1977 05 25
~
REGULAR ?LANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 25, 1977
e
Mal MacAlpine called the meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. with the following
members present: Dick Dutcher, Roman Roos, Hud Hollenback, Jerry Neher,
Walter Thompson, and Les Bridger. Craig Mertz and Russell Larson were
present.
Hud Hollenback moved to delete Housing Goals from this agenda and schedule
it for the second meeting in June. Motion seconded by Dick Dutcher.
Motion unanimously approved.
MINUTES: Dick Dutcher moved to approve the April 30, 1977, Special
Planning Commission minutes. Motion seconded by Hud Hollenback. Motion
unanimously approved.
Amend the May 11, 1977, Planning Commission minutes by adding the
following:
1. Robert Reichert Public Hearing. In the restrictions, reviewed by
the Planning Commission, for the outlots no mention was made of
prohibiting docks on the outlots other than the association lot. Mr.
Reichert agreed to incorporate that restriction.
2. Saratoga Lane Public Hearing. At this public hearing is the first
time Planning Commission members heard of any possibility of public
interest in a public road or an alleged public road.
e
Jerry Neher moved to approve the May 11, 1977, Planning Commission
minutes as amended. Motion seconded by Les Bridger. The following voted
in favor: Les Bridger, Roman Roos, Dick Dutcher, and Jerry Neher.
Walter Thompson, Mal MacAlpine, and Hud Hollenback abstained. Motion
carried.
MOTHER-IN-LAW APARTMENTS: Mr. and Mrs. Willard Johnson were present.
The question before the Planning Commission is, should the R-l Use
District be expanded to include a mother-in-law apartment to be used
by a natural or adoptive parent of the fee owner or contract buyer of a
piece of property as an accessory use. The City Planner recommended the
ordinance be amended to include mother-in-law apartments.
Bruce Pankonin - I believe the City should amend the ordinance to allow
a living parent to reside with a child in the City and I think the City
should try to change the policies of the Sewer Board regarding the SAC
units. I don't think the City wants to give status to a duplex by
requiring payment of an additional sewer and water unit.
e
Russell Larson - Let's dispose of one issue now,that I think Jerry Neher
raised the last time we met on this; can this restriction be accomplished
by a deed restriction? I can't find any legal authority for a
municipality to enforce a private covenants in court. We don't have that
authority. This is a matter, a neighbor who might be offended by a
violation of a private covenant could act on but we don't have that
authority. I feel strongly that there is no practical or feasible way
of enforcing a provision which would allow for a mother-in-law apartment
once the mother-in-law moves out. You have got, essentially, another
dwelling unit in one structure. The mother-in-law moves out or the
house is sold and the family moves to another town, the buyer looks at
that apartment, looks at that two dwelling unit, he is buying a duplex.
He is looking at the prospect of buying a duplex and renting it out or
possibly putting his mother-in-law in there. I am concerned about what
representations are made at the time of sale to a-buyer.
Planning Commission Meeting May 25, 1977
-2-
~
The City has issued a building permit to allow the construction of a
mother-in-law apartment. Nobody checks those building permits when you
examine the title of a piece of property. There is no way that we can
enforce it. 4IJ
Bruce Pankonin - If you have a single family house, take Hud Hollenback's
house, with a split foyer, with a kitchen upstairs and a kitchen
downstairs and his Dad moves in downstairs and makes a bowl of soup in
the morning. That isn't allowed at the present time but he can have
two kitchens for his own private family use. If Hud sold his house
the new buyer, I don't see where he would immediately presume that he
could rent the basement out to another family. He could legally put
a blood relative or an adoptive parent down the basement. It's the way
the structure is constructed where the entrances are through a common
entrance and there are now two, like Walt's house where there are two
separate entrances and units are not connected, that's what we are
speaking of.
Russell Larson - I am thinking of, as our ordinance defines here, a
dwelling unit is defined as a dwelling unit which consists of one or
more rooms used exclusively as living quarters for one family only and
containing complete kitchen and bath facilities permanently installed.
Bruce Pankonin - The problem is, let me give you an example, an individual
comes in and he wants to build a house and he wants a separate kitchen
facility for his mother-in-law. We said no. So he builds the house
and he goes off like everybody else and wires the thing up without a
permit. 'You use different standards for judging the construction of
the dwelling unit. If it was a basement like it's supposed to be, the
plans show, the building inspector looks at it differently. If it's
a dwelling unit with a kitchen with a mother-in-law living there he
would use different standards to judge it. It will not receive a fair
inspection for a living unit for the mother. That's the real danger.
Russell Larson - I go back to the earlier concerns if I may beat this
drum a little harder. I am concerned about the fiscal aspects of this.
The sewer and water assessments. The SAC charges. If we are going to
be consistent in this town we are going to have to and I will have to
make a recommendation to the City that if this thing goes through that
those units get another sewer and water and SAC charge. We have no
control over what Metropolitan Waste Control comes in. There is another
matter and we employ it every day. It is employed by the police
department, we employ it, it's the matter of discretionary enforcement.
