5a,b&d. Stratford Ridge, 6830 Minnewashta Pkwy, Subdivide, Wetland Permit and CUP for a Beachlot CI T Y 0 F r DATE: Jan. 6 , 1988
CHANHASSEN C.C. D1988
CASE
�� . 87-17 CUP, 87-16 WAP
Prepared by: Olsen/v
I
I STAFF REPORT
I
PROPOSAL: 1 . Subdivision of 9 Acres into 15 Single Family
I Lots
I. 2 . Conditional Use Permit for a Recreational
Beachlot
Z 3 . Wetland Alteration Permit for Development
Q within 200 ft. of a Class B Wetland.
O LOCATION: 6830 Minnewashta Parkway, on the west side of
Minnewashta Parkway approximately z mile south of
I Highway 7 .
Q
APPLICANT: Pierce Construction
I3915 Farmhill Circle
Mound, MN 55364
I
I PRESENT ZONING:
RSF, Residential Single Family
IACREAGE: 9 . 04 acres
DENSITY: 5 . 9 acres (net acres ) 2 .54 u/a (net density
IADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
RSF; single family
IS-
Q E- Lake Minnewashta arty/ �
�Q. W- RSF; single family ,
. __ _ /./6: /c
I C� WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
IW PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has a grove of trees on the
H. western side of Lake Minnewashta. The
remainder of the site is open field.
I Outlot A has a steep slope toward the
lake and heavily vegetated.
1990 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
I
I .
--.• .., -T .
/ I
. I -....■11111. .
_-•...•• .. ...,,,-
-. ----
62ND IS OM 11111136".14141.0. -
• NM 115PPS 1104111)1MI '-' 4.. q
'rpm ri_
r -'`/ - Ix mi 4 .4., --vverlr Sz, sic ser4A7,0glima
. 14 _ wastop,
1101,A vAi• Nip ■
_ „Ay ao p NEI: NI
...1 r.1111 NV 110-' mt.. ike
: &MINI El• Org ali, rit= it if.
/ Alli•-■"•`\ _....diet cri lirknelizlio. .11F alidal ill :.
- &
elPF
4,0t41%11‘
_Pr_ ■Ii- '411104 1°A,Iii‘ 7-- _
kik ..._ •4 firltim • It, . _ „
//0-•!-r. , .4.4varearr_ n•-07**. -%. (
immill/14: A • .4Inta-14 in: 011i& *All '
MN V 1 1 1 2,,, 1,4 41.17111M ram IA as a (I
I
11 1 , : u•ã ism •
Al. ,
LAKE
._
• ---_li
11111111 1 I 1
/4! N
IVir IA-/47
7,_•
1=.•I,... .i
•
RD
•
-i
, K'NGS ROAD PUD-R .
1.11.
. ._
...• w ,
„ . _ . ,
. 11ifilif.
i < , LAKE‘ ;. I- -4-wle r.--,r _
. r i
I
= i .ST J OE ' 1011,11,A ,
X PON. i Ara
a•
k :I 11WA.tilillM111111*
(.../
P •
u_
0 .........o t .
j i
,A .,.., MAPLE SHORES
DRIVE '
.1.Ft
- r4
_
p
,
rd D .-.
,
_ ,
y -
.- MIMI
IIII
k memo ,
■, ..4 .4 • '‘
mmv_
moss, I
4„,, ,..,....\
IN=-
VII&
______1
4.--;
I
441 1
I
- -
Stratford Ridge
January 6, 1988
' Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' Section 5-5-5 requires a lot area of 15 , 000 square feet, 90 feet
of street frontage and 150 feet of lot depth (Attachment #1) .
Section 5-9-1 ( 11) Recreational Beachlot conditions requires at
least 200 feet of lake frontage for a recreational beachlot and
requires at least 30 , 000 square feet and 100 feet of depth
for any recreational beachlot to have a dock (Attachment #2) .
Section 6 . 5 ( 7 ) of the Subdivision Ordinance does not permit
double frontage lots except where the lots back on an arterial or
collector street and then such lots shall have an additional
depth of 10 feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the
back lot line (Attachment #3 ) .
' REFERRAL AGENCIES
DNR The applicant must receive a
permit from the DNR for
installation of the sand
blankets on the beachlot and
for directing stormwater
runoff into Lake Minnewashta.
' City Engineer Attachment #4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Attachment #5
U.S. Corps of Engineers Attachment #6
Park and Recreation Minutes Attachment #7
' Fire Inspector Attachment #8
Watershed District Attachment #9
Soil Conservation Service Attachment #10
BACKGROUND
On October 28 , 1987 , the Planning Commission reviewed the sub-
division proposal of 15 single family lots and the conditional
use permit request for a recreational beachlot (Attachment #11 ) .
At the time of the October 28 , 1987, Planning Commission meeting,
there were many outstanding issues concerning the subdivision and
the recreational beachlot that needed to be resolved prior to a
decision being made on the proposal. As far as the subdivision,
staff wanted to review street connections to Minnewashta Parkway
and future street extensions to surrounding properties in more
detail prior to making a recommendation on the proposed street
layout. Staff also visited the site prior to the Planning
I
I
Stratford Ridge I
January 6 , 1988
Page 3
Commission meeting with Dr. Rockwell and determined that a Class
B wetland existed on the westerly edge of the site and therefore
a wetland alteration permit had to be obtained which required a
public hearing.
The Commission tabled action on the subdivision until staff could
review the street alignment and wetland alteration permit in more
detail. The Planning Commission also moved to table the con-
ditional use permit for the recreational beachlot until they
could receive further information from the City Attorney on the
subject of the variance to the lot depth requirement for the
beachlot to have a dock.
The City retained BRW, Inc. to complete a preliminary overview of
the properties surrounding the proposed Stratford Ridge develop-
ment
along Minnewashta Parkway (Attachment #12) . The purpose of
the BRW report is to provide the city a comprehensive approach to
street patterns , utility connections and stormwater management.
The City Engineer reviews the BRW report in further depth. '
The BRW report provided two options for the subject property and
the surrounding area. Option A provided for future roadway con-
nection from the subject property to the north and did not to
utilize the existing roadway easement along the south. Option B
proposed using the existing driveway easement to the south for
future roadway access to the property to the west and south. '
Staff reviewed both options and preferred Option B. Staff pre-
ferred this option because it provided the property to the west
of the subject parcel with more direct access from Minnewashta
Parkway.
ANALYSIS
Preliminary Plat
The subject property is located on the western side of
Minnewashta Parkway, approximately mile south of Highway 7 .
The property is approximately 360 feet wide with a depth of
approximately 1200 feet. The site contains some heavily vege-
tated
areas and open field. The site slopes from the center
towards the south and east and currently contains a single family
residence which is serviced by a driveway turnaround from
Minnewashta Parkway. The existing single family home is in
disrepair and will be removed from the site by the applicant.
There is also an existing shed on the site and several junk
vehicles and other debris . The site is bordered on the south by
a driveway easement for access to the property located to the
west and to the rear of this site.
11
I
Stratford Ridge
January 6 , 1988
Page 4
' Streets
The applicant is proposing to service the site by upgrading the
' existing driveway easement to a public street and then construct
an internal cul-de-sac from the proposed street to access the lots
internally. The existing single family home on the site which
' now has two access points onto Minnewashta Parkway will be
removed. The City requires an urban street to provide a 50 foot
right-of-way and to be constructed with curb and gutter. The
proposed internal street has a 50 foot right-of-way and the
' required radius for the cul-de-sac . The proposed improvement to
the driveway easement to the south also contains the required 50
foot right-of-way.
' The street configuration results in several double frontage lots.
The Subdivision Ordinance only permits double frontage lots if
' they back onto a collector or arterial street. Lots 2 through 5 ,
Block 2 will meet this requirement since the lots back onto
Minnewashta Parkway, but Lots 7-10 , Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2
will not since they back onto a local street.
The Subdivision Ordinance also requires that an additional 10
feet of depth be provided on double frontage lots to allow for
' landscaping to screen the lots from the road. Only Lot 7 , Block
1 and Lot 5 , Block 2 have enough depth to allow the additional 10
feet of lot depth for landscaping. The remaining lots must
receive a variance to the requirement of the additional 10 feet
or the lot layout will have to be rearranged. Lots 2-5 , Block 2
can receive an additional 10 feet by shifting the internal street
to the west into Lot 1, Block 1. The shifting of the internal
' street will provide Lots 2-5 with additional lot depth but may
also result in the loss of Lot 1 , Block 1 . It is not possible to
provide Lots 8-10 , Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2 with an additional
' 10 feet of lot depth without removing several lots . Therefore,
the only option for these lots to remain are for them to receive
lot depth variances .
' Staff prefers the location of the street which creates the double
frontage lots, because it provides better site distance on
Minnewashta Parkway than if the street went through the center of
the property. The purpose of the additional 10 feet is to pro-
vide area for landscaping. Staff can support the lot depth
variances if the applicant will provide a landscaping screen
between the house pad the street. Lot 1 , Block 2 also does not
meet the minimum lot depth requirement of 150 feet and will need
a variance in addition to the lot depth requirement for double
frontage lots .
Stratford Ridge ,
January 6 , 1988
Page 5
On January 11 , 1988, the City Council will be acting on an amend-
ment to the lot depth requirement of 150 feet to reduce it to 125
feet. When the lot depth requirement was reviewed by the
Planning Commission it was felt that 125 feet of lot depth is
adequate for a single family lot. If the City Council approves
the ordinance amendment to reduce the lot depth requirement to
125 feet, the lot depth variances required for the above men-
tioned lots will not be necessary.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission decide whether or
not lot depth variances are justified for Lots 8-10, Block 1 and
Lots 1-5 , Block 2 at this time. The Commission can either deny
the lot depth variances and require a new lot confirguration or
they can require the internal street be shifted so that certain
lots (Lots 2-5 , Block 2 ) can meet the 150 foot lot depth require-
ment and the additional 10 foot requirement. Another option is
to grant lot depth variances for Lots 8-10 , Block and Lots 1-5 ,
Block 2 .
Staff also recommends that all 15 lots must be serviced internally '
from Stratford Ridge Drive and no lots be allowed a separate
drive to Minnewashta Parkway. The Subdivision Ordinance recom-
mends
that all of the homes face the internal street and not the
collector or arterial street.
Future Street Connection
The applicant is providing right-of-way up to the northern por-
tion of the site for a road extension should subdivision of the
northerly property take place. The applicant is also providing
30 feet to the westerly boundary along the existing driveway
easement. These future road extensions are consistent with
Option B of the BRW report.
Landscaping
Staff visited the site with the DNR Forester, Alan Olson. The
purpose of the site inspection was to determine the quality of
the existing vegetation on the site and to determine which trees
should be preserved and if a tree removal plan would be
necessary. Upon visiting the site Mr. Olson determined that most
of the existing trees were box elder and not of high quality and
that a tree removal plan was not necessary. '
Park and Recreation Commission
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the subdivision '
October 27 , 1987 (Attachment #7) . The Park and Recreation
Commission recommended to accept park dedication fees in lieu of
parkland and to receive a 20 foot trail easement along the west
side of Minnewashta Parkway. The trail will be 8 feet wide bitu-
minous. It may be possible to locate the trail within the
Stratford Ridge
January 6 , 1988
Page 6
existing ROW of Minnewashta Parkway which would permit the appli-
cant to have more area for the proposed sedimentation basin and
landscaping strip. In either case, the 20 foot trail easement
shall be provided to ensure a trail can be located along
' Minnewashta Parkway.
Miscellaneous
' Staff recommends that approval of the subdivision be conditioned
upon removal of the existing single family structure and the shed
and debris on the site. A demolition permit must be obtained
' before destruction of these buildings . A moving permit will roe
rquired if the home is to be moved to another site in Chanhassen.
Existing debris and any other debris generated from demolition
shall not be buried on site and shall be transported to a proper
landfill site.
RECOMMENDATION - Preliminary Plat
' Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
' "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Subdivision
#87-32 as shown on the plat stamped "Received December 14 , 1987"
and subject to the following conditions :
1 . The right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 shall be
designated as an outlot.
2 . Lots 1-5 , Block 2 shall provide an additional 10 feet of
depth or an approved detailed landscaping plan providing
screening from Minnewashta Parkway.
' 3 . The existing building and debris shall be removed from the
site upon approval of the appropriate permits .
4 . Provision of a 20 foot trail easement on the west side of
Minnewashta Parkway.
' 5 . Type II erosion control, staked hay bales and snow fence,
shall be placed along the south side of Lots 1 , 9 and 10 .
' 6 . A typical detail for type II erosion control , staked hay
bales and snow fence, shall be placed on the grading plan.
7 . Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize
all disturbed slopes greater than 3 :1.
' 8 . All streets and utilities shall be constructed in accordance
to the City' s standards for urban construction.
9 . The watermain shall either be looped or increased to an
' eight-inch diameter. No dead-end stubs shall be allowed.
r
Stratford Ridge t
January 6 , 1988
Page 7
10. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
commencement of any grading.
11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with ,
the City and provide the necessary financial surities as a
part of this agreement for completion of the improvements.
12 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
the Watershed District and DNR permit.
13 . The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to its minimum
possible elevation such that service from the north of the
easterly proposed cul-de-sac may be facilitated.
14 . Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the entire
ponding site should shifting of the pond be necessary.
15 . The curb radius as shown in Attachment #3 shall be replaced
by a curb transition section as shown in Attachment #4 .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ,
The Commission approved the preliminary plat with staff' s con-
ditions .
Conrad was opposed because he felt that there were too
many variances and one of the lots should be removed.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1
The City Council approves Subdivision #87-32 as shown on the plat
stamped "Received December 14 , 1987" , and subject to the following
conditions:
1 . The right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 shall be
designated as an outlot. '
2 . Lots 1-5 , Block 2 shall provide an additional 10 feet of
depth or an approved detailed landscaping plan providing
screening from Minnewashta Parkway.
3 . The existing building and debris shall be removed from the
site upon approval of the appropriate permits .
4 . Provision of a 20 foot trail easement on the west side of
Minnewashta Parkway. '
5 . Type II erosion control, staked hay bales and snow fence,
shall be placed along the south side of Lots 1 , 9 and 10 . '
6 . A typical detail for type II erosion control , staked hay
bales and snow fence, shall be placed on the grading plan.
7 . Wood fiber blanxets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize
all disturbed slopes greater than 3 :1.
r
' Stratford Ridge
January 6 , 1988
Page 8
8 . All streets and utilities shall be constructed in accordance
' to the City' s standards for urban construction.
9 . The watermain shall either be looped or increased to an
' eight-inch diameter. No dead-end stubs shall be allowed.
10 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
commencement of any grading.
11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with
the City and provide the necessary financial surities as a
part of this agreement for completion of the improvements.
12 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of
' the Watershed District and DNR permit.
13 . The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to its minimum
possible elevation such that service from the north of the
' easterly proposed cul-de-sac may be facilitated.
14 . Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the entire
ponding site should shifting of the pond be necessary.
15 . The curb radius as shown in Attachment #3 shall be replaced
by a curb transition section as shown in Attachment #4 .
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
' The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a
recreational beachlot to be located on Outlot A as shown on the
preliminary plat. The applicant is proposing a dock with
4 slips and also proposing boat racks and two sand
beaches . The remainder of the site would be left in its natural
state.
' The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 30 ,000 square feet,
200 feet of lake frontage and 100 foot depth for a recreational
beachlot to contain one dock. Outlot A contains 31,400 square
' feet and approximately 550 feet of lake frontage, but does not
contain 100 feet of depth. The northerly portion contains 110
feet and the southerly portion contains 84 feet and, but the
central area of Outlot A only contains 40 feet of depth. The
I narrow part of Outlot A is the approximate area where the dock
and sand beach is proposed. Therefore, a variance would be
required to the recreational beachlot ordinance to permit a dock
' to be installed.
The Zoning Ordinance requires the Board of Adjustments and
' Appeals to review variances to the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore
the Board of Adjustments will decide on the lot depth requirement
which determines whether a dock will be permitted. The proposal
Stratford Ridge
January 6 , 1988
Page 9
must receive a lot depth variance from the Board of Adjustments
to be permitted a dock. A dock with four slips for overnight
storage will also require a variance since the ordinance limits '
overnigth storage to three slips per dock. The Board of
Adjustments will review the variance on January 25 , 1988, prior
to the City Council reviewing the whole Stratford Ridge applica-
tion. The Planning Commission shall act only on the conditional
use permit for a recreational beachlot and should condition
approval of the recreational beachlot with a dock upon the appli- '
cant receiving a variance for the lot depth from the Board of
Adjustments and City Council.
At the October 28 , 1987 , meeting the Planning Commission '
requested the City Attorney to review several questions con-
cerning the variance request. Attachment #12 is a letter from
Roger Knutson addressing those questions . '
Outlot A is extremely steep from Minnewashta Parkway to Lake
Minnewashta and the applicant is proposing a timber wall to build
steps to the beach. The Fire Marshal has recommended that a ramp
be installed instead of steps to provide access in case of an
emergency and to also provide access for handicapped persons .
Therefore, staff is recommending that instead of steps, a ramp be
installed. The ramp will not accommodate motorized vehicles for
parking. Also, Outlot A is heavily vegetated with a higher
quality of trees than what were found on the site where the lots
are proposed ( Sugar Maples and Red Oaks) . Since these trees are
of higher quality, staff is recommending that a tree removal plan
be provided for approval by the city and DNR Forester prior to
any alteration to the outlot. Staff is also recommending that
the applicant provide more detailed plans for the recreational
beachlot to the city and DNR to determine if a DNR permit is
required.
RECOMMENDATION - Conditional Use Permit
The proposed conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot
meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements for a recreational beach-
lot without a dock. '
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use
Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot subject to the
following conditions: '
1 . The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock unless a
variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board
of Adjustments and City Council.
Stratford Ridge
January 6 , 1988
Page 10
2 . The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a
variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by
the Board of Adjustments and City Council.
3 . All additional standards established for a recreational
' beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met.
4 . A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for
approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
' The Commission unanimously approved the conditional use permit
for the recreational beachlot with staff' s conditions and added
#5 as follows:
5 . The applicant shall provide a detailed plan for the
recreational beachlot for staff approval .
' CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council approves Conditional Use Permit #87-17 for a
' recreational oeachlot subject to the following conditions:
1 . The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock unless a
variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the Board
of Adjustments and City Council .
2 . The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a
variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by
the Board of Adjustments and City Council .
' 3 . All additional standards established for a recreational
beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met.
4 . A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for
' approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A.
5 . The applicant shall provide a detailed plan for the
' recreational beachlot for staff approval.
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT
Upon visiting the site staff noticed an area towards the north-
west portion of the site that might be considered a wetland.
Staff then visited the site with Dr. Rockwell who confirmed that
' the vegetation in that location was in fact a wetland. The area
of the wetland is located on a hillside which drains towards the
northwest. It acts primarily as a drainage area which resulted
' in the sparse wetland vegetation. Dr. Rockwell stated that it
was a marginal Class B wetland serving as a drainageway but that
it did not have any benefit to wildlife habitat. She stated in
her memo that she felt it could be altered if the wetland was
Stratford Ridge 1
January 6 , 1988
Page 11
mitigated with a ponding area. Dr. Rockwell stated that if
filling is going to occur within the wetland area, the applicant
will have to receive a permit from the Corps of Engineers. i
The applicant is, as shown on the drainage plan, proposing to
direct all the drainage from the site to the east where it will
be collected in a sedimentation basin along Minnewashta Parkway
where it will then be directed to Lake Minnewashta. The grading
of the site will provide for the drainage to be redirected to the
street where the stormsewer will direct it to the sedimentation
basin. Typically, where the wetland area is located is also
where the wetland is mitigated by providing a ponding area in
that location. The applicant is redirecting all of the drainage
toward a new sedimentation basin, and the Engineering Office has
confirmed that this is the preferred direction for drainage
rather than maintaining a sedimentation basin in the northeast
corner. Staff is recommending that the proposed sedimentation
basin be accepted as the mitigation to the wetland and allow
grading and development to occur within the existing wetland
area. For the new sedimentation basin to be accepted as a miti-
gation
to the development of the existing wetland, staff is
recommending that it be developed to the six requirements pro-
vided by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This option was reviewed
with Dr. Rockwell and she was satisfied with this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the
following motion:
"The Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland '
Alteration Permit #87-16 to permit the alteration of a Class B
wetland with the following conditions:
1 . The proposed sedimentation basin shall be designed to the
following six criteria so that it will also as a wetland
area: '
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
feeding and resting birds .
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
10 :1 - 20 :1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
food for wildlife.
c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water ( 0 .5 - 3 . 0
feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
1
Stratford Ridge
g
January 6 , 1988
Page 12
d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
' existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to pro-
vide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control (culverts , riser
' pipe, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
the wetland.
' f . The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland.
' 2 . The applicant must receive a permit from the Corps of
Engineers .
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the wetland
' alteration permit with staff' s conditions .
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
' The City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #87-16 to
permit the alteration of a Class B wetland with the following
conditions :
1 . The proposed sedimentation basin shall be designed to the
following six criteria so that it will also as a wetland
' area:
a. The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
' feeding and resting birds .
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
' 10 :1 - 20 :1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
food for wildlife.
' c . The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
species of wildlife feeding in shallow water ( 0 .5 - 3 . 0
' feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion
of open water with emergent vegetation.
' d . The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to pro-
vide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e . The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser
pipe, etc. ) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
the wetland.
Stratford Ridge '
January 6 , 1988
Page 13
f . The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland.
2 . The applicant must receive a permit from the Corps of
Engineers .
ATTACHMENTS
1 . Section 5-5-5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2 . Section 5-9-1 (11) of the Zoning Ordinance.
3 . Section 6 .5 (7) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
4 . Memorandum from Asst. City Engineer dated December 31, 1987.
5 . Letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife dated October 27, 1987 .
6 . Letter from U.S. Corps of Engineers dated November 5 , 1987 .
7 . Park and Recreation report dated October 27 , 1987 .
8 . Memo from Fire Inspector dated September 25 , 1987 .
9 . Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated September 28 , 1987 .
10 . Letter from Soil Conservation Service dated October 23 , 1987 .
11. Planning Commission minutes dated October 28 , 1987 .
12 . BRW report dated December 2, 1987 .
13 . Letter from Roger Knutson dated November 12 , 1987 .
14. Letter from Craig Freeman dated October 13 , 1987.
15 . Application.
16 . Planning Commission minutes dated January 6 , 1988 .
17. Plans from BRW report.
18 . Preliminary plat dated December 14 , 1987 .
r
I
I
I
I
1
I
. t .
III a'
III 5-5-4 The following are conditional uses in an "RSF" district:
1. Churches
2 . Private stables, subject to provisions of the horse
III ordinance
3 . Recreational beach lots
4 . Commercial stable with a minimum lot size of five
acres.
!Il 5-5-5 Lot Requirements and Setbacks. The following minimum
requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject
\\ to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications
II
set forth in this Ordinance.
