9. Preliminary Plat, 6630 Horseshoe Curve, rook Place, Michael LynchCITY OF
CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: May 15, 1996
CC DATE: June 10, 1996
CASE #: 96-9 SUB
U
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL: Preliminary plat approval to subdivide 1.08 acre parcel into two single
family lots of 19,478 sq. ft., and 27,659 sq. ft., and a variance to the right -
of -way width, Rook Place
LOCATION: 6630 Horseshoe Curve
APPLICANT: Michael Lynch
6630 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 1.08 acres
DENSITY: 1.8 Units per Acre
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF; Residential Single Family
S- RSF; Residential Single Family
E - RSF; Residential Single Family
W - RSF; Residential Single Family
WATER AND SEWER: Sewer and water are available to the site.
AWN by Clty A&khftW
Endorsed
90001
ob —,5' -fib
Dete Submitted to Commfealolt
Date Submitted to Courr!
G - io- 96
t2
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a single family residence, a shed, and a
garage. The site slopes to the southwest. Mature trees of
different species are scattered throughout the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
' Rook Place
May 15, 1996
' Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide 1.08 acre parcel into two single family lots. Lot 1
will be available for future construction. The site is bordered by Horseshoe Curve on the east and
west. Single family homes are located along the north and south of the property. The site will be
accessed via Horseshoe Curve.
Horseshoe Curve has a 30 foot right -of -way. The City ordinance requires a 60 foot right -of -way.
Since this is an established neighborhood, staff believes the applicant should dedicate an additional
' 10 feet, allowing for a total of 40 foot right -of -way.
The proposed lots meet the minimum requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. The site generally
' slopes to the southwest. The natural drainage way will be maintained.
' The Park and Recreation Commission is recommending that park and trail fees be paid in lieu of
park land.
Staff believes that this plat request is a reasonable one and consistent with guidelines established by
the city Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. We find it to be well designed. We are
recommending that it be approved with conditions as outlined in the report.
' BACKGROUND
' On March 22, 1910, the subdivision of Pleasant View was signed and recorded. It consisted of 52
single family lots. Rook Place, which is a street that was never improved, located north of the
subject property, was vacated and a portion of the street was given back to the owner of the subject
property (Mr. Lynch). The current application is to divide Lot 51, Pleasant View and a portion of
Rook Place into two lots.
' SUBDIVISION
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.08 acre site into 2 single family lots. The density of the
' proposed subdivision is 1.8 units per acre. Both lots meet or exceed the minimum 15,000 square
foot of area. Lot 1 is proposed to have an area of 19,478 sq. ft., and Lot 2 will have a total area of
' 27,659 sq. ft. There is an existing garage on proposed Lot 1 and a shed on proposed Lot 2. Both
structures must be moved. The shed is a nonconforming structure since it is built on the side
property line. This nonconformity will increase through the subdivision by not giving the structure
a rear yard setback. The shed must be located 10 feet from the side lot line and five feet from the
rear lot line. The garage is proposed to be removed. This action must take place prior to recording
of the plat.
Rook Place
May 15, 1996
Page 3
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent
with the Zoning Ordinance.
PARK AND RECREATION
The Park and Recreation Commission recommended full park and trail fees be paid as a condition
of approval.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot
Lot
Home
Home
Area
Width
Depth
Setback
Ordinance 15,000 sq. ft.
90'
125'
30' front/rear
10' sides
Lot 1 19,478 sq. ft.
311.19
125'
30' front
10' sides
Lot 2 27,659 sq. ft.
147.98
142.7'
30' front/rear
10' sides
WETLANDS
There appears to be no wetlands on -site
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The site sheet drains in a southwesterly and southeasterly direction. Some of the slopes on the
site are fairly steep. Very little grading will be necessary to construct a dwelling on the new lot.
A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control and tree preservation plan should be required at
time of building permit issuance for City review and approval.
Drainage from the site appears to be minimal. With construction of the home, the neighborhood
drainage pattern will have to be maintained. Drainage swales are proposed around the rear of the
house. Depending on the exact home placement, these drainage swales may or may not be
needed. These items will be further reviewed at time of building permit issuance.
I
1
C'
I
1
1
L
11
1
I
1
Rook Place
May 15, 1996
Page 4
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT FEES,
In accordance with City Ordinance, each new subdivision is subject to Surface Water
Management Fees (SWMP fees). The ordinance exempts existing households from this charge.
The newly created lot will be subject to surface water quality and quantity fees in the amount of
$800.00 and $1,980.00 per acre, respectively. These fees are due and payable at time of final
plat recording.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available to the lot from Horseshoe Curve. The existing
home is currently connected to City sewer and water as well. Depending on previous
assessments, the new lot may be subject to sewer and water hookup fees.
STREETS
The streets in this area are fairly old and substandard in comparison to today's standards. The
right -of -way width is currently 30 feet wide which is significantly deficient compared to today's
60 -foot right -of -way standard. However, staff believes that an additional 10 feet of right -of -way
should be dedicated with the final plat on both Horseshoe Curve streets to attempt to bring the
subdivision into conformance. In the future these streets will be upgraded and additional right -
of -way will also then be needed. The additional right -of -way will not prohibit the building on
the lot given the setback requirements.