You are caught going 50 mphin a 35 mph zone. The policeman doesn't
give you a ticket. He warns you. We might find a situation, an
aggravated situation, where you are not going to vigorously enforce the
ordinance. Let's be practical, this happens, but when there is an
abuse of the situation, that's when we would step in.
Jerry Neher - There is only one thing about that Russ, somebody building
a new home now, then it's no. There is no discretionary enforcement
there.
e
Planning Commission members commented on the issue.
Walter Thompson - I am not in favor of modifying the present R-l because
I think as the attorney has explained, presently it might be all right
but sometime in the future the problems are going to be insurmountable.
Jerry Neher - I am in favor of modifying it myself. I feel that in a ~
lot of cases children have obligations to parents. If a situation came
up where my parents did have to move in with me, it limits their freedom
not to be able to do for themselves and what they can do for themselves
e
e
e
...
-3-
Planning Cornrnission r-1eetingr-1ay 25, 1977
but maybe they just need a little watching., I would definitely not want
it in the house I've got now so I would have to move out of Chanhassen
in order to provide for them. If they would have to use my kitchen"
facilities then you are taking their independence away from them.
Hud Hollenback - I am against amending it. Part Of the reasons are the
reasons Jerry gave for amending it. My problem with it is simply the
definition of dwelling unit and limiting it to one kitchen. There are
a lot of citizens in the community all ready that have two kitchens
and I don't know what we do then if we are going to enforce it, have them
take the second kitchen out or what. By definition of family, etc. we
are encouraging or allowing in-laws or parents to live with you but it
does make it difficult when there is only one kitchen, particularly if
you have several levels to the house. I think they should be indepenqent.
I think by amending it you really are opening the thing up for,
encouraging rentals and things like that which I think would be very
difficult to police.
Les Bridger - I would not be in favor of amending the ordinance. I
think asa City we have got to look ahead at the legal ramifications
that most surely would come up. I think ,we owe that to the citizens
to take that into consideration. I think, as our City 'Attorney has
pointed out, there are some very valid reasons why we should not open
this up.
Roman Roos - I don't want to amend the ordinance at all. I look at it
from the standpoint that this is an age of do it yourself and we will
run across that situation and you two spoke of that, mothers and fathers
coming in. I think the degree" of the ordinance is to give us a means
of enforcing and holding down a common situation so it doesn't get
exploited. As long as we can:somehow enforce any abusive nuisance
or excessive nuisance this is what we have got at this point in time.
If you are going to have your mother come in with you or your father
come in with you and you thought you were going to put a stove, downstairs
I think probably the majority of the people are going to do it anyhow.
It's because of nuisance such as the Koehnen situation then as long as
somebody complains and :somebody charges the City with doing something
about that nuisance then I think we have met the criteria in terms of
what this ordinance is all about.
Dick Dutcher - I think that there is a problem in the emotional
connocation of mother-in-law apartment orapartIpents in'the proposed
ordinance. I would feel a lot more comfortable with the existing
ordinance itself in a more expansive definition of what a family is
and what a dwelling unit is, however, since this is what we are being
asked to do and this apparently is the only vehicle that we have
available to us for that purpose to allow the kind of construction that
brought this to a head to begin with, i.e. allowing a family to bring in
their parents or in-laws into their home because of one thing or another
and because of the point that was made by the City Planner of encouraging
adequate building inspection of these units so that they are not out law
units if you will. I think that the 'comments that were raised about
enforcement are really the crux of the issue because that seems to be
the problem where there are abuses and there is a lack of enforcement,
then you have difficulties. I think that regardless whether it's the
current ordinance or whether it's, if this is accepted as being modified
you are going to have enforcement problems anyway. I think the key is
adequate enforcement. I don't feel as a City we should be dictating
, <
Planning Commission Meeting May 25, 1977
-4-
lifestyles within a residence and in effect by denying a person the
right to modify their home in a safe and constructive way to accommodat.
their family we wou'ld be doing this. For those reasons I would vote
in favor of the Planner's reconimendation with the strict limitations
that would be put on it, i.e. residents family, recognizing that you may
have enforcement problems although I think we've enforcement problems
right now.
Mal MacAlpine - My opinion is that the present ordinance broadly takes
care of a situation where you might have a mother-in-law or a blood
relative moving in. The only thing it doesn't permit is the second
kitchen facility and I accept that and that makes it somewhat restrictive
because it's obviously more convenient for an elderly person to live on
the main level and to have kitchen facilities on that level and I accept
that. So if I had the situation come up I would have to do one of two
things; -r would have to look at different living quarters for myself,
different arrangements for my mother-in-law and I would think long and
hard what I would do. Generally, I would have to say amending the
ordinance would not solve-the situation either because I think it creates
a possible additional problem in the way of enforcement for one thing
and the protection of people that move into a single residence area
expecting it to be maintained as a single residential area.
