06-17-2019 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Project Name and/or Number: North Shore Meadows, LLC Area 1 The first area that was reviewed as an alternative was located in the northwest corner of the site near North Shore Drive. The area is relatively flat and does not contain as many mature trees.Area 1 is not feasible due to the following: o The pad would be located over 1,500 feet from the house,which is not viable for everyday use,equipment storage,and a recreational sport court. o The pad would be in close proximity to North Shore Drive(approximately 90 feet),which makes security of the storage building more vulnerable being so close to a public road. o No easy access road/path from existing driveway for storing and parking maintenance equipment.Additional filling and/or grading,along with tree removals would be needed to create a road from the driveway located 300 feet to the east. Area 2 The second area that was reviewed as an alternative site for the pad was located near the middle of the property.The area is relatively flat,and in reasonable proximity to incorporate an access road off the existing driveway. Reasons that Area 2 were not feasible are: o The landscape where the pad would be constructed is dominated by large mature sugar maple and basswood trees.The property owner has maintained and improved tree health throughout the property by removing invasive understory species,and providing necessary pruning of each tree. Placing the building pad in this area would significantly increase the number of tree removals needed to establish the building pad and driveway access. o Proximity to the house is not adequate for storing everyday use equipment,or easily accessible to use the recreational sport court.The pad would be located approximately 1,000 feet from the resident's house. Area 3 The third area that was examined for the proposed cold storage and/or sport court was located along the west edge of the project area,and northwest of the resident's house.Of the three alternatives mentioned,this one is the closest proximity to the resident. Reasons that Area 3 were not feasible are: o High quality mature trees such as maples and oaks would need to be removed in order for the pad itself,and necessary grading. o The location is set close to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka,which may not meet City zoning or lake setbacks. o Placing a cold storage building and/or sport court on a bluff adjacent to Lake Minnetonka would lower the aesthetic appearance of the surrounding landscape.The building would be in clear site from the house,boaters, and the public using Lake Minnetonka for recreational purposes. Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water resources(see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp.4): Due to the small size of Wetland E,there are no unavoidable wetland impacts to Wetland E. Off-Site Alternatives. An off-site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal will require an individual permit(standard permit or letter of permission)from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,you may be required to provide an off-site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final decision. Applicants with questions about when an off-site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project Manager. Off-site alternatives analysis is not required for this project.