BUILDING PADS
Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to enable the Inspections
Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the
time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level floor elevation, entry
floor elevation (not top of block) and garage floor elevation is required to be indicated on the
proposed pad location. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be
shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance for errors
during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed.
DEMOLITION PERMITS
Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits. Proof
of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic system abandonment
must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
Rook Place
May 15, 1996
Page 5
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
The applicant has submitted tree inventory and removal plans for the proposed one -lot
subdivision. According to the applicant, existing tree canopy coverage is 42% or 19,890 sq. ft.
For low density residential development with a 42% coverage, the required minimum coverage
required after construction is 35% or 16, 467 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing to remove 3,420
sq. ft. leaving exactly 35% coverage. However, after inspecting the site and reviewing
development plans it appears that more trees will be removed than what is depicted on grading
plans. At least six trees are very close to, one is within, proposed grading limits. The applicant
will need to show plans for preserving these trees. If the trees are removed, the applicant will
exceed the minimum canopy coverage required for the site and be required to replace inches lost
at a rate of 1.2 times the canopy area lost. Preservation of the trees has not been adequately
addressed by the applicant and must be discussed before city approval.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On May 15, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application. A number
of issues were raised. These issues are as follow:
The Engineering Department requested a 10 foot right -of -way be dedicated with this plat
to provide for a total of 40 foot wide right -of -way. The Planning Commission felt that
there is an established standard in the neighborhood and that the right -of -way might not
be used to widen the street in the future since there are steep grades, mature trees, and
structures along the existing right -of -way. Planning staff discussed this issue in detail
with engineering staff. The City Engineer requested that the City Council consider the
dedication of the 10 foot right -of -way. Their reasoning was that the road will have to be
improved some time in the future. Even if the road is not widened, it will be difficult to
complete a reconstruction project within a 30 foot wide right -of -way. If the acquisition
of this right -of -way is needed (in the future), the City will have to purchase it at City
expense.
The second issue relates to the existing garage. The zoning ordinance prohibits the
building of accessory structures prior to a primary structure. If the subdivision was
recorded, the garage will be located on the newly created lot which will create a
nonconforming situation. The Planning Commission recommended the applicant be
permitted to keep the existing garage until a new garage has been built. Staff is
comfortable with this recommendation. However, we recommend that the applicant be
required to escrow the cost of removing the garage with the City. Should the applicant
fail to do the work, the City will be able to remove it. Also, we recommend the garage be
I
Rook Place
May 15, 1996
' Page 6
' removed within 30 days after the new garage has been built. Also, no building permits
will be issued for the new lot unless the garage has been removed.
' PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION,
The Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Rook
' Place Subdivision # 96 -9, as shown on the plans dated April 13, 1995, subject to the following
conditions:
The appli ar:t ahall ded -iem en the f plat 10 f of addit ional right -of -way for
Horseshoe Curve shall conform with the neighborhood.
' 2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required for
Lot 1, Block 1 at time of building permit application.
' 3. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees accordingly to
local ordinances. Currently, the single - family rate is $2,780 per acre. These fees are due
' at time of final plat recording.
4. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with City Ordinances.
' 5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of all grading limits near trees
before grading can begin. Applicant will submit to the city proposed tree fencing
' locations.
6. The applicant must submit tree preservation plans or new canopy coverage calculations
' taking into account the additional loss of at least six trees. Reforestation may be required.
7. The existing garage shall does not have to be removed until after construction of the
'
new garage __- -..____ _ _ recording the fin p W . The shed setbacks must also be brought
of _
into compliance prior to recording of the plat.
t 8. Building Official conditions:
' a. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads,
using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and
garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
' b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading or
construction on the property."
1
Rook Place
May 15, 1996
Page 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Rook Place Subdivision # 96-
9, as shown on the plans dated April 13, 1995, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat 10 feet of additional right -of -way for
Horseshoe Curve.
2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required for
Lot 1, Block 1 at time of building permit application.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees accordingly to
local ordinances. Currently, the single - family rate is $2,780 per acre. These fees are due
at time of final plat recording.
4. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with City Ordinances.
5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of all grading limits near trees
before grading can begin. Applicant will submit to the city proposed tree fencing
locations.
6. The applicant must submit tree preservation plans or new canopy coverage calculations '
taking into account the additional loss of at least six trees. Reforestation may be required.
7. The existing garage shall does not have to be removed until after construction of the
new garage prior to recor of the fin al pLaA The shed setbacks must also be brought
into compliance prior to recording of the plat. The applicant shall escrow the cost of '
removing the garage with the City. Should the applicant fail to do the work, the
City will remove it. The garage must be removed within 30 days after the new
garage has been built. Also, no building permits will be issued for the new lot unless '
the garage has been removed.
8. Building Official conditions: '
a. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, '
using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and
garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
t
1
t
1
1
1
1
Rook Place
May 15, 1996
Page 8
b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading or
construction on the property."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application
2. Public hearing and property owners list.
3. Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated May 7, 1996.
4. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated April 25, 1996.
5. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official, dated May 6, 1996.
6. Planning Commission minutes dated May 15, 1996.
7. Preliminary plat dated received April 19, 1996.
ITEM 1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Michael Lynch
ADDRESS: 6630 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
TELEPHONE (Day time) 944 -3666
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment
2. Conditional Use Permit
3. Interim Use Permit
OWNER: Michael Lynch
ADDRESS: same
LL
TELEPHONE: 474 -5642
11 _ _ r /acation of ROW /Easements
12. Variance 1 -7-5
13. Wetland Alteration Permit
4. Non - conforming Use Permit
5. Planned Unit Development
6. Rezoning
7. Sign Permits
8. Sign Plan Review
14. Zoning Appeal
15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment
. Notification Signs � 150
9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"
$100 CUP /SPRNACNARIWAP
(-Minor SUB /Metes & Bounds
10. Subdivision 150 TOTAL FEE $ 100.00 �75
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
W X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
7
PROJECT NAME
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
t
' PRESENT ZONING J
REQUESTED ZONING SC A`VVA
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION R
' REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This 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 with the
' Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application 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 Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and 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 true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
1 also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded
against the title to the property for which the approval /permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
Signature of Applicant
-,
Signature of Fee Owner
' Application Received on
•.I U l �.
Fee Paid
(bate
-� �►L:�1 --,)6
Date '
Receipt No.
' 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.
ITEM 3
June 14, 1988
Michael E. & Gloria J. Lynch
6630 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Yo•:.r Ow — .er's Duplicate Certificate of Title \o. 8136
on
Lot 51, Pleasant View
is now cetplete. This is the only docune ^.t you will recei-•e which
verifies your ownership to the real estate and should be kept in YOL"E
Possession.
Please pick it up at the County Recorder's Office, Courthouse, 600 East 4th
Street, Chaska, Minnesota, betwee_m the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 4 :30 P.M.,
Monday through Friday. If you prefer, we will rail your Certificate of Title
to you. Just return this letter along with a check for $2.00 to cover the
cost for certified Wail. Please include your correct mailing address.
11 you should have any questions, please call 448 -3435 Ext. 228.
Carl W. (Kelly) Hanson, Jr.
County Recorder,' registrar of Titles
By: s-
LI
O
F S
uS
L
krJ� 5
L
L
f�
0
d
L
•� d
L
0
C
•` �O
0
C—
r�
C`
O
F.:
C
Life
s O
A
■
?i
L
L
L
x
v
E
H
M
C
H
L
x
v
C
® a �
r cn
v m
C1
• S
S
v J
C
G
• C?
m
c
e
i'
O :J
r � G
C: O L
G r.^
a
y Y ;
V T
J
+•
.n
T
i�
cc
C` 1
4. G cS
O
C—
C
N
C
\ C �
v,
r�
u
's
ITEM 5
Ron Harvieux - 6605 Horseshoe Curve
John Danielson - 6607
it
"
R.P. Brozovich - 6609
it
"
Thomas Gilman - 6613
It
"
James Keiper - 6615
If
"
Lad Conrad - 6625
it
"
Harold Dahl - 6631
it
"
Phil Issacson - 6633
it
"
Doug Bitney - 6645
it
"
Frank Kuzma - 6651
Evelyn Albinson - 6655
"
Tom Hau - 6661
T.R. Johnson - 6663
John Cunningham - 6665
David Kopiske - 6675
Terry Rosen - 6677
"
J. Ryan - 6685
"
Helen Hartman - 6687
"
"For Sale" - 365 Pleasantview
Rd.
Robert Hanson - 6620 Horseshoe
Curve
Mike Lynch - 6630
if
it
Scott Gamble - 6640
if
it
i
J
''r
i
t• f r
•
1
~
s
/
1
r
'
` r
s
C d,fl'
w
\r
/
AS
IF
1 _ . 1
'•r '�. �
T
+�
k
t
W
f
J3 j
JA
A l.
\
/• 1
!
10
o f !
'
)�
Count; Auditor
/.f Carver
unt;r
Te
\\ "+
State :f S' ?nnesc
T
�
T s•; J
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Wednesday, MAY 15, 1996
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
Project: Rook Place
Developer: Michael Lynch
Location: 6630 Horseshoe Curve
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant, Michael Lynch, is requesting preliminary plat of Lot 51, Pleasant View and a
portion of vacated Rook Place right -of -way (1.08 acres) into 2 single family lots of 19,478 sq. ft.
and 27,659 sq. ft. and a variance to the right -of -way width requirement on property zoned RSF,
Residential Single Family and located at 6630 Horseshoe Curve, Rook Place.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or 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 Sharmin at 937 -1900, ext. 120. 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 Chanhassen Villager on May 2, 1996.