Les Bridger moved that we, as a Planning Commission recommend to the
City Council that we do not recommend a change in the ordinance but
leave the ordinance as it is presently stated. Motion seconded by
Walter Thompson. The following voted in favor: Les Bridger, Walter
Thompson, Mal MacAlpine, Roman Roos, and Hud Hollenback. Dick Dutcher tit
and Jerry Neher voted no. Motion carried.
Dick Dutcher - I think that my position in favor of it would have
been qualified by what Russ just said, the intent should be spelled out
for mother-in-1aws or close relations only and that's it.
Jerry Neher - That would also be my feelings.
ROBERT-REICHERT REZONING AND SUBDIVISION: Bob Reichert was present.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 11 to consider
rezoning and subdivision of the property. The City Planner recommended
the Planning Commission find Mr. Reichert's request to be positively
consistent with the spirit and intent of the City's plan for land use,
transportation, and utilities and recommend the Council rezone the
property from R-1A to R-1. All lots to be created are buildable sites.
The out10ts on the south side of Pleasant View Road could create an
environmental hazard if not properly controlled. The DNR has posted
the area as a bass spawning bed. The City Planner recommended the
Planning Commission find the subdivision plan to be positively consistent
with the spirit and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance, Comprehensive
Plan, and Zoning Ordinance provided a Conservation Easement is placed on
all proposed out10ts. The purpose of the easement would be to preserve
the natural and environmental values of the shore1and and to prevent
the deterioration of its scenic qualities and further to prevent erosion
and destruction of marshland vegetation and to prevent the loss of
fish and wildlife habitat areas.
e
HudHo11enback moved that the Planning Commission recommends the
Council rezone the subject property from R-1A to R-1. Dick Dutcher
seconded the motion. Motion unanimously approved.
I' . \1
e
e
e
Planning Commission Meeting May 25, 1977
-5-
Bob Reichert - I agree with Bruce in everything he has brought out. I
think the best way is to forget the common area. In fact forget the
whole deed restriction document. All we are doing is looking at a
subdivision based upon; are they legal lots and the conservation area
that Bruce is talking about. It's all right because there is only one
dock at that end of the lake. It happens to be on my property. It is
used by a neighbor. I think it's a good canoeing lake. A conservation
district would not destroy this element. You still have canoes and I
do believe you can still swim. I think what Bruce has been talking about
fits into the scheme of things.
Dick Dutcher - You would agree then to a restriction of no docks at
anyplace along your lake front?
Bob Reichert - I would agree to it but the people that will own the land
later maybe you will have to convince them of this. I assume that you
have ordinances covering this in the community.
Bruce pankonin - I think the bottom line, Bob, is that we don't want
motorized water craft going in the spawning bed and tearing up the
aquatic vegetation.
Bob Reichert - It's reasonable. In fact I agree because that is a
shallow part of the lake. My neighbors that came in at the public
hearing responded very effectively. They didn"t want a common area.
They didn't want a lot of docks. They didn't want motorized boats and
I agree. The only reason I came up with those deed restrictions was
for the association for the common area that we talked about and now I
just tore it up.
Craig Mertz - Would the outlots be for sale to persons buying the
landlocked building sites? Who's going to own the outlots?
Bob Reichert - I plan to sell them with the contiguous lot.
Dick Dutcher moved to recommend the Council approve the subdivision
subject to a Conservation Easement being placed across the Outlots
located on the south side of Pleasant View Road as indicated on the
public hearing exhibit of May 11, 1977. Said Conservation Easement to
include a prohibition on the placement of docks on said outlots, a
prohibition of dredging off of said outlots, a prohibition against the
cutting of marshland vegetation, a prohibition against the launching
of motorized boats, a prohibition against any distrubance of the
spawning area posted in the waters abutting the outlots, and a prohibition
against any filling or excavation on the outlots. The purpose of these
restrictions would be to preserve the natural environmental values of
the shoreland and to prevent deterioration of it's scenic qualities and
further to prevent erosion and destruction of marshland vegetation and
to prevent the loss of fish and wildlife habitat areas. The prohibition
against docks takes care of any existing docks on the property. Motion
seconded by Hud Hollenback. Motion unanimously approved.
BLUFF CREEK DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT: Several area residents were
present. The City Council has requested the Planning Commission review
the street and make recommendations. The issue is the speed of trucks
on the street and what identity should the road assume. Residents have
petitioned the City to lower the speed limit and remove all trucks from
the road. The City cannot prohibit trucks nor can the City restrict
the speed on Bluff Creek Drive because the street is a state aid street.
The City Planner recommended the Planning Commission hold a public
hearing to get imput from the neighborhood, county, and private interest
and petition the Commissioner of Highways to reduce the speed.
Planning Commission Meeting May 25, 197jj-,-;'
(" r ~ 1
-6:...r r
"'Planning Commission meinbers corrimented oh'the. proposal .and"un whether
to hold a"public hearing at this time~
Jerry Neher - I am still not fully convinced that this is a nature for ~
the Planning Commission due to the fact we have more or less 'been ..,
thrown a hot potato. It seems to be quite an issue. I am in full
sympathy with them because I know the road too. However, I feel that as
long as it is this controversial I think we should have a public.hearing
on this.
