3 LaHaye Add., Pivec ErnestCITY OF
PC DATE: 4/15/03
CC DATE: 5/12/03
Review Deadline: 5/13/03
CASE #: 03-3 SUB 03-1 VAC
By:. A1-Jaff:v
Z
<[
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSe:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Preliminary Plat to Sulxiivide 1.56 Acres into 2 single family lots with a
Variance to allow two driveways across a single lot and Vacation of a
portion of Santa Fe Trail, La Haye Addition
West of Frontier Trail and northeast comer of the intersection of C. ae~
Plaina Boulevard and Santa Fe Trail.
Ernest Pivee
5060 Mead~e Street
Greenwood, MN 55331
(952)474-2828
.Iai
RSF, Single Family Residential District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 1.56 acres DENSITY: 1.28 Units per Acre
SUMMARY OF REQUF3T: Subdivision of 1.56 acres into 2 single family lots. Vacation of a
portion of Santa Fe Trail and a variance to allow two driveways on a single lot. Notice of this
public hearing has been mailed to all ~ owners within 500 feet. Staff is recommending
approval of the request.
I.I*.VEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in
approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the l~ropo~ plat meets the
standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these
standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. ~
.._ Ci ~trr o,~
La Haye Addition
15 May 12, 2OO3
Page 2
PI.~G COMMI~qSION SUMMARY
Commissioners felt that the conditions they added, highlighted in bold, convey~ their concerns
with the subdivision.
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.56 acres into 2 aingle family lots. The property is zoned
RSF, Single Family Re~dential District. The site eontain~ a single family home which is proposed
to be demolished. Access to the site is gained via an existing private sm~ off of Great Plains
Boulevard.
An abandoned right-of-way is located south of the subject site. The applicant is requesting v~cafion
of the right-of-way. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation with the condition that a
drainage and utility easement be maintained over the vacated portion (the vaeaflon of the right-of-
way requires City Council action only). Approval of the subdivision will be contingent upon
approval of the vacation.
The variance in this application is to allow proposed Lot 2 to gain access off of Gr~ Plains
Boulevard rather than Frontier Trail. This will result in two driveway ~ points across Lot 1.
The zoning ordinance allows one driveway access per lot. Staff is recommending approval of the
variance for safety reasons. This issue is discussed in detail later in the retx~
The average lot size is 34,145 square feet with a resulting density of 1.28 units per acre. The site is
located west of Frontier Trail and at the northeaist corner of the intersection of Gre~ Plains
Boulevard and Santa Fe Trail. Both lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth req~ts of
the Zoning Ordinance. The site eon~ a bluff along the northeast comer. The required setbacks
La Haye Addition
· .~, ..... M~y 12, 2003
Page 3
will be maintained from the edge of the bluff. The site has mature trees which the applicant is
making an effort to preserve.
In reviewing this plat, staff worked with the applicant to correct the street system in the area. The
current turnaround area, which the private street comes off of, is a convoluted mix of multiple
driveways and irregular shaped pavement. In an effort to correct this non-standard turnaround
area, the applicant is proposing to dedica~ ~dditional right-of-way and to install a cul-de-sac.
The proposed cul-de-sac right-of-way is shown as a standard 60-foot radius; however, the
pavement radius must be in~ from 42 to 45-feet in ~ce with City standards.
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. ~Fmor revisions will be
requited. We are recommending that it be approved with a variance to allow two driveways on a
single lot with conditions outlined in the staff report
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.56 acre site into 2 single family lots. The density of the
proposed subdivision is 1.28 units per acre. Both lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of
area, with an average lot size of 34,154 square feet.
Both proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A
bluff occupies the north portion of proposed Lot 2. The ordinance requires all s~uc0.u~ to
maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. The plans indica~ that thi~ setback can be
accommodated and no grading is proposed within that area.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance.
There are no wetlands on this site.
~URFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP)
Based on the proposed developed area of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees associated with this
project are estimated at $1,490 and the water quantity fees associat~ with this project are
estimated at $3,686. The applicant will not be assessed for axeas that are dedicated outlots. No
credit will be given for tern.notary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due
payable to the City at the time of final plat ~g, is $5,176.
GRADING, DRAINAGF~ AND EROSION CONTROL
The existing 1.5 acre site contains, approximately, 62-feet of elevation change. From a low point
of 922 in the northeast corner of the site to a high point of 984 along the westerly lot line, the site
La Haye Addition
A~rll 15 May 12, 2003
Page 4
rises sharply fTom east to west. Significant site feaUne, s include a bluff in the northeast part of
the site along with, just over, an acre of tree canopy coverage. Every effort should be made to
protect these significant features.
There is one house on the existing site which will be demolished as a part of the site grading.
Each of the proposed house p~ds are shown as walk-out type s~. The site lends itself to
these types of houses due to the natural slope of the site. As a result, minimal grading will be
required, outside of the house pad area, to pmpm~ each of the lots for building.
If grading material will need to be imported or exported to construct the lots and streets, the
applicant and/or contractor must supply the City En~neer with a haul route for review and
approval prior to grading activities commencing. Also, the apphcant should be aware that any
grading outside of the property limits or fight-of-way will require a temtxm~ easement.
The existing site drains from west to east. Currently, stormwater from Gre~ Plains Boulevard
flows overland, through the site, to Frontier Trail. The proposed grading plan will maintain the
existing drainage pattern. Staff would like to see more detail concerning the proposed drainage
in the cul-de-sac arum Specifically, how the applicant is planning on muting the stormwater
from the cul-de-sac to the east. Staff is recommending that a catch basin be installed at the low
point in the cul-de-sac with a storm sewer that discharges just east of the proposed driveway for
Lot 2. The stormwater from the cul-de-sac would then flow in the proposed swale along the
south lot line of the plat to Frontier Trail.
Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in ~ce with the City's
Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPI-I). Silt fence is shown along the grading limits of
the site where stormwater and sediment can mn off. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs
to be added around any and all trees to be saved adjacent to consmmtion areas.
No public utilities are proposed with this lot split. The existing house is already connected to
municipal sewer and water. The plans propose to connect the new house to "possible" sanitary
and water mains along the south ~ line of the plaC There is an existing sanitary main in
this area, however, there is no water main. As such, water service for Lot 2 will have to be
obtained from the existing main in Frontier Trail.
A~ording to the City's Finance Depaxtment records, there are no assessments due for the
existing lot. The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge;
however, for the benefit of the lateral mains to the new lot. The 2003 connection charges for
both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and
water hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per
unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit.
These charges are collected prior to the building permit issuance.
La Haye Addition
· ...;1 1~
A~, ..... May 12, 2003
Page 5
STREETS
C~tly, access to the existing house on Lot 1 is via an existing private street off of Gre~
Plains Blvd. This private street does not meet the current standards for such streets, i.e. 7-ton per
axle design and 20-foot wide pavement. As a part of the site development, the applicant is
proposing to upgrade the private street to meet the above-mentioned standards and to remove one
of the existing driveway accesses on the private street. In order to save the two existing oak trees
on each side of the private street near the proposed cul-de-sac, staff would like the flexibility to
narrow or keep the same street width in this area. The existing private street upgrades should
also include a vehicle turnaround area, acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A copy of the
existing cross access easement benefiting the property owners utilizing the private street shall be
submitted to the city.
The current turnaround area, which the private street comes off of, is a convoluted mix of
multiple driveways and irregular shaped pavement. In an effort to correct this non-standard
turnaround area, the applicant is proposing to dedicate additional right-of-way and to install a
cul-de-sac. The proposed cul-de-sac right-of-way is shown as a standard 60-foot radius;
however, the pavement radius must be increased from 42- to 45-feet in ~ce with City
standards.
The applicant has shown two possible options for access to Lot 2. One option is to install a
driveway from the east off of Frontier Trail (gr,_ding plan alternate 2). While Frontier Trail is the
street that Lot 2 will have the most fi'on~ on, the steep driveway grades that would be required
and reduced sight lines of Frontier Trail make this option unappealing. In addition, access from
Frontier Trail may require the removal of significant trees that could otherwise be saved.
The second option is for Lot 2 to gain access from the west off of the proposed cul-de-sac on
Great Plains Boulevard (grading plan alternate 1). Following the upgrades to the private street
off of Great Plains Blvd., there will be three homes ~sing off of it. One of the existing lots
(Man~n lot at 7552 Gr~ Plains Blvd.) off the private street has the potential to subdivide in the
furore. If this happened, there would be a total of four homes served by the private streec The
City Code allows a maximum of four homes off a private street. Therefore, Lot 2 should not uae
the same driveway access off of Great Plains Blvd. as the private street. Staff recommends that
the two driveway accesses be separmed by a minimum of five feet. Staff is in support of the Lot
2 access coming from the west and the variances associated with it.
The City has an existing 60-foot area of right-of-way just south of the existing site. As a
condition of the subdivision, the adjacent property owners have requested the City vacate the
right-of-way and deed the land back to the adjoining properties.
Staff has no problem with this vacation since the existing topography within the right-of-way is
very steep and would require retaining wails to incorporate a public slxeet.
La Hay~ Addition
A .~.-;1 I ~ May 12, 2003
Page 6
Detailed street construction plans and specifications in aceordan~ with the City's latest edition
of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for review and approval by the City
Council at the time of final plat eonsideration. Since the street improvements will become
owned and maintained by the City, the applicant must enter into a development contract with the
City and provide financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guanmt~e
construction of the public improvements. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agency will be
required, including but not limited to: Watersh~ District, MPCA, etc.
VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY
Staff received an application from property owners adjacent to the shaded area of Santa Fe Trail.
The applicants are requesting to vacate a portion of Santa Fe Trail. Chaxently, no street exists in
that area. The grades in the area are steep making a street connection unlikely. Staff is
recommending approval of the vacation since the right-of-way is not needed. The City will
retain a drainage and utility easement over the sanitary sewer line.
S~I~ Fe Tr~
PARK DEDICATION
Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly created lot in the
amount of $2,400.
La/-/aye Addition
A~, .....May 12, 2003
Page 7
TREE PRF~ERVATION/LANDS CAPING
The developer for the La Haye Addition has submittexl tree canopy covczage and preservation
calculations. There are two sets of figures; one assuming access from Great Plains Boulevard,
one from Frontier Trail.
From Great Plains Boulevard:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy coverage allowed
Proposed iree preservation
1.56 ar..
65% or 1.01 ac..
46% or .72 ac.
65% or 1.01 ac.
The developer does meet minimum canopy coverage allowed.
From Frontier Trail:
Total upland area (excluding wetlands)
Baseline canopy coverage
Minimum canopy eovem~ allowed
Proposed tree preservation
1.56 ac.
65% or 1.01 ac.
46% or .72 ac.
56% or .88 ac.
The developer does meet minimum canopy coverage allowed.
Accessing the lot from Great Plains Boulevard, allows for greater tree preservation and is the
preferred alternative for saving trees within the subdivision.
There are no buffer yard requirements for this subdivision.
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' fmnCrear
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot I 31,400 145' 284'
Lot 2 24,430 117' 305'
30'/30'*
10'
30'/30'*
10'
* The 30 foot bluff setback includes a 20 foot bluff impact zone.
La Haye Addition
A ~1 I ~ May 12, 2003
Page 8
SUBDIVISION- FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Finding: The subdivision meets all the requixt~nents of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District and the zoning ordinance ff the driveway variance is
approved.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Finding: The propo~ subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and
subdivision ordinance.
3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils,
vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm
water drainage are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report
4. The proposed subdivision makes ~d_e~luate provision for water supply, storm drainage,
sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other im,m-ovements required by this
chapter;
Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause envir~mental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental
damage subject to conditions of approved. The proposed subdivision contains
adequate open areas to accommo(l_~te house pads.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but
rather will expand and provide all necessary easements.
7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature ff any of the
following exists:
a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage.
b. Lack of adequate roads.
La/-/aye Addition
A
·-t.---- !5 May 12, 2003
Page 9
Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems.
Lack of adequate off-site public i .m!m~vements or support systems.
Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to pubhc utilities and streets.
VARIANCE
Section 20-1122. Access and Driveways. h. states "One driveway access is allowed from a single
residential lot to the street."
Staff is recommending Lot 2 be permitted access off of the cul-de-sac, via a driveway across Lot
1.
The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Unrh,e
hardship means that the ~ cannot be put to xvasonable use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reaaonable use includes a use made by a
majority of comparable pmtx~ within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to
allow a proliferation of variances, but to reco~ize that there are pre-existing standards in
this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pm-existing stan~ without departing
downward from them meet these criteria.
Finding: The applicant has shown two possible options for access to Lot 2. One option
is to install a driveway from the east off of Frontier Trail (grading plan alternate 2).
While Frontier Trail is the street that Lot 2 will have the most frontage on, the steep
driveway grades that would be required and reAuced sight lines of Frontier Trail make
this option unappealing. In addition, access fi'om Frontier Trail requires the removal of
significant trees that could otherwise be saved.
The second option is for Lot 2 to gain access from the west off of the proposed cul-de-sac
on Great Plains Boulevard (grading plan alternate 1). Staff is in support of the Lot 2
access coming from the west and the variances associated with it.
bi
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classifi~on.
Finding: The conditions utxm which this variance is based are applicable to tnotn~es in
the RSF zoning district. However, it is due to the unique site characteristics that the
variance is being pursued.
La I-/aye Addition
.,~.; 1 1K
At, .....May 12, 2003
Page 10
C.
The purpose of the variation is not based utxm a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The proposed variation will prevent exce~ve grading and i .reproved sight line~.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a serf-created hardship.
Finding: The applicant has shown two alternatives to access the lot. The topography of the
site in relation to Frontier Trail is steep. This is an existing situation that is not ~ by
thc app]icanC
The granting of the variance will not be ~tal to the public wcffare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborh~ in which the parcel is located.
Finding: Appwval of the variance will i~ve sight lines and access to the ~.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequale supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public ~ccts or increase the dan~
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or imrmir ~ values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent ~ or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets.
Based upon these findings, staff is recommending approval of this variance.
PLANNING COMMW~SION UPI)ATE
On April 15, 2003, the Plarming Commission reviewed and approved this applic~ation. Some of the
issues discussed during the meeting included:
The Commi~i_ on asked for clarifimflon on the abando~t of the road flint would
be abandoned eq, mlly to the propa-fles north and south, and for other ways to divide
the property without variances.
The preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the right-of way being vacated by the
City. The City has a 60-foot road right-of-way along the south property line of the subject
property. The adjacent pmpegy owners have signed an application requesting the City
vacage thc right-of-way and deed the ptotmrty back to those owners. The northern 30-feet of
right-of-way will revert to the applicant while the southern 30-feet will revert to the
property owners to the south. The City will retain a drainage & utility easement over the
sanitary sewer main which lies in the right-of-way.