J
Scott Gamble
6640 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
H
Ron Harvieux
John Danielson
R. P. Brozovich
Horseshore Curve
6607 Horseshoe Curve
6609 Horseshoe Curve
' 6605
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Thomas Gilman
James Keiper
Ladd Conrad
6613 Horseshoe Curve
6615 Horseshoe Curve
6625 Horseshoe Curve
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Harold
Dahl
Phil Issacson
Doug Bitney
6631 Horseshoe Curve
6633 Horseshoe Curve
6645 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
' Frank
Kuzma
6651 Horseshoe Curve
Evelyn Albinson
6655 Horseshoe Curve
Tom Hau
6661 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
T. R. Johnson
John Cunningham
David Kopiske
Horseshoe Curve
6665 Horseshoe Curve
6675 Horseshoe Curve
' 6663
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Helen Hartman
Terry Rosen
J. Ryan
6677 Horseshoe Curve
6685 Horseshoe Curve
6687 Horseshoe Curve
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
'
Current Owner
Robert Hanson
Mike Lynch
365 Pleasant View Road
6620 Horseshoe Curve
6630 Horseshoe Curve
'
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Scott Gamble
6640 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
H
Richard & Jill Valentine Jeff & Judi Kvilhaug Sandra Olson
6614 Horseshoe Curve 6681 Horseshoe Curve 6691 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317
Charles Hurd
6695 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Keith Obermeyer
6697 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Richard & Kathleen Peck
6690 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
f
I
1
1
1
1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
MEMORANDUM
1
TO:
Sharmin At -Jaff, Planner II
FROM:
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
1
DATE:
May 7, 1996
1
SUBJ:
Review of Preliminary Plat for Rook Place - File No. 96 -14 LUR
1 Upon review of the preliminary plat documents prepared by Schoell & Madson dated April 13,
1995, revised September 8, 1995, I offer the following comments and recommendations:
1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The site sheet drains in a southwesterly and southeasterly direction. Some of the slopes on the
1 site are fairly steep. Very little grading will be necessary to construct a dwelling on the new lot.
A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control and tree preservation plan should be required at
1 time of building permit issuance for City review and approval.
Drainage from the site appears to be minimal. With construction of the home the neighborhood
1 drainage pattern will have to be maintained. Drainage swales are proposed around the rear of the
house. Depending on the exact home placement, these drainage swales may or may not be
needed. These items will be further reviewed at time of building permit issuance.
1 Surface Water Management Fees - In accordance with City Ordinance, each new subdivision is
subject to Surface Water Management Fees (SWMP fees). The ordinance exempts existing
1 households from this charge. The newly created lot will be subject to surface water quality and
quantity fees in the amount of $800.00 and $1,980.00 per acre, respectively. These fees are due
and payable at time of final plat recording.
i UTILITIES
1 Municipal sewer and water service is available to the lot from Horseshoe Curve. The existing
home is currently connected to City sewer and water as well. Depending on previous
1 assessments, the new lot may be subject to sewer and water hookup fees.
Rook Place Preliminary Plat Review
May 7, 1996
Page 2
STREETS
The streets in this area are fairly old and substandard in comparison to today's standards. The
right -of -way width is currently 30 feet wide which is significantly deficient compared to today's
60 -foot right -of -way standard. However, staff believes that an additional 10 feet of right -of -way
should be dedicated with the final plat on both Horseshoe Curve streets to attempt to bring the
subdivision into conformance. In the future these streets will be upgraded and additional right -of-
way will also then be needed. The additional right -of -way will not prohibit the building on the lot
given the setback requirements.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat 10 feet of additional right -of -way for
Horseshoe Curve.
2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required for '
Lot 1, Block 1 at time of building permit application.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees accordingly to
local ordinances. Currently, the single - family rate is $2,780 per acre. These fees are due
at time of final plat recording.
Ar in,
g:'cng1dave1r0rook.M
I
11
[J
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
'
DATE: April 25, 1996
RE: Request for preliminary plat of Lot 51, Pleasant View and a portion of vacated
Rook Place right -of -way (1.08 acres) into two single family lots of 19,478 sq.
ft. and 27,659 sq. ft and a variance to the right -of -way with requirement on
'
property zoned RSF, residential single family and located at 6630 Horseshoe
Curve, Michael Lynch, Rook Place.
'
Planning Case: 96 -9 SUB
I reviewed the preliminary plat subdivision for the above project. In order to comply with
'
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or
city ordinances /policy requirements. The preliminary plat subdivision review is based on
'
the available information submitted at this time. As additional plans or changes are
submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed.
1. No comments or concerns at this time.
1
i
1
' gJsafety /ml/96 -9
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II 1
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official N`a
DATE: May 6, 1996
SUBJECT: 96 -9 SUB (6630 Horseshoe Curve, Michael Lynch, Rook Place)
Backeround:
I was asked to review the plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, APR 19
1996, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. Below are an
analysis and recommendations from the Inspections Division for the proposed project.
Analvsis:
Building Pads. Locations of proposed dwelling pads and the type of dwelling is necessary to
enable the Inspections Division and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review
of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. For the same reason, proposed lowest level
floor elevation, entry floor elevation (not top of block) and garage floor elevation is required to be
indicated on the proposed pad location. Standard designations(FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU,
WO) must be shown for proposed dwelling types. These standard designations lessen the chance
for errors during the plan review process. The memo explaining these designations is enclosed.