Walter Thompson - I am inclined to agree with Jerry's sentiments.
Hud Hollenback - I don't agree. I think if we have to we can consider a
motion to the Council recommending that they reclassify the street and
lower the speed limits and suggest if they like they hold their own
public hearing. I think we are just waisting an extra month or so and
I think everybody wants the same solution.
Les Bridger - I have.t:o agree with Hud. I think the people living there
have a real problem and it's a problem that I think should be handled
as expeditiously as possible. There are safety factors involved and I
would like to see it go along as fast as possible. If the City Council
can take action, perhaps it might be duplication of effort on our part.
Roman Roos - I would like to see it done as effectively and as quickly
as possible. I see quite a few letters here I am not sure if that
entails everybody along that road that's affected by that road. There
are private concerns that should also be affected.
Dick Dutcher - I agree. I think there should be a public hearing.
However, can we recommend some short term action now without incurring
a long range commitment or liability for-a certain aourse of action?
I would feel more 'comfortable with making a recommendation to the
Council if there 'are no long range problems with removing this
designation that they do this at as early a date as possible, however, ~
if you do that you may 'riot be considering other valid interests. There"-
may be commercial interests in the street whether they are valid or not
I think they still have to be considered.
Mal MacAlpine - I thirik the two concerns here, Bruce, are, 1) we want
something done relatively quickly to address the short term problem and
I think whatever action we take we have to addresS ourselves to that.
Secondly, I have no problem with holding a public hearing because if
that's in order and the City Attorney feels that's in order, from a
legal standpoint and a technical standpoint we can hold a public hearing.
If that's going to delay a short term action then I am going to hold a
vote on whether we should have the public hearing or not.
Craig Mertz - In the absence of a dropping of the state aid designation
the only action the City could take to reduce the speed limit would be
to petition the Highway Commissioner to reduce the speed limit.
Dick Dutcher moved that the Planning Commission sees no reason to
reconsider the present designation of aluff Creek Drive as a neighborhood
collector, however, the Commission feels that the state aid designation
is not crucial to that neighborhood collector statuS and that the City
Council should feel free to drop the state aid status. Motion seconded
by HudHollenback. Motion unanimously approved.
DNR SHORELA.ND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS: Hud Hollenback moved that the
Planning Commission recommends the Council adopt an ordinance incorpora~.' g
the DNR Shoreland Management Act by reference. Motion seconded by ..,
Jerry Neher. Motion unanimously approved.
ECOLOGICAL COMMITTEE GOALS FOR LOTUS LAKE: This will be discussed at
a future meeting.
. .
.
-
e
1.. Planning Commission Meeting May 25, 1977 -7-
MINNEWASHTA ~EG~ONAL PAEK -
METROPOLITAN SYSTEM STATEMENT: The City received a letter from John
Boland dated April 28, 1977. This is the formal submission pursuant
to the Mandatory Planning Act. The City has 60 days in which to appeal
it, either the state Public Hearing Examiner or the Metropolitan Land
Use Advisory Committee. Mr. Boland's letter recognizes that the City
has a plan amendment for the industrial park. Pat Murphy was present.
The Planning Commission discussed the System Statement in its entirety
and Dick Dutcher moved to recommend to the Council that they initiate
the appeals process and express the concerns of this motion to the
Land Use Advisory Board or the State Office of Hearing Examiners.
1. Question the desirability of Lake Minnewashta and Lake Riley as
seaplane bases due to the fact that regional parks are proposed
on both lakes and surface water conflicts could result.
2. We recognize the regional responsibility and the county responsibility
and it is not Chanhassen's desire for Carver County to provide
active recreational activities on Parcel D but it is important
in the regional context as sighted in the Amendments to the Carver
County Master Plan dated March 1976, to preserve for future generation~
the unique and endangered vegetation as outlined and documented in
the Carver County Board's Resolution adopting the Master Plan for
County Open Space on Lake Minnewashta. A copy of the County Board's
Resolution is attached hereto and made part of these minutes. We
find that the amendments to the Carver County Master Plan dated
March 1976 as submitted to the Metr9Politan Council provide adequate
documentation and support for inclusion of Parcels C and D in the
regional park proposal.
Motion seconded by Hud Hollenback. Motion unanimously approved.
A motion was made by Jerry Neher and seconded by Walter Thompson to
adjourn. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Don Ashworth
City Manager
t.t1.. .,.?V
~?
r:~-.
~':'::'." '.
Il'
r.
e'
e
BOARD OF COUNTY CLlMMlSSIONEHS
CA:..vtR.(OUNTY, Mml~r~OTA
Oole__ ___~.9....~9:ZQ:.
Motion by ComlT.issioner __. .l.to.l.YJ.1c1er.. _._~__Sec;\)ndcc.l by ComOlission\;r _..._f:SS.. '
...---.---
.-..._._~_.
