson: That 's what I 'm saying . Krauss: It 's strictly landscaping now which gives us a lot more . . . Aanenson: Or even site prep . It could have included that . That 's what I was saying . So now we 're excluding that out . We want to use , if planting materials , trees , shrubbery , that sort of thing . Krauss : It 's also a lot easier for us to administer because we say give us — a contract and show us that you did it . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 21 Mancino: Well and the other part is that $20 ,000 .00 for a million to $2 million building isn 't very much . If you included all that other . Aanenson: Right . _ Krauss: Well except it isn 't except that most construction goes up pretty radically from there and if you figure a million dollars , I mean that 's , a house is normally $200 ,000 .00 plus these days so if you want to take 1/5 of it so you 're spending , according to a house , you 're spending $4 ,000 .00 or - $5 ,000 .00 in landscaping for a house which is probably pretty reasonable . Aanenson: Again , what we found is that the percentages held through . What — we need to do is clarify what we 're going to include as far as the landscape material or the value . So that 's been clarified . Kate Aanenson continued with her staff report . Mancino : I have a question about that . I 'd like to see year round screened . Aanenson: Well what we need to do is develop a definition . I didn 't put it in here Nancy but that 's a good comment . We ' ll develop that definition of screened as what it means in this definition and year round . Mancino : Right , because all through here I felt that . - Krauss : It probably would be appropriate in the definition but it would also be appropriate just to list it that way every time it appears in the text . Mancino : Great . Harberts : Comment on ( b ) when you talk about the , at the city 's discretion the value of tree preservation may be utilized to offset landscaping requirements . Are you comfortable with using the city discretion or does it need to be something more defined so that the city isn 't perceived as - harrassing someone or something? Krauss : Well , we 're comfortable with it . I think more appropriately is - the developer going to be comfortable . Aanenson : Well I guess my concern would be , what if someone decides to save some trees that we don 't consider of high value or junk and tries to give us , well geez these have been here for 20 years . Harberts : Well that 's what I 'm saying . When you say at the City 's - discretion . Does that really give you enough meat? Krauss: Jo Ann 's pointing out , we did define substantial tree . What that means in the new tree protection ordinance . . . .assigned a dollar value and offsetting something . And where is it located on the site . It 's really a subjective matter that 's going to change on every plan . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 22 — Harberts: Do we need to use maybe as the baseline , and maybe you touched on it Paul , is the fact that we have some standards here in terms of dollar values and then if we 've got the , you know like the size of the tree , it somehow offsets and if they don 't make that amount . Krauss: Well we can ask Jeff if there 's any kind of a way to assign a dollar value . But you know , it really , I 'm not sure you 're going to be able to . . .scientific measure . When I look at something like Target . I — mean Target came to us and said well . . .trees on the site , therefore you owe us a credit and we shouldn 't have to have to landscape as much . Well , first of all they didn 't save the trees . We bought them but and then you 're not going to want to trade off the fact that they have a 350 car parking lot and that you have to do something sensitive to it . So I think you want to leave yourself some outs. Harberts: Well and I can understand that . My only concern was , you know when you leave things being subjective , it 's us against them type of thing . Who 's right and then we sit here as the arbitrators in a sense . So that 's why I was just trying to come up with something a little bit more . . . Aanenson: No , I think there 's some things we can look at . My other concern would be , even though there is a substantial tree preservation in one area , but we still have a large parking lot and we still feel like we need some buffer and they said , gee we 've already met it with saving all this . But we still may want additional basis , so I think you 're right . I — think maybe we can build in some qualifiers there . Harberts : Yeah , and I 'm just looking how do a I make a decision here . Aanenson: Okay . We ' ll look at that . Mancino: Well we 're writing a whole new conservation easement . Aanenson: Right , and that 's why this really needs to dovetail with that ordinance . — Mancino: Which may help give some guidelines . Harberts: That 's what I 'm looking for is basically the guidelines . Aanenson: Correct . That will have to be brought into this one . Okay then turning to page 3 . Again , the buffering issue . Then on Section 20-1181 . — Vehicular areas . Mancino: Oh , I have lots to say . — Aanenson: Okay . You know the goals of breaking up the hard surface and then we added the and provide for a reforestation with overstory trees from the species list . I did attach a species list . That hasn 't been adopted . ' That 's what they 're looking at as far as the tree preservation ordinance but I just put that in there so you could have an idea of what sort of things we 're looking at . But again , the intent is not to put shrubbery in — there but to create a different , a micro environment where we have over story and shading of the parking lot . A canopy . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 23 Mancino: I think it 's great . I just would like to add some things for us to think about in there for guidelines for developers and one is , a list of suitable trees for these small landscaped areas in the parking lots . It 's different from the list that follows that are for small areas in a parking lot and can take the heat of the parking lot surface , which I think we can _ do . And I 'd also like to talk a little bit about irrigation in those areas . Should we . Aanenson: We did on Target require irrigation and that 's a good point . — Maybe that 's something we want to go to on a commercial . Krauss: Minnetonka always mandated it . I think Eden Prairie requires it . We never have . Now you have developers that put it in and then you have people like Gene Borg who we made put a lot of landscaping in . This is a number of years ago , who then went through 5 or 6 years of drought and was working overtime just to get the stuff to live and lost a lot of stuff . Mancino: And this year we wouldn 't need it at all . — Krauss: It may well be an appropriate thing to do and I don 't think we 'd be out of line with other communities . There is a significant expense of course attached to it . Mancino: We 're also helping in the long run instead of having to replace these trees and the shrubbery every year . - Aanenson: I think that also ties into one of the conditions that we put in here is that , which is some new language , is that we want to have continued maintenance of the site and that may be one way to achieve it is requiring — irrigation . And a lot of the bigger developers like Target , that 's pretty much mandatory . It 's the small ones and maybe there 's a breaking point . I don 't know . Mancino: Yeah , that 's a good question . Aanenson : Maybe that 's something we can look at too . Compare with other — cities . If there 's a size parcel that they look at but I know like Target just does it automatically . Krauss: We can do a check of ordinances again but I haven 't looked at it for 4-6 years but I don 't know . . . Harberts: What 's considered expanses of hard surface? What 's the number? — You know , what 's considered an expanse? I mean is it like a parking lot? Aanenson: It 's defined further in here in the ordinance . Where it talks — about 6 ,000 square feet . Anything over 6 ,000 and then we start giving percentages . So I think that 's really more of an intent statement . What the goal is to have over story trees to break up that and then if you look _ under the top of page 4 , that kind of gets into the specifics as far as how much , based on the square footage . I can go through those really quick and then if you feel like we need to add something there to clarify that , you can go back and do that because maybe that makes sense . I don 't know . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 24 — Harberts: Well you know , just in my thought process here is , you know the industrial area where we have the parking , things like that , they seem to sometimes be at a premium for space . Is it really necessary to put the trees there? I guess I 'm not a real strong proponent . Aanenson: Maybe industrial versus commercial area too? Harberts: Yeah . I don 't know . I 'll certainly defer to some of my other colleagues here but is it always a good idea or necessary to try and get that effect in an industrial area? In a parking lot? Krauss: Well the screening we certainly want . Harberts: Yeah . Oh the screening . Aanenson: You 're talking about the interior? Harberts: Interior yeah . Krauss: I don't think it 's necessarily a bad example of how to do things but industrial area isn 't necessarily hidden someplace down in the park . It 's also on Highway 5 and it 's Redmond Products , it 's DataServ . It 's -' sites that have a tremendous amount of visibility . Now the Highway 5 corridor plan is going to give some additional drive as to what you 're going to do on properties in those areas but we really weren 't going to - change the landscaping standards much Kate , were we? I mean that 's pretty much . Aanenson: Well I did make one or two small changes that aren't on your copy and I 'd like to review with you . Krauss: You know I think when you have a Rosemount that has 1 ,100 people — working there , that 's an awful lot of parking stalls . And it 's not an invisible site . It 's sitting astride what 's going to be a State , well . . . I 'd be relunctant to kind of waive it . On the other hand , I understand why — you know , especially in public transit and stuff , if we can get people closer to the door . Aanenson: But we have looked at other issues . We kind of use that word — micro climate but you know they do need a place for snow removal . If they build any larger areas where they can put some of this stuff and just all the heat loss and what that 's doing . Harberts: I guess there 's always the opportunity to request a waiver with reasons why . _ Aanenson: Sure . Harberts: And I think the comment that was said earlier that there 's numerous communities that do this . But I know it 's expensive to maintain and looking from the perspective of the employer or business owner . Krauss: And the common , the complaint I 've heard for 16 years is , snow plow drivers will hit them . You can 't put the curbs there because snow Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 25 plow drivers can 't steer around them . Well , you 'd think that sooner or later they could learn . Yeah , we could hold a snowplow derby or something - and train them to turn . Not to be facetious but actually what we 're doing here is advantageous because instead of allowing there to be 40 or 50 little tree planters stuck in a parking lot , which is the typical thing , we 're saying we want fewer bigger ones . Harberts: Right . Oh and I agree with you on that . I find it a hazard at Market Boulevard but that 's my comment for what it 's worth . Mancino: I 'd also like to add a section in here about soil preparation for the parking lot trees . Because one of the things that we saw at the — parking lot seminar at the Arboretum was they showed some of the holes that were dug and there was still just construction material in it . There was not good soil preparation . So I think there needs to be some , also for any _ tree , any landscaping material to survive , it 's going to need a good soil composition . And I 'd also , on page 4-5 . A minimum of one tree shall be required for each . . . - Aanenson: I was going to make some changes to that whole section . Mancino: Okay , good . I 'd love to add to these , just to expand people 's — thinking of landscaping in areas , especially of retail/commercial that you could also add flowering plants . Perennials . You could add indigenous grasses . So to give a little more openness to what could be ground cover . It could be you know indigenous grasses . Perennials . Because perennials are great because in the winter they won 't be up and they won 't get , you could put rebechi or something there that would just come up and be great . Wild flowers . • Kate Aanenson continued with her staff report . - Mancino: On page 5 . C , Boulevard and Streetscape plantings . I 'm not sure I understand the last sentence . I think what you want to say is that trees shall be selected from the approved list of tree species . The city may approve alternatives if it meets the intent of the ordinance period . — Correct? Page 5 , ( C ) . Aanenson: Oh C at the top , I 'm sorry . Right . Mancino: I would just reword that . _ Aanenson: Well yeah , it needs to tie back down to what we said before . The two different lists maybe even . Ledvina : Are we in a public hearing situation? Conrad: I don 't think so . No . No . . . Mancino: Kate , on the species of all the trees . Can we put those in alphabetical order according to common name? I think that would be easier for people to locate . Aanenson: According to the . Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 26 — Mancino: I 'd do common name . Because I don 't know what , you know people _ don 't know how to look for . Conrad: When this comes back , this comes back for a public hearing . Aanenson: It is . It 's noticed as a public hearing . Conrad: Is this it? — Aanenson: Yeah . But if you 'd like to see it back with the changes , that 's great . Conrad: So have you just been giving a staff report? Okay , thanks . Aanenson: Detailed . — Conrad: Okay . We will open it up for public comments . We ' ll note that there 's nobody . Richard , anything you want to talk about? Councilman Wing: It 's over my head . Conrad: Okay . We ' ll note that there were no comments . Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in — favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Kate can you , I guess the only thing that concerns me , I think _ it 's some neat stuff . The cost associated with the water and whatever . I 'm not sure that . Aanenson: That 's something I think if you 'd like to have it brought back , that 's something I would do between now and then is research what other communities do and then look at , and then maybe as we . . .maybe there is a breakdown in the size as efficiency whatever . Like parking for the Target — lot obviously is very large and maybe it makes sense based on far away it is to sprinkle it . Maybe there 's smaller ones so that it doesn 't . . .that 's something we can look at . Conrad : Yeah , I 'd like to know a little bit more . Harberts: We 've got irrigation over at the park and ride . And that was +' just recent . What was that last year that we completed it I think . We put irrigation in . Aanenson: How big is your parking lot? Harberts: Well Filly 's . Krauss: But it 's not in the parking lot . It 's around the perimeter . Harberts: Well it 's around in the grass , yeah . — Mancino: What about down at Chaska? Does your new one have irrigation too? Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 27 Harberts: Yep . The only way to water it . Then we make the city pay for the water . Conrad: How do you trigger that? What turns it on and off? Harberts: Just a box . There 's a box and . — Ledvina: A black box . — Harberts: Yeah , or is it green . I don 't know . But it 's . Aanenson: It 's a timer . Harberts: Timer , yeah . Krauss: Well for that matter , I mean we irrigate all the islands in 78th — Street . It caused an accident when it went off and froze and somebody slammed into a light pole . But otherwise it worked perfectly well . — Aanenson : So we 'll look at for next time . That 's a good comment . Conrad: It 's a public hearing . What do you need in terms of , you don 't need a motion do you? — Aanenson: I can make the changes and bring it back . Table it . — Ledvina : I have some additional comments or questions . Conrad: Oh , okay . That 's right , we 've only gone through Nancy 's comments . Ledvina: I 'm just going to start at the beginning here where on page 1 . I was thinking that maybe we can in some areas we can tighten up the language a little bit . I mean if we 're going to , just my philosophy that if we 're — going to lay this thing out for developers to follow , we don 't want to have so many may 's in there where the developer thinks it 's at his discretion whether he needs to do this or not . I have a concern about that . I — understand when you want to use discretion on how you apply it but when I looked at this thing kind of from the developer 's perspective , I 'm thinking for example number 3 . Replacement of trees . Approve for removal by the — city may be required . Aanenson: Well that section right here , maybe I need to make that clear again . That section we didn 't make any changes to because we 're going to — take the new tree preservation ordinance and kind of work those two together . — Krauss: Jo Ann and I are working on that right now. Aanenson: So this whole section is going to be completely rewritten . Krauss: We 'll take out the may 's and substitute with shall 's . Ledvina: Okay . Well I would just say , by the city will be required and — then maybe another paragraph . Exceptions granted in certain instances and Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 28 _ describe those or something like that . If you want to identify alternatives for that specific requirement . Again let 's see , so that that 's specific one . In what instance will we not require the replacement of trees on a caliper per inch basis? Aanenson: They 're considered of no value , isn 't that what you 're looking at? Olsen: Right . That 's a hole in the ordinance . When do we not require it? Ledvina: Yeah . Olsen: What we 're doing now is that we 'll be specifying which tree , when it goes through review process . Which trees can be removed like we 've been doing with Trotter 's and such . You don 't have to replace that for — instance . And what we 're saying that if they 're trees that were designated for preservation that were removed that were not supposed to be removed , then you have to do . . . Ledvina : Okay , I see that you 've got a good idea of how this works down in terms of the developer following this thing and working toward compliance and to meet the requirements . And let 's see . Moving down to number 5 . — Just using the terminology , removal of diseased and damaged trees is permissible only if they can be saved . I mean who determines that and all of that and what is saved? If that 's flushed out in some other place , so — someone that 's reading this can interpret that somehow . Mancino: Yeah , I 'd like to say it 's determined by the City 's Forester . Harberts: I think with something like that too , isn 't there some consideration for even like cost . Maybe a diseased tree can be saved by that cost . I mean we have to be sensible about it . — Olsen: We 're looking at an ordinance that if it is a diseased tree , you have to remove it . Krauss: Yeah , we actually flipped it on it 's head and changed the orirentation of that section . Ledvina: So this is all rewritten? Krauss: The whole thing . What we said is if trees require trimming or — removal , that we 're ordering people to do it as a part of the tree preservation plan . Aanenson: Unfortunately saying that this will be rewritten appears on the — top of the next page . So I tried to make an attempt to say that we didn 't really look at this because that will be , as it says here , will be amended with the adoption of the tree preservation . — Ledvina : Just one other thing and I won 't belabor the point but just one other thing in item 6 . We talked about this and our deliberations here . _ When we talk about looking at the third sentence . No fill material or construction activity shall occur in these areas . I think we should also Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 29 say something to the effect too. No fill material or construction activity , including heavy equipment traffic , shall occur within these areas because I can just see the developer needing to get through an area and just taking his 50 ton tractor and going right over this big old oak and then putting the fence back up . And who 's to know that he hasn 't . — Olsen : Well we 'll know because the tree will die and you 'll be able to see that . — Harberts: But how long later? Ledvina : I know we 've talked about that many times but I think it 's a real important thing that the developer understands . Aanenson: Jo Ann , aren 't you going to put in snow fence around all of them? Olsen: Right . — Krauss: I mean we 're doing everything we can but you 're talking about long term tree loss? Ledvina: Just talking about construction activity . And I would just say it includes heavy equipment traffic because you might want to take the fence down to get something over there . Not doing anything to the tree . — Aanenson : It still damages the roots . Ledvina : Yeah , it will still damage the root system . So at any rate . And then let 's move to . On page 2 . Section B . Just so I understand . When you say , at the city 's discretion the value of tree preservation may be utilized to offset landscaping requirements . You mean the value of tree preservation easement? Krauss : The value of the trees . — Ledvina : The value of the other trees on the site? We 're not specifically tying it to the tree preservation easement in this case . Okay . Krcuss: You mean some kind of a land cost analysis? Ledvina : Right . I thought about that and I was wondering , was that when you were getting at here? That 's it . Conrad: Diane , anything else? Harberts: No . Conrad: Nancy , anything? Mancino: No . Conrad: Well you know , we 've given some comments . Again Kate I 'm back to , — what are we doing here? We 're really not passing , the comments you 're Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 30 going to incorporate them . Will they come back? Aanenson: Yes . I 'd like to bring them back . Conrad: So really our comments are good and we don 't really have to make a _ motion now do we? Aanenson: No . Unless you want to table it . Conrad: Maybe we should just table it . Krauss: Or continue it . Aanenson: It 'd be at least a month for me to do a quick turn around and call other cities and may Jeff maybe come up with different species list . _ Interior . Exterior . So maybe a month so maybe the first one in August . The next one in July is pretty full . So August would be a month so August 4th probably would be . Conrad: Nancy , you had a motion? Mancino: I move that we table the , what are we looking at? Zoning — Ordinance amendment to the landscaping regulations and we see it again when Kate has added our comments to it . Conrad: Is there a second? - Ledvina : Second . Mancino moved, Ledvina seconded to table the Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding the landscaping regulations for site plan reviews. All voted in favor and the motion carried. _ PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED PER RESIDENTIAL LOT FROM 1 TO 2 OVERSTORY TREES. Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on this item . — Harberts : Is there concern by engineering or whoever , when you talk about boulevard planting . I 'm guessing you 're not just talking trees . Maybe some other type of planting materials . Olsen: We were just talking trees . Harberts : Are they concerned that the root system may , in a sense somehow get involved with the utilities and cause problems? Olsen: Oh yeah . Sidewalks . Mancino: How have other cities dealt with that? I mean Minneapolis . You _ go to any city around the country . — Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 31 Krauss: Yeah Minneapolis , that 's true . Minneapolis has broke up sidewalks but Minneapolis also has overhead utilities . Your cable and your electric _ and telephone run down alleys and you don 't , I think you have gas lines . I don 't know . There 's got to be some way of working this out . It seems unfortunate to think that first of all we need a 60 foot right-of-way and then we need a 10 foot utility easement so there 's going to be 80 foot of — space where you can't put a tree . Olsen: Right . So you know , and I have been working with them on this — other project and we 're finding that there is a mutual middle ground where it does work . But I don 't have the facts on how . If that was something you were interested in , then we would pursue it . Conrad: You 've been working with who? Olsen: The engineering department and the street maintenance department . — They 're involved . I brought them into this process , that other landscaping , the boulevard project because we really need it and it really had gone quite a ways before they were even brought in and then we drove it with them and they were like well , you know we 're out there measuring it and we find out that again the wing on the snowplow would have been cutting them all down . Because we had it . They had the , the consultant had the trees between the sidewalk and the street . So now we have it on the other side so it should work . But there is the concerns with the utilities . Harberts : So the trees are on the inside of the sidewalk? Olsen: Outside now . Krauss: No inside , you 're right . Olsen: Yeah , right . Toward the house . — Conrad : Our culture is dictated by snowplows . Olsen: But it should work . And they can , where they 're located they can — swing out . They can make adjustments too . Mancino: What happened then on Lake Susan Hills subdivision? Didn 't the Council pass 2 trees? Olsen: The Addition , the 9th Addition . Yes . — Krauss: As a PUD , they added it as a condition . Mancino: And so what happens there about the $750 .00 , did that go up to $1 ,000 .00? Olsen: That was only $750 .00 . It was still at $750 .00 . It was at $150 .00 and we switched it up to the $750 .00 . Ledvina: Oh okay . — Mancino: So the developer was still able to do the 2 trees for $750 .00? Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 32 — Krauss: Well but it doesn 't mean it costs that . Mancino: Yeah , I brought my wholesale price list of trees and . Krauss: See that $750 .00 is $500 .00 of which is seed and sod . And to sod — a home , you 're talking about $900 .00 , $1 ,000 .00, $1 ,200 .00 . Olsen: But $250 .00 is just for the tree . Well anyway , that was one — alternative we were looking at that might take the place of the other one . And then the other one was just the reforestation plan . There might be a project . Picture if Lake Susan Hills 9th had none of the nice trees . It was all cornfields . Well we 've had that with the other additions where -- maybe they would have provided an outlot for just a stand of trees instead of having boom , boom , boom , boom . They might , so again . Again , these are all flexible things that we can do . That we can add as some of the options that they have . Using the goal of the Tree Board , what they really intend or what they want . Maybe I 'm not speaking correctly for you but maybe some of the reforestation wasn 't just per lot but also if we could bring back some of the stands of trees . So in the future that 's for all public use . — Mancino: I 'd love to see each development have a complete whole reforestation plan and within that reforestation there may be some — boulevard plantings . There may be , there needs to be some guidelines about the reforestation things but I think it 'd be wonderful for every development . Even those that are wooded . I mean they 're obviously going _ to have to take down like on the Song property , they 're probably going to have to take down trees to put in the house pads and to put in the streets and there 's going to be areas where there aren't any trees so how do we keep reforesting that? — Conrad: When you talk about boulevard plantings , you 're really not talking about every street . You 're just talking about the impact in certain — streets . Olsen: Well it would be every street in the subdivision . Local streets . Conrad: See I like boulevard plantings but that 's not , my impression is not every street . I like an impact with , I think you can make a terrific impact on any new development or like any facility . Entryways . The sense — of presence . The sense of getting into it . A boulevard . One boulevard that has a lot of trees just sets the tone for that development so I guess I 've always , and when we were talking about this before . I like the — boulevard planting concept . It may be a little bit more complex . The bottom line is , you require two trees per house . Isn't that simple? We don 't have to screw around with rules . We just change the number from 1 to 2 and it 's done . I think I said that before , that 's so simple to reforest — the city is just increase , with just one little number . Whereas you get into boulevard plantings , then we get into difficulties . Maybe some arbitrary things and costs and I don 't know so . But I do like the thought — of boulevard plantings . When it 's concentrated . When it makes an impact . I guess I 'm not interested in figuring out how we make every street a boulevard and I don 't know if that 's , you know . I don 't know why not . It _ just seems . - Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 33 Mancino: Then find the homeowner would say , well why didn 't you put the trees on this street . — Harberts: Why didn 't you buy on that street? Mancino: Well like when I bought a little house in South Minneapolis , and — they didn 't put big trees on our street because it was a very small street . Two block long and it doesn't have any sidewalks . A nice little place in South Minneapolis and they put buckeye trees . What are those chestnut — trees? And they 're not huge and it 's a small scale street and the small scale homes so it wasn't big , huge sugar maples or anything . They kind of kept the scale with the area . And each of us , I think got one boulevard tree . It was wonderful . I mean we replaced huge elms . I would have — wanted one on my street . . . Harberts: I think there 's some discussion too though with the fact that — the way some of these lots come in on the plans . I don 't know if 2 trees are going to fit . Ledvina: I have that concern also . 1 . Mancino: But what if they 're ornamental like you get a crabtree and you get , I mean I like the idea of putting in many more trees than what we have — on the list and your idea was the ornamentals and more conifers so they don 't have to be huge trees . — Harberts: Well yeah , and I don 't disagree with having 2 trees in a sense but you know like I said , from all practicality even that one that went over on Frontier Trail . That one little cul-de-sac across from Frontier Court , there 's an interesting front yard . I don't even know how you 'd put — 2 , even 2 small ornamental trees in there . Ledvina : And you 're also dictating to the homeowner what he or she can do — with their property . I mean we always are but try to cut them some slack . We have a cul-de-sac . We live on a cul-de-sac so we have a pie shaped front yard and it works for us . We have two trees but some of the other — houses , they only have 1 tree and it 's just right . They don 't have to have another tree there so I 'm not convinced that 2 treesper lot is the right thing to do . We 've got a lot of new lots that are going in that have 25 foot setbacks . — Harberts: That 's what we have , yeah . — Ledvina: And is that appropriate? I don 't know. Harberts: Well and I think also that , you know what I 'm seeing from the - homeowners is because of the area , kind of that presence or whatever , people they like to put in more landscaping themselves to personalize their homes . Rather than the tree , maybe it 's the bushes or they have flowers or something like that . So are we , as personalizing their home but I don 't — know . Do we want to just stand up and count trees or look at it from the overall landscaping perspective? Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 34 _ Conrad: What do you , basically it boils down to , what do you want the developer to do? We kind of want the individual to do their thing but what do we want the developer to do? They come in . Ledvina : That 's a hard thing to say . I mean I look at it , you know we — talk about a reforestation . Replanting trees that we cut down and we 're dotting the landscape with trees . And I think about some of the concepts of cluster zoning or open space zoning where we don 't put all the houses like once every 2 acres . Or once every 10 acres . We cluster them together r and have nice areas . And I 'm wondering if we can use , well we 've talked about using that concept and I think for tree plantings and it seems to make some sense as well . Have nice stands of trees where they can be more - , noticed or more enjoyed as a grouping or whatever . I don 't know necessarily how to translate that into reality but I think there 's maybe some transference in that concept . — Olsen: That 's why I think those two alternatives we can work , use those together and it will kind of be like we 'll know it when we see it but hopefully we can come up with some guidelines to , minimum guidelines . Conrad: Okay . My perspective is , there are major corridors in Chanhassen that should present an image that we don 't have right now . Whether it 's on — CR 17 or major arteries that really we should have had some significant landscaping to . And it 's going to set a feel for people who 's traveling or for us . And then once you 're in the neighborhood , I don 't care . I guess I _ don 't care if it 's 1 , 2 , 3 trees . Whatever we want to do . That 's fine but I really do believe that we should have , I don 't know if we call it an overlay zone or whatever but I think we should have a plan for those major thoroughfares , streets that tell us this is going to have a certain image . — That 's my vision . Krauss: Jo Ann kind of points out though , you 're talking about , those are — not streets the developers build . Those are streets we build and the county builds . Olsen: Those would be city projects . — Krauss: Yeah . On Kerber Boulevard we 're doing a reforestation this year . We have an arrangement where we are funding the upgrading of virtually — every county road in the city . Harberts: Every county road? — Krauss: Every county road through TIF dollars and that gives us the leverage of saying what we want it to look like . What becomes part of the process . — Olsen: We are pursuing that part of it . Again , this just focuses on the subdivisions that are coming in now . I think it 's valid to have it on the — local streets too . Conrad: I don 't understand it though . I guess it may be but I don 't _ understand it . — Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 35 Olsen: Well it 's essentially what you 're doing with the 1 tree per lot too . Conrad: What you 're telling me on 1 tree per lot is maxing out that front yard so how are we going to change it? If 1 tree per lot maxes it out , how are we going to make it any different? Olsen: Well the boulevard plantings allows you to get more towards the street . Conrad: So we 're back to the covering the street . That 's the difference? Instead of it being a tree in the middle of the yard , it 's really covering the street . Olsen: Yeah . And then also we could work on maybe it 's, you know adjacent to the lot lines or like on each lot line . You know it 's not boom , boom , — boom , boom . Krauss: One of the things that concerns me throughout the whole thing , and - I in the past have been a supporter of the multiple tree approach but it seems like we 're tailoring an ordinance for the lowest common denominator and that 's something we just don 't normally do . It 's like you don 't write an ordinance to catch 100% of the criminals because it makes everybody else 's life miserable . 