The URL can be used to link to this page

6. Knob Hill: Preliminary Plat and Variances.C CITY OF ;:�� CBANHASSEN PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: L . STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right -of -way, and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2. The project is known as Knob Hill. Z a IJ 1� a 1 0 LOCATION: 6215 Yosemite, on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen - Shorewood city limits APPLICANT: John Knoblauch 16921 Weston Bay Road Eden Prairie, .� 55347 (612) 440 -5662 Single Family Residential, RSF 8.35 acres gross: 1.44 units per acre N - Shorewood, single - family S - RSF E- RSF W- RSF WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site PC DATE: 12/06/95 1/3/96 2/7/96 CC DATE: 2/26/96 CASE M 95 -20 SUB Lata �'c i to Cound w,. PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site has rolling topography with a low point at elevation 1003 in the wetland located in the southwest portion of the project and a high point of 1036 elevation in the northeast corner of the property adjacent to the existing house. The site is approximately 45 percent forested with northern hardwood type trees with significant stands of trees in the northeast, south, and northwest corners of the property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) net: 1.82 units per acre E 01 4 w, , . AA l 9 rt 1 Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 2 ' PROPOSAL /SUMMARY The Planning Commission held two public hearings for this development. On December 6, 1995, the public hearing was continued due to lack of time at the Chanhassen Recreation Center. At the January 3, 1996 public hearing, the preliminary plat was tabled to permit the applicant the opportunity to address providing access to the Donovan property to the east. The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the street grade variance. Staff has scheduled this item for the February 7th meeting date because the city must provide a final decision on this preliminary ' plat by March 2, 1996 in order to meet statutory requirements for acting on requests within 120 days (a completed application was submitted on November 3, 1995), unless the applicant consents to an extension of the review period. ' The applicant has revised the plat providing the connection to the Donovan parcel. However, the applicant, as well as the surrounding property owners, want assurances from the city that Lilac Lane ' will not be connected to this roadway. Staff is unable to make that commitment, nor does staff feel it is necessary or prudent to limit the design options for the future development of the Donovan parcel at this time. There are four potential options for the Donovan property to be accessed: 1) ' the Knob Hill road extension into the parcel may be a cul -de -sac, with or without a private street to Lilac Lane, 2) the Knob Hill road extension could connect at a "T" intersection into a roadway off Lilac Lane, 3) the Knob Hill road extension could be constructed as a continuous street to Lilac 1 Lane, or 4) there could be no access to Knob Hill and all access to the Donovan property would be limited to Lilac Lane. Until the Donovan property comes in for development, there is no way of knowing which option would be used. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and ' associated right -of -way (1.1 acres); and a variance to the wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2. The project is known as Knob Hill. A 0.66 acre wetland is located in the western portion of the site. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan for low ' density residential land uses. Staff is recommending that the subdivision be approved subject to the recommendations of the staff ' report. Staff is recommending that a 10 foot variance be granted for the wetland setback and a ten foot ' front setback variance be granted for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2. This compromise maintains a minimurn -40 foot setback -(10- foot - buffer strip -and 30- footsetback from- the- bu €fer- edge) - frorn the wetland. t Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 3 BACKGROUND An existing home and storage structure are located in the northeast corner of the site which is currently accessed via a shared driveway with the property in Shorewood. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Existing tree cover of the site is approximately 45% and consists mainly of oak, maple, basswood, box elder, elm, hickory and cherry. There are also a few cedar and pines located near the existing homestead. Very large, mature oaks, basswood and maple are located near the house and along the driveway. On the property, there are a total of ten trees that are over 30 inches in diameter. Grading and house pads will require the removal of half of those trees. The remaining half are located on the southern half Lot 5, Block 1. Staff proposes that a conservation easement be placed over the eastern and southern sections of Lot 5, Block 1. The other lots with significant tree cover are Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, should have 15 foot tree removal limits placed around the proposed building pads. Of the existing 3.52 acres of canopy coverage, approximately 1.60 acres will be removed. The required canopy coverage for the site is 35 %, or 2.69 acres. The applicant will have only 1.92 acres of canopy coverage after grading and construction. The difference between the required coverage and the proposed is .77 acres. Since the applicant is removing required canopy coverage, the difference is multiplied by 1.2 and becomes .924 acres. Therefore, the applicant is required to plant 37 trees on site. COMPLIANCE TABLE Lot Frontage Depth Wetland Front Side Rear Max Area (sq (ft) (ft) Setback Setback Setback Setback Bldg Ht ft) (ft) (ft) Code 15,000 90 125 Avg 10' 30 10 30 40 Lot 1 Blk 1 Lot 2 -Blk Lot 3 Blk 1 Lot 4 Blk 1 15,338 120 135 15,829 97 149 18,321 77.5* 183 22,911 90 236 buffer + 40' none 30 10 30 none 30 none 30 none 30 10 30 10 30 10 30 1 Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 4 ' Lot 5 87,912 145 273 none 30 10 30 Blk 1 Lot 1 15,517 117 183 none 30 10 30 ' Blk 2 Lot 2 16,603 122 183 10 30 10 30 ' Blk 2 40' Lot 3 17,572 74* 135 10'+ 30 10 30 Blk 2 40' Lot 4 35,052 229 162 10 30 10 30 ' Blk 2 40' Lot 5 23,041 117 183 10 204 10 30 Blk 2 30' @ ' Lot 6 17,296 122 183 10 30 10 30 Blk 2 30' @ Lot 7 16,146 120 162 10 30 10 30 Blk 2 40' * Meets code requirements at the building setback ' # Based on the granting of a front yard setback variance @Based on the granting of a wetland setback variance Staff believes that it would be better to grant a 10 foot front setback to Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, and require the applicant to maintain a minimum 40 foot setback from the wetland (10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback). WETLANDS There are two jurisdictional wetlands on -site. Wetland 1 is an ag /urban wetland located between Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 2, and is approximately 0.66 acre. This wetland will not be directly ' impacted as a result of development; however, the private street will direct some untreated runoff into it. A buffer strip of 0 to 20 feet wide with an average width of 10 feet is required around this wetland. Wetland 2 is a 370 square foot ag /urban wetland located between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. ' This wetland will be filled as a result of the development, but since it is less than 400 square feet, it is exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act. Type III erosion control is required along the entire length of the wetland adjacent to construction activities until vegetation is re- established. SURFACE- W- AF>CR 4ANAG>FMEN—T BRAN- f&WMP- ' The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the stormwater quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 5 and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's SWMP requirements. The drainage from the impervious surface will need to be treated to retain 35 to 50% of the phosphorus before it is discharged into the wetland on -site. It is important that the wetland receive the runoff to maintain some hydrology to the wetland. The sediment pond can be designed within the buffer zone to tie the basin in with the wetland on Lot 5, Block 2. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. A drainage and utility easement will be required around the sediment pond to allow for maintenance. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800 /acre for single family resident developments. Fees are based on a total developable land area of 8.35 acres minus the existing wetland of 0.66 acres. Therefore, the applicant is required to pay $6,152 in water quality fees. Credits will be reviewed and applied for providing the ponding required at the time of final plat consideration. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single fa r- nil -y- residential - developments- have =a� connection - charge -of- $ per - developable -acre. The- total_ net area of the property is 7.69 acres as discussed above. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $15,226. Any oversizing for a regional pond and storm drainage infrastructure will be credited to the applicant at the time of final 7 J J i Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 6 ' plat after review of the final construction plans. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. ' GRADING The site is generally rolling with an elevation change of nearly thirty (30) feet from east to west. Staff believes the proposed site grading is excessive and believes the grading limits can be reduced. Staff would like the opportunity to work with the developer's engineer in revising the ' grading plan. Staff has reviewed the site as well as the adjacent parcel to the east (Donovan) for continuity. The Donovan parcel will be provided with sanitary sewer service and street access from this site for future subdivision potential. ' The applicant's plan, as proposed, requires variances for street right -of -way (50 feet is proposed - 60 feet is required by ordinance), street grades of 10 %, and building setbacks. Staff's proposed revision will require variances on building setbacks to the wetlands and the street on Lots 11 and 12. ' Staff has also considered another option for providing access to Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. There is an existing private driveway (gravel) along the south side of Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 which serves two existing houses. If the applicant could negotiate a driveway easement from these two properties, it would eliminate the need for the private street along Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. This would reduce the grading, tree removal, hard surface, and provide a buffer for the Donovan property. It appears Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 2 will be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. ' Staff recommends that individual, detailed grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans be submitted for review and approval by the City in conjunction with building permit application for these lots. Staff also believes that retaining walls should be incorporated ' in the rear yards of Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, to reduce grading and to preserve the significant stand of trees. DRAINAGE The site drains to the west and then crosses underneath Yosemite. Eventually the runoff ' discharges into the Minnehaha Creek watershed. The applicant will need to submit to the City zletailed calculations - fai" the - srorm - sewers'as - well as patrdirrg calcul'atrons °for °a 2 -, 10 -, and 100 -year storm event, 24 -hour duration for both pre- and post- development conditions for staff review and approval. The plans propose a storm drainage system to convey runoff from the street and front yard areas to a proposed sediment pond for pretreatment prior to discharging ' into the wetland. The sediment pond is located partially within the street right -of -way for Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 7 Yosemite. The pond needs to be relocated outside of the street right -of -way given potential for future widening and upgrading of Yosemite. The ponding area should be relocated adjacent to the wetland on Lot 5, Block 2 outside any right -of -way. There appears to be sufficient room to accomplish this without eliminating Lot 5, Block 2. Additional storm drainage improvements may be required after review of the drainage calculations. It appears that another sedimentation pond is proposed between Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. Staff believes that this area could be filtered through the existing vegetation. Therefore, the pond could be deleted. UTILITIES Utility service for this development will be extended from Yosemite. The City also has a watermain which runs from Lilac Lane along the east and south property line of this site to Yosemite. The plans propose extending sewer and water service from Yosemite and dead - ending at the end of the street. The applicant has revised the plans to provide sanitary sewer service to the Donovan parcel as recommended by staff. Utility service to Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2, will be served