1. Lot Area: 15, 000 square feet.
2 . Lot Frontage: 90 feet (except that lots fronting on a
cul-de-sac shall be 90 feet in width at the building
setback line) .
3 . Lot Depth: 150 feet.
4 . Maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved
surfaces: 25%.
II 5. Setbacks:
I A. Front yard: 30 feet.
IlB. Rear yard: 30 feet.
II C. Side yard: 10 feet.
6. Maximum Height:
�
_ A. Principal Structure: three stories/40 feet.
B. Accessory Structure: three stories/40 feet.
SECTION 6. "R-4" MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
5-6-1 Intent. Single-family and attached residential development
II at a maximum net density of four dwelling units per acre.
5-6-2 The following uses are permitted in an "R-4" district:
1. Single-family dwellings
II 2 . Two-family dwellings
3 . Public and private parks and open space
II 4 . Group home serving six or fewer persons
5. State licensed day care center for twelve or fewer
children
6. Utility services
II7. Temporary real estate office and model home
il -40-
it]
1
4
II
B. Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to
or located across a street from any residential II
,,}} use.
J 11. Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum I
standards are met in addition to such other conditions
as may be prescribed in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 II
feet of lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing
II
house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle
or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored
upon any recreational beach lot.
I
C. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not
limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized II mini-bike, all-terrain vehicle or snowmobile shall
be driven upon or parked upon any recreational
beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for I
overnight camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited. I
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for
• purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring
I
of more than three (3) motorized or non-motorized
watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is
allowed more than one dock, however, the allowed I
number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3)
sail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes,
windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may
be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
I
if they are stored on racks specifically designed
for that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall
be allowed per dock. No more than six (6) '
watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of
other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any
II time other than overnight.
I
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake
frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth.
II
No more than one dock may be erected on a
recreational beach lot for every 200 feet of lake
frontage. In addition, 30, 000 square feet of land
II
is required for the first dock and an additional
20, 000 square feet is required for each additional
dock. No more than three (3) docks, however, shall
II
be erected on a recreational beach lot.
IIf9->lic Jv-hl
II
-48- II
-4C10
II
Y {
III
H. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6) Ili
I feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the
greater of the following lengths: (a) fifty (50)
INfeet or, (b) the minimum straight-line distance
I 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
I computation of length described in the preceding
sentence. The cross-bar of any such dock shall not
measure in excess of twenty-five (25) feet in
III
length.
II. No dock shall encroach upon any dock set-back zone,
provided, however, that the owners of any two
III
I abutting lakeshore sites may erect one common dock
within the dock set-back zone appurtenant to the
abutting lakeshore sites, if the common dock is the
III
only dock on the two lakeshore sites and if the
I dock otherwise conforms with the provisions of this
Ordinance.
on
I J. No sail boat mooring shall be permitted any
recreational beach lot unless it has at least 200
feet of lake frontage. No more than one sail boat
I mooring shall be allowed for every 200 feet of lake
frontage.
1111 K. At least eighty percent (80%) of the dwelling
Iunits, which have appurtenant rights of access to
any recreational beach lot, shall be located within
at least one thousand (1, 000) feet of the
Irecreational beach lot.
L. All recreational beach lots, including any
IN
I recreational beach lots established prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance may be used for
swimming beach purposes, but only if swimming areas
are clearly delineated with marker buoys which
I • conform to United States Coast Guard standards.
M. Each recreational beach lot shall have a width, III
I measured both at the ordinary high water mark and
at a point one hundred (100) feet landward from the
ordinary high water mark, of not less than four (4)
lineal feet for each dwelling unit which has
Iappurtenant rights of access to the recreational
beach lot accruing to the owners or occupants of
that dwelling unit under applicable rules of the IIII
I homeowner association or residential housing
developers.
MIN. Overnight docking, mooring, and storage of
I watercraft, where allowed, is restricted to
watercraft owned by the owner/occupant or
I -49-
MI
i
r
14. Private Streets . Private streets are prohibited. Private
drives which provide access to not more than three lots may
I i1
be allowed.
15 . Reserve Strip. Private reserve strips controlling public
access to streets shall be prohibited.
:I
6 . 3 Alleys. Alleys are prohibited except for fire lanes in commer-
i cial and industrial developments. II
6.4 Blocks. The length and width of blocks shall be sufficient 1
to provide convenient and safe access, circulation, control
and street design. Blocks may not be longer than one thousand 111
eight hundred ( 1 , 800) feet, or shorter than three hundred
(300) feet except where topography of surrounding development I limits ability to strictly comply or as specifically approved
by the City Council to foster innovative design consistent
with sound planning principles. Pedestrian ways may be required III
on blocks longer than nine hundred (900) feet or in other
areas to provide access to schools, parks and other destination
points . Easements for pedestrian ways shall be at least twenty
(20) feet wide and shall be located to minimize intersections MI
with streets.
. 5 Lots. IF
1 1 . Location. All lots shall abut for their full required
minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required
by the Zoning Ordinance or on a private drive pursuant to E-
by§ 6.2 Subd. 14.
2. Side Lot Lines. Side lines of lots shall be substantially
at right angles to straight street lines or substantially '
radial to curved street lines .
3 . Drainage. Lots shall be graded to drain away from building '
locations.
4. Natural Amenities . Lots shall be placed to preserve and or
protect natural amenities , such as vegetation, wetlands , steep
slopes , water courses and historic areas.
1 5. Lot Remnants. Lot remnants are prohibited.
I
6 . Hardship to Owners of Adjoining Property. Street arrange-
I
ments for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue hard-
ship to owners of adjoining 'property in subdividing their
own land.
1 7. Double Frontage Lots. Double frontage lots with frontage
IF
on two ( 2) parallel streets or reverse frontage shall not
be permitted except where lots back on an arterial or collector '
I street. Such lots shall have an additional depth of at least
ten ( 10) feet to accommodate vegetative screening along the
l back lot line. Wherever possible, structures on double frontage
1 -12-
. 43
t 'Jr
lots should face the front of existing structures across the
street. If this cannot be achieved, then such lots shall have
an additional depth of ten ( 10) feet to accommodate vegetation
Iscreening along the back lot line.L___
i 8 . Solar Orientation. Lot layouts should take into considera-
tion the potential use of solar energy design features.
6.6 Tree Removal and Conservation of Vegetation.
1 . Existing healthy trees and native vegetation shall be
preserved to the maximum extent feasible and shall be protected
by adequate means during construction.
2. Unless already on site, at least one suitable tree shall
be planted in the front yard setback on every lot. The type
or species of trees planted shall be approved by the .City.
3 . Consistent with approved grading plans, existing trees
shall be preserved within any right-of-way when they are
suitably located and in good health.
4. No dead trees or uprooted stumps shall remain after
development.
5 . All disturbed areas shall be seeded or sodded to prevent
erosion.
6 . Detailed landscaping requirements shall be set forth in
a development contract.
II6 .7 Erosion and Sediment Control .
1 . The development shall conform to the topography and soils
to create the least potential for soil erosion;
2. The smallest practical increment of land shall be exposed
IIat any one time during development;
3 . Detailed requirements for each plat shall be set forth
Pin the development agreement.
6 . 8 Drainage. The natural drainage system shall be used to the
II maximum extent feasible for the storage and flow of runoff.
The following requirements shall also apply:
1 . Proposed drainage facilities shall have adequate capacity
to accommodate potential runoff from their entire upstream
drainage area, whether within or without the subdivision.
The effect of the subdivision on existing downstream drainage
areas outside the subdivision shall be considered in evaluating
the adequacy of the storm water management plan;
2. The drainage system shall be constructed and operational
lias part of the first stage of development and construction.
li -13-
CITY OF II
,, , ■
F CHANHASSEN II
\ „i
\44.L i
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1
-4 (612) 937-1900
IIMEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission 1
44"
FROM: Larry Brown, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: December 31, 1987
I
SUBJ: Stratford Ridge Preliminary Plat Approval
Planning Case 87-32 1
The proposed plat, Stratford Ridge, is located adjacent to
I
Minnewashta Parkway approximately 0 . 6 miles south of trunk high-
way 7. The 9. 04 acre site consists of a rolling meadow with a
grove of trees on the north side and a wetland on the northwest
corner of the plat. The site is surrounded on three sides by
undeveloped property, with the fourth being Minnewashta Parkway
and Lake Minnewashta.
Submittal of the subject plat prompted a study by BRW to analyze II
future access to undeveloped parcels, access onto Minnewashta
Parkway, future utilities, and storm water runoff ( included in II staff report) . The application of the report is not to dictate
specific lot layouts for the surrounding parcels but to analyze
the requirements of Stratford Ridge such that future development
may be accommodated.
Of the two options presented in the report, option B was pre-
ferred over option A for the following reasons :
II
Minnewashta Parkway serves as the collector road for the parcels
on the west side of Lake Minnewashta. The number of accesses II onto Minnewashta Parkway is limited to two additional points for
the review area. Option B provides for greater access from the
east while providing a "back door" access from the north via
trunk highway 7 .
II
Option B also facilitates the location of the existing lift sta-
tion south of King' s Road, while keeping additional required
II
sanitary sewer capacity in the existing sanitary sewer along
Minnewashta Parkway to a minimum.
In light of the report conducted by BRW as it specifically re-
II
lates to Stratford Ridge, the following items are presented for
your consideration:
II
Plannin g Commission
December 31, 1987
Page 2
Sanitary Sewer
Municipal sanitary sewer service is available to this site
' from an existing 10-inch line which extends along Minnewashta
Parkway. The proposed manhole #2 should be lowered to its
minimum elevation to provid future service north of the easterly
proposed cul-de-sac.
Trunk sizing of the sanitary sewer shall be reviewed as part
of the plans and specifications submittal .
' Water Service
Municipal water service is available to the site by an
existing 12-inch watermain which also runs along Minnewashta
Parkway.
' The plans propose a 6-inch watermain along the common lot
line of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, for future service of areas to
the south and to the west of the site. Again, trunk sizing
will be investigated as part of the plans and specifications
review.
Roadway
The applicant has provided for a 50-foot right-of-way for the
access along the southeast corner of the plat and through
Stratford Ridge Drive. This is in accordance with the City
standards for urban construction.
Although the access road does not intersect Minnewashta
Parkway at right angles, the intersection is acceptable for
the proposed use. Any additional traffic volumes which may
be generated by future development would require provisions
to be made for the access road to intersect Minnewashta
Parkway at right angles.
The gravel driveway shown on the south side of the plat
serves as access for the parcel adjacent to the west side of
Stratford Ridge. The applicant has provided for a 33-foot
right-of-way to accommodate the driveway and a 17-foot per-
' petual road easement to facilitate the extension of the
access road to the west should the need arise due to future
development.
' Since the width of the proposed right-of-way along the
southerly plat boundary changes from 50 feet to 33 feet, the
' westerly curb radius should be trunkated ( refer to attachment #3 ) .
The proposed curbing could serve as a traffic hazard to west-
bound traffic.
I
I
Plannin g Commission
December 31, 1987
Page 3 I
Drainage I
The existing drainage pattern can be characterized by
overland sheet flow. At present, 4. 23 acres of the 9 . 04 acre
site drains towards the northwest corner of the plat, while
the remainder flows into Lake Minnewashta.
The proposed stormsewer design redirects a portion of the
drainage which used to flow to the wetland on the northwest
corner of the plat, to the proposed retention pond on the
southeast corner. This plan would reduce the offsite runoff
to the wetland area by 44% .
The applicant has provided a sedimentation/retention pond to
maintain the predeveloped runoff rate. Although the pond
meets the required capacity for a 100 year storm, the loca-
tion will have to facilitate an eight-foot wide trail.
Drainage easements for the retention pond should be adjusted
should shifting of the pond be necessary. A revised plan
should be submitted for approval by the City Engineer.
Grading and Erosion Control 1
The proposed grading plan indicates grading of the entire
site. The applicant should provide the City with a tree I
removal plan.
Additional erosion control should be placed along the south
side of Lots 1, 9 and 10 of Block 1. Erosion control shall
consist of staked hay bales and snow fence. The City' s stan-
dard detail for Type II erosion control should be added to the
grading plan. Staked hay bales will also be required around
all stormsewer inlets. Recommended conditions:
1 . The applicant should supply the City with a tree
removal plan.
2 . Type II erosion control, staked hay bales and snow
fence, shall be placed along the south side of Lots
1 , 9 and 10 of Block 1.
3 . A typical detail for Type II erosion control , staked 1
hay bales and snow fence, shall be placed on the
grading plan.
4 . Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to
stabilize all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1.
5 . All streets and utilities shall be constructed in '
accordance to the city standards for urban
construction. I
r
Planning Commission
December 31 , 1987
' Page 4
' 6 . All erosion control measures shall be in place prior
to the commencement of any grading.
7 . The applicant shall enter a development agreement
with the City and provide the necessary financial
sureties as a part of this agreement for completion
of the improvements.
' 8 . The applicant shall obtain and comply with all con-
ditions of the watershed district permit.
9 . The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to its mini-
mum possible elevation such that service from the
north of the easterly proposed cul-de-sac may be
facilitated.
10 . The applicant shall provide for a 20-foot trail ease-
, went along Minnewashta Parkway. If shifting of the
ponding site is necessary, a revised plan shall be
submitted for approval by the City Engineer.
11. Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the
entire ponding site should shifting of the pond be
necessary.
12 . The curb radius as shown in attachment #3 shall be
replaced by a curb transition section as shown in
attachment #4 .
1 Attachments : 1 . Location Map
2 . Curb Detail
3 . Transition Detail
1
r
, 1 ,., . •
.. _ . .
Z( 62ND III ST
0 01 NM MO vii0Virmaillilltt I
at IIER NM Mir 0 /0 NIP-• 0 ' 1
______. AI %It 9 az or: law 0 , ..vilkiiiii i
.1 `• ;1 INF .. .40 ,,, slins
le--, MIN" 4 0 r :a owd wiliow
Iii 4• $tilme gpiF illt lit jr---
iitiormt- c Oh; INV 11,
_ / 411■..■ff.„ r
.411 cw) •Aa-47.At* `lc' i 1111111_11i111111 • •
i, __L4e..:;':1-til.A.■--,,,
- tailit •..01-60;%■21 liott. '''.- -._ mIr)
.4.r.-._ .,.,ioraho tfi■„_v _
.,:i■ .. - a. Setif 'AlkikviliklIk. .
kb wr •4 ***Ara_ , *_
//4.fir-,....• ■tAva roil 4,-. "Iv**, II , . •
Alt r mist ■ • ZaiturM irss.„A
Tr A 4140.,,, 1!vitt OR ow la
frirf„.-4411111111P 064444.111 MN IN= \\ ____
, ....-
/AI: V NIN„,--,ikaumw',volt ix 111 il .
. -wall' II • : EMI IV I, i
II
s WAIF x LAKE .
.... /,'
Itt
'MVP' ■10., I
1A1`1/- M / NNEW A S HT A '
1
:Riall70( „-
. - I
• .
./.; RD
ICNGS ROAD . PUD—R • -A
;AI
4
kg,... -
. Ilk ti , .
*4 cn
nn illim
,-----
1
srq ■ y x i "9" /Ooinmia
.. I
MAPLE SHORES
DRIVE Rik
"-- t
- iT) IIV " ..4MICI s" 1
...,
(dD
I
, 011
11111.11114 , , al
Nom*
74 ..
.....
I
,a717 ifyiti, Aij . ulmt.$
IIIIMItt
______111_
.,. . _ ..., ,
4.1
I
44
1
-.,.....,-
C A._
I i r
.,'.--•
, f Z
./ '‘,..._,1 i
i
.,...,
I . '' r• /' i I
_AO-
,:,),..„ , 4 o rir i HO 01 (..-20V 1-
,(1i0..,
-,„
„,-
..." i ,...........„..,...,,,,..,... \ '''''."-..„.„,,..„,,
I i i'
„ .- -----..._, ._
. qs8 ........
P --'",-• . ..„.
,..„,
a.lie %Elm •■•••■111 • : : MIIIMIIIMP
t, s
I ■ \
,
■!.......lorimr-ii6ii....._
..
986. ---- ---- --- ___
\ { ,
--..,,....
-.,
■
I N-.....
.-,
, \
,t
f 1
1
\
. ..
s
„ ?
>,.....,,,
r\-.
---'\-----*
....---.....
I -'
...•—;"---- --7--it.\
,•••••------
....—....46.
,70 i s ,
.
• : i. k I .,
984.5 A ---- - I
984:
\ \ 1 \ i
\
\ .7 I 1
I 1 FL
\ \I I\ \,, FL\
,,.....
t', I k-, ......._ - - -1
.•• i 1 ,... ;z
... „-' I ' 1 , - --
•.... .,-- ' FL
.
-,..
' -4-2, ---
.
-:' '
.‘
I 984.5
I \\ 984.5
........./_9,e41 1
or, --- ,-....- -,
9:4.5
984 -Id
\ft.. ........ ..1.:-....... ..,'''' . ,....,
,
......7
\
•
I
9,1) \
'
. ., STR AT-FOR D - RIDGE DP
afw9_,:5) ,s4-. .- 9804 -, -.., i..:._ .1 i•r:3-47)\- ••■••° 082-3) (9814)4. 1.08 I
; ,
0 %,„ •
..,
• , (982.6)
),I)
■••
.....____.
I
.c1
c'.,.0-•0-". \.... 992 \.
\,•-,.
.,
),
.,
i
.
.........._--- ......,...
-----1...
I ,
-, 98 .5
. 9855-- -- i ,..,-.
....
,,
--,, ■ 1 - • - . :,
-.......--
--„,
O'', •--,
'
,.. 0
7*-1A/C
S E Wo WO
....... ........ ....o■ 9.,
. .• .......
•illo.. ammo. ammo, ''' . ntt 1 — .........
............. u N./
MINI....... a
IMO • •
'... / ■ (
I
110°I. • -
f 9,..97:9
,t.; ...--I'-'
i •••01'---.. _________
,
9 ,\(•
,
•
i
I i .
, . 4.,4110
k :.•,„„.,t,
=010•:—.Iii1 30'
Illillilii..1010 --- ---------
--
, , , , , , 976 li cv.
,1
I 1 -'*--.... Li )-...rot tom ••■•••••
Z
"-_ . - P x qNk. %-• '`
.,..., _i.... tr,.. .._ _ . ................
END
I - -Ti
._
-.- .- • . ..,...•.,...., .
,..., ,
I , '7- . .?11,4a°(' / .,/.7,-,c.-..7 ---
.....La.1 t
MATCH
EXISTING
ROADWAY
. ..., ,
I '
I - LI ri,.) 1..)o r,-7r„--,i 1.4/,t-/--, -4,,
SUMOj TABLE CURE) AND GUTTER
•
• 1: 1
•
CURB TAPER TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT ENDS OF ALL
CURS AND . GUTTER THAT DO NOT CONNECT TO IN
PLACE CURBS. CONSTRUCT TAPER BEYOND END OF
CURB RETURN RADIUS AT STREET INTERSECTIONS.
COST OF TAPER TO BE INCIDENTAL TO SURMOUNTABLE
CURB AND GUTTER.
CURB TAPER DETAIL .
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1 .
'awe_ N W /S y (.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
WETLAND EVALUATION WORKSHEET
REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS
COMMENTS
1
I
RECOMMENDATION cv-L
7° • Alta . �_- ��.t�-- C Gry2 tom.
I (T•
�t ys crT°
DATE OF INSPECTION u /grycp
SIGNATURE _$‘a.Q,-- (J e;2 .r-c-te_
1
1
1
C
1
General Specifications for Construction of Wetland for Wildlife
The basin will have: 1
• freeform (not even-sided) shape to increase shoreline
length and provide isolated areas for feeding and 1
resting birds;
• shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for at
least 30% of the shoreline to encourage .growth of
emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife;
• uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth 1
to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife
feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b)
encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of 1
shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of
open water with emergent vegetation;
• layer of topsoil (muck from an existing wetland being 1
filled) on bottom of basin and the slopes to provide a
suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation;
• water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc. ) to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetl ana;
• fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to
minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ew 7� , DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
/0. ��`` ST PAUL DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
W� 'ir°-a5 4 fit.=`�Iy) 1135 U.S.POST OFFICE&CUSTOM HOUSE
O�I`1 it*7 ST PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101-1479
�_ ;p` November 5, 1987
srAnso��
REPLY TO
' ATTENTION OF
Construction-Operations
Regulatory Functions (88-217N-74)
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
City of Chanhassen
' Assistant Planner
P. 0. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Stratford Ridge by Robert Pierce -- place sand for beach enhancement;
Lake Minnewashta;
Sec(s). 5, T. 116 N. , R. 23 W. ; Carver County, MN.
We have reviewed the information provided us about your project. The
' work is authorized by a nationwide Department of the Army permit, provided
the enclosed conditions and management practices are followed.
' This determination covers only the project referenced above. Should
you change the design, location, or purpose of the work, contact us to make
sure a violation would not occur. Our telephone number is (612) 725-7557.
' It is your responsibility to insure that the work complies with the
terms of this letter and the enclosures. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS CONFIRMATION
LETTER DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR STATE, LOCAL, OR OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS.
' This authorization expires on January 12, 1992. If you have any
questions, please call Mr. Vern Reiter at (612) 725-7776.
' Sincerely,
Enclosure(s) en Wop
Chief, egulatory Functions Branch
Construction-Operations Division
IDetermination: Title 33 Code of Federal Regulations 330.5 (a) (26)
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
iJ/ L V r e. •. ,. r,
t' XI/ r i 91997
•
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
MINNESOTA '
Authority for the following activities is given at 33 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR):
7 330.5(a)(26) Discharges of dredged or fill material into the waters
listed in paragraphs (a)(26)(i) and (ii) of this section except those which
cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of 10 acres or more of
such waters of the United States, including wetlands. For discharges which
cause the loss or substantial adverse modification of one to ten acres of
such waters,including wetlands, notification to the district engineer is
required in accordance with Section 330.7 of this section. (Section 404)
(i) Non-tidal rivers, streams, and their lakes an
impoundments, including adjacent wetlands, that are located above the head
waters.
(ii) Other non-tidal waters of the United States,
including adjacent wetlands, that are not part of a surface tributary
system to interstate waters or navigable waters of the United States (i.e. ,
isolated waters). I
Regional Conditions '
[ ] Majority of the Project Requires State Permits and/or Approvals
Any person intending to discharge dredged or fill material into Minnesota-
designated "Protected Waters" shall submit an application to the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) before beginning work. Activities
are authorized under this nationwide permit after the applicant obtains
all applicable Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and/or
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permits and approvals. Work may
proceed upon receipt of all applicable MDNR and/or MPCA permits and
approvals.