· Clarification of the wording as it related to connecfloll and assessment charges.
La Haye Addition
A .~..~ 1 1~
. ~ ..... May 12, 2003
Page 11
According to the City's Finance DeImma~t records, there are no assessments due for the
existing loL However, the site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection
charge for the benefit of the lateral mains to the new lot.
Preservation of mature trees, canopy coverage, and grading.
There are trees on site that could be saved; however, they are shown within the 60' x 60'
house pad. The applicant intends to save these trees by deai~maing and placing the future
home in areas that would least impact them. Conditions 28 and 29 were added by the
Planning Commission to address this concern.
Charles Stinson, a developer of an adjacent neighborhood, asked staff to consider
burying utilities. He also suggested that the property could be sulxlivided another
way which would preserve more tre~
Mr. Sfinson was referring to subdividing the ~ in an eaist/west direction, l~ais option
does not change calculations drastically; however, it will create double frontage lots which
are prohibited by ordinance.
On May 1, 2003, staff received a phone call from Mr. Stin.qon expressing interest in
purchasing the site ff he was txaxni~ to redesign the subdivision layout. Staff returned
Mr. Stinson's call promptly to discuss this matt_~ in more detail. He was out of the office.
At the time, we still have not heard back from him.
As to the utilities, staff will coordinate with the developer and the applicable utility
companies (electric, phone, etc.) prior to construction of this project to see ff the overhead
utility lines can be buried during eons~on.
Tom Manarln talked about the cxd4e-sae right-of-way, trees and dmilmge.
Staff has since met with Mr. Mana~ and have addressed all of his concerns.
Gladys Hanna was concerned about the placement of the cul-de-sac and preservation of the
fire hydrant and mailboxes.
The fire hydrant will not be affected by this project. Staff will ~ with the developer
and the post office to find an acceptable temImrary location for the mailboxes during
conslmction.
A neighbor was concerned with the notification, and the fact that this was the first he
had heard of this subdivision.
The neighbor explained that he saw the '~roposed Development" sign on the ~ and
had received a Public Hearing Notice but nothing more. The Planning Commisugion
La Haye Addition
A ..~.41 1~
· ~. ..... May 12, 2003
Page 12
explained that his name appeared on the list, a mailing was sent to his home ~, and
the Public Hearing is the public forum at which he can speak.
After the public hearing, the c, omminsion c, ommellted they were generally in favor of staff's
recordation.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff reco~~ the City Council adopt the following motions:
VACATION OF RIGHT.OF-WAY
'The City Council approves the vacation (2003-1) for the partial vacation of Santa Fe Trail as shown
on attachment with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide the city with the legal description of the vaeamM right-of-way.
2. The applicant shall dedicate a 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement, centered on the
sanitary sewer line."
,PIH~.LIMINARY PI~T
'q~he City Council approves the pre~ plat for Subdivision ~03-3 for La H_aye Addition for 2
lots and a variance to allow two driveways on a single residential lot as shown on the plans received
March 14, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
1. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas.
e
ff grading material will need to be imported or exported to construct the lots and street, the
applicant and/or contractor must supply the City En~ with a detailed haul mute for
review and approval prior to site grading.
.
The new cul-de-sac on C. ae~ Plains Boulevard shall be constructed to cun~t City design
standard, a 45 foot radius, with B-618 cufo and gutter.
e
A minimum 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement is required over the public sanit~
sewer line on Lots I and 2.
1
Remove any existing pavement within the cul-de-sac right-of-way so the existing driveways
have a maximum width of 24 feet, as per City Code.
e
Any grading or utility work outside of the property limits or fight-of-way will require a
temporary easement.
La I-Iaye Addition
April 15 May 12, 2003
Page 13
1
gl
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
A maximum slope of 3:1 is allowed without a retaining wall. Revise the grading plan to
comply.
A private easement is required for the driveway of Lot 2 which cmsse~ over Lot 1.
Revise the grading plan as follows:
al
cl.
Show the proposed neck radius for the cul4e-sac.
Show the proposed grades for the private sm~ and cul-de-sac upgrades.
Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should define all of the
different line types, easements, silt fences, etc.
Move the building pad of Lot 2 out of the public easement for the sanitary sewer line.
Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans.
Revise the utility plan as follows:
Show the existing sanitary sewer line in Oreat Plains Boulevard.
Show the existing watermain in Cue, at Plains Boulevard and Frontier Trail.
Add a legend to the plan.
I_.abel the existing size and type of pipe for both the sanitary and wat_~'main~.
Add a catch basin at the low point in the cul-de-sac with a storm sewer line that discharges
just east of the proposed driveway for Lot 2.
The water service for Lot 2 will have to be obtained from the existing main in Frontier Trail.
The proposed private street upgrades should include a vehicle turnaround area, acceptable to
the City's Fire Marshal, and a copy of the private easement dedicated to the benefiting
property owners. In order to save the two existing oak trees on each side of the private
street, the existing street width may be maintained in this area.
Lot 2 cannot use the same driveway access off of Gte~ Plains Boulevard as the private
street. The two driveway accesses shall be separated by a minimum of five feet.
Detailed street constn~on plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, including approved pavement
design, will be required for review and approval by the City Council at the time of final plat
consideration. Since the street im.r~'ovemexlts will become owned and maintained by the
City, the applicant must enter into a development contract with the City and provide
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee con~ucti~ of
the public improvements. Permits from the regulatory ~ will be nxtuired, including
but not limited to Watershed District, MPCA, etc.
La Haye Addition
A .--,;1 I; May 12, 2003
Page 14
16.
The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the new lot.
The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary and water are $4,513. The ~ is also
subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003 tnmk utility
hook-up charges are $1,440 per trait for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per trait for water. The
2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit These charges are collected prior to the building
permit issuance.
17. Building Official conditions:
Us
Final grading plans and soil mIxats must be submitted to the Inspections'Division
before building permits will be issued.
Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an
engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota.
18. a.
be
Because of the setbacks of the proposed new house, additional address numbers will
be required at the driveway entrance. Address numbem must comply with
Chanlumsen Fire Department Policy regarding ~ise identification pursuant to
Policy No. 29-1992 (copy enclosed).
Submit new proposed driveway dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal. This is to ensure that fire apparatus can safely negotiate the driveway to the
new pmtmsed single family dwelling.
19. The bluff impact zone should be shown on the grading plan.
0o
Based on the proposed developed area of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees associated with
this project are estimated at $1,490 and the water quantity fees associated with this project
are estimated at $3,686. The applicant will not be assessed for areas tflmt are dedicated
outlots. No credit will be given for tempor~y pond areas. At this time, the estimated total
SWMP fee, due payable m the City at the time of final plat recording is $5,176.
21.
Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation of
the fight-of-way.
22. Environmental ~urce Specialist conditions:
b.
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
Atx:ess to Lot 2 should be from ~ Plains Boulevard to increase tree preservation.
3.
Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly created lot in
the amount of $2,400.
24. Access to Lot 2 shall be prohibited off of Frontier Trail.
La/-/aye Addition
^--;~ "~ Ma}, 12, 2003
Page 15
Show the proposed house elevation for Lot 1 and address the runoff to the west and
north.
26. Show final proposed driveway locations.
7e
Work with staff and finalize the plat and include the necessary information to inchule
~ and utility easement, etc.
Include the tree grove on the northwest comer of Lot I and the 2 big trees on the south
side of Lot 2 inside the tree protection fencin~
29. LOt 2 wm be custom graded and the house pad moved northwest as requtreL"
ATI~A~
Ii
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Application and Public Hearing Notice.
Memo from Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer dated April 7, 2003.
Memo from Steve Torell, Building Official dated April 2, 2003.
Memo from Mark LiRfin, Fire Marshal dated March 25,2003.
Planning Commission minutes dated April 15, 2003.
Preliminmy plat dated rec~ved Mm'eh 14, 2003.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION
'T~ ~=PHONE (Day time)
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
PJanned Unit Development*
Re. zoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
X' Subd'n/is~n*
_ -
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CU P/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor,,SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ ~ ~7 -~
A list of all property ownem within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
· 'Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, 'including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
~.~_- ---: .... , ~'~.' each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
NDTE -When multiple applications am processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE
1NETI.N~DS PRESENT
]=RESENT ZONING
YES
~NO
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
P, EQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
-i'his application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all Information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer wtth the Planning
:Depa,"iment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determbalion of completeness of the application shall be ~e..w~h. in ten business days of application submittal. A written
r~tice of applicationdefide~ies shall be mailed to the applicant v~[hln.t~ business days of application.
'i'hi~ is to certify that ! am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
ali City requirements with regard to this request. This applicat, l. on should be processed in my name and I am the party.whom
'the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of-T~le, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this app~on and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I w~l keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material ~nd the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are tree and correct to the best Of
my ~=wledge. .
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
Tequirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automal~ 60 day
exl~nslon for development review, completed wtthln 120 day~ unless additional review
,are approve_ b~_~ appli .ca~t.
Sigm of Fee Owner
Date
Date
Receipt
'The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
NO~CE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
PROPOSAL:
Subdivision of Parcel
Into 2 Single Family Lots
APPLICANT: Ernst Pivce
LOCATION: 7551 Great Plains Blvd.
NOTICE: You am invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Ernst
Pivec, requesting subdivision of 1.56 acres Into 2 single family lots with variances on property zoned RSF,
Residential Single Family and vacation of a portion of Santa Fe Trail, located at 7551 Great Plains Blvd.,
La Haye Addition.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public headng is dosed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Sharmean at 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhessen Villager on April 3, 2003.
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160®
ROBERT C BLAD
7602 ERIE AVE
CHANI-/ASSEN
MN 55317
DAVID J & LE.~.m A KRONK
7561 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RALPHW&MART.RNEKBURRR~I.
7555FRONTIERTRL
CHANHASSI~ MN 55317
RICHARD & ROSE MARY MINGO
7601 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN M ROGERS
7520 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317
TED H & KATI-~.g:g2q S DR~ ANCEY
7505 FRONTIIUt TRL
CHANHASSHN MN 55317
ROBERT ScoTr POLLOCK
7603 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
LORI ANN Bo'FrENFN:~.D
7522 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
JOHN B & ~ I. M W L~.WS'
7523 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSHN MN 55317
DOUGLAS J & WENDY K SUEDBECK
7605 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ERNEST ~
7554 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
KAY TOU~
7389 VANCOUVER RD
EDEN PRAIRIE MN
55346
DANII~I. W & AUDREY E FiJ~ JJN(}
222 7TrH ST W
CHANHASSI~I MN 55317
ERNEST F PIVEC
5060 MEADVI~ J.R ST
EXCELSIOR MN
55331
STR~rmi&ASSOCIATESINC
18312MINNErONKABLVD
WAYZATA MN 55391
SAMES&ART.~U~IEZIMMERMAN
7602FRONTIERTRL
CHANHASStRq MN 55317
THOMAS V&NANCYGMANARIN
7552GREATPLAINS BLVD
CHANHPaSSEN MN 55317
MICHAR~. C & KRISTIN M MA'ITSON
2560 BRIDLE CRRRK TRL
CHANHASSI~I MN 55317
DONALD D & MARY GOEFZE
7610 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
GI.RNN H & ~ A MATFSON
7406 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSI~ MN 55317
TED H & KATI-~.RFN S D~zLANCEY
7505 FRONTIHR TRL
CHANHASSt~ MN 55317
MICHA~. A BOGDEN
7617 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
RYAN J SCHN~.I. &
CAROLYN M LARSON
7423 FRONTIER TRL
CHANIIASSEN MN
55317
AIYrUMN L THAYER
7528 ERIE AVE
CHANHASStiN MN
55317
STEPHEN J BI..AHA
7606 ERIE AVE
55317
BRADLEY' C & MARY L JOHNSON
7425 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSI~ MN 55317
SANDOR L EORY
40076TH ST W
CHANHAS~
MN 55317
FRONTIER TRAIL ASSN
CiO Wn I JAM KIRKVOLD
201 FRONTIER CT
CHANHASS]~ MN
55317
FRANK B OI _C'~.RR &
JENNIPIgR C M~ J-TRON
19 SoIYrH FIRST STAPT B2506
M]NIVE,~OT-TS ]V~ 55401
STEPHt~ P & CAROL M BECHER
402 75THSTW
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Address Labels
Laser 516o®
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160®
DAT.R & ~A LARSEN
404 76TH ST W
{X-tANHAS~EN MN 55317
STUART T & SHAWN C ROBERTSON
75OO FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
RICHARD E & KATHIE ENOELHARDT
403 SANTA tee TRL
CHANHAS,.~I~q' MN 55317
KEVIN KNOTT
7602 ~T PLAINS BLVD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
NICOLE M FORSMAN
412 SANTA FE TRL
CHANHA,.%~/~ MN
55317
STEVEN W & BEITY M JORGENSON
401 SANTA FE TRL
CHA_NHAS$t~ MN 55317
WYCK R & IX)RALI G LINDER
7550 GREAT PLAINS BLVD
CHANHA~SEN MN 55317
JOHN A & ANN E CURTIS
410 SANTA FE CIR
CHANHAS,..qI~ MN
55317
+rm Y MARX & C w uS
400 DEL RIO DR
CHA.NHASSI~I MN 55317
CHAI~I.P-q STINSON ETAL
4733 EAS'rWOOD RD
MINNETONKA MN
55345
FRED & JULIA PRINZ
408 SANTA FE CIR
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
KATHRYN G BEDFORD
405 DEL RIO DR
(2FaMqH~N MN
55317
STEVEN L & ~J.Y O Wl~J.
391 DEL RIO DR
CHANHASSHN MN 55317
DAVID O & KRISTI L ~S
406 SANTA FE CIR
CHANHASSI~ MN 55317
ROBHRT T & SUSAN J W~ J.rVER
403 DEL RIO DR
CHANHASSE~ MN 55317
DAVID D & TAMERA S PREST.RR
381 DEL RIO DR
CHANI-IASS~ MN 55317
THOMAS P & DIANE K ! ~
BOX 693
CHANHASbS~ MN 55317
HUBERT D & PHY~J.Tg L SWANSON
401 DEL RIO DR
CHANltASS~N MN 55317
lAMES l & KAREN L OLSON
386 DEL RIO DR
CHANHAS,.ql~I MN 55317
THOMAS J & ANN MARIE V WILSON
7470 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY J & TAMARA U Sf!I J.