95% 's a good rate . Relative to tree preservation , we don 't find too often many sites and we do have them in the city , but eveybody points to Lake Susan Hills . But there aren 't too many cornfield — lots in the city . As we move south of Highway 5 we 'll come into a few of them but we 're doing , I mean and Nancy everything around your neighborhood has significant trees and now we work to save those trees . And you can _ even look on the old farmsteads , you 'll find hillsides that they didn 't touch or creek areas or whatever . Mancino: So the important part is going to be preserving? Krauss: Yeah . So I 'm not certain , you know I think we may be laboring overly intensively to solve a problem that 's not really there most of the — time . If you add into the mix the fact that most people want to landscape . Most people will do this all of their own free will . It will take them a while maybe but they 'll do it . Ledvina: They 'll do what 's right . I put 2 trees in my yard . Not because I had to but because that worked well . I thought it did anyway so . And 3 trees doesn 't work . I would have been upset if somebody would have told me — that I had to put that third tree somewhere . Mancino: As I drove around I looked over on the city thinking about it , - and most front yards , and I didn't really look to see the size of the front yards . I just saw a lot of average front yards and it was mostly north of TH 5 . A lot of east of where I live . Had 2 trees in their front yard . I mean somebody put them there . I 'd say almost 95% of the houses had 2 trees — in the front yard . Krauss: I know that this original discussion , Jo Ann was there too , came — specifically out of people 's frustration with the Lake Susan Hills and a Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 36 couple of other projects that tended to be large , mass graded projects offering entry level houses . Mancino: And you can see that all the way almost to Galpin , almost to Lake Lucy Road . If you look down you can see that Lake Susan Hills and you — can 't see a tree at all . Krauss: But there 's a lot of , there 's some photographic retrospectives on Levittown . I mean look at what Levittown looked like in 1947 and every house was exactly the same and it was all perfectly flat and not a single thing standing that was green . You come there today and every house looks different and it looks forested . I mean it 's just the natural evolution of what people do to their property . Ledvina: They 've got to do something and one of those something 's is plant a tree . Everybody does something . Olsen: And I tried to figure out if there 's a way to say , if your lot was -- this this small , you could do 1 tree . This big you could do the 2 or 3 and , I don't know . Maybe there 's a way we can combine all . Harberts: I kind of like that overall plan in terms of development but I still like to see the homeowner have their own control or choice in terms of what they do with their individual property . That 's just my personal feeling . — Mancino: I agree . I still would be very interested in a development that . . .where a developer had some sort of plan for reforesting . Harberts: With clumps of trees or whatever . Mancino: Development allowed me to do what I needed to on my parcel but had some maybe common areas which you see so much of now . The backyards that are common together . And if the developer had gone to that degree . Krauss: And the way the tree preservation ordinance is set up , the new one , it kind of gives us the leverage to say , I mean you 've got to break a few eggs to put a subdivision in . You 're going to lose some trees anyway . _ As soon as they do that , we then have the leverage to say , well where are you going to replace them and how are you going to do that? How are you going to address this issue? And I think we get to your comprehensive tree preservation plan or reforestation plan . — Harberts: Yeah , and if it 's designated as a corridor or whatever , then they know there 's going to be a lot more requirements up front . But again , I still think the individual properties really should lie with the homeowner . Krauss: Well we 'll continue to do it . I mean but it 's been very difficult — for us to administer . Olsen: The individual lots . — — Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 37 Krauss: I can 't tell you how much time Sharmin spends on these things and going out to visit them and giving extensions and giving back checks and getting yelled at for not giving back checks and getting caught in the middle because the developer made the buyer escrow $750 .00 and didn 't tell them about it until closing , even though the builder knew about it for 4 months . I mean it 's just endless . Harberts: Well exactly and I think that conversation too about the $1 ,000 .00 and stuff like that . I mean showing up at a closing and coming up with , cough up another $750 .00 or $1 ,000 .00 . Break the deal . Olsen: The two alternatives that we showed in here , we could solely put on the developer and those are conditions that they have to meet and before - they would get , they all have a letter of credit . In fact we 've kind of been doing that lately anyway like with the 9th Addition and with Royal Oaks . They 've all gone through their development contract and letter of - credit has money that covers the whole landscaping plan that they proposed . We will not let go of that until all that landscaping 's in that they , and that was the 1 tree per lot . '— Ledvina : Until every last tree is in? Krauss: Well what we do is we allow them to draw down their letter of — credit as things are installed . Olsen: And they usually do that once the utilities come in . Krauss: But we 'd much prefer to have the developer over a barrel than . . . Harberts: Isn 't ultimately though the costs are still born by the — homeowners? Krauss: There 's no question they 're passed along but the developer has — tremendous effiencies in buying wholesale and getting crews to do things when they want to and staging things . And the developer is budgeting , if you 're talking about budgeting $40 ,000 .00 or $35 ,000 .00 a lot or whatever it is for improvements , and land carrying costs and everything else , I 'm not going to say it 's not a burden but it 's easy to roll in the cost of that . It 's a lot easier than you showing up at Northwest Title and being hit with it . Ledvina : . . .when I saw that in print , have the developer bear the cost and not the homeowner . I mean that 's going to be a pass thru cost . I know _ you 're right in what you 're saying but we shouldn't be naive to think that that , oh the developer 's just going to suck that up . Krauss: It really isn 't a matter of the cost going away Matt , it 's a matter of equity and how it 's applied . You know then it becomes a cost that 's rolled up in the price of a house and it gets sucked into the mortgage and nobody . Harberts: Which is easier than out of pocket . Conrad: Okay , so what 's our direction to Jo Ann? Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 38 — Harberts: Well I think the comments she made ealier about maybe combining _ 1 and 2 . I think we talked about the overall comprehensive plan . In a sense establishing those corridors and the developers know right away . I think we 've talked about really just one tree per lot . Leave it up to the individual landowners to go further . Or homeowners to go further with landscaping or tree planting or whatever . Those are the things that I 'm hearing . Olsen: And what we are suggesting is that we would take it back to the Tree Board and let them . Conrad: And they 're not going to like what we just did , right? Olsen: No , I think that they will . Conrad: I thought they wanted , I thought Richard was here because he wanted 3 trees . Olsen: No , he was actually looking at 2 trees and I think that these other alternatives are still meeting what it was we 're going for . Krauss: Richard wants to achieve goals . I mean the bigger goal with reforestation of the city and I 'm not sure he 'll dicker on the details of how you get there . Conrad: Okay . Just talk to me one more time . The overall plan . It 's like we 're focusing in on the subdivision but I 'm back out of that . I 'm looking for the overall city plans so we have these treescapes . _ Olsen: Yeah , we haven 't gotten to that yet . Conrad: But that 's what I really care about . I honestly don 't , I 'm not sure of our impact here . I know we have to have something that goes . Not just subdivision oriented. It 's the whole street and roads . Krauss : If you look at the way we 've been doing business in the last few years , it 's already happening . I mean look at Minnewashta Parkway . There is , I don 't think the landscaping is in yet but that does have a _ significant landscaping component . We 're doing it on Kerber . The designs for the north and south access boulevards include extensive landscaping and trails and I mean it 's becoming just the way we . Conrad: Why are you doing that? I guess what 's forcing you to do that Paul? Krauss: The fact that we thought it was a good idea and it fit the goals that we were trying to obtain . We 're able to wrap them into construction projects where the landscaping . Olsen: Yeah , there 's nothing requiring that . There 's nothing that we 're going to that says this is what we should be doing but . Conrad: So then why are we , if you 're getting that done anyway , why do we need what we 're looking at right now? Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 39 Olsen: This is just dealing with the subdivisions again . — Harberts: Well I think at the same time though it 's putting the developer 's on notice though in terms of what expectations are because when they come into the door , they want to know what their out of pocket costs is up first . And then come to us with a plan that shows that . Olsen: I mean this is one way that we do have control . — Harberts : And if a subdivision , as I understand it , is going to go into a primary corridor that 's been established , they know this up front . When they put their site plan together , what 's expected so when we see it here , _ it 's going to be a total package deal . That 's the way I 'm interpretting this . Conrad: So the Tree Board does not , who's on the Tree Board? Olsen: Nancy . Tim . Dick Wing . And then it 's . — Conrad: So you guys don 't , what Paul 's telling me is you guys don 't care about the overall , what 's going on overall in the city . Mancino: Well yeah we do. Krauss: I think they care about the overall goal and not necessarily incrementally exactly how you achieve it as long as we achieve it . Olsen: The only problem with what you 're doing tonight , you know by sending it back to the Tree Board and bringing in these two new — alternatives is that it 's going to take a while . You won 't have something in there immediately to all of a sudden require the additional , 2 trees or whatever . That 's the only down side but the fact is we 've really been doing this lately anyway . I don 't see a . — Ledvina : Do we have a lot of PUD 's coming up? - Olsen : Yeah , we do have some . Yeah we do . Mancino: Do we have any just standard subdivisions coming up? Krauss: Yep , you have some of those too . Conrad: Okay . — Mancino: How long would it take , a month to go through the Tree Board? Olsen: Well we can talk about this , we can get this one , we 've got a meeting next week . I would say about a month . Then it comes back to the Planning Commission and then to City Council . Conrad: So it 's not this summer . Krauss: Well honestly , with our schedules and with the load we 've been — carrying and with Jo Ann leaving in September and with my being in Peru a Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 40 — lot of this summer , we can't commit to too much of anything . Conrad : Jo Ann , you 'll just have to stick around . Okay . DISCUSSION OF TH 101 REALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES. Conrad: Paul , you 've got something under new business , Trunk Highway 101 realignment . Krauss: I do but do you want to go through that briefly or do you want to save it? Conrad: I 'd prefer to save it . Krauss: I could tell you that after having met with MnDot this afternoon , it 's probably not going to be going very fast . Just briefly , you know that Fred Hoisington was hired by the City to do the TH 101 study 4 years , 5 _ years ago . Because we 've been tinkering with the interchange design at 212 and TH 101 , in part because we 've been trying to fit in a park and ride facility and part because we 're trying to work with property owners . In part because we want better access to Lake Susan Hills and then MnDot 's refining designs . What 's happened is the interchange is skewed a little bit . And what it did is it reraised the issue of exactly where should the final link between Highway 5 and 212 be . And what it tends to say is maybe — we ought to look at alignments a little further west than the originally proposed alignment . Plus since then the ISTEA bill has passed and we think we can do a better job of highway design than may have been done in the past . So we had one meeting with the neighborhood residents . We 're going to have to have more to refine the design . I 've hired Fred Hoisington to kind of shepherd the thing through because he 's got all the experience from the first time around and we figure this is right up his alley . One of the — things we met with MnDot today about though is , we were always anticipating that . Well , the City 's basically been rebuilding a State Highway piece by piece , which we shouldn 't have to do but because of that goofy designation — of TH 101 , we have been doing it . Initially we thought that we 'd use TIF dollars to finish it . But we 've just heard that the TIF cornucopia is not what it was supposed to be . I don 't know if you 've heard this news yet _ officially but we had estimated that the TIF districts would generated $11 million in excess revenue . That 's after we paid for all the things that we 've already got committed . So you have a wish list $11 million long . Mancino: Total . Krauss: Total . Which included things like community center and senior — housing and everything . I mean all the stuff that we 're doing . That doesn 't include the currently funded projects . Anyway , because of all the devaluation of commercial/industrial property , there 's been a 20o knockdown in the valuation of commercial/industrial property . You say 20% , maybe that doesn 't sound like enough but multiply that out over the 6 or 7 years remaining in the district . All of a sudden your $11 million is now $4 million . And one of the things we were meeting at lunch today with MnDot — about is saying well guys , you 've developed a cooperative program to work with us on finishing Highway 5 and the frontage road . The access — Planning Commission Meeting July 7 , 1993 - Page 41 boulevard . It makes sense that you 'd also want to work with us on finishing off this state highway that we keep building for you and while they basically said , and we understand their position . They 're very nice about it . They basically said we 'd love to be in a position to help you but ( a ) , we 're broke . ( b ) , because the legislature made it a temporary highway in 1935 , they can 't . So what we 're going to do is kick it over - into another arena . It 's an issue that always should have really needed to be decided . Who 's going to take responsibility for Highway 101 from the Minnetonka line down to the Minnesota River? Who 's going to ultimately — possess it and how do we get it fixed? And there are some , the probability is it 's going to be a county road of some sort . And the probability is we may get some state dollars through some different funding sources than we _ thought about but we have to have these set of meetings which means that the neighborhood meetings that we 've been having on the road alingments are probably going to have to be delayed a little bit until we get this straighten out because we don 't want to spend a whole lot of city dollars -- doing environmental assessments unless we know we have the Fed 's behind us . Bottom line fact of the matter is , if we don 't do anything with Highway 101 , and the State does 212 , all that traffic running between 212 and TH 5 - is going to run on old TH 101 , which doesn 't do anybody any good . That 's enough said on that . We 'll keep you posted . There are some land use issues too by the way . I mean when we were finding the plans , it does have some implications on a detailed basis on how the land use plan lays out in — there . But we can present that to you . I can have Fred come to another one of your meetings . — Conrad: Good . APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Vice Chairman Conrad noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 16 , 1993 as presented . CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: — Conrad: Report from the Director . Anybody want Paul to talk? Anybody? I sure like your reports Paul . I tell you that solves so much concern . It 's good communication . Anything else? Mancino moved, Harberts seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. Submitted by Paul Krauss Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 1 �1 CITY OF 04- C 690 COULTER DRIVE to P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning DATE: July 14, 1993 SUBJ: Report from Director At the Monday, July 12, 1993, City Council meeting, the following actions were taken: 1. Extension of Nez Perce Drive, Visitors Presentation, Mr. Frank Beddor. In the last report from the Director, I gave you information regarding the long planned connection of Nez Perce to Pleasant View Road. After four years of giving strong support for the connection, Mr. Beddor has now reversed his position and organized against it. The support shown over the years includes a number of presentations by his representatives, signed development contracts wherein he agreed to pay money towards the connection, and materials developed by his representatives that illustrated it. Indeed, it is accurate to state that his Troendle plat would not have been approved without his agreement to facilitate the connection. On May 24, 1993, after hearing about this reversal in position, the City Council reviewed the item and determined that the city should proceed with condemnation of land required for the right-of-way. It was in their opinion that the connection seemed reasonable and had long ago been committed to residents on Lake Lucy Road who were seeking some relief from increased traffic levels. Mr. Beddor asked that he be allowed speak as part of visitor presentation on the agenda, about his alternative which was looping Nez Perce back to Lake Lucy Road, rather than north to Pleasant View Road. He initiated a series of mailings and petitions, as did the residents on Lake Lucy Road, although to a smaller scale. The meeting was well attended. I was asked by the Mayor to give the history of the item and then Frank Beddor was allowed to give a presentation on his view of the issue and his alternative. The City Council found this a very difficult decision to make since it was clear that there were going to be residents who would be disenfranchised by whichever solution was undertaken. In the end, they believed that this issue was too far gone for reassessment and, in fact no reanalysis was really warranted based on the large amount of study that has already been undertaken. On a 4 to 1 vote, the Council denied the request to t«• PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Planning Commission July 14, 1993 Page 2 reconsider their May 24 action. Based upon this vote, the City Attorney's office is proceeding with condemnation action to allow acquisition of the necessary right-of-way to complete the connection. As a further note, at tonight's meeting you will be asked to review the Tower Heights subdivision. This was scheduled for your previous meeting, but was pulled at my request since its design is highly contingent upon the selected alternative for Nez Perce. Based upon the City Council action, I believe that it is fair to conclude that the issue of the alignment of Nez Perce is closed. It is my recommendation that the Planning Commission not encourage additional comment on this particular issue when the plat is discussed. As you are well aware, the issues regarding Nez Perce are extremely involved and have been the subject of extensive study, feasibility studies, plat and grading approvals, and a large number of staff reports. Should any of the Planning Commissioners desire to review this matter, we would be happy to supply the materials. 2. Non-conforming use permit for Minnewashta Manor Homeowners Recreational Beachlot. The Planning Commission had recommended that the "L" portion of the dock be removed. The "L" extension of the dock was an issue of concern with the neighbor to the north, Mr. Pfeffer. The Planning Commission recommended that the association have continued use of the city's right- of-way but they should post a sign identifying this area as the Minnewashta Manor Beachlot. The Commission approved one dock, 40 feet in length, with 5 boats at the dock, but no motor vehicle access. 3. Reconsideration of preliminary plat, Boley subdivision. As the Planning Commission is aware, you approved this plat, which is located on the Chanhassen/Victoria border, some time ago. What is unusual about this subdivision is that a small strip of land, which is incorporated into the Boley subdivision, underlying ownership is actually located across the city line in Victoria. As designed, this strip of land becomes rear yard area for a series of lots located near the city line. The Planning Commission and City Council - approved the plat based upon a condition that required the developer go before the Victoria City Council and attempt to work out this problem. We believe it is reasonable that since Chanhassen is providing all municipal services to these homes, and the homes themselves are located in Chanhassen, that a simple annexation is probably warranted. All along we have also recognized that there is additional land located further to the west in Victoria that is likely to be easier to service from Chanhassen than it is from that community. Thus, we have attempted to make some long range provisions for providing access and utilities. While we view this as a relatively simple request, Victoria's City Planner took the opposite view point. He had attempted to make this into a major issue in front of the Metropolitan Council, which seemed quite unreasonable to us and was ultimately dismissed by Metro Council Staff. We then had several negotiations with Victoria, Planning Commission July 14, 1993 Page 3 wherein their planner maintained that this land, which again is rear yard area, will contain no structures, is long and narrow and by itself, useless for development, was highly valuable property. It was their position that this land should only be annexed into Chanhassen if Chanhassen was willing to give what they termed to be fair compensation in return. What they had requested was a chunk of land at the south end of the Boley subdivision that would contain 3 to 5 single family parcels. Since each of these parcels was a development site that could easily be occupied by a $200,000 to $300,000 home, we again found this position to be unreasonable. In spite of holding several meetings to attempt to work out this issue, we failed to reach a compromise. Therefore, an alternative was sought. The developer had proposed a situation wherein the strip of land for the time being, remain in Victoria and would be held by a homeowners association with rights to use it as yard area would be deeded to each of the individual parcels. Thus, visually and functionally, these home sites would far exceed city zoning requirements and "walk and talk" like a standard single family lot. All of us, including the City Attorney, acknowledge that this situation is somewhat clunky and should probably be fixed in the longer run, however, it does allow the developer to proceed. We believe that there will be opportunities to have this matter resolved in the not too distance future since other items of cooperation with Victoria will probably arise. The City Council voted to approve the amended conditions of the subdivision which will allow the development to proceed as proposed (see attached staff report). 3. Trotters Ridge PUD, located west of Galpin Boulevard and south of Hwy. 5, Tandem Properties. The City Council was very comfortable with the recommendations of the Planning Commission and approved the preliminary plat unchanged. 4. Message from Planning Director. Most of you are aware that Pam and I are in the process of adopting a little girl from Peru. By the time you read this, I expect that we will be in Lima and, given a different approach that Latin America has to government, it is difficult for me to tell you when I will be back. At this time, I expect to be back in 3 weeks, although my wife may remain for 6 weeks. Whether I need to go back down for a final trip to help bring our daughter home is still up in the air. Even when I do return after 3 weeks, I will need to juggle the care of our two sons with the demands of my job, which will mean that I do not expect to be able to be at a 100% level until sometime in September. Complicating matters further, is the fact that Jo Ann will be leaving us in early September. I have already advertised the position and have some good candidates and hopefully we can get somebody on board by September. All of this upheaval means that the Planning Department will be attempting to cope with a mountain of work, while being very shorthanded. I am asking you to bear with us and, in particular, to give Kate and Sharmin your support and understanding. On the positive side, those of you who have been involved with our Surface Water Management Program know that we have long sought to fill a position of Surface Water Planning Commission July 14, 1993 Page 4 Coordinator for the city. I am pleased to announce that Diane Desotelle will be joining our staff next week. Diane is highly qualified in the areas of water quality protection and — wetland management and is a professional engineer. Charles Folch and I have decided to split the position 50/50 between the Planning and Engineering Departments because we have cooperated in such a fundamental way on these issues. As soon as I can, I will be happy to introduce Diane to you and encourage you to give her a call when issues pertaining to water quality, drainage, and wetland protection arise. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner DATE: July 7, 1993 • SUBJ: Amended Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property Subdivision # 93-1 BACKGROUND The Boley Subdivision was given Preliminary Plat approval by the City Council on February 22, 1992. The applicant, Lundgren Brothers, has requested that the city reconsider one of the conditions of approval. Condition #12 states that the subdivision shall have approval from the City of Victoria. A portion of the Boley property, a 110' x 1315.16' strip of land, (3.3 acres) lies within the city limits of Victoria. Staff and the applicant have worked with the City of Victoria to seek approval of the subdivision. The City of Chanhassen would like to see Lots 13-21 completely within the city limits. Victoria staff has stated that they would like to work out an annexation-detachment agreement with Chanhassen. Staff thinks that it makes sense changing the jurisdiction with lines but it needs to be in the context of sound planning principals. The City of Victoria unfortunately felt that if this subdivision were to be approved that a comprehensive plan amendment would be required by the Metropolitan Council. In a meeting with Barbara Senness, on the Council staff, she stated that because the urban services were coming from Chanhassen and the narrow strip of land would serve as back yards, a comprehensive plan amendment from the City of Victoria was not necessary (see attached letter). To date, we have been unable to work out the issue without Victoria. Land exchanges proposed by that city's staff were inequitable, wherein they asked that valuable lots be exchanged for back yards. The applicants, Lundgren Bros., are requesting that the city approve the preliminary plat without the condition of the approval of the plat by the City of Victoria. Their attorneys are proposing that the rear of the lots that fall within the Victoria City limits be conveyed to the lots via a Declaration of Yard Easements. This would grant each adjacent lot exclusive use and enjoyment 0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 Page 2 enjoyment of the adjoining portion of the Victoria parcel. The parcel may be for yard purposes, but they have no right to use any other portion of the Victoria parcel for any other purpose. ANALYSIS The Victoria Planning Commission and the City Council have recommended denial of the Boley Subdivision. Staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission was that the plat be modified to meet the City Planning requirements and recommended denial for the following reasons: the property is outside the Victoria MUSA line, - it is zoned agriculture, utilities are not planned until the year 2000 - 2010, - the plat is not consistent with the comprehensive plan as recommended by the Planning Commission the layout is undesirable in that Lots 9 to 11 will be located partly in Victoria and partly in Chanhassen resulting in some confusion and difficulties with respect to applying applicable ordinances, assessing property for tax purposes and the like. The Victoria City Council supported the issues raised by their Planning staff and recommended denial of the subdivision. Staff realizes that it is not the ideal situation to have the lot fall within two jurisdictions but the fact that the home will be in the City of Chanhassen, and that both cities are in Carver County, the tax assessment concern raised by Victoria should be minimal. Staff provided two alternatives to consider when platting this area. First, a stub street should be provided to the west into Victoria. This was one of the conditions of the original staff report. Chanhassen had asked Victoria to provide a study as to how this area should be serviced. Bill Thibault, the City of Victoria's Planning Consultant, has shown two alternatives as to how this area can be platted. Staff supports the stub street from the Boley property into Victoria. The second proposal from the Bill Thibault is that the city work out an annexation-detachment agreement. The proposal, as reflected in the Mr. Thibault's report, was reviewed by Chanhassen staff and rejected. The city would be gaining 3.5 acres of land which is a narrow strip which serves as back yards but would be giving up 6 lots. Chanhassen staff would still like to consider the annexation-detachment as the ultimate solution to the property line problem, but as to who is best able to service this area still needs to be evaluated. Jurisdictional lines should fall where sound planning principal are used. These principals include topography, preservation of natural features, access and ability to provide municipal services. It is the intent of the applicant to annex this strip of land into the City of Chanhassen. Until this occurs, they are proposing a resolution date of December 31, 1994, for the property in the Victoria limits shall exclude: the installation, maintenance, replacement or use of any building fence, swimming pool, pay equipment or other structure. If and when this property is annexed Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 Page 3 to the city, it would be subject to city ordinances. If the property is not annexed to the City of Chanhassen, then the rear yards would be subject to the ordinances of the City of Victoria. The setbacks on the front and side of Lots 13 - 21 meet the city standards. The rear setback would not meet the setback requirement without the property in Victoria. The minimum setback for the rear yard to the city limits is 10 feet. The square footage without the Victoria property included would not meet the 20,000 square footage requirement, although for all practical purposes, the yard easement exceeds the 20,000 square foot requirement. The lots may become somewhat larger when one of the lots is eliminated for a stub street. The smallest lot within the city of Chanhassen would be approximately 11,000 square feet, most of the lots will be over 15,000 square feet. Roger Knutson has reviewed the draft yard easement and has asked that some modifications be made to the easement. Staff would also recommend that the lots in Victoria receive final plat approval last, in order for the two cities to work out a potential annexation-detachment agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the applicant's proposal to provide a rear yard easement for the property that falls within the City of Victoria if this is the only way the subdivision can be platted. The ultimate goal is to have the property in the city limits of Chanhassen. Both cities will be meeting to resolve annexation-detachment issues in this area. There has been some progress made on how Victoria envisions this area to be subdivided. There still is the larger question of who is best able to provide municipal services to this area, including the southern portion of the Boley property. Staff supports the approval of the subdivision with the rear portion of the lots in Victoria, even if the property cannot be annexed from Victoria. Staff will require that the rear yard easements be filed with the plat and all homeowners apprised of their property being split between two cities. The conditions below are those previously approved with modifications shown in bold. "The City Council approves the preliminary plat #93-1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 Page 4 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100-year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff is working with the Watershed District to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael — Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20- foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on barriers at the end of the southerly and westerly street extension into the city of Victoria indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of- title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 Page 5 8. �- . . .. ... _ - -- . .. . . - -- - - - - - . ; - - - of development. This condition has been met and reflected in Condition #7. 