Demolition Permits. Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require
demolition permits. Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for
septic system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of
a demolition permit.
Recommendations:
The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval.
T
1
1
Sharmin Al -Jaff
May 6, 1996
Page 2
1. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using
standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor
elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
2. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading or construction on the
property.
enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum
G;\safety\sak\memos \p I an \rookp I 1
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P:O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: January 29, 1993
SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation
We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of
dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps
it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning
behind the requirements.
F1W or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to apprordmately 4'
above the basement floor level.
1t Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many4 level dwellings.
SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade
with the surrounding grade approximately level.
SnWO Designates Split Fatty Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'
below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level.
TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below
grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the
dwelling.
WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade
at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling.
SE R sEWO yyp FLO
- -- - -- or FtLO
-- - - - - -
Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the
engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building
plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all
documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews.
n
%0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
' CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
' MAY 15 1996
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Kevin Joyce, Nancy Mancino, Bob
Skubic, Jeff Farmakes, and Don Mehl
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; and Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
' PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 51. PLEASANT VIEW AND A PORTION
OF VACATE ROOK PLACE RIGHT -OF -WAY (1.08 ACRES) INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY
' LOTS OF 19.478 SO. FT. AND 27.659 SO. FT. AND A VARIANCE TO THE RIGHT -OF-
WAY WIDTH REOUIREMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6630 HORSESHOE CURVE, ROOK PLACE, MICHAEL
' LYNCH.
Mancino: I just have a couple questions. Can you put that back up please? The existing
garage is being used right now.
' Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: In use. And the applicant is proposing to add onto the house and put in a new
' garage.
Al -Jaff: True.
' Mancino: Correct. And is there some way so that the existing garage can stay there during
the construction of the new garage? I mean if it's in use and they need something. If the
' applicant needs to put their cars in the garage. When I saw it, you know there were other
things in the garage besides cars. Is the applicant, is there some way that they can keep that
edifice up and use it while they're building the new one and then once the new one is built,
' then take it down?
Al -Jaff: It becomes a non - conforming situation once they record the plat so.
1 Mancino: Can it stay non- conforming for a period of time? If you put a time limit on it.
' Al -Jaff: You could make that a condition. You could put a deadline. What we have one in
the past, is we've put a deadline when a structure has to be removed but at the same time
we've required that the applicant put up an escrow to guarantee that the structure be removed
' by a certain time. If they didn't remove it, the city can go in and perform the work.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: The reason that is, the only leverage now to make sure we get compliance is that
before the subdivision is recorded. I think if that's your preference, I'm not sure what the
applicant wants but certainly that could be an alternative. If they want to keep the garage, if
they're going to put up some security to make sure that it does get removed so it's not non-
conforming, we'd be willing to look at that condition.
Mancino: Okay. My other question is, upgrading Horseshoe Curve. I mean you know for
those of us who have been there. I don't know if everyone went to the site and you look at
Horseshoe Curve and you go, if you upgrade it, which you know I don't know what the word
upgrade. To me it means that maybe it needs to be resurfaced. That's upgrading. I don't
know how you upgrade it to make it wider because of the existing way that area has been
built. Meaning that there are many garages which are just right off Horseshoe Curve. There
is topography change. There is, I mean there are structures right there. So when I hear you
say upgrade, I'm interpreting that to mean that that means keeping the width the same and
maybe having to resurface the road when it's in bad shape. And if you're going to do that, do
you need to take more right -of -way than what's already there is my question.
Aanenson: It may be necessary for utility easements. Storm water easements and that sort of
thing. That doesn't necessarily mean the asphalt width is going to change but it provides
opportunity for other utility easements on either side.
Mancino: Now don't we already have, isn't that, aren't there already sewer and water and
everything there?
Aanenson: I don't believe there's storm sewer out in that area.
Conrad: No, there's no storm sewer.
Aanenson: There's no storm sewer.
Mancino: Okay.
Aanenson: So that's why the 40 foot came. There's 30 right now and that's why the
engineering department had recommended just the 10 foot additional just to get it to 40,
which would provide the additional easement.
Mancino: So if they got 10 additional feet, they would be able to put in storm sewer?
2
1
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
' Aanenson: We're just looking long term. What other things could we be looking at? Storm
' sewer would be one issue.
Conrad: Is that possible?
Aanenson: Well it's one of the areas we've identified as far as water quality issues, you know
for Lotus Lake.
' Conrad: So that's not a blue sky type deal? It's possible?
Aanenson: Sure. Sure.
Mancino: And does that change, going from 30 feet to 40 feet, does that change what the
' applicant can do to that lot as far as where the building can go? Does it make a difference or
not? Does it still give the applicant enough area to put the building pad where common sense
should go?
Al -Jaff: Yes, and actually the more staff looked at this. Originally when I had met with the
applicant I said we would need a 30 foot setback but in reality all they needed was a 10 foot
because this is sort of like a corner lot. It sort of has that double frontage so they could
actually get an additional 20 feet of buildable area. So they could set that home back another
20 feet and get a larger pad than what they are proposing right now.
' Mancino: Okay. Okay. Good.