~~..:::;:..=...:..~,;;.:;:;:c.._.~
_.~:..-.-:;~
the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission
has recommended that parcels C and Din proposed
Lake Minnewashta Park be excluded from considera...
tioll for acquisition as a part of the regional
park system pendi 09 further deta i1. and
the Carver County ,Park Commissionhasrevlewed the
master plan for Lakef.1jnnewashtaand recomniends that
parcels C and o remain in the plan \~ith mo.re detail
pro v ideo w 1th in t hema s t!i!r p landoc ument. '
NOW THEREFORE IE JT RESOLV~O that the Carver Co~nty ~oard of,
Commissioners does hereby amend the previously
adopted t.!aste "Plan by making the changes included
in the docume t entitled Amendments.to CarverCountv
Master Pl an d ted f4arch 1976. in order to :>rovi de the
detail reques ed.
WHEREAS.
WHEREAS.
YES
. ABSTAINEP
GJWl
_ Hnli-nv>;pr
Fc::.q
Schneider
Neaton
....,.---.--- --
"
State of Minne~ota I
\ S5.
County of Carver
I, William J. Schneider, duly clected, qU(llified anc! (I~ting County Auditor f?r'he tounty ofCar..tr, S!'.;t?
of Minnesota. do hereby certify thaI I have compared theforegoin!) c<opy ota molution wilhtl.e Od{;:i1ci
. minutes of lite proceeding~ oHlle Board of County Ccmmissionors, Cnrver County, Minnesota, atthcirsm!on
hald on the _~tb.___doy of ...., , M,.,.......h "19..:z6.-.nowon file in my office, ,and have'foundtho SOrll9 to
bit u troe ond corre,,! copy thereof.
Witnen my hond and official seal ut (haska, Minnesota,
19 L--.-
--~
..~
. . ......._..~.....__... -.........-..... ~.-'..<...;""' ._~~_.-.-....-..,.~ -. - . .-,...--,-..".-'
'1
~.i:...~...I..:.~;..:...:...'.~...,....
~~.l
;e
,?t
,~
iy. ,
AMENDMENTS TQ CARVER eDUITY MASTER PtAI
March 1976
Master Plan Summar.v,. page 5; Add the following paragTaphs
after the fi rst par..sJl.raph:
Because of the increasing interest in environmental
education, Ca rve rCo untywil 1, byreque st . con si del"
providing suitable areas within its regional 'park
system to be used for formal .and/orinformaLnature
demonstration Projects and stUdy areas. These areas
will be used by school classes. graups,a.ndindividuals,
These areas will I;ledesignedand maintained inafo,rm'
that would assist a student ~r.visitor ~o understand
some of the principles at workina naturEl ecosYstem.
Carver County recognizes active play areas asCi fLlnc-
tional and appropriate use in a regional park. Active
areas for badmiton, tennis, softball. shuffleboard , .
horseshoe, volleyball and other Held games play an
important part i na us er I s total Pll rk ex perlence . Carver
County normally would not. operate supervised or organized
recreational programs in these active play areas. but
would provide for programs to'pe operi!.ted byothel" units
of local government, so long a,s~uch programs did ,not
confl ict with the non-stru(:tured Pllrk activittes.
e
MiJlnewashta Site, Section II. page 9.
paragraph after the sixth para~raph:
Parcel D. lying east of T.H. #41 has been reviewed by,
personnel from the University of Minnesota Lanciscape
Arboretum and the Departmentof Natural Resources.
Forestry Division. They have expressed the opinion that
nO other small ~rea in the ehtire Stat~~ontains$ucha
diversity of mature trees and should be preserved. There
are groupings of canadian hemlock. ponderosapine. dOl,lglils
fir. Kentucky coffeetree, river birch. hackberry and
arborvitae plus many more common varieties. One unique
featllre of. thi s parcel is the, stand D,f mature .canadJall
he~lock which may well be the largest ~nd best stand in
Minnesota. When these trees were planted they were planted
in groupings, which is quite unusual. but aesthetic!llly
desirable. Thi~ great variety~f mature tree~ ~ndthe
interesting topographywoul dmake this parcel an ass.et
to any type of park. . It woul dbe usable with a minimum
of development costs.
Minnewashta Site, Section III, page 13; Add after the
paragraph regarding Nature Interpretive Area:
Trafls
The schematic plan repre~entation of pede~trianflowindi-
cates the concept of providing II trail system throughol,lt
the park. The trails will provide bothfQr access to
various areas within the park and for nature interpretion.
The trails will be multiple use on a seasonal baslsin that
they wfll be constructed in a manner that will allow for
active winter activities such as ski tourin~ and snowshoeing.
--
1
~iIt '
\ '...
.','{
'.'
e
e
r~
-,
Pedestrian access is proposed to crossT.H.#41andtllereby
make a direct connectipn to parcels C and D,. lhisaccess
across T .H. #41 should be gradeseparatedandsu;table f()t
multiple type trail uses. It would be. provided during the
major development phase, and should be coordinate4.with
future Minnesota Highway OepartmentsubgradingOf T.H.#212.
i f po s s 1 b 1 e.