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria. 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons: a. All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots not adjacent to the lake are recommended for a variance. b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement will not affect the density of the project. c. The MnDNR's shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied within the metro area. 15. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot. 16. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed. 17. The lots which are partially in the city of Victoria shall be platted last in order for the two cities to work out an annexation-detachment agreement. If no agreement can be made between the cities, The Declaration of Rear Yard Easements, drafted by the applicant's attorney and approved by the City Attorney, shall be recorded with the subdivision, and homeowners be apprised of the city limits and restrictions to its use." Don Ashworth July 7, 1993 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Boley Site Plan 2. Revised lot configuration. _ 3. Planning Commission report from Bill Thibault dated March 31, 1993. 4. Letter from Barb Senness from the Metropolitan Council dated May 25, 1993. 5. City Council report from Bill Thibault dated July 2, 1993. 6. Declaration of Yard Easements draft dated July 2, 1993. 7. Original staff report dated February 3, 1993. 8. City Council minutes dated February 22, 1993. JUL - 2 - 97-3 FR I S : 57 SATHRE - BERGQIJ I ST , INC . F . 02 7 CDL.► 0 -< r \\ / .11 C r \ m N. 0 w \ N. \N _- \ III \--....... o iii\ xi Z . CO xl H f 4 _;71' sem*0% \ ►w, Al‘ N il 74% al s fl-Agge • -. 44 ro Plillik•fill' m Mal w ,� z 7":l' fs /(, ----- -..- 1 V \ C a') o t:f , 1h \ . , ll 2 -Yi'l i'‘fa 01 4.4,7 li s O p ? N war1 — G to —....q.-i;-L,... '' W Z [s;I ; _6 L!k • r�� -b - as 4 _- ,-, z. , , , . t, ,SIP Gar- • ir -e E w [ i...A;-:'ire • I I 11 1 '. acv -- . \\ i iv .,§ \ 4.. it - ok,„,.__. ., ---, -,..,,,,,„,,,s , „. .v_______ c ,..,. ... N W �` N N N SONO crifi tA .000 As(1' C 1 i ---.P.'.f t.f.t :Oa-S.4.14, �-s f.Yh \\ .M .'M-.r4.:4..rr SW'lr') I1` i. = .11 ...----,...._.: --.—. ....,7.7-\•...s. 1? i \ M\ \ - .,,L.L_ '_ (' 11-1. •' i - Io\ _-.& Je \\ i _} '.i _ i s kic •sem t ''' \3. 7 i K ( B -- - s aR ( a '1 J.� MI -t- --ii 'o I d 'ch. � 1 f- i m Z �•;,\ S N i1..J . I r O'I " /p i F !:.LIFIWN i! 1.1 2' 1 ‘71 -:::/5' ''..1 , I 'k:ft',, a.* )t,---- „,....,, .../..s if;,- z'- iii -i >a it . �`t SA\ t ''(— ./// '/ --- T Fr { N! S -----"---11 z v� c '' N a N 1 4,;"----...- -- 11 I • / . D.:T B D.. a 0 C -- - r f.:..ID 'tr.. __ - I. - / r'-..:.-� I/� I � — -„..rte.• :. --- -- - r \ .r e..=s.r. t I I— — k I I \� Th ' I ` f I / 'tlJ.�b'1r = y7MMME COW Ili I \ I i _ -- ' \ _moi/�_ (� _ii / J -1i \ �1 j �� /\�� / / `t %Z� / r: • �, l 7...'''.• , �-.< '.' 1” 1 /7 /r I\ '�� - r I \ / / €. i Z ' g i \ \ / , z...--4/ /' '.),_ :.‘,.--''-"'-, \,.:,l'''',.4• F - 1 en*t tea►NO. - i • - -'I 5 _...11 • c i PRELIMINARY PLAT r SATHRE—BERGQT.TIST, INC. ' • C .8 k¢ [ BOLEY PROPERTY ix sour.mum,.rrutw M.WV.ta+x,ns-1W r 6 ! LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTR. INC. X40= .,., c o F w......••.wosn Agenda No. 4B AGENDA STATEMENT NO. 93-20 BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF VICTORIA, MINNESOTA SUBJECT: Sketch Plat of PLANNING COMMISSION Boley Property MEETING, DATED: April 5, 1993 Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. CASE NO: 93-12-S DATE OF REPORT: March 31, 1993 EXHIBITS: None PROCEEDING: For Review SUMMARY STATEMENT Description Sketch plat of Boley Property proposed by Lundgren Brothers Construction Inc. for property located along the City's east municipal line north of State Highway 5 and located on property zoned A-Agriculture. Existing Conditions The subject property consists of 36 acres of which 32.8 acres is located in Chanhassen and 3.2 acres in Victoria. The Boley's own additional property to the south located in Victoria. The property and adjacent land are rural. Essentially all the property between Lake St. Joe and Lake Tamarack and extending south to State Highway 5 is rural or agricultural in nature. The topography is rolling. A wetland extends from the southeast corner of Lake Tamarack to the edge of the subject property and a wooded area extends east of Lake Tamarack to and around the pond located near the northwest corner of the plat. Currently, the subject property is served by Minnewashta Parkway. There are no internal roads in the immediate area except for Kings Road which is an L-shaped road extending west of Minnewashta Parkway into Victoria where it runs along the east municipal line. This road terminates approximately 800 feet north of the proposed plat. +b ti„-: ' u' 7-1... • � Analysis Subdividing raw land is a three step process consisting of 1) sketch plat 2) preliminary plat and 3) final plat. The sketch plat is to serve as a basis for discussion between the subdivider, staff and the Planning Commission. It serves to provide direction to the subdivider before the more costly and demanding preliminary plat process and application are pursued. On the basis of the sketch plat, the Planning Commission unofficially advises the subdivider of the extent to which the proposed subdivision conforms to the ordinance and to discuss possible modifications. The subdivider has elected to prepare more than a sketch plat and in fact submitted a preliminary plat. However, there is no provision in the ordinance to skip the sketch plat step and in this instance the sketch plat is crucial. The proposed plat will have a profound impact on development in the eastern portion of the City around Lake Tamarack. The subdivider has not submitted any information identifying how the proposed plat will relate to development of the other property in Victoria other than the "ghost plat" for the southern portion of the Boley property. Chanhassen's staff met with Victoria's staff on January 22, 1993 to discuss the proposed plat and related concerns. Chanhassen's staff proposed the area be served by Chanhassen and offered to submit a proposal to Victoria regarding services in the area, however, the proposal has not yet been received. A comprehensive area study is needed for this area so that proper planning decisions can be made consistent with the comprehensive plan to achieve appropriate use of the property and surrounding area in Victoria. Several of the issues that need to be considered which have not yet been adequately addressed include: 1. The property in Victoria is outside the MUSA line. 2. The property is zoned A-Agriculture which does not permit subdivision of individual lots as proposed. 3. Utilities are not planned for this area until 2000 - 2010. 4. The plat is not consistent with the comprehensive plan as recommended by the Planning Commission, e.g. future growth plans and infrastructure. 5. The arrangement of the proposed streets in the subdivision does not make provision for the proper projection of streets into adjoining areas by carrying the new streets to the boundaries of the new subdivision at appropriate locations. 6. The configuration proposed could result in an arrangement which causes hardship to owners of adjoining property in platting land and providing convenient access to it. 7. There may be some minor inconsistencies with the recently adopted Shoreland Ordinance. 8. In general, the layout is undesirable in that 9 to 11 lots will be located partly in Victoria and partly in Chanhassen resulting in some confusion and difficulties with respect to applying applicable ordinances, assessing property for tax purposes and the like. The proper way to address these issues is through a study of the area taking these and all other relevant factors into account. Clearly, it is undesirable to proceed with the subdivision as proposed since it will be the first subdivision in the area and would create impediments to appropriate and optimum use of other property. If the only remaining unsubdivided parcel in the area were the strip along the municipal line, then attaching it to the proposed subdivision might have merit. SUMMARY FINDINGS It is recommended that the subdivider modify the proposed subdivision to meet the subdivision and planning requirements of the City and in concert with this a study of the area east of Rolling Acres Road and north of Highway 5 be commenced to suggest how optimum use of the property for the mutual benefit of all can be achieved consistent with planning, zoning and subdivision requirements. Agenda Statement P.C. #93-20 t � 4 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL - ,L/ears Puri; Centre. 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul. 91N'55101-1634 612 291-6359 F.-1X 612 291-6550 TTY 612 291-0904 May 25, 1993 Ms. Miriam Porter, Administrator City of Victoria — 7951 Rose St. Victoria, MN 55386 RE: Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property Dear Ms. Porter: Yesterday I met with Bill Thibeault,representing the city of Victoria and Terry Forbord,representing Lundgren Bros. We discussed how the city of Victoria might deal with the strip of land that will become the backyards of a residential development in the city of Chanhassen. — Mr. Thibeault stated that the city's plan shows the area in question as low density residential. He stated that it is zoned for agriculture. From a Metropolitan Council perspective, the plan designation is already consistent with the proposed use. Therefore, I do not see a need for the city of Victoria to submit a plan amendment to accommodate the proposed plat. In addition, since the proposed houses will be located in the urban service area of Chanhassen,while the narrow strip in Victoria will become the backyards of the houses and generate no need for urban services, I do not see a need for the city of Victoria to submit a plan amendment to add this area to its urban service area. The only change that the Council would see as necessary under the terms of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act is to make the planning and zoning consistent. With the actual development of the subject property, the zoning should reflect a low density residential use. In summary, I do not believe that the development of the northern portion of the Boley property as — presented by Mr. Forbord •.ill require any plan amendment from the city of Victoria. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 291-6419. Sincerely, Barbara G. Senness, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Bonnie Featherstone, Metropolitan Council District 14 Bill Thibeault, Thibeault Associates Paul Kraus, City of Chanhassen —' Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. RECEIVED 2 1993 - • Recycled Paper CITY OF CHANHASSEN AGENDA STATEMENT NO. 93- 124 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL City of Victoria, Minnesota SUBJECT: Preliminary plat of Boley property located along the City's east municipal line north of State Hwy. 5 zoned A-Agriculture and proposed by Lundgren Bros. Construction CASE NO: P.C. 93-21-PUD/S PROCEEDING: For Council Action FOR COUNCIL AGENDA DATED: June 17, 1993 • DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN: Planning DATE SUBMITTED: June 10, 1993 CLEARANCES: Planning Commission EXHIBITS: Preliminary Plat Metropolitan Council Letter of May 25, 1993 Tamarack Lake Overview Study EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property consists of 36 acres of which 32.8 acres are located in Chanhassen and 3.2 acres in Victoria. Boley's own additional property to the south located in Victoria. Essentially all the property between Lake St. Joe and Lake Tamarack and extending south to State Highway 5 is rural or agricultural in nature except for Carlson Excavation equipment yard which is located on King's Road. The terrain is rolling. Two wetlands extend from the southeast corner of Lake Tamarack in a southeasterly direction. A wooded area extends east of Lake Tamarack to and around the pond located near the northwest corner of the plat. The subject property is served by Minnewashta Parkway. No internal roads are provided in the immediate area except for King's Road which is an L-shaped road extending west of Minnewashta Parkway into Victoria where it runs along the east municipal line. This road terminates approximately 800 feet north of the proposed plat. SITE DATA _ Owner: Howard S. Boley Subdivider: Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. _ Zoning in Victoria: A-Agriculture MUSA Status: Victoria - outside MUSA line Acres in Victoria: 3.2 acres _ Total Acres: 36 acres COMPREHENSIVE PLAN _ The Comprehensive Plan designates the area for Residential Use, Low Density, 0-4.9 Units Per Acre. Expansion of the MUSA is scheduled for after the year 2000 although a study of _ the MUSA boundaries is anticipated at the end of 1993. ANALYSIS — At the time the sketch plat was reviewed, the subdivision process was described along with the need to study the area to address some concerns that were identified in the report. — Field surveys of the area were conducted. An overview study was prepared which is attached to this report. — Listed below are the issues as contained in the previous report followed by a comment. 1. The property in Victoria is outside the MUSA line. Comment: Additional discussions were held with the Metropolitan Council and the subdivider. The Metropolitan Council will not require an amendment to the MUSA line or the comprehensive plan. _ 2. The property is zoned A-Agriculture which does not permit subdivision of individual lots as proposed. — Comment: A zoning change could be justified. 3. Utilities are not planned for this area until 2000 - 2010. Comment: Extending utilities into this area prior to the year 2000 warrants — consideration based on the interest in developing this property and nearby areas. 4. The plat is not consistent with the comprehensive plan as recommended by the — Planning Commission, e.g. future growth plans and infrastructure. Comment: This can be reevaluated when the zoning is considered. The Metropolitan — Council will not require an amendment. 5. The arrangement of the proposed streets in the subdivision does not make provision for proper projection of streets into adjoining areas by carrying the new streets to the boundaries of the new subdivision at appropriate locations. Comment: The new preliminary plat makes provisions for one extension. A second extension is proposed in the overview study in the ghost plat. 6. The configuration proposed could result in an arrangement which causes hardship to owners of adjoining property in platting land and providing convenient access to it. Comment: The new preliminary plat and Alternative 2 in the overview study would abate this problem. 7. There may be some minor inconsistencies with the recently adopted Shoreland Ordinance. Comment: The required lot width in Victoria is 125 feet. The proposed lots partly in Victoria are about 100 feet wide. 8. In general, the layout is undesirable in that 9-11 lots will be located partly in Victoria and partly in Chanhassen resulting in some confusion and difficulties with respect to applying applicable ordinances, assessing property for tax purposes and the like. Comment: Alternative Plan 2 for development of this area would, if followed, avoid this problem. ALTERN A TIVES The following alternatives merit consideration. The first alternative is the subdivider proposal with a street extended to the west. Alternative 1 Subdivider's Proposal (Preliminary Plat) Comment: This provides access to the west but brings the traffic through much of the Loop Street. The disadvantage of having lots in both cities remains and requires a zoning change. Alternative 2 Subdivider's Proposal with Municipal Line Adjusted Comment: This alternative has the advantage of not requiring approval by Victoria of the plat, would not affect the MUSA line in Victoria, nor would it require a change in zoning to Residential. The disadvantage is that it requires an annexation-detachment - a process which Chanhassen and Victoria recently accomplished for Minnewashta Parkway. This possibility was discussed with Chanhassen on June 9, 1993. Economic Balance - This alternative provides for an equitable distribution of the land and allows for at least some houses to be located in Victoria and fosters the Fiscal Goal in the Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully submitted, — Bill Thibault Planning Consultant APPROVED BY CITY ADMINISTRATOR FOR SUBMITTAL AS# 93- — -„, •••...0 i I WY AMU.. ......:. I / :. — • ..-_-:-.•,-,; , . . . ...., 1 , . ' C.;\• 1 '.. '' ... / ••••••••:::.a....a.•, /.. I = I. . .., im. . • I 11 a' ........... ...2.1.4:Pt... : i , , `, 1 1 _ 1 . ... • ,, . : ,L zi---i'''''A . \ ,• 1 ,. . . •; .•: :. i a \ -,_:_i,-, .• —.....--- , .. . ., • -. . \ — . ••• ' I : al •2. .4- :-.,-.,. 1 \ , l':, ...___ i ) - S:- ----j., .. I \ '`, .. • • 8,Li ‘'.1 I`k ,. I .", i 1. \ l' .I — '' , . .. ; '• '=1. t ! : it•5c. j_ 1 ../. .: _ --r) 0-4-- 's , ..•. , , . • H :"----,—.7 1—i--- i: ; t. uji: , ..__k_z.,>/' • '.,--1 -; ip 1;:,.. ....:. ":•:::! :: 1:.; ":,i_?_I \-1---•%-...0-:".1 \ I .--A • 1 1 — lv .<i k•••,. .. .! .;.? . I%).).4...',i71:15k 1.1*" I. I ' Y •/ • , , : •• - I I ' . • • -, I •.:, :• 4 .i :.....: I I " ! • -•••—/-; ../ ••,!- ..:,H ... •I •i 1.......... : '• I /4. •er.j.g.....1.e. ,,,,...„..L... ....., ., ; • • . . r__t .... •-• J \C:11.7 LIN:eft. ..C. . 'I / .\..., I . • ! 1 : 4 / ....„ I,1 . a 1 i . ..,,,,„ •---w-- .....,. . , ,. ...- , . i• :I ' 1'1.. -:1-- • --)'.... ---- — -' - I• I ..... • —...., ..... \ , ..•. ......,..1 )___ !LJ —/ ..1 F7 --..- . '•••••••••CW.Il .,•*:•4.„1::i.;':f,.,.. \ -•-N,, Z _ —i—l / 1 _ , \ / (... i-- / t' -.7_ _. — --- 7 /. 1 / - ) .._.] / .__ , ; /// r. it/ 7I -F-\ .„---, . i ,, .7...... / z___. _. i!. \ • _.__._1,„( /I. 0 r 1 •ii si ir v f v.; _ _._---, / , 3: a., , • .;, •. . , . ,• - -II . .,:i .°.' f , ,E;/',! -4/:,• -4 , • - > - .. ; jj ' i —%. -• •••;', i 9-1 1 i .. I:. ...".: i i 1 i • it.': -4; i • I'. '2 _ i ...••••••••$ 'r••• : ,I. •.... •.! . . ' •.1 7 • : ! • • r. . '• ' ':: . •••• i ' .... i W1111/WPF 01.A1 I i ....!ea... ;!: .1711i POUT momirry t It SATEIRE:PERGQI:IST,„NC. l' .... % I I U.110GIAID4 MOS.CONSTR.NC. ..... ..., . i •••••••!MI. MM. t.• 4MM 11==. ALTERNATE 4 1 ..... 7 \ / '. / ..Cr.,:•.... f.. 'i 1 ; \ • i . . . . ... ,.......,..14.... .\.....:4.' 1 a• I.:,........... /...,.. ow. ill . ...It,. • .; , . . 1 • . . • ; ,,,, -. 1?-4. ' - -7.- . '...</ i• \ . - •: . ! I a'1 •1). Ntiv •!:---- t ...`,..(1.4.,:. . ) i fq•-,_:.,%>_ ..„(:-.;.`,........ •••••• 1 .\ \ . . • .., .i:(1 (It 1,,' 'kJ1 /r•— .- '\ ; 1 _ ', I. / — • ..,, : - ' 11 I:I! I..: - Li-) h---i , 4--- s ..../ . . , : — I.:—, I 11-7.: —1;1,-,1:' i , :r - i 1. : ; i v• & IJ 11 1 1—1- - ', . `,. . --k • V It i'"7.-j 14 0 .1 ----'7 __. ; .• .. '.::::! .... if ' -0 il -7"—%.....c--,1, ..\ (—/i,, 1 . -, a 2.........., ..11.5%... .<J _ t i- ' 1 1 • .• , N._ ftia• ;',,',..i, '1 1 1.: /: / r ... • • • • ::, , 7._ •I )00. ,, 1 ,c_,..:,... ., ..., .L... ..•_4 i •,, , .• ., .• •riz (.„:.111, f -. :s- _.,,..1,---2; 1 . . t 1, .••• .. 8 ' . • •..: : , --...../ I t ;...q• .."-F'•-..••,:. : -, • ; I 1. / . • 14 a W ..- - ...- .- q•'v., -1 -11- 7;'';---` - 1 1 —. .. \\____,..."„). 1).•.......1 ) 1-1 _ i 1 *.:7:7:-] ! !; \ ) 1------1-----..4 4 i / /. \ --. --'"... ----r-----7 `-......1._L _. / / -•• ., -- _ • :. __ I ,• ....,/,/ 7 --_ 4/ ' •I / / 1 'I-/-_,Z-T--\, 7 II _. wp. \\ I /L_",i / r• / / 4,.i11,... -- '•-•i I / \ \1 // / / / Li '.:A.:1 .'•'. '--' i ii., . 1 '' • pc; !, I \ • / L,.,--_-97/ / ? , _. -•-f.1 - 1 1 \< , 2 1,, -i.I. 0.21' t. . I t'4;.; i 1. •:!: -.1. : i I i'• . i -. • : .i i•i • i 1 ... \ • 10 4 . .• . ' •L'I I : PIRILLNIMAM ftal i i • • -• ; ;! 7:41 MAY PROPERTY t" ....\. SATITRE-TIERCQUIST, INC. it 1 ...... LUNDGREN OROS.CONSTR.NC. 4.... .., %• ALTERNATIVE 2 Annex to Chanhassen .._ Annex to Victoria 1 — It ,�.�,, 2 7 :II METROPOLITAN COUNCIL .- --- Wars Park Centre, 230 Fast Fifth Street. St. Paul. MN 55101-1634 612 291-642___ FAX 61? 291-6550 TTY 612 291-0904 May 25, 1993 — — Ms. Miriam Porter, Administrator City of Victoria 7951 Rose St. — Victoria, MN 55386 RE: Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property Dear Ms. Pcrer. — Yesterday I met with Bill Thibeault,representing the city of Victoria and Terry Forbord,representing Lundgren Bros. We discussed how the city of Victoria might deal with the strip of land that will become the backyards of a residential development in the city of Chanhassen. Mr. Thibeault stated that the city's plan shows the area in question as low density residential. He stated that it is zoned for agriculture. From a Metropolitan Council perspective,the plan designation is already consistent with the proposed use. Therefore, I do not see a need for the city of Victoria to submit a plan amendment to accommodate the proposed plat. In addition, since the proposed houses will be located in the urban service area of Chanhassen,while the narrow strip in Victoria will become the backyards of the houses and generate no need for urban services, I do not see a need for the city of Victoria to submit a plan amendment to add this area to its urban service area. The only change that the Council would see as necessary under the terms of the Metropolitan Land• Planning Act is to make the planning and zoning consistent. With the actual development of the — subject property, the zoning should reflect a low density residential use. In summary, I do not believe that the development of the northern portion of the Boley property as — presented by Mr. Forbord will require any plan amendment from the city of Victoria. If you have any questions about this matter, please contact me at 291-6419. — cincerely, . x,11 ‘r5 Barbara G. Senness, AICP Planning Coordinator cc: Bonnie Featherstone, Metropolitan Council District 14 Bill Thibeault, Thibeault Associates Paul Kraus. City of Chanhassen Terry Forbord, Lundgren Bros. 5 ® Recycec .---ager TAMARACK LAKE OVERVIEW STUDY AND PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF BOLEY PROPERTY June 1993 Thibault ASSOCIATES City of Victoria Urian Piarrung Development Receveiopment Housing STUDY PURPOSE This brief overview study was initiated because of development pressures in the area located north of Highway 5 between Rolling Acres Road and the City's east municipal line. Three areas of greatest interest include submission of a proposed plat for the Boley property on the east, Kerber farm in the south central and the so called Swiss Mountain property on the east side of Rolling Acres Road. Lack of infrastructure in this area including interior roads and utilities coupled with barriers to development and environmental conditions are also prime reasons for the study. The purpose of the study is to provide guidance in evaluating and making appropriate decisions regarding the proposed plat of the Boley property and other plats that can be expected. STUDY AREA CONDITIONS Conditions in the study area were determined through on-site field investigations and review of aerial photography, topographic maps, land use maps, zoning, ownership information and a variety of other sources. Conditions are summarized below. • Land Uses - the predominant land uses are rural and agriculture, lakes and wetlands and residential. • Housing - much of the housing is new, especially adjacent to Highway 7 on the north and King's Road on the east. Older farm homes exist in along Highway 5 and Rolling Acres Road. • Lakes and Wetlands - lakes and wetlands dominate the central portion of the study area. Tamarack Lake is classified as a Natural Environmental Take and shoreland zoning provisions affect much of the study area. • Old Railroad - the old Chicago and Northwestern Railroad right-of-way runs diagonally through the northwest third of the study area. This right-of-way, now used as a trail, is owned by Hennepin County Railroad Authority (HCRR) and was purchased for future transit. • Barriers - there are a number of barriers or at least impediments to development that affect the study area and evaluation of plats. These include: 1) The municipal line between Victoria and Chanhassen 2) HCRR - opposition or reluctance to allow crossing of their right-of-way 3) Existing platted developments along Highway 7 and the pattern of lots of records along King's Road 4) Topography which is quite steep in some locations 1 5) Highway 7 and Highway 5 which affect where access can be located and require Mn/DOT approval 6) The University of Minnesota Horticultural Resource Center which forms a barrier along the southwest portion of the study area 7) The relatively large areas of lake and wetlands However, some of these conditions are assets and make the property a prime site for new housing. Figure 1 is a 1990 aerial of the area. Figure 2 is the base map showing the roads, municipal line and parcels. Figure 3 provides topographic information and includes the proposed plat of Boley's property. Figure 4 is the subdivider's proposal including an extension of the street to the west property line. AMENITIES The study area has a high number of amenities which makes it appealing for residential development and which, when studied along with the existing development pattern, helps identify a suitable framework for development. The amenities considered most noteworthy are: Tamarack Lake - Pond Tamarack Lake has an outstanding setting with natural conditions on all sides and excellent views from the HCRR trail and from the hills and bluffs on the northeast and southwest sides. A couple of ponds exist east of Tamarack Lake and Lake St. Joe is located farther to the east in Chanhassen. Wetlands Wetlands extend around most of Tamarack Lake and to the southeast. This wetland is, however, crossed at two points where farming occurs and where a roadway exists connecting the northern portion of the Kerber farm to the southern portion. Additional wetland areas exist near King's Road. Hills The study area is punctuated by a number of significant hills at or over 1,000 feet of elevation. These are some of the highest hills in the City including a double hill on the Boley property, one where the Kerber home is located, one at Swiss Mountain and a couple of knolls east of Tamarack Lake. Woodlands Woodlands exist in the central portion of the study area around portions of Lake Tamarack, an area extending east of the lake, and a large area extending northeast along a series of dissected ridges where some of the most exciting topography in the City exists. 2 Views The views to and from the area are outstanding in terms of the distances one can see and the varied environmental conditions that make up the view. Quality Housing New housing in the area is: high wiality, likely to be viewed as an amenity, and should be a factor in setting up a pattern for future housing. Sons Soils in the upland areas are considered to be good to excellent. DEVELOPMENT GOAL The development goal for this area is based on the site analysis, base information and several comprehensive plan goals, especially Goal 1: Identity, Goal 2: Environment, Goal 5: Transportation, Goal 6: Recreation, Goal 7: Services, Goal 8: Fiscal, and Goal 9: Community Cohesiveness. Development Goal for Tamarack Lake Study Area: Plan for suitable development which is capable of funding appropriate access and public service costs while maintaining the natural qualities of Lake Tamarack, wetlands, some of the wooded areas and trail, and use these qualities to foster community cohesiveness by linking development with the remainder of Victoria. PLAN A generalized plan for the area, as shown in Figure 5, was developed based on the development goal for the area and other relevant information. This plan is necessarily generalized and quite limited based on the limited time available to conduct the study and the parameters used. The plan needs further consideration and refinement. The information can be used by the City Engineer to evaluate the extension of utilities based on this overview study and plan. Two alternatives are provided with the generalized plan, but differ only with respect to the Bolev property. Figure 5 - Alternative 1 is the subdivider's proposal including an extension of the east.'west street to the west property line. Figure 5 - Alternative 2 is the subdivider's proposal with the municipal line adjusted. The adjustment of the municipal line would place all the lots in either Chanhassen or Victoria. The lots in the northern portion of the plat 3 would all be in Chanhassen including the 3.2 acres currently in Victoria. The southern — portion of the plat would have all lots in Victoria south of the platted lots on the east/west street. Other alternatives were considered during the course of this overview study. To simplify the report, only two alternatives are presented. A number of variations can be developed from these alternatives. MEETING WITH CHANHASSEN On June 9, 1993, the City Administrator and Planning Consultant met with the City _ Manager, Community Development Director and the Senior Planner of Chanhassen to discuss this study and she plat of the Boley property. Salient points and conclusions tentatively reached at the meeting were: • The City expressed its concern about creating nine or ten new lots which would fall into two different cities. • Chanhassen did not see this to be much of a problem to the property owners but added that it could be resolved by annexation. — • The City indicated that the staff/consultant prefers to consider Alternative 2 which would essentially involve an adjustment of the municipal line consistent with the proposed plat and ghost plat. The 3.2 acres in the proposed plat in Victoria could be annexed to Chanhassen and the south portion of the plat could be annexed to Victoria — (see Figure 5). • Chanhassen implied that they are serving properties in Victoria and that if the plat on the south portion of Boley were to go through, Chanhassen would serve that area as well, therefore, it makes sense to have the entire area in Chanhassen. Or stated another way, they would not want to approve a plat in Victoria if it is to be served by Chanhassen. The City Administrator pointed out that the City intends to serve the property in Victoria. • The last suggestion made was to consider adjustments based on the topography which might include expansion of the Boley plat into Victoria along with engineering review relative to the cost to serve this area. 4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Four conclusions-recommendations are offered: 1. The overview study should be used for development of a more refined plan for the area including the utility plan. 2, The overview study and plan should be used to provide guidance in evaluating the proposed subdivision of the Boley property. 3. Alternative 2 is considered superior to Alternative 1. 4. Alternative 2 should be used for further development and approval of the preliminary plat and final plat on the Boley property. 5 i // IJ/ i ivy 1 — ..1c/ K� 1 miNNEs0,A SUNK I r _i 110101111 �O e I LAKE Y1NNaIAS117A I \ I T xiNcs ROAD \..........._____ z 0 r — _ 1 LANZ S1/4 i oJ� G ______r—i! ST. JOE I 1 0 -i6 LAKE 1 4? i 1 Y cr TAMARACK 1 a` 1 i i LAra L „� YINNIIASSTA � I I r: El I 4 I WINNESCTA TRUNK HVNC.NC S — )i i Thibault City of Victoria --r—! Al Tamarack Lake Overview Study 2 ASSOCIATES 0 1000 kvR7" BASE Proposed Boley Property Subdivision _ .s:-.---Tetk):::- -:-;4:- le,-- _ „F.,. ;.....:,-,-7--::1_-__. 4/ *-- __,.. :..;,-:*-; .... . --,4 __,---,:::--.---.:-.5„_.= .-„, --!: -,-,:,-,__7:-,__---_:-,-r- ______ _...: -,- 7-'.-.- - _ ___: ... , - „,.. • L-N”''''.--......,--- --:-.7--,'s---- --.:::-:.:-, % ,_.,- -- --_,:;:::- .-Pr-7-4;7::: lel * ° / jgb , ' < • 4,-;1-1 -11 1 !--.: -:, tid---':-,;z"•--- ::"%-f-1,.z,. .:.:-:-S-;- e.,1), . -,•,:,<-0,:tk,_-- - 2:,_: .,,-;?:::i!,-.::,:.?_-1,44,-,- - ‘-,:., i i _--, - . „_ __ , .„ ...„,,,-, I i ---• .• : _ , — 0..o_\:-:--_, . ;-::.,:_ ::;,.;-:7::4-ii-:-Z,=;-ft":4 7,,:!-zi: ‘,13 /.".. -/ iii• . i i .__- -\-••)\,. _ _ i -___., • -'::;-:-;,, r-_-,-, ,,. : -•__--- --7c::,:;„---_--.5i__ -,--, ,::'4,16ititH_.,,,,,e.,../.1 *10 . ‘- • _ 1--------* ' 1:1 II . --,..--__J _ . „/ s--‘,,,s,, _,,...,_ „:___.._,-•,4 ,--,_E-X--,---4.---;Z:=-_-;---,--"' ,- -.7-'" ....,!,• ., r e -='-f---'"---::. . 1.:-..-,_y,_ .-4 , --.4--.= lir • wir IN, ... _- _.; _-...-t.:....:„..J.__....„. -z..:.:_,-- i. _____2„ i (4N. - --'"--':---:!,t7:11-4---.fi --it: _;,-;"-dL_•(Q.,-g/, / A i ,/•-/ • • ., _ ....p. :_ =-: - ',.:,:-*---;=.:•,-?:" ,...._ — . __:, ._.,.•-, „.-._„ ii. j Allo,. fikAja ,f."-' ' I/ ' :_ :kl 4.'al, --'''‘.11.• ---f5-..., f"..-- :, °.'.-- ,•0!...11... I 1111 .--- ___, ,. _ - .:--_.W lk.. Nedline.-- _,. ,:itr4. a\--NN.... .z4L,',1-- liatw,.-_- .-4f -Iiiim J..... .... _ Alivimm," *.-'7'itaimMIIMMI\--11Plal PAM.' • 1 / - ._ _--1--'- •ri _ ._ __ S o '1 Witit0 Vall ri,70,74717::TelliFilleb-W VI. .... _ _ __-- -' ..„- 'r • - 4/111111:111.11FIENIVA-.1*1111101•1011111 IL , :- -.:fy;----- 1.7(1. AircINN‘VWitkiliiiirA 0 -1-m—.,,, _ 1,.•,- . ----------r- -1-k . .)0 75-7 el liprAt:firirC01,1101Fils *.......1111116, ;PP-- 1 I ' s • V3 rt 11` \...• .",•4 8 1 As. _ itirA_Mil gee 11 , _ ___-,,,_ °`.4,„, . 7 ° ..A.. . . , _, WO.. i ' .. a • a•- • ' mi, W — , / !B.._ tirit4 c-,. - 1 .1.-izi- d . A :_.•/40# .ry r.. .. IsitY- ..11-_ c ---- 0 ----- -,Et 1 \ (.\- • 1/1V3. if-717- -- ---ik r- '1 I t A :SP 1(NW -'' \ • A -'.l'if== -;.-1 . , . ., % : , — ----. .-''..--. ..--.111•-'' .A00'=- .7.,6117-':-:-,-• .mbAILUMI AM alb to,.. -'--- ---*,.. .