' Al -Jaff: Very workable.
' Mancino: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions?
Mehl: I have one question on that right -of -way. Where is the, where does the 30 foot
' dimension start? Or where is it, from where to where?
Al -Jaff: Center of the street.
' Mehl: Center of the street onto the property.
' Al -Jaff: And then 15 foot on each side from the center of the street.
Mehl: Okay. So you're asking for an additional 10 to be dedicated by the applicant?
' 3
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Al -Jaff: Correct.
Mancino: Just on that one side.
Mehl: On the one side. Now when the street is eventually upgraded, are you going to then
increase the right -of -way the entire length of the street? By an additional 10 feet.
A] -Jaff: What will happen is right -of -way will be acquired potentially for a total of 50 foot
right -of -way potentially. That's what the engineering department would like to see. So it
would be 25 feet from the center of the street. The width of the right -of -way I do not
believe. I mean the paved section. I don't believe that will change. But the total right -of-
way would eventually come up to 50 feet.
Mehl: Okay. Can there be structures such as garages and so on within that right -of -way?
Al -Jaff: No.
Mehl: Okay. So if you go an additional 10 feet on each side of the road then, if there are
structures, are they going to be required to be taken down?
Al -Jaff: Or moved. Or maybe at that portion we'd just have reduced right -of -way.
Mancino: Because they're relatively new buildings within 5 feet of the street, it looks like. I
mean I didn't measure.
Mehl: So it's possible you could have an inconsistent right -of -way meandering from lot to lot
then through the whole length of the street?
Aanenson: The only way we can address that, there's unfortunately someone from
engineering not here, it's always the city's opportunity when somebody subdivides to try to get
future easement if we believe that the opportunity exists to provide any necessary
improvements such as storm sewer, which may be in the future. Can we anticipate what's
going to happen all the way down and the timing of that? No, but we know that there may
be a possibility of possibly doing some storm water projects in the near future so engineering
always makes the recommendation that if we have a substandard right -of -way width, to try to
at the time of subdivision, to gain the necessary easements at that time.
Mehl: Okay, thank you.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
' Mancino: Any other questions for staff at this point? Thank you. Does the applicant wish to
' address the Planning Commission?
Mike Lynch: Yes. ...many people had a chance to go through it.
Mancino: Could you please give us your name and address?
Mike Lynch: Mike Lynch, 6630 Horseshoe Curve. We've been there about 25 years now.
Actually the part of the property that I'm going to subdivide, or want to subdivide was the
neighborhood dumping grounds for the '64 -'65 tornado. The way it's been used all... we
' moved in. This is color keyed and even though I understand that there may be sometime,
somewhere, somehow, some potential for widening this road. If you've been down through
there and seen the structures that are there existing now, that's what I'd like to run through
and see if you think it's viable. I really don't. There is some selfish interest on my part
because if you saw it, that is a triangular lot and the less width across the triangle I have, the
further into the corner the house has to go. The topography of the lot is even more
pronounced than what you see on the screen. This is a definite flat spot. Right exactly
where my hand is, and this is quite a steep grade and a steep grade there. That's the parting
line was drawn there. My property's about, my present house is about 30 feet over,
' backwards. It's a straight down drop off and it drops off here to this house. Drops off there
to that house. The next house here must be 250 to 300 feet in that direction. The next house
here is located about, well you can see a corner of it there. Probably would be 200 and some
odd feet away. But there's a definite two layer shot. The street, again on that lot or at the
same level. Originally that was a Swedish Covenant Church Camp and in the 1890's it was
' sold. Sold out past that time and then most of our houses are little cabins is where it all
started. As this would actually be south. My property right here. Garages. You see in the
squares, measured from the edge of the road, the number of feet from the road. 5 feet, 10
' feet, 8 feet, 8 feet. These are new structures within the last 5 or 6 years. 20 feet. 20 feet.
15 feet. This is my old garage. It's... feet. 15 feet. I believe this is your property Ladd right
here. And nothing else around here. Now as you look at some of the other structures, what
' you have here is, what I call a 20 year hedge. In fact the city comes around every once in a
while and cuts our hedge back with some sort of a Toro thing because it grows into the road.
So that's the green stripes. These are mature lilac that's just kind of basically been there since
before I moved there. 20 feet tall. Most of the privacy in the neighborhood is generated by
those hedges. The road noise, the level of traffic we get, it does cut it out. I think all of us
that live there, those hedges are quite important. The red lines are steep grades. Now we're
t talking 30% plus right off the edge of the road. So this is down. That's up. This is up. That's
down. The purple are existing new quality retaining walls that are... structures but new ones
that have been put in somewhat recently. I've done an informal survey of the neighborhood
and everybody would be ... against any kind of change in the road pattern. All the utilities
5
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
presently run right down the center of the road. The gas and the sewer and the water. It's
rough terrain, if you've been there. This is a very steep hill right here. A long hill there and
the road surface is in good condition now... adding new or different underlay on it. I think
that's it. What you see right here and what you have seen on the map there is the old road
that was platted and since divided by my neighbor and I into ... the original plat. Now I don't
plan to build on the lot myself. I simply will be selling the lot to an individual or developer
so there are quite a few things that I have hoping addressing staff, I marked up some of them.