Re9ional Trail ~ystem
Although the regional trail system has not yet been clearly.
defined, it appears that the lake MinnewashtaRegional Park
can serve as a major hub of a regional trai 1 s.ystemlinking
the proposed Shorewood, Chan ha ssen, Vi c tori aa ndCarve r ....
County trails with Lake Minnetonka, the Landscape Arboretul11.
Lake Riley Regional Park, Carver Park Reserve, the Minnesota
River Trail and the pro posed M.i nnes ota R tverVilll e,Y National
Wildl ite Recreation Area.. Parcel C, in addft.ion to its
other proposed uses, will bean important link in the primary
Chanhasseri trail and greenway system. This.trail...systemcan
directly link the Minnewashta site with Chanhassen'S.Lake
Ann Park, Lake Riley Regional Park and the Minnesota River
Valley systems. The mape-nt itl ed"Relationshi ps to Proposed
Trail System" graphically portrays the possible interconnecting
of re~ibnal facilities.
Minnewashta Site, Section IlIa page 14; Delete the paragraph
under Nature Demonstration an Study Area and replace with
the following paragr~ph:
The Mi nnetonka School Oi stri ct and the Uni verst ty. of Minnesota
Landscape Arboretum have requested that they be allowed to .
establish nature demonstration projects and study areas; in
cooperation with Carver County, in the general areas. defined
as parcels B, C and D. The areas would be designed and ..
maintained in conformance with guidelines established by
Carver County. The. more intensive study modules would be
located east ofT.H. #41 becaUSe of the physical features
available. The Landscape Arboretum has indicated th~t the
parcel D area would be particularly useful in teaching their
college plant materials courses. In regard to parCel 0, the
landscape ArboretUm has wr.itten that "We constantly receive
letters from llIany school s Houn4 the state that. des ire to
plant an arboretum for cl ass use; even if unl imi tedresources
were available to them it would be difficult to achieve what
is already on this property." .
The City of Chanhassen has requested that they be permitted
to use the portion of parcel C, as indicated pn the schematic
plan, for an active play area. It is proposed that this are.a
be developed by the city and the Minnetonka Community Schools
with the cooperation Of Carver County. Deve lopmentcosts
would be minimized because parking areas are present'y
available at the adjacent Minnetonka West JuniorH}gh
School. The sons and topography in the area aresuitab'le
for this type of development.
Minnewa~hta Site -Maps:
1. The Contour map i srevi sed to include. contoul"sfo.r that
portion of the proposed park east of T.H..#41.
2. An additional map is added showing therehtionship
Lake Minnewashtcl Park to ~roposed trail'ystems..
,
;..J',
['.;
..:, ,;
.i.' J
.. (:;,~
...:...... '~~'::"'.~ . .4"
" .:,'. . '---J -. '...." ~i.
\ t.... , . ..... :"~ I ;t"~'-- _~~:....{ ~
I .\~'?\' t. I :~. (0 ~~~ -~;~~ ,- .', \.:
f .1,-.'\ ,. ';,'ji- --...----,./~/-,.....~:;,,\-,...
\ \:f ,:1):' ....) //;;:;;.~~~---...~: {':,':-";-,,~:h'\:>',
\ ' ' .... /I .-::<;..........~....-~-...-'\ :-~~,~' ./r~;:.~,''', .~.:
,,\ .1 _- /// "," ....~ ') ~_.,_.......;--,' ,...
. \ \ .. ,.../& J"/,"/ ........... ",' I ("~' '.t- ,,~,";...
\ \ " __- /,..,:-'f~.(\' 'I I ,/"./ (\ 1- '/-....:~~..... "\,,(,
I' , _....._ _ .<:" ',,"-, . J, t t;' ,,\ t '} ...~ \ ...."" \.
{,\, ,___-__.:-:-: <.--~.....\_;......~_)f'r" ~.~.: \\.- \ \" .)4;;/- (. \\''''~\\:.
'.... ,'\..._...=::~. .-.:w'- :-_-:.:,........_.... ..._, ',...~......-.......,I ...~, /':/' / / t ~~l;l".. ',\...,,' \ \" ,~.~
, _~_.,.,. ___, /" ,__..,) ,"~ . . \. t./if,. ."r .' I I I.
,___ ...._.., ..._......_..--- ......... ~, ..... I/." ,'", y --"""/;"f'-~\. I,' I F
'\ ,.... c....., ___... " J..;j..'-' ~b:.t'"...._- /- I...... 4.. ~;~ //,' t"
\ : . \.') .~~~'_j ".___r.'.,y. :"". . '_=-"" E. 'i'~~"'f~:<>"/"
, 1 .~. ,..-...., '''', ,/~\. ",-1 \ I 1"".-
\ ' , \, ,/~~-:.~;'~::: r~'<" -~~~l~.~;:):' \;<;\, \(:~';);ff
" \ I / ) f'">o";1'_ .:,"'- ,_:1 . :'~"-t.J_\. r
n=-:f~/=L'--I"'A~"/>--:;;;~-:~; -.<~.:_~': ,>. '''~~0~:~~:~~(-;;;j' r~t .