7460 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHA~SEN MN 55317
W THOMAS & ROBERTA J' BRUNBERG
TRUSTEF. S OF TRUST
402 SANTA FE CfR
CHANHASSI~ MN 55317
CARROLL W & GLADYS A HANNA
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
400 SANTA FE TIlL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
J~ E & LISA A JACOBS
407 SANTA FE TRL
CHAN1..IASSEN MN 55317
BRIAN H KASBOHM
7480 FRONTIER TRL
CHANHASS]~ MN
55317
RONA!.D L & PATRICIA A
405 SANTA FE TRL
CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ·
Laser 51.60®
To:
t~~,'~ ~v City of Chanhas~n
Market Boulevard, P.O. Box 147
Chanhass~ MN 55317
.,, ( . 952-22%1134
Development Plan Referral Agencies - [0v
/
From: Planning Depamnent
PLEASE RETURN
PLANS WITH
YOUR
COMMENTS.
By: Sharmeen A14aff, Senior Planner
Subject:
Request for subdivision of 1.56 acres into 2 single family lots with variances and vacation of a
portion of Santa Fe Trail, Ernest Pivee
Planning Case: 2003-3 SUB/2003-1 VAC
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Depammat on March 14, 2003.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the i..mpact of thia proposal on traffic circulation,' existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or e. azsex~nts for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhasse~ Planning Commission on Wednesday, April 15, 2003 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than
April 7, 2003. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your ~tion and assistance
is greatly appreciated.
o
City Depamnents
a. City Engineer
b. City Attorney
c. City Park Director
d. Fire Marshal
e. Building Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
g. Environmenhd Resources Coordinator
8. Telephone Company
(US West or Sprint)
9. Electric Company
(Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
10. Medicom Cable System
2. Watershed District Engineer
- Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
3. Soil Conservation Service
4. MN Dept. of Transpoaafion
12.
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
6. CenterPoint Energy/Minnegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
CITYOF
CHANHASEN
PO Box 147
Clmhass~. MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952227.1180
Fax: 952227.1190
Engineering
Phone: 952227.1160
Fax: 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952.227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.221.1120
Fax: 952.227.1110
Remation Center '
2310 Coulter Boulevard
Phone: 952.227.1400
Fax: 952.227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone:. 952.227.1130
Fax: 952227.1110
Public Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 9,52227.1300
Fax: 952227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952.227.1125
Fax: 952227.1110
Web Site
www. ci.~.mn.us
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner
Matt Saam, Asst. City Engineer j~
April 7, 2003
Preliminary Plat Review of Lahaye Addition
Land Use Review File No. 03-04
Upon review of the plans prepared by Gronberg & Associates, dated February 11,
2003, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL
The existing 1.5 acre site contains, approximately, 62-feet of elevation change.
From a low point of 922 in the northeast corner of the site to a high point of 984
along the westerly lot line, the site rises sharply from east to west. Si~ificant site
features include a bluff in the northeast part of the site along with, just over, an
acre of tree canopy coverage. Every effort should be made to protect these
significant features.
There is one house on the existing site which will be demolished as a part of the
site grading. Each of the proposed house ps& are flown as walk-out type
structures. The site lends itself to these type of houses due to the natural slope of
the site. As a result, minimal grading will be required, outside of the housepad
area, to prepare each of the lots for building.
If grading material will need to be imported or exported to construct the lots and
streets. The applicant and/or contractor must supply the City En~neer with a haul
route for review and approval prior to grading activities commencing. Also, the
applicant should be aware that any grading outside of the property limits or right-
of-way will require a temporary easement.
The existing site drains from west to east. Oamnfly stormwater from Great
Plains Boulevard flows overland, through the site, to Frontier Trail. The proposed
grading plan will maintain the existing drainage pattern. Staff would like to see
more detail concerning the proposed drainage in the cul-de-sac area. Specifically,
how the applicant is planning on muting the stormwater from the cul-de-sac to the
east. Staff is recommending that a catchbasin be installed at the low point in the
cul-de-sac with a storm sewer that discharges just east of the proposed driveway
for Lot 2. The stormwater from the cul-de-sac would then flow in the proposed
swale along the south lot line of the plat to Frontier Trail.
The City of Chanha#en * A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, ~dving businesses, wtndlng trails, and beautiful parks. A gaat place to live, work, and play.
Sharmeen AI-~
April 7, 2003
Page 2
Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance
with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Silt fence is
shown along the grading limits of the site where stormwater and sediment can mn
off. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around any and all
trees to be saved.
No public utilities are proposed with this lot split. The existing house is already
connected to municipal sewer and water. The plans propose to connect the new
house to "possible" sanitary and water mains along the south property line of the
~plat. There is and existing sanitary main in this area, however, there is no water
main. As such, water service for Lot 2 will have to be obtained from the existing
main in Frontier Trail.
According to the City's Finance Department records, them are no assessments due
for the existing lot. The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water
connection charge; however, for the benefit of the lateral mains to the new lot.
The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and water are $4,513. The
property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new
lot. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer
and $1,876 per unit for water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These
charges are collected prior to the building permit issuance.
STREETS
Currently, access to the existing house on Lot 1 is via a private street off of Great
Plains Blvd. This private street does not meet the current standards for such
streets, i.e. 7-ton per axle design and 20-foot wide pavement. As a part of the site
development, the applicant is proposing to upgrade the private street to meet the
above-mentioned standards and to remove one of the existing driveway accesses
on the private street. In order to save the two existing Oak trees on each side of
the private street near the proposed cul-de-sac, staff would like the flexibility to
narrow or keep the same street width in this ama. The proposed private street
upgrades should also include a vehicle turnaround area, acceptable to the City's
Fire Marshall, and a 30-foot wide private easement dedicated to the benefiting
property owners.
The current turnaround area which the private street comes off of is a convoluted
mix of multiple driveways and irregular shaped pavement. In an effort to correct
this non-standard turnaround area, the applicant is proposing to dedicate
additional right-of-way and to install a cul-de-sac. Thc proposed cul-de-sac right-
Sharrneen AI-~
April 7, 2003
Page 3
of-way is shown as a standard 60-foot radius; however, the pavement radius must
be increased from 42- to 45-feet in accordance with City standards.
The applicant has shown two possible options for access to Lot 2. One option is
to install a driveway from the east off of Frontier Trail (grading plan alternate 2).
While Frontier Trail is the street that Lot 2 will have the most frontage on, the
steep driveway grades that would be required and collector route designation of
Frontier Trail make this option unappealing. In addition, access from Frontier
Trail may require the removal of si~ificant trees that could otherwise be saved.
The second option is for Lot 2 to gain access from the west off of the proposed
cul-de-sac on Great Plains Boulevard (grading plan alternate 1). Following the
upgrades to the private street off of Great Plains Blvd., there will be three homes
accessing off of it. One of the existing lots (Manarin lot at 7552 Gmat Plains
Blvd.) off the private street has the potential to subdivide in the future. If this
happened, there would be a total of four homes served by the private street. The
City Code allows a maximum of four homes off a private street. Therefore, Lot 2
should not use the same driveway access off of Gmat Plains Blvd. as the private
street. Staff recommends that the two driveway accesses be separated by a
minimum of five feet. Staff is in support of the Lot 2 access coming from the
west and the variances associated with it.
The City has an existing 60-foot area of right-of-way just south of the existing
site's property. As a condition of the subdivision, the applicant is requesting that
the City vacate the north half of the right-of-way and deed the land back to the
applicant. This 30-foot wide area has been included in the applicant's preliminary
plat drawing. Staff has no problem with this vacation since the existing
topography within the right-of-way is very steep and would require retaining walls
to incorporate a public street.
Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required for
review and approval by the City Council at the time of final plat consideration.
Since the street improvements will become owned and maintained by the City, the
applicant must enter into a development contract with the City and provide
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
construction of the public im,m'ovements. Permits form the appropriate regulatory
agency will be required, including but not limited to: Watershed District, MPCA,
etc.
Sharmeen AI-~
April 7, 2003
Page 4
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas.
.
If grading material will need to be imported or exported to conslxuct the
lots and streets. The applicant ~a/or contractor must supply the City
Engineer with a detailed haul mute for review and approval prior to site
grading.
.
The new cul-de-sac on Great Plains Boulevard shall be constructed to
current City design standards with B-618 curb and gutter.
e
A minimum 30-foot wide drainage and utility easement is reqtfired over
the public sanitary sewer line on Lots 1 & 2.
.
Remove any existing pavement within the cul-de-sac right-of-way so the
existing driveways have a maximum width of 24-feet, as per City Code.
1
Any grading or utility work outside of the property limits or right-of-way
will require a temporary easement.
1
A maximum slope of 3:1 is allowed without a retaining wall. Revise the
grading plan to comply.
.
A private easement is required for the driveway of Lot 2 which crosses
over Lot 1.
9. Revise the grading plan as follows:
a.
c.
dl
Show the proposed neck radius for the cul-de-sac.
Show the proposed grades for the private street and cul-de-sac
upgrades.
Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should
define all of the different line types, easements, silt fence, etc.
Move the building pad of Lot 2 out of the public easement fro the
sanitary sewer line.
Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans.
10. Revise the utility plan as follows:
a.
Show the existing sanitary sewer line in Great Plains Blvd.
Show the existing watermains in Great Plains Blvd. & Frontier Trl.
Add a legend to the plan.
Sharmeen AI-~
April 7, 2003
Page 5
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
¢:
Label the existing size and type of pipe for both the sanita~ and
watermalns.
Add a catchbasin at the low point in the cul-de-sac with a storm sewer line
that discharges just east of the proposed driveway for Lot 2.
The water service for Lot 2 will have to be obtained from the existing
main in Frontier Trail.
The proposed private street upgrades should include a vehicle turnaround
area, acceptable to the City's Fire Marshall, and a 30-foot wide private
easement dedicated to the benefiting property owners. In order to save the
two existing Oak trees on each side of the private street, the existing street
width may be maintained in this area.
Lot 2 cannot use the same driveway access off of Great Plains Blvd. as the
private street. The two driveway accx, sses shall be separated by a
minimum of five feet.
Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with
the City's latest edition of Stan~ Specifications and Detail Plates will
be required for review and approval by the City Council at the time of f-mai
plat consideration. Since the street improvements will become owned and
maintained by the City, the applicant must enter into a development
contract with the City and provide financial security in the form of a letter
of credit or cash escrow to guarantee construction of the public
improvements. Permits form the appropriate regulatory agency will be
required, including but not limited to: Watershed District, lVlPCA, etc.
The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge
for the new lot. The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary sewer and
water are $4,513. The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water
hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003 tnmk utility hook-up charges
are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. The
2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit~ These charges are collected prior to
the building permit issuance.
Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Mak Sweidan, En~neer
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DATE:
Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Phmner
S~en ToteR, Building Official ~,.~
April 2, 2003
SUB J:
site Plan review for: Subdivision, ~ Piv~, Lahaye Addition
Planning Case: 2003-3 SUB/2003-1VAC
I have reviewed the plmas for'the for ~ above development and have the following -_ '
conditions: '" ..
1. Final grading plans and Soft .reports must be submitted to the Inspections
Division before building permits will be issu~
2. Each lot must be provided with sepmate sewer and water ~~.
3. R~a~fing walls over 4' high r~Iui~ a l~'rmit and must b~ ~ by m'~
~ li~ in th~ State of Minnesota.
C-ffsafay/st/memas/plan/Piva-..-Lahaye
C YOF
~00 Mark~ Boulevard
PO Box 147
Chanhas.~n, MN 55317
Administration
Phone: 952.227.1100
Fax: 952.227.1110
Building Inspections
Phone: 952.227.1180
Fax:. 952227.1190
Enlllnaedng
Phone:. 952.227.1160
Fax:. 952.227.1170
Finance
Phone: 952.227.1140
Fax: 952227.1110
Park & Recreation
Phone: 952.227.1120
Fax:. 952227.1110
Recreation Centre'
2310 Coulter BoulevaJ'd
Phone: 952227.1400
Fax: 952227.1404
Planning &
Natural Resources
Phone: 952.227.1130
Fax: 952227.1110
Pabllc Works
1591 Park Road
Phone: 952.227.1300
Fax: 952.227.1310
Senior Center
Phone: 952227.1125
Fax: 952.227.1110
Web Site
vnwv. ci.chantmsen.mn.us
MEMOR~U-M
Sharmin A1-Jaff, Scrdor Planner
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: March 25, 2003
SUBJ:
Request for subdivision of 1.56 acres into 2 single family lots with
variances and vacation of a portion of Santa Fe Trail, Ernest Pivec.
Planning case no: 2003-3 SUB/2003-1 VAC.
I have reviewed the request for subdivision for the above project. In order for
it to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Depamnent/Pire Prevention Division, I
have the following Fire Code or City Ordinance/Policy requirements. The
plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. ff
additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate quote or code
policy items will be addressecL
.
Because of the setbacks of the proposed new house, additional address
numbers will be required at the driveway entrance. Address numbers
must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding
premise identification pursuant to Policy no. 29-1992 (copy enclosed).
.
Submit new proposed driveway dimensions to City Engineer and
Chanhassen Fire Mazshal. This is to ensure that trxre Apparatus can.
safely negotiate the driveway to the new proposed single family
dwelling.
The City of Chanhassen * A growing community wi~ clean lakes, quality schools, a channing downtown, lhrlvin0 busines.~s, wtndino trails, and beaudful parks. A gmat place to live, work, and play.
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU
7700 Market Blvd BOX 147
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1150
FAX: (952) 227-1190
Revised 6/10/02
Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position
as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or mad fronting the property. Said
numbers shall contrast with their bae~und. Size and location of numbers shall be
approved by one of the following - Fire Marshal, Fire Inspector, Building Official,
Building Inspector.
Requirements are for new consmacfion and existing buildings where no address numbers
are posted.
1. l~,m~n's shrill be a mntrasth~ _m)_m'_ ftmn the ~-
Adndntntratlve m.hnr'l~ may require ntltlt~l~rml
l~tld~v~nl Rm'ns~ t'~ m- kan dx~lllno
1. Mlnhmm~ height ~tmn be 5
1.lVn,~h,mm height shnn be 12".
MuitI.Tmant Bnndtn~
bs~fl~ nmln ~
DATE
1~ NO.