I don't know what to do with this. For instance, I was interested in when I got to take my
existing garage down because I have a number of cars and lawn mowers and both of my sons
worldly possessions. They... so that's a massive storage which with the new garage would
take the place of it but I don't know what I'd do with the stuff in the meantime. Tree
preservation, fencing and there's another note about revising grading plans to show proposed
paths and levels of the house. Without a house plan, how am I to know? The one, item
number 6. Tree preservation, reforestation. If the house really goes where it should go on
the lot, from an aesthetic viewpoint, a practical viewpoint, it should be right in the middle of
that, where I put my hand. And due to, well Sharmin's given me a change today that I hadn't
heard before. The fact that I could get it closer to this lot line. So the more easement I give
up and the further away I am from that lot line, obviously it pushes me to this corner and I
have six walnut trees back there that I planted 25 years ago. A nice maple. Then this entire
area is open. And if you notice on the, I think it's right in here, or aren't I focusing with my
bifocals here. There's a mature and dying white birch tree that's about 50 feet tall and that's
really about the only tree that should have to come out. There's a small western pine here
that might but otherwise there's plenty of room in there to get a massive house in. Lots of
other trees on the lot and somebody ... I'm sure with those existing trees, there's probably closer
to 50% coverage on the lot right now. It's heavily wooded. I lost quite a few elms out of
there originally. Before I couldn't grow grass. So that's the program. I'm not really, I really
don't have any problem with any of the other suggestions by staff. My old garden house
needs to come out. That infringes on my neighbor's lot line probably by 6 inches in that
corner and that's a plan to take out anyway when the new garage goes in so that's certainly
not a problem. So I guess 1, 2, 3. 1 really don't want to give that easement away here and of
course I have to give it away on this side as well. I would rather not give the easement away
because the more easements that occur in the neighborhood, the more chance that someday,
someone may feel that we have to do something with it and due to our plantings and the
other large trees that have to come out in that 10 feet, I'd be really upset. And I would like
to be able to get enough room in here to move that house down. Other than that, that's... my
feelings at this time. Could I answer anybody's questions?
Mancino: Any questions from the commissioners? Mike, what are your plans about the
garage? Are you going to be starting the new garage soon? Or are you waiting?
C7
' Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Mike Lynch: I'd like to sell the property. Get the money and then start with that... process.
' Mancino: And you're hoping to put the lot up for sale right away?
' Mike Lynch: I'd like to this summer, yeah.
Mancino: Any other questions? Thank you.
' Mike Lynch: Thank you.
' Mancino: We'd like to open this for a public hearing. Do I have a motion please and a
second to open this for a public hearing please.
' Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hewing. The public hewing was
opened.
' Mancino: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on
this issue, please do so now. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing
and a second please.
Comad moved, Fwmakes seconded to close the public hewing. The public hewing was
closed.
' Mancino: Commissioners. Craig.
' Peterson: Question for staff. The talk about the easement seems to be probably the primary
issues. I'm a little confused and need some clarification. If all the other homes in the area,
the existing ones are at 15 feet, and this is kind of in the center and doesn't have, a well
established neighborhood. Even though our current standards are at 60, we're considering
lowering it down to 35 I believe. Is that even logical? If everybody else is at 15, I mean I
don't want to have 15 feet and then all of a sudden 30 -35. You can't do anything with it
anyway. Are we, should we go back to 15 I guess is my, I'm looking for logic in going
higher than 15 if everybody else is at 15.
' Al -Jaff: We have an opportunity at this time to take the right -of -way. That's why the
engineers are asking for it.
' Peterson: But I'm asking.
t Al -Jaff: Is it logical?
7
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Peterson: What's the probability? I'll put it that way. What's the probability of ever using.
Aanenson: I don't think it's the desire to go in and widen that whole street. I don't think
that's the program. The only reason you get additional easement is if there's an opportunity
for some other utilities or like that that you don't have to acquire additional easements. I
don't think it's on the city's plan to go in and put a 50 foot street in there. That's certainly not
the city's intention.
Peterson: My reaction is I think that the staff has done a fine job in looking at and
maintaining what the city needs to do. I look at the neighborhood and the feel of the
neighborhood and try to prognosticate what will happen down the road and I just don't see us
needing that, that much of an easement and I think because it will affect the placement of the
house, so I would approve everything with the exception of the easement. That would be
consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and recommend that it be maintained at 15 feet.
Aanenson: Do you have any comments on the garage once this is, how to work that?
Peterson: Well, I empathize with the need to have A before B happen. I guess I wouldn't
have a problem with supporting the applicant's position of prior to the actual build out of the
property, that he has the opportunity to sell the property and build out. If we can integrate
that into some kind of reasonable motion.