..'_ __ " ,1.,1 / r </ . __..>.',...._...."" >--c ..:,;..>......-....'"': .1"' : ',i. . J/A...,>
.' _ <._,.j? :(\ ,\.\.\ _, ~'J/"""'-- ...,_..........-y.~.... ' \,J 'r ""'. />((".:1 ..
__ '_ __-.... \ \ I ~_.. .,...,/ ~~" -":".,' ~., ~,. \ ~/~
~- .r',. ----...I,'_j "\ ,'\\ ,.:J- ..... /q: , ," ",
__ . -------1 \ ',' r'. I -.....' /.... ~
- ,"-_----..-_-;,,-;,;~t-.:....::,,'..... \J \ ,,\ ".. \ \ '>;zt-:~~'--.. /? (2.,.ii:~"
"" /.' "',,:: ! \ ">.' . ,': \ J '",-::. ... :-:;~.'.. ,p..':"'......Vrf"!. '(.');,
\ . ',,_' "...... . 'I'" \ .' / '\.' :--"> ,. ,I.. 61 \, \}II C/'
I' ..\~.,)f ',-~', '" ('(:.. ,,:':--...... "l\'~-)'''' ".,\\C e;..,9
\ " " t' I _. .'.'. ",' '7.. "". ~/ //':" ^
"'\>1 'ii \ _~ "', ",' -~':""f;-:""~' (~ '<7\'\>>c
\ '1.' .' I' . - \ \ I \ '\, ,,'1'..' ~"" ..-J..( ,"
I .':! ". " .-- -. \ '}' . )'.' ...... ",1,"/' / ,,.0,, C' ~ },:-;'
\ ::."~'_<. I .'" "1 , ,/; , ,:..::.:-..;---: : (j''l,' ,'(
J" -'. /--'.'" 'J. / I (_ '. . . "",-::;-,.1/ ~,,-~.,-' ....,.
...- \\.........~',' 1'/ I '~~..... \ ~ ,,/ / I / ''''''''-. -- .. I~/ ....,..~ '-." ~
,'_-')" " ' :/ I,' '\., ..........- ,._=---.... II . .k' \
e \ \', I ., /11/ ,'1 I ,-:-..._~' I ~....I'. ...... .J--...:----........'- ".. "'.i',.... l' .~~-- I \\ t'
_... \, \, '"~_jl....',)//I ,'1, \', \'r:.~J/2' -~.:....."................'l"~;'1...."~.....~,.. ;"~.. __-~~.-..,....:4-._~......:. tl, \- ' .-:--
." '~, ~........""'....__ .r..;....; ,'/ /" :\ j ~ /,' " .. ;.{ ../ ......--.:............~................--:!::."':~--_...:.&...;:-.....::.... . ',', .::.'....7 \ \... --....:. \(
I ' ,_ r--.... __""" I " \) (.../_..... .....,,, ).""'..,..,........~.... ........ I' ...,..( ,~. r.. II
, ~{-"""_, \ " ...-:...-; _,' >/.,' ......_..._...... ',' I \- \ "'. / /i ..J.'....~ ;-,........'..........,......... .J.;- t"..._.......... -., '_......--....~,'<. \....... . .vo...., ... \ I'
" " ..., '..-..., (,<..f-""-.........../ { ".,/", c... ".\ I,' :' ..-..........":::"" -v....,........;.,-~-~ , ," '.....- "'~,"'-""..-- 'I"'" .~, '.....:.h.... ,I'
" .' .. ~ \" ,\...t.(' ", I"',' --.......1 \ (-" I : (. ,( ............~ "--:. ~4l('" ,,~ ",--~ / -......' :-, \...., -...... 'I' ~,' ....,\ Ii'
___I I , ~ I ""\ f.-I \" ~,., ........, ... \ ... I '\ - -- ",. -.... (, ") I' f I
~ I..--,~.__..__, l', ",,__;.1 \.,.... ....,\, ......................~ \, \1. "r \, 1\' \.....,.......... ~ J t
~t " 'I .........) I I -------- .... 'f' \' '... '. " I I \ \,,_..' '\ , r\ \ " I"'" '\11 0 Ii
.: i' ," (;1 >~ I / 1,_/----'1.....__----::::~J~..\.\. ,'",,-, \ \\ " '. I \ -.I a' '?-' ,I \ .l!" 0.:.... I{ \'
, '.:..__~.:...R. );, / I /--'=:'~:~;.__':=~--J."""':.' '.\ '.,":>...~ Ij \ \ , :,: I ~':" 1/' "'..... >~J!. --:--....,.~ I
. ~---. '-'J ,.-:.t=:::.~~_:.:/'-----....:.........~~..., >-,,, I " 'lo." : ' \ r,::I'_':' ) I"" .". \ ,I. cf,i .., 1\
"'c..- ,.(~."\ ~ -...,~~ ~ . -... ,'- - I ...,,~/.,.. \ ",...