PRO~'T
March 31, 2003
2003-3 SUB
Pivec Subclivisica
SWMP FEE WORKSHI~.T
sit~ Area in Acres
Ammssable area
ZONING CLASSIFICATION
RSF
1.57
1.57
WATER QUALITY
WATER QUANTITY
Rat~ per Acre Acres Total
$ 949.00 1.57 $ 1,489.93
Ra~ l~r Acre Acres Total
$ 2~348.00 1.57 $ 3t686.36
ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL
PRICE PRICE
Storm water txxtd acre - $ 800.00 $ -
Outlet structure each - $ 2,500.00 $ -
SWMP FEE $ 5~176.29
SWMP CREDrrS $
TOTAL SWMP FEE $ 5,176.29
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BLVD
CHANHASSEN
MN
Payee: ERNEST PIVEC
Date: 03/14/2003
Receipt Number: DW
Clerk: DANIELLE
Time:
3587
3:26pm
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APP
ITEM REFERENCE
AMOUNT
DEVAP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APP
USE & VARIANCE
SIGN RENT
PLAT RECORDING
REZONING
SIGN ESCROW
WETLAND
SIGN PERMIT
800.00
75.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.0O
0.00
Total: 975.00
Check 5650 975.00
Change:
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT!
0.00
Dnte:' 3/24/2(303
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
Market Boulevnrd, P.O. Box 147
Chanhasse
9S2-227-1134
PLEASE RETURN
PLANS WITH
YOUR
COMMENTS.
From: Planning Depm'tment
By: Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner
Subjecl:
Request for subdivision of 1.56 acres into 2 single family lots with variances and vacation of a
portion of Santa Fe Trail, Ernest Pivec
Planning Case: 2003-3 SUB/2003-1 VAC
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning
Depamnent on March 14, 2003.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning C. ommi~ and City Council review, we would
appreciate your comments and reco~ons concerning the i .mlmct of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and
proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites,
street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written
report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can mak~ a recommeoda~on to the Planning Commission and City
Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commi~ion on Wednesday, April 15, 2003 at
7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hail We would ~ receiv~ your comments by no later than
April 7, 2003. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance
is greatly appreciated.
City ~nts
n_ City Engineer
b. City Attorney
e. City Park Director
e~ Building Official
f. Water Resourees Coordinator
8. Telephone ~y
(us West or Sprint)
9. Electric Company
(Xcel Energy or MN Valley)
10. Medieom Cable System
Z Watershed District Engineer
- Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Wal~rshed District
11. U. S. ~ and Vflldlife
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
12.
5. U.S. Army Oxps of Faxgineers
6. CenterPoint EnergyflV[innegasco
7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources
Planning Commission Summary Minutes - April 15, 2003
and Debbie Lloyd spoke at the public hearing. Their concerns were related to saving the trees,
the number of variances being asked for, and reasomble use of the ~. Mrs. Lloyd felt that
what is currently on the lot should be considered reasonable use. The Planning Commission's
most important issue was the amount of hard ~ coverage, and not wanting to increase that
amount, but reco~iT~! the fact that there was benefit from the applicant moving the house pad
away from the lakeshore.
Slagle moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commi~zlon table the Variance
~}03-7 and direct staff to work with the applicant to redesign the project to maintain the
current percentage of hard surface coverage. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Commissioner !.illehaug askeat staff to look at reducing the in~ and the intensity of the 4.4
feet on the southwest side of the lot in a_ddifion to maintain the 34.9 percent of hard coverage.
Commissioner Claybaugh's position was that by moving the house suucmm back from the
lakeshore high water mark is a positive. He was willing to ~ the side yard and other
associated variances, but not willing to take those in cxmjunefion with the intensity of the hard
cover surface. Whether the applicant addresses the square footage on the house or looks at more
org~c materi~ for pads and patios, that's the applieamt's call Commissioner Shgle asked
staff to double cheek the roof overhangs in relation to the setback. Commimioner Sacchet asked
that when staff and the applicant work on the idea of the lakeshore landsca~, they take into
consideration the trees.
PUBLIC
CONSm~R A l~gO~ FQR SUBDIVISION OF 1.S6 ACR~.q INTO 2 SINGLE
FAMILY ~.~)TS WITH VARIANCF_$ ON PROPERTY ZONED RO~F~ ~IINGI.R FAMilY
I~g.51DENTL~L AND VACrATIQN OF A PQRTION OF ~ANTA FE TRP, II~ I~C~TED
AT 7SS1 GRgAT PLt, BQ . ARO PIyE LA HAYE AODITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Charles Sfinson
Bart Blinstrup
Nancy Manara
Gladys Hanna
David Krunk
Tom Manarin
Wyck Linder
Steve & Nancy Rogers
4723 Eastwood Road, l~nnetonka
18736 The Pines, Bden Prairie
7552 Great Plains Boulevard
400 Santa Fe Trail
7561 Great Plains Boulevard
7552 Great Plains Boulevard
7550 Great ~ Boulevard
7520 Great Plains Boulevard
Sharmeen AI-Jaff pFesented the staff ml)Off on this item.
Commissioner Feik asked for clarification on the abandonment of the road, that would be
abandoned equally to the pwpenies north and south, and for other ways to divide the property
without variances. Commissioner Blackowiak asked staff to clarify the wording as it related to
connection and assessnm~t charges. Commissioners had a lengthy discussion over the dedication
of fight-of-way for driveway access and vacation request. Commissioner Sacchet was concerned
with the trreserv~on of trees on the site, canopy coverage, and grading. Emie Pivec, the
applicant was available to answer questions. In the public heating Charles Stinson, a devel~
Planning Commission Summary ~W_mu~ - April 15, 2003
of an adjacent neighborhood, asked staff to consider burying utilities. He also suggested that the
~ could be subdivided another way which would preserve more trees. Tom Manarin
talked about the cul-de-sac fight-of-way, trees and drainage. Gladys Hanna was concerned about
the placement of the cul-de-sac and preservation of the fire hydrant and mailboxes. Wyck Linder
was concerned about notification, and the fact that this was the first he had heaud of this
subdivision. He also agreed with comments made by previous neighbors. David Knmk talked
about tree preservation. Debbie Lloyd asked about private streets. Af~ the public hearing, the
commission commented they were generally in favor of staff's recommmldation and made the
following motion.
Lillehaug moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commimdon reeommendli
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision ~3-3 for LaHaye Addition for 2 lots and a
variance to allow two driveways on a single residential lot as shown on the plans dated
Received March 14, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
1. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas.
.
Xf grading material will need to be i .reported or exported to construct the lots a~l street,
the applicant and/or con~ must supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul route
for review and approval prior to site grading.
.
The new cul-de-sac on Great Plains Boulevard shall be constructed to current City design
standard, a 45 foot radius, with B-618 curb and gutter.
A minimum 30 foot wide drainage and utility easemem is required over the public
sanitary sewer line on Lots 1 and 2.
Remove any existing pavement within the cul-de-sac right-of-way so the existing
driveways have a maximum width of 24 feet, as per City Code.
1
Any grading or utility work outside of the property limits or right-of-way will require a
temporary easement.
1
A maximum slope of 3:1 is allowed without a retaining wall. Revise the grading plan to
comply.
8. A private easement is required for the driveway of Lot 2 which crosses over Lot 1.
9. Revise the grading plan as follows:
d.
Show the proposed neck radius for the od-de-sac.
Show the proposed gra_d_~ for the private street and cul-de-sac upgrades.
Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should define all of the
different line types, easements, silt fences, etc.
Move the building pad of Lot 2 out of the public easement for the sanitary sewer
line.
Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans.
10. Revise the utility plan as follows:
a. Show the existing sanitary sewer line in Gre~ Plains Boulevard.
Planning Commission S~ Minutes - April 15, 2003
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
bi
Show the existing watermain in Gre~ Plains Boulevard and Frontier Trail.
Add a legend to the plan.
Label the existing size arid type of pipe for both the sanitary and watermains.
Add a catch basin at the low point in the cul-de-sac with a storm sewer line that
discharges just east of the proposed driveway for Lot 2.
The water service for Lot 2 will have to be otmfined from the existing main in Frontier
Trail.
The proposed private street upgrades should inclnd¢ a vehicle turnaround area, acceptable
to the City's Fire MamhalL and a copy of the private easement dedicated to the benefiting
property owners. In order to save the two existing oak trees on each side of the private
street, the existing street width may be maintained in this area.
Lot 2 cannot use the same driveway access off of ~ Plains Boulevard as the private
street. The two driveway accesses shall be separat~ by a ~ of five feet.
Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, including approved pavement
design, will be required for review and approval by the City Council at the time of final
plat consideration. Since the street i ,min'ovements will become owned and ~ by
the City, the applicant must enter into a development conlxact with the City and provide
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guanmtee consUuction
of the public improvements. Permits from the regulatory agency will be required,
including but not limited to W~ DislI'i~ MPCA, e, tg.
The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the new lot
The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary and water are $4,513. The ~ is also
subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003 trunk
utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for
water. The 2003 SAC ctmrge is $1~275 per unit These charges are collected prior to the
building permit issuance.
Building Official conditions:
b,
Final grading plato and soil reports must be submi~ to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water servia.
Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an
engineer licensed in the State of Minneso~
b,
Because of the setbacks of the proposed new house, additional ,~rldress numbem
will be required at the driveway entrance. Address numbers must comply with
Chanhassen l:ru'e Depa~ment Policy reglcrding prtm~ge identification pm,sua~ to
Policy No. 29-1992 (copy enclosed).
Submit new proposed driveway dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen ~
Marshal. This is to ensure that fire apparatus can safely negotiate the driveway to
the new ~ single family dwelling.
The bluff i ,mpact zone should be shown on the grading plan.
Planning Commission Summary Minutes - April 15, 20(B
20. Based on the proposed developed ~ of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees associated
with this project are estimated at $1,490 and the water quantity fees a~mciated with this
project are estimated at $3,686. The applicam will not be assessed for areas that are
dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is
$5,176.
21. Approval of the subdivision is contin~tzent upon the City Council approving the vacation
of the right-of-way.
22. Env~tal Resource Specialist conditions:
a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to
b. Ac_ce~ to Lot 2 should be from Ctre~ Plains Boulevard to increase tree
preservation.
23. Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly ~
lot in the amount of $2,400.
24. Access to Lot 2 shall be prohibited off of Frontier Trail
Show the propom~ hou~ elevation for Lot I and addre~ the runoff to the we~t mul
north.
Show fmal pro~ driveway loeation~.
27. Work with ~aff and Itnallze the plat and include the ~ information to
include drainage and utility e~ement, etc.
28. Include the tre~ grove on the northwest corner of Lot 1 and the 2 big tr~e~ on the
~outh ~ide of Lot 2 imflde the tree protection fencing.
29. Lot number 2 will be emmam grad~ mgl the house pad moved northwest a~
All voted in favor and the motion emmted nnRnintollaly with a vote of 6 to 0.
Commissioners felt that the conditions they added, highlighled in bold, conveyed their concerns
with the subdivision.
APPRQyAL QF MINIJTE~: Alimjn Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated April 1, 2003 as submitted.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 1605 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
hard cover surface so what my intention in tabling this is, is to make it clear to you that you are in
control of that. Whether you address the square footage on the house or you look at more c~mic
materials for pads and patios, that's in your court.
Blackowiak: I have nothing additional to add.
Sacchet: Brace, anything?
Feik: Nothing to oOd~.
Slagle: I'll just add one thing f~r staff that double cheek on the roof, the overhangs. On that
setback. I don't know if it was sort of hard to un&ts'amd from the sketch where those fell.
Sacchet: And we work on, when staff and applicant work on their idea of the landscaping, the
lakeshore landscaping, that also maybe have some consideration of those trees that are cmrently
very close. When I was out there, 2 of them would have to be cut pretty severely but I don't
know with the height of the house what extent that is re. ali~dc. Maybe have some consideration
for that also. Excellent, thank you.
PUBLIC m . RING:
CONSIDER A I~I~'~)UEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF l J6ACRFJ INTO 2 b'INGLE
IX)T ON Rs . F Vm.Y
I~'-SmENTIAL AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF ~ANTA FE TRAH~ LOCATED
AT 7~$1 GlO-AT PLA~q~ BOULEVARD~ ERNF.$T PIyEC~ LA HAYE ADDmQN.
Charles Stinson
Bart Bling~'up
Nancy Manara
Gladys Hanna
David Krunk
Tom Manarin
Wyck Linder
Steve & Nancy Rogers
4723 Eastwood Road, Minnetonlm
18736 The Pines, Bden Prairie
7552 Gre~ Plains Boulevard
400 Santo Fe Trail
7561 Great Plains Boulevard
7552 Caeat Plains Boulevard
7550 Cav~ Plains Boulevard
7520 Gre~ ~ Boulevard
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presentmt the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from staff? Bruce.
Feik: I've just got 2 of tlm~ ln the abandonment of the road, the area to the south, that would be
abandoned equally to the properties north and south?
Al4aff: That's correct
Feik: As it relates to the additional drive that would cross Lot 1, which would serve Lot 2, could
that not be accom~ without a variance by moving some lot lines7 So a variance wouldn't
be needed.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Al-$aff: What you can do is, one of the things that we looked at was to actually ~ a flag lot.
Feik: I know it'd be a flag lot.
Al-$aff: But then you still need a variance for that. But yes, that's definitely an option.
Feik: So it's either a flag lot or it's a cross easement?
Al-laff: Correct.
Feik: Those are our only two reasonable options?
Al-laff: (Yes)
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Any other questions?
Slagle: I just had a quick one. On page 2 Sharmeen, you note in bold the vacation of the right-
of-way requires City Council action only. And then you say approval of the subdivision will be
contingent upon the approval of the vacation.
Al-laff: That's corre~
Slagle: So we would not act upon the vacation~
Al-lafE No.
Slagle: But we have to in order to vote. Maybe I'm missing this but we're to act upon the
subdivision, we need to know that the vacation's been approved or will we do it son of
hypothetically?
Al-la_fi: It's contingent upon.
Slagle: Okay.
Al-JatT: So if the council denies the vacation, the subdivision is moo~
Slagle: Okay. And then one, just a more of a eeo question. On closing the driveway entrance on
the existing house, is that due to traffic?
Al-laff: Are we talking about this one?
Slagle: Yes.
AlJaff: The applicant, while working with the applicant we realized that we've got a non-
conforming situation here and we talked to them regarding closing off this driveway and they
were willing to do this. The~ is mom but it was one of the agreemmts that we reached.
$1agle: Okay. Fair enougl~
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Blackowiak: I just have one quick question. In the staff repoa I was unclear on top of page 5
about the connection charges. And then there's one sentence that just doean't read right to me
and I can't for the life of me make heads or tails of it. It says the site will be subject, thin is the
second sentence. The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection chsrge.
However, for the benefit of the lateral mains to the new lot. What's missing?
Saam: Yeah, that maybe could have been worded bettor but you go back to the first sentence and
read it in the context of that. According to the finan~ del~rUn~nt of recnrds, tlxrre are no
assessments due for the existing lot. Tlxm the site will be subject to connection charges however.
Blackowiaka The new site.