-.--'-1 ...... --,_,,-,.-___ .,,-•--)::-----= 'iv : • ,..... ..g. _ _ _ ._ .,,,._ 114•,...N VW ',Ati . . _ - -- ' _ Mt • i!--..--,: .7:-,•-.10`; Ar: •,._____,,--_,--_.) 1.0 • -Nr.p.- ,..- , /aa,t, / ...„.......„ ,Ad - •-•.P.141..--!.-;..._, :walk 4 ttiohjiligrr C.til .-- ...aa..- , /0"--••••s• — - ----- -) p sr-•,',44%,it , _....Ai. -teal- - r--i10-1 ,.. -.....-:,-, ,..c.. o --.; __-w-- - G i ...--- ‘ ‘ ,L , . 'Of , 1. 4-'1 . -4111.- . - C. ==-- -- - - - , ,Atilier 6 . - 1 : • \\ , i - -----.........4) — \,,, . Ai. ____,...• • 4# ri -:", _ --1_,4 , I - -E_t_<_,,..."' •`. / , , ... , .1 . I 101i;•'•Tr .!!' "..i'0 : ,k a. • 4_ •Lk • \ \ tuft.. iis \ N _,..-..______ I .1 N,---) -' et •th - / ' 41-4.-\I\\4101ft\ik . = • -4---_,60. \.- • - -_,,..74.46....„_* --.4071V . . . . • sim. , -- ____.• lir i -_--,--.3- ......u.„._ _______-.-..... .....w.....-z''.1.---' ------ . -----_, --...._7....,...,__.....awl_ 1WIEL .1111Italt N' 41k: VW- , .....,...• • . , _ \-1.---:"' ..- - (C.' ---" ....."-------"- — '-' . , --, •N \, ......_ - \ , ., __ -.IL.- -...... . ....--- / •---;11 \h...,,,..._ - , -- _ \ N . _...-- . .....„ , ! 0 ,,-,------------T-s----..,_‘------, A _ Thibault c:::.,.• ,-,e1,-:::,...:,2 — .....--.. ASS:Z'ATES . `-. ...... AI. T2:-...ara,:k Lake Overviev, S:11-2\ ....,_____ C 1000 \C4-.. 3 TOPO ?7:7,-s: 3,-:::. Pror5 :;:: ,•:-: i ii1(7 ...... _ i I i - .!✓ No. - I - Nt� I NINil& NEsotA TRUNK r Mar\ ..5" I Ltd 8 11INNd7ASHTA I \ Ir KINGS ROAD ON-------- _ z 0 r — Z -1 LAd1 nST. JOB Is .. ..: rAli' ' . 1 .:::::*- Y RACK s ::::::: rr OW a ltd:..` -:via FA 0,47. 4 Lada 1166. MINNarasaTA 11 i — lb:.....VIP" V!dr I MINNESOTA TRUNK NWY NO' S . 111 i Thibault City of Victoria 1—:--r----1'. /11 Tamarack Lake Overview Study 4 ASSOC:AT=S 0 1000 "0P'' SUBDIVIDER'S Prosed Boley Property Subdivision - PROPOSAL I I I I 1 J✓ 0:).1 ° 1 tIi }'BUNK Or �, cNN14 Y CpT KINGS ROAD i). ..............._ I z O r r z _ �<y al 1 LAX! J ST. JOB °° 1pr •promi_ = LAKE I:i. Ate':-.• --.:.- :-:-'' r ic SFR Dialkir. Lasa �- >�a® YINNET / LS8*A . 1 MINI ,47 ,i P rip.:/..-:.+0. ii :.. :11* ,i. ! I HMS NC- S MINNESOTA TRUNK I Thibault City of Victoria r--",.... ` A . Tamarack Lake Overview Study 5-1 Assoc:ATES 0 1000 "'°" ALTERNATIVE 1 Proposed Bci.v Property Subdivision //! g ..././7i i — i i JC. No.1 .‘4(1 _ 4/1NkkipOTA TRUNK 0Dridr\, LARd ` MINNITASSTA \ IKINGS ROAD iiiiN,........: (5, I z Z /,; LIRE c, . /r J`�� ST. JOB GO SPTIONAL LIRE �' ' Q aft. r .. an. .. .4....... . _ cr T IIARACR a 5L6 Di::.. . it. il..: LAKE �44• MINNIEASH-% RELOCATED �'� 0� sow i Ci .11f41:. � i U NO. MINNESOTA TRUNK 14 ---------.-------"--s.........„ _ ) i Thibault City of V ictoria ' © Tamarack Lake Overview Study 5-2 Assoc:ATES - 0 1000 - ALTERNATIVE 2 Proposed Bolev Property Subdivision. LAW OFFICES LEONARD. STREET AND DEINARD PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION S o'.c'9A5SOw5 SNAD.E•_ G u.h 05100 C•VANAGN LOS('.• v''[SSE.C. r•SC.D D r,[4.D J• r,C«•E.• 6[.IC. 9,646 r 1609,66L• SOLE.`6 TO•G[wSCN •,c6••DJ GUN' 61ASP ..0 95.60 SUITE 2300 ..cr•E,■ CO.C. JOS.u.J a•NASI•TEG• •LIEN, S•Ca$ DAVID 6 n••NCS .5.DLC9 J GU6% 4•14.... tK..ES S..r TMO4•5D 5[169[56 C•50,•..c.••••155 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET 6.6[55 wIC•GC6 •V6.6 II ONGL. MO.5,5 r S.1•.•N Yrs v SOT6 v,RG�6,•• CON[ •r DS[w• L[[ 010501 UCILI• ••C n.SD n Y•51 . NIC.ILLC• r14. E.COL,0N l(S DANS C6ASuCS. DA••D6 .cat."L Der.. MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 nro-.•• 5[.15.06 6,004.E• C'Gw5C.. D•v0 N CO. •'.GE A r LO S4..aE 566L•••0JS DAVID D CRwata — 96E.6CNa 5,L•J. •09[5-S . v5 TELEPrIONE 1612) 335.1500 w,L4IAYl GSt1NC T•r.IE I ►l•CE' CNAa.CS• 66,65 •r[5 G 9u.1••C 5r[vCt.. S[L90h JAN(r GODrSt• LOwt... r0•t LOO. JOS(•-. lIN.E• FACSIMILE 1612) 3351657 51115• LACMNA6 (SICM GALATS 010501 r YCGJraoG.( J5 LAwSCNC[_ n[iC .,OnN 5 SWIG-'• uRfOh SIC«ASL G 5EN,6 J• DAVID w RE.LC• C.C.(L 5[51[4150S...1 JAG V32 rWIDSIC T ■OS1'S.ATT Y.•A 5 WGTZ r••C D 5,.550' 59506 t 91•.65 DAv C I 4I.Lt'AUG C lCtL n•TTDh 9-[VC'r SU.h 509151 J .vS[5 JAr[5 J L[•r S.60 0(0501• .106.5[ 9.4. 996' J06N r ..(14.••• DAVi0 U1N-O5 July 2, 1993 YAS w DC.t.•N1• A1TMU•, n 5.5CC a-- 96 59tVCN C DtS.;•^E5 •h CA.•r C.0.5.• 51.15( 5C.,55., 111.40,C'0E,h••0 899 9e9 JAMES a D059(6 ...a.• .,60451'. LAwIENCE• SC-AtrES •MOSS DC h•a0 .999 Sal RA1.:11N r 05•.1•5 M['a.J 5r(•II C•SO4.9.V WO.S• 51(•.16. OAv,050N LO*t..v S•OS'3 S.(VE'w LI.DCM•hh 5'15.16• .515.6 DO.G.A5• G.LC65.•G w.LLIAr 6 ROC. 91061+.Oast• 175..4.. rotasrt.0ta t..(N G 54.6.►S0. w06•.0 J SC.ULTC ISM at SCOTT 509(1`.C*'S 5.55055 S•[V(6 J S,.DI'G 01611,D 6-01« •.Cr ASL„ WEGCNER .[-Att.G T•v,01 JAYA r RSIs D•r,t.r 5.135 JS DAN E.. MC'NCSNCI .15 *O..w G(1S•6Gra WIND,C S.JEavEN M 90..9r. ..uG9 • h.SC 1 5.1.0[55 r5t DE5-C.M 50511-SEG-[+'C. 99 JOrh C •u[.w^ T•r C•r•*C.C. 1y, . ""4(%12T-S".551i`1"�g�Z By Messenger • Roger Knutson Campbell, Knutson, Scott & Fuchs 1380 Carriage Center Curve 317 Eagandale Office Center Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Re: Boley/Lundgren Bros. ; Chanhassen, Minnesota; Our File 16066-275 Dear Roger: Enclosed is my July 2 , 1993 draft of the Declaration of Yard Easements for Lundgren Bros. ' subdivision of the Boley Farm, which straddles the boundary between Chanhassen and Victoria. Rick Sathre or Terry Forbord will send you the drawings. This draft is really a "first cut" at the problem. We are open to suggestions from you. We would like to finalize this document in time for the Chanhassen City Council meeting on Monday, July 12 ; but it would be satisfactory if approval of Lundgren's project were conditioned on the execution of such a document mutually satisfactory to the developer and the City Attorney. Please call me early next week with your questions and suggestions. Very truly yours, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD By ,,//illi aVar5i` �( Hugh M. Maynard cc w/encl: Terry Forbord (Lundgren Bros. ) Kate Aanenson (City of Chanhassen) Rick Sathre (Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. ) Bruce Malkerson (Popham, Haik Law Firm) 7/2/93 - DRAFT DECLARATION OF YARD EASEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of , 1993 by Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. ("Lundgren") . Recitals A. Lundgren is the fee owner of the following platted lots in the City of Chanhassen, County of Carver, State of Minnesota: Lots 13 through 21 , Block 1, [NAME OF THE SUBDIVISION] . Said lots are collectively referred to herein as the "Lots" and are individually referred to herein as each "Lot" . B. Lundgren is also the fee owner of the adjoining unplatted land in the City of Victoria, County of Carver, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto. Said land is referred to herein as the "Victoria Parcel . " C. In order to complete the orderly development of the Victoria Parcel and the Lots, Lundgren hopes to arrange for the Victoria Parcel to be detached from the City of Victoria and annexed into the City of Chanhassen. In the meanwhile, Lundgren wants to provide yard easements in favor of the Lots over the adjoining portions of the Victoria Parcel . Declaration NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts recited above, one dollar and other good and valuable consideration, Lundgren hereby declares that the Victoria Parcel shall be held, transferred, sold , conveyed, occupied and developed subject to the following covenants , conditions, restrictions , reservations and easements , which are for the benefit of the Lots: 1 . Yard Easements. a . Grant. Lundgren, as the owner of the Victoria Parcel , hereby reserves easements for yard purposes over those portions of the Victoria Parcel that are adjacent to the Lots. The present and future owners of each Lot shall be entitled to the exclusive use and enjoyment of the "adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel" (as defined in Section 1 .b below) for "yard purposes11 (as defined in Section 1.c below) , but they shall have no right to use any other portion of the Victoria Parcel for any purpose. HMM\LBC\BOLEY\YARDEASE.DEC 7/2/93 - DRAFT b. Easement Areas. With respect to Lot 13 , the "adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel" shall mean that portion of the Victoria Parcel lying northerly of the northwesterly extension of the southwesterly line of Lot 13 . With respect to Lots 14 through 21 , the "adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel" shall mean that portion of the Victoria Parcel lying between westerly extensions of the northerly and southerly lines of the Lot. c. Permitted Uses. "Yard purposes" shall include the installation, maintenance and replacement of lawn grass and other vegetation; and the enjoyment of the area for recreational purposes. The owner of each Lot shall maintain all landscaping in the adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel . Until the Victoria Parcel is annexed into the City of Chanhassen, "yard purposes" shall exclude the installation, maintenance, replacement or use of any building, fence, swimming pool , play equipment or other structure. If and when the Victoria Parcel is annexed into the City of Chanhassen, buildings, fences, swimming pools, play equipment and other structures shall be allowed, subject to the ordinances , rules, regulations and permitting requirements of the City of Chanhassen. If and when Lundgren abandons its effort to have the Victoria Parcel annexed into the City of Chanhassen , then buildings, fences, swimming pools, play equipment and other structures shall be allowed, subject to the ordinances , rules, regulations and permitting requirements of the City of Victoria. d. Taxes and Special Assessments. For so long as this Declaration remains in force, the owner of the Victoria Parcel shall timely pay all real estate taxes and installments of special assessments on the Victoria Parcel; and the owner (s) of each Lot shall reimburse the owner of the Victoria Parcel for the taxes and specials on the portion of the Victoria Parcel adjoining the Lot. The taxes and specials on the land (not the buildings) in the Victoria Parcel shall be prorated on an acreage basis among the easement areas adjacent to the Lots and the balance of the Victoria Parcel. e. Insurance. Each owner of a Lot hereby releases the owner of the Victoria Parcel from all claims for personal injury, death or property damage arising from the adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel . Each owner of a Lot shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the owner of the Victoria Parcel from all claims made by third parties for personal injury, death or property damage arising from the adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel . For so long as this Declaration remains in force; each owner of a Lot shall carry at least $100, 000 of public liability insurance on the Lot and the adjoining portion of the Victoria Parcel ; Lundgren shall be named as an additional MMM\LBC\BOLEY\YARDEASE.DEC 2 7/2/93 - DRAFT insured under every liability policy; and the owner of the Lot shall provide Lundgren with a certificate evidencing such insurance and stating that the policy will not be modified or terminated without 30 days prior notice to Lundgren. 2 . Annexation. Lundgren shall use its best efforts to cause the Victoria Parcel (or at least the portion adjacent to the Lots) to be detached from the City of Victoria and annexed into the City of Chanhassen. Lundgren ' s efforts shall include petitions to the Cities of Chanhassen and Victoria and a proceeding before the Minnesota Municipal Board under Chapter 414 of Minnesota Statutes. Lundgren need not bring any court proceedings . Lundgren will endeavor to achieve the detachment and annexation by December 31 , 1994 . Lundgren shall have the right to discontinue its efforts to detach and annex the land at any time after a negative determination by the Minnesota Municipal Board or by any court. 3 . Creation and Conveyance of Outlots. a . Subdivision of the Victoria Parcel. If the annexation efforts in Section 2 are successful , Lundgren shall use its best efforts to subdivide the Victoria Parcel such that the portion adjacent to the Lots is subdivided into Outlots that correspond precisely with the easement areas described in Section 1.b of this Declaration. All other aspects of the subdivision of the Victoria Parcel shall be in Lundgren ' s sole discretion, subject to municipal approval . Lundgren ' s best efforts shall include appropriate municipal actions, but need not include any court proceedings . b. Conveyance of Outlots . Promptly after Lundgren has subdivided the Victoria Parcel in a manner that creates teseOutlots that correspond to the foregoing easement areas, deedn shall ers t the Outlots freeln andee clearple of allolute liensto andhe otherpective encumbrances. of the Lots , f c. Consolidation of Lots and Outlots. If at the time the Outlots are deeded to the Lot owners, the Outlots are inside the City of Chanhassen, the owners of the Lots and repthe e Outlotsthe (and their respective mortgagees) shall promptly the Outlots into nine consolidated lots; Lundgren shall pay all costs of such replatting and shall coordinate the replatting process; and, when the Lots and Outlots have beentconsolidatred, this Declaration shall automatically exp e Lot owners, the if at the time the Outlots are dedectodid a°Victoria, Lundgren shall have no Outlots are inside the City obligation to consolidate the Lots and the Outlots and this Declaration shall automatically exp 3 MMM\LBC\BOLEY\YARDEASE.DEC 7/2/93 - DRAFT 3 . Administrative Provisions . a . Successors and Assigns . This Declaration shall be binding upon Lundgren, its successors and assigns, as owners of the Victoria Parcel for the benefit of Lundgren, its successors and assigns as owners of the Lots. Lundgren reserves the right to convey the Victoria Parcel to any individual , corporation, partnership or other legal entity, provided that Lundgren shall remain jointly liable with the grantee for the performance of Lundgren ' s obligations under Sections 2 and 3 of this Declaration. b. Enforcement . This Declaration may be enforced by proceedings at law or in equity. Failure by any person to enforce any provision of this Declaration shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. c. Severability. Invalidation of any provision of this Declaration by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. d. Amendment . This Declaration may be amended by an instrument signed by the owners and first mortgagees of at least 75% of the Lots . Each amendment must be recorded with the Carver County Registrar of Titles . e. Captions . The title of this instrument and the captions of the sections and subsections hereof are for convenience of reference only. LUNDGREN BROS . CONSTRUCTION, INC. By Peter Pflaum, President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss . COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1993 by Peter Pflaum, President of Lundgren Bros . Construction, Inc. , a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public This Instrument Was Drafted By: LEONARD, STREET AMD DEIMARD (MIM) 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Mirrxapotis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 335.1562 HIM\LBC\BOLEY\YARDEASE.DEC 4 7/2/93 - DRAFT CONSENT OF MORTGAGEES Howard S. Boley and Margaretha Boley, husband and wife, being the holders of a mortgage on some of the land described in the foregoing Declaration of Yard Easements, hereby consent to the foregoing instrument and agree to be bound by it upon foreclosure of the mortgage or receipt of a deed in lieu of foreclosure. - Howard S. Boley - Margaretha Boley STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1993 , by Howard S. Boley and Margaretha Boley, husband and wife . Notary Public _ KMM\LBC\BOLEY\YARDEASE.DEC 5 CITY O C PC DATE: 2/3/93 — ` f�' CC DATE: 2/22/93 +� i• cHANHAssEN _ CASE #: 93-1 SUB By: Aanenson/v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivide 36 Acres into 33 Single Family Lots with 3 Outlots (Boley Property) Z Q LOCATION: 7340 Minnewashta Parkway V J - _ CL APPLICANT: Lundgren Bros. Construction Q935 East Wayzata Boulevard — Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ACREAGE: 36 acres DENSITY: gross .91 u/a net 1.37 u/a ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF; single family S - Victoria - residential E - RSF; single family _ 4 W - Victoria - residential 0 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Rolling terrain, Lake St. Joe is in the northern portion of the subdivision. There is a wetland adjacent to Lake St. Joe and — another wetland found in the southwest corner of the site OMNI 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 2 — PROPOSAL SUMMARY Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Brothers Development, is requesting subdivision approval for 33 single family homes. This property is 36 acres and is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. This property is a part of a larger piece of property owned by Howard Boley. — The southern portion of Mr. Boley's property is located in Victoria. The applicant has ghost platted this property to show how this property could be developed. Approval of this subdivision is required by the City of Victoria. This proposal has a gross density of .91 units an acre and 1.37 units an acre net, this includes — 11.54 acres of wetland and .4 acres of road. Lake St. Joe borders the northern portion of the subdivision, this lake has a substantial wetland area around it. The city has classified this wetland as a natural wetland. The other wetland on the property was not reviewed as a part of the city's wetland inventory. The analysis of this wetland needs to occur before the plat receives final approval. This property is being proposed for development under the standard subdivision review process; the property is currently zoned RSF. Lake St. Joe, which is on the northern portion of the subdivision, calls for compliance with the shoreland regulations. There is a wetland adjacent to — Lake St. Joe which is in the southwest corner of the site. Compliance with the wetland regulations is also required. Assess to this site is from Minnewashta Parkway. The orientation of the subdivision is towards Chanhassen. mainly because access is gained only through Chanhassen. At this time, access to Victoria is proposed via a stub street to the south. The westerly edge of this subdivision is in — the city of Victoria. The city limit is located at the most westerly 90 feet of the subdivision running the length of the plat of 1315 feet. Approval of the subdivision is therefore required by the City of Victoria, before the city can grant final approval. — The staff feels that this subdivision is well conceived, but the issue of Victoria's jurisdiction over part of the site raises some concern if they are unwilling to approve it. The subdivision as — proposed meets all of the standards of the RSF zone. The applicants are requesting variances from the lot width requirements of the Shoreland Regulations. SITE ANALYSIS There is an existing home on the property, the Howard Boley residence. This home will have to be removed with the development of the subdivision. There are three existing homes just to south of the subdivision. The homes are exempted from the subdivision. Further south along Minnewashta Parkway is the Alt property which has horses and a stable on it. This property is also an exemption. All of these properties are in the city of Victoria. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 3 _ This site has a rolling topography, the high point is over 1000 feet, where you can see all the way to Lake Minnetonka. The lowest elevation is the ordinary high water mark at 945.2'. The site has three areas of trees. It appears that the trees are on Lots 4, 5, and part of 6, Block 1 which will be lost due to grading of the site. The other groups of trees on the site including Lots 1, 12, 13, and 10-25, Block 1 should submit _ a home placement plans showing the existing trees and how they will be saved. Staff believes that except for Lots 12 and 13 there should be minimal tree loss. This proposal calls for grading the high point of the Block 2 area and placing this fill in the Block 1 area of Lots 2-9. At first blush, staff had some concern about fill being placed so close to the edge of the wetland at the 950' elevation. Upon further investigation is was determined that the site has been farmed right up to the edge of the wetland. In order for the home along the north portion of the site adjacent to the wetland to remain above the grade of the street, fill is required in this area. The developer has shown a cross section of how this lot would look, and this proposal shows an approximate 1% grade from the home to the street (see Attachment #4). Staff believes that it is desirable to have the homes above the street grade to provide lot drainage to the street so storm water can be pre-treated before entering the wetlands. Outlot C is not being platted at this time. The ghost plat for the southern portion of the site shows Outlot C being platted via a road from the city of Victoria. Staff believes that this makes good planning sense because this area is the high point of the property and access from the south will minimize grading and tree loss. There are four storm water retention ponds proposed for the subdivision. They are located on Outlots A and B and on Lots 12, 13, 22, and 23 of Block 1. Access to the ponds will be gained from the road on Outlots A and B but an easement will be required for access for the other two ponds. A stone wall is shown between the ponds on Outlots A and B. More design details about the wall are required before it can be built. Streetscape is also required along Minnewashta Parkway as per the Landscaping Ordinance. Victoria City Line The westerly 90 feet of this subdivision is in the city of Victoria. Prior to final approval of this subdivision, approval by the city of Victoria is required. The property in Victoria is a strip of 90 feet wide and 1315.16 feet long. The Boley property is also divided north and south between the city of Victoria and Chanhassen. A ghost plat was shown as to how this property in Victoria could be developed. Topography, access and availability of utilities dictate that this area be serviced by Chanhassen. The applicant would like the city to consider annexation of this area. City staff believes this is a reasonable outcome. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 4 On Friday, January 22, 1993, Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson and myself met with the Victoria City Manager Miriam Porter and City Planner Bill Thilbalt regarding the development of the — Boley property. Victoria's preference is to have the subdivision moved to the east so that the city lines do not dissect the lots. While the city lines divide Lots 13 through 21, Block 1, the homes as proposed on the home placement are shown in the City of Chanhassen. Leaving this — narrow strip would provide an unbuildable lot with no access to it. Providing a stub street to the west from this subdivision should be considered. Victoria needs to make comprehensive study as to how this area can be served. Chanhassen will be working with Victoria to resolve this issue. Currently, there are four homes and a church on the east side of Minnewashta Parkway that are in the city of Victoria but have Chanhassen services. These homes are part of the Trolls Glen 3rd Addition and the church is part of the Cedar Crest Subdivision. Circumstances like this where properties are in other cities and yet serviced by Chanhassen exist elsewhere through the city. In similar circumstances, the city has worked on a service agreement with the appropriate jurisdiction. However, no such agreement exists for these parcels and they too have no physical connection to Victoria in any substantive manner. Staff is recommending that the portion of this _ subdivision that is in Victoria be platted and not left as a lot remanent. Shoreland Regulations — Lake St. Joe is classified by the DNR as a Natural Environment Lake. Compliance with the shoreland regulations includes all property within 1000 feet of the shoreline. In the case the — entire this subdivision, falls within 1000 feet of the lake. The minimum standards are as follows: LAKESHORE NON-LAKESHORE LOT WIDTH LOT AREA STRUCTURE IMPACT LOT WIDTH LOT — (sq. ft.) ZONE AREA r 125 feet 40,000 150 feet 75 feet 125 feet 20,000 — All of the lots abutting the lake meet the 40,000 square foot minimum requirement. The remaining lots meet the 20,000 square foot minimum. Not all of the lots meet the 125 foot lot — width requirement. Staff has measured the setback from 30 feet back line and found that the total number of lots that are under the 125 minimum is 12. Staff is recommending that variances be given on these lots (Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1). The intent of the shoreland regulations is to minimize the shoreland impact. Staff is of the opinion that making the lots conform to the 125 foot lot width will not affect the density of the project. In addition, 12 of the lots that do not meet the lot width requirements are not adjacent to the lake. We note that this is a problem that directly stems from the MnDNR's Shoreland Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 5 Regulations that we intend to rectify with a revised ordinance. It was drafted to cover the entire state and is very inappropriate in the metro area. For example, much of south Minneapolis is located within the shoreland districts surrounding Lakes Calhoun, Harriet, Isles and Nokomis. Obviously, this is inconsistent with the state guidelines. In past discussions with the DNR, they have agreed that the manner in which we propose to regulate the shoreland on the Boley parcel is acceptable. Wetland Regulations There are two wetlands on the property. One wetland is adjacent to Lake St. Joe and the other is in the southwest corner of the proposed plat. The Lake St. Joe wetland was inventoried this summer and was determined to have a natural classification as per the city's new Wetland Ordinance (see attachment #3). This development proposes 13 lots adjacent to the Lake St. Joe wetland. The setback requirement for a natural classification wetland is 40 feet plus an additional 10 to 30 feet (20' average) native vegetation strip. Lots 1-13 in Block 1 all meet the wetland setback requirement (see attached compliance table). The Wetland Ordinance also states that a monument is required for each 300 feet of wetland edge. One concern of the staff is the amount of fill being proposed adjacent to the wetland. Fill is proposed at a 3:1 slope which is fairly steep immediately adjacent to the wetland. The area adjacent to the wetland has been farmed in the past so there is no native vegetation established, staff's main concern is erosion control. Staff is recommending that the Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook be used to ensure erosion control measures are taken. Also see the grading section for more discussion of this issue. The second wetland is found in the northwest corner of the property. This is a very small part of a very large wetland that is adjacent to Tamarack Lake. This wetland was not identified during the inventory this past summer. Ron Peterson, a wetland specialist working for Lundgren Brothers, felt that although this wetland has been altered, the property to the west is used for cattle grazing and a road has been built through the wetland, it could be improved. Regardless _ of the function at this point the homes on Lots 20 and 21, Block 1 propose a 120 foot and 80 foot setback from the edge of the wetland. Even if this wetland is determined to be classified as a natural or ag/urban, adequate buffering is being provided. An inventory of this wetland is necessary to determine the amount of buffer strip and native vegetation required before this plat is given final approval. The city has not yet established a species list for the re-establishment of native vegetation but will have to do so before this plat can be given final approval. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 6 — GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of trees/wooded areas except for a few areas along Lake St. Joe. The property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The preliminary grading plan proposes extensive site grading to accommodate proposed building house pads and — maintaining street grades within the City's guidelines (0.50% to 7.0%). According to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 509 Plan, the 100-year flood elevation for Lake St. Joe is at 949.5'. Fill placement proposed along Lots 6 through 9, Block 1, appears to be encroaching into the -' Watershed District's 100-year flood boundary. Placement of fill material on these lots should be limited to areas outside the 100-year flood boundary. Side slopes adjacent to Lake St. Joe are proposed at 3:1 which are fairly steep but not excessive. Site restoration, vegetative cover and — erosion control efforts should follow the City's recently adopted Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fence should be employed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In some instances where side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed 200 feet upstream of the toe of slope. All access points from the construction site should be surfaced and — maintained with a crushed rock base in accordance with the City's BMPH (Attachment No. 1). Storm water runoff from the development is proposed to maintain the existing drainage pattern. — The majority of the overall site drains towards Lake St. Joe. The southwesterly corner of the property drains westerly towards a wetland basin in Victoria. The majority of the storm water generated from the development is proposed to be carried via storm sewer system and discharged — into water treatment/retention ponds prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe or the wetlands'in Victoria. Mr. Ismael Martinez with the City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo and Associates, has reviewed this development proposal and has recommended minimum ponding capacities and — characteristics for the proposed water quality ponds (Attachment No. 2). In an effort to help reduce future City maintenance of these water quality ponds, staff recommends the applicant look at consolidating the ponds proposed on Outlots A and B; either on one of the outlots or on Lots — 1 and 2, Block 1, outside the wetlands. Prior to final plat approval, detailed storm sewer and ponding design calculations shall be — submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. The ponding areas shall meet or exceed the City's water quality standards (NURP) and retention requirements for a 100-year, 24-hour storm — event. Discharge from the site shall be maintained at predeveloped runoff conditions. Access to the water quality/retention ponds for maintenance purposes shall be provided by an easement dedicated on the final plat. All easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Side slopes on — the maintenance access routes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slope. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. Upon final construction plan submittal, a development plan shall be included on the final grading plan — denoting the house type and proposed lowest floor and garage slab elevations. In addition, all Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 7 proposed lot corner elevations shall be shown. Plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. UTILITIES The plans propose extending municipal utilities from Minnewashta Parkway into the site. Municipal sanitary sewer and water lines in Minnewashta Parkway are adequately sized to accommodate this development proposal. The applicant's engineer has also designed the utilities to serve a future phase to the south which is in the City of Victoria. Final placement of fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Construction of all municipal utilities shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and final approval by the City Council. STREETS The street plans propose on extending a public street westerly from Minnewashta Parkway just south of Minnewashta Court. A public street extension is also proposed to the south for future service to Victoria which will eventually loop back into Minnewashta Parkway. Sight lines at the proposed intersection is fairly good considering the speed limit on Minnewashta Parkway. Although a future or concept looped street to the south through Victoria and back out to Minnewashta Parkway with the next phase will have to be carefully studied. Sight lines are poor due to roadway geometrics on Minnewashta Parkway. Ideally, future street extensions through _ Victoria should line up perpendicular to Minnewashta Parkway preferably across from one of the existing intersections at either Hawthorne Circle or 77th Street. A sign indicating "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" should be placed on one of the barricades _ at the end of the proposed south street. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for a future street extension to the west to Victoria through this phase or the next phase. With the topographic constraints around this parcel, it may not be feasible; however, it should still be reviewed. Street grades proposed are between 0.75% and 6.0% which are within the City's current standards. The applicant has proposed a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 31-foot wide street (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) which is also within the City's guidelines. All street intersections should be perpendicular to each other. The second intersection in from Minnewashta Parkway, at the loop, needs some minor adjusting to accomplish this. Construction of the public street improvements shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. As you are aware, the City is currently undergoing an improvement project to upgrade — Minnewashta Parkway (Project No. 90-15). The Minnewashta Parkway project proposes to assess Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 8 — this parcel a portion of the project costs. The feasibility study for the Minnewashta Parkway project estimated 39 assessable units for this parcel. The City Council approved a rate per unit _ of $760 and equates to a pending assessment of $29,640. The assessment hearing for the Minnewashta Parkway project is not proposed until early fall of 1993. COMPLIANCE TABLE See Attachment # 1 PARK AND RECREATION — The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the application by Lundgren Brothers Construction to subdivide the aforementioned property on January 26, 1993. The staff report — presented to the commission that evening is attached. Ms. Brenda Roy, a resident adjoining the proposed subdivision, addressed the commission that evening asking that she be designated as the owner of the property listed under the name Richard Fedtke. Mr. Terry Forbord,representing the applicant, was present at the meeting as well. Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, the Park and Recreation Commission made the — following recommendations: Parkland: It is recommended that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land — dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current — residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500.00 per unit. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu _ of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 — per unit. Home placement plans shall be required to ensure the preservation of the trees on the site. — Streetscape landscaping is required along Minnewashta Parkway. Plans should be submitted for staff review prior to submittal of the final plat. A requirement of one tree per lot will also be enforced as part of the building permit process. — PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat at their February 3, 1993, meeting. The Planning Commission raised the following issues at the meeting. The existing dock on the Boley property onto Lake St. Joe should be removed and the prospective owners of lots adjacent to the lake should be informed of the wetland adjacent to the lake and Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 9 the prohibitions of docks. The Planning Commission directed staff to provide an intent of a rational for the variances for the shoreland regulation requirement of lot width of 125 feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the preliminary plat #93-1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council. 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration, and will discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100-year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff is working with the Watershed District to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant's _ engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant, Mr. Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 10 — of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20- foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. 7. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly street extension indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". Notice of the — extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. 8. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases of development. — 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. — 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of Victoria. 13. Compliance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be given on Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons: a. All lots abutting Lake St. Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots not adjacent to the lake are recommended for a variance. b. Requirement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement will not affect the density of the project. Boley Property/Lundgren Bros. February 3, 1993 Page 11 c. The MnDNR's shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied within the metro area. 15. Compliance with the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Minnewashta Parkway and the requirement of one tree per lot. .16. The existing dock on Lake St. Joe from the Boley property shall be removed." ATTACHMENTS 1. Compliance table. 2. Application. 3. Lake St. Joe Wetland Classification. 4. Typical cross section of adjacent to the wetland from Sathre-Bergquist. 5. Memo from Dave Hempel dated January 26, 1993. 6. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated January 28, 1993. 7. Letter from DNR dated January 15, 1993. 8. Letter from Soil and Water Conservation District dated January 12, 1993. 9. Memo from Mark Littfin dated January 8, 1993. 10 Public hearing notice. 11. Planning Commission minutes dated February 3, 1993. 12. Plat dated January 5, 1992. iiiiitl C�Nwt n� T LAT STANDARDS StttARY TABLE BLOCH 1 LOT AREA LAT WIDTH AT BLDG LAT RIPARIAN NON-RIPARIAN REQUIRED ACTUAL AREA ABOVE R19aULRID ACTUAL WETLAND NO. LOT LOT AREA AREA WETLANDS WIDTH WTDTH SETBACK 1 YES --- 40,000 SF 57,500 SF 31,000 125' 152' 100' 2 YES --- 40,000 SF 51,300 SF 30,000 125' 140' 70' 3 ___ YES 20,000 SF 30,500 SF 22,000 125' 160' 55' '� 4 YES --- 40,000 SF 49,400 SF 20,000 125' 135' 60' 5 -__ YES 20,000 SF 31,300 SF 20,600 125' 140' 80' ... 6 ___ YES 20,000 SF 28,200 SF 21,400 125' 150' 75' 7 YES --- 40,000 SF 50,500 SF 20,600 125' 125' 85' _ 8 YES --- 40,000 SF 103,100 SF 25,700 125' 125' 85' 9 YES --- 40,000 SF 121,800 SF 25,100 125' 125' 100' 10 YES --- 40,000 SF 96,600 SF 24,600 125' 125' 90' 11 YES --- 40,000 SF 67,300 SF 23,600 125' 125' 90' 12 YES --- 40,000 SF 61,000 SF 31,000 125' 125' 80' , .. 13 --- YES 20,000 SF 59,900 SF 44,800 125' (1) 125090' 80' 14 --- YES 20,000 SF 28,700 SF 125' (2) 100' - 15 ___ IFS 20,000 SF 22,600 SF 125' (2) 100' 16 --- YES 20,000 SF 21,300 SF 125' (2) 100' 17 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,400 SF 125' (2) 100' 18 ___ YES 20,000 SF 20,100 SF 125' (2) 100' 19 --- YES 20,000 SF 21,900 SF 125' (2) 100' �. 20 ___ YES 15,000 SF 34,100 SF 30,600 90' 100' 120' 21 ___ YES 15,000 SF 42,500 SF 23,900 90' 100' 80' 22 __- YES 15,000 SF 20,000 SF 90' 100' 23 ___ YES 20,000 SF 21,700 SF 125' (2) 100' 24 --_ YES 20,000 SF 29,100 SF 125' 148' 25 --- YES 20,000 SF 22,700 SF 125' (21 '100' 26 ___ ITS 20,000 SF 22,000 SF 125' 130' -. :.•r.. _ -, , 2n, , ,. � , 'nn' -.I I 4-1 1 LAT STANDARDS SUMMARY TABLE -BLOCK 2 LOT AREA LOT WIDTH AT BLDG LAT RIPARIAN NON-RIPARIAN REQUIRED ACTUAL REQUIRED ACTUAL .- NO. WI LOT AREA AREA . WIDTH WIDTH 1 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,500 SF 125' 125' 2 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,100 SF 125' 140' 3 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 170' 4 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 175' 5 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 180' 6 --- YES 20,000 SF 20,000 SF 125' 128' AVERAGE LOT AREA: 38,670 SQUARE 11±;i _AVERAGE LOT WIDTH: 125.7 ILLT (AT PROPOSED BUILDING SETBACK) (1) PROPOSED HOUSE S thACK FOR NECK LOT IS 90 1.EITI MINIMUM WHERE LOT WIDTH IS 125 1~ 'i. LOT WIDTH AT 30 lt1 SETBACK IS 38 1.E. VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR LOT WIDTH AT MINIMUM SETBACK, FROM ZONING AND SHORELAND ORDINANCES. - (2) VARIANCE REQUIRED FROM SHORELAND ORDINANCE 125 1‘1:.r:i WIDTH STANDARD. NO VARIANCE NEEDED FROM RSF ZONING DISTRICT 90 1.1:. 1 WIDTH STANDARD. z SATHRE - BERGQUIST , INC . 4/ (61 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN 55391 (612) 476-6000 FAX 476-0104 C/1,FRS Q\,P January 4, 1993 Mr. Paul Krauss CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box *147 Chanhassen Minnesota 55317 Subject: BOLEV Property Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. Dear Mr. Krauss: This letter is intended as supporting documentation to the Preliminary Plat and Variance request of Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. for the BOLEY Property on Minnewashta Parkway. _ Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. has agreed to purchase the Howard Boley property, in both Chanhassen and Victoria, in its entirely. The Boundary Survey includes land in the City of Chanhassen, (currently — zoned RSF, and proposed for platting) and land in the City of Victoria over which we have "ghost platted" a possible subdivision. The subdivision requested will create 33 single family lots and 3 outlots served by public street and utility extensions from Minnewashta Parkway. The Chanhassen portion of the Boley property has been zoned RSF for many years. Public utilities have been available to service the property for years as well. The Preliminary Plat lists the proposed lot areas. All of the subdivided lots will be at least 20,000 square feet in area. Riparian lots, those with Lake St. Joe shoreline, are a minimum of 49,400 square feet. — J/1 : 1 1 Lake St. Joe has been classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural resources as a Natural Environment Lake. The City of Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance establishes a 1000 foot zone adjacent to Lake St. Joe's ordinary high water line (OIlW) called the Shoreland Area. Within this zone riparian (lakeshore lots) are required to be 40,000 square feet and non-riparian lots must be 20,000 square feet. Normal RSF zoning district standards are a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet with minimum lot width of 90 at the building setback. In the Lake St. Joe Shoreland Area the ordinance requires 125 foot lot width at the lakeshore and at the building line. The riparian lots (and the other lots along the lake side of the proposed street) meet the 125' width at proposed setback standards. Lots across the street or farther from the lake are proposed to be 100 feet wide at the building line. While this 100 foot width is 10 feet wider than the Zoning Ordinance requires it is 25 feet less than the Shoreland Ordinance requires. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. requests variances be granted to allow these reduced lot widths. The table attached presents the statistical lot by lot data for your review. The table shows that 10 lots are in need of variances. We believe the variances are justified for the following reasons: 1 . The average lot width for all lots in the "Shoreland District" is 125.7 feet. This exceeds the 125 feet requirement. "Extra" lots are not being forced. 2. One purpose of the 125 foot width standard is to lessen the pollution impacts of property development. The Preliminary Plans show four NURP ponds which are proposed to pre-treat the storm water from the storm sewer system. The NURP ponds are more beneficial to the Lake and wetlands than adding 25 feet to the width of the lots proposed for variances. 3. The variances sought are dictated by the physical constraints of the site. Strict adherence to the Shoreland Ordinance provision of 125 feet width would necessitate realignment of the streets proposed thus increasing the degree of site alteration. This hardship on the land is not warranted. mmow The westerly portions of Lots 13 thru 21, Block 1, actually lie in the City of Victoria. The houses which will occupy these lots will be entirely built within Chanhassen. We intend to seek the necessary City _ of Victoria approvals to plat these lots as shown concurrently with the Chanhassen review process. Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. seeks Preliminary stage approvals at — this time. They intend to proceed with actual site development in the late spring and summer of 1993, following Final Stage Approval. Sincerely, SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. (244 41;1..<5151 '-it...-s-? Fichard W. Sathre, P.E. R\ S/din — Attachment oeP City of Chanhassen Wetland Observation Records Wetland No.: 3 (Field Review): /_!'1— (Official Map) Location ►14,►J T; R; 1 Section On USGS NWI: ✓ Y N Observer Initials: 'c=.. • Date Visited: /• / qZ Picture Number(s)/Roll #: 9--!3 /;:-%-t, Picture Nos.: l — y (:et I.-I6/ (b/I/9 L� Classification GI� Wetland Type: P (Cowardin); '3,/5f / ? (Circular 39) Wetland Location: Lakeside Streamside Headwaters ✓ Isolated (upland) Edge of Wetland Contour 9 LI/. S ;varies City Class: (P)ristine ; (N)atural v' ; (A)g/Urban ; (U)tilized Watershed Characteristics Wetland Size: acres Direct drainage area: acres Total drainage area: acres Open water area: acres Vegetation Pery..Ct C C r - yv. a-aC tri�L� Dominant Plant Species: QM, s Reed canary grass Cattail • ( f r C 1 Tt 1 C. 1,0 A 0 S.00"--- cr. .w".l ,.. r..: ,....:.,�,•-� t-. 1 T Purple Loosestrife: (D)ominant; (A)bundant; (S)dme;(I)ndividuals; (N)one Plant Diversity: No. Species Dominant- 1; 2; 3- 7 Percent open water: 7o io Land Use Influences Surrounding Land Use (Percent): 5°i„ Residentia M,D,Rur. Commercial/Industrial _ c°% Agricultural LID '7, Open Water 5 0% Wooded Institutional _ Vacant Field (describe below) Hydrology Water Source: ✓ Natural; Stormwater; Unknown — Inflow: Stream; Ditch; Stormsewer; Surface Outflow: ✓ Natural; Ditch; Culvert; None — Sedimentation/Siltation: Y L..--- N Flooded - dead or dying trees: v Y N Drains to L-, -• 54 o-Dt. ; (Direction;Wetland No.) (C)ontinuously• (S) ovally; (I)nterrnittently; (R)arely — Soil Classification Soil Type Abby.: Soil Name: _ Other - Wildlife Observations: P, •.' ''), - General Notes/Comments: ; ;,,.0 -1-m e - j 1 p, . . -,1 �.^r+ r �i'a•-"••-•4 k_� `.f • UU: ' ' :ii i L-P�r Dt - 4-i-'--e. �-f - j • 7'1 ',t r: . '.moi J 7,v_0_''.- 0(.."-----d ( N''';1% ' 4-- YY -i- 1",-- , -f Y-r�-t.vwI1 ]fr. ' '5- _el ..--_p , • )Section No. "7 Wetland Sketch;Photo • j�.!� 1 ___:� t.., i" c T ,1 s 5 —s\ 1 '5 4 c..,... 2.,.-6,_i _ ..,.,./k.,t-::;5,...2 I._ 410 c-445 �1 7-0• 9 12 f 4‘' )/ — ,. 4 . _ .....t „ _„ , � 13 16 \ - 4-0 Not to Scale N r / — • ._. Civ ' `` I i1 \ o a n ti U _r_"i} — a,..;4ir._ -12 PROPOSED GRADE MAXIMUM 3:1 SLOPE o `----- ExtSTiriG GRADE L•-- e: oNM R SECTION AA 9 $� • •A 0. SCALE 1"C'' t0 Feet illi ' 4. \ t SCALE t Inch = 100 Fret lt8 ,e 6 ,� I'y I. will�� ' ' it � ��T� .„.„--- /. ' ., _ ,.---. ...,7 -..1.- ;.//, /, 0,,,...' i \ 5 24 1\ C 23 I \ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1164 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 - MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner — FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer" DATE: January 26, 1993 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for the Boley Property/Lundgren Development — File No. 93-4 Land Use Review Upon review of the preliminary plat dated December 28, 1992 and preliminary grading and utility plans dated December 28, 1992, prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING AND DRAINAGE The site consists of generally rolling terrain devoid of trees/wooded areas except for a few areas along Lake St. Joe. The property is currently utilized for agricultural purposes. The preliminary grading plan proposes extensive site grading to accommodate proposed building house pads and maintaining street grades within the City's guidelines (0.50% to 7.0%). According to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's 509 Plan, the 100-year flood elevation for Lake St. Joe is at 949.5. Fill placement proposed along Lots 6 through 9, Block 1, appears to be encroaching into the Watershed District's 100-year flood boundary. Placement of fill material on these lots should be limited to areas outside the 100-year flood — boundary. Side slopes adjacent to Lake St. Joe are proposed at 3:1 which are fairly steep but not excessive. Site restoration,vegetative cover and erosion control efforts should follow the City's recently adopted Best Management Practice for Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (BMPH). Type III erosion control fence should be employed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In some instances where side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed 200 feet upstream of the toe of slope. All access points from the construction site should be surfaced and maintained with a crushed rock base in accordance with the City's BMPH (Attachment No. 1). Storm water runoff from the development is proposed to maintain the existing drainage pattern. The majority of the overall site drains towards Lake St. Joe. The southwesterly ifs «, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Kate Aanenson _ January 26, 1993 Page 2 corner of the property drains westerly towards a wetland basin in Victoria. The majority of the storm water generated from the development is proposed to be carried via storm sewer system and discharged into water treatment/retention ponds prior to discharging into Lake St. Joe or the wetlands in Victoria. Mr. Ismael Martinez with the City's storm water consultant, Bonestroo and Associates, has reviewed this development proposal and has — recommended minimum ponding capacities and characteristics for the proposed water quality ponds (Attachment No. 2). In an effort to help reduce future City maintenance of these water quality ponds, staff recommends the applicant look at consolidating the ponds — proposed on Outlots A and B; either on one of the outlots or on Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, outside the wetlands. — Prior to final plat approval, detailed storm sewer and ponding design calculations shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. The storm sewer system shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. The ponding areas shall meet or exceed — the City's water quality standards (NURP) and retention requirements for a 100-year, 24- hour storm event. Discharge from the site shall be maintained at predeveloped runoff conditions. Access to the water quality/retention ponds for maintenance purposes shall be provided by an easement dedicated on the final plat. All easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Side slopes on the maintenance access routes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slope. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. Upon final construction plan submittal, a development plan shall be included on the final grading plan denoting the house type and proposed lowest floor and garage slab elevations. In addition, all proposed lot corner elevations shall be shown. Plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and approval. UTILITIES _ The plans propose extending municipal utilities from Minnewashta Parkway into the site. Municipal sanitary sewer and water lines in Minnewashta Parkway are adequately sized to accommodate this development proposal. The applicant's engineer has also designed the — utilities to serve a future phase to the south which is in the City of Victoria. Final placement of fire hydrants shall be in accordance with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. Construction of all municipal utilities shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard — Specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and final approval by the City Council. STREETS Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 3 — The street plans propose on extending a public street westerly from Minnewashta Parkway just south of Minnewashta Court. A public street extension is also proposed to the south for future service to Victoria which will eventually loop back into Minnewashta Parkway. Sight lines at the proposed intersection is fairly good considering the speed limit on — Minnewashta Parkway. Although a future or concept looped street to the south through Victoria and back out to Minnewashta Parkway with the next phase will have to be carefully _ studied. Sight lines are poor due to roadway geometries on Minnewashta Parkway. Ideally, future street extensions through Victoria should line up perpendicular to Minnewashta Parkway preferably across from one of the existing intersections at either Hawthorne Circle _ or 77th Street. A sign indicating "THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" should be placed on one of the barricades at the end of the proposed south street. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the _ potential for a future street extension to the west to Victoria through this phase or the next phase. With the topographic constraints around this parcel, it may not be feasible;however, it should still be reviewed. — Street grades proposed are between 0.75% and 6.0% which are within the City's current standards. The applicant has proposed a 60-foot wide right-of-way with a 31-foot wide street — (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) which is also within the City's guidelines. All street intersections should be perpendicular to each other. The second intersection in from Minnewashta Parkway, at the loop, needs some minor adjusting to accomplish this. — Construction of the public street improvements shall be in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street construction plans shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City — Council. As you are aware, the City is currently undergoing an improvement project to upgrade — Minnewashta Parkway (Project No. 90-15). The Minnewashta Parkway project proposes to assess this parcel a portion of the project costs. The feasibility study for the Minnewashta Parkway project estimated 39 assessable units for this parcel. The City Council approved — a rate per unit of $760 and equates to a pending assessment of $29,640. The assessment hearing for the Minnewashta Parkway project is not proposed until early fall of 1993. MISCELLANEOUS An existing house currently exists on proposed Lot 1, Block 1. It is assumed the applicant is proposing to remove the house with the subdivision construction. The applicant should be aware they will need to apply and comply with all the local building and demolition _ codes. The sanitary sewer and water service to the residence shall be abandoned and disconnected at the property line along Minnewashta Parkway. Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 4 RECOMMENDED CONDMONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City's Engineering Department for — review and formal approval by the City Council. _ 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department and MWCC. 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10-year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100-year storm event, 24-hour duration, and will — discharge at the predeveloped runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. 5. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100-year flood elevation of Lake St. Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. 6. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control. Type III — erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of slope adjacent to Lake St. Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 200 feet in depth from the toe of slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. 7. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 8. The applicant's engineer shall review the possibility of consolidating the two storm water retention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block _ 1 outside the wetlands. Kate Aanenson January 26, 1993 Page 5 9. All access points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat — as 20-foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. — 10. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat. — 11. The applicant shall place a sign at the end of the southerly street extension indicating 'THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE". _ 12. All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other. 13. The applicant and staff from both Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of Victoria through one of the phases of development. — 14. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant,Mr. — Ismael Martinez, is outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 15. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. — 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development. ktm Attachments: 1. Detail on temporary rock construction entrance. — 2. Letter from Ismael Martinez dated January 15, 1993. c: Charles Folch, City Engineer convenient and effective. The wash rack would consist of a heavy grating over a lowered area in the construction entrance. The grating may be a prefabricated rack such as a cattle guard, or it may be constructed on-site of structural steel. In any case, the wash rack must be strong enough to support the vehicles that will cross it. Figure 15.2 shows a typical wash rack installation. MAINTENANCE The rock pad needs occasional maintenance to prevent tracking of mud onto paved roads. This may require periodic top dressing with additional rock or removal and reinstallation of the pad. Hard surface public road %.may I .��• a •1'tiI ""w'"'`••�• '; ''-f 50' minimum o��-_�� Os IMS �I�I��•j• .��1��_I•:� sof 6 minimum ~~��•�� .' . ...!�! •moi- •. ��: washed rock • •�.•:•�••,.:•� FIGURE 15.1: Rock Construction Entrance. Source: MPCA's BMP Handbook 39304p t3 ATTACHMENT 1 C1-18-1223 : :2 E:2 E3S 131: BONESTROO & ASSN.. P.01 Car G Icrweoa PE d WPM PM PI Mes I thee P Wt.PE Wei -Pro PE'LI — B o n e s t roo iron W Imre PEI kV'A AGOKOVL$i P.E Apses M RN AICD L (}r�.e ei Jospr C Amick.PE. ROCe-.R PtMMe PE TrttrotS W Phelan.PE Wren L Wiemer.PI Marv"- Sorwia PE RrpyT,W Pew' PE Mete C Lynci.PE Gay 3 Krafft PE NEERosene RiCwt E Tlnrn.PE. Dim:0 Loma PE Aron R Mauna PE P Tom Prise, PE ri Anderiik & Gorr A.Coot. PE Rotel C l4 A Ivy PefRfan PE Kerr.,R woe PE Thoma'E.Not"PE Je-) A Murder PE Wee*P Amelflen PE Shirr D &mew- PE RoOrs G Sc'.,.0,. PE Pork A Marion PE Wm R Ron PE Cecno Dme, PE Associates k4E'M Ebr* CPA cr MRaxme 0•.E met A Sec P.E Rives A Encleo, 7 *Sow ConsLeart Ito K rat PE Gay W Woe^ Z. Leo M P*.uy Trews I MCr'w' A I A jr*DJ Eopr to^,Pi Heiler M OW- Engineers & Architects Dona C kw*.PE Cirri K Ketcntn�an PE Jane,r Erne wo: — Tt+or,as E Am44 PI PPIII0 1 Cot"PE. lemael MIRIYt PE Wet D WOK PE MEMO TO: David Hampel, City of Chanhassen Fax No, 937-5739 FROM: Ismael Martinez DATE: January 15, 1993 RE: Boley Property Development FILE NO.: 3930en Stormwater Review Hi Dave ! INTRODUCTION We have performed a stormwater and water quality review of the proposed development, Boley Property Development. Our review was based on the proposed development characteristics shown in the Preliminary Grading Plan dated December 28, 1992. As a result of our review we recommend the following capacities and characteristics for the proposed water quality ponds: Pond A Pond B Pond C Pond D Wet Volume AF 0 .3 0 .17 *0 .24 0 .16 Mean Depth Ft 2 .7 2 . 0 2 .2 2 . 0 * This wet volume for Pond C assumes the existence of pond D downstream. OBSERVATIONS _ The proposed development is located in the Southwest corner of Lake St. Joe West of Minnewashta Parkway in the NE 1/4 of Section 7, T 116 N, R 23 W, in the City of Chanhassen. ATTACHMENT 2 01-18-1993 09:19 612 636 1311 BDNESTRGD & ASS:. P.02 The proposed development drains naturally to two existing natural wetlands, Lake St Joe to the north and a southerly wetland. Lake St Joe is classified as a Palustrine Lake, with Emergent Vegetation in the surroundings Classified as a natural+ wetland in the City's wetland inventory. The stormsewer system for the proposed development contains four water quality treatment ponds. We have assigned names to these ponds as follows: Pond A - Located in lot 11, drains directly into Lk. St Joe Pond B - Located in lot 21, drains into a wetland in the City of Victoria Pond C - Located in outlot A, drains into Pond D Pond D - Located at the corner of Minnewashta Pkwy and the entrance of the proposed development, drains into Lake St Joe The drainage system shown in sheet 2 of 4 follows the natural topography and most of it drains directly into the wetlands. RESULTS The proposed development will have to meet basic water quality treatment of the runoff collected by the stormsewers. Special considerations were made regarding this development as part of our modeling to estimate practical pollutant concentrations due to the low traffic volume anticipated and the local topography. As a result of our review we recommend the following improvements: Pond A Pond B Pond C Pond D Wet Volume AF 0 . 3 0 . 17 *0 . 24 0 . 16 Mean Depth Ft 2 . 7 2 . 0 2 .2 2 . 0 * This wet volume for Pond C assumes the existence of pond D downstream, COMMENTS The proposed water quality ponds should meet or exceed the wet volume and the mean depth. The mean depth is particularly important due to the size of the ponds. Pond A should be protected against the erosion that can result from overtoping. Special attention should be paid to the erosion control measures and best management practices for this development. The topography and the grading proposed in the plans can result in impacts to the wetlands that could exceed the performance of the ponds in many years. If you have any comments please call me at 636-4600. Have a nice day 1 CITYOF 11010, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 '— 'w MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Senior Planner — FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park and Recreation Director ' DATE: January 28, 1993 SUBJ: Boley Property Preliminary Plat The Chanhassen Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the application by Lundgren Brothers — Construction to subdivide the aforementioned property on January 26, 1993. The staff report presented to the commission that evening is attached. Ms. Brenda Roy, a resident adjoining the proposed subdivision, addressed the commission that evening asking that she be designated as the owner of the property listed under the name Richard Fedtke. Mr. Terry Forbord, representing the applicant, was present at the meeting as well. — Upon conclusion of discussion that evening, the Park and Recreation Commission made the following recommendations: Parkland: It is recommended that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid _ on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500.00 per unit. Trails: It is recommended that the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley — property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. es tPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER - PRC DATE: Jan. 26, 1993 ciTY oF +...11 G CC DATE: CflAHA17 ..71( HOFFMAN:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to subdivide 36 acres into 33 single family homes on property zoned RSF LOCATION: Located southeast of Lake St. Joe, east of Minnewashta Parkway, and north of Z Highway 5 (see attached location map--Attachment A) — Q APPLICANT: Lundgren Brothers Construction EL935 East Wayzata Blvd. Q. Wayzata, MN 55391 Q PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family ADJACENT ZONLNG AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family S - City of Victoria E - RSF, Residential Single Family W - City of Victoria Q COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Recreation Section of the City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the area of the city which this proposed plat lies in as park deficient. This is no surprise to the commission, 1.2 • staff. the applicant, and the residents of Chanhassen living west of Lake Minnewashta. There is no park of any kind, public open space, playground, or other recreation area located west of Lake Minnewashta between Highway 5 and Highway 7. The Minnewashta Parkway "neighborhoods" represent a large and 4■1 increasing population of the city. The city has initiated steps to eliminate this park deficiency. First, _ a park acquisition and development fund reserve specifically for the purchase of land west of Lake (I) Minnewashta was established. Secondly, contacts inquiring about the purchase of property in this area have been made. Some commissioners may recall that Mr. Terry Forbord of Lundgren Brothers Construction spoke to the commission in September of 1990 during the review of a separate issue; however, he referenced the possible development of the Boley property. A great deal of discussion that Park and Recreation Commission January 21, 1993 Page 2 evening centered upon the designation of the land around Lake St. Joe with the exception of the Malinowski property as park/open space on the city's land use plan (Attachment B). This designation will be honored under this current proposal. This is not due to any effort by the developer as the property is a designated wetland and is protected as such. This designated open space, although of tremendous value, does not lessen the need for a park in this region of the city, however. The question then remains, is the Boley property the appropriate site for a park of at least ten _ acres in size west of Lake Minnewashta? I do not believe so for three reasons: 1. The topographic constraints confronted on this site would make development of a park, _ even one with a high percentage of passive area, difficult. 2. The site is removed from the center of the west Lake Minnewashta region. Property _ north of this site would be more appropriate for use as a park. 3. The site borders the City of Victoria on two sides. As you can see from the preliminary plat. the entirety of this proposed development includes some 20 lots in Victoria in addition to the 33 proposed in Chanhassen. Recent negotiations over ownership and operation responsibilities of Cathcart Park with the City of Shorewood exemplify the difficulties which can arise from the acquisition of a second "border" park. RECOMMENDATION Upon consideration of these findings, it is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication as a — condition of approval of the Boley property. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential park fee for single family dwellings is $500 per unit. COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies two trail segments on or adjacent to this proposed development. I will address them separately. Minnewashta Parkway: An 8-ft. bituminous trail is being constructed along Minnewashta Parkway in conjunction with the upgrade of the parkway itself. In the area of this development, the trail is on the east side of the parkway. The construction of this trail satisfies the designation on the Comprehensive Plan for a trail adjacent to the easterly _ border of the applicant's property. Park and Recreation Commission January 21, 1993 Page 3 Nature Trail Around Lake St. Joe: The Comprehensive Trail Plan identifies a nature trail around Lake St. Joe. A discussion with Mr. Mark Koegler of Hoisington-Koegler Group confirmed my assumption that the purpose of this designation was to provide public access to the unique open space around Lake St. Joe, particularly to its west. Unfortunately, this designation was made without close consideration being given to the difficulty of traversing this area. A trail around Lake St. Joe would require the dedication of a rear yard easements above the edge of the wetland on Lots 1-13, Block 1. The fact thai ;his designation would not be favored by the applicant is of no concern to me. What does concern me is the lack of justification for the investment which would be necessary to construct and maintain a boardwalk leading north of the proposed development. If this trail was to be located in a large city or regional park, the unique experience offered by a boardwalk entering such an area would be welcomed. In a neighborhood setting, however, this type of trail is not justifiable. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Park and Recreation Commission recommend the City Council accept full trail dedication fees in lieu of trail easement dedication or construction as a condition of approval of the Boley property plat. These fees to be paid on a per lot basis at the rate in force upon building permit application. The current residential trail fee for single family dwellings is $167.00 per unit. As explained, this recommendation is in direct conflict with the city's Comprehensive Plan. .If the commission is uncomfortable with this recommendation, a recommendation should be given to the city council requiring a trail easement be granted by the applicant on Lots 1-13, Block 1. 0009-9LP (Z`l9) • l6CSS •N11 'Yl�YM • AYMQY02=. I am.......................imiii V53...-'17. F.:_,NI: Z'S./.. ......1) 2 Z i LLI 1\il *°•lo„ '1,1.4., , i — I ZSII1� 2I H- �2i] :0 _ ' • A I : , 1 *('`H .•. C• E. 3 __ - OAII MIJlt7 rL t•\• h V 0 ,. 1' E �,, oor . I s �� ;) •.' `'�7. , I — Nk � • I1 �.r 1 c I; '! 1 I•..M1c) fid'.. �'............. . t at 1 = `_ I: c �= 1 I Orly < A � c. -z ').' 7. f QA1e INi.o3rvw D v Ar"•" Iii 3 Ii •, '•r�r�3_ S �....... _ -;j! ti4:F .W -- .•_, u I .-. L . 1— k I O (,,,j r •w ) �� — Wo, : .. � ; � I� * I a gip! i '1 I�ic ICC " V .4.01000000.,„,.,z,f«•' ' z N , , I ,' '17.,,, ! .4' is 1 6 . „, "- __LA . z `I s /..... o •v o • L j.• I i�'�'1 i �.11� I « 1 ► r I 1 ms • �. ` ' ff..JJJ— ` ,—_ _ _ — — s;`<i< I, e. }.c I. I �I 1 .:;\ /! � g y r Q.PI.PAti i. I "05', ,,,�.,Y-.fry-f -�• « • >: ELVER CARL'JON SKIP f1{ woes( Avl1M W1144 'At i a w. w NW ROBERT C. WILSON 1 SI..4, • ex t0, f 431 10 i-""-'—' 7.--•-•—......-114416.4„..... .. ...._._...._....2111 •1...! h... ..M •. ' M KN.• . !w u ON rwarty ( 1 ! . • . ,y , •••1 i.e. ■1r , w • .NN • It in .K•• IC 4a am Mt SIM • 0 f ?Dr• 1. SIX 114 111541 \ - iv— • 1 p0" ,4 • :•.;.. i Q • t . ivioA41.11114U 1 •I HOWARD E. HOLEY 1 I ' 3 CD 140.Mil I. . . r '• 4 t,. ' "•�•• '� . ec,-. )/Zif 0.0e. r/f(de u'/L< ,Od/C''GU Gl,.5E''i♦ • ' •� I .. tIt ........... 67:47'..V."" I Gal, M mum:. . ram. r., .. . c .• — Ia I . Nf1 1./ .R.1 �. a -' • ANTON KERBER HOWARD i SOLE i — 1 tT • =� • wl«er i 0451 • • u �pR �Mvw.�. �. ! r. .moi G 1 , .�.. wti:' l.tr t f t _._.— NO.._.. ._.�.. .._ Y - ....N. �•. i li t _ w•••• M•1. ..MN. ♦ ` \ City council meeting - FeL ?ary 22, 1993 4 1f J Councilman Mason: Yeah, and I just wanted, and again. I'm agreeing with what — Paul is saying. I'm not saying I want Abra there or not . I just agree with what Paul is saying. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW TO SUBDIVIDE 36 ACRES INTO 33 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS, BOLEY SUBDIVISION, 7340 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, LUNDGREN BROS. Kate Aanenson: Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Bros is proposing to develop 36 acres of property into 33 single family lots. This property is currently owned by Mr. Boley. It 's part of a larger parcel that 's also in Victoria. If I can explain the limits of the property here. This area here is in the city of Chanhassen. This is outlots. Exemptions. . .from the property. . . so these are actually in the city. Mayor Chmiel : Outlots are not within the city of Chanhassen? Kate Aanenson: No. These right here are exemptions. This is all Victoria and this is also part of Victoria. Se there is a. . .city line that splits the back of those lets. The property has a gross density of .91 units per acre and a net density of 1 . 7 units per acre. There's two wetlands on site and the rolling topo ra::'y has some significant views from the property and some treed areas also. ThE three tree areas located along Minnewashta Parkway on Lots 1 and the backs of Lots 13, 12, 11, 10 and there's also significant tree areas in Outlot C. At time the area, Outlot C is being left out . It seems to make sense that the p-operty to the south, which is in Victoria is lotted out , that the access be gained from Victoria's side and we think this makes good planning sense tcs in the fact that you can save those significant amount of trees. As I mentioned, the Victoria city line , the City Attorney, Don Ashworth and myself did mee•. Vic' cria . They had concerns about the lot line splitting the sut?ivi_io- ar.d their preference would be to have it pulled in and not plat that tw: d: t.:E-e-t jurisdictions. It 's our contention that we have other — cir:urst_-ce_ in the city where we provided service where properties aren't in thr• have this across the street actually with Victoria. The church and t c_e `c-,es part of the Trolls Glen area. We feel like, as far as the lot remn:-' s it makes less sense to leave that and to be platted into the subdivici:- . Councilr_- Se-.- : Just so I unde-stand what you're talking about . This is the linc ri-`, here:' Kate Aar,enson: Right . Yeah, you can see the lines up to the back of these. — The homes would actually fall into the city so it 's the back portion of the lot that would actually fall into the city of Victoria. Councilman Sean: But the houses would be in Chanhassen and the back of the lot — wouldn't be? Kate Aanenson: Correct . — Councilman Senn: And that line goes right there? Kate aanEr.rnn: Cor:-ect . So we feel it doesn't make sense to leave that as a — lot rer.-,a,' . Although in working we've asked Victoria and obviously their 24 City Council Meeting -r"`bruary 22, 1993 Ank approportion is a part of the puzzle on this. They would have to give because the backs of those lots do fall in their jurisdiction. They do have to give approval for the subdivision. Again, we feel that this area here itself may also make sense to be in part of Chanhassen and we're looking at that issue itself as far as annexation. We do have services in Minnewashta Parkway to provide services. We've asked Victoria to look at how they plan on servicing this area and providing access. There is a significant amount of wetlands to the west , including Tamarack Lake and a wetland surrounding that . What we're looking at is how access would be provided to this area. . . The Shoreland regulations, Lake St . Joe is classified as a natural environment lake. All the lots abutting the lake, the riparian lots do meet the 40,000 square foot requirement with the lot width. There are 12 lots that do not meet the 125 foot lot requirement and we did recommend variances from that . The Planning Commission did have concern with giving a blanket variance. What does that do to further projects that would come forward. to staff did address an intent statement reflected in condition number 14 as to why we felt that those lots that are not abutting the lake, why they should be under the 125 foot lot width. We feel it doesn't effect the density in any way and it 's really. . .to the subdivision. It 's not going to give less lots. The wetland regulations, as I mentioned there's two wetlands. One adjacent to the lake and the other one is right here. This one was left off the wetland inventory, although we have gone out and looked at a wetland special. . .went out and inventoried it . All the lots abutting the wetland do meet the setback requirements which is 40 feet under the natural classification. This is one of the few natural wetlands we have in the city as part of the new wetland regulations. As you recall, we require re-vegetation and have a 20 foot average so it can meander 10 to 30 feet , which all these lots can meet that . As a part of that we haven't come up with a vegetation requirement but we will be looking at it before it comes back to final plat . One of the concerns that we did have, in looking at the grading issue, and the trees. The amount of grading going towards the wetland. When you first look at it , at first blush it seems like a lot of grading back towards the edge of the wetland but upon further investigation it was determined that. actually this area was farmed right up to the wetland already and going back and rec:_iring the re-vegetation actually is going to improve the situation. And the other issue is that you get a positive flow, to have the run-off run back tows-ds the street . The fill is, this is the edge of the wetland. You bring the fill in and they wanted to get a positive, this is a 1% flow back in the street to actually get into the storm water system into the pre-treatment ponds se we can pre-treat it before it goes into the wetlands. So at first blush again as I mentioned, it appeared to be a significant amount of grading but then upon further investigation it makes good planning sense and drainage sense. As I mentioned earlier , this can be serviced from utilities from Minnewashta Parkway. There's also a trail as a part of that project that's being put in by the city. I mentioned earlier that we're looking at maybe stubbing, depending on what Victoria does, there's two accesses going to the property. Off of Minnewashta Parkway, this property is developed in that format . Otherwise, depending on how this lays out . . .provide access to Victoria to the west . Parkland, the Parks and Recreation Commission has met on this. They're recommending that the City Council accept park fees in lieu of land dedication. As far as trails, they're also recommending that they accept trail fees. Landscaping. I mentioned that there is some trees that will be moved as far as the grading. Mostly in this area right in here. Councilman Wing had brought up an issue too that the views looking across the wetland. . .pretty much is my 25 City Council Meeting - Febi'+';ry 22, 1993 Ask understanding is looking across the wetlands to Minnewashta Parkway on the backs — of these lots. In meeting with the applicant, we'd recommend an additional condition of approval , that being number 17. That we work, before we come back for final plat , to come up with an appropriate landscaping plan on the riparian — lots to try and soften that look across the wetland. As I mentioned, the Planning Commission was concerned about the intent of giving blanket variances on the lots that did not meet the shoreland width requirements and we did add _ that in the condition of approval of the intent . Items (a) and (b). It doesn't effect the density and that 's only the lots that are not abutting the lake. One other item of clarification would be condition number 4. There seems to be a couple different interpretations as to what the flood elevation is between the Watershed and the DNR and Bonestroo, our consulting engineers have given us a different number . So we'll be working with the applicant on that to determine what that elevation is. So based on that , staff recommends approval and the — Planning Commission recommended approval also with the conditions in the staff report . I've highlighted in bold the changes that the Planning Commission did make to the report . Councilman Mason: And there will be one more condition about the landscaping? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, 17 you need to add. Correct . — Mayor Chriel : 17. Landscaping. Kate Aanenson: Landscaping. Additional on those lots, the riparian lots. Councilman Senn: The issue is what , the people on the other side don't want to be able to see across. . .? — Kate Aanenson: No, I think Councilman Wing brought that up and he can articulate a little hit better. It 's my understanding that the view, this — person. . .across the lake and that we've taken down some trees in this area so you're not locking right at the grass going up to the back of the houses. Maybe putting in sone cluster of trees. We do have a requirement in the landscaping _ ordinance that requires that each new home you have to put 1 tree in. But that may, normally i,.e require it in the front . We want somet!ling in the back so when you look across the lake up towards the house, that there's something to break up the line . Kind of soften it . — Councilman Senn: Do those trees exist on the other side then? Kate Aanenson: Are there trees on the other side? Councilman Senn: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Maybe Dick can explain his. Councilman Wing: Well, looking across Lake St. Joe, what you kind of have is the Sound of Music. Mary could be up on the hill singing because it•'s pretty wide open and it 's just sort of an open knoll if you will. And if you come into Chanhassen. Mark where I was really coming from here, as you come into — Chanhassen from the east , just prior to our city border, there's a large swamp. Wetland down there and then right straight across is all these little monopoly 26 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 4 houses and that 's it . I mean you go from this wetland right to this stark neighborhood. No trees. No vegetation. Nothing. Well I don't expect Terry to come in and landscape or buffer or block those homes. They want their views. I do on the lake where I live. But I thought there's just one specific area, actually it 's lots 7, 8 and 9 are the only ones that are going to be effected. Because there's trees off to the south and there's trees along the north border that will probably, some of those will probably stay so my thinking was just to break up the impact because it 's such a touchy environmental area to, I've got to let Terry decide what he's going to do but my thought was to put in 3, 4, 5 pine trees with a couple hardwoods clustered in one spot and another one may be here and another there so that the impact across the lake doesn't go straight into this hill. Straight into the backs of these homes. That there's some buffering. Environmental buffering between the homes and this area. And if you were to drive out there, you'd see what I'm talking about immediately. Very stark and I think we deserveto have it buffered a little bit in the planning process, but not blocking views. Not buffering the homes from the area. Just strategically placed trees that are going to give some buffering to the impact of this development on Lake St. Joe. Councilman Senn: Okay. So I mean that 's not being interprettedAhen by staff as some kind of solid landscaping wall so these people can't look at . Kate Aanenson: No, no, no. No, that 's why we're leaving it kind of open just to work with the staff to come up with an appropriate and you'll see it when we come back for final plat . Mayor Chmiel : Does the applicant wish to say something? Briefly. Rick Sathre: Your honor, I'm Rick Sathre with Sathre-Berquist , 150 South Broadw> in Wayzata. I'm the engineer and planner for Lundgren Bros on this project and Mr . Forbord, Terry Forbord is here from Lundgren as well. He's asked re to just briefly show you one slide and just to reiterate that Lundgren Bros are contract purchasers of all of the Howard Boley property, which is a little strange in it 's boundary configuration and does lie in both cities. We will be pursuing approvals in Victoria as well. I've got an overhead that shows the homes. Councilmember Senn was interested in seeing how the homes related to the boL'ndary line between the two cities. Here's that municipal boundary right here. You can see the houses would be comfortably in Chanhassen and the Vic! oria pari of those lots would be the backyard space or a portion of the backyard space. We think it 's a good way to deal with that very strange strip of land. What else could we do? The staff's done a terrific job with the report . We're in agreement with the condition that 's being added to work on softening the views of those riparian lots. We want the development to look very nice. These lots are very large and the homes will be very nice in this subdivision. Lot areas range from 20,000 square feet up to about 121,000 square feet . It 's a little unusual for any city but Chanhassen as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you would have. Thank you. Mayor Chmiel: Rick, let me ask a question in regard to the proposal and the ghost portion as to what might go within the city of Victoria: I don't have any real problems or too many concerns with the part that's within Chanhassen. But I would take a position that the city of Chanhassen is not in a position to provide water and sewer for those areas within the city of Victoria. 27 .City Council Meeting - Feb'. �rary 22, 1993 (11 Rick Sathre: We understand that you would prefer not to extend utilities into an adjoining city. Mayor Chmiel : Right . I just want that put on record so everyone is aware of that . In the event that this becomes annexed into the city of Chanhassen, I don't have any objections to that . But I think what we have to do as far as the city's concerned, we have to watch the total amounts of sewer addage that we're — going to need for our own city or we're going to find ourselves in a position like Chaska running out of area for that , as they have presently. Their sewage treatment plant no longer can facilitate any additional building. So we made an — agreement between Chaska and Chanhassen. We're going to connect into our intercept but in the same token the city of Chanhassen is getting something back from that in areas that we can go closer to their facility, we're able to — connect into their sewage system to be provided into their sewage treatment plant . So I just want that understood. We have to get something for something and I think we have to be careful on what we do with that . Mark. Councilman Senn: I guess two questions on two separate issues. One is, I see number 16, the existing dock on Lake St . Joe on the Boley property should be removed. Is there something implied in that? — Kate Aanenson: Well there was a discussion with the Planning Commission, since those are riparian: lots, that maybe each homeowner would want to put a dock in. As I mentioned earlier , this is one of the few natural wetlands that we have in the cit; a-id our concern is that we'd be coming in with a wetland alteration permit cn each one of those lots. And I think the intent is that they have access on Mirinewashta parkway where there is an access and that would be the — desired intr-• t: use that access. Mr . Boley has a dock right now and that be taken out and then encourage the residents to use the parkway and go over and use that p. b_ c access on the lake. — Counciln,a- Senn: Sc we are not , are we or are we not negating their right then to put a d::1, in pr. their property? Kate A;rc- Well , they'd have to go through a wetland alteration permit and the only wa, they could get one is a significant space between the vegetation and the laF::. The only way we could do it is under a boardwalk and I think that — would be a chance to not allow those. Councilman wing: If you could go and look at this, this is a low area. A very — intense, steep, muddy swamp area and to put a dock out there, I don't know what you'd accomplish even when you got out there. Kate Aanenson: Exactly. — Councilman Wing: And there is no fishing in the lake either by the way. Councilman Senn: There is good fishing in that lake. That 's what ,I'm wondering about . How do you get to the fish Wing? Councilman Wing: There is a State access on the lake. 28 City Council Meetings February 22, 1993 • Councilman Senn: Because people like you keep saying there isn't any there, that there's plenty of fish there. Paul Krauss: Actually we've heard that that lake is 80 feet deep. Councilman Wing: I have a 75 foot anchor line and last summer we never hit bottom. Scared the daylights out of me. Paul Krauss: And I've heard that there may be some fish in there, although I don't think it 's ever stocked. Mayor Chmiel: Sorry I brought it up. Councilman Wing: . . .but you see no, there are no ice houses out there because they're not getting anything during the wint'br but during the summer and spring. . . Councilman Senn: I'll go diving there this summer and find out . Second question. Is there some, I don't know, this split up lot situation. My concern is, I mean is there any way that we can put some type of a governance or, I don't know what the right words are. Stipulations or something as it relates to covenants or whatever on the property so that the back part of the properties don't all of a sudden not meet Chanhassen rules and become whatever, we can pursue whatever we want to do and do whatever we want to routine versus meeting the same rules that the front part of the lot has to meet . Paul Krauss: Which standards are we? Councilman Senn: Well I mean if you take these lots that are. . .split between the cities, as I envision it , okay yes. You've got the front part of the lot which op : ates under one set of rules, i .e. Chanhassen. Let 's say Victoria has no rules on the back half and all of a sudden we're in World War III because our reside -Is are fighting with each other over uses, sheds, this, that and the other thing. Can we put , I guess my question is, to avoid that situation, can we put some sort of covenants or whatever on those properties through the development process which says, the residents have to assure or make sure, I meat ag„in. I mean we can't effect the land because the land's in Victoria. Paul Krauss: Right . Councilman Senn: But we could make it a stipulation of the front half, for them to stay in compliance on the front half, they have to meet our rules on the back half. Paul Krauss: I'm sure sooner or later somebody's going to come up with something that we would not favor back there but it 's hard to know what it might be. Councilman Senn: You know it 's going to happen. Paul Krauss: To the extent that our regulations are more restrictive than Victoria's, presumably something like that could occur. If Victoria were more restrictive than us, then it really wouldn't matter what we said because the 29 City Council Meeting - Febru *"./ 22, 1993• land's not annexed. Their ordinance would still prevail. In the form of covenants though, it presents something of an enforcement problem because then the only recourse we have is a legal one to. . .against the property owner. I suppose it 's posible. I would defer to the City Attorney on that . I haven't heard about doing it but this situation is odd enough that maybe it 's worthwhile. Councilman Senn: Do you understand what I'm saying? See my point? Rick Sathre: Sure. Sure. At least this isn't as bad as the Sofitel or whatever it is. Where the kitchen's in one city and the rest is in another . Councilman Senn: I understand. . .situations unfortunately. Rick Sathre: Lundgren Bros puts restrictive covenants on their projects and they would apply the same standards to the lots that lie in two cities to the lots that lie only in Chanhassen. Those covenants haven't been worked out at this point but they govern certainly additional restrict use of the property and we'll be work - c on that . Councilman Senn: I guess in my mind, Lundgren Bros does a good job of that . I — guess I would just like to be assured or make sure that when they do draft that , and maybe this comes back to staff, that that in effect be considered and be put in there so we don't run into that problem in the future. — Rick Sathre : `'c know their interest is not to have neighbors be bad neighbors to each other . — Councilman Sean: Unfortunately we have to live with it longer . Rick Sathre: Thai 's true. Mayor Chrie_' : Ar;y other discussions? Councilwoman Dockendorf: I just have a question of staff. Just being a novice at this. 'here seer- tc be a lot of open issues. I realize that this is • preliminary a^z;rc.a' b::• I guess it 's also a question to my fellow Council _ members. Mayor Chmicl : Well, being that it 's strictly preliminary as yet , and until it comes back and finalized, then we can have our full say as to what we really — want . But the only reason I brought up the issues on the sewer and water is I thought we'd best put that up right now and take our position and say that 's where it 's at . — Paul Krause : I don't know if it will put your mind at ease, Councilwoman Dockendorf, but apart from the un':sual configuration with the city line here, it's actually a pretty simple plat . I mean the kinds of issues that are outstanding at this point are pretty standard and are generally worked out in due course. Kate Aanenson: Like I said, the utilities are there. There's no pending getting service to then . 30 City Council Meeting - February 22, 1993 Councilwoman Dockendorf: I was looking at the. . .of the wetland. Kate Aanenson: Right . That was just the one, we had that analysis, preliminary it looks like it 's an ag urban and that house, under those circumstances would meet it . There's no re-vegetation. The other issue is the storm water and they wait until they get preliminary approval and come back with those calc's and make sure the pond's the right size. But actually this one is pretty straight forward. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Richard, do you have any questions? Councilman Wing: Well, first off Colleen. Where it says preliminary, it means the next time you see it is final and then we get into these debates. Now is the time to, rather than debating it now so that it doesn't even get to us without this done. Number 14, lot width requirements. I don't favor a variance on that . That condenses the project down and I don't like the appearance of that . And I happen to like the other 25 foot lot width and I'd like to stick with that . That 's the. . .I'd like to see this without that variance. Mayor Chmiel : Okay. No other discussions? Councilman, Senn: Now that requirement picks some kind of an average point though right? Because of the cul-de-sacs and all that sort of thing. Kate Aanenson: Measured at the 30 foot setback line is where we measure that from. So if you're on a cul-de-sac and you measure where the house sits back. The width. Ma:.cr Chmiel : The homes being located within the cul-de-sac and setback req,:;remerts. Kath r.anenson: You can go back another. . . Mayr Chmiel : You 're saying it 's only going to be, where does the footprint go fres that point? Once, well we don't know yet but that probably shows some of thy- there. It has to be a 30 foot setback from the road in itself. Kate .!.anenson: For the property line, right . Ccur.cilrran Wing: For the boundary line? Counc lm3n Senn: Which I've seen several already come through where we, I mean that 's a fairly standard condition on cul-de-sacs. Is that they don't. . . Kate Aanenson: Well curvature. Mayor Chmiel: Okay. Councilman Senn: Make sure I understood that . • Councilman Mason: So Councilman Wing, why are you against that? If you'd repeat that . 31 City Council Meeting - Febr''-y 22, 1993 '4'" i Councilman wing: It 's just condensing down these, as I drive around and look at these, I don' t like those lots that come in like this and suddenly your frontage is reduced down to nothing and then densities and the appearance of those lots are awkward and I don't like them. I'd like to see the full front footage on all these as much as we can. Councilman Mason: Now according to this, the density is not going to be changed _ to the project by this. Councilman Virg: No, but I'm looking at some of these lots and instead of coming in and focusing on the driveways and mailboxes and everything, it spreads this whole thing out and makes the density look less. Kate Aanenson: I was going to say.. We just looked at too, they're still — exceeding the 90 foot which would be our standard. Even the ones they're requesting variances on I guess. Rick Sathre: Your Honor , Councilmember Wing. I'm not sure I heard you. You're talking abo::'. Lo' 13 that has the neck on it? Councilman; loin,: Just item 14. Variance to the lot width requirements. Rick Sathre: Alright . Sc it 's all of them. Councilman wino: It 's not 14 thru 25. . . Kate Aanen.cor,: Piot . we'll probably be showing the setback. Rick Sat `'rE : L'hlt were really asking for is, we're fully complying with the area recLi: Pr^n' S order to meet the width requirements we'd have to add more blacktop and that doesn't seem to serve any good purpose. — Councilrro- per:,: I iik? the area requirements I see on these lots. Some of them we've been seeing lately come all the way down to the minimum or whatever we said. Mayor Chr . : Yeah. Okay. Can I have a motion for the preliminary plat review. Councilna: ;e-,r : I move approval . Councilman Mason: Second. Mayor Chmiel : Other discussion? _ Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve Preliminary Plat 193-1 for the subdivision of 36 acres into 33 single family lots and 3 outlots subject to the plans dated January 5, 1993, with variances and the following conditions: • 1 . The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and _ provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements. 32 L 1'/ L GUnC11 peeling r, pruary ee, 1'1 2. The applicant shall construct public utility and street improvements in accordance with the City's 1993 Standard Specifications and Detail Plates . Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the _ City's Engineering Department for review and formal approval by the City Council . 3. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Watershed District , ONR, Army Corps of Engineers, MPCA, Health Department , and MWCC . 4. The applicant shall provide the City's Engineering Department with storm sewer calculations designed for a 10 year storm event and ponding calculations that show that the ponds will retain a 100 year storm event , 24 hour duration, and will discharge at the pre-developed runoff rate. In addition, the ponds shall be designed and constructed to NURP standards and data showing the nutrient removal capacity of all ponds. The applicant shall not place fill material below the 100 year flood elevation of Lake St . Joe which the Watershed District currently determines at 949.5. Bonestroo has determined that the 100 year flood elevation is 947.0. Staff is working with the Watershed District to resolve where the 100 year flood elevation is located. The applicant 's engineer shall review the possibilty of consolidating the two storm water rentention ponds located on Outlots A and B to consolidate into one ponding area. The ponding area may be established on either outlot or on Lots 1 or 2, Block 1 outside the wetlands. All storm water retention ponds shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided by the City's storm water management consultant , Mr . Ismael Martinez, as outlined in his memo dated January 15, 1993. 5. Site restoration, vegetative cover and erosion control efforts shall follow the City's Best Management Practices Handbook for erosion and sediment control . Type III erosion control fence shall be installed at the toe of the slope adjacent to Lake St . Joe. In cases where the side slopes exceed 20' feet in depth from the toe of the slope, an additional row of Type I silt fence should be installed. All areas distrubed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading, except for areas where utility construction will immediately commence. All access points from the construction site to a hard-surface road shall be surfaced with crushed rock in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. 6. All acess points to the water retention ponds should be dedicated on the final plat as 20 foot wide drainage and utility easements. The access points for maintenance purposes shall be a minimum of 4:1 slopes. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all wetlands and water quality/retention ponds on the final plat . 7. The applicant shall place a sign on a barrier at the end of the southerly street extension indicating "THIS STREET SHALL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE" . Notice of the extension shall be placed in the chain-of-title of each lot . All street intersections should be aligned perpendicular to each other . B. The applicant and staff from Victoria and Chanhassen should explore the potential for future street extension to the west to serve the City of 33 City council Meeting - Febekry 22, 1993 — r F victoria through one of the phases of development . 9. The pending assessments for the Minnewashta Parkway improvements (Project No. 90-15) shall be spread equally over the number of new lots in this phase of the development . — 10. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendations. 11. Compliance with the city's wetland regulation including permanent monumentation staking setbacks and native vegetation. The wetland in the southwest corner needs to be reviewed and compliance with the wetland standards as determined by its classification. — 12. Approval of the subdivision from the City of victoria. 13. Com;:lia-ce with the Fire Marshal's recommendations. 14. Variance from the lot width requirements from the shoreland regulations be — give- Lits 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27, Block 1, for the following reasons: E . c_ '_ lots at.. ting Lake St . Joe meet the 125 foot lot width, only lots — r.ct ac!:=-ent to the lake are recommended for variance. b. Pe: : -ement of making the lots conform to the 125 lot width requirement _ L:.: - t affect the density of the project . shoreland regulations are inappropriate when applied within r€"c area . - 11. : __. , 11h the city's landscaping plan including streetscape along Pa '..,.ay and the requirement of one tree per lot . 1E. ,.,F e, Irt :- : :_ 4 on Lake St . Joe from the Boley property shall be removed. 17. Additional landscaping shall be added on riparian lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT CONCERNING TRAIL AND LAND DEDICATION. FIRST READING. Todd Hcrfiner,: r- . Mayor, City Council members. In light of all the talk about controls anc! gaining more control , I'm pleased to bring to you two issues this evening. unfortunately on item 5(a), the amendment to the subdivision code, it 's — not that. we're gaining a whole lot of ground. It 's simply that we're solidifying what has not been in the ordinance to date but what we have been asking devel:pers. So the following explanations are given for those proposed amendments. Being to subparagraph (a), simply a clarification. Adding trail fund to desc -ip'tion. Previously it said park fund. Subparagraph (j), the existing s.. paragraph fails to address those situations when land in lieu of dediLet.icr, fee- or a combination thereof is desired as a part of a commercial/ — ind siria_ de.'e'_ccrrent . The standards of 10% of market value or 10% of gross 34 (eC_ AdMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre. 230 East Fifth Street. Sr. Paul. MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 TTY 612 291-0904 July 14, 1993 Paul Krauss Director of Planning City of Chanhassen DrDrivee 69u Coulter o..ult�.,. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Dear Mr. Krauss: Thank you for submitting comments on the Council's population and household estimates. I also appreciate the information you included about current building activity in the city. Your question about the timeliness of our estimates is one we've needed to clarify for others during this process. Our primary reason for annually estimating population and households is to comply with our legislative mandate. The Council and the State Demographer's Office are designated by the Legislature to provide estimates to the Department of Revenue for use in their calculations of local aids. Prior to 1989 the law stated that Revenue would use the most current estimate available for their calculations. In 1989, the "most current" wording was removed and the law was amended to say that the Revenue Department would exclusively use estimates for the preceding year. _ The Council continues to maintain current information from many sources to supplement the estimates. We use monthly building permit information from the Department of Commerce, keep current counts of manufactured homes, etc: to help us respond to data needs with the most current information. Please call me if you have other questions or concerns. Sincerely, — ,orr Kat Jo1n Research Planner 1 —10 Recycled Paper 0 ac._ CITY OF ti‘ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 4, FAX (612) 937-5739 -14 July 13, 1993 Mr. Bob Kopp Argus Development _ Suite 201 and 204 3459 Washington Drive Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mr. Kopp: Our staff visited the Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition site on July 12, 1993. Staff visited the site with a representative from Pioneer Engineering. The purpose of the visit was to inspect the snow fencing which was required for protection of the trees designated for preservation. On July 12, 1993, the only snow fencing was along the street right-of-way. You are required to have protective snow fencing around all of the trees designated for protection. The snow fencing must be placed at a distance of one and a half the drip line of the tree. The city will allow you to continue with clearing/grading within the street right-of-way, but you must have the snow fencing around all of the remaining protected trees within 10 days. No grading outside of the street right-of-way is permitted until the snow fencing is installed, inspected and approved by the city. If the snow fencing is not completed by July 26, 1993, we will have to issue a stop work order. The snow fencing must be inspected and approved by Jeff Schultz, our forestry intern within the next ten days. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 937-1900. Sincerely, c\I-C) //ter Jo',Ann Olsen Senior Planner pc: Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer Jeff Schultz, Forestry Intern Paul Krauss, Planning Director Ron Issac, Joe Miller Homes `tib PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 4c9flo Minnesota Pollution %ego/ Control Agency Dear Td 44 !_ We are pleased to send you the enclosed material. This informal way of responding to your request saves us the time and expense of preparing a formal letter. Thank you for your interest, and please contact us if we can help you further. P/eare cid/ s•e 7.23 8) or Du.,, Wejls (z?6-6062) iJ • 7 4 Glove 47 ltice.f 7L,Dht, Strudel/ 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 (612) 296-6300 Toll-free 1-800-652-9747 Nortnvvect aepona Ono, North Centra; Norineast Reponal Once Lamp Avr+w Ptin Regions Omar Duluth Gownmant Seneca 714 Lamp Avenue 1801 Minnesota 31wM1 Center 0704 Sues 22C Braalrd,MN 564C• 320 West Swore Stnser Detroit laes MN 58501 (218)826.2492 Duluth.MN 55802 (216)847.1519 (218)723-4660 Soutwwt Ryon/Once Scuttles')Reparial Office 109 South Frl1n Street 2116 Carl).*Dr**Sartneac Marana4 MN 56258 Rochester.MN 56904 (507)537.7146 (507)285-7343 Printed on recycled paper Oiliciai hie L'L �'L. ,;(:._ . .- ;1-.,..,.t.- ,,....... 7 .7.i, Yx Minnesota Pollution Control A end'y FtiC fiV- April 12, 1993 Hr. Thomas Zwiers President Hoon Valley Aggregate, Inc. 1111 Deuce Road Elko, Minnesota 55022 Dear Mr. Zwiers: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff would like to thank Jerry — _ Rypkema of G & T Trucking Co. for taking the time to tour your Moon Valley facility with Jim Strudell and Dan Wells on March 25, 1993. Based on this visit and our review of your National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application for Moon Valley submitted in January, we have determined that an individual NPDES permit is not now required for this facility. That means that the Moon Valley facility will be covered by the MPCA general industrial storm water discharge permit. We are enclosing a copy of this general permit, annual certification forms required by this permit, and a fact sheet to assist you in understanding the permit requirements. This letter serves as an official notification of coverage under the enclosed general permit. — You will notice that the permit requires certain actions to be completed within specific time frames. All of the time frames refer to the permit issuance date — which, for the purposes of this permit, is the date of this letter. After reading the permit, the first question you may have is, "Where can I get additional information in order to develop the pollution prevention plan?" The — enclosed fact sheet and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publication, "Developing Pollution Prevention Plans And Best Management Practices, " may help to answer this question. The primary goal of the pollution prevention plan is — to eliminate and manage the contact between stored, handled, or spilled materials and storm water. This goal can be accomplished through a variety of best management practices. — We commend the company for the recent steps taken at Moon Valley to help stabilize slopes, control erosion, and construct permeable infiltration basins to handle mine runoff. These management practices have helped to control storm — water at the facility. The MPCA staff believes, however, that further improvements can be made. In particular we refer you and your consulting engineer to some of the management practices described in the 1989 MPCA — publication, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas. " We strongly recommend that you consider implementing a combination of the following practices outlined in this publication as part of your storm water pollution prevention plan: — Temporary Sediment Traps (chapter 6.2) , Riprap (ch. 6. 18) , Temporary and Permanent Seeding (chs. 6.20, 6.21) , Sodding (ch. 6.22) , and Mulching (ch. 6.23) . 520 Lafayette Rd.; St. Paul. MN 55155-4194: (612) 296-6300: Regional Offices: Duluth•Brainerd•Detroit Lakes•Marshall• Rochester — Eauai Opportunity Employer•Pnrnea on Recyciec Pacer • Mr. Thomas Zwiers Page 2 Please note that we intend to monitor the Moon Valley facility to ensure that storm water controls at the facility are implemented. We will probably conduct unannounced inspections of the mine from time to time to observe storm water control effectiveness. If conditions at the facility result in greater sediment runoff toward Rice Lake, we may determine that an individual NPDES permit will then be required. Also please understand that a wash water or pit dewatering discharge toward Rice Lake would need to be authorized by an individual NPDES permit from the MPCA. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Dan Wells at (612) 296-6062, TDD (612) 297-5353, Greater Minnesota TDD 1-800-627-3529. Sincerely, f)JIP /(di Douglas A. Hall Supervisor, Permits Unit Industrial Section Water Quality Division DAH:ls Enclosures cc: Richard W. Sathre, Sathre-Bergquist, Inc. Paul Krauss, Chanhassen Planning Director Eden Prairie Planning Department Carver County Environmental Services Carver Soil & Water Conservation District Lower Minnesota River Watershed District Minnesota River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Mick Weburg, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ceil Strauss, DNR-Waters Roger Johnson, DNR-Wildlife Page 1 of 13 Permit No: MN G610000 GENERAL PERMIT AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE STORM WATER — ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM/ STATE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM — This permit satisfies the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq; hereinafter, the "Act"), 40 CFR 122, 123, and 124, as amended, et. seq. ; Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, as amended, and Minn. Rules ch. 7001. A facility engaged in industrial activity, and meeting the terms and conditions of this permit, is permitted to discharge storm water to the waters of the state. — This permit shall become effective on the date of issuance, and shall expire at midnight, five years from the date of issuance. jvd.4\ty.L Issuance Date: September 30, 1992Timothy . cherkenbach Division Ma ager Water Qua ' ty Division For Charles W. Williams Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency — Page 2 of 13 Permit No: MN G610000 Table of Contents Page — PART I REQUIREMENTS A. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 3 B. Annual Reports 3 PART II STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN A. Requirements 5 B. Review 7 — C. Extension of deadlines 7 PART III PROVISIONS A. Applicability Criteria 8 B. MPCA Address 8 C. Response 8 D. Records 9 E. Prohibition 9 — F. Definitions 9 PART IV RESPONSIBILITIES A. Transfer Ownership or Control 11 B. Permit Modification 11 — C. Right of Entry 11 D. Civil and Criminal Liability 12 E. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability 12 F. Liability Exemption 12 G. Minnesota Laws 12 H. Property Rights 12 I. Severability 12 J. NPDES/SDS Rule 12 K. Other Statutes, Rules and Ordinances 13 L. More Stringent Rules 13 — M. Agency Obligation 13 N. Permit Reapplication 13 Page 3 of 13 Permit No: MN G610000 PART I REQUIREMENTS A. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN 1) The Permittee shall develop, implement, and manage a storm water pollution prevention plan as required in PART II of this permit. 2) The storm water pollution prevention plan must be completed within 12 months (1 year) after the issuance date of this permit unless the Permittee is notified, in writing, by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable. 3) The Permittee must certify completion of the storm water pollution _ prevention plan development within 12 months (1 year) after the issuance date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in writing, by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable. 4) All non-structural type best management practices applicable to the facility site must be implemented within 18 months (1 1/2 years) after the issuance date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in writing, by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable. 5) All structural-type best management practices applicable to the facility site must be implemented within 24 months (2 years) after the issuance date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in writing, by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable. 6) The Permittee must certify implementation of the storm water pollution prevention plan that all non-structural and structural type best management practices of the plan have been implemented within 24 _. months (2 years) after the issuance date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in writing, by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable. 7) If the storm water pollution prevention plan is not completed or implemented, or if the Commissioner does not receive the above-mentioned certificates, the permittee is in violation of the — permit . B. ANNUAL REPORTS The Permittee shall submit two annual reports to the Commissioner. The first annual report shall be submitted within 12 months (1 year) after the issuance date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in writing, by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable. The second annual report shall be submitted within 24 months (2 years) after the issuance date of this permit unless the permittee is notified, in writing, by the Commissioner that a later deadline is applicable. 1) The First Annual Report shall consist of the following: a. A brief summary of the storm water pollution prevention plan. PART I Page 4 of 13 Permit No: MN G610000 PART I.B. 1 continued b. Certification that the pollution prevention plan has been completed. (See Part I.A.3) c. List any spills or known contamination of storm water from significant materials and corrective action taken to prevent future spills, or contamination of storm water. d. Description of inspections: date of inspections, findings of inspections, and corrective actions taken. 2) The Second Annual Report shall consist of the following: a. Certification of the implementation of all non-structural type, and structural type best management practices at the facility site. (See Part I.A.6) b. List any spills or known contamination of storm water from significant materials and corrective action taken to prevent future spills or contamination of storm water. c. Description of inspections: date of inspections, findings of inspections, and corrective actions taken. d. Describe any updates, amendments, or additions to the storm water pollution prevention plan. Page 5 of 13 Permit No: MN G610000 PART II STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN A. REQUIREMENTS 1) A storm water pollution prevention plan (plan) shall be developed for the facility site covered by this permit. The plan shall remain on site and is not to be submitted to the Agency unless specifically — requested. 2) The plan shall identify potential sources of pollutants which may — affect the quality of storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from the facility. In addition, measures designed to control erosion shall be implemented by the Permittee, if — appropriate to the Permittee's site. 3) The plan shall describe and implement practices which reduce pollutants in storm water discharges associated with industrial — activity at the facility. 4) The plan must certify that discharges from the site have been — evaluated for the presence of non-storm water discharges. This certification must certify that no non-storm water discharges from the site exist not covered by an NPDES permit. 5) The storm water pollution prevention plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following: a) Site map(s) - identifying the following items: facility structures, — significant materials storage areas, discharge outfalls, direction of storm water run off, identification and/or location of receiving waters, drainage areas, topographic and geographic characteristics, vegetation and soil characteristics, — impervious surface area, township range, or latitude and longitude b) Description of potential pollutants - A list and description of potential sources of pollution which includes significant materials stored, handled, managed, processed, fabricated, manufactured, transported, or transferred at the facility site. This list shall include an inventory of exposed significant materials with the location, description, and a description of - structural and non-structural control measures used to reduce pollution in a storm water discharge. PART II Page 6 of 13 Permit No: MN G610000 PART II.A.5 continued c) Best Management Practices (BMP) - Identify and describe management practices that minimize, or eliminate, the impact of potential pollutants in storm water. The facility shall use structural BMPs or non-structural BMPs in the storm water pollution prevention plan. The facility shall document the methodology on how specific BMPs were selected to meet the requirements of this permit. Any BMP selected for implementation in the storm water pollution prevention plan must conform to good engineering practices. The following BMPs shall be considered for development and implementation in a facility's storm water pollution prevention plan: 1) Source reduction - preventative maintenance, spill prevention and response procedures, chemical substitution, materials management practices, employee training 2) Containment/Diversion - segregating, separating, covering, berming, diverting flow, dust control 3) Treatment - oil/water separator, storm water detention pond, recycling Specific BMPs for storm water pollution prevention shall be designed to eliminate or reduce the amount of pollutants specific to a particular site. d) Management and Response Procedures - identify personnel responsible for managing the storm water pollution prevention plan, implementation, and reporting requirements. Personnel responsible for managing the plan must be available at reasonable times of operation. Contingencies shall be provided so that unanticipated absences do not prevent adequate management of the plan. e) Management procedures of the plan shall include inspections at least once every six months by the Permittee. Inspections shall be conducted by qualified personnel at the facility site. The inspections shall be conducted for the purpose of determining the maintenance of structural and non structural BMPs. Inspections shall be conducted after a significant storm event , and identify any necessary changes to assure adherence to the pollution prevention plan. f) If the Permittee discharges storm water into a municipal storm sewer, the Permittee shall notify the operator of the municipal storm sewer of the existence of this permit. PART II Page 7 of 13 — Permit No: MN G610000 B. REVIEW The storm water pollution prevention plan shall be reviewed at least once annually, and revised whenever there is a change in materials or materials management practices which may discharge pollutants in storm water. The plan shall be revised when the Permittee determines that the plan is not controlling the discharge of pollutants in storm water. The Commissioner may request revisions in the storm water pollution prevention plan. Within 90 days of initial notification by the Commissioner, unless an alternative deadline is specified, the Permittee shall verify that all revisions have been made. C. EXTENSION OF DEADLINES A Permittee may request an extension for implementation of the storm water pollution prevention plan requirements in writing to the Commissioner within 12 months (1 year) after the issuance date of this permit. After — review» of the extension request the Commissioner may, in writing, approve or disapprove the extension request . Page 8 of 13 Permit No: MN G610000 PART III PROVISIONS A. APPLICABILITY CRITERIA 1) This permit covers storm water discharges associated with industrial activity in all areas of the state of Minnesota. 2) This is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System general permit. 3) This permit is for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, except storm water discharges from construction activities, classified as industrial activity under 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(i) through (ix) and (xi) . 4) If the Commissioner determines that storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, or other activities, are contributing to a — violation of a water quality standard, the Commissioner may require a Permittee to be covered by an individual storm water discharge permit . The Commissioner may require a Permittee to develop and implement specific best management practices. 5) If the Commissioner finds that operations, emissions, activities, discharges, or facilities of a permittee covered by a general permit — would be more appropriately controlled by an individual permit, the Commissioner may require the permittee to have an individual permit. Upon issuance of an individual permit this general permit would no — longer apply. 6) A permit applicant, or permittee, may request an individual permit . B. MPCA ADDRESS Submit all forms, correspondence, reports, etc. to the following address: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Water Quality Division Attn: Industrial Storm Water Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St . Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 C. RESPONSE The permittee shall respond to agency requests for submittal of storm water pollution prevention plans, certificates, reports, records, or other information required by this permit . Upon request, the Permittee shall provide a copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan to the Permittee's respective municipal storm sewer operator. PART III Page 9 of 13 — Permit No: MN G610000 D. RECORDS The storm water pollution prevention plan shall be retained for the duration of the permit. A copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan shall remain on the _. permitted site at all times and be available upon request. The Permittee shall maintain the following records for a minimum of three years: 1) Date of inspection 2) Findings of inspections 3) Corrective actions taken 4) Documentation of all changes to the storm water pollution prevention _. plan 5) Methodology for determining planned and implemented best management practices in the storm water pollution prevention plan E. PROHIBITION 1) All discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activity shall be composed entirely of stormwater. Discharges of any material other than stormwater are prohibited by this permit. 2) A discharge containing a hazardous substance in an amount equal to or in excess of the reporting quantity established under either 40 CFR 117 or 40 CFR 302 shall be reported to the Minnesota Pollution Control — Agency. 3) This permit does not authorize the discharge of hazardous substances or oil resulting from an on-site spill. 4) This permit does not authorize the discharge of non-storm water discharge, through a storm sewer conveyance system, or any other conveyance system. F. DEFINITIONS All definitions not specifically identified in this section are defined in Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, or Minn. Rules chs. 7001, 7002, 7050, or 40 CFR. 1) "Act" means the Clean Water Act (formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) , United States Code, title 33, sections 1251 et seq. , as amended. 2) "Agency" means the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. — PART III Page 10 of 13 Permit No: MN G610000 Part III.F. continued 3) "Best Management Practices" (BMP) means practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of the waters of the state, including schedules of activities, prohibitions or practices, and other management practice, and also includes treatment requirements, operating procedures and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge, or waste disposal or drainage from material storage, as defined in Minn. Rules pt. 7001 . 1020, subp. 5. 4) "Commissioner" means the Commissioner, or other Agency staff as authorized by the Commissioner, of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. _ 5) "Discharge" means the conveyance, channeling, runoff, snow melt , or drainage, of storm water from a site. 6) "Non-storm water discharge" means any discharge not comprised entirely — of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit. 7) "NPDES" means "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" means the program for issuing, modifying, revoking, reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements under sections 307, 318, 402, and 405 of the CWA, United States Code, title 33, sections 1317, 1328, 1342, and 1345. 8) "Permit" means a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State — Disposal System permit. 9) "Pollutant, Toxic Pollutant, Other Wastes, Point Source, Disposal System, Waters of the State, " and other Terms for the purpose of this permit are defined in Section 502 of the Act and Minn. Stat . § 115.01 as amended and Minn. Rules ch. 7001. 10) "Significant Materials" means raw materials; fuels; materials such as solvents, detergents, and plastic pellets; finished materials such as metallic products; raw materials used in food processing or production; hazardous substances designated under section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) ; any chemical the facility is required to report pursuant to section 313 of title III of SARA; fertilizers; pesticides; and waste products such as ashes, slag and sludge. 11) "Storm water" means precipitation run off, storm water run off, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage, as defined in 40 CFR, part 122.26 (b) (13) . 12) "Storm water discharge associated with industrial activity" is defined in CFR 40, part 122.26 (b) (14) . Page 11 of 13 Permit No: MN G610000 PART IV RESPONSIBILITIES A. TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OR CONTROL No permit may be assigned or transferred by the holder without the approval of the Commissioner. In the event of any changes in control or ownership of the facilities, a request for Permit Transfer, signed by both parties shall be sent to the Commissioner (Attn: Industrial Section, Water Quality — Division) . Any succeeding owner or controller also shall comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. B. PERMIT MODIFICATION After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Violation of any terms of this permit ; 2. Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; 3. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; or 4. Minn. Rules pts. 7001.0170 and 7001.0180. C. RIGHT OF ENTRY The Permittee shall, pursuant to Section 308 of the Act and Minnesota Statutes 115.04, allow the Commissioner of the Agency, and authorized representatives upon presentation of credentials: — 1. To enter upon the Permittee's premises where a storm water discharge from an industrial facility or other portion thereof is located for the purpose of obtaining information, examination of records, conducting surveys or investigations; 2. To bring such equipment upon the Permittee's premises as is necessary to conduct such surveys and investigations; 3. To examine and copy any books, papers, records, or memoranda — pertaining to the storm water discharge. 4. To sample and monitor any substances or parameters at any location. PART IV Page 12 of 13 Permit No: MN G610000 D. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY Nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee from civil or criminal penalties for non-compliance with the terms and conditions provided herein. E. OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the installation of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is or may be subject to under Section 311 or the Act and Minn. Stat. chs. 115 and 116, as amended. F. LIABILITY EXEMPTION This permit authorizes the Permittee to perform the activities described herein within the conditions set forth. In issuing this permit , the State/Agency assumes no responsibility for any damage to persons, property or the environment caused by the activities authorized or undertaken pursuant to this permit . To the extent the state/agency may have any liability for the activities of its employees, that liability is explicitly limited to that provided in the Torts Claim Act , Minn. Stat . § 3.736. G. MINNESOTA LAWS Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the installation of any legal or administrative proceedings or relieve the Permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties for violation of effluent and water quality limitations not included in this permit or applicable laws or regulations. H. PROPERTY RIGHTS The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, or local laws or regulations. I . SEVERABILITY The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provisions of this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any circumstances, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit shall not be affected thereby. J. NPDES/SDS RULE The Permittee shall comply with the provisions of Minn. Rules pts. 7001.0150, subp. 3 and 7001 . 1090, subp. 1.A,B,C,H,I. This permit does not require the submittal of a data monitoring report. PART IV Page 13 of 13 — Permit No: MN G610000 K. OTHER STATUTES, RULES AND ORDINANCES The Agency's issuance of a permit does not release the Permittee from any liability, penalty or duty imposed by Minnesota or Federal statutes or local ordinances, except the obligation to obtain the permit. _ L. MORE STRINGENT RULES The Agency's issuance of a permit does not prevent the future adoption by the agency of pollution control rules, standards, or orders more stringent than those now in existence and does not prevent the enforcement of these rules, standards or orders against the Permittee. — M. AGENCY OBLIGATION The Agency's issuance of a permit does not obligate the agency to enforce local laws, rules or plans beyond that authorized by Minnesota Statutes. N. PERMIT REAPPLICATION This permit and its authorization shall expire at midnight , five years from the date of issuance. In order to receive authorization to discharge storm — water beyond the expiration date, the Permittee shall reapply to the Agency no later than 180 days prior to expiration. CITY OF CEANI1ASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 . ; July 7, 1993 Mr. Conrad Fiskness, Chairman Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Barr Engineering _ Suite 100 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis, MN 55435 Dear Mr. Fiskness: On behalf of the City, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to visit with us on Tuesday. I believe it was productive and the start of a new and more cooperative relationship. I also wanted to take this opportunity to review what we had agreed to. 1. The Watershed Board will consider new means of encouraging regular communication with the communities. This is likely to include the permanent establishment of a Technical Advisory Committee or some similar group. 2. Chanhassen will provide copies of our draft Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan for review by Watershed staff as soon as it is available. We look forward to gaining your input. Upon completion of the Plan, we will formally present it to the Watershed Board for official action. We anticipate that this plan will constitute Chanhassen's Local Plan as outlined in State law. 3. Mr. Haik pointed out that other communities in the District have already been given authority to locally administer permitting on behalf of the District. We anticipate assuming similar responsibility upon completion of our plan. 4. Our plan should incorporate a "wish list" of projects where cooperation and joint funding between the City and Watershed may be productive. This will provide the basis for future consideration in these areas. Ars t«1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. Conrad Fiskness, Chairman Mr. Bob Obermeyer Mr. Ray Haik — Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershe4 District District Distric t Barr Engineering Barr Engineering Barr Engineering Suite 100, 7803 Glenroy Road Suite 100, 7803 Glenroy Road Suite 100, 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis, MN 55435 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Mr. Howard Peterson Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Barr Engineering Suite 100, 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis, MN 55435 CITY OF 10d 7 ClIANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 July 6, 1993 Ms. Kathy Johnson Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 East Fifth Street StPaul, MN 55101-1634 Dear Ms. Johnson: I have had an opportunity to review your June 25 letter regarding population and household estimates for the City of Chanhassen. I believe that they are correct for the April, 1992, time period. However, I must inquire as to why you are focusing on data that is already over a year out of date. Since that date, we have added at least another 250 housing units for a population increase of another 730 people. We are on an accelerating curve where we are likely to add over 300 homes in calendar 1993 and due to new plats, we could easily be near 400 homes next year. We have also recently annexed a lot containing a home that was formerly located in Shorewood. This home is now located in the Hennepin County portion of our community. If you like, I can supply you with a copy of the State Municipal Board and their action on this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you require additional information. S erely, Ta/(1--e,)08-1,44-4 Paul Krauss AICP Director of Planning PK:1 c: City Council Planning Commission Comprehensive Plan File ti 0, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 44.41# AdMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL mar. Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul. MN 55101-1634 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 TTY 612 291-0904 June 25, 1993 To: Local Government Key Contacts The Metropolitan Council staff has prepared preliminary population and household estimates (April 1, 1992) for your community. An estimates worksheet, which includes 1990 Census — background data, is enclosed. The estimates are used by the Council to monitor population and household change in the — Metropolitan Area. We strive to provide estimates that are accurate and that treat each municipality consistently. If you have questions or comments about the estimates, please contact Kathy Johnson at 291-6332. If you prefer to submit written comments, please direct these to Ms. — Johnson as well. In early July we will send the estimates to the State Department of Revenue for use in their local — aids formulas. If you have questions about these calculations, please address them to Rich Gardner, Minnesota DepartmenLof.Revenue, at 296-3155. If possible, we would like to finalize the estimates before sending-hem to the-Department of Revenue. To do so, we need to hear from you by July 9, 1993. Thank you for 9 ur prompt attention to this matter. — Sincerely, — Dottie Rietow Chair C3 t: I DR/kj Enclosures _ � J ! II _ r . - 1 4r. Recycled Paper METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PROVISIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATE APRIL 1, 1992 City or Township: Chanhassen (Pt.) 1992 Housing Units 1992 1992 Estimated Estimated 1990 Census Completed Occupied Housing By Type Housing Units Housing Units Households Single-Family 3,322 3,693 3,583 Multifamily (incl. Townhouse) 925 925 816 Mobile Home 2 2 2 TOTAL 4,249 4,620 4,401 HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATE 1990 Census Households 4,016 1992 Household Estimate 4,401 POPULATION ESTIMATE 1990 Census Total Population 11,732 1990 Group Quarters Population 16 1990 Population in Households 11,716 1992 Population Estimate 12,863 1992 Group Quarters Population 16 1992 Population in Households 12,847 PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1990 Census Persons per Household 2.92 1992 Persons per Household 2.92 All numbers are as of April 1 of each year. ' This total includes 20 units listed in "other" housing in the 1990 Census data. The Census defines these units as those not fitting the defined housing categories, such as houseboats, railroad cars, campers and vans. Since no information on"other"units is available between censuses,for purposes of 1992 population and household estimation, these units have been allocated to the single and multiple family categories. This was done based on persons per "other" household and the ratio of single-family to multifamily housing in the jurisdiction. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PROVISIONAL POPULATION ESTIMATE APRIL 1, 1992 City or Township: Chanhassen (Pt.) 1992 Housing Units 1992 1992 Estimated Estimated 1990 Census Completed Occupied Housing By Type Housing Units Housing Units Households Single-Family Multifamily (incl. Townhouse) 0 0 Mobile Home 0 0 0 TOTAL HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATE 1990 Census Households 0 1992 Household Estimate POPULATION ESTIMATE 1990 Census Total Population 0 1990 Group Quarters Population 0 1990 Population in Households 0 1992 Population Estimate 1992 Group Quarters Population 0 1992 Population in Households PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD 1990 Census Persons per Household 0.00 1992 Persons per Household All numbers are as of April 1 of each year. * This total includes . units listed in "other" housing in the 1990 Census data. The Census defines these units as those not fitting the defined housing categories, such as houseboats, railroad cars, campers and vans. Since no information on"other"units is available between censuses,for purposes of 1992 population and household estimation, these units have been allocated to the single and multiple family categories. This was done based on persons per "other" household and the ratio of single-family to multifamily housing in the jurisdiction. (374. ( :( Azar,,.. Public No ice v US Army Corps APPLICANT: Sienna Corporation ISSUED: June 30, 1993 of Engineers City of Eden Prairie EXPIRES: July19, 1993 Si Pa.:l ar ict REFER TO: 91-30137-IP-JJY SECTION: 404 - Clean Water Act 1. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO PLACE FILL IN WETLANDS. 2. SPECIFIC INFORMATION. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: Sienna Corporation Suite 608 4940 Viking Drive CITY OF C HANNASsr' Attn: Rick Packer ORME Minneapolis, MN 55435 LalL5� f1�'If E BUSINESS PHONE: (612) 835-2808 JUL O 4 19g3 COAPPLICANT'S ADDRESS: City of Eden Prairie 16IMEER�N� DEPT. 7600 Executive Drive Attn: Alan Gray, City Engineer Eden Prairie, MN 55344 BUSINESS PHONE: (612 ) 937-2262 PROJECT LOCATION: The project site covers 419.5 acres east of Riley Lake in the N 1/2 and SE 1/4 Section 19, T. 116 N. , R. 22 W. , City of Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Approximate Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates for the location are Zone 15, North 4965000.00, East 460000.00. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project (now named Bearpath, but formerly Marsh Creek) includes an 18-hole championship golf course (a Jack Nicklaus signature course) , a 299-unit residential development, and related road construction, including a segment of the proposed Dell Road and a realignment of Riley Lake Drive. The City of Eden Prairie is a coapplicant for the Dell Road and Riley Lake Drive construction. The golf course is intended to help meet the demand for additional golf course facilities in the area. It also would increase the development value of the site so that fewer units are necessary for a profit (approximately 1,050 residential units could be included in the site according to zoning ordinances) . It has been designed to reduce the environmental impact of development in an environmentally sensitive area. The residential development would provide additional housing in an area that is rapidly developing. Although the site is owned by five different owners, this proposal is also consistent with the City of Eden Prairie's preference that the site be developed as a comprehensively planned development that minimizes impact on the environment. To this end, the City and the applicant have included these two public road projects in this application because the alternative analysis (avoidance-minimization- compensation sequencing) for both the public and private projects are closely related and are best evaluated jointly. The project has been modified following discussions with the Corps of Engineers and representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. June 30, 1993 CENCS-CO-R (91-30137-IP-JJY) SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit to Place Fill in Wetlands QUANTITY, TYPE, AND AREA OF FILL/ADVERSE IMPACT: The proposal includes 2.84 acres of wetland fill. The site has 69.8 acres of wetland, including three sphagnum bogs (see attached plans: basins F, 0, and Y) . Total wetland area, including several wetlands that extend off the site, is 82 .8 acres. About 0.63 acre (primarily type 2/3 wet meadow/shallow marsh area) would be filled for the construction of Dell Road. (Some fill could be avoided by aligning Dell Road further west, but that alignment would render development of the Bearpath site economically infeasible, according to the applicant. The applicant also maintains that filling for the road allows a comprehensive and environmentally less damaging development of the entire site. ) Approximately 0.42 acre (primarily type 2/3/8 wet meadow/shallow marsh/sphagnum bog wetland, including some wooded fringe) would be filled for the golf course construction (about 0.18 acre would be on the edge of a sphagnum bog, which was first thought to be a more common type 2 wet meadow- sedge meadow wetland) . (Avoiding this fill would create a golf course that does not meet standards, primarily too long of a carry from tee to green, and would involve the loss of mature trees. ) The remaining 1.78 acres of fill would be for access road and lot fills (about half in type 1/2 seasonally flooded basin/wet meadow areas that have been farmed but also half in partly wooded fringes of type 3/4 shallow marsh/deep marsh areas and small wooded or shrubby basins) . (Avoiding this fill would involve the loss of a substantial number of lots and construction of long cul-de-sacs and awkward, less safe, street alignments. ) (See the plans - for information on impacts. The applicant provided additional information to the Corps of Engineers and other agencies on alternatives and impacts that is too long to include in this notice. It is available for inspection in the Corps office. ) Two bogs have been completely avoided in terms of fill but would receive some pretreated runoff. The applicant has prepared a plan to provide sufficient, pretreated storm water to two bogs that would not be filled. The plan is being modified to include a third, more recently discovered bog. The City of Eden Prairie has tentatively committed itself to adopting a bog monitoring plan, although the City Council has not officially approved it. No other wetlands would be drained, inundated, or excavated for this project. The applicant would appropriate some ground water for golf course irrigation, but this pumping should not adversely affect any surface waters or wetlands. One wetland on the site (originally proposed to be wetland Q but now proposed to be wetland N, at the _ suggestion of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps) would be used as a reservoir for this water, but the impacts on the wetland would be negligible. Additional bounce would be less than 0.5 inch (with a daily return to normal conditions) . MITIGATION: The applicant has attempted to avoid, minimize, and compensate for adverse impacts on wetlands in consultation with the Corps of Engineers and other agencies. This consultation is continuing. The development has been reduced from approximately 400 to 299 residential units to minimize impacts. Lots are also large (190 are 0.5 acre or larger) . (Approximately 1,050 residential units could be included in the site according to zoning ordinances. ) The surrounding area is rapidly developing. Because the site is owned by five different owners, it could become separate residential areas or other types of development if someone else does not buy the site and develop it according to the City of Eden Prairie's preference that the site be a comprehensively planned development that minimizes impact on the environment. The City of Eden Prairie and the applicant have also worked together to include the road construction in this development, rather than include this work as a separate application. Overall, this coordination may have reduced environmental impacts although it may have increased the wetland fill required for Dell Road. The applicant also proposes to create and restore 3.01 acres of wetland as mitigation (see below) . This new wetland would be primarily 2 June 30, 1993 CENCS-CO-R (91-30137-IP-JJY) SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit to Place Fill in Wetlands type 2/3/4 (wet meadow/marsh) , similar to the areas that would be adversely affected, but it may include some tree and shrub plantings to help replace lost vegetation. Although some of the mitigation area would be adjacent to basin N, the 3.01 acres does not include the area within subbasins Nn and Ns that could be enhanced by connecting them to restore a more natural hydrology in the basin. In addition to the wetland creation, the applicant has also developed a plan to protect two of the bogs on the site and to provide them with sufficient clean runoff and pretreated storm water. Buffer zones around the bogs and restrictions on lawn and street chemicals (including fertilizers, herbicides, lime, and salt) would also protect the bogs. The City of Eden Prairie is committed to setting up a plan that includes water quality monitoring of the two bogs, although the plan must still be approved by the City Council. If approved and implemented, this proposal may protect the integrity of the bogs, although it is still under review. This plan may be extended to include the third, more recently discovered bog. Water quality in the creek and wetlands would be further protected by the construction of 27 NURP (National Urban Runoff Program) ponds with 7.2 acres of surface area that would pretreat storm water to settle out sediment and remove nutrients and other pollutants. In addition, deadend drainage and landlocked nonwetland depressions would drain runoff from golf course greens and tees through tiles that empty into the NURP ponds. VEGETATION IN AFFECTED AREA: The 419.5-acre site includes about 194 acres of crop land, about 115 acres of woodland, 40 acres of brush/grassland, part of Riley Creek and 28 wetland areas (including 7 basins on the State Protected Waters Inventory) that cover 69.8 acres. More than 71 acres of the woodland would remain after development. Wetland area would increase to 71.5 acres, and wetland/water area (including NURP ponds) would increase to 78.7 acres) . The remainder of the upland would be converted to residential areas, golf course, and surfaced roads, although existing trees and shrubs would be retained wherever feasible. Some of the affected wetlands extend off the site; total area of the affected wetlands is 82.8 acres. These wetlands include a number of relatively high quality open- water, marsh, and wet meadow areas, three bogs, and some wooded-shrubby wetlands. The higher-quality wetlands generally have a wooded buffer surrounding them. Not all of the wetlands are high quality. Some of them have been farmed, and several areas appear to include former wetlands that have been drained and converted to cropland. The site include wetlands adjacent to Riley Creek, including State- protected wetland 27-978W; State-protected wetlands 27-975W, 27-976W, 27-979 W, 27-1000W, and 27-1003W; State-protected wetland 27-977W (which includes a sphagnum bog) ; and other headwaters and isolated wetlands (including two other sphagnum bogs) . The site is also partly bordered on the southwest by Lake Riley. The proposed wetland fills are primarily in partly wooded, partly grass-sedge fringes of larger wetlands, small wooded or shrubby basins, and areas of disturbed, farmed wetland, although some fill is proposed for a bog. Almost half of the proposed wetland fill area appears to be mainly reed canary grass or mixed reed canary grass and other vegetation, with some sedges, goldenrods, smartweeds, foxtails, and cattails. Perhaps half comprises small wooded or shrubby wetland pockets or wetland fringes that have sedges and grasses, red osier and gray dogwood, cottonwood, aspen, silver and red maple, black and green ash, American elm, common elderberry, and raspberry. About 0.18 acre of proposed fill is on the fringes of a sphagnum-sedge bog that has sedges, sphagnum moss, cattail, Labrador tea, reed canary grass, dogwood, and aspen. The interior of this bog is primarily sphagnum, cottongrass and other sedges, and scattered small trees and shrubs. (Plants in this bog have not been fully inventoried, although the other bogs on the site were inventoried by Steve Eggers of the Corps of Engineers. ) 3 L E > CENCS-CO-R (91-30137-IP-JJY) SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit to Place Fill in Wetlands SOURCE OF FILL MATERIAL: Fill would come from existing borrow pits, commercial sources, or from on site. Only clean fill would be used. SURROUNDING LAND USE: The surrounding land is mixed agricultural and residential, although the area was primarily agricultural until recently. Residential development of the area is occurring rapidly. Some adjacent properties are either under development or are proposed for development. Lake Riley lies to the west of the site. The lake and a small park adjacent to it receive fairly heavy recreational use. State Highway 212 is proposed for construction just north of this site. This highway and other proposed road construction would probably accelerate development of the surrounding area. THE FOLLOWING POTENTIALLY TOXIC MATERIALS COULD BE USED AT THE PROJECT SITE: Construction equipment and vehicles using the site would use petroleum products for fuel and lubrication, although the risk of contamination is relatively small. Some chemicals (fertilizers and herbicides) would be used on the golf course, although a series of ponds and tiles would help filter out or settle out these chemicals before they discharged into any wetlands or other waters. THE FOLLOWING PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED BY THE APPLICANT: Silt fences, plantings, and other erosion control measures would be used to limit sedimentation and erosion. The applicant has developed a plan to protect two of the bogs on the site and to provide them with sufficient clean runoff and pretreated storm water (see below) . Lawn and street chemicals would be restricted in the bog watersheds. The City of Eden Prairie is committed to setting up a plan that includes water quality monitoring of two of the bogs, although the plan must still be approved by the City Council. This plan may be extended to the third, more recently discovered bog. If approved and implemented, this proposal may protect the integrity of the bogs, although it is still under review. Water quality in the creek and wetlands would be further protected by the construction of 27 NURP ponds with 7.2 acres of surface area that would pretreat storm water to settle out sediment and remove nutrients and other pollutants. Deadend drainage and landlocked nonwetland depressions would drain runoff from golf course greens and tees through tiles into the NURP ponds. 3. REPLIES/COMMENTS. Interested parties are invited to submit to this office written facts, arguments, or objections within 20 days of the date of this notice. These statements should bear upon the suitability of the location and the adequacy of the project and should, if appropriate, suggest any changes believed to be desirable. Comments received may be forwarded to the applicant. Replies may be addressed to Regulatory Branch, St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers, 180 E. Kellogg Blvd. , Rm. 1421, St. Paul, MN 55101-1479, Attention: 91-30137-IP-JJY. Or, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT, call Joe Yenta at the St. Paul office of the Corps, telephone number (612) 220-0362. 4. THREATENED OR ENDANGERED WILDLIFE OR PLANTS OR THEIR CRITICAL HABITAT. None were listed by the applicant or are known to exist in the permit area, although the site has a number of bog species at or near their southern limits in the State of Minnesota. This application is being coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any comments it may have concerning threatened or endangered wildlife or plants or their critical habitat will be considered in our 4 June 30, 1993 CENCS-CO-R (91-30137-IP-JJY) SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit to Place Fill in Wetlands final assessment of the described work. Hennepin County is within the known or historic range of the following threatened (T) and endangered (E) species: Species Habitat Peregrine falcon (E) Breeding Bald eagle (T) Breeding Higgins' eye pearly mussel Breeding 5. JURISDICTION. This project comes under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers because most of the affected wetlands are part of the Riley Creek system, which is tributary to the Minnesota River, a navigable water of the United States. Some of the affected wetlands are isolated waters, but even these fall under the regulatory authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: This application will be reviewed according to the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, our public interest review will consider the guidelines set forth under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations 230) . THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE FOLLOWING STATE, COUNTY, AND/OR LOCAL PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Hennepin Conservation District Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District City of Eden Prairie 6. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION. This Public Notice has been sent to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and is considered by the District Engineer to constitute valid notification to that agency for water quality certification. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has indicated that it intends to review this project to determine the appropriate action under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Any comments relative to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency actions may be sent to: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Permits Section Division of Water Quality 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 7. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL. This public notice is being sent to the National Park Service, the State Archaeologist, and the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine if there are known cultural resources which may be affected by the described work. Any unknown archaeological, scientific, or historical data could be lost or destroyed by the work described in the permit application. However, the latest version of the National Register of Historic Places has been consulted and no listed properties (known to be eligible for inclusion, or included in the Register) are 5 June 30, 1993 — CENCS-CO-R (91-30137-IP-JJY) SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit to Place Fill in Wetlands located in the project area. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer has also been initiated before issuance of this notice. 8. PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTS. — Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, in detail, the reasons for holding a public hearing. A request may be denied if substantive reasons for holding a hearing are not provided or if there is otherwise no valid interest to be served. 9. PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW. The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the F :cposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. A. 1 factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered, includ.-.g the cumulative effects. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Environmental and other documents will be available for review in the St. Paul District Office. The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from the public; Federal, state, and local agencies and officials; Indian Tribes; and other interested parties in order to consider and evaluate the impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to - issue, modify, condition or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEER: „ • IVO ‘Per (,,p/ /I( L / Enclosures JAMES E. NICHOLSON, P. E. Chief, Construction-Operations Division 6 1 . SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS 1- _I • • i:. •' - I.• <j �, . , .• ,f-,. ' . � � I � ‘1.1.L.akt. . s ---- -- -• (- 1i: Ir-1 Pt•-..---j-, ,- ,--\_ 5( t(, w r::::1-010 , • a:•�•'. �, • \ )ri w 1•��~. • 1` `��✓ i��: l:. _ , / • so. i b___ , • z .,_ lir : 1 • - ..-. ...1.-.1 0 e-. •a.t. •-;)/I -1Th. ''-r-,' 1 -- _ - ,f,. N..........,/..\-cp ... - . • •40--- -..... • ...O.: -,..• ,. _—..... '.....)..-/es 1 -,....:.-- ,- - \o• • - . - i - 10.Ce "4'e ''_. --.-.. : soo t C61. . / AA....i-- - SITE i * �� moo\ Osac _ ir."---'----. 0::- -----"‘--' j \C"-N--- - ^-- +. \,....\..irl ,` CtJ 1 it ��L�) '� i 67--- - '`.---,,,,,,) sc7.-\\ - E l _ •,0 �to:++ sl ,.....,..... -�' ` ' n--11,....... / :•'. - - -c ! 1 .':.4 '''.'"- -/ Q sit%. sir: f Tri) . ) , ~'`. _ / r--?sem ,` sa c•_/---...,-a, ' ,tdiPp't- 1 --- ,••••-- .:./▪ . V. .......„_-___::.--25..\‘\•., . , 9pO ' i:- i I k d iQ-„.;\ 3 \\\ ,11 - / _ li ' •�';:,•111%.../..) , r� Fes'. I i .4Th t o .so0 ae /_C\ — • • C•• _\------------ \\ \ •�I / • v ii,,,,l' ___:_...y 1t \ ._ .-._ • cwt l��..:,-_� cam/ ,_ r,r� �\ / - Imo • • o • , •s •-...•,,,/,./. C .-170 _ 1 1 ;�; ✓i •� M f I , ( o �S' 1 L ,yam 'fi ��••. ��ss t�f'.-�� -:'.2g.f °�; -- :-. r IN./ ..,I r •i \ -9 • 0� _ \ _ . �4 � � ,ate�.. 1 , , 0 I APPROXIMATE SCALE: NORTH I 0 2000 OE INCH 20OO FEET °00° N .t 1 FIGURE 1 REARI;S: • '�iGENERAL SITE LOCATION MAP Map taken from USGS Eden Prairie and BEARPATH BOG STUDY Shakopee.,Minnesota 7 '/s minute quadrangles. DATE: EDEN PRAIRIE,MINNESOTA MARCH SUMMIT PROJECT NO. 922760 1'1°DIPI�D Rs? Coc/�� 1993 DRAWN Bl•:DNUN,1 REVIEWED BY:DRK 91-. 3013'7 - IP - 4.1 -1 I 6r (e ./ ...e.e. : - Section 404 Permit Narrative Bearpath Golf and Country Club Summit Project No. 920680 - Pa2e 15 May 5, 1993 rt1a•';=;(..1 61 c e E proposed plan avoids and minimizes wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable. The following table shows the impacts to wetland basins that are anticipated to result from both the private and public improvements encompassed by this application. Basin Acreage and Potential Impacts per Basin Basin I Wetland Wetland Type Total Acres Total Section 404 DNR PWI Type (Cowardin Method) (entire basin) Acres Impact Acres Impact (Circular 39) (on-site) , Acres* A Tvpe 3 I PEM1C 0.91 0.91 -- -- B Type 3 f PEM1C 0.45 0.45 _ 0 0 C Type 3 PEM1C 0.26 _ 026 0 0 D Type 3 PEM 1F 1.84 -- -- - E Type 3 PEM1C 2.44 -- 0.15 _ 0.15 F Type 6/8 * PSS1C/PEMB 2.86 2.86 -- -- G Type 216 PEM 1/S S 1 C 0.84 0.84 -- -- H Type 7 PFO 1 C 0.29 0.29 - -- I Type 4 PUBG 8.10 2.74 -- -- J Tvne 213 PEM 1B/C 6.37 3.67 0.48 0.06 K I Type 7 PFO 1 A 0.24 0.24 -- 1 -- L east Type 2 PEM 1 B 0.38 _ 0.35 -- -- L west Type 3/4 PEMF'/PUBH 2.25 2.25 0.14 -- M Type 3 PEMFd 2.43 1 2.43 0.39 -- N north TN pe i/2 I PEM I A/B 1.18 1.18 0.85 -- N south Type 4 PEM 1F 7.20 7.20 -- -- O Type 1/5'' PEM 1 B 5.14 5.14 0.18 -- P north I Type 3 PEM1C 1.96 1.96 -- -- P south Ty-pe 3 PEM I C 0.27 0.27 -- -- Q Type 4 PUBG _ 7.59 7.59 -- -- R Upland Upland upland upland -- -- S Upland Upland upland upland -- -- T basin Type 3;4 I PEM1C/F 17.34 17.34 0.P.34 0.19 (') T creek I Type I R4SBF/PFO1J see T basin see T basin see T basin see T basin ✓ Upland Upland upland upland -- -- \V I Type 2 PEM 1B 0.54 0.44 -- -- Y Type 3/6/8` PEMI/SSIF/PEMB 10.91 10.75 -- -- Z i Type 2 PEM 1 B 0.16 0.16 -- -- AA I Type 6 PS S I C 0.44 0.07 -- -- BB Type 6 PSS 1 B 0.09 0.09 -- -- DD Type 2 PEM I B 0.31 0.31 0.31 -- Total 82.8 69.8 7,0112 q4 (?) 'DNR PWI impact acreage is approximate pending a survey of the 01-iW. '' 3 0 Ai- 30i37- IP-J4`{ •F g \\.s err - . _ `` // / / ter- - ♦ - - \1111 ( •^•• 1 ,1 _-••:: r ' - __,..• •i _r`_ \ v I rW"--- . - !_it r J , 27 -.__ er•-41:. --;;---fc. :----,\"' '..\,,_ s-\,%-‘ .`.------i-- -A. — i i',..,1 .5c, iltal .........„A,--4: .'-`t`, „--:',.....,. I.::,j p'r 1-(2.4.„.2.-.71;7‘. 1 \....v::, _:....< 1 1 L /� p`�"`d -i I fig- L �. �: �. '\ �'{ .`v� �; • • r� �/ sem` , 1�_ — 11 "gt_417,V il \ • - - _ % ---,_ • E f i . \i),c 1. i.; •,,.=-_____=1- :::.., • #t \ -"k • k ilf,...... - -1--r ;,,-4, : Intl • - --7.---.----......ii. . ier • ,i. i I.f. 41tAitt,till" / -, • _,„-: ' CI 1 11- r lir -I' 7'..-11-''''-1 1----Thr ■, • .� ` � C rj V� ' r •_• • ti .` .. _ �t L,•Ai , Ilt �l �t.r f'� / �\'T�• .3.L• /.a f '•� ,' '•.� '''''" Jp' Y.—fes \ �tl * \. _, , 47 - --s- •rte t •,// a I 1\� It ' ),• . 1 r' ' tir i - :- "I' " • e/,j'it % ,/, i C =% 1 ..-7 1i* 4 ,, ,gror .,_, ..4 --..- „..."5,,, Nit , J1.1441 i • j 1•` ..•••;,. f 1-•t '�•'� • \ l y�: ,..„...„.......7.,....7---.,,,e_....1/ •,..)------:-.).---,—,./ � 1"}1 ha � 1..--v-,1,/.�•` r-�o• ,Th ` - • 'dry '1 I' ' -•,.0! 1 _4\• i; �-dm• •� . 7:''1 r .V\\t'� r �''• E�e •• S •.. - .�%1••• ` 1ti it ► 'i' `.r. • C �\', -i • 1 *�( 7 i fir``. ..-__' s.Y._. t_r.� ..� s •.� ' .f��'•••,--.... ' f *,' ' 4 1 .--mki 1" 1i ' ■ • s.•\ -• ♦6° •wr` •_ I=� • , \ •1 •'/l ,r °4ji* ,4, i-- �j 4...,,, t ` ^ ff. ^ , itp 2. --.. its, ,-- , ' 11 i • s I VH -\(% \ • ,7•;_- -:,-ey \‘-, ....i.;'41*./fr's . 7 . __ , . _ .... , — - . -. '.. ;-- '' \• vrAi • 7" ' '-•' - ' gg iirj. -41,.4*-`4'1 tit -:.,... Ir 4" ' 0 ! ; ,_ . Z / . ...,4 .,/,:rti.r 411:01"11:'Wil'Arri.1 _ i: i ' /j:. N e�..�,; c tts moi" �/�=, �i: dig4IIIV �'„......"„-..,,, i . 'i-, -";:." jef ....... .- -..„„... . 7 _,_... '' ^ �,i -.I s`�`' `e , . .....) ' . -:f es- i r ott ,�`: J F1s / tliVoJ �, I 1 ��4. /� 1NVEN7ort'i -F •-- ter► _ , ;_ - _ - 5 a - 30►3,- eP-- 4 c� g . • . 11 • ` _• , : t r i.' f i lip, ._, __ — .— — -- .as.e. tia., , 1. ."' - • — \ '/ � • - i ��• ` -/:- -\ \ii % _� �' ' - ..r •�� , ;..„ / .- .`�• , L AIM. I. _l1 •� :t .el')- \ ......‘ ” . ____, 6i Ii• WI-511, vr , ...,, j,,k 1).'s " \ L \\,.. �;J AY ,• iC _...7.-7::,‘.....,2,---711i:. ��'• - 3- •1.-' l % 441 T►11 - .•.w .i•r•L-� +s ...:.---.=--.... ...„ �..`\�`- �- �\ • . ...y.i' • }4--4. `)• \\'t.? t-. ''� '`5 \t "' —''lin•., ; .1� '��`" •�� •1 •1 •\ •: i. `�� ' — '\ t ♦ :: f . -jwl 1. • {y� I�. — ��. \ • r...•^........ ' - Z.A ' •W: ' ' / " . \.••• 464 ,•"%'e•f4..-57r k.":/' "i''''t. '\ i — , , '51:\ - z • D �i k ba ',m,•ttr� ' iii _\. a. . �-�_ l' .i d r- '( .. • �� _ "•� a0 •rev /' `• „' 4 �^•`..:� i —1,,(--- +,^' a; \\,, r`_- `� '•..'4 ,iGi._I d,•i�`t1 7 • 7• �, jr r . TT• • „ - < ,;• _ •• \ 1 ` `• .% _ i rJ I,-. - o• i • \ \ `..:fir ♦ .• -1_,.. - ✓il \if { •i �"'�- -fidp-� 1 t { 41e". _ -\ - "- r ,�: i �` -. \� 1� ,;:: ;11, ° . :..,=f 2 gi ‘ . 'A 3,- -. Itiis. .41%.1....114,,s_sferv> _.....k....0.1:110.t.40 • .f ,,,; ' •1-;r11,101* 7 -�(:I�(; 1ri 1\ /Jf { ;. 40� 1'_ }� .._. �... : _ - t _.,_ r---4 op- ) sit.: ' 0 '''':.,...3 i ' '",....,...\ �� , 1-i -7: • ,' `y•: - Ute ' { c•—. �, : : �,,, - ; %�_ g_ ____...,,. -,;; ' _—rr.- I_ . .. - % 1 S. ,;-- •,,..147"011"02L- - a .iii-f- 17-1.,Iii t., 11 N,'•• -- 5.....,. Nap , ,.... ._ ._,, 4...14.11 ....../.1' I "s„..,..,,:...,..." ....• , ..-- --"'N..It , . .. :' . IS figrp°:,16-. 1----7 7': `"- -'.'-' i I MI I I LI i 1 % 1, .- ! . Al lf--...,,,.. s'Th ‘'''*N . 441'• VI. t•1 '1 1,17-..44°` • s.t. ii , 1 • . • , : •>)-#466 . . --#'-iz • / '... -- --4-:.- ::)///je.,/11,•;,e' . i ((//(11..;. 'i PO • ISv - \ 47 Irk i • il f ' 111 -......_ ,...---__ _......-- ---;.....„_----..;,---.\*---- #1 L;,_ 7"74.-: -- i L.. ...,21........... . : : :. . • . \) ..- --..••••=. r---1 1 C;;;)! . . . -._ ,,-,...0&,41111 • . al" •- ."-'bH • • ---` 1, ... jr7i. glifir',:Ct.,, Aft • -...--.-•...-.7.--- .s fri _I.f. .. •-4'.1.1'11---"%.. . • . ..):, ,,:,..-. . 41114111Wrisa. t......... a romp04210mItios / 2.- .........:,„„„trair kV 'if $ /"...-.-----•,-- ----- • l' \: . .' 41- 111111141H. ..... .Lain- - at '. 1 _.... ,,,„..,. ... 4.4v, , . . I, . , ,, ,,i , ,,i,„ , ....., •••.‘„ ' "z.• ..„.. .... :-:-1......" 4/ , „allins 4,i irii,:y.,,,,----. -..., _ ---. 1 rr,-... . \freir•Aril WM ___, ,-..-: 1 _ r;elm-. ar,-----" t'l ;' _V„1.411/44 .1' .., ..iii,. ''-' I. ' ' '-°-.. v----- 1,. r.f-4-4,42.0.1 Ogg - ..-..ti.„--:j.\s: . hilk._ ,;\ - ..- ic il ,--,-T.. J w--- _,Af#• - '.'-',.. / 1k i •• .......% $ % • I \.••••••• I N.'4°1 tk 1 I I iii.. • i( •• • .-:-.-''••••'.."'-'....-^::".../........../ ....• A .. 0......M.. ..' •' .. \ ' .\ /, .'44'; Ala 11 . .L.tk.. . ....,74M%1 Atil? 71 ,,I 1 .. . 1: c:.. -- ....s:Z. /.1i2j, Fr i/ + ? ,=r �. ' s.r- 1 ••- •- •1 .,::;\ '/ = .`' , ? _.--• \- -.J ' 7- • 1_• tii.^ f¢'•w \�• .. :;;. A) f i... .. .... .. , A .... . ...-.. . ' '. ' 411.`'. - .L, ' i''' j • . 1 ' ----..10A10/ r .1---;`-. .. ‹Av.!'"// it‘' ° ' '''' . 4641.W7ri4.' f 1./0 40111 .4.,,,, Fiall 1:3 1447; - .' \IA, flA . i - ..e'131143 I LIA.....,4 ell! ... e .li-. 11eg6/11P‘Nm "--g-IM la! L ' 4 3 ‘ • --- ,--i _ qtr , ,00- `�s r --A.1.11. 4,\ .:11t.,4\N. .\ .... \.. 411° , 414111.f."11.-""--":. \' id •41f. -...: - - - -ear,=410-------we'r 0 . .2: -- / .---.,-."k,"."-.2- 4 i �• :, tel / ' � -_ � - cit.!" 4:: 0 . 43) 111:1 '''' •7:::-;---_,.. ,„,43':. t _ t.c., s . , ,.\ . . . 2111 1-7,;7_1- a . _•;, ,f , _:.., . .:...„. . . •/.• ;. - * 411V-A, \--- _,..+' 1 -. ' '''',---,..„_--''. . .\\- '' -,_. ...7_:_ '2*,ii. , - . - < 1 ':.sw ; 7 t : N Attir ‘..i.; L. :71,... J: BO FZ. . ,N,,...1%.._---7, -. --- i k--- ' ., ''' 1. --441 reiii - •. - _ __ • •AL. :•,:.- --' . 4b . -. ,....--H, ' _ '1/4, . i 1;• '••'„„Dlirocili ��.!lc , ! MI i i' wer 21-'11411r „17 __....., ,,.----,_....„„z.., ••N g.A, t4x: ,-, --,,. ---4- :\ -: J.,.1,...:., . :., .: •• •, luti ,i,_, .w4,,,411*, iti-vo-• •- , 1,--. .4.1)1:.("..L. 2\•.,:,''':':2 11-,81 . -:1--=----- -j-:.- ---I fe"""S: CIF4i---_ -`-'- -.7-7-:)1)11 '4'. 11161;41-b- 4...di ''. AVN = \ la •'.. \A '. 1 .. . \ . .. 11'Okla 44 \-\- -- -'-'--:".----- -- /iii 111111417117-\- 441/4 ,, .. 1, 1 ?Arlen C gar Es ilk►1, , • .' •.` ,� f' .2t � 'J 'A .m ��`� - „ 47 ' \ \\. \*-----P--mtv, sb, A _„....0 „ ,7.41 '- ' kv,„:„....- .4.__ A 1, _,,,- \..-4 • , 1101 - itiCtila 1 , '711"i.--, -----tillhip '1 ‘,....,avpiart,,,, -...At ,H.,,, t \ a ,,..- -1..1 -r - . `' •� \ � I At,* 1 41{1 �- J-' am.; '�1 lt1) kiliti 4. Luc ,ll . :- 14:4ifilit .--j---- -4.--- 111 -- Iff” - . ' tl" ' .\\*filrili,**411kaM irk-4/ 41a 49.4*/*Asia.,r,'4,,,iiii............- ---:-.. .AI ,t; • 4- . : --‘ 1 111 .°--: 1_ „41.........,_.14-41,= r__,L7. i; ..I. re; Illiiiiir- -1- 01- ."--1, . b' :01 „/". --, •rtiopk.._ 1 """"711....talag;_jr-r.:.:-1.1-1,_-LIti--1.(- 1'1' -...._ 4-7,,:111.. irallitirlift7 4 tift../. : • 4zr:h-#-7‘.4)iv 1 OF pligw,s, miL ..,_. r? , (..._:5,0_vr_10,_ .›,, /teill 1. „-w-z,„,,,,,. ,... .. _ _-.1.. ,37/40, 4tp".,,,,,,. ,i..ii 44r_N, of - / i( „ 1 ',.s7-4j. `. __4140 �. •,��, 7-��` iJ - ilp� i �: - --40r- �rim.rte _ fA-Ii•avl.ii Erriv 1 i• �.�n ; _ )119 , . ,( :Neje ;� fir_ ��`f Lt's 116A ist 1: -: . .f1�11T16M�10- Y 1 1"r - - �1 i SCM ., ( .c64 = 310 Fu r 1 i - 30%37- IP-44 = 15 -,- . ' . -., • 1 ,..i.• , \ ' NI . - • \ • , \ - , li) C. 2 1 n 4 - - r • \ • k . • ' / 1 • \ ' II ... . • -iL--. N -i,j 7 \I: / A,. 4j1.1 k 1, 1 • I. i • / V /li lz' AZIPP,--i•relf :mix -.0, r . E , . - : .41 • n-, A de1----"P •--. . - /Fri __, N . a _ / -=; 1 - • 4,,t94; . ,d / f%'''.. G !4trAP.34'.7",','• OM i 111701 /./.. i / -- ilk - L.4:4-4 , • it:t` • ' , •,.. i ii,,..- ,,, ,,,... Tito --- /, $ . ....... s , ,.„ . . I., ...:: sAtAv 'efl p • - ,&---1.-,!: ...4- : - '" igitill liNrerilit ‘ I \ - ... 11:. -" ,`-` d.i ,.`, i .'''l -114"--R"7" e''''',100 -3E•afr: / "i.- ,, .1 ' A.:,...,„.... ........... ,,„,...._ .--,- .1 • r-,,. ,44146; / ze 0.0.414,---,, 1—Apt-•,. ..-•:_eft, liatiiri, k 1 tudiK.,,, _,. /....' \, 7 . /, , il_>3,7/w_Ep, uw;,,,...-::-...0 ::: low I 1C•:."-• - lit r -;II'; --- _ do' .., ..,,,-,i..- inia,ft t- til,R% ,y , ---- (r) / 0,0).--, ,,,-/. ",/ ,- 6, .., ' • /74-0eq-, '-'.T.,.le i —44-tilyii Ili j iiliffil , i.`-..•-•iir-`-' . ,4 -.-../.. 1 .are.,7;-....,...r- ;,:. _-_,,__:., z 31„.., le ti.it • \ 4...-:-. .11-174q _ ,,i,. •_ I ' :AO ../7 /.-- -,:.-:.i.,-4,... . ir--.:::- tits\,_---zi, V III . il_ri I V -., "i. ../: •C /fre•or.,,, ', \ \ Tak. -,-.2/.//// 41,141,1.4, -... \. ' . 4 cctit. $0.4"2: i ISpi.V•Pit------ , ar -um . ? ,.4`. %.t14Argir - ;! 7 • 1 1 Mill II 1 '''l * ../' -1 ) -, ,,A, • I-4-.,"4--/*.-/.... s / I =•.-A D . ii;1•N .: .17/Bjj# lifitilp 1 ....... -i: AtliC1 1Z.577 'A ra . .:...„...._;:- II . .z;: • .,' Ali 46111 . /gra /.411., f--, .,... ...., !rWei i! rnICLL:44/4 Y 11!111111 • 11 ,- / -'-<'. ‘-•__T ,, .... --..--•;: _ - • i. --' • C . . _.- • litleleilass . T. "," 7.- 11411- '. GT, illi'Vetrai iii )-___ :; '4•• - PAtirga ‘ .;.i.. ....___________.--,.. _=--- ...., . 'ir. I tN‘ -1 14/---.•t.irs7,--i/ `- - ,,.‘,k,,J.1.1.114.,,.._..0_,.,. ____ ils ,,,,4, . •: i,. ,/..,..,.,0 el / . ''kre,-4;iiirt-J ." .i Y Jere ..-- , ' ' -.7 ---- -•- -2.- -1,•%/4te ....attle," i , liffir f, -,;->" ' - - ' ri., _.J . v li • - --.. '", /Ailifi.-i• . . / . ..oggi I,. ...ift • /7 -.... •• 7- •...), / - --_-- •-"...S... 0'4 , A/IV_afir-•':-W •;:jar• -. ._--- ......110Ar: -..:.7"L-41". AeleAjis:. • -•..a.".-' ‘,. -:-.. --'-----7-.1-g-.1 i'W;..A it-..' __---1••-AP'• 'jc/..7 "'7 A 0.../ A1/4, 4...-1, • ,f .',Ift,iN.4:7--- _---------=-.-7'N,-...=J:,,.- ,‘ - --_-_-:: -_ _...,-.7'. ,--:A-op . , .„, A ....,, -...... • ,-_,„ • , . ....-- ..„,_,,..•,e_,. M frV•ArTiO NI 41tEA. - q 1 ''' 3ot3r7- iP-.1-1s1 7 DP ! —. rlr. (L=1' I am ear -• ' . 1 • _ ai . OWL alce liffe ....A .....„. ............... .e." . , . _ bs.... sift iii , ,: , -Ntriliir—ii 4t Alj eff Alf",,.- ., ---:fr_.h"7"):A r 4;1414 ' :--. ' 4 - , -..7---.--4 I . it A. IAC ..-- , 1•1qC•114,; - 4(444th*; ti, . , ., . 0,. . - • X11 l �►� -'� ` A& 1SW OWL 14 xs , Wft Way / ...5 ' . .• I i All • ss,:-Is:.,, ' 7'.• •ri% ..- iiii,;), 4, :... : i , -- , ..,...,„.3. .... 7 2 for..,....„ .-. s--.:- - --.,-\---„, ,,. ,,,,(7- 4.4‘_ ,.', Ar , --,.. obwanien \- , . . CC - a ItANA • ' ___.......„,;?,:-. • .. ,A.r., - \ -Nkir. Ili - 7-27r---7-9 i .) •-- - . • l'''Th y , I VA' -- ,r4- _./,-.,.7( •E I I .. , . iatk . . , -. ' 1 = 2 �.�101.$ � < . 1 .I � ..i, ../Tai r' r.c«w. .44•:;"- J /042• � •n rat . i ' 1 Soitei �_�'^--"—Y� genas s.aa �'1 ' IV / r- �� ! ___ 1 v. il ' areas a... flO WINO COMM V, ... .: .)?ili•;1 l i ', , , _, �._ ..� : : ; I V I .); _ . ..iii"---- : - ,,c,,,,7... \i f ,.%. ..y . lip . • , .....,,, ..... • „ r , _. , , 1 , 1, . ,.,,,,4, .... . . . ., t-:7._,,--- fol. , . di i .....rri i- , '% •-•.!, - lb, : , k „,. . ri ;,,444., -.,,,,,,, f„, c::::).• , ,i, ......\ , • .. . .., i. . _ ,4,4 • ' t „ / `”" 1 . , - j r c-3, - -. , •MO 1 a _, 1 s I� c ��jf%It //�,,„ „ , . j , ••••• - •fir / ' ,.;,./, Mak \ , ,* -... .. _ ;,....7......%,Li ,,, /,, \ \ / ... . .,. , Aitift.: ....----,_. 7. ...,,,.:,, , .., ,._ • ..... , C. I ft— —_ ti .P\ . . J Jti _ _ .1