Other State and local authorizations may be required. 1
This discharge of dredged or fill material would cause the loss or
substantial adverse modification of:
[X] Less than one acre of waters of the United States
[ ] Between 1 and 10 acres of waters of the United States
Encl 1
(See reverse side. )
N NM M 111111 M 111111 I 11111 N 11.11 EMI 111111
Y
The following SPECIAL CONDITIONS must be followed in order for the nationwide permits to be valid:
1. That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in the proximity of a public water supply
intake;
2. That any discharge of dredged or fill material will not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production
unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by paragraph (a)(4) of this
section;
3. That the activity will not jeopardize a threatened or endangered species as identified under the Endangered
Species Act or destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species.
4. That the activity shall not significantly disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous
to the waterbody (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound water);
5. That any discharge of dredged or fill material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic pollu-
tants in toxic amounts;
6. That any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained.
7. That the activity will not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; nor in a
river officially designated by Congreas as a "study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is
in an official study status;
8. That the activity shall not cause an unacceptable interference with navigation;
9. That, if the activity may adversely affect historic properties which the National Park Service has listed
on or determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the permittee will notify the
District Engineer. If the permittee encounters a historic property that has not been listed or determined eligible
for listing on the National Register, but which may be eligible for listing on the National Register, he/she will
notify the District Engineer.
10. That the construction or operation of the activity will not impair reserved tribal rights, including, but
not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights;
11. That in certain states, an individual state water quality certification must be obtained or waived;
12. That in certain states, an individual state coastal cone management consistency concurrence must be
obtained or waived;
13. That the activity will comply with regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer;
14. That the management practices shall be followed to the maximum extent practicable. (See reverse side.)
I TY 0 F , DATE: Oct. 27 , 1987
� ' ,
ClIANIIASSZN
C.C. DATE:
Y CASE NO 87-32 SUB
Prepared by: Sietsema/v
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Subdivision of 9 .04 Acres into 15 Single Family Lot
Z
a
VLOCATION: West side of Lake Minnewashta, approximately $ mile
J south of Highway 7
APPLICANT: Robert Pierce
4 440 North Arm
Mound, MN 55364
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 9 . 04 acres
ADJACENT ZONING RSF ,
EXISTING PARKS: There are no parks in this area.
Minnewashta Regional Park is located
Qon the east side of Laxe Minnewashta.
Q COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this as II
a park deficient area. The trail plan
W identifies Minnewashta Parkway as high
priority for a trail system. This
development lies within the MUSA line.
4-7
r
Y
Robert Pierce ( Stratford Ridge)
October 27 , 1987
Page 2
1(
BACKGROUND
' This area is a park deficient area, most significantly in neigh-
borhood park facilities . However, this area has not been iden-
tified as potential parkland and it may be unreasonable to
require dedication of over half the total site. Efforts should
continue to be made to acquire the land around Lake St. Joe ask
depicted in the Comprehensive Plan.
Trail needs should not be overlooked. Minnewashta Parkway has
been identified for a linear system in the trail plan. Current
' residents in this area have made it clear that a trail system
along Minnewashta Parkway is very important to them.
' It has not yet been determined where the trail along Minnewashta
Parkway will be located, most likely it will have to cross the
road at some point. As the grades are prohibitive for a trail
system on the east side of the road, a trail easement should be
obtained along the west side.
RECOMMENDATION
' It is the recommendation of this office to accept park dedication
fees in lieu of parkland and to request a trail easement of 20
feet along the west side of Minnewashta Parkway. As this trail
1 easement will have minimal impact on the development, it is
recommended that trail dedication fees be required as well .
Update, October 27 , 1987
1 The Park and Recreation Commission acted to recommend that the
City accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and to
request a 20 ft. trail easement along the west side of Minnewashta
' Parkway. As this is an easement along the rear lot lines , the
Commission recommended no credit be given toward trail dedication
fees .
1
`r
1
Park and Rec Commission Meeting II
October 27, 1987 - Page 12
Curt Robinson: Are you saying a typical ? II
Y Y 9 yp gravel then and not bituminous.
Jim Mady: Since all it's going to be is basically an access to the park,
II
there ' s no reason to right now.
Curt Robinson: So it ' s Lori Alternative #1? I
Lori Sietsema: This item will be going to City Council within the next
two weeks to a month and I will send out a letter with the staff report
on the agenda to that meeting. If you'll leave your name and address here
II
I'll make sure I get that to you. I won't be doing a mass mailing again
so if you're not on my list or you don't call me and tell me you want to
be notified, you won't be. Thank you.
I
SITE PLAN REVIEW, STRATFORD RIDGE, ROBERT PIERCE.
Lori Sietsema: This subdivision is along Minnewashta Parkway and I II
thought of trails. Basically, it's 9 acres and they are proposing to
subdivide it into 15 single family lots located on the west side of Lake
I
Minnewashta about 1/4 mile south of TH 7. This is Minnewashta Parkway.
I called up Mark immediately and asked him, when he was driving by and
checking out Minnewashta Parkway, which side he thought the trail would
I
likely go on once we got to that point and he said quite honestly it's
r going to have to cross. We're not going to be able to get it on one side
or the other all the way down. It's just inevitable but in this section
you can see the contours. It's quite steep down to the lake. The other
II
side didn't look nearly as steep but I think there still is contours in
there. What I'm proposing to get a trail easement along Minnewashta
Parkway. Because that trail should have a minimum impact on the homes
II
there, because it will be their rear lot lines, I'm proposing that they
still would be subject to the trail dedication fee. We are park
deficient in this area. Lake St. Joe has been earmarked on the land use
plan as eventually some day owning that for a park in that area. Again, II
our policy has been to have neighborhood parks of no less than 5 acres.
If we were to take 5 acres from this site, he'd have less than half of
his development left to develop and I don't think that's right either.
II
I'm recommending that we accept park dedication fees in lieu of land and
still keep our eyes on Lake St. Joe. I don't know that we're going to
get an active park in this area but if we get a trail along Minnewashta
II
Parkway and get a passive park at Lake St. Joe, I think we'll have served
those people to a pretty good degree. I think they'll be pretty happy
with that . With that I ' ll take any comments or questions .
Carol Watson: I think you were quite right. It would be unreasonable to II
have him dedicate over half of his potentially developable land for park
use. Besides that, when you look at this piece of land, it's really I
weird .
Jim Mady: It is halfway between the two roads and that would be nice
(from that respect. However, I think Lake St. Joe, if we went with the I
I
II
ir r-
•
IPark and Rec Commission Meeting
October 27 , 1987 - Page 13
IC- north side of Lake St. Joe, that would be the best place to P
a ut park if
P
we could get it which is something that will be discussed later on in the
Iagenda. As far as I'm concerned, you're right. We need to take a
little money. I don't believe that getting a 20 foot easement hurts the
property owner in any way and there is no reason . . .
ILori Sietsema: And again, if we can put the trail within the street
right-of-way, that's optimal as always, that's what we would do and then
we would be able to give that easement back.
ILarry Schroers: I like direction that things are going and I also like
the idea of a passive park by Lake St. Joe rather than an active but I
Ithink that area is park deficient as far as active parks are concerned
also. I'm wondering about that area directly to the north of King's Road
where it says RSF. As far as I'm aware, that's a pretty large open area
Iback in there. I think that we should maybe consider looking at that
area. Keeping out eyes on that with the intent of possibly having a more
active type of park in that area.
IJim Mady: Maybe just combine the two. Put the two together. All we
really need is one bailfield and something big enough for a soccerfield
and then put a large passive area in the back by the road and a path down
I to the lake.
Sue Boyt: Is the area to the west developable?
ILarry Schroers: No. That's farmland. Kind of like abandoned farmland
back there mostly. There's really nothing going on there at all. There
is an abandoned railroad right-of-way further to the west back there that
Igoes from Excelsior to Victoria .
Robinson moved, Mady seconded that the Park and Recreation Commission
Irecommend to accept park dedication fees in lieu of parkland and request
a trail easement of 20 feet along the west side of Minnewashta Parkway
and that trail dedication fees be required as well. All voted in favor
and motion carried .
I
REQUEST TO UPGRADE HOCKEY RINKS AT CITY CENTER PARK.
Lori Sietsema: Dave Hansen was the gentleman that was sitting over there
and he left with me what he wanted to say. Originally his request
included turning the hockey rinks so we wouldn't have to go through one
Ito get to the other. I realize that that is an inconvenience if you're
playing a game, to stop play everytime somebody wants to get across. It's
unfortunate that it was designed that way. I believe that most hockey
Irinks are faced the way that our rinks are simply because when the sun
reflects off of the hockey boards, you end up having a wet spot on that
side of the ice rink. If you turn them the other way, you're going to
lkhave one whole length of your ice rink that's going to have water on it
_ nd that's why you try to keep it to a smaller spot. Dave realizes that
I
II
I r .
CITY OF
\i k # CHANHASSEN I
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900
I
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant City Planner
FROM: Steve Madden, Fire Inspector I
DATE: September 25 , 1987
SUBJ: Stratford Ridge
I
It is the recommendation of the fire inspection department that a
I
ramp be installed in the area of the proposed timber wall. This
would replace the steps. The ramp would aid greatly in any
rescue that might occur. Also, this would be an advantage to any I
handicapped person who might use the area.
All other aspects of the plan that I reviewed meets the Fire Code.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
416
1
I
�NAHA eh l
`� C"• tC r 'WATERSHED BOUNDARY " .n
.4
p,
9 .,.
M I NNy
Fy
9SED De y
*k ,r o.,
e` 44.
NEHAHA CREEK
LAKE MINNETONKA
I WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 MINNESOTA RIVER
IBOARD OF MANAGERS: David H.Cochran,Pres. •Albert L.Lehman •John E.Thomas
Camille D.Andre •James R.Spensley • Richard R.Miller • Michael R.Carroll
September 28, 1987
1
City of Chanhassen
1 Attn: JoAnn Olsen, Asst. City Planner
690 Colter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
II Re: Stratford Ridge
Dear Ms. Olsen:
IIWe have received the information you forwarded concerning the 9 acre
sub-division called Stratford Ridge.
a The development appears feasible and will require a permit review and approval
by the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
IISome of the District's concerns in development of this type include that:
1. The rate of stormwater runoff from the site shall not increase as a result
II of the proposed development. This criteria shall be analyzed and met for
runoff producing events with return frequencies of 1 and 100 years.
2. The quality of stormwater runoff leaving the site after development shall
II be equivalent to runoff quality for the existing condition. This criteria
shall be analyzed and met for runoff producing events with a return
frequency of one year.
II3. Appropriate erosion control methods are in place to prevent the transport of
sediments off-site during and after construction.
II4. Prompt restoration of the disturbed area be completed with seed and mulch or
sod.
I Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me at 473-4224.
1 Sincerely,
EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES
Engi eers for t e District
C I RECITED
Kevin Larson, Engineer OCT 0 5 1987
Icc: Board CITY OF CHANHAy3tN /*1
G. Macomber
r
s�° United States Soil I
,i Department of Conservation 219 East Frontage Road
Agriculture Service Waconia, Minnesota 55387
I
Subject: Stratford Ridge Date October 23, 1987 II
(87-32 SUB, 87-17 CUP)
To Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner File code
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P. 0. Box 147
II
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Attached you will find a soil map sheet with approximate plat boundaries I
marked and single sheet interpretations for each soil on the property.
Soil information in this report is for general planning uses and is not
II
site specific. Specific questions at specific locations should be addressed
by a qualified engineer.
The Hayden soils (Ha) of the site are generally suited to building site de-
velopment. Shrink swell and frost action in this soil may damage paved sur-
faces and footings if not properly designed. Temporary high water tables
IImay be encountered in the Ha soil type.
The principle limitation to development appears to be site slope. Erosion
during and after construction should be controlled. Please consider the
II
following recommendations:
1. An erosion control plan should be prepared and specify the type and timing
of erosion control practices to be applied. Grading and stabilizing the site II
in stages would reduce the total sediment generated at any one time.
2. The beach and bank area east of the parkway could become unstable if
il
foot traffic is not confined to stable areas. Any construction on the bank
should be done with the approval of a qualified engineer.
3. The responsibility for inspection and maintenance of beach area facilities II
should be assigned so people and money will be available to provide up keep
in the years ahead.
II
/ /4 '
1
ait .,(
d'47/- -4 REC....7:-.-2.-D
nle Wendland
District Conservationist OCT 2 6 1987 I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
O v The Soil Conservation Service AI
16 I
is an agency of theUnited States Department of Agriculture
I
J
111 a N40024 SOIL INTERPRETATIONS RECORD
NLRRA(S)s 90, I03 CORDOVA SERIES
REV. KRV,EL.B, 2-87
TTPIC ARGIAQUOLLS, TINE-LOAMY, KITED, dRIC
I THE CORDOVA SERIES CONSISTS OF DEEP, POORLY DRAINED SOILS TOWED IN LOAMY GLACIAL TILL UNDER MIEID HARDAOd06 AND GRASSES
IN DRAINAG3IAYS AND IN FLATS IN UPLANDS. THE SURFACE SOIL IS MACK AND VERY DARK GRAY SILTY CLAY LOAM 14 DCH15 TRICK.
THE SUBSOIL IS OLIVE GRAY SILTY CLAY LOAM II UPPER 8 INCins AND DARK GRAY AND GRAY MOTTLED CLAY LOAN IN LOAD 17 INCHES.
THE SUBSTRATUM IS OLIVE MOTTLED CLAY LOAM. SLOPES ARE 0 TO 2 PERCENT. CAOPLIIO IS THE MAIN USE.
I EST
IEATED SOIL PROPERTIES (A)
151717;R)
PROPERTIES FRACT FERCERT OF MATERIAL LESS LIQUID "P)7S-
(IN.) USDA TEXTURE UNIFIED AASIlTO >3 II THAN 3" PASSING SIEVE 1 . LIME TICITY
lP0T1' X1300 INDEX
0-14,SICL OL, ML, 70{, OH A-6, A-7 0 95-100- 5-100 0-100 85 38-60 17-212-25
0-14'L CL, ML A-6, 9-4 0 95-100 95-100 90-100 70-85 25-40 8-20
I 0-141CL CL, ML, NH, ON A-6, A-7 0 95-100 95-100 90-100 70-85 38-60 12-25
14-35tSICL, CL CL A-7 0 90-100 90-100 85-95 65-90. 40-50 20-30
3S-60yCL, L CL A-6 0-5 90-100 90-100 80-95 55-70 30-40 12-20
DEPPH,,CLAY MOIST BULK' PE3aiFA- AVAILABLE SOIL SALINITY '3'Otf? - DROSIOi)WD1D ORGANIC' 1
(211.) (PCT)1 DENSITY BILITY WATER CAPACITY REACTION (1!8!06/CM)} SWELL f FACT RS Lim.(NATTER
1 (G/CN3) (IN/HR) (IN/IN) (PH) POTENTIAL F ( T GROUP' (PCT)
0-14,27-30,1.25-1.45 , 0.2-0.6 0.18-0.22 6.1-7.3 .- MODERATE .2R 5 7 4-7 HIGH } LOW
j
0-11115-2711.25-1.15 0.6-2.0 0.18-0.22 6.1-7.3 .- MODERATE .28+ 5 6 4-7
0-14127-3011.25-1.45 j 0.2-0.6 0.18-0.22 6.1-7.3 - MODERATE .28, 5 6 4-7
14-35128-3511.35-1.50 0.2-0.6 0.15-0.19 5.1-6.5 - MODERATE .28
3540I;18-30;1.45-1.70 0.6-2.0 '0.14-0.16 7.4-8.4 - MODERATE 26
FLOCDINU 1 HIGH RATER TABLE CD42NT=-PAN EDRO K SUBSIDENCE )HTDIFPTSSlT'L
1
. • , `n Y` :. , . `,'1\•..`r ,.. : : .'', I' '� 1 GRP FROST
} I (FT) I I(IN) I (Ili) I(IN) (IN) j ACTION
1.0-3.0 APPAREN ,W)V s >60 1 - s iiiC/D HIGH
SEPTIC TANK SANITARY FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
'- SEVERE-NPlRs�S,PE%S SLOWLY i ' FAIR-LOO STRD((TB,SHRIIF-SKELL,WEIT�SS
ABSORPTION ROADFILL
FIELDS
I SEROAGE
LAGOON ID SA
SEVERE-SEISMS 11lPROBABLE-EXCESS ?DM
}AREAS
SEVERE-WETNESS IMPRDSABLE-EXCESS FINER
SANITARY
LANDFILL GRAVEL
(TRENCH) }
SANITARY SEVERE=WEINESS
LANDFILL TOPSOIL GOOD
, (AREA)
■
P0092-WETNESS
DAILY WATER MANAGEMENT
COVER FOP - MODERATE-SEEPAGE
LANDFILL ) POND
1 RESERVOIR
AREA
BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT I
SEVERE-ALTNFSS SEVERE-WETNESS
SHALLOW 1 EMBANKMENTS
EXCAVATIONS f DIKES AND
' LEVEES
SEVERE-HETWFSS SEVERE-SLUM REFILL
DWELLINGS EXCAVATED
WITHOUT
BASEMENTS FED
SEVERE-WLINISS FROST ACTION
DWELLINGS
WITH DRAINAGE
I B M:NTS
SMALL SEVERE-WETNESS WETNESS ,
COMMERCIAL - 1ARIGATIOi
BUILDINGS
I LOCAL
ROADS AND SEVERE-FROST ACTIONTOW STRENGTH WETNESS
TERRACES
MR)
STREETS DIVERSIONS
LAWNS, 11CDERATE-WETNESS - -1111.5113s LANDSCAPING GRASSED
AND GOLF IOITERNAYS
FAIRWAYS
I REGIGOAL INTERPRETATIONS
IPAST=AND - GROUP 3
HATLAND
I __
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION II
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 28 , 1987 I
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order .
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd 1
Conrad , James Wildermuth and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Howard Noziska
II
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City Planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Planner - I
. PUBLIC HEARING: I
ROBERT PIERCE APPLICANT, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON THE
EAST AND WEST SIDE OF MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE SOUTH
OF HIGHWAY 7:
A. SUBDIVISION OF 9.04 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON II
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT. I
Public Present:
Name Address II
Robert Pierce Applicant 1
Fred Plocher Box 181 , Victoria
Chuck & Helen Lawson 5807 So. Hwy 101
Mary Mann 7211 Minnewashta Parkway
Gordon Simonton 375 Hwy. 7 , Victoria II
JoAnn Hallgren 6860 Minnewashta Parkway
Carol Uppal 11014 Oak Knoll Terrace No.
Mary Jo Moore 3231 Dartmouth Drive
II
Ray Roettger 3221 Dartmouth Drive
Barbara Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway
Dell Schott 7034 Red Cedar Cove
Jeff Martineau 2565 No. Shore Drive, Orono
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the subdivision request. 1
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to table the subdi.vision__request of 9.04
acres into 15 single family lots on property zoned RSF for Robert '
Pierce per the applicant's request. All voted in favor and motion
carried .
1
Conrad : Now staff has the report on the conditional use permit for the
beachlot. How can we move on this until we see the subdivision?
II
II
1
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOT!
I
I • HENNEPIN COUNTY _ R 2;
.le"-- ------71--i '�- �•:�t L A-`.I—!- , . .-la �1 i'Cs
3xyk ., g.ti�
c} ' r HeC "` Ma 'fir• u
',..04,S, ',4_i . '1t, 1 a., ,€ - . HaC2 " ' HaB, ,,;1. I LsA Ir. `/j' ''yr.,. • ti �- t cKc. HaB - t. 5 C .,i
F ,.,4,
,�W � . y , _�� 44.: \' 1
> _' r T ii t Ha62 a , Ha6 yam'; .y
1 5'i n.r ":'r.s .,.•� i:,--Y 1 '-14, fi. •d j*HaC2 11;♦ Q� �HaB`Ge ;/ 7`.5
�i �•� :p bI
I • T. z$ ds�iiaQaeaQ� ,y
z .1' Ha D2 -s, * ,Its I •HaC re- fr e ' `8 - x, —).- litz "4 *"
dc'c, �. i. y�„ a E2 Ma '. ,a • `'
i HaE2 'ti w l HaC2 A a. 9''
- HaE2 ,b• < 5,, 2.'tp�
I,\pd 1a Pd''' �/) i�r S �.
oo
HaG °1° �� }
I is-
H r" a •mob.-: ' _
-p Ma W n ,a ti.
I
1 yd ��t*L., •`:�" r HaD 9� J - ' �5k'
PdO'7/•k .,� del eB', >,�a®�it ♦i s4it
P, «3� 11aD1
I BhB° a�m ; w 11:x" } '
°�f II HaB2 TeB.'' �yijHHaaD �.. r•
O II Ha B ii g'i w �/:/4,6X,�r. y
Ha62 \ ,4:I., 0 14. . r s1\wi�= ' " % y s
HaD tt.- 11, a° Ha C2
.'. a �, Kati �!; � :ae^ z,t
T• !IUm,. rsatyo � •u , r a ,
1 '
�Ge till Breeding Fare F a s, H.C7 HcC3 3, \� Y �\
yIaB �`�''� aC2 , D c'Ge HaD4a
Ha C2 d� �f HaD2 i`; HcD3 ate ±. t \\ _tg
HaC2 ., :fit 4``'9402 B ! %'HeD3 HaD ♦i• v*
., s F�
LsA 2 Z K taa, w • # .•
HaE2
I
I
o y2 Mile Scale 1'1
I t
MN0060 SOIL INTERPRET*? IONS RECORD .
MLRA(S): 90, 103, 91 • MAIDEN SERIES
111
RZV. LLB, 6-84 '
TTPIC RAPLUDALFS, FINE-LOAMY, NIXED, MESIC .
THE HAYDEN SERIES CONSISTS OF DEEP WELL DRAINED SOILS FORKED IN GLACIAL TILL UNDER DECIDUOUS FOREST ON GROUND AND
TERMINAL MORAINES. TEE SURFACE LATER IS VERY DARE GRAY LOAM 2 11x8£5 THICK. TB!SUBSURFACE LATER IS DARK GRAYISH PROW
LOAM 7 INCHES THICK. THE SUBSOIL IS now AND YELLOWISH BROW LOAM AND CLAY LOAN 34 INDIES THICK. THE SUBSTRATUM IS
LIGHT OLIVE BROWN LOAM. SLOPES RANGE FROM 0 TO 50 PERCENT. AREAS ARE USED FOR CROPLAND, PASTURELAND AND WOODLAND.