Seam: So we pwbably should have said, however the site will still be, you know there's no
assessments however the site will be subject to connection charges. That was the point we were
trying to say. Do you follow that?
Blackowialc I think so. So the new, okay. Are we talking the new site?
Seam: Yes, the new lot that's being crealte~
Blackowiak: The new lot will be subject to one sanitary and one water connection charge. And
then what's that last little phrase? However for the benefit, what does that mean?
Saarm It's just saying why they're being charged these connection charges. Basically...
Blackowialc Okay. You lmow what.
Saam: ...being assessed for the sewer and water.
Blackowialc If ~ was a comma after water connection charges comma, however. Yeah,
okay. I know, I know but with a comma it mak~ so much more sense. I just didn't understand.
Saam: Maybe I'll correct that before it goes to c. txmciL
Blackowialc I'm sure they'd be thankful.
Claybaugh: We'd really appreciate it Matt.
Blackowiak: They'd never know. Okay.
Sacchet: Any othex questions?
Blackowialc No, that was it. I just wanted to clarify thaC
Sacchet: Steve, do you have something?
Lillehaug: Sharmeen, on the bottom of pag~ 2. It says the applicant will not be assessed for axe. as
that are dedicated outlots. Do we have any dedicated outlots?
AI-Jaff: Bottom of page 2.
33
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Litlehaug: Page 3, sorry. The applicant will not be assessed for any areas that are dedicated
outlots. Simply my question is, is there any dedicated outlots?
Al-Jaff: No there are none.
Lillehaug: So then that, I had a problem with the plat here. We have a, who's dedicating this
property for the cul-de-sac?
A1-Jaff: The applicant is in ownership of, or has worked on this piece and will be able to give us
the right-of-way.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Saam: Commissioner Lillehaug, that might not, if I could just clarify. That might not be actually
in the plat. It might be a separate document, like a right-of-way. Gram a right-of-way.
Lillehaug: So that's what I was getting at. Is that, that can be combined into this plat?
Saam: No, not unless he has fee ownership or they sign off on the plat, whoever owns that
existing house.
Lillehaug: Okay. So this plat that we're looking at is only Lots 1 and Lot 2?
Saam: However with that though we're getting that right-of-way and con'ecting the cul-de-sac so
that's the nexus. That's why we think it's a key issue. We're getting somethi~ out of this we
feel.
Lillehaug: Okay. So getting from Lot 2 and Lot 1 to that dedicated right-of-way, there still needs
to be a cross easement in there which probably exists now to maintain it? Is that correct?
Saam: Are you speaking to the driveway now for Lot 27
Lillehaug: Yep. You've got to get from Lot 1 to that dedicated right-of-way for that cul-de-sac.
How do we get there? Through the existing?
Saam: The right-of-way's only going to be vacated, the way I understand it, along the south. The
south property line of the current parcel. So to the west of that Lot 1, that west lot line on Lot 1,
to the west of that, that's still going to remain fight-of-way. Do you follow that?
Lillehaug: So you're not dedicating it all the way out?
Samm No. The dedicated right-of-way will be from that existing house. Along the northern
portion of the cul-de-sac bubble. Maybe if I come up to the microphone.
Feik: So both lots will access via the private drive? Technically.
Saam: No, that's another issue. We're recommending that this driveway for this lot and the
private driveway, the existing private drive, those two be separated. Because there's a code
requirement that says only 4 homes can access off a private drive. And the~'s currently 1, 2, 3
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
and this one has potential for development. So we're saying to leave thin. To get, to not say they
can't develop. To not pigeon hole them we're going to separate these two driveways down here
so this one will be independent of the private drive.
Lillehaug: So if you could, from the south, from the southwest comer of Lot 1. If you go up
about 30 feet, right there, and then that line directly to the west. Is that city right-of-way?
A1-Jaff: No.
Lillehaug: It's not?
Saam: Yeah, this is all right-of-way right here.
Al-Jaff: This portion?
Lillehaug: Yep. So that is city right-of-way. That portion is. So there's going to be a private
street, private driveway on the city fight-of-way.
Saam: Yes, just like your's is, mine is. I mean that's the way we're looking at this. Let's go back
to this cul-de-sac here where we're going to get this dedicated right-of-way. This is a private
driveway. It's within the city right-of-way where it connects with the street. Do you follow that?
We're going to do the same thing over hem.
Lillehaug: It just needs to be cleaner on this plat then.
Saam: Yeah, I think we know what needs to be done but yeah, I agree. It's got to be cleared up
on the drawing, and we'll work with them on tha~
l%ik I'm missing something. Can I beat this to death for you?
Lillehaug: Sure. Keep beating it.
Feilc The right-of-way is the dashed line which surnmnds the cul-de-sac, com~?
Saam: Yes.
Feilc How do you get from the southwest corner of Lot 1 to tlie dashed line?
Saam: To this?
Feik Yeah, do you span that?
Saam: This line right here? That's right-of-way also.
Feik: That's fight-of-way too, okay.
Claybaugh: That's the portion that you're not vacating correct?
Saarm Correct. That's going to remain right-of-way. What I was under the assumption we were
vacating, and maybe Sharmeen will have to correct me, was just thi~ area within the property
that's being plA_tt~ into a lot. Basically the north half of the 60 foot right-of-way.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Lillehaug: But it's to maintain as...easement though~
Saam: Yes, because we have a sewer main that we're going to require that we get a drainage and
utility.
Feilc Why not vacate to the south as well?
Saam: You want to s_ddress that?
A1-Jaff: ff we get signatures from the, we haven't advertised the vacation as it appears before the
City Council. If we get the signatures of the property owners to the south we can definitely do
tha~ There's still plenty of time.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright, any other quesfiom here?
Lillehaug: I think that's all I have for staff, yeah~
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: I think the few issues with this plat have been suf~ciently ~ On page 6 1 just
wanted to come back to somethin~ you said in your opening comments. In the second paragraph
it says as condition of the subdivision the applicant is requesting that the city vacate the north half
of the fight-of-way and deed the land back to the applicant. As part of your opening comments I
think you indicated that we in fact did not hold the deed. It was just, is that a contradiction ar did
I misunderstand you?
Al4aff: I think you misunder, you said.
Claybaugh: When you said we're going to vacate the road.
Claybaugh: Okay. I think at that time you co~ that we didn't waive the right-of-way but
then have the deed.
Al-Jaff: No. No, I said we did not need it. Sorry about that.
Claybaugh: There you go. Thanks.
Sacchet: That's it?
Claybaugh: Yep.
Sacchet: Okay, I still have a few questions. As we are on the driveway thing, before we get
away from that. The private street, and I can't find in the staff report but I seem to recall
somewhere it said that the private street getting into the cul-de-sac should be 5 feet away from
where the driveway comes in ar sometMng like that. Is that, do I rememtx~ that correctly? Now
how would that work because right now they kind of merge in the drawing.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Al-Jaff: Well they would need to separate them
Sacchet: Okay, so they would still, the Nrivate road would still be going through those 2 oak
trees, then in the cul-de-sac and the other driveway would have to be sufficiently away from it?
AI-Jaff: Yeah, this portion would not change. It's this area right here.
Sacchet: That would have to be separated into two.
AI-Jaff: That would have to be separated.
Sacchet: And there is enough room to do that? Okay. Now my big thing, those of you that know
me should not be surprised, the trees. Trees. I have de~nke tree que~ons. I ~ the
comment here that the applicant's trying to preserve them but then 1 look at there's obviously
some tr~es being cut, correct?
Sacchet: And then I look at the table on page 6 and we have a baseline canopy of 65 percent,
1.01 acre and we have the proposed tree preservation of 65 ~ in 1.01 acres, so there doesn't
seem to be anything cut. What happened?
AI-Jaff: One of the things that we asked the applicant m do is to show us the 60 by 60 house pad.
And they repeatedly said that's not what they're going to build. They really want to build homes
that would preserve the trees. We explained to tlgm that the.
Sacchet: All ofthem.
Al-Iaff: If you look at, Nann could you please zoom into thi~. I'll just read it. It says house pads
are to be adjusted to miss major trees by 15 feec
Sacchet: Okay.
Al-Jarl': And that's how they base their canopy coverage.
Saccbet: So then my question is, why would tree preservation fence and silt ~nce not be on the
outside of those trees if you're ~ to preserve? They are the two big trees on the somlw, ast
corner you might say. That 44 inch whim oak and the other oak up there. And then also the ~
in, on Lot 1 on the northwest comer are not prol~'ted. So in other words we could possibly, I'll
ask that of the applicant. Whether they're willing to put fence arotmd it, but based on what he's
saying, that would be the logical thing to do, and I would solve a lot of my tree concerns. I have
one technical question, real quick. Lot 1, the 60 by 60 pad. On the north and on the east of it are
some weird lines, I cannot figure out what they are. On the north it's straight at just a little angle.
Short little lines, and on the east it has those curved lines with elevation numbers that don't
compute the way I see then~ Am I missing something?
Al-Jaff: Which sheet is this on?
Sacchet: It's on the one that is entitled grading. The grading plan. That's why I'm concerned
about those lines because the black lines are supposed to be grading lines and those lines are fat.
Can you address that Matt please?
37
Planning Co~mission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Saam: Sure. They've got some work to do them I believe they're contour lines. I've red line a
little something in here so I believe they're contour lines. They're not showing elevations but
they're drawing incorrectly. At least some of them are.
Sacchet: They don't make sense.
Sacchet: Alright, so okay. So we agree on that. That's all my questions. Thank you. With that,
would the applicant want to come forward and make a presentation? State your name and s_ddress
for the record please.
Ernie Pivec: Ernie Pivec from 5060 Mead~e, Greenwood, M'mnesota. I don't think there's a
hard cover issue here or anything like that. What you've been wortdng at with the other two
applicants. My bride of 56 years had a spinal fusion 2 years ago this coming May, so I've
become a caregiver, doing the cooking, shopping and so forth. So I hired my nephew to work
with Sharmeen and they I think did a diligent job trying to make this a nice lot division as
possible. So I couldn't be in on all of this so I can't answer many of the questions so you might
approach me because I wasn't there. I was shopping or cooking. So Sharmeen worked with my
nephew who I paid to do this, and this is where we are.
Slagle: And your nephew is who?
Emie Pivec: Pardon?
Slagle: Your nephew is who?
Ernie Pivec: Tracy Weathers. We named the plat to honor his wife who's my wife's niece, to
honor her father who died of bladder cancer. And his name was LaHaye.
Sacchet: Unless you have more to add, cl~es anybody have questions from the applicant?
Gladys Hanna: Can I ask?
Sacchet: We'll have the public hearing following this so if you could just hold it for a moment, I
appreciate tha~ Any questions from commissioners for the applicant?
Lillehaug: I have one. With the vacation of.
Sacchet: You'll get your tu~
Lillehaug: With the vacation of the fight-of-way and dedicating it to yourself, I'm rambling
through my pages here, but it increases the lot area of Lot number 1 to 31,400 square feet. The
minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet. Do you have any intentions on splitting this lot sinc~ it's
possible you could in the future?
Ernie Pivec: No. We'd keep it the same as it is. I am the fee owner on this. I'm the fee owner
on the existing house and there's a contract for deed on it against...vacation of that parcel.
Aanenson: Can I just add to that too? When this subdivision, Sharmeen's worked on this
subdivision for quite a few months and we've worked really well with the property owners here.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
R originally cang in with 4 to 5 lots when it originally came in. We've worked hard m get it m 2
to try to preserve and due to the diligence of the applicant here, we've got it down m 2 and we
believe respective of the property. Again because he knows the property and that was the
complication Sharmeen indicated. Part of the fight-of-way, and I'm not sure Matt clarified that.
Part of that bubble goes outside of the fight-of-way but because he was the deed owner and he's
the developer, he's going to reconcile that cul-de-sac because he owns the ~ and fixing
that driveway so we're solving a couple problems that ~re down there in that area. Again trying
to maintain how many homes on a private street, so that's where we felt the variance on that,
instead of coming off of Frontier, ma~ng the gr,_de change, the slopes, the tree loss, we got it
down to 2 homes so we felt comfortable giving that variance. I just wanted to make that clear.
Slagle: Question Kate. So you're saying that the lot that's stated...that Emie is the owner?
Aanenson: This is the right-of-way line. I think that was some of the confi~om The right-of-
way line actually they're talking about his driveway is right here, so the cul-de-sac bubble comes
outside of that right-of-way.
Lillehaug: How about on the south end, where's the right-of-way?
Aanenson: Yeah, correct This is all right-of-way to the sou~ It's just the north is the problem
and since he has the contract for deed, he can reconcile and get that bubble put in, ~
Lillehaug: That whole area going to the south?
Aanenson: Yes, is right-of-way.
Lillehaug: Is right-of-way? I mean continuing on out?
Aanenson: Yes.
Lillehaug: Is city right-of-way?
Aanenson: Correct
Lillehaug: Okay.
Aanenson: So that's because you've got...it goes beyond the right-of-way and I think that wasn't
quite clear when Matt was stating thaL
Lillehaug: That'd be it, thanks.
Ernie Pivec: And I think Steve's question about dividing that. This is a unique parcel because it
has access or an outlet on Lotus Lake. It's a nice, quiet neighborhood and that would really be a
nice location for 2 real nice houses.
Sacchet: Any other questions for Mr. Pivec?
Slagle: Yes. Brnie you were, I think if I can ask, you've been with your duties helping your wife.
Is it your passion, is it your goal, and are you behind the idea of saving as many trees as we can?
Ernie Pivec: Oh certainly. ~y.
39
Plaoning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Slagle: Okay, great. And I just want to share with you that sometime what we nm into is, we see
proposals in front of us with a desire, stated desire to do that, and then unfommately reality says
when the piece is developed, it' s not quite what we had seen or hoped for so I'm just glad to hear
from you that you're committed to that
Emie Pivec: Well I was, somexme proposed to me on this Lot I to approach the fire chief and see
if they would consider burning it down, and I said no because look at that oak tree. It's right next
to the house. You can't do that and ruin that tree. A tree that size is priceless you know.
Sacchet: Any other questions? I have a quick question. In the interest of preserving those trees,
the way on the grading plan the m~e preservation fence is drawn, it does not include the 2 real big
trees on your southeast side. Actually the biggest one there, that 44 inch oak, white oak and then
the next biggest one. Do you know which ones I'm talking about S~? The southeast, the
south area. The big oak and then just slightly west from it is another big oaE Little smaller. And
those 2 are not inside the, if you look where the protection fence goes, it goes on the outside of
those. Is there any reason why you could not include that in the protected area? And ask it to be
custom graded. ! mcan ! guess we have to add that into the picture,.