. ..... \.....\ ......'f.,....::;-......-..------..,. ...(:)', I' .....1' "',"'~ . ..,...~ I /I_...__"':.J 1 \'\...,..,..~. \'-
.............'~:.~~:'.$f,.... 1.~";.:,:~~.~..J\t ,~ \ "',-<1/ "\.(//'''' -........ \\ "\'''-'''--\' ~' I
... -..;..-:.s.:~' '. . .....,.....~r...,.,~~~p:. .'-", i '\ ........-.. ~\, ~...l" \ :....,.., " ")"'- \
.~, '~.. .. Q .. V~.~I'...--....Sl--- .......... ij , '" \........./ ...) " \ : . y;r- I
. 1.1 \ 1 .. ~............ J~ I, ........, '- '........ /.. -, ,I ,........--, I.... ,. \ (--......" r, ~\ \
--::J _, #., ~ " '1:-,' " :,". 1 ,-' , I . '\ ~'..' [I . II \
.... .....;;c -:-... , It,'" , ''\- ~/. ..' I ,.....~ I J .;'... ,t.,. \~
_"'__ .."~" \....... ~I \ : ,\0" '" 1....../ 1 1~ ~~, It" '\.: .... : \11',:;:;;'
....-.... " ""__" '" '/.. ",' , _ -. /,' I . ~, If. " .. I (""l I
....... ,/_0/) /W'-'~:~I ,)'.1 ,'..,....J -. .1.:.....U
~. "...... ----...~I"r;""..../ ,/ ""'__'f') f\...\l. I. I \~
............................:--.. - '''', , ) ''''-:.,.-.~-'-' /'<<"r-~"~,j I~': ',.\ \;, , '(--"t' ~ '''Jw I
'. (_ .......'.~-;,.-: "'::__../ ... . ~::o.,;"'.1 -; , ..... ','
'~.'_ ....... ,........,,'. ,~... I _ -_..' I 0 \
_ I~~ -- ......-........J..... ...._~ ,,~... ....~.'4. ~. t-I ',.. r- .--- \
... __~_..~..........."-_....; ~ ,~','i'::-,.' ;'-~ C-')(JJV~
I ,Y - - '~~.... '~"""'~'<'''':'\i')/''' ~ q.: ~ 'I
.....,:::;::::".:::i", ,;, \ ^ '04 _- .oj.. . D \..
'" I -. ~. I".' ~ .<..- '
WI ('1' \ ) ,....I,I~... . ", ~ A:,,~~/t>'...._. I \
~ ' .. '. .................. -' ", -..:-, . '" .1
~ \\ /or.' "', ......:-/~{'.:'......'- ..,~..:....~. ;,l.,=__ I\~'
(1) ~r) G:.-;:....{ . :i~ ,h....:.. ......:::-::-.:.............t. ~j). ~L//' \:\\.,
. "'} ...'" ~ ~ {O ",' . '-~ ~'.Jl...{::;~'2..-3 \
, . ( (:.: ~.-1~,:::~f I'-'-(~~ ---;<~<.. _.:: - ...----- J\
::::'J 0 " 9'/,../I'(':"........J" ) I.~ 4 " -~"'-"....
::s-- . ) 8 ';/>:,.,-"':'-/ I'~ 11;)~) i~' ! .::!:..~;.. '.c ~ '~
i_I (/.:, I ">-f " : - , 0~-::: . . ~" ~
::J -::: \2l 4, "- --- :: I -= .' 0 ":~
~ CD! \ ~,' ~~~.=:-...>.4.~..\?\~.. h 2'( ..rr:ti ~ "~~..
~ ~! ) I -..c...~.//. r~. ;:?1. '.' L . \8 ~"
.... ~ ! JI, ~7"/f:2~ ~~. 1/ fuJ "'~~.
~ en'" ~+. #. (.~':r::--...~~~.-:.....9:. .... .\~\
1-. .p', ~ .to... 'f "-'.,;'!'.'.
, ':J
. ::r- I;" '.
.....
'0)
;l...
~y~;.
4l:
i~1
~.:.}._i.
f~"~ ,":
". .
;~
;?
g
o
-
".
.tI""...
~dtj~
:~ f~:J
~ ~~/!
<pll
Ii
:.lX . i{
=-~~,~I (
q/!
k.
"
'il,
,., ~ ..' .
~>'YI' Ij
" I
;UI
..:- .;')
J f
II
1:'
t:
r.
t~;.
O::x3
0(1)
.co
:::s _.
....0
0::1
CO)
.... -
(J)
~'f"
..., .
'*'
-
ro'"
{C-',," ,-
1',-'
~,A
"
f.,
,,ib
f.'""",>
~'~"
..
r'.
.
MINNEWASHTA PARK
RelatiQnsh1pto Prioposed Tra11 System
.
.1.
IDENTIFIED REGIONAL FACILITIES
...... .
PROPOSED TRAIL CORRIDORS
Carver County, ChasM~Chanhassen""""
Potential Regional Tra,ilCoITlPonents_
It