ESTIMATED SOIL PROPERTIES (A)
( I TIACT'PI'.ACEFI OF MATERIAL LESS "LIQUID IPLA.S-
(IN.)I USDA TLKTIIRE I UNIFIED *ABM >3 IN THAN 3" PASSING SIEVE NO. LIMIT ITICITY
IL, 1 PCT) I
INDEX '
0-9 ,L, SIL, SCL AL, CC-RL, CL 1-4 0 70--;7177-0;;74-6-;17j- 74-30 4-18
0-9 ESL, SL SM-SC, SC 1-4 0 100 95-100 65-85 35-50 20-30 ,!NP-8
0-9 CL CL A-7 0 95-100 90-100 80-95 70-80 40-50 115-25
9-43 CL, L ISM,
CL A-7, A-6 0 95-100 90-100 60-95 55-75 30-50 15-26
43-601.1., Si, PSL 'CL, 9C A-6, A-4 0-5 95-100 90-100 75-90 35-70 1 20-35 8-15
6E-1-h ,CLAY {MOIST BOIL; PERSIA- AVAILABLE , SOIL I SALINITY 'MINK- EROSION{WIND ORGANIC) IrOnosn, TY
I
(IN.)'(PCT)' DENSITY { BILITY MATER CAPACITY'1RTACTIOW'(MMHC6/CM) SWELL IFACTORS'EROD.IMATTER {
0-9 I- 1 (G/CM3) (IN/BR) (IN/IN) (PH) - POTENTIAL I GROUP' (PCII '
0-. ID-75 1.40 1.60 0.6-7.0 0.20-0.22 5.6-7.3 LOW .32{ 5 I 6 .5-1 -LOW MOOERA?£i
0-9 15-15 1.45-1.70 2.0-6.0 0.14-0.18 5.6-7.3 LOW .32, 5 3 .5-1 _
I
. 0-9 28-35 11.50-1.65 0.6-2.0 0.16-0.20 5.6-7.3 - MODERATE .32 5 { 6 .5-1
9-43118-35'1.50-1.65 0.6-2.0 0.15-0.19 5.1-7.3 - MODERATE .32
43-6O'15-27:1.65-1.80 0.6-2.0 0.14-0.19 7.4-8.4 - IOW .32
FIACDIN( I RIGS T CEMENTED PAN 1 EDROCK 'SUBSIDENCE :HTDIPO'PEN"'L
, D1 TH " RING -NONTNS IDET771HARDNESIDEPTH IRARDRESS 1]tIT. TOTALIGRP1' FROTTow
t yb 1D tIRI 01 } (IK) (2111 I B !MODERATE:
III
t SANITARY FACILITIES CONSIRUCTi ION MATERIAL
0-81: MODERATE-PERCS SLOWLY {t 0-154: GOOD
SEPTIC TANK 8-154: MODERATE-PERCS SLOWLY,SLOPE I 1 15-251: FAIR-SLOPE
ABSORPTION 15+1: SEVERE-SLOPE ROADFILL 25+1: POOR-SLOPE
I
FIELDS {
0-2%: NCDERATE-SEEFAGE ? I ASLE-ERCISS TINES
SEWAGE f 2-71: MODERATE-SEEPAGE,SLOPE ' II
LAGOON 17+1: SEVERE-SLOPE I. SAND
AREAS I,
0-81: MODERATE-TOO CLATEY ; IMPROBABLE-EXCESS FINES
SANITARY 8-151: NODERATI-SLOPE,T00 CLATEY
LANDFILL 15+1: SEVERE-SLOPE II I GRAVEL
(TRENCH) '
,
0-91: SLIGHT 0-91 L,SIL,PSL,SL: PAIR-SMDIL. STONES
SANITARY 8-151: NOOERATE-SLOPE 8-15% L,SIL,FSL,SL: FAIR-SIALL S7O)iE'S,SIOPE
LANDFILL 15+1: SEVERE-SLOPE TOPSOIL 0-8% SCL,CL: FAIR-TOO CLATEY,SMALL STONES
(AREA) 8-15% SCL,CL: FAIR-T00 CLATEY,SKALL STONES
15+1: POOR-SLOPE
I
0-81: FAIR-TOO CLAYEY
DAILY 8-151: FAIR-TOO CLAYEY,SLOPE RATER MANAGEMENT
COVER FOR 15+1: POOR-SLOPE 0-31: MODERATE-SEEPAGE
LANDFILL I POND 1 3-61: MODERATE-SEEPAGE,SIOPE
{ { RESERVOIR { 8+1: SEYIOIE-SLOPE I
AREA
BUILDING SITE DEVELOPMENT
d-81: SLIGHT SLIGHT
SHALLOW 16-151: MODERATE-SLOPE ESBANV(D1TS { I
EXCAVATIONS S 15+1: SEVERE-SLOPE DIKES AND LEVEEs
0-8%: t406ERATE-SLOtINX-SisIIL SEVERE-NO MATER
DWELLINGS 8-151: MODERATE-SHRINT-S ELL,SLOPE EICAVATED
. WITNGUT 15+1: SEVERE-SLOPE PODS
BASEMENTS AQUIFER FED
0-61:-MODERATE-SHRINK-SWELL DEEP TO RATER N
I
DWELLINGS 6-151: MODLRAT!-SLOPE,SHRO -SWLT.L
NITH 15+1: SEVERE-SLOPE DRAINAGE
BASE4N"F
1
0-41: MODERATE-SHRIRT-SWELL 0-3% L,SIL,SCI.,CL: FAVORABLE
8mu '
1 4-81: NCDERATE-SHRINK-SWELL,SLOPE 3+1 L,SIL,BCL,CL: (ELOPE
CCM¢RCIAL 6+1: SEVERE-SLOPE IRRIGATION 0-3% FSL,SL: SOIL BLOWING
BUILDINGS I 3+% FSL,SL: SOIL BI.OWING,SLOPE
0-151: SEVERE-LOW STRENGTH 0-81 L,SIL,SCL,CL: FAVORABLE
LOCAL 15+1: SEVERE-IOW STRI7MTH,SLOPE TERRACES 8+% L,SIL,BCL,CL: SLOPE III ROADS AND AND 0-8% FSL,SL: SOIL SLOWING
STREETS DIVERSIONS 8+% FSL,SL: SLOPE,80IL BLOWING
LAWNS, 0-61: SLIGHT 0-9%: FAVORABLE
LANDSCAPING 6-151: MODERATE-SLOPE QASSW 841: SLOPE
I
AND GOLF 15+1: SEVERE-SLOPE AATEB(AYS l
FAIRWAYS
REGIONAL INTERPRETATIONS
I DAUTUR1 AND ( 0-181: GROUP 1
BATLIND S 18-251: GROUP 2
I
` 25+1: GROUF 8
1
T
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 2
il (
Olsen: Make it conditioned upon approval of the preliminary plat. I
feel we can condition it upon approval of the subdivision. It meets
Iall the requirements .
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the recreational beachlot.
IRobert Pierce: As we brought this before the City we've been working
hand in hand with them trying to develop this and I'd like to say, one
I we feel we're willing to work to the benefit of all around us as much
as possible and with the City as much as possible. Again, our thinking
is that we have approximately 9 acres of land there and the reason we
came in with the beachlot and one dock with three stalls in it is that
I this, as I understand your ordinances, would be the exact same as far
as the dock question. A single family home could have three boats on
one dock. I know and have understood clearly that there is concern for
I your lake and that you want to limit the amount of boats that can be on
it. I can understand that. That's why we came in with this
particular , what we feel was a very low usage of the lake and then
I allow the other people to enjoy a beach. Up and down Minnewashta
Parkway, as I'm sure you're aware, there are numerous usages of this
manner. Some of them much higher usage than what we're proposing. We
meet most of the requirements for it. We are a little short on one.
' a On the one side, the northerly side, we have about 120 feet and on the
southerly side we have about 80 feet and i.t does narrow a bit
inbetween. Our square footage is over and above what is needed for one
I dock and also instead of 200 feet we have approximately 500 feet of
lakeshore. The thing that is really critical to our plan is to get the
dock. What we plan is that we would let one of the three lots, like 3,
4 and 5 each have one slip on the dock. If we can do this, we can come
I in here and set a mood for a very high quality or upper bracket
neighborhood which will carry right on through. We're looking at homes
roughly in the $300,000.00 range on the frontage and the $200,000.00
I range behind. Without that dock, the value of the property is greatly
reduced. We just feel that in order to do that, it changes the whole
idea of what we're trying to do. The housing, the cost would certainly
I be an asset in the idea of valuations for the neighbors and if we're
limited without the dock, you just can't begin to think that we can put
in that type of homes. It just won' t work. I think from that
standpoint and in that way, we're trying to keep a minimal use of the
I lake and bring in a real quality development. I'm aware that people
sometimes just plain and simple don't like development and I can
understand their feelings but we'd like to do it such that the
I development can set a precedence for further development behind if that
would ever happen or if it doesn't happen, if you have a nice
development on the lake front that can move on back, it would do
nothing but make it possible to just continue on that price bracket and
I make their land worth more at a future date. If there are any
questions maybe I could try to answer them.
I l Chuck lied there for y . y folks mo t
in 1915La wson
. For: many I v
years et hey or rented over boat s 70 ears
on thi Ms propfokerty ved. We've here
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 3
t
always had a dock and I believe that somewhere I read that the City of
Chanhassen wants to open up the lake for everybody. Not just a few
people living right along the shore and that seems to me what this plan
is opposite of what it should be. I guess that's about all. Maybe I
should make that clear. I mean the Planning Commission's plan is
opposite not Mr. Pierce ' s . '
Ray Roettger: I live 3221 Dartmouth Drive on the north end of the
lake. I guess I've looked at property and new homes going up and some
of the areas are thickly wooded. A developer comes in and does a nice
job and they're building $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 homes. I've always
kind of wondered why doesn't somebody come in and take some lake
property close to the lake where you have a view of the lake and
relieve us of some of the taxes we're paying. I think we're being
overtaxed on the north end of the lake simply because we're sitting on
lake property. I think this is a pretty good approach to it. Taking
the three lots and putting a dock out. It won't overload it anymore.
I guess first of all when I came in here I was kind of against this but
I think just looking at the basic proposal it seems quite reasonable.
The thing I would be against is a common beachlot which we have, and I
have one right along of my home, and that has been nothing but
problems. It's in the Sterling Estates area. We have perhaps 10 lots
that that outlot would serve and there is a dock and there was one
boat, then two boats then three and then there was four. The problem
is is I'm looking at it and so is my neighbor but nobody takes care of it.
They just tie up their boats. Sometimes they break loose. Nobody has
cut the grass. Nobody has picked up the cans. Nobody has done
anything so I'm against any beachlot that provides for a number of
homes because it just doesn ' t work.
Conrad : So you don ' t like this proposal?
Ray Roettger: No, I think this man has the right approach. Put some
high price homes, and I have nothing against people who can't afford
the higher priced homes but I'm saying to relieve the tax burden, if
you're going to put some high priced homes someplace, you certainly can
do it there and provide a single boat, not three boats for each home.
If he limits it to that, one boat and he goes on record that he's going
to build homes for $300, 000 . 00 or more.
Conrad: This proposal and this beachlot is a common beachlot which you
don't like. This is a beachlot. What the applicant is asking for is
one dock which houses three boats .
Ray Roettger : Three slips . One for each one of them, Lots 3, 4 and 5 .
Conrad: Yes .
Mary Jo Moore: I feel that the City did a two year study on lake
usage. We came up with a plan... accepted by everybody in the area.
I see problems with beachlots. It's left up to the residents of the
Planning Commission Meeting
IIOctober 28, 1987 - Page 4
area to patrol it. I've also seen the new townhomes go on Lake
' Minnewashta and dockage has increased. Now they are mooring boats by
sailboat moorings. It just gets out of hand if you allow people to
stretch the ordinance.
Fred Plocher: I'm a developer of the Red Cedar Cove Townhouses, just
around the corner from here and I represent the seller of the property
as the real estate broker for this property so I'm not unbiased. As I
understand the ordinance, those lot lines could not continue on the
other side of the road . Is that right Jo Ann?
Olsen: Not without lot area variances.
Fred Plocher : So you have somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 to 500
' feet of lakeshore here which I believe staff is recommending not have a
boat which sounds like on the surface of that, a bit illogical.
Whereas if it were sold as one parcel, it could have one dock. It
could have a dock as one parcel. In other words, Mr. Lawson who has
' lived there for 70 years has been illegal to have ,a dock on that
property?
Olsen : His dock was grandfathered in.
Fred Plocher: So you have 400 to 500 feet of lakeshore on Minnewashta
I and you can not have a dock on it. That seems to me to be illogical.
Given the ordinance to protect the lake and I don't know of anybody who
is against that ordinance but there has to be a balance of logic. To
have that much ownership on a lake and not be able to have a dock is
illogical. There are several parcels of property along Minnewashta
Parkway that have that same condition. It's too bad all those property
owners aren't here tonight to hear that. They'll never be able to have
docks there when that property changes hands. I think it's the duty of
the Planning Commission and Council to take a look at the logic of
ordinances where they were well meaning and well written but maybe did
not foresee every circumstance. Thank you .
Headla moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Conrad: For my information Jo Ann, tell me why a property owner
couldn't buy this , or two, and not have a dock .
' Olsen: According to the subdivision ordinance, if a parcel of land is
separated by a street, it's a separate parcel. A dock is an accessory
structure and you would have to have the princi pal structure on there
' prior to having a dock. Mr. Lawson did have a dock there for many
years but it has not been there or in use for the past year. If there
was a dock still on there, it would be grandfathered in.
ILConrad: When that requirement and the ordinance was set forth, do you
think it was considering this particular situation or this type of
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28, 1987 - Page 5
situation? It was probably anticipating something else and not this
particular one.
Olsen: There are other communities that have lakeshore lots similar to
this that are considered part of the property across the street where
the person would have a dock but right now the way our ordinance
states, that ' s the way we have to look at it.
Conrad: Then we can consider this a hardship?
Olsen: The way we look at the hardship is that there is no use of the
property.
Conrad: We are telling the applicant that they can ' t use the lake.
Olsen: They can use the lake but not have a dock. They can have the
sand blanket. They can have a swi_mmi.ng beach.
Erhart: I agree that it makes sense to somehow figure out a way to put
a dock here so I'm trying to look at this hardship as well. It seems
to me that if you pick the hardship because you're comparing this to
another applicantion made on Lake Riley.
Olsen: No, we looked at it specifically.
Erhart: Okay, for a moment let's
y, just look at that. The hardship
there is a 50 foot wide lot. That 50 foot was created by the
developer .
Erhart: So I look at this hardship being different than this hardship. '
It boils down to the only technical difference is this one is 5%. It
meets all the requirements except for one. Where the other one misses
at 50% and the fact that it isn ' t even meet. . .
Olsen: We weren't necessarily trying to compare. It's just that
according to the Attorney' s office, there' s no hardship in this case.
Conrad: Let me get a knack of where you're coming from Tim.
Erhart: I was trying to figure out if this was a state highway imposed '
hardship versus the other one being imposed by the developer himself .
Emmings: I guess this case is to different to me from Lake Riley that
we don't want to get into extensive comparisons maybe except that it
was brought up in the material. Over there you had a 50 foot wide lot
width and neighbors living on each side and I think that's a terrible
situation. That's where I think beachlots are an abuse. I also live
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 6
1111
on Lake Minnewashta so I'm not unbiased either. I live on the north
end of Lake Minnewashta. We've got a lot of classic examples of how a
' beachlot should not be constructed on Lake Minnewashta. Be that as it
may, in this situation, we've got 500 feet of frontage, to even suggest
that you could deny a dock to someone who bought that whole parcel to
' me is ridiculous. I have almost no doubt in my mind that if I owned
that parcel I know I'd get a dock. I think if the City wouldn't give
it to me, I have little doubt that a Court would. And given that, I
' don't see why there shouldn't be a dock. Now, the other side of that
though, the flip side of that is there could be certainly one dock out
there and if we limit the number of boats. Use by three different
households is not the same as use by one household and you discussed
' that at length here but still for the amount of frontage that's there
and everything else, if it's limited to just three boats, one boat per
lot then I don't think that's an overuse of the property in any way. I
' guess I'd be inclined to find a way here to draw the distinction
between this and a lot of the bad proposals we've seen and allow there
to be a dock here. One thing I'd like to put in here as a condition,
I'm concerned about the ramp as providing vehicle access. The
ordinance provides that you can't have parking on a beachlot but
whenever you make it so easy as driving down a ramp, I think you're
inviting it and I'd like to see someway, I almost thing they ought to
have it closed off by some means .
Olsen: I think when they talked about a ramp, they meant more of a
ramp for the handicapped and wide enough for a wheelchair and for
pedestrians if they had to go down with a stretcher. Not necessarily
for cars.
' Emmings: Oh great. If there's going to be a ramp then it shouldn't be
able to be used by cars .
' Olsen : That ' s prohibited on a recreational beachlot.
Emmings: The other thing is, I think there ought to be, we've talked
about this from time to time too, there ought to be a specific
obligation of a homeowners association to maintain this beachlot such
that if the City at any time feels that it's not being adequately
maintained , that they can go in and maintain it and charge that back to
' the homeowners association and to the individual lots that use it so
that we're sure that we don't wind up with any messes along there that
we can't somehow effectively cope with. Other than that, I think there
' is a hardship imposed by the road .
Siegel : What ' s the definition of a hardship in this case?
Olsen: Where there is not a reasonable use of the property. It's the
section where the enforcement of the ordinance would cause an undue hardship.
'( Siegel : Make it unliveable you mean?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 8
Bob Pierce: I assumed, again I think it can be moved. That is where I
just saw a natural spot was for it but it ' s not cast in concrete.
Headla: You've got terribly beautiful oaks there and there are some
low spots , do you plan on doing some fill between the road and the
lake? '
Bob Pierce: What we had planned on was to bring in some sand. They
proposed that we have a plan for what we do down there as far as the
trees. I'd like to be able to come in there and to trim some of the
trees and just get the underbrush out in the areas that the beach
will be and I just kind of anticipated leaving the end toward the north
and the south pretty much wild. Just kind of get the buffer zone
between the parks and land .
Headla: I see the fire marshall recommended a ramp. I disagree with
that. I think at that grade, that percent and somebody going down a
ramp, certainly not a wheelchair you wouldn't want to go down a ramp
like that and if someone was walking down there, since my place is
right next to it, I have some idea of what a driveway is, and I think
somebody is really liable to fall. I'd like to leave it up to the
option of the builder what he wants to do there and I'd like to see
something, steps like we were at yesterday looking at the duck pond. I
think that would be by far the more practical. Also, if he can have
(I steps like that, he can control the runoff down into the lake where if
he just has a ramp, most of it's going to go shooting down the ramp and
then into the lake. I just hate to see that. The engineering, when
you have an idea and you go through a thought process and like you said
yourself you tend to go to an extreme and let me carry something to an
extreme here. I think the Lawson's qualify for a dock and my rationale
is I've seen Chuck and Helen have a dock there ever since I've been out
there. There's been a dock there and the kids would swim there and
people would use that to fish. I think the principal that we're
looking at is, is there a dock there the last year. Well, my extreme
is, why can't Chuck and Helen go out there this weekend and put a dock
in . Then they've established they had a dock in this year .
Conrad: Jo Ann, tell me about the concept of depth in a beachlot.
Maybe I'll talk to you about what I perceive the depth issue in a
beachlot is to be and basically it might be a safety factor. It might
allow people space to recreate in. Are there other issues besides
those that would be prominent in terms of why we wanted 100 foot depth.
Olsen : That ' s essentially to provide good area . '
Conrad: Would this area have good area to recreate in?
Olsen: It' s more or less provides enough space for the beach.
Conrad: In staff's opinion then, your opinion, 10 or 12 or however '
many houses we've got here, what do we have 15? 15 houses, is this a
' Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 9
suitable area for a common beachlot?
Olsen : It ' s not a whole lot of area.
Conrad: So literally what can they do on that property? They can have
a canoe rack and a dock and really the land itself would be hard to use
otherwise?
' Olsen: They could also have the beach area. The applicant has
proposed that just the lots along Minnewashta Parkway will be the ones
using the beachlot.
' Headla : I thought we were opening up to the whole.
Bob Pierce: The beachlot, as far as swimming is for the whole thing.
' The dock issue was for the 3 homes . That was always my intent.
Conrad: Okay, let's say for swimming you need a beach area. Is this
suitable property for supporting 15 families to go. down to the beach?
Olsen: There is a wider area on the northern part where they are
proposing the dock and the beach area to be right now. It'd be tight .
Headla: Let me draw a similarity. Go north about 300 to 400 yards to
A Pleasant Acres. Take away that parking lot from that beachlot, that
leaves what 40 to 45 feet and that's all. They play volleyball there.
' They swim. They got plenty of room if you take the parking lot out .
Conrad: So you feel that here there would be plenty of room?
Headla: Definitely. With the approximate number of homes he has and
the way we used our lot, and we used our lot a lot in the summertime ,
' what he'd say 31,000 square feet, I think there is adequate room for a
park for the number of homes he intends.
' Conrad: Adequate room on the beachlot for people to enjoy the
beachlot?
Headla: Right. That's no parking. Not putting anything down except
' for these people.
Olsen: But that would require extensive grading and removal of the
' vegetation. According to the Shoreland Ordinance, that would not be
permitted .
Headla: With the plan, can't they cut out the brush as long as they
' leave the major trees?
Olsen : Yes , they can do that .
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 10
1
Headla : That's the way I look at it. I can see all the brush cut out.
Just right on through and to me, that's what it will be. He's got nice
trees and I think that could really add to that whole thing. I think
it' s a positive thing.
Conrad: It seems to me we can do two things tonight. Three things.
We can reject it because it doesn't meet it and one thing that I'm
really concerned about, this beachlot ordinance, as a lady suggested,
it's there. It's not the best but it's something that is also
protective of a lot of things that we hold dear to us in Chanhassen. I
don't want anything we do tonight to impact how that beachlot ordinance
impacts the other beachlots in the community because they'll all be
here if we set a precedent in some means if it's not justified. If
it's justified and we can rationalize it, then I'm comfortable. I
think we can do a couple things. The part has got to be able to use
the lake and get a dock out there and I think we can alter any
subdivision ordinances we've got to allow it. They could potentially
have 3 or 4 pieces of property that would have docking rights if we
changed that subdivision ordinance therefore not imposing a hardship on
this property so there is an alternative. We can go and change that
ordinance and make sure that any new folks that move in on Parkway and
have property frontage, are going to be able to have a dock there.
That seems logical to me. Rational. I can't imagine we wouldn't want
that to happen. On the other hand, the proposal seems like a less
intensive use than what I just described and in that light, I would go
along with the proposal as long as it doesn't set a precedent for any
other beachlot in Chanhassen. That's where I'm at right now. That's
why I led in here Jo Ann with my comment , as long as it looks like a
beachlot that people can really enjoy and serves the purpose of a
beachlot, the applicant's request seems reasonable, rational and good
for the lake. I could go along with it. I would have a real tough
time voting for on something tonight unless I knew that the words and
the rationalization and justification granting the variance was
approved by an attorney saying that we have not altered anything and
set a precedent for other properties that are already out there. I
would have a real tough time right now without an attorney telling me
how to justify the variance.
Headla: I think that's probalby the way to go on that. I don't see
why we need a variance. '
Conrad : It doesn ' t meet our requirements Dave.
Headla: What requirements? He was grandfathered in .