AI-Jaff: We can definitely do that part of. One of the reasons why it is outside the fenced, the
tree fenced area is because we ask~ for a 60 by 60 house paid and then a 15 foot around that area
to ensure that it meets the taxiinan~ requirement. That's what the ordinance.
Slagle: Could the house move firrther north a bit?
Sacchet: A little bit isn't it?
AI-Jaff: A little. There is buildable area. Yes it could.
Sacchet: And this pad doesn't mean it ha~ to cut the trees. Right,~ If you make it custom
graded, would that address that concern in some sense? Okay. Now the same question for those
trees on thc northwest corner of Lot 1. Tbem's that whole bunch of trees them. Pretty close to
thc existing house that are also not included in the protection feacing. Do you know which ones
I'm talking about Sharmeen?
Sacchet: Yep.
Ernie Pivec: That's the ones I was concerned about burning down the house.
Sacchot: Right. So would it be possible to put them inside the pwtection fencing as well? Okay,
that's my questions I believe. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing so I'll open the
public hearing. If you want to come forward. Mak~ your comments. State your name and
address please for the record.
Charles Sfinson: Yes, my name is Charles Stinson. I live at 4733 Eastwood Road in
Minnewnka. I' m here on two different reasons. One is, if I may. DO you have the small site
plan?
Sacchet: So do you want to show us where you are?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Charles Stinson: Yes. Well I live in Minnetonka. I own the ~ directly north and also I'm
the architect/land planner and kind of co-devel~ and'tonight the speaker for this neighborhood
of Frontier, the 9 lots just directly east of here. So one question I have directly, we on our
property, there happens to be an overhead line that's not on the easement and just going across
our property connecting to the house just to the north and the existing house that is being
demolished. We're wondering while they're doing this if they could put those utilities
underground. We're preparing to start conslruction on this house and we've tried to contact,
we're not sure who to contact to get those utili~ moved because there is an overhead for them.
So maybe you could help us with that or we could do a follow-up on that but I happened to talk to
the developer Emie and he thought maybe they could go underground up here. The other reason
I'm here in response to the neighborhood. The Frontier neighborhood has been like a 10 year
labor of love. We spent, we started 10 years ago with the Delancey's who, Ted when his young
boy drove the bus for his mother's...and when they hired, got me involved to do the land
planning, they had seen a Parade house I did and it saves all the frees and he said the developer
was looking at us thinking of putting in 28 lots so we got involved and worked closely with the
city and proposed that we have 9 lots so 9 acres, 9 lots. And the idea is to keep the houses smalL
Keep as many trees as we can, and tryto preserve the, and ~ the natural qualities ofthe
neighborhood. So tonight I'm here on a couple reasons and one is concern about the, you know
all the beautiful vegetation on the eastern side of the site, I'm concerned that the other houses
coming across here, for all the other houses this is their front yard. Hem and the other houses
going here. In this case this will be like a back yard or a side yard, so it's going to be much closer
to Frontier Trail than the existing houses that are there now and the bea~ trees and obviously
this is the bluff line over here which is unbuildable. But all ~ beaufifid trees are going to be
gone. And my question, if there are going to be 2 lots here, could the property line be tunted the
other way going east and west so this, so the first house could be built in the same location as the
existing one, and another house be built here, ~ saving all the trees and reducing the runoff.
Right now 2 of the houses, the second one under consmiction right across the street from here,
are actually below the level of the street and ttum~ is no curb so any extra runoff coming down
that long driveway, etc will go onto Frontier Trail and we'd like en~neering to look at it to make
sure it won't come down one of those driveways and to those homes. The other thing is just
trying to save the trees and be sensitive. And I guess the last thing that I can think of is that ~
houses, being in land planning and I know presentations, etc. These houses are drawn at 3,600
square feet pad. The 60 by 60. CoUld there be something that restricts it to actually to be that
square footage and not this being a schematic that the house is quite a bit bigger? Because ~
are variances and all the other houses along here, including our neighborhood, are one story
walkouts and more of the low profile, not to ~ with the trees, that perhaps this could be,
because they are walkout sites, that maybe they could be considered to be a one story walkout and
not a two story walkout because Frontier Trail they could be you know, really appear to be 3 14
stories tall if they had a steep roof. And I think that's about it. Thank you.
Saochet: Thank you.
Claybaugh: I had a question sir.
Sacchet: He has a question. Mr. Stinson?
Claybaugh: I had a question for you. You rr,,d~ two points. One was ~caUy with Lot
number 2. Obviously you're interested in maximizing the tgeservation of tree~. And then the
next comment you advocated going from a two story footprint, which is smaller, to a rambler
footprint.
41
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Charles Stinson: Well, yeah. I mean the idea is not, with the footprint they have they could still
be building, just going through the numbers real quickly. At 3,600 square feet they could be
building a 3 car garage and have 2,736 square feet on the main level, which down below, because
of pre-caist they could have basically over a 5,000 square foot house. So if they kept this footprint
they could still have a 3 car garage and 5,000 square feet without going to three level
Sacchet: So you're saying walkout with one story instead of two walkout.
Charles Sfinson: Yeah, because I think it's more in keeping with the scale of tl~ hill as opposed
to being a huge object Any questions about the piece west or could I get a response why the lots
weren't turned the other way and moved up he~ as opposed to having them just...
Sacchex: Could you address that Kate please.
Aanenson: Sure. Again Sharmeen spent several months on this. It came in with 4 lots. Legally
they have a right to the additional lots if they came off Frontier Trail. We worked really hard.
Sacchet: 4.
Aanenson: Correct, 4 lots. Well no, if they would come off Frontier Trail, which we believe is
not the best way. They have a right to come off of Frontier Trail. Legally it could be sulxlivided
into more lots. Again, looking at the grading we behove, we are creating a buffer on that side.
We believe this is the best application of the ~, again looking at all the, and there were
numerous iterations that we looked at. Trying to work with the land form and.
Sacchex: Since you're on point of clarifying, since you're at it Kate. It's my undemanding that
the way currently the building would be on Lot 2, it wouldn't really get into trees. Actually it's a
question for you S~ Wben I went out ttu~, I mean it is an opening in the trees and with
the thing that I discussed just before with the applicant, we would actually most likely not have to
cut trees at all.
Aanenson: That's the goal. That's the goal.
Sacchet: That's the goal, okay.
Charles Stinson: How about the fact that, I mean where the house print is going now there's
about 20 feet of grade change as opposed to, just question, why wasn't it just moved up fanhe~
Aanenson: It could move up farth~. I mean they m~t the setbacks. That's for approval to show
they can get a 60 by 60 pad within that, outside the conservation area. What we're saying is more
than likely it won't be a 60 by 60. If people come in with, whoever buys it has a desire to do
what they want to do.
Charles Stinson: Okay.
Sacchex: Thank you very much. I know there's somebody else who wants to make a comrmnt.
Go ahead please. State your name.
Tom Manafin: Tom Manarin, 7552 G-re~ Plains Boulevard. Fve worked with Sharmeen and
Tracy on this deal too but I apologize. I was out of town. I just got back in so I didn't get a
chance to nm by a few things with her. It might help to.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Lillehaug: Could you point out where you live quickly? If possible. I know you're right in the
neighborhood.
Slagle: You're the potential development, right?
Tom Manarin: No I'm not. I'm the owner of, I'm the potential yeah. Exactly. Just to help,
maybe it will help clarify what this is because this is an issue that I have, is why we're ending up
with this approximstely 90 feet of no man's land in here. I basically, Wyck and I own the private
road going back in here. I was not accepting to give any land away. That is why, there was
plotted in another building plot here that I would not go along with losing my right to some day
maybe subdivide my lot. Therefore the vacation is ending right at our ~, which is creating
this no man's land again. And yes, I know that it's right-of-way but from this point, this point
and this point to this point, as far as I'm concerned it's back into no man's land. I don't
understand why it wasn't, you know there could be various reasons but instead of taking this
property over here, dedicating this over, moving mailboxes. There are some trees over here that
may be in jeopardy. There is a catch basin down in here. There is a catch basin down in here
which I'm not sure where this 3 to 1 slope, if it's going to get filled over, that water would
eventually come in my back yard. The catch basin's aren't on this thing. They're...years and
years ago that... Why this would come down this way... Sharmeen I know why we're doing this
to create a point for the safety vehicles and that to come into. We already have a roadway hem
All Emie would be losing is the same amount of space here as he is over here on this ~. It
eliminates your variance. It e 'lunina~, which I don't understand why you go from an easenm~
in Lot I to granting an easement to get to Lot 2. That doesn't make any sense to me. Why we
would want to do that but if it's all different perspectives on what's going on. There are those
questions and then going back to the trees and that, this 22 inch. There is a question that I have.
~g to this tope, they're raising the grade right next to that oak by 4 or 5 feet. I can't quite
make out what this contour line is out here. But it ends up being a 4 to 5 foot fill around an oak.
It will never survive. So if you extend this out, you're not going to lose that oak. That oak is on
your property anyways. It doesn't make any diff~ if you extend that road out. That oak is
going to get lost either way. It just is. It won't withstand 4 to 5 feet of fill.
Sacchet: Just to clarify. You're talking about the one, that's actually marked as a linden on?
Tom Manafin: No, no. On the private drive, there's 2 oaks...
Aanensom What he wants to do is move that cul-de-sac over. Okay, now let's go back to where
we have fight-of-way. Let's go back to this map. Can you zoom in on this real quick Our right-
of-way includes this wider area, which Steve asked befc~e, which is this area. So if we stayed
within the right-of-way, because lhe developer also has this loc We can keep the cul-de-sac but
within the right-of-way. By pushing it over here, you still have a private drive serving these
~es. All you've done is taken out more trees. You're still servicing the same thinE. This
private drive isn't going to move so those trees on either side would still stay there. Can you
zoom in on that please. These two trees are still saved. The only driveway that we're swinging
down, and this is the right-of-way that's not being vacated. It's not really no man's land. It's still
serving the right-of-way.
Tom Manarin: Right, okay. Who's going to take care of it?
Aanenson: The same way it's happening now. We're taking the easem~t over thac
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Tom Manarin: Okay.
Aanenson: So I'm not sure.
Tom Manarin: I guess I'm in agreement with Kate but I'm not because plow trucks, I mean the
plow trucks come right to the end of this right now. I mean this is where.
Aanenson: Right, and there's no drainage right now. Just asphalt.
Tom Manarin: The snow all ends up fight here anyway. I mean the city trucks and that come, the
city maintains all that as far as you've been sweeping up to that point and everything else. But
now you're saying from there to there it goes into.
Aanenson: Our position is we're using existing right-of-way. We're minimizing the tree loss.
That's our position.
Sac. che~: And just to clarify, I mean that stretch that we may c. all no man's land is really lilm the
no man's land of every house. This driveway when it goes a~'mss the easement before it hits the
property owner's land, right?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Sacchet: So it just...
Aanenson: We don't understand what we're gaining by pu_shin~ the ~ul~ over. It's not
impro~g anybody's driveway access.
Slagle: Let me just ask, what would we be gaining in your opinion?
Tom Manarin: In my opinion you would be gaining the fact that you don't have any variance to
grant. You have the potential of e 'hmiaaling an easement to this house by coming off of the mfl-
Aanenson: We still have a variance. We still have a ctriveway variance.
Tom Manarin: The cul-de-sac comes down in, you c. an put tl~ cul-de-sac down in here to touch
this property. You don't have a variance.
Lillehaug: Would we have to get ~clditiomfl right-of-way from David and Leslie Kronk?
Aanenson: Correm.
Tom Manarin: No you wouldn't.
Aanenson: Well if you push it all on his ~ there's a tr~d_~off.
Tom Manarin: ...but it does show. This yellow line is what you own now. What I'm sayin~ is
you can come in hem and do the same thing as what you're doing om here. This is the same cul-
de-sac that you have hem?
Aanenson: So we're increasing the length of the street. Taking out trees.
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
TomManarin: No, you aren' t taking out any trees. There' s no trees taken out.
Aanenson: But you will when you put the house pads in though because now you've taken out
where you were going to put the houses where there's no trees.
Tom Manarin: The house pad moves. The house pads haven't moved. The distance, the right-
of-way distance is the same.
Saam: The oak on tl~ side of the private street would come out though.
Tom Manarin: It's going to be coming out according to the grading plan anyways. It's going to
be lost because you've got 4 to 5 feet of fill going armmd it. -The only tree that you axe losing is
this scrubby old basswood, which will probably fall over this summer anyway.
Sacchet: Yeah, that doesn't look very good. But that one comes out either way.
Tom Manarin: No it doesn't. Right now that basswood would not come out.
Aanenson: Did you check the grades on that cul-de-sac because we don't believe.
Tom Manarin: On which one?
Aanenson: To extend the cul-de-sac, did you check to see if that meets our.
Tom Manarin: Alright, I did not check the grades.
Aanenson: Okay, we did and we believe that that didn't work with that lengttc It does create a
lot of extra fill too.
AIJaff: That's one of the reasons why that road was abandoned in the first place. Because of the
way it drops.
Tom Manarin: A grade of 8 percent
Aldaff: 7.
Tom Manarin: 7? Okay. Well like I said, I did not cheek the grade from the manhole covers on
the back of this cul-de-sac, no I did not.
Aanenson: That's why the street was never built.
Sacehet: Interesting thought. Definitely creative.
Tom Manarin: You're going from a 70 to a 90. You've got 10 feet of...over 100 feet so that
could be adjusted. That's from...
Claybaugh: So the road could be built?
Tom Manarin: Yeah. And all I'm saying is that's proposed grading, and obviously we could
adjust that..
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Gladys Hanna: The fire hydrant is right, isn't he right by the cul-de-sac will be by the fire
hydrant right there. Is that right? Anybody look at the fire hydnmt?
Tom Manarin: Anything else?
Slagle: Thank you.
Sacchet: I think we got your idea. Do you have a question about this?
Claybaugh: Yeah, if you could just, from your perspective. An individual perspective, what is it
that you're trying to accomplish or preserve.
Tom Manarin: Well I think the only thing that rm trying to accomplish and preserve is what is
out them now? I guess I don't see what creating another cul-de-sac is going to do whe~ we
already have something them that works. I have concerns for in the furore, and that would be
something that I should have asked for too is some sort of commitment back from the city or
something that that property would never be deemed as the fourth driveway corning out to
landlock our property in the back_ That no man's land just seems really messy to me.. Quite
honestly. If you look at the plot, you have a lot of that going already and I don't know why you
want to create more of thaL
Claybaugh: If I understand you, it's potentially counter Nroducfive to what your potential furore
plans may be somewhere down the line? Is that?
Tom Manarin: I would say that would be a way of explaining it, yeah~
Claybaugh: Okay, that's one. Cemfinly one of the elements.