Mancino: Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah, I think the issues are 1 and 7 in here. Obviously I'm a neighbor of Mike's. I
think you've done a good job. I don't have really any issues. I'm probably a little bit biased
in the neighborhood. I don't mind right -of -way for good purposes and I do like storm water
systems. I'll always vote for anything that says we can improve the water quality. In this
case it's just tough for me to believe we've ever going to do it. I just can't imagine it will
ever be done in my life time so it's I guess all I can say. I just, if you've been through the
neighborhood, it would be a terrificly expensive project to go in there and put a storm water
system in, as much as maybe it's needed. But it'd be huge. So I have a tough time dealing
with the additional right -of -way and I think I'd like to somehow word number 7 so that the
garage can stand until there's some sort of construction or before construction on the second
lot that Mike's splitting off. Those are my only comments.
Mancino: Thank you. Kevin.
Joyce: Basically the same thing. I think staff did a good job. I think they're looking forward
here. I can totally understand where they're coming from but it's a beautiful neighborhood.
8
F
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
I'd just as soon leave it the way it is and I think it would have an affect on the way that
house is placed and I worry about those trees. All I looked at were trees. Those beautiful
trees and any way we can save one tree, let's do it. And I'd like to accommodate the property
owner if possible. I think an escrow account is a good idea Kate so let's try to do it that way
and work it in.
Mancino: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: Yeah I share the sentiments of the other commissioners. I visited the site and it's
hard for me to envision how it would be beneficial to increase the right -of -way given the
proximity of the dwellings in that area and I'll favor escrowing...
Mancino: Thank you. Jeff.
Farmakes: No further comments to make.
Mancino: Don.
Mehl: Yeah I agree with what's been said here also. I agree with Ladd, it would be very
expensive, and I might add that I think it could be very disruptive to the whole area if we put
in a storm water system. It very likely would change the character of the street and so I
really have nothing more.
Mancino: I have no other comments either. I agree with what the other Planning
Commissioners have said. Is there a motion please?
Peterson: I would make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
preliminary plat for Rook Place Subdivision #96 -9 as shown on the plans dated April 13,
1995, subject to the conditions 1 through 8 with the changes to 1 being that the right -of -way
would be maintained as the rest of the neighborhood, 15 feet. And that item number 7 would
be changed so that the existing garage does not need to be removed prior to construction
beginning on the lot being created by the additional subdivision.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Joyce: I'll second it.
Mancino: Thank you. Any discussion? Is that clear Sharmin with number 7?
Al -Jaffa So you just hold building permits? We basically won't issue building permits.
E
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
Conrad: I believe that would be a good way.
Mancino: That would be a really good way to do that.
Aanenson: We'd have to check with the attorney's office because we're creating a non-
conforming situation so we'll just, we understand your intent. We'll just make sure that we
can do that and send that onto Council.
Mancino: Pass it onto Council with our intent. Thank you.
Peterson moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
preliminary plat for Rook Place Subdivision 996 -9, as shown on the plans dated April 13,
1996, subject to the following conditions:
1. The right -of -way for Horseshoe Curve shall conform with the neighborhood.
2. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required for
Lot 1, Block 1 at the time of building permit application.
3. The applicant shall be responsible for Surface Water Management Fees accordingly to
local ordinances. Currently the single family rate is $2,780.00 per acre. These fees are
due at time of final plat recording.
4. Full park and trail fees be paid in accordance with city ordinances.
5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of all grading limits near trees
before grading can begin. Applicant will submit to the city proposed tree fencing
locations.
6. The applicant must submit tree preservation plans or new canopy coverage calculations
taking into account the additional loss of at least six trees. Reforestation may be
required.
7. The existing garage does not have to be removed until after construction of the new
garage. The shed setbacks must also be brought into compliance prior to recording of
the plat.
8. Building official conditions:
10
1
1
1
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 15, 1996
a. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads,
using standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and
garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval.
b. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading or construction
on the property.
All voted in favor and the motion carved unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 1. BLOCK 1. RICE LAKE MANOR INTO
TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. AND LOCATED AT 8591
TIGUA CIRCLE. RICE LAKE MANOR ESTATES. BARRY MCKEE.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff at this point?
Peterson: The only question I would have is, do you have any sense of Parcel A that is
reserved for future development, how many lots can go on there actually?
AI -Jaff: Our ordinance requires 15,000 square feet per lot. There is an issue of frontage.
How do you serve those properties? And you have a limit of four homes off of a private
driveway. Now in this case we already have two homes that are served from that driveway.
This entire subdivision there are a total of 8 lots and they're steep, wooded. They back up to
a lake. Really the only way you see those parcels served, as they split, is probably private.
This is a perfect case when a private driveway would be used.
Mancino: Any other questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Do they wish to make a
presentation?
Kevin Thompson: My name is Kevin Thompson... Just a little background. Initially the
conceptual plan for this division was actually a 4 or 5 lots to the existing home. After review
and went over it with staff, we decided that for aesthetics reasons, in order to keeping with
the character and the nature of the neighborhood, and also for economic reasons, that putting
a public road in ... probably would not be very advantageous. We decided to go with ... simple
lot split. Just divide it into a simple two lots. Into two very sizable pieces ... sell that lot as a
single family home .... If this is approved... Basic lot split. There's a number of conditions.
Quite a number of conditions... The only question ... is on item number 11. The removal of the
11