Conrad : No he's not. As soon as he sells it's gone so there's no
grandfathering there. '
Emmi.ngs: No, he's subdividing the whole property. That's where you
get into a problem. He's subdividing that whole property. Where there
was one lot, now there are 15.
1
4
IIPlanning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 11
II
Olsen: And the fact that they did not have a dock in use for over the
Ipast year.
Headla : But if he put a dock in this weekend?
IOlsen: It would be non-conforming.
Headla : Why if he has a dock every year?
IIOlsen: From I know, that dock hasn't been in place for over a year.
It comes back to the subdivision ordinance defining that as a separate
I parcel. Just to review that, the Attorney and staff, we did review
each of the scenarios that Mr. Conrad is pointing out. Whether we
could possibly grant 3 or 4 lot area variances and let that Outlot A be
separated and each have their own dock or it has a recreational
I beachlot. This was when we thought that it wouldn't be able to even
have a recreational beachlot without a dock, we would have to permit
them some use. We were really torn because no, we don't want non-
I conforming lots along the lake there but then we found we could have
the recreational beachlot without the dock. Give him still some use.
I know it's not the ideal use and maybe not the most logical use but we
did get confirmation from our Attorney that it is not a hardship.
I ; Headla: If the Lawson's sell it and he's had his dock there, does that
1 grandfather totally go by the wayside?
IOlsen: If the dock had remained there and it's always been there, was
still there today, that dock would be grandfathered in.
IWildermuth : Could he put a dock there today, the original owner?
Olsen: No because technically it's a separate parcel and the dock is
I an accessory use. You have to have your house there first before you
have an accessory use.
I Headla: If he lived there and he's had the dock there for umpteen
years , just because he moved away, isn ' t that dock still valid?
Olsen : The dock isn ' t there anymore.
IHeadla: Right now it isn ' t there but what if it was there last year?
I Olsen: If it has not been used in over a year , it has been removed for
over a year , it ' s lost it.
I Conrad: The one dock though, this is a beachlot. We're asking for a
beachlot, the applicant is, but the beachlot ordinance governs what can
go on it and based on the physical dimensions' of this beachlot, you can
not have a dock.
II
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 12
1
Headla: I hear you say that but I hear Jo Ann say that if a dock had
been standing there it would have been grandfathered in.
Erhart: Not for the subdivision.
Headla: Not as a beachlot?
Conrad : Not for a beachlot .
Headla: Okay, so that' s not a point.
Conrad: No. They're asking for a beachlot. Our ordinance says no you
can't have a dock based on the fact that it's not deep enough. The lot
does not meet the depth requirements of our beachlot ordinance .
Erhart: Ladd, I have a bit more basic question now. Are we talking I
about a variance to have a beachlot here at all? In other words, does
our ordinance say that a beachlot has to be 100 feet deep?
Olsen : It says 200 feet wide.
Erhart: And there' s no depth requirement?
Olsen : No .
Erhart: How do you tie the 100 feet with the dock? What's the logic?
What' s the logic for not having a depth requirement for a beachlot and
then having a depth requirement for a dock?
Conrad: There's a flaw someplace but I think the logic Tim is the fact
that, I'm not even sure what the logic was and I've been around enough,
I've been through the development of these things and I can't remember
why. I was just trying in conceptual terms trying to think about it.
Again, if you have a dock, it probably means that people are going to
swim, boat and play around there and therefore you need some property
to do that on and therefore you should have enough depth to do that and
keep you away from, usually there are adjoining properties and you're
trying to keep people away from those adjoining properties. You're
trying to give people space so they're not sitting on the property
line. When you don't have that depth the assumption is, you may be in
a different situation. You may be in a situation like this. I guess I
could construct a scenario why that 100 foot depth makes sense in many
cases for a dock. I'm not sure that's the real reason that we thought
of many years ago.
Emmings: There's another provision in the ordinance that I've never
seen before and it says that each recreational beachlot has to have the
width measured both at the ordinary high water mark and at a point 100
feet landward from the ordinary high water mark of not less than 4
lineal feet for each unit which has apertinent right of access so we
would have to have a variance for that provision, dock or no dock .
1
I
iT r
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 13
IC
Olsen: That's an option if you don't have the width. That you could
' just go over a certain amount of feet as kind of an option rather than
the flat out width.
Emmings: That ' s not what it says .
' Headla : On Riley, how many square feet did they have?
Olsen: It was 50 by 100, 5, 000 square feet .
Headla : 5, 000 and now we' re talking about 31, 000 square feet .
' Conrad: I really have a general feeling that I'd like to table this
thing. I'm not sure why. Maybe to outline the options of correcting,
just the ability to have a dock in a situation like this. What is it,
' our subdivision ordinance or our zoning ordinance that is controlling
the fact that it' s a separate parcel?
' Olsen : Subdivision. It ' s under a definition of a , lot .
Conrad: I guess that bothers me. I don't think that is considered,
this particular type of situation and I think we should review it.
' Therefore, we could review that and give the applicant other
alternatives in terms of use of that property. On the other hand, we
could go ahead tonight and approve it. The staff is saying no dock and
that doesn't appear acceptable to me. I think the property has got
enough footage there so I guess I'm looking for staff, I personally
would be looking for somebody to help me out of this one and
rationalize, justify, without us trying to verbalize it here in public .
Erhart: I don't think there's any reason to conclude this thing
tonight anyway.
' Conrad: It's got to come back but I think we should give the applicant
and those people here a general drift of what we're doing. Maybe we
' have. Maybe in our comments we ' re giving a sense for what we ' re doing .
Bob Pierce: In the hardship case, wouldn't just the idea that before
these ordinances were invoked, let's just pull a number out, let's say
his land was worth $100,000.00 because he had a dock and had lakeshore.
Now these ordinances that came about 2, 2 1/2 to 3 years ago, you've
taken his parcel and now you've said it's not really lakeshore. It's
pretty to look at and all that but you can't put a dock in. It seems
to me that would be an incredible hardship because I would guess the
devaluation of the value of his property has gone down 40%. I mean
' that ' s how important it is.
Conrad: I don't know. I've never found that reduced value creates a
hardship as long as you had some reasonable use of that property and
I'm not an attorney but as we've watched those things, we've never been
I able to say that you've decreased value by 10%, therefore it's a
Planning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 14
hardship . That ' s never come up in years here.
Bob Pierce: But the word reasonable there is kind of the key. I
Conrad: I think we all recognize that the property needs access and
deserves it and I guess my feeling is, what you've proposed is treating
the lake much better than some alternatives that I could see.
Therefore, I feel good, I'd like you to maintain that posture at least
in terms of this beachlot. At least for me. I like how it looks and
how it reads right now. I'm not sure, the rest of the subdivision we
haven't talked about it but I would hope that there are some
improvements in the rest of it. I guess I would like to table this if
everybody feels comfortable with that action and allow staff to mull
over our comments and come back with some alternatives and some
justification given the fact that we think that there should be
dockage. Staff should recommend to us whether in light of maintaining
the philosophy of the current ordinance , how we do that.
Erhart moved, Wildermuth seconded to table the Conditional Use Permit
Request #87-17 for a recreational beachlot. All voted in favor and
motion carried .
Tom Heiberg: Mr. Chairman, I missed the public hearing. I know it's
Iclosed here this evening. I just have a couple questions regarding
this matter. Would you have time to indulge another citizen for about
two mintues?
Conrad : Go ahead .
Tom Heiberg: The reason I'm here is I'm concerned primarily about
pedestrian and roadway traffic along Minnewashta Parkway. As many of
you probably know, there are a lot of us out in that particular area
and I come from, I live on Red Cedar Point at 3725 South Cedar Drive.
I'm just concerned, I walk on that darn road everyday and people drive
it too fast. I'm guilty of driving it too fast. A lot of people,
there are not good sight lines there. I can see the development of the
property should not be discouraged. The petitioner should have the
opportunity to do that but I see that we're once again putting
pressure, development pressure, traffic pressue, in my judgment on
inadequate roads. Then we're also talking about contributing to
pedestrian traffic across that way. I don't know who will be the
owners of those homes but I would suspect there will families involved.
We've had too many close calls already on Minnewashta Parkway and I'm
very concerned about encouraging additional close calls .
Conrad: Could you have our Public Safety Director address those ,
comments in a note to us the next time back? In terms of crossing .
Erhart: You're also aware that there's a 20 foot strip designated for
k_ a trail? A walking trail .
rPlanning Commission Meeting
October 28 , 1987 - Page 15
Tom Heiberg: No, I was not aware of that. I'm sorry I was not here.
This is a 20 foot walkway along Minnewashta Parkway, a 20 foot wide
trailway?
Headla: That's what the Park and Recreation Commission is recommending
' which seems to be extremely wide.
Olsen : That ' s an easement . It will a 6 foot trail or an 8 foot trail .
Headla: Over in Lake Susan Hills they have 5 feet and they have a lot
more traffic there. Tom, I've got a study on that if you want to stop
by.
Tom Heiberg: I'll be happy to see that and maybe we had been noticed
but if you recall I was here maybe 8 months ago with Greg , Phil and Ed
Hasek, he's on the Park and Rec Board, and I haven' t seen or heard any
results yet of our requests to put a trailway in there or walkway with
the improvement of that road. It was my error for not doing my
homework there but I am just really concerned. Thank you for your
time.
Headla: Jo Ann, adjacent landowners shouldn't they have been notified
of this meeting? On the Lawson property, anybody who has a home that
is adjacent to them, shouldn't they be notified?
Olsen: Yes .
Emmings : Everybody around the lake too .
' Headla: I know the people around the lake but I'm not sure that the
adjacent landowners were .
Olsen : We made sure everyone was within 500 feet .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Headla moved, Conrad seconded to approve the
' Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 14, 1987 as
amended by Ladd Conrad on pages 12 and 15. All voted in favor and
motion carried .
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - TRANSPORTATION, MARK KOEGLER.
Mark Koegler: What I've done, if you recall our discussion of the last
meeting , we talked about a whole book of topics and one of the things
we wanted to take just a little bit of time tonight and focus on was TH
101. I know it's a subject that Tim has discussed both publicly and
when we've been able to meet from time to time in the past. We also
talked about this concept of doing a little bit further review of some
of these corridor studies and that decision has yet to be made by the
1 City Council. I believe it's going to be made on Monday night just
I
r
F em { E �'
PLANNING
TRANSPORTATION
F 4 �.
;fi ENGINEERING I—LILT
ARCHITECTURE
BENNETT, RINGROSE, WOLSFELD. JARVIS, GARDNER. INC. • THRESHER SQUARE • 700 THIRD STREET SOUTH • MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55415 • PHONE 612/370-0700
December 2, 1987 I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
II
City of Chanhassen , n ��
690 Coulter Drive uu.soLL i
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Attn: Mr. Gary Warren, P.E. DEC 101987
II
City Engineer p�
14.��41nim�?!!Rwl�� I�Y�j"�
fit in ks
I
RE: Subdivision Review Woti ����:.4��'y� ��° I:
Stratford Ridge
Northwest Chanhassen
Dear Mr. Warren: I
At your request, we have completed a preliminary overview of the properties . '
surrounding the proposed Stratford Ridge Development in Section 5, Township
116N, Range 23W in the NW corner of Chanhassen. We would like to offer the
following general comments for your consideration:
Site Planning II
Stratford Ridge is a proposed subdivision which is to be built on a parcel of II land which is less than 10 acres. This particular parcel of land is surrounded
on three sides by undeveloped property with the fourth side being Minnewashta
Parkway and Lake Minnewashta. II Future access to the entire undeveloped area will be provided primarily by
Minnewashta Parkway from either the north or south, with the potential for a
"back door" entrance from TH 7. It is our general feeling, however, that pri-
mary access from TH 7 is doubtful without some form of agreement with the City
of Victoria and/or MnDOT, and certainly would be limited to one access point
between the existing Leslee curve to the north and the railroad crossing to the II northwest.
The northern boundary of this area is formed by the Pleasant Acres subdivision II with street right-of-ways platted for extension south into this study area. The
southerly and westerly boundaries are primarily undeveloped land with the
southerly boundary abutting the low lying lands adjacent to Lake St. Joe, and
the property to the west being within the boundaries of the City of Victoria. I
Approximately a dozen homes are currently located within the general study area
with most having primary access from Minnewashta Parkway and a few from Kings II Road. The general area is currently under the ownership of approximately twelve
owners with the parcels ranging in size from a few acres to approximately 15
acres.
II
DAVID J.BENNETT DONALD W.RINGROSE RICHARD P WOLSFELD PETER E.JARVIS LAWRENCE J.GARDNER THOMAS F CARROLL CRAIG A.AMUNDSEN
DONALD E.HUNT MARK G.SWENSON JOHN B.McNAMARA DONALD L.CRAIG RICHARD D.PILGRIM DALE N.BECKMANN DENNIS J.SUTLIFF
MINNEAPOLIS DENVER PHOENIX
I
TL3
1
Mr. Gary Warren
December 2, 1987
Page 2
' It is apparent that the future development of the area is dependent upon the
ability of a developer to assemble several of the parcels into a single develo-
pable package. Some of the individual parcels may stand alone in this regard,
' but at least one-half of the parcels are dependent upon assembly of a collective
package. Platting of the entire area may occur in a variety of ways too
numerous to summarize. We have considered two options which we have included
' for your consideration. Both are dependent upon the collective assembly of
several parcels by one developer. It appears as though the primary development
potential for this area (considering RSF Zoning) is with minimum lot sizes of
' 15,000 square foot with the potential for larger more expensive lots and an
internal road system. Access to Minnewashta Parkway should be limited to a
maximum of two connections along Lake Minnewashta.
A portion of land which lies in the City of Victoria has access restricted to
the north due to TH 7, to the west by the railroad and to the south because of
marsh land. The optimum access to this tract, which could be subdivided into
' 100-120 lots, is from Minnewashta Parkway through the review site.
Another tract of land which is similarily restricted in access lies within the
' Chanhassen city limits to the south of the southwest corner of the review site.
Several residences are currently at this location and the region has the poten-
tial to be replatted to contain approximately 20 lots. The present access to
the existing residences is along Kings Road which runs along the southern border
' of the review site. The future use of Kings Road is dependent upon the disposi-
tion of the existing homes in the outlying regions.
' Access
With the large number of lots which could be accessed from Minnewashta Parkway,
care must be taken to keep the future requirements of Minnewashta Parkway in
perspective. It is likely that future development will necessitate the
upgrading of Minnewashta Parkway as a collector road with subsequent widening to
four lanes. Any development allowed adjacent to Minnewashta Parkway should,
therefore, make allowances for such an outcome.
The proposed plat submitted by Schoell and Madson for Stratford Ridge includes
provisions for an access road at the southern boundary of the property. This
concept has been carried through in our Option B. A road in such a location
would be well suited as an access to the interior of the review site. In such a
situation, there would be a moderately high volume of traffic and therefore a
' need for a road of sufficient width and section to handle future needs. A
36-foot wide roadway should be considered. Because of the ownership conditions,
this access road must be placed within the Stratford Ridge plat, at least up to
the north-south entry road (see attached exhibit). After this point, the right-
of-way dedication and road section could be tapered down to match the existing
driveway. The full width could then await the development of the rest of the
area. The future alignment and connection of the proposed access road should be
carefully reviewed. A 90 degree intersection with Minnewashta Parkway would be
the most desireable, but not absolutely necessary. The two exhibits, which are
attached, illustrate how this alignment may be considered with future improve-
ments.
4 AC
Mr. Gary Warren
December 2, 1987
Page 3
Future right-of-way dedication should be considered from the Stratford Ridge i
developer to provide access to the north. Such a layout would reduce the number
of cul-de-sacs, (as shown in Option B) , by allowing for continuation of the
existing roadway. '
Utilities
Existing sanitary sewer and watermain run along the north and east borders of '
the review site. Over half of the total review site will drain to the sanitary
sewer line along Minnewashta Parkway. A portion of this area will be served by
an existing lift station near the southeast corner of the site. The lift sta-
tion pump capacity should be considered. Full determination of such a need is
beyond the scope of this report.
The sanitary flow from the Stratford Ridge plat is planned to outlet into the '
existing system along Minnewashta Parkway at a point where it can flow by gra-
vity to the main regional lift station north of TH 7. To allow for future deve-
lopment
to the north of Stratford Ridge, it is recommended that the proposed
manhole in the eastern cul-de-sac (MH 2) be lowered as much as possible and a
stub be extended to the north.
Sanitary flow from the remainder of the review site would probably flow to the
north. A connection could be made to the existing sanitary sewer line along
Glendale Drive. This flow drains to the lift station north of TH 7 mentioned
earlier.
The City of Victoria has requested consideration of property to the northwest of
the review site across TH 7 for future sanitary service. This area is low lying
and is restricted from direct connection with Victoria facilities by the
railroad and TH 7. It appears that the area of concern is predominantly below
an elevation of 940. This would preclude a direct gravity flow connection to
the review site southeast of TH 7 and a force main to the same area would not be
an economically feasible solution. There is, however, an existing sanitary line
along Pipewood Curve adjacent to Victoria's site. The invert elevations are
about 937 so a lift station would be required or site filling is needed.
Watermain connections can be made to the existing system at the Minnewashta
Parkway access points. An area of concern would be along the access road on the
south border of Stratford Ridge. The preliminary design submitted by Schoell
and Madson does not provide for service to future development on the south side
of the road. Such service might be provided by the installation of a main along
the road, as indicated in Option B.
Storm drainage from the review area presently flows to the northwest through
existing culverts under Highway 7, to the west into Victoria and to the east
into Lake Minnewashta. Our recommendation would be to maintain these drainage
patterns. It is necessary to construct detention ponds to restrict off-site
flow to predeveloped levels and to allow for sedimentation. Some of the pond
areas could be used as green space or parks during nonstorm conditions.
1
Mr. Gary Warren
December 2, 1987
Page 4
The proposed Stratford Ridge storm system and street grades should consider the
' future roadway extension to the north. Catch basins and street grades may need
to be revised at the time the temporary cul-de-sac is removed and the roadway is
extended to the north.
We hope this brief overview of this study area assists you in your site review
of the Stratford Ridge plat.
' If we can offer further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
' B NNETT-RINGROSE- OLSF ;/'VIS-GARDNER, INC.
Gary A. et, P.E.
' GAE/sk
Attachments
I
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111
I -
I
v
J t_
4 VIII I 'l , 0):1-1 1 ""'""------ .
44./ 1 alma . ,, \
J.
\ U
1 - _-
I
i N IIII M JARTI}•OY 2� /,
HOLY CR0 S/ L`UTHERA C- g •CH HOMEN∎ N• `
ASSOC 1•• • C `1 •
� _ JAMQYA /
/. � / ` MIL5ADD E KT OO{d& /
STRATFORD RIDGE AREA
- -
111111111rAirrAraPiv o o OWA' .HALLG EN. - 44 ' -SO ,/I /
iI
-1- I
- 1 I BARBARA MA / Lake Minnewashta
d, HEA�DLA ARBARA MAY HEA' A Nttld t CITY OF CHANHASSEN
t __ . .\ DEC/®.07
\, LAWRENCE D� WEN EL J CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
_ L / i _ -j LAWRENCE D. WE ZEi_
___Lottp,i_z OPTION A
L_______\,........„<„/„.„...„.„.....110.Eut.24E3H ' FE- -
1
EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS
i ELMER.1k HUNySINGER
i ' \ NORTHWEST CHANHASSEN
I SUBDIVISION CONCEPT
k' mm
�- north
0 100' 200' 400'
11-30-87
// 0 0
O �,
/ /
r / P ^
, . . >.: \\\
d all -
CA x
G a
i /PLEASENT ACRES
2ND. ADDITION , - " CI)
Q.
X' i ) . ,
�� 1 MARTIN F'OY
HOLY CRC4S, — — EASENt.ACRES - — 11 `S
LUTHERAN CHURCH HOMEOWNERS CH ES AN ERSON
ASSOCIATION JAMES BOYLA
1 \7___-- MILDRED KER OOP"\ SEABEE STOUP STRATFORD RIDGE AREA
� i 1
I 1 . -D E. ALLG'EN - ,CHART ES�I.kARSON.
{L
• I ; I 1
/ '
NRIPIS Lake Minnewashta
BAR:• \A MAY HEADL ARBA4A M Y HEAP A /
! a T ; z
,,� o /
3 LA '' NCE 0. ENZEL
o / � r ,.WE ZEL
/r OPTION B L
U
�- T JO ilEt ER I\\
• / J9HN Z L EGLER
J
-----1-1-----, EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS
EL ER.L I HUNS NGER
NORTHWEST CHANHASSEN
KINGS ROAD ` SUBDIVISION CONCEPT
!L ,
• BM
- north
_` 0 t 200 aoo
11-JO-97
. ,.h....._
IIIII MR IMIll 11111 MI IIIM MI M I MI NM • MI (♦ • NM I MI MI
(
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER:
DAVID L. GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE Box 57
(612)455-2359
VANCE.B. GRANNIS 403 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. M.CECILIA RAY
PATRICK A. FARRELL 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
DAVID L. GRANNIS,III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 MICHAEL J. MAYER
ROGER N KNUTSON
TELEPHONE: (612)455-1661
November 12, 1987
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Stratford Ridge Development
Case No. 87-17
Dear Jo Ann: I
Your November 4, 1987, letter asks a series of questions
regarding the Stratford Ridge Development recreational beachlot
C.U.P. request:
Q. The Commission wants to be able to permit the applicant to
have a dock on the recreational beachlot. How can they do it?
A. The Board of Adjustment and Appeal has the ability to
grant a variance. The better approach would be to amend
the ordinance.
Q. How would approving a dock on the recreational beachlot
impact the Lake Riley court case and would it set a
precedent? The Planning Commission feels there are different
circumstances and issues.
A. The equal protection clause of the Minnesota and United
States Constitution requires that similarly situated
property be treated similarly. The plaintiff in the Lake
Riley case would argue that the cases are similar; I
would argue that they are not. Granting the variance
would give the applicant another argument that the City
would not have to deal with if the variance is not
granted. The only difference I see between the two
situations is that one can' t comply with the depth
requirement and the other can' t comply with the size
requirement.
NOV 1 6 1387
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
k-
111 Jo Ann Olsen
November 12, 1987
Page Two
1
' Q. Is there an existing hardship to permit a variance to allow
the dock? What is the definition of a hardship, is it no use
of the land or no dock?
A. The hardship is that without a variance they can' t have a
dock. If this is a qualifying hardship, then everyone who
' fails to meet minimum ordinance requirements would be
entitled to a variance. Minn. Stat. § 462. 357, subd. 6
defines "undue hardship" as:
' The property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by
the official controls, the plight of the landowner
' is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner, and the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of
' the locality. Economic considerations alone shall
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the
' ordinance.
"Undue hardship" applies to the use of the land, not the
dock.
Q. The Commission feels that it is physically impossible to meet
the requirement of the 100 foot depth, that a dock existed
' prior to the ordinance and that the ordinance therefore
inflicts the hardship. As a note, the property owner had a
dock on the property proposed for the recreational beachlot,
but this dock has not existed for over a year.