Slagle: That's what I was trying to get at too earlier. Understanding where you're ~ from
on this.
TomManarin: You know rmjust trying to make it fit in them to make it look better. ImeanI
just don't understand where that 90 feet, it's just going to look, ff you've got a curb and gtu~
and everything, and then you've got 90 feet of what.
Aanenson: Driveway.
Tom Manarin: But, you've got 2 driveways because you said they have to be 5 feet apart so
that's where.
Sacchet: Yeah, I think we understand your cxmcern, lust to clarify, the way I remember the staff
report pointing out the situation of the private road in the context of your property. Your
property, are you envisioning could be split into more than 2 lots?
Tom Manarin: There's that possibility.
Sacchet: And that's your concern then ultimately because if we have this private road and we
have the maximum of 4 acx. ess~, and we've already used up 3, now I understand. Staff rondo, an
effort to take one of those ~ off so they that there would be an additional possibility to
have access should you choose to subdivide at some point. But your concern, as I see, seems to
be that if you limit it to not be able to subdivide into more than 2, is that part of your concern?
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
AI-Jaff: lie can't subdivide more than.
Sacchet: He cannot do more than 2?
Tom Manarin: No.
Al-Jaff: No.
Sacchet: Okay.
Al-laff: And even the 2 is doubtful.
Sacchet: Even that is not sure, okay. So in other words it wouldn't be a limiting factor for this
case?
Al-Jaff: With everything that we did when we looked at the layout of l. atI-Iaye Addition was to
protect his fights...
Tom Manarin: Yeah, there's no doubt about that.
Sacchet: So you would not be limited. Is that your understanding?
Tom Manarin: Understanding what?
Sacchet: You would not be limited by this set-up, is that your tmdc~?
Tom Manarin: No, it is not limited at this point in time.
Saccbet: Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate your creativity.
Tom Manarin: Like I say, and theae again S~ I, the othea: questions ~e~ too is, in your
staff report it says that there's going to be ano~ cul4e4ac made up, the way I'm unde~
it, is up in front of our house then? A turn around area.
Sacche~: No I don't tbini~ thgre's.
Al-Jaff: No.
Aanenson: It's a private street.
Tom Manarin: Okay. I thought I read that, that theae was going to be a 30 foot turn ~round.
Sacchet: Something about a turn around.
Tom Manarin: Yeah, that's what I read.
Al-Jaff: We talked to the fire marshal regarding the mm around, and the existing driveways will
work just fine for a turn around purposes.
Sacchet: So we would be alright then. Okay.
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Tom Manarin: Okay. And then on the grading issues, is that, should we wowj about that later or
do you want to take that up now? The issue that I have, that I'm concerned with and we touched
on it before. This line here is at 892. The driveway, the proposed driveway is coming out this
way. The garage floor has been proposed at 893. I call't handle any more water coming this way
because it all comes right down through them. Every year it all washes out anyways. We need to
touch base on that because you know one of the ~ was that this was all _coming out
anyways. We were going to be able to lower it at that time. My concern is if this house is going
at 893 and this water is coming this way, which is going to dump down in here, can you lower
this or do somethinE different so that I don't you know take on any more watex than I alxeady anm
Aanenson: What's the existing house at, do you know?
Tom Manafi~ I know it's lower than the street here in the private drive. I would say by at least
2 ½ feet. The garage over here at this end is, the water, some of it tips and dumps back out into
the water. Some of it tips...
Sacchet: Alright, I don't know where we got into this detail at this point but it's definitely an
aspect that needs to be addressed so I appreciate you bring it up, thank you.
Tom Manarin: Okay.
Sacehet: Now, who else wants to make a eo~t? I know there was, it's your turn right?
Alright. Why don't you come up. State your name and address for the record please, and please
speak in the microphone so we can all hear.
Gladys Hanna: My name is Gladys Hanna and I live at 400 Santa Fe TraiL I'd just like to know
where my house, help me. I' m right on the comer where the hydrant is. On ~ chart. I want to
know where I am~ ...it must be right there.
Tom Manarin: You are, here's your driveway right here. There's the hydrant.
Gladys Hanna: Right here is the fire hydrant.
Tom Manarin: That's your house right there.
~ladys Hanna: Right here. Okay. Now, okay so now that the cul-de-sac is going to be where?
Right here? Right by my driveway. How many feet is this?
Saam: Be about 30 feet.
Sacchet: 30.
Gladys Hanna: ...This is my driveway.
Al4aff:. Looks about 35.
Gladys Hanna: I'd say about 8 feel
Aanenson: I scale off about 32. We can verify that for her.
Gladys Hanna: From the cul-de-sac?
48
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Aanenson: From your driveway.
Gladys Hanna: ff this is where my house is?
Al4aff: This is her driveway. This is the house.
Sacchet: Sharmeen, show her where the street starts. You're looking at the easement line.
A14aff: Okay. This is whe~ the pavement is right here. The lxoposed pavement. Wha~ you see
in dark blue is the existing road. This is the house that was nmxxteled,
Gladys Hanna: Okay.
AI-Jaff: And this is you, and here is the driveway...about 30 feet where the new pavem6mt is
going to be. So really nothing is going to change by your house.
Gladys Hanna: Okay. So the hydrant is where now?
Gladys Hlmna: That will be in it or?
A14aff: It will be in the right-of-way, but no pavcunent is going to affect the hydmnu
Gladys Hanmu Okay.
Sacchet: See there is a fight-of-way beyond the street because snow plowing and all this spa~ to
pile up the snow.
Gladys Hanna: Right. Yeah, you've got to have that. Okay.
Sacchet: Absolutely.
Slagle: But we won't plow over the fire hydrant.
Gladys Hanna: Oh, and where will the mailboxes be?
Claybaugh: Where would you like them?
Gladys Hanna: Well I'll tell you. I don't know, they're going to have to move thtmz
Aauenson: Generally the Post Of~ce checks on that. We'll check with the Post OITw~.
Gladys Hanna: I don't want to...get my mail though.
Sacchet: Oh you will have a mailbox.
Aanenson: I don't think your's may not move but that's a post office...
Gladys I-Lmuna: There will be more people added to iL
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Aanenson: 1ust one additional. One additional house. One for you, one replaced and one mom.
We can check on thaL
Gladys Hanna: I'd like to know where...
AMaff: We'll let you know.
Gladys Hanna: Thank you.
Sacchet: Alright. Any other co~ts? Please come forward. State your name and s_O__are, ss for
the record please.
Wyck Linder: Hi. My name is Wyck Linder. I live at 7550 Gre~ Phins Boulevard. My family
and I've lived there for about 18 years. And I just had a couple of com~. I guess one of my
biggest disappointments is that nobody has ever contacted me, called me, sent me a letter or
anything about this, and as a property owner with ~ on, adjacencies to two sides of this
development I wasn't extx~fing a fruit basket but you know I was hoping somebody would
contact me.
Sacchet: How close do you live from this?
Claybaugh: Just to the north.
Sacchet: Just to the north. Your name is actually on the mailing list. You did not receive any
mailings?
Wyck Linden. No. And I tried to call. I got a number off of that board over there and I tried to
call but I could never get thro~ to anybody so. I live right here. So never heard a word about it
and so I was kind of disappointed by that.
Sacchet: Your address is '/550 Great Plains Boulevard?
Wyck Linden Yeal~
Sacchet: That's the address that apparently this was sent to.
Wyck Linden. Was it on the mailing list?
Aanenson: Yes.
Wyck Linden Okay.
Sacchet: Did you receive notice for this meeting?
Wyck Linden Yes, I got this.
Sacchet: Oh, that's probably the only thing then.
Gladys Hanna: That's all I had.
Wyck Linden Was that all you had?
50
Planning Commission Meeting -April 15, 2003
Sacchet: That's all that went out.
Wyck Linden Okay. I've worked with, okay. I worked with othex planning commissions and I
thought there might be a neighborhood m~eting or soamthing to seemingly answer out a lot of
these questions before they got this far but.
Sacchet: At times we do that, but it looks like in this ease the~ was no such meeting.
Wyck Linder: Okay. Well I'll quit whining about that so you know.
Slagle: This is the first we're seeing it too.
Wyck Lindee. Okay. Not trying to stop any developnz~t or anything. That isn't eea'minly the
intention, but then the other comment was that I think that Mr. Manarin and Mr. Stinson and
others have sotm pretty good quexdons that would require son~ pretty detailed crisp answers,
and you'll probably hear more quesfiona come up regarding elevations, and accel. ~
lines. Adjacencies. That type of thing. That would require a good crisp answers so I just hope
you'll agree with me and make sure that those answers are gotten. Thank you.
Saechet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to make comments? Please come forwa~
David Krunk: Next neighbor. I'm David Krtmk; 7561 Great Plains. My family is right here, just
to the south of the ~. I just have a couple ~ts. Fast I want it on the record that I
know they're talking about v~ this pmpe~ ~n ~ m~e ~L
Sacchet: Just a portion of it.
David Kmnk: ...was just looking for my half back So, no big concern but I'm nx~wing it so I
figure I earned it. And I see that the way the cul-de-sac they're proposing does lmatect these trees
right here. The 3 very large trees right on this circle and I want to make sum those aren't lost
because those are huge. And I do appreciate that you guys are oddressing the trees because
basically when you drive into this neighborhood, and one of the reasons why we bought this
property, when you're driving in there it looks like you're driving into a park. It's all wooded.
All of this back here is wooded. Mr. Stinson has done a great job back hem keeping that, and so I
just want to make sure that we don't lose that whole look, so any trees that are lost, it would be
nice if they're replaced.
Sacchet: May I just clarify with staff. Those trees he's pointing out next to the cul-de-sac, just
south of the cul-de-sac, they would not be i ,mlmcted?
Aanenson: Yep, they're outside. That's tim fight-of-way line, not the pavement line you're
looking at so actually the pavement circle's in even timber.
Saeehet: Okay.
David Knmlc This is the pavement?
Aanenson: Yep, you've got it.
51
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
David Krunk: Good. Now they say that they're not taking out any big trees down here. There's
a lot of scrub. There's some dead trees and low bushes, and basically this whole area looks like
forest. Okay, there may not be any legitimate large trees on that square, but it is all woods. Back
woods. It's bushes.
Sacchet: Actually there is a canopy line, that wavy line, that actually shows where the canopy
cover is.
David Knmk: So that is, so you know, but just stating that them are no big trees coming out is a
little bit of a misnomer because that is going to really change the look of that park_ And then the
only other concern I had was, this is going to change my curb lines quite a bit. I assume that's all
paid for by the developer and stuff? And the mailboxes, that icind of stuff. We don't, cost the
property owners that are affected by this don't have costs related to this. I assume.
Aanenson: No, that's the intent.
David Knmk: Okay.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate.
Slagle: So intent would be a yes?
Aanenson: Yes. Right, and then we have a pre-construction meeting. We meet with the ~
owners... Again here's the specific concerto, those mailboxes. During construction issues, those
kind of things.
David Krunk: That's all I had.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to come forward? Make any comments?
Please, this is your mm.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive. Just a question about private streets. What
steps does the City take to ensure that private streets are built to the specifications of code?
Sacchet: Do you want to address that briefly?
Aanenson: No, Matt can do that.
Saam: Yeah, we inspect those now. That's a new thing we've added to our ~ of
inspection because of problems in the past so.
Sacchet: It's my recollection from reading the staff report that one of the conditions is that the
private street will be made conforming with all requirements, with the exception of where it goes
past those two oak trees.
Saarm Yes. We're going to...
Aanenson: There's no private street.
Lillehaug: We don't have a private street here.
52
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Aanenson: We're cul-de-sacing the public right-of-way and there will be a driveway. Existing
private street is in place.
Sacchet: We don't change anything about the existing private street?
Aanenson: There's one home that comes off it. It will continue to come off it. That's not being
altered.
Debbie Lloyd: But you addressed the privam street in your staff report about it m~cting
specifications of code, and the fire marshal turnaround and stuff.
Aanenson: This is the existing one. This is not, there is a driveway that ccrmes off it now. But
that's not going to change. This existing driveway so it's not going to be...s_ddifional access and
this will be a regular driveway. So it's not a private street...
Debbie Lloyd: Because it mentioned a private street in the planning...in the first paragraph...
Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Claybaugh: Point of clarificatiom
Sacchet: Point of clarification.
Claybaugh: Just in general terms. Going back to the private driveway. I know it doesn't apply
in this one but it was my ~ last time we've been through this that we were going to
require that the developer engage an independent testing company that would certify the
Saam: Yep.
Sacchet: Anybody else want to address the Planning Commission? Please come forward.
Charles Stinson: Charles Sfinson agaim The reason I'm coming up again: I had a chance to look
at the wpo and this is the first time I had the chance to look at it and this is what I do every day is
try to blend houses into sites, etc. So I guess what I would wish that could happen is that perhat~
the architect and land planner, architect, landscape architect maybe meet with the city and just
look at the possibility. I think the site is fine for developrmm but it seems so much more natural
to make that division this way and work with the existing gr~_de~ saving all the trees and build the
other house fight here because you have a natural one story walkout on that site. If you go hem
you have 2 stories of grade change that you have to make and there's no way in the world that
you could save all those trees. I mean 15 feet is fine if you have a fiat lot, but making a street in
the, if there's 20 feet of Ipade change you can do a half of it with a house. The oth~ half has to
be done by retaining walls, landscaping, etc. And it just seems to natural to put it up he~ and
then you can leave everything at the bottom, so those are my comments.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate your expertise with that Anybody else want to
comment to this proposal? ff not, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to
commissioners. Co~ts. Want to start?
53
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
$1agle: I can start. I think all and ail I would support the findings. I would support staff's
position on this. I do think there's some interesting questions that have been miseck but I think I
have heard answers from staff that satisfy the questions I might have. With the exception of this
last comment, and I don't need to hear an answer but I guess I just wonder out loud what that
would be like if that came in using that kind of a dividing line between the lots. So for right now
I am leaning towards approval but there might be some more things brought up.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bruce, you want to go next?
Feilc I' tn leaning towards approval as well. I think it would have been easier if the lot would
have come in flipped the other directiom Matt, could you tell me in the reco~ons
specifically where we're talking about splitting that, those driveways with the 5 foot separation?
I've been through this a couple of times. Is it in the relx~? Are you waiting to have it on the
revised plan? Is it in the conditions?
Saam: Yeah, tbem's a condition that speaks to that too.
Feik Should I come back to that?
Saam: Well I've got it here.
Feika Okay, good.
Saam: In the report it's under, well at the bottom of page 5 going into page 6.
Feik: I found that.
Saam: Okay.
Feik: I'm wondering where that is in the conditions for approval though. It's not specified I
don't believe. It is?
Al4aff: Actually if you look at condition 14.
Feilc Thank you. Alright, thank you. Generally I suppoR the application. I certainly would
prefer to have 2 lots split this direction than 4 lots and some of the other things that could happen
in the development that the property owner would have the right to do. And could ~y do a
much more intensive development. I think it's generally consislm~t with what's going on in the
neighborhood. Whether it's a one story, two story on that Lot 2 is certainly going to be up to
whoever moves in or whoever decides to build on that and I don't see where we can put any
limitations on that at this time so I support the application.
Sacchet: Alison.
Blackowisk'- Thank you. Yeah I agree with what's been said so far. I certainly prefer two lots to
tbe potential for ~ th~n two. And the fact that so many of the trees are ~ to be saved is
really a plus for me. F m trying to envision the houses in slightly different positions because I
know that we have to prescribe the 60 by 60 pad but Fm hoping that them will be a little
movement and especially on Lot 2. Fd like to see that pushed a lot farther to the west, but that's
again it's personal preference and I have on control over that but Fll just say my piece and we'll
see what happens. I think it's a gorgeous area and I just hope that the contractors and the earth
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
movers and everybody can really just do a great job because it's an area that's really worthy of
some nice horaes and some real care taken to putting those homes in.
Sacchet: Thank you. Craig.
Claybaugh: I support staff's position in their findings. I believe that development certainly could
be more intensive. Would like to address, or just make light of the custom grading opportunities
I'll say and see that they're followed through on or addressed. With .being in development,
Charles I'm sure you're also familiar with zero i .mpact ~ts, and that is basically zero
i .mpact on anything that you're doing. We do it consi~en~y with corps engineers but from that
point all the way through what an applicant comes in with, once you satisfy the different codes
and ordinances, and he stays within that building envelope and comes forward with a reasonable
application, he has a certain amount of latitude in there. It isn't necessarily a question for us to
decide if it can be done slightly better or not, and I'm not saying that the things that you're
proposing wouldn't i .m!u~ve it, but that isn't necessarily, once R hits a certain threshold that isn't
for us to decide. So that being said I can suppc~ it as it's set f~dx One thing that was brought
up was just the ~on for the underground utilities. I don't know if there's.
Aanenson: This is a private drive so I'm not sure how much, you know because we don't have...
Aauenson: We can cemfinly check with.
Claybaugh: Is ~ anything the City can do to just help try and coordinate it ~ maybe
facilitate the meeting...
Aanenson: They're the underlying ~ owners that would have to consent...
Claybaugh: So ~'s no city involvement.
Aanenson: We could.
Claybaugh: That' s all I'm ~dng.
Aanenson: Right, but you need underl~ consent, correct
Claybaugh: Right, I undemmxi it's not a city decision or unilaUual decisiom Just what you can
do to help facilitate it. That's all the comments I have.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: I would like to get a little specific heae. I would like to, from the package that goes to
City Council I'd like to remove alternate 2 from the packet. We did not discuss that. I don't
think it should proceed and go to the council. On the grading and erosion control plan for
alternate 1, when you refer to possible in quite a few locations. C:mt rid of the word possible.
This is a final, final plat here. ~ house on number 1, I think we need to show a proposed
floor elevation, not the existing. Show the proposed elevation. Again, possible waternmim
Show the location as proposed. As staff indicated, the plat needs to be cleared of, we need to
show the items that need to be on the plat on the plat and address that clear with the drainage
utility easements. I'm not sure if we want to show the proposed fight-of-way for the cul-de4a~ in
55
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
this plat. It's not part of it. And th~ hous~ on pad numb~ 2, I think th~ c, an 1~ a walkout and I
think grading can be accomplishe~ And th~ ~c. ally, Fm in support of this. I would ~ on
the condition number 20, does that area include th~ vacat~ pmpe~? I would assun~ it does I
guess. When we're calculating the fees.
Aanenson: I can double check on that
Lillehaug: Yeah, we should double check that. I'd like to, because I think it should be because I
could use some extra property to put a garage on. But anyway, I think w~ ne~ to includ~ a
standard in there .... added in them, either 7 or 9 ton, whatever standard for the city. That'd be it,
thank you.
Sacchet: Alright, I don't have too much to add, except in terms of conditions I would want to be
very specific that Lot number 2 should be custom graded. That the building pad on Lot number 2
should be moved north and west as much as possible to get it away from those trees. I would like
to include those 2 big trees that are currently on the south of that building pad number 2. I would
like to have the fence, the tree protection fence on the other side of those trees, so those trees are
on the protected side. The same, I'd like to extend the tree protection fence in the ncn~west
corner of LOt 1 to include those, that grove of trees in that corner. I appreciate Mr. Stin.,~n's
suggestions. I think they're very well takem I don't know whether it would make sense to have a
statement that the applicant would work with staff to consider the possibility of splitting the lot
the other way. What the merits of that would be before it goes to council. I don't think that's a
reason to hold it up at this point. And the same with the underground utility. I think that would
be a great im,m'ovement for the city to put these utilities undergroun~ ff that would be possible if
the applicant could work with staff to comider that possibility before it goes to council. That's all
my comments. With that, I'd be happy to take a motion~
Feilc Well I have a question.
Sacchet: Go ahe. d.
F~ik: If you want staff to really look at splitting this lot th~ other dim~on, I think you're starting
over. I think you're starting over on this whole thing. I think that's, I hate to say I think that's an
unreasonable request.
Sacchet: It' d be too much. It' d be too much to request from staff. Okay.
Aanenson: We did evaluate that.
Sacchet: Yeah, the reasonable thing would be to table it if you want to go that mute.
Feilc It would be.
Sacchet: We'll accept it as it is.
F~ik: Because it's going to be very difficult.
Sacchet: Yeah, I think you're fight about that Bruce. Appreciam that you're bringing that up. I
don't think it's a reason to hold it up as I stated. So with that Fd lilm to have a motion.
Feik: Steve had the most connmnts.
56
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Blackowiak: That means it's your's.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commi.~sion recommends approval of the Pre~
Plat for Sulxlivision ~03-3 for LaHaye Addition for 2 lots and a variance to allow 2 driveways on
a single residential lot as shown on the plans received March 14, 2003 subject to the following
conditions, 1 through 24. And I would like to add to number 3 to incl-de a 45 foot radius as staff
has indicated. To number 15 1 would like to include having an approved pavement design. And
then I would like to add several other conditions. Number 25. To remove the word possible
where, let me back up hem. I've got to be more specific he~. I'm not sum how to addr~s my nit
picky items here. Any help?
Sacchet: Well you don't like the word possible. You want the driveway to be where it's shown.
Lillehaug: Right. I mean they just need to finalize this. I mean to me it's looking like it's
possible, possible.
Feilc Yeah, that you could put the garage on the other side in which case the driveway's going to
be 40 feet shoRer. Odds are the garage is going to go on the south side anyway because you're
nOt.
Aanenson: Right, it works real well.
Feik: Okay so.
Lillehaug: Okay. Condition number 25. Show the proposed house elevation for Lot 1.
Condition number 26. Show final proposed driveway locations. How do you like that?
Sacchet: Sure.
Claybaugh: Outstanding.
Lillehaug: Number 27. Work with staff and finalize the plat and include the necesmty
information to include drainage and utility easexmnt, etc.
Blaekowiak: FII second that.
Sacchet: I can make friendly amendrm~ts, can I? Friendly am~n~ Condition number 28.
Include the tree grove on the northwest corner of Lot 1 and tl~ 2 big trees on the south side of Lot
2 inside the tree protection fencing.
Lillehaug: Yes.
Sacchet: Number 29. Lot number 2 will he custom graded and the house pad moved northwest
as possible.
Claybaugh: As required.
Sacchet: As required. Yeah, at least with that tree fencing. That would be som~wh~ corm~
And number 30. Applicant shall work with staff to consider moving ~ underg~tmd. We
say which ones we mean. That's a sticky one.
57
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Blackowiak: That's a separate issue.
Claybaugh: Yeah.
Sacchet: Yeah, that's not on this property so we can't make it a condition~
Aanenson: That was my point. We will certainly make a contact but.
SaccheC Yeah, we can't put it in as a condition because it's unmlal~ to this paxticulm-
specifically. Alright, that's my.
Lillehaug: So 1 through 29 as stated.
Feilc Additional amendrr~nt?
Sacchet: Alright.
Feik: Adding to your n~ 26. I think that's the one where you stated the elevation of the
house on Lot 1. That the plan should address any nmoff to the west of that loc
Aanenson: That's actuatly 25. Lot elevation. You want the drainage.
Feilc Yeah, 25. The resident brought up a concern regarding slope and
Sacchet: That's to the north, isn't it?
Feik: To the west.
Blackowiak: North and west
Sacchet: Northwest, alright. Okay. Is that it?
Llllehaug moved, Bhsekowtak s~onded that the Plannlxqg Commi~ion recommends
approval of the prdtmtmu'y plat for Subdivision #lB-3 for Laltaye Addition for 2 lots and
variance to allow two driveways on a single resldeatial lot as shown on the plans dated
IL~e~__lved March 14, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
I. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas.
2. ff grading material will need to be i ,mpom~ ~r exported to construct the lots and street,
the applicant and/or con~ must supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul route
for review and approval prior to site grading.
3. The new cul-de-sac on Great Plains Boulevard shall be consm~ to ~ City design
standard, a 45 foot radius, with B-618 curb and gum~.
4. A minimum 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement is required over the public
sanitary sewer line on Lots 1 and 2.
5. Remove any existing pavement within the cul-de-sac right-of-way so the existin~
driveways have a maximum width of 24 feet, as per City Code.
58
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
1
1
0
,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Any grading or utility work outside of the pwperty limits or right-of-way will require a
temporary easement.
A maximum slope of 3:1 is allowed without a retaining wall. Revise the grading plan to
comply.
A pfivam easement is requLred for the driveway of I~ 2 which crosse~ over Lot 1.
Revise the grading plan as follows:
al
d,
el
Show the proposed neck radius for the cul-de-sac.
Show the proposed grades for the private street and cul-de-sac upgrade~.
Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should define all of the
different line types, easements, silt fences, etc.
Move the building pad of Lot 2 out of the public easement for the sanitary sewer
line.
Show all exLsfing and proposed easements on the plans.
Revise the utility plan as follows:
Show the e~ s~ sewer fine ~n Great Plains BoulevarcL
Show the existing waterumin in Great PLains Boulevard and Frontier Trail
Add a legend to the plan.
Label the existing size and type of pipe for both the sanitary and watermaJns.
Add a catch basin at the low point in the cul-de-sac with a storm sewer line that
discharges just east of the proposed driveway for Lot 2~
The wa~r ser~4ce for I~ 2 will have to be ob~ku~ from the existing main in Frontier
Tnfil.
The proposed private street upgrades should incl,d¢ a vehicle turnaro~ arra, acceptable
to the City's Fire Marshall, and a copy of the private easement dedicated to the benefiting
property owners. In order to save the two existing oak trees on each side of the private
street, the existing street width may be ~ in this area.
LOt 2 cannot use the same driveway access off of Great PLains Boulevard as the private
stat. The two driveway acce, sse~ sha~ be separa~ by a ~ of five feot.
Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, including approved pavement
design, will be required for review and approval by the City Council at the time of final
plat consideration. Since the street i .mprov~ will become owned and maintained by
· e ~ty, the applicant must enter into a development conuact with the CRy and provide
financhfl security in the form of a leRer of credit or cash escrow to guanm~e ~on
of the public i .mpmvemts. Pemfits from the regulatory agency will be req~
including but not limited to Watershed ~ MPC. A, etc.
The sim will be subject m one sanity sewer and water connection charge for the new loc
The 2003 connection charges for both saniU~y and water are $4~ 13. The property is also
59
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
17.
18.
19.
21.
4.
subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new lot The 2003 tnmk
utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for
water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the
building permit issuance.
Building Official conditions:
a,
bi
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an
engineer licensed in the State of ~/linnesota.
a,
b.
Because of the setbacks of the proposed new house, ~dditional ~s numbem
will be required at the driveway entrance. Address numbers must comply with
Chanhassen Fire Depatiment Policy regarding premise identification pursuam to
Policy No. 29-1992 (copy enclosed).
Submit new proposed driveway dimensiom to City Engineer and Chanhas~ Fire
Marshal. This is to ensure that fire apparatus can safely negotiate the driveway to
the new proposed single family dwelling.
The bluff irr~. act zone should be shown on the grading plan.
Based on the proposed develotx~ area of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees assodated
with this project are estirrmted at $1,490 and the water quantity fees associated with this
project are estimated at $3,686. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are
dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temlmrary pond areas. At this time, the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is
$5,176.
Approval of the subdivision is confin~t~nt upon the City Cotmoq approving the vacation
of the right-of-way.
al
bi
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to
any construction.
Aex~s to Lot 2 should be from Ca'e~ Plains Boulevard to increase tree
preservation.
Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly created
lot in the anmunt of $2,400.
Access to Lot 2 shall be prohibited off of Frontier Trail
Show the proposed house elevation for Lot 1 and address the rum~ff to ~ west and
north.
Show final proposed driveway locations.
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Work with staff and finalize the plat and include the necessa~ information to
include drainage and utility easement, etc.
Include the tree grove on the northwest corner of Lot 1 and the 2 big trees on the
south side of Lot 2 inside the tree protection fencing.
Lot nnmber 2 will be custom graded and the house pad moved northwest as
required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: Any comments any want to highlight for council before we forget where we were with
this? Do the conditions sufficiently reflect our concerns?
Blackowialc I think so. I'm just maybe note that for the audience me~.
Sacchet: Yes, for those of you here, this will go to City Council on the 12m of May, and the City
Council will make the final decision. This is merely a recomn~nd~on thai we recommend to
the City Council for action at this point so thank you all very much for coming for this.
APPRQVAL QF MINUTF~: Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated April 1, 2003 as submitted.
COMMI.,.~ION PRESENTATIONS.
Slagle: Oh one more thing.
Sacche~ Rice
Slagle: For the commission, on the very first applicant with respect to the sport court or
basketball court. How we do not require a permit for that Similar to what staff said, analogous
to patio. My question, and maybe I should have said it earlier to staff is busy, when it comes to
lighting. You know Sport Courts have lights.
Sacchet: There is no lighting in this.
Slagle: Not in this one but my question is, is there a permit required for lighting? I would
$0.
Blackowiak Nobody's listening to us so we'll just have to ask later.
Chairman Snechet adjourn the Planning Commissi_ on meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Submi~ by Kate Aaneuson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nsnn Opheim
61