A. Since the dock was removed there are no non-conforming
rights to put it back. If "physical impossibility" to
' meet the ordinance requirement was all that was required
for a variance, then ordinance restrictions would have
little if any meaning in relationship to existing lots.
' Q. The Commission questioned that if a variance could not be
justified to allow the dock on the beachlot, that we should
review the Subdivision Ordinance which defines a lot as a
' separate parcel if it is divided by a street. The Commission
felt that it should not be considered as a separate lot. They
felt that it should be permitted to be joined with the
property across the street.
A. The City can change the ordinance requirements. A lot
divided by a street, however, doesn' t function as a
' single lot. You could count both halves of the lot for
lot size requirement, but what about setbacks, lot
coverage, lot frontage?
Jo Ann Olsen
November 12, 1987
Page Three
If you need any additional information, please call me. If
it would be helpful I will attend a Planning Commission meeting
and discuss this with the Commi '
Ver truly your ,
GRA NIS, GRA S, AR ELI
.:.. • , P.A. --�
Roger ► . Knutson
RNK:srn
1
- i
.
' (
I / (-
CRAIG W. FREEMAN M.D.
I 5808 CRESCENT TERRACE
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436
I
S-1
I
I ,A.- c----:-)
' c7 1Ck-,--1,---t-i, c ,!,,,
- ---...i....‹,-....,
E:31,- i-7L,
-s: -
,) 1 v
I (..___,,,,„.c.N,.....1,,6_,..i_;.,.c.,...".. \-1,--\,,,,
(, --,,,---- ,--,
i ) (t._ LLI
...
.
_. ' -4, ( ,
I -. --).-;-cr,,...--,..7 %'NJ I. (
...>45` _ ..,„,.)," 4idC---‘.
\ C- 14.3..••.e.AAH
cA ,}.....--,..,/1."...0...4...‹.> SA. Cr . .
I i ) .i,,-- • 1-' 1-1 _,1C Cr<
-1 - Cs.' — `i -7C' c.:----- .-(-7 ----'------ ----- - ,
I
I
---/-)".72.,,c-;-::,-..-4.-,,:k I
I •
,--i--->,.,,.. -----',---.--<----:".N. --1.--■Le'---- ,t---,.....,.j. ‘>L--\•-:"'' 4\-1\C- t- \■... ' ,.__„,.k.„„k
•I
..__.
---.) -,
I
t,
/ 1_,k,--- C;:....--) -73.--i-N. Sillv..„.. _ n...:- \ \,. l.,-;.-L :-.- -) -,--N--k--4---:%•---' .
--77.‘i
I ,--, • I
--ill--,---■-,__J:._.....,,--\.---(...,
1'
I 0,,*-6-
I
CiTY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEWED
I (- C 1987
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT.
I
LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION I
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 Coulter Drive I
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
A APPLICANT: �• i1 c. ..,�P,` ''&S OWNER: ��ire� I
ADDRESS , F9/5 f c,,t., !/ e,e4a ADDRESS y _ -_ Y at. -G
Zip ode Zip Code
TELEPHONE (Daytime ) 8'� 7_L97- 5 TELEPHONE /4 g3C37
REQUEST: I
Zoning District Change Planned Unit Development I
Zoning Appeal Sketch Plan
Preliminary Plan
I
Zoning Variance Final Plan
Zoning Text Amendment X Subdivision
Land Use Plan Amendment k Platting
I
XMetes and Bounds
�1. Conditional Use Permit
—
Street/Easement Vacation
Site Plan Review `
't Wetlands Permit
I
PROJECT NAME S f rco7 -c/ R -c)) -‘_./._
PRESENT LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
S.itS 4. 12717,074,4
REQUESTED LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION c�'�;6._ �/�,��,�`,/- —�
• PRESENT ZONING S,/f/:, :,,,,, ! I
REQUESTED ZONING // //
USES PROPOSED I
SIZE OF PROPERTY Sep, 755. --5-- W,.,re S
L
I
OCATION
REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST S Tv ,S 5
yA OA #/:(4 L.v'a 5‘ica. Tyr r kcWt�y 7-0 /. 4/e j)e)e a- e_ /t 7`: a /
a Si.c�7,e J0c�- azki.c.e D I /f5 7Lo /-/e4,-,/� cz cc e s s _Ica tai tc� I
/ 7L - 'ac'. /0)-1a eOn5'ist 0/ i'd,t..z.e' 77q Ck /Foe,- Zf
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Attach legal if necessary)
I
/SI3 /S -P r /Qn fJ ,- e ider rac✓,// /`,-
4�,, _41_ 4 ?re ScllvtG La.-3 e /a„of o/
G
I
uJ,e u.)01410/ /�,,l.f 1 4 L U/aik c e--s 14. L'e.�
eC�-d (l'/1-, / t 5'4 rt d ±D /��ct.0 sG a 54/i:ft.i:..< Fe'a CA. I
Planning Commission Meeting
IJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 20
II [TRATFORD RIDGE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 6830 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY ON
( OPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, ROBERT PIERCE:
A. SUBDIVISION OF 9. 04 ACRES INTO 15 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS .
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT.
C. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WITHIN
A CLASS B WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A
CLASS B WETLAND. — — —
ILarry Brown presented the engineering department's staff report on the
Stratford Ridge Subdivision.
IHeadla: That sedimentation basin, when I was looking at it, it looked
like it would be 6 feet below the street level . Is that right?
IBrown: The elevation at the bottom of the pond is 966 and the
elevation of the roadway is approximately 972. This invert of the
storm sewer pipe is approximately half a foot, well it's 966.5 above
this. During the 100 year storm, the maximum capacity that it's
Iexpected to maintain, the elevation would be 968. This is well below
the provisions of the roadway so we won't be creating a problem there.
The one problem that does exist is the Park and Recreation Commission
Ihad proposed for a trail easement along Minnewashta Parkway. During
the normal storm , say 10 year frequency storm , you can fit a trail
` rough here fairly readily. There's not many obstacles through there.
‘t.t will be up out of the ponding area and won't be a problem. The
problem does come in if a 100 year storm does occur , we may start
I
encroaching upon the trail but I seriously doubt that many people are
going to be using the trail during a 100 year storm.
Headla: How do you get the water from the sedimentation basin out?
I
Just a culvert under the road?
Brown: Yes, the Watershed has reviewed this and with a baffle
I
structure here, it will flow into Lake Minnewashta. Certain provisions
can be made to bring this outlet back further and rip rap it out but I
Idon't think that would be very advantageous. The sedimentation is
trapped in the basin and there won ' t be anything . . .
IHeadla : Is all the water coming out of there going to stay on the
Pierce property? The grade in the land kind of makes it keep on going
south. The drainage out of the sedimentation basin. You see it's
Iheaded southeast. Why didn't it go more east? If you head southeast,
it' s going to continue flowing to the south when it gets past the road .
Brown: I think they made provisions. The drainage that comes from
Ihere is trapped through the roadway system and storm sewer system. It
flows into the sedimentation basin and then goes out here .
IL
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 21
peadla: Okay, right there. It doesn't get to the lake. It gets to
i ne east side of the road but then the grade tends to make it flow to
the south. Are they going to pipe it right down to the lake?
Brown: That was my understanding. Is that correct? 1
Ted : Yes .
Conrad: There's a lot of property that could be developed around there '
and I guess I still see a benefit of creating a pond. Not only for
this project but for others to the north and to the west. Why not? Is
the elevation prohibitive of redirecting the front properties to drain
to the rear to a pond and how come that ' s not an alternative?
Brown: Basicly the initial submittal had the pond in this area- and
we made them relocate it to facilitate some of the natural drainage
path. This area over here, BRW had analyzed that in their report. On
their sketch they had picked out specific areas, low lying areas, that
a pond could be facilitated. Unfortunately, I don't have an overhead of
that but it is in your packet. That was not one of the areas they had
picked. Because they met the 100 year frequency, it worked in with the
side slopes of these lots and the existing drainage patterns, I felt
that it was adequate. That certainly is an alternative that could be
explored but I felt that this pond . . .
' Conrad: Tell me a little bit about, if you had a pond back there, like '
0-' t can' t hold , what would you do with the pond that was there? Would
ne assumption be that it could hold a lot of water or would you still
have the same type of outlet into Minnewashta? Without looking at the
site I have no idea what the holding capacity would be back there but
would you potentially have to have the same type of outlet that you
currently have on the holding pond that you planned in this particular
map or could a pond be self contained? It flows in and it just stays
there.
Brown: You would have to have some sort of outlet. Eventually that
pond is going to reach capacity. I know that the neighboring
properties are very concerned about this area. I think that was one of
the major reasons for the placement of the pond over here. Not only
that, obviously we're limited by the property boundary and the slopes
in the ditch area now. Like I said, I haven't got it down to brass
tacks whether a pond is feasible through here. There could be some
shifting of the proposed grades but I think you would have to outlet it
someplace and I'm afraid that that alternative would be bad for Lake
Minnewashta .
Conrad : How does a study, like BRW, how did this get funded? The BRW
portion of alternatives. What prompted a study and who funded that?
Brown: BRW has been one of our consultants, for a while, to explore
this, we used BRW because we're concerned with Minnewashta Parkway
1
Planning Commission Meeting
IJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 22
Ibeing a collector street. We're worried about the aspects of access
i. . , 're
probably ito M more nnewashta than aware Parkway of There, of es distance certain problems and speed as on you Minnewashta
Parkway. For that very reason, we wanted to explore what restrictions
Iwe needed for Stratford Ridge such as this entrance and also to
facilitate future development. If this piece goes, it's fairly
inevitable that the surrounding pieces will do that so we had to look
Iat once these pieces start coming in, how are we going to facilitate
utilities through there , the roadway patterns .
Conrad : Did that come from your office or did the City Council direct
Iyou to do that? -
Brown: Yes , it came from our office.
1 Conrad : Okay, and then how does that get funded? Who pays BRW for
doing that? Is that just a budget that the city has?
IBrown: That' s a budgeted item, yes . We often use consultants .
Conrad: You're just talking to us about engineering facts. Jo Ann,
Iyou're going to be talking about other things. Anything else for
Larry?
IJo Ann Olsen presented the planning department's staff report on the
Stratford Ridge Subdivision.
k. onrad : Would the applicant like to talk to us on what was just
presented and any other comments?
Ted Kenner, Schoell and Madsen: The two questions that Jo Ann
Ispecifically brought up were the area of the property and we have
calculated the area of the property to be 9.04 acres. This apparently
disagrees with the tax area which is substantially less. Something in
the 5 acre area. I have not seen the tax statement, but it is actually
a 9 acre parcel. As to Lot 1, Block 2 I understand by looking at it ,
it does not appear to have the 15,000. If you take the dimensions that
are shown out of the plat, that does not calculate out but those are
Ithe dimensions to the curves. If you take the length of the lot times
the width of the lot, which is 140 feet long by 108 feet wide, it
calculates out to be 15,120. So when the plat is finally calculated,
Ithat lot will be made to be a 15, 000 or larger and it will be based
with that configuration. I guess I don' t have any other issues unless
you have questions.
IHeadla: On the 9.04 acres, Jo Ann remember early this fall when we had
that Halla's property and I asked the question, the area they stated,
did that include the highway. We were talking about TH 101, and you
Isaid no, that's not normally included. When I look at the arithmetic
on this property, if I measure strictly the envelope, I come up with
9.04 acres. That includes Minnewashta Parkway. If I take off
F
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 23 1
Minnewashta Parkway and the lakeshore, I come up with 7.56 acres which
what the taxable property was and that's really what you're trying
o develop. If you take away the outlot, it's really 7 acres that
you' re developing. Do you agree with that?
Ted Kenner: It depends on how you figure it. I would say that the
developable property is the entire parcel less the area that is in
Minnewashta Parkway. The area in Minnewashta Parkway is about three-
quarters of an acre so you still have 8.3 acres of land area.
Headla : So the 9 .04 did include the highway?
Ted Kenner: That is correct. You've got three-quarters of an acre
between the road and the lake in there or about seven-tenths of an
acre and that is not within the plat itself but it's still land - area 1
that is developable and is taxed .
Headla: I give you credit for a little bit more area than that. Okay,
I wanted to make that point. Can I see your arithmetic on Lot 1? I've
tried and tried and tried and I can not come up with the , if you could
just sketch it. Give me the overall dimensions and then let me go on
to something else .
Ted Kenner : Overall , the length is 140 feet .
Headla: I get 130. If I take this 100 and this 15 and this 15, that's
30.
Ted Kenner : All I 'm using is the scale. i
Headla: I 'm using dimensions right off the print.
Ted Kenner: Okay, that's the way I've based it and that's the way the
lot was set up is based on scale.
Headla: I don't believe it's 15,000. Until I can see dimensions on
the print that says that, I think you're way under. It does not meet
the minimum of 15 , 000 .
Ted Kenner: I guess I'm confident that it does just based on my
calculations.
Headla : What does preliminary plat mean? '
Ted Kenner: This is a preliminary plat. This has not been calculated
at this point.
Headla : But if we approve this , what are we really approving? Can you
slide anything around like you want or are we approving this as it is? '
L '
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 24
1
Olsen: They haven't made the final calculations but we check the lot
'mensions with the final plat to match the two. You can ' t change.
Headla: What do you really change on here? I'm not sure I really
Iunderstand preliminary.
Olsen: The preliminary you'll establish the lot layout and the lot
IIdimensions and the square footage. The final plat, it just comes in
with just the lot lines. That's when you've done the final
calculations. So with a preliminary plat sometimes you'll get a lot
IIthat's 110 wide and then the final will come in and it might be
actually 112.
Headla: So you're really just fine tuning some of the dimensions but
Ithese lots aren't going to slide around anymore. I guess I want to
make very sure that does meet the minimum requirements. I don't know
how they're going to achieve it. That's all I had on that. On the
driveway, on the outlot that you're suggesting, are you going to be
Idoing any grading on that driveway? Are you changing the level of that
at all?
IOlsen: Right along here. There is concern that this driveway not be
blocked at all .
ITed Kenner: The plan is to not do anything in this area. Just leave
it as is .
2adla: So you won't be doing any grading in there and you aren't
changing water flow at all then?
Ted Kenner: No. It will only be constructed from Minnewashta Parkway
up to Stratford Drive where it goes into the development. That will be
finished, the roadway up to there. Beyond that will remain the gravel
driveway that presently exists there.
IHeadla: Fine, there was some concern and I just wanted clarification
on that. When you're doing this, and this is kind of a question that
comes up at different times, there's only one way into that house, what
Ihappens if there is an emergency up there? Is there always going to be
an access to that place? When you're putting in that 50 foot road, how
is that person, in case there's an emergency, how does that house get
'served?
Ted Kenner : When you say that house , which are you talking about?
IlHeadla : The one directly to the west .
Ted Kenner : Hallgren ' s?
,Headla: Yes .
II-
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 25 1
Ted Kenner : They would maintain the driveway through there so they
Culd get through at all times.
Headla : Even when you ' re building that 50 foot road?
Ted Kenner: Yes.
Headla: What about on the northeast corner where I think it's Mrs.
Campbell lives now, her property goes right into her driveway and I
think that's been common knowledge in the area for some time. What
happens to her? Is she just out of luck now or maybe the builder can
tell me, how is that handled?
Robert Pierce: That's been addressed. There is an easement for
driveway purposes. '
Ted Kenner : Just one comment on that. Since that was drawn , we have
gotten additional information on the exterior boundaries and they will
be shifting a little further from her house on the north side anyway
and possibly right to the edge of the driveway. So the drive may not
go into our property.
Headla: How do you people feel about that trail going along
Mi.nnewashta Parkway and then that 6 foot drop-off there? Then you've
got a 6 foot water pond along the parkway and then you're going to have
homes there. Is that going to be a problem for people on the bike
rail or the homes that are right there that have small children?
a
Robert Pierce: At this point, I guess I don't really know. It's a
little hard for me to visualize how the trail is going to go in until I
really see where it's going to go. I do know that with the proper
landscaping and the right grades, I think it can be done and made to
look very nice. I guess it would be up to whoever is using the trail
to use it in such a way that, if they're going at such a speed that
they can't stay on the trail or whatever, I Guess that's where problems
would come in but that could be anywhere along the trail .
Headla: Do they grate that thing or what do they do?
Brown: There is plenty of room for the 8 foot trail. Where the
problem comes in is actually the 20 foot easement area that's normally
required. There's a problem with overlapping the drainage easement
with the trail easement and that was my major concern. There is more
than enough room to get an 8 foot trail in there. That obviously
doesn't alleviate the possibility of reaching maximum capacity of the
pond and occasionally running over the top of that trail. I think
that's the problem at this point. As far as the question we were
getting at before about the pond being close to the residential
neighborhood right there, we have required ponds on roughly all the
developments. One classic example is over here on the Saddlebrook.
That's probably the biggest ponding site that we have and that again is
I/
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 26
adjacent to the rearyard so I really don ' t foresee any direct problem.
Headla: So if we set a precedent, it isn't oin to be different
than what we' ve done other places? g g any
Brown: That ' s correct.
' Headla : I was looking at that hoping to have the water go back the
other way. The other one, I'm concerned about the wetland to the
northwest , but we can talk about that. My only other comment is , I was
really disappointed in the BRW maps. They just blatantly went right
' through the wetlands and they are suggesting these are where the roads
should go. I'm not going to belabor the point except that I thought it
was inappropriate to do. You heard the discussion tonight. We're very
concerned about wetlands and then something that the village -will
sponsor , we blast a road right on through.
Brown: I think that can be addressed by, initially and Jo Ann can
' confirm this, initially we didn't think that area was a wetland. As I
stated before, when the applicant submitted this at first, that was
when we ordered the overview by BRW. Shortly thereafterwards, the area
' back there in the northwest corner was analyzed as a low class wetland.
So it's not a real obvious factor when you're out there tromping
through the site, that it is a wetland .
Emmings: I've just got a little bit here. On the condition 2, Jo Ann
111, it says Lots 1 through 5 and I assume that's Block 2 that you're
talking about there so I guess I'd like to, whoever makes the motion, I
think we ought to include Block 2 in there so we're sure we know which
Lots 1 through 5 we're talking about. Then, going to condition 1,
we're talking about the right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 will be
designated as an outlot. Do I understand the reason that's being done
is to avoid the double frontage question?
Olsen: Mostly it's just so the city would not have to maintain a
double frontage. It ' s indicated as street right-of-way right now. . .
Emmings : Why aren't we doing the same things then at least Lots 8 , 9
' and 10 of Block 1 that we're doing on Lot 2 for the double frontage
lots?
Olsen: Technically right now it ' s not actually a double frontage lot .
Emmings : We are creating double frontage lots right?
' Olsen: It's possible that when streets are approved there that it will
just go straight down from Stratford to this driveway but . . .
Emmings: As far as the double frontage lots, I don't have a problem
with that. I don't think the plan is a bad plan at all for the
property. I'm glad that they looked to see how it would fit with the
F
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 27 1
development of the neighboring properties. I think that's been looked
at. I guess I don't have any trouble thinking about a variance for
those because we've already said we want lot depth to be 125 feet and
in fact they may not need a variance at all if the City Council goes
along with that. I do however like the idea of having additional
landscaping when there are double frontage lots. The only thing I
have trouble really conceptualizing in this plan is four of those lots
in Block 2, such as 2, 3 , 4 and 5 really, it would seem to me there is
some kind of mushy language in there that we recommend that the houses
face the internal streets but I would think as a matter of fact, you'd
want to build those houses to look at the lake.
Olsen: What that means is that it emphasizes is they must be cleared
for a driveway. What we would consider the rear of the house they
would consider the front.
Emmings: That makes it perfectly clear. Now I understand. I don't
care which way they go but as long as they have the access off the
internal street and they've got some additional , when we say they're
going to have additional screening, that's on the Parkway side right?
I don ' t have anymore questions .
Erhart: On that BRW plan, on Option A, how are they going to get
access from Minnewashta Parkway?
Olsen: Option A is showing it to be accessed from the north .
1
Erhart: And that street exists?
Olsen: No. I think what they would probably do is put a service road
where this dotted line is .
Erhart: And that not being such a good idea, for that purpose we end
up with double frontage lots gives us Option B. Option B gives us with
double frontage lots .
Olsen : But they' re building this already.
Erhart: Really, the BRW plan is the one that gives us che variance. ,
Possibly you could have drawn up a street plan and prevented any double
frontage lots .
Brown: If I could interrupt, I think as pointed out in the BRW report,
that there is a large number of possibilities that one could lay this
out. Again, one of the other points that was brought out in the report
is the ability to develop this area is going to rely on a developer to
package several parcels of land together. That may not happen. Some
of the homeowners have already expressed that no, my land will never be
developed. That may in fact happen but the object of this was not to
lay out the specific lots or force anyone into developing, it was just
such that we can address Stratford Ridge to accomodate that development
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 28
if it were to occur .
11 Erhart : I think what you did in putting together a master
I area was just great. I think that's super. Whether they did plan
s good
the
job or not, that one I won't make a judgment on. Obviously, if any
company should do this, I agree with Dave, they should go in and find
out, before they lay any pen to paper they ought to find out what's
II wetland in the area because that's just as important as the existing
streets. In my mind, I'm just trying to understand the double fronted
lots to some degree comes about as putting pressure on the developer to
try to stick to our master plan so I guess I don' t have a problem with
I the variance from that standpoint. Lots 1 and 2 of Block 2, they have
70 foot frontage on one side. That's below the minimum allowed.
I Olsen: There's 90 foot street frontage and including the radius, that
comes out to 85.
I Ted Kenner : It ' s 90 at the building setback line.
Olsen: That 's for cul-de-sacs .
ITed Kenner : Then we should make that lot 90 on the front then.
Erhart: Lot 1 should be 90. Lot 2, that one being on an outside
I curve, you could argue that it would be on the setback, but Lot 1, I
think you've got to look at that number. And the extra 10 feet is
included in Lots 7 through 10 of Block 1 right, because it's double
frontage? It is included?
IOlsen: Not right now but it will be. Right now it's not. The
position right is for Lots 1 through 5. . .
IErhart: If the plan is for them to be double fronted, of course the
thing is in this case the developer is not, there is no assurance that
that street will ever continue to go through there.
IRobert Pierce: There's i:ae oossibility too that at a iatute date,
depending on how land would develop around there, that that access may
Inever be used or it might shift over 30 feet .
Erhart : So I guess it really isn ' t an issue. No more questions .
IConrad: The size of the properties on either side Jo Ann, are large
parcels on either side? North and south?
I Olsen: Yes, they are also narrow to where, as Larry mentioned, they
are going to have to work together. I think the properties to the
north is probably coming in for a subdivision. They are all large
' parcels but they are also narrow.
F
I
II
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 29 1
Erhart: Are you talking about the Charles Anderson property is coming
in for a subdivision? And they would get access from where your blue
line is?
Olsen: I haven ' t seen the plans . ,
Ted Kenner : I have talked to them and they are more interested in
developing the property to the north. They are looking at the Charles
Anderson property and the one just to the west of there which is owned
by the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association. They are looking at
developing those two parcels together tying both of those off of
Pleasant Acres.
Conrad: I still have a problem. It still looks to me like we're
putting a whole lot of stuff on a few acres here. I know that our
legal consultants say it meets the minimum as long as they all do but
when I see the bike trail and I see the holding pond and I see some
variances and double frontages, it always means, usually when we have a
lot of stuff like that it means we're putting too much on a piece of
property.
Erhart: Jo Ann are we asking for a variances for double frontage on ,
Lot 7 through 10? How can we do that when there's no street there?
We' re not asking for a variance?
Conrad: We' re not?
Olsen : What you need right now is a variance to that additional feet
required on Lots 1 through 5 .
Headla : What did you say Jo Ann? I didn ' t follow.
Olsen: Technically they're getting the variance for that additional
10 feet .
Erhart : And the reason for justification of a variance was what?
Olsen: Is that that 10 feet could not be provided without altering.
They can shift the street up here , that would provide more lot depth
but to provide that additional 10 feet, there is no alternative. They
would possibly have to remove this lot and shift it up. Again , we were
just working with the location of this street for accessing the
property to the north. We felt this was a good street configuration.
Erhart: And the 10 feet is added to what?
Olsen : The lot depth . Right now they would have to have 160 feet.
eet.
Erhart: And we've sent on to the Council to change that to 125? '
1
, Planning Commission Meeting
IIJanuary 6, 1988 - Page 30
liOlsen: Yes, and if that does get approved, then all of these lots
rwould meet without the additional 10 feet.
II Headla : Does it look like that' s going to fly? Don ' t know.
Larry Wenzel: Subject to what happens with this given parcel of
property in respect to the other pieces of property with this master
I layout, that plan, how much of this is cast in stone? It appears that
we're pretty well constricted individually, or even as a group,
according to the road systems that have been laid out as far as the
lots. You've got some variances on this piece of property. How many
I built in variances have they laid in for the rest of us that we're
going to have to get compliance to even to think of the economics of
whether this thing is going to be developed in 1989 or the year 3000
I subject to the value of what we can sell our piece of land and
therefore a house for. Is this the plan that's going to be maintained
subject to whether that ' s approved or not approved?
1 Olsen: No, the only plan that would be maintained would be this one.
The only way that this is altering the impact of the surrounding
properties is that it is designating where future roads will be
Iprovided to the north and then it will be providing this whole length
along here and a road that goes straight to the south and west. That's
the only thing that's dictating at this time. These plans are just
Igoing to be used for general use to give us a better picture of what
the street layouts could possibly have. Staff is concerned with a lot
, of separate accesses onto Minnewashta Parkway. We were trying to look
I-, at a way to provide service to all those lots along here without
necessarily having separate accesses.
Larry Wenzel: Are they assuming that most of the existing homes will
Ibe moved out of there? That ' s the way it appears .
Olsen: There's really no assumption, it was just kind of an overall
Iplan just to lay it on top. This was like if everybody would want to
subdivide . There are many possibilities .
Larry Wenzel: Can I get a copy of those variances that you have
Ilisted? The easement for the trail that's going to run, as I perceived
it, along Minnewashta Parkway, running the whole way. That's going to
be taken on what , the west side of Minnewashta Parkway?
IOlsen: At this point it will be on the west side .
IILarry Wenzel : And what are they going to do , just cut another swath in
there? Another 8 foot swath west of the road?
Olsen : Off of the right-of-way.
ILarry Wenzel: If they do that, this is the third time they've taken
our stuff. Along here you've got a major hill and when you cut this
IL_
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 31 1
away I lost that huge tree from cutting in the road and it died from
ack of water. Then they put the new street in and they pitched it
wrong and you've got all the water coming down this road at 90 mph
going right over a mickey mouse curb that they put in after it washed
the whole bank out once and out into the lake. Are they going to put
some kind of a storm sewer on this side of the street then along with
that so handle that kind of a problem? Because you're increasing that
grade dramatically. '
Olsen: We have not looked at it at this point. Those sort of issues
would be reviewed at that time.
Emmings: Jo Ann, aren't they just reserving an easement on this lat
for a possible future trailway. There's no plan to build it. P
Larry Wenzel: It's not connected to whatever, you approved this
development, it doesn't cast that into stone and it is there and
setting a precedent?
Emmings : Just reserving an easement for a ossible future '
P re trail .
Olsen: The Park and Recreation Commission has a trail plan and ,
Minnewashta Parkway is designated to have a trail so as developments
come in, we reserve easements for that. When it will be built, I
couldn ' t tell you. '
criarry Wenzel: I guess I get a little nervous when I see, and our
`:� .eighbor John Ziegler of course isn't here, but I see something like
that and I 'm wondering how much thought process went into that thing .
Olsen: This doesn't show everything. That might have been a ponding
area . ,
Larry Wenzel : That ' s all high ground .
Brown: As Jo Ann point out, the cr000sed plat has really nothing to do
with the approval of this. Like I said, a number of these plans could
have been drawn up. You could have come in with five of these. The
only thing about this plan is that if Stratford Ridge is approved, if
Mr. Anderson decided that he wanted to hook into sanitary sewer if he
wanted to develop, he may be able to facilitate the sanitary sewer and
water from the Stratford Ridge development. That was the only reason
that this report -was even looked at. To figure out how we can put in
piece of the puzzle if they so choose to develop. But this plan, as
far as the lot layouts, as far as even these parcels are developed, is
strictly up to the lot owner. It's just so if you do decide to
develop, you have a way of doing that. But as far as the lot layout,
each parcel can come in and propose as long as they meet the 15 , 000
square foot minimum and in accordance to the ordinance. But this
layout is arbitrary. It's just so future development can be made to
facilitate if the need should occur .
L.
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6 , 1988 - Page 32
Headla: Just so you folks on the Commission understand where we're
ooing from, none of us had seen this. We didn't even know it was
going on. All of a sudden there's two options. What we're going to
possibly do with your home, with your property, so it's a little
Ishocking. You can look at it objectively but for us, it's more of an
emotional thing the first shot.
IBrown: I think also, as pointed out in the report before, some of
these parcels will have trouble meeting the requirements as far as lot
area by themselves and this report was a way of informing the neighbors
that if they so choose, they can get together and develop this or have
Isomebody develop it for them if they have a smaller parcel. It's just
another method of learning, if they want to develop, they should be
informed as to what ' s out there.
ILarry Wenzel: I think you're right and I'm not disagreeing. It is a
shock. When you see your name up there and all these lots chopped up
• and your house doesn ' t exist .
I Mrs. Wenzel : And no road access .
ILarry Wenzel : Each one of us, even though our piece is 10.5 acres,
after Dave's explanation, I'm not sure what we've got after listening
to what Lawson's might or might not. I don't know who the devil it
Icomes from but in my particular case which is inmaterial to this, we've
got a house here and a house here, which is fine because of your lake
,rules. You'd probably get it blocked off and get two front water lots
� .nd the rest of it you develop or whatever the case may be but there
Iyou've got access that exists from the main street now. The way this
appears, all of a sudden that's changed , even though it's there. It
might not be and I guess that ' s what makes you a little nervous .
IErhart: Well , it may not be because the ordinance, I believe on
collectors, it's 300 feet separation for street access. So the whole
purpose of putting together this master plan is a plan that everybody
has future access and still meet the ordinance. You do that by
I
preventing situations like this developer coming in and putting two
cul-de-sacs with no future extension of the street. So what the plan
Iallowed us to do here is to work with the developer to allow future
access of the one street to go up to the Mildred Kirkson property, if
that person so chooses to develop without having a direct access onto
in Minnewashta Parkway.
I Larry Wenzel: Yes, but many of the driveways already exist and they
are two distinct and separate pieces of property, how can you tell me
now that this is going to change.
Erhart: No it doesn' t, but if you wanted to develop, it doesn't
necessarily mean that you can put in a street outlet to Minnewashta .
I
I-
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 33 1
Larry Wenzel: I didn't say anything about street outlet, I said two
( rive outlets that are already there.
Jo Ann Hallgren: I was the one that had the driveway. My property is
landlocked as you can see. The x on the map there, that is probably
what you would consider a wetland. I have a wetland on the north of
my property. There's a huge ravine that runs to the western part of my
property and all the way to the railroad tracks. What I'm getting at
is, on the lot selection, the driveway easement, the one that's not
going to be developed into a public street, is considered an outlot.
That's what the staff has stated. To me, that is my only access to my
property. But the property owners property goes down further than a
public street would give more square footage than what would exist with
the existing easement. I'm wondering if that would be a problem there
If a public street were to be continued back. Can you take acr.age
1
from the lots?
Olsen : You 'd have to work with that property owner .
Jo Ann Hallgren: What if he' s the one that says no?
Olsen: I think what we were looking at when the additional right-of- '
way would be required, that it would also be working with the property
with this house .
Jo Ann Hallgren: Finally, I would like a condition to serve my
f Yoblem.
Erhart : You' ve got 33 feet there . ,
Olsen: You 've got 33 feet but not the 50 feet .
Ted Kenner: We have shown on the preliminary plat reserving 17 foot of
additional right-of-way along Lots 7 through 10 for future street
expansion in there so it would be 50 feet wide .
Conrad: You' ve never talked about burning the house Dave.
Headla: Oh yes, I wanted to thank you. I wanted to discuss that.
What happens if they can't come up with 15,000 square feet on Lot 1,
Block 2? What happens to all the work that ' s done here?
Olsen: To get approval, they would have to receive a lot area
variance. What you could probably do, what you probably should do, is
establish a condition that Lot 1, Block 2 . . .
Emmings: Why do we have to do that? We've
g ` Y `' approved this plat. This
plat says it has 15,000. If it doesn't, than they haven't told us the
truth and then they've got a problem so we'll just assume they're going
to and it will be up to staff to check and make sure they do .
L I
1
1
. , Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 34
Ipeadla : They have to come back again?
I
Emmings : No.
IHeadla : If they don ' t make it 15, 000.
Emmings: Dave, look at the lot next door is 17,500. They can steal
Ienough over there to make that one 15,000 I would think without any
trouble at all . If they do need it.
IHeadla : I just want to see it at 15, 000.
Emmings: Well, that's what the plan says. Staff has to make
Y sure that
happens . That ' s what we ' re approving .
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
I
approval of Subdivision #87-32 as shown on the plat stamped "Received
IDecember 14, 1987" and subject to the following conditions :
1. The right-of-way south of Lots 7 through 10 shall be
designated as an outlot.
I2. Lots 1-5, Block 2 shall provide an additional 10 feet of
depth or an approved detailed landscaping plan providing
screening from Minnewashta Parkway.
3. The existing building and debris shall be removed from the
site upon approval of the appropriate permits .
I 4. Provision of a 20 foot trail easement on the west side or
Minnewashta Parkway.
II5. Type II erosion control , staked hay bales and snow fence,
shall be placed along the south side of Lots 1, 9 and 10.
I6. A typical detail for Type II erosion control , staked hay
bales and snow fence, shall be placed on the grading plan .
I 7. Wood fiber blankets or equivalent shall be used to stabilize
all disturbed slopes greater than 3 : 1.
I 8. All streets and utilities shall be constructed in accordance
to the City' s standards for urban construction .
I 9 . The watermain shall either be looped or increased to an eight
inch diameter. No dead-end stubs shall be allowed .
10. All erosion control measures shall be in place prior to the
Icommencement of any grading .
F
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 35
f' 11. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with
the City and provide the necessary financial sureties as a
part of this agreement for completion of the improvements .
12. The applicant shall obtain and comply with all conditions of ,
the Watershed District and DNR permit .
13 . The proposed manhole 2 shall be lowered to its minimum '
possible elevation such that service from the north of the
easterly proposed cul-de-sac may be facilitated .
14 . Drainage easements shall be adjusted to cover the entire
ponding site should shifting of the pond be necessary.
15. The curb radius as shown in Attachment #3 shall be replaced '
by a curb transition section as shown in Attachment #4 .
All voted in favor except Ladd Conrad who opposed and motion carried . '
Conrad: The reason for my opposition is I still think there are too
many pieces of land on this piece of property. I would recommend that
one parcel be eliminated and I think that would solve a lot of my
concerns with the subdivision .
Headla: On the building on the property, the Fire Department talked to '
me and said they were interested in burning it. Did Dick Winger
ally get a hold of you?
Robert Pierce: I guess I hadn't contacted anybody at this point
because I wanted to get to this point before I made any other
arrangements .
Headla : Can we tell them to get in touch with you then?
Robert Pierce: Sure. '
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the conditional use permit
rmzt
for a recreational beachlot .
Erhart : What ' s happened here in the procedural changes?
Olsen: We confirmed with the Attorney and the zoning ordinance . . . '
Erhart: We've been voting on the zoning ordinance since I've been on
the Commission. Now all of a sudden that's not the way it is anymore
or have we been doing it wrong?
i
1
Planning Commission Meeting
"January 6, 1988 - Page 36
IC'y sen: No, you've been voting on variances to subdivisions and the lot
c .th. As far as the recreational beachlot, the zoning ordinance
states that variances should be reviewed by the Board of Adjustments .
'Erhart: That ordinance specifically is different than the . . .
Olsen: Under the zoning ordinance.
,Roger Knutson: There are two ordinances. The subdivision and zoning
ordinance. Recreational beachlots are in the zoning ordinance. The
Iltrequirements with a dock is 100 foot depth. If you want to get around
that requirement, it needs a variance and the zoning ordinance says
hat goes to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The subdivision is a
separate ordinance. It doesn't have to go to the Board of Adjustment
land Appeals. You can decide that.
Erhart: We're not chaning anything, we're just following the rules on
Jhis one. It's a lot easier for us. The only thing we're dealing with
ere is just simply approving or disapproving the beachlot as it fits
our beachlot ordinance? Simply that. The only issue we have to deal
with is essentially the plan of the beachlot. Then the only question I
.Ave is, in proposing the change from steps to a ramp, are you not
nviting 3-wheelers to come driving down that to our nice beach?
IFed Kenner: That's always a problem when you have a ramp. At the same
im e, I can see what the staff is suggesting for safety, if you need to
down there in case of emergency.
It rhart: But in case of emergency, then don' t they put the guy on a
tretcher and they can carry him up the steps just as well as they can
carry him. . .
II lsen : Stretchers have wheels on them.
Irhart: I don't know. I'm not an expert on 3., nor one out I'd sure
avor the steps over the ramp. I don't know if it's worth getting into
a big discussion. That ' s the only tning l ' ve got .
Ieadla: Who looks at the tree plantings ? There are some beautiful
aks there and I just want to make sure that the oaks stay. Well ,
you 'd have every reason to want to keep them too .
•lsen: That will be approved by the DNR forester , Allan Olsen .
r'onrad: The Planning Commission looks at a conditional use permit,
hat are we looking at? What are the conditions that we're measuring
is against? It seems like the conditions that we're measuring
against are not in our power to measure but the Board of Adjustments is
Irasuring .
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 37
Olsen: We looked at it meeting the conditions of the recreational
beachlot. . .
Conrad : But not the depth. We' re not looking at area size.
Olsen: You look at whether it meets the conditions. '
Conrad : And it doesn ' t.
Olsen: When it doesn't, that's when you want it to go to the Board of
Adjustments .
Conrad : So, what are the conditions that we' re looking at? '
Olsen: It meets the conditions of just a basic beachlot without a
dock. '
Erhart: The depth is required for the dock but that's out of our
jurisdiction. Let me correct this, it does meet all of the conditions
for just a standard beachlot?
Olsen: Yes . You have the lake frontage .
Conrad: And 80% of the houses are located within 1,000 feet? Okay.
We asked the Public Safety Director to review the safety of this lot,
crossing Minnewashta Parkway. Did he ever do that for us?
Olsen: He commented on the stairs. Yes and no, people are going to be
crossing the street . . . He felt that the bigger issue was . . .
Conrad: And the steps simply just for access, emergencies and
handicap? That's hard for me to visualize, a ramp. and we're not
concerned with where the beach is placed?
Headla : Does the ou) 1-er =eei ;e has co have a _ai1p?
Robert Pierce : No, I guess it ' s really up to you . '
Erhart : Ladd , I think it is within our duties to make comments about
the plan. The layout and where the sand is. I think that's one of the
few things we do have input on .
Olsen: In the report I did review that we did want more detailed plans
if they review the beachlot. I did not make that a condition.
Conrad: Yes, I didn't see that as a condition here. What's staff's
opinion? I think this is a good outlot for recreation. I think the
concern we had last time Jo Ann was the 40 feet. The distance between
the lake and the road is 40 feet and is that acceptable in terms of how
people are handled? If you get 13 lots, or whatever it is, more than
that, 15 lots, can that 40 feet of depth, which we're not looking at,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 38
'(
handle that many people? Originally, I think the 100 feet is simply to
' separate, give people room away from property and I think with the road
there and everything, I have no problem with that. I'm sure the Board
of Adjustments will accept that but there is obviously a clear
separation between the outlot and people's land and therefore it's not
' going to be a great deal of impact on those Lots 3, 4 and 5. My
concern goes back to, are we allowing something, have we designed the
right amount of space for people who are going to use that? 40 feet is
really not a whole lot for a beach. Especially, I'm don't know how
much of that is useable for a beach.
' Robert Pierce: Maybe I can take this a step back, about t:le steps or
the ramp. I guess, if I had my way I'd rather probably p: = steps in
because of ease of maintenance and I think they can just make it nicer
looking but again, it's not anything one way or the other. It would
' proably just make it look a little nicer with those steps. Then going
to the 40 foot, we have a major length of shoreline there and the kind
of beaches that I take my kids to, a lot of them out on the lake, a lot
' of times where we go we are probably, the sand beach depth and there
would be quite a few other boats , a lot of time that peach is not more
than just a few feet. And here, we would make it deeper than that plus
' we would make it 80 to 100 feet . . .
Conrad: You're comfortable you can solve the problem that these
homeowners are going to put on the beachlot?
Robert Pierce: We want to make an attractive situation for everybody.
It's to our advantage, as much as anybody's, to be able to have
' something that will be desirable and that they can see they're going to
enjoy.
Headla : Did you want to it the point there , Jo Ann?
' Olsen : About the more detailed clans?
' Headla : Yes .
Olsen : Sure.
Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-17 for a recreational beachlot
subject to the following conditions :
1. The recreational beachlot shall not have a dock unless a
variance to the lot depth requirement is granted by the
' Board of Adjustments and City Council .
2. The proposed dock shall not have 4 overnight slips unless a
variance to the limitation of overnight storage is granted by
the Board of Adjustment and City Council .
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 39
3. All additional standards established for a recreational
beachlot in the Zoning Ordinance must be met. ,
4 . A tree removal plan must be submitted to the City and DNR for
approval prior to any alteration to Outlot A.
5 . The applicant must submit a more detailed plan of the
recreational beachlot.
All voted in favor and motion carried .
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC STREET WIHIN A CLASS B '
WETLAND AND FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 200 FEET OF A CLASS B WETLAND.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the staff report on the Wetland Alteration ,
Permit.
Conrad: Can you build on a Class B wetland? Can you build a house? A
Class B wetland is not buildable, isn't that right and therefore is not
part of area that we use to calculate densities .
Olsen : We' ve always used that .
; Headla : You ' ve always included wetlands in your density calculations?
Conrad : Wetlands are not buildable though Jo Ann.
Erhart : Yes , but you still include them in your overall acreage. '
Olsen: Yes, I think we do. The developer has done it. I'm trying to
think, like for Hidden Valley. When we had that large wetland in that
marsh area down there, I beli eve that went into the net density, we did
not include that.
Conrad: But in terms of individual lot size, not the overall plat or
subdivision, but in terms of the overall lot size. A wetland will help
make up the 15 ,000 square foot minimum? `
Erhart : The only rule we have is the setback from the building . '
Robert Pierce: You have in the past because I know of one other
subdivision here and they included the wetlands. It wasn't this, it
was a Class A wetland and they were included in the calculations of the
lots .
Olsen: With the Lake Riley Woods subdivision, it was then. Even with
that open ponding area in the Lake Riley Woods , we included that.
Erhart: I'm not sure it's appropriate for 15,000 square foot lots but
it is for the 2 1/2 acre. That ' s how I know I ' ve studied it.
1
Planning Commission Meeting
1k . January 6, 1988 - Page 40
Olsen : Now we have the 2 1/2 acre lot, a minimum of 1 acre buildable.
If it wasn ' t shown as a wetland , we wouldn ' t have known.
Erhart : What you have is a 6 inch dip there is what it really is on
the side of the hill .
Headla: There are pretty good swales up there. Jo Ann, Rockwell and I
walked through it and she looked at it and boy, she locked on that
' right away.
Conrad : What's it like off this property? How much more is a Class B
' wetland?
Olsen: It does continue to drain over here to the northwest. There is
a large, and it shows on this map. I think I might have covered it up
with this but there is a larger , better wetland to the northwest .
Conrad : I don't know how closely related to the permit, what are we
communicating here as we allow filling of the B in terms of the
adjacent properties? Are we saying that we don't care for the B's in
that area? We've got an alternative, which is acceptable, for another
' holding pond that Rockwell feels is a subsitute but does that
communicate anything about the neighboring part of that wetland? What
are we thinking Jo Ann?
Olsen : When we visited the site she felt that it is important to the
drainage and that other wetland was the important wetland. As stated
that was our optimum place to provide the ponds and you could maintain
the drainage.
Headla : We were dumping a lot of water in there that wasn' t affecting ,
a little bit on the northwest corner but affecting the adjoining
' properties. You're getting faster runoff into the adjoining
properties .
' Olsen: Now we are? actually they're bringing over the drainage the
other way. So what they're actually doing is taking natural drainage
and going to that wetland pond . We did look at that , we walked over
there and looked at that other wetland and that was the important one
' that she would not want to see filled or altered .
Conrad: Okay, I'm comfortable with the exchange but I guess I'm still
' a little bit not sure . I haven ' t seen the property.
Erhart: Addressing your thoughts there, I guess in the Riley Lake
' subdivision we had a Class B wetland there and that was even marginal ,
Class E, but what we made them do was essentially move it over a little
bit and turn it into a Class A essentially. Now there we moved it over
a little bit. Here we're moving it across. I think it would be
Ipreferable also to take that little dip and move it down to the edge of
that lot. I think that would have been also a nicety. To maintain,
1
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 41
( 'ain reduce the amount of runoff on that lot and also to maintain that '
41/4.Little Class B or even the small little pond down there into a Class A.
It certainly would not have hurt that lot because you know that house
is not going to be built right there. '
Headla: How big is this basin going to be? I don't see anything here
on the area. '
Robert Pierce : I don ' t have it with me at this time.
Headla : What would you guess it would be? ,
Erhart: Yes, compared to the old one. Was that area an existing Class
A wetland where that basin is?
Headla : Class B.
Erhart : That was B by Minnewashta Parkway?
Conrad : No, that 's nothing.
Olsen : That never was a wetland .
Headla : That would be a quarter of an acre basin in the northwest
corner of that property? Is that what we're talking about? That whole
wale goes up between 5 and 6 but where would this . 26 acres be?
Conrad : The drainage pond is right on the Parkway. '
Brown : That . 26 encompasses this area here that I have yellowed .
Headla: Okay, I don ' t have any problem with it .
Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alteration Permit =87-16 to permit the alteration
of a Class B wetland with the following conditions:
1. The proposed sedimentation basin shall be designed to the
following six criteria so that it will also be as a wetland
area : '
a . The basin will have free form (no even-sided) shape to
increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for
feeding and nesting birds .
b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of
10: 1 to 20: 1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to
encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and
food for wildlife .
1
4 /
Planning Commission Meeting
January 6, 1988 - Page 42
Ic . The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for
variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for
I species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 to 3.0
feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in
areas of shallow water and thereby increase
interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation.
Id . The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck from an
existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to
I provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation.
e. The basin will have water level control culvP
( _rts, riser
pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using
Ithe wetland.
f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland
I surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of
wildlife using the wetland .
2. The applicant must receive a permit from the Corps of
IEngineers .
All voted in favor and motion carried .
ILrad: I guess the only discussion I have is, in concept I wish we
.�„ald have figured out a way to enhance the wetland that we' re filling
n and use that as a drainage area and also as an asset .
I
beadle: One of the things I think, there's a subtle thing, we're
I reverting a lot of water from going into that real wetlands into the
orthwest and we've never talked about , what is the real impact on that
wetland? I don't know if it's 1% of the water that normally goes in
there or is it 25% or 40o .
nrad: I think as that area develops, That
wetland's yon n; to be
�
taxed. I think the other wetlands will be used to drain runoff
I[
rough. It will have it's chance to do it's job sooner or later but
ere was a potential case of using a wetland as an asset. We didn' t
Jo it but this is an alternative that ' s acceptable .
IBLIC HEARING:
VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A 12 SQUARE FOOT ON-SITE
111-MCTITiTIAL SIGN ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT
D LOCATED AT 19011 LAKE DRIVE EAST, NORDQUIST SIGNS (DATySERV) .
is item was tabled per the applicant ' s request .
II
IL
I
BOA DATE: Feb. 8 , 19A
II C ITY of
C.C. DATE: Feb. 8 , 1988
\\\�•• C11/11111ASS: 11
E N -1 , r ,
CAS O: 88 2 Variance
�' Prepared by: Olsen/v
II .
I STAFF REPORT
i ,
PROPOSAL: To Receive a Variance to the Lot Depth Requirement
I For a Recreational Beachlot and to Receive a
Variance to the Requirements of a Maximum of Three
1. Variance
Stored Overnight.
1a
(...) LOCATION: 6830 Minnewashta Parkway, on the west side of
I Minnewashta Parkway approximately i mile south of
Highway 7 .
APPLICANT: Pierce Construction
I < 3915 Farmhill Circle
Mound, MN 55364
1
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
IACREAGE: 9 . 04 acres
DENSITY: 5 . 9 acres (net acres ) 2 .54 u/a (net density)
IADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N- RSF; single family
S- RSF; single family
IQ E- Lake Minnewashta
W- RSF; single family :'Q .
1 6 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. . ,?-/g/ e
1 w PHYSICAL CHARAC. : The site has a grove of trees on the
I -- western side of Lake Minnewashta. The
remainder of the site is open field.
Outlot A has a steep slope toward the
lake and heavily vegetated.
I1990 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
II
soi r
/.;,;---7":111061 62ND 14.4 ST =,It or Er 1.0e. 01 pi ..7„alii if
p4 0 Vmair-:;III 1111114r14011%
/ / Il 64 iii vs, _v auk III_ iii‘ ____----------_------- ....,__
: Mos 171tr. Min NW' M •- 11.) ir
..,/4/411......4 tk• ; --.; . 1•1::illi ---Nii; :711 7
c ' Le plirl c' ' II_ 111111001111 . I
"if -- ___.--:;•eg J,,_,40*-• .
ippli: ,- �-,elk ,- - il
i AL toop.‘ , A14.:%".1,4t1:77111 '
IF
, AZ4111. ....a•, .--- ircH1,41;;;/F-aitliit.._.x._ (
dif w sy ---- - `Qik . Ain
yr 4- ___. .._._.
. ,
ifor,, , •Agarear&". .0z*w-_14
..A.,. �1�i ZI31s ra Atil sa ■ /
7 " Is; • z NMI IV _. PP
I
- X47
aaw / '
_I ..._, ..
I
. ;
1
/, M / N N E W A!;, S N T A
RD
PUD-R A•
t.. KINGS ROAD t \� : ii--
f \\
cr2 t� ✓IIIIll! ft I
Q LAKE ►Q! `� �jti
• ST✓OE �� � I _
I; x 'PON•. ?IF_ -,[-. 1wonwalk.,* _.
, 4 all mair • . ,,__-.
• MI„` MAPLE SHORES f
f.':' ,
RIF
E DRIVE
(, (--z ,
•::
ar1 t.ii.i e.
U�) 1 . 1,
, MINIM
MEM
IIIIIIMIs
*4
4
III
li
' Stratford Ridge Variance
February 8 , 1988
Page 2
' APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Sections 5-9 11 requires a recreational beachlot to have at
least 200 feet of lake frontage. This section also requires that
' no dock shall be permitted on a recreational beachlot unless it
has at least 200 feet of lake frontage and the lot has at least a
100 foot depth. No more than one dock may be erected on a
' recreational beachlot for every 200 feet of lake frontage and
30 , 000 square feet of land and no more than three motorized or
non-motorized watercraft per dock shall be allowed to be stored
overnight. No more than one canoe rack shall be allowed per
dock with no more than six watercraft stored on a rack
(Attachment #1) .
' ANALYSIS
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a
recreational beachlot on Outlot A as shown on the preliminary
plat. Outlot A contains 31 ,400 square feet and approximately 550
feet of lake frontage but does not contain 100 feet of depth.
The northerly portion of Outlot A contains 110 feet of depth and
' the southerly portion contains approximately 84 feet of depth.
The central area of Outlot A contains only 40 feet of depth which
is the approximate area for the proposed dock and sandbeach.
' Therefore, a variance is required to the Recreational Beachlot
conditions to permit a dock to be installed on Outlot A. The
applicant is also proposing to store 4 boats overnight on the
dock. The Zoning Ordinance limits overnight storage of boats on
' a recreational beachlot to three boats/dock. Therefore, the
Board of Adjustments must also act on the variance for the number
of overnight slips on the proposed dock.
The Recreational Beachlot Ordinance was first adopted in 1982 .
The original ordinance required a recreational beachlot to have
100 feet of width at the ordinary high water and 100 feet land-
ward of the ordinary high water mark in order for the beach to
have a dock (Attachment #2 ) . These dimensions resulted in a
minimum lot configuration for a beachlot with a dock of 100 feet
' wide and 100 feet deep. The original Recreational Beachlot
Ordinance did not permit any overnight storage of boats on a
recreational beachlot dock. The Recreational Beachlot Ordinance
' was amended in 1986 . The amendment included a regulation per-
mitting three boats to be stored on a recreational beachlot dock
overnight. The amended ordinance also included the 100 foot lot
' depth requirement for the beachlot to have a dock. The amended
ordinance also increased the lot width for a recreational beach-
lot with a dock from 100 feet to 200 feet of lake frontage. The
purpose of the minimum lot area requirements was to provide a
minimum area for the recreational beachlot activities . *
I
I
Stratford Ridge Variance
February 8 , 1988
Page 3 I
The Board of Adjustments and City Council must determine if a
hardship exists for the variance to be approved. A hardship
is defined as "the property in question can not be put to a
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official
controls" . Economic considerations shall not constitute undue
hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms
of the ordinance. Under strict interpretations of the
Recreational Beachlot Ordinance, the applicant would be permitted
a recreational beachlot and would therefore have use of the prop-
erty. Although the proposed recreational beachlot would not be
permitted a dock under the Recreational Beachlot regulations , it
could be used for picnics , swimming and other recreational acti-
vities . In a letter dated November 12, 1987, the City Attorney
reviewed the variance request (Attachment #4 ) .
Since a hardship does not exist, the variance to the Recreational
Beachlot conditions should not be approved. If the Board of
Adjustments or City Council feels a dock and/or additional over- '
night storage of boats should be permitted, the Zoning Ordinance
should be amended rather than approving a variance.
Summary '
The Board of Adjustments must act on two variance requests . The
first is to permit a dock on a recreational beachlot that does
not have 100 feet of depth. The second is to permit one addi-
tional boat to be stored overnight on a recreational beachlot
dock. ,
The City Attorney responds to several questions of the Planning
Commission and addresses the "facts" required by the ordinance to
be established.
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the
Council shall not grant, a variance unless they find the
following facts :
A. That the literal enforcement of the Ordinance would cause
undue hardship and practical difficulty.
B. That the hardship is caused by special conditions and cir-
cumstances which are peculiar to the land and structure
involved and which are not characteristic of or applicable to
other lands of structures in the same district.
C. That the granting of the variance is necessary for the preser-
vation and enjoyment of substantial property rights .
D. That the special conditions and circumstances are not a con- I
sequence of a self-created hardship.
1
I
Stratford Ridge Variance
' February 8 , 1988
Page 4
E. That the variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect
the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the City of
the neighborhood wherein the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
' Given the City Attorney' s opinion, staff recommends the Board of
Adjustments adopt the following:
' "The Board of Adjustments recommends denial of the variance
request to permit a dock on Outlot A, Stratford Ridge subdivision
and deny the variance request to permit the overnight storage of
4 boats on a recreational beachlot dock. "
ATTACHMENTS
' 1 . Section 5-9-11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2 . 1982 Recreational Beachlot Ordinance.
3 . 1986 Recreational Beachlot Ordinance.
4 . Letter from Roger Knutson dated November 12 , 1987 .
5 . Letter from Craig Freeman dated February 2 , 1988 .
6 . Preliminary plat dated December 14, 1987 .
1
iii
li
B. Emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to
or located across a street from any residential II
iiiuse.
11. Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum
I
standards are met in addition to such other conditions
as may be prescribed in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200
feet of lake frontage.
B. No structure, portable chemical toilet, ice fishing I
II house, camper, trailer, tent, recreational vehicle -
or shelter shall be erected, maintained or stored
upon any recreational beach lot. I
iiC. No boat, trailer, motor vehicle, including but not
limited to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized I
mini-bike, all-terrain vehicle or snowmobile shall
II be driven upon or parked upon any recreational
beach lot.
II D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for I
overnight camping.
E. Boat launches are prohibited. I
F. No recreational beach lot shall be used for
purposes of overnight storage or overnight mooring II
li of more than three (3) motorized or non-motorized
watercraft per dock. If a recreational beach lot is
allowed more than one dock, however, the allowed
I
31 number of boats may be clustered. Up to three (3)
sail boat moorings shall also be allowed. Canoes,
windsurfers, sail boards, and small sail boats may I
be stored overnight on any recreational beach lot
ii
if they are stored on racks specifically designed
for that purpose. No more than one (1) rack shall
be allowed per dock. No more than six (6)
II
I
watercraft may be stored on a rack. Docking of
other watercraft or seaplanes is permissible at any
II time other than overnight. I
G. No dock shall be permitted on any recreational
beach lot unless it has at least 200 feet of lake
frontage and the lot has at least a 100 foot depth. II
il No more than one dock may be erected on a
recreational beach lot for every 200 feet of lake
frontage. In addition, 30, 000 square feet of land
I
11 is required for the first dock and an additional
20, 000 square feet is required for each additional
dock. No more than three (3) docks, however, shall ' II
be erected on a recreational beach lot.
II J /o-
P 1\.l3 v . 1/ 1i/ va..
2/17/82
' b. No motor vehicle, including but not limited to
any motorcycle, motorized mini-bike, all-terrain
II vehicle, or srnwmobile, shall be driven upon or
parked upon any recreational beach lot.
I c . No recreational beach lot shall be used for
overnight camping purposes .
d. No recreational beach lot shall be used for
purposes of overnight storage or overnight
mooring of watercraft in abutting waters , or
overnight docking of boats , or other watercraft;
I provided, however, that canoes may be stored
overnight on any recreational beach lot if said
canoes are stored in canoe racks specifically
' designed for that purpose. Docking of watercraft
or seaplanes is permissible, however, at any
time other than overnight.
I
I •
1
I
e . No boat trailer shall be allowed upon any recrea-
I tional beach lot; boats , seaplanes or other water-
craft may be launched from any recreational beach
lot if accomplished without the use of any
I f.
motor vehicle, trailer, or wheeled dolly .
No seasonal dock or permanent dock shall be
permitted on any recreational beachlot, unless
I 140' said recreational beachlot is not less than
7____.---1 one hundred (100) feet wide at both the ordinary
high water mark and at a point one hundred (100)
feet landward from the ordinary -high water mark,
I ' One dock may be erected upon any recreational
\--- 10O.' I beach lot which meets the minimum dimensional
requirements set forth in both this subparagraph
IL-A1��i " f" and in subparagraph "g" of this Section 6 . 04 (10) .
g. No recreational beach lot dock shall exceed six (6)
il feet in width, and no such dock shall exceed the
greater of the following lengths: (a) fifty (50)
{ feet or, (b) the minimum straight-line distance
ilnecessary to reach a water depth of four (4) feet .
-4- M g�owl-‘6
1111 '
'oZ
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES , MINNESOTA
IL
ORDINANCE NO. 47-BH
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SE ZONING ORDINANCE I 14.04 OF THE CHANHASSEN
,,,E CITY COUNCIL ORDAINS :
IIIII!
SECTION 1 . Section 6.04, subparagraph 10 of Ordinance 47 ,
the Zoning g Ordinance ,
is amended in its entirety to read as follows : i
tanards
d
Recreational beach lots provided the following minimum s radardsd
are met in addition to such other conditions as may be p
in the permit:
A. Recreational beach lots shall have at least 200 feet of
lake frontage.
portable chemical toilet, ice fishing house ,
camper, trailer, ; I
B. co structure, portable
tent, recreational vehicle or shelter
shall be erected, maintained or stored upon any recreational 1 i
beach lot. II
trailer, motor vehicle , including but not limited
C. No boat, all-terrain
to cars, trucks, motorcycles, motorized mini-bike, a l-te
iii
vehicle or snowmobile shall be driven upon or
any recreational beach lot.
D. No recreational beach lot shall be used for overnight 1 ;
camping. II E. Boat launches are prohibited.
purposes of 111
F . No recreational bea�hovernight shall
mooring used
offor
moPerphan three
overnight storage or per dock. If !
(3) motorized or non-motorized watercraft p
a recreational beach lot is allowdmore tha one
eeddock, IF the allowed number of as
Up to three (3) sail boat moorings shall also be allowed.
windsurfers, sail boards , and small sail boats `
Canoes, recreational beach lot
may be stored overnight on any recreational
designed for
if they are stored on racks specifically
that purpose . No more than one (1) rackfshall be allowed
Y II
per dock. No more than six (6) seaplanes is
on a rack. Docking of other watercraft or seas
permissible at any time other than overnight.
G. No dock shall be permitted on any
recreational beach lot II
unless it has at 1e100 foot depth. Nok more othageone ddock
lot has at least a I
may be erected on a recreational beach lot for every 200
feet of lake In an additional
of land is require
E citYa oeo. 1 ii
3
ii
LAW OFFICES
GRANNIS, GRANNIS, FARRELL & KNUTSON
DAVID L. GRANNIS- 1874-1961 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELECOPIER:
DAVID L.GRANNIS,JR. - 1910-1980 POST OFFICE BOX 57 (612)455-2359
VANCE B. GRANNIS 403 NORWEST BANK BUILDING DAVID L. HARMEYER
VANCE B. GRANNIS,JR. M. CECILIA RAY
PATRICK A. FARRELL 161 NORTH CONCORD EXCHANGE ELLIOTT B. KNETSCH
DAVID L.GRANNIS, III SOUTH ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55075 MICHAEL J MAYER
ROGER N. KNUTSON
' TELEPHONE: (612)455-1661
November 12 , 1987
Ms. Jo Ann Olsen
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: Stratford Ridge Development
Case No. 87-17
Dear Jo Ann:
Your November 4, 1987, letter asks a series of questions
' regarding the Stratford Ridge Development recreational beachlot
C.U.P. request:
Q. The Commission wants to be able to permit the applicant to
have a dock on the recreational beachlot. How can they do it?
A. The Board of Adjustment and Appeal has the ability to
' grant a variance. The better approach would be to amend
the ordinance.
' Q. How would approving a dock on the recreational beachlot
impact the Lake Riley court case and would it set a
precedent? The Planning Commission feels there are different
' circumstances and issues.
A. The equal protection clause of the Minnesota and United
States Constitution requires that similarly situated
' property be treated similarly. The plaintiff in the Lake
Riley case would argue that the cases are similar; I
would argue that they are not. Granting the variance
would give the applicant another argument that the City
would not have to deal with if the variance is not
granted. The only difference I see between the two
situations is that one can' t comply with the depth
' requirement and the other can' t comply with the size
requirement.
NOV 1 6 1387
' 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
I
Jo Ann Olsen
November 12, 1987
Page Two
Q. Is there an existing hardship to permit a variance to allow
the dock? What is the definition of a hardship, is it no use
of the land or no dock?
A. The hardship is that without a variance they can' t have a
dock. If this is a qualifying hardship, then everyone who
fails to meet minimum ordinance requirements would be
entitled to a variance. Minn. Stat. § 462. 357, subd. 6
defines "undue hardship" as:
The property in question cannot be put to a '
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by
the official controls, the plight of the landowner
is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner, and the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of
the locality. Economic considerations alone shall
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the
ordinance.
"Undue hardship" applies to the use of the land, not the
dock.
Q. The Commission feels that it is physically impossible to meet
the requirement of the 100 foot depth, that a dock existed
prior to the ordinance and that the ordinance therefore
inflicts the hardship. As a note, the property owner had a
dock on the property proposed for the recreational beachlot,
but this dock has not existed for over a year.
A. Since the dock was removed there are no non-conforming
rights to put it back. If "physical impossibility" to
meet the ordinance requirement was all that was required
for a variance, then ordinance restrictions would have
little if any meaning in relationship to existing lots.
Q. The Commission questioned that if a variance could not be
justified to allow the dock on the beachlot, that we should
review the Subdivision Ordinance which defines a lot as a
separate parcel if it is divided by a street. The Commission
felt that it should not be considered as a separate lot. They
felt that it should be permitted to be joined with the
property across the street. '
A. The City can change the ordinance requirements. A lot
divided by a street, however, doesn' t function as a 111 single lot. You could count both halves of the lot for
lot size requirement, but what about setbacks, lot
coverage, lot frontage?
I
IJo Ann Olsen (11 411
November 12, 1987
Page Three
If you need any additional information, please call me. If
it would be helpful I will attend a Planning Commission meeting
' and discuss this with the Commi
Ver truly your ,
' GRA N I S, GRA ■ S, £R EL ,
•N, P.A.
BY.
Roger ■ . Knutson
RNK:srn
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED VARIANCE
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Board of
Adjustments and Appeals will hold a Public Hearing on Monday,
February 8 , 1988, at 7 : 00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 690 Coulter Drive. The purpose of this
hearing is to consider the application of Robert Pierce to
receive a lot depth variance to the required 100 foot depth for a
recreational beachlot to have a dock on property zoned RSF,
Residential Single Family and located on Minnewashta Parkway,
approximately 1 mile north of Highway 5 . 1
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for
public review at City Hall during regular business hours.
All interested persons are invited to attend this public
hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal .
Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City Planner
Phone: 937-1900
(Publish in the Carver County Herald on January 27, 1988) .
t
1
1
1
5 1
. 1
FEB 2 1988 1
CITY OF CHANHASSE1
I ,
. . -- •■■•,:-,,. _
‘ ,
•.• ---* ., .. - . ..... • ,--,,.:-
_........ __
, ii? 62 NO: ' •.17
\
„ Ii sgrEE3Dors—wp...„—
.. ,
wil sill, 1...Z. NI • 1
I I Az '
_.,
, Mr
. 1 S 7
..
. 0 ...•iv to-:za, - . ,Iiiiv.._
ih.11,-41 11 aL"' ellP?
. . A ,E,.. ow am • ,...• 1.c- --
: 3100" Mt ,.1
,..-11.il : • --- P a •
.
Illi ' ii, 1
-', 4 6 ill a :
I . AWIllir .
1 "I iit
ilf,/1/ .
Or
4-- I
'''. -4"t.41%. \ cc 2 lij ' i i'i „ : i• b. . '\■.,.1,
, . .
-=-. - , 1 • • ' tl•
g•,,CIF • "ireCIPSIL"- rvia - T ,_ -.:---- - '-■___ -
I ' ■0144-g trIVI '1"willk‘ ,....-,.....-
i OP4-i-ott6. . ippra ......,., , . s /'
\ -
.
......* , ra ,, ,,
I . --,0%
, .'"wailiii# 4b('41sain, area, -40,MP
• a`' 10 It ..
,,,trim• ,..). ire. .:.,11*----/:;•\').
..;
•-• . ..._ 1.-rb" - .:t_l_...LJL_/ )
I „
i•
, •
I LAKE - 11110"
..... .? I/
I *
3 % ‘44,4144r M / NNEWASHTA 'i
i . • :ManilillAP( '
. .....mr ..
, -...
RD
_
..,.
I .___+____ V.,Pi G S R_O A 0 % ss ID LID—r-tr-'
. -
t
I : E',sy,.,
.. .-
•c
41-- ---T
cr_i 11.4
I
I
I Itil 4,.. ,
, - - -
.. 0\
--r--"=
.... = 1`.5T JOE /In- , a4
- .
IF' 1 i.1,-
...---
I sc
.t = ;,, PON•\.1 , 1 jammw
! . ‘
II ,sc„,;#
,
"4 4W1Inli ,,._
, _ ,
, . t.. 1--„,
,
I
, 111pONti \
11111—Wit .
...i.F.LE
--,-,,
'L ,
, R
.■-.4 a_
LI ii Cr E.:
• ---.--..4:. f....; ,y !_.
.
„ (7D.
- .
1 ' .
i . rp• =-. •
' . 116 i 01 MIMI
I i
11•111111111
i -
I ,, _
-
s'41. ., Ilia
.----.
i .. 4 Vit . -
.. ,
I.
_ -...„.
- 11.
I ,
I x
fl. • .,
1 •
4.4
I
4.0.-• 1
.„. _
L • ' .
I■•■•••=111Mmumm. • .
. . I
■
I •••-
. . N
r''''- . ••■
..
I