from the existing sewer and water lines which extend along the south line of the plat. Fire hydrant placement will be determined by the City's Fire Marshal in conjunction with the construction plan review process. Since the utilities will be owned and maintained by the City upon completion, the improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Since there are public improvements involved with this development, the developer will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide a financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The final plat shall dedicate drainage and utility easements of all utility lines which fall outside the street right -of -way. These easements shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The existing home on Lot 5, Block 1, is proposed to be razed. The well and septic system shall be abandoned per City and State health codes. Given the fairly high ground elevation, the applicant should be aware they may encounter low water pressure on some of the higher elevated lots. Typically, individual booster pumps are required in the homes to meet water demands. STREEaES The plans propose on extending a public street from Yosemite to service the development. A private street is also proposed to service Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. As mentioned, the applicant has redesigned a new plat which relocates the private driveway to the easterly plat line to service n LI Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 8 t Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. The relocation of the private driveway will minimize impacts to the wetlands. The revised plans eliminate the variance for the street grade of 10% and also provide street access for the Donovan parcel. In addition, the plans were redrawn with a 60 -foot wide street right -of -way in accordance with City ordinance. Staff is recommending a variance on the building setbacks along the street on Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, to minimize impacts to the wetland. ' Upon review of the revised plans, staff and the applicant discovered that the private street could be eliminated by using the existing private driveway which borders the south side of Lots 2, 3, ' and 4, Block 2. However, the applicant will need to acquire the necessary easements and upgrade the driveway to meet the city's private street ordinance. This alternative is being pursued by the applicant and will be addressed at the Planning Commission meeting. Staff ' supports either alternative and does not feel it necessary to table this item until this issue is resolved. The private street shall be constructed in accordance with the City's private driveway ordinance which requires a 20 -foot wide bituminous surface capable of supporting 7 -ton per axle weight. - Parking will also be prohibited on the private streets. The applicant will need to dedicate cross- , access easements and prepare maintenance agreements for the private streets. In addition, a turnaround may have to be constructed in accordance with the City Fire Marshal's requirements. Given the limited frontage the Donovan parcel has on Lilac Lane (approximately 18 to 20 feet), staff recommends the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5 be dedicated as street right -of -way to leave as an alternative future access to the parcel. The public streets shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required for staff review and ' formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS ' In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: ' (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. ' 2 After- reviewin tile- surroundin area it is- concluded - that -an- extension -of the. ublic stree -t system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 9 (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The proposed private street to serve Lots 2 and 3, Block 2, is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. Were a public street provided to access these lots, additional trees would need to be removed. The proposed private street will follow a watermain alignment along the eastern edge of the property. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). The final grading plan shall incorporate type I erosion control around the perimeter of the grading limits and type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetland. Rock construction entrance shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the driveways and streets have been paved with a bituminous surface. PARKS & RECREATION The Parks & Recreation Commission met on November 28, 1995 to review the proposed plat. The commission is recommending that full park and trail fees be required in lieu of land dedication. FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Findin : The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. Lot 6 must be reconfigured to meet the minimum lot depth. 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 proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. 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- arefsuitable� °development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. r 1 1 F 1 n Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 10 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. Staff is recommending that the roadway be extended to the eastern property line in order to facilitate future access to the east should the adjacent property develop. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions if approved. 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 if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. C. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off -site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. ' VARIANCE As part of this plat approval, a variance to allow a 20 foot wetland setback is requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. 2. - The - hardship- is- caused-by- the* partiettlarphysical - surroundings, shape-®_ topographical conditions of the land. 3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Knob Hill January 17 1996 Page 11 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The setback hardship is caused by the location of the wetland on the site. The required setbacks could not be met given the need for a public street to access the property. Granting a variance will maintain the integrity and natural characteristics of the site. Rather than severely reducing the wetland setback area, staff is recommending that a 10 foot variance be granted for the wetland setback and a ten foot front setback variance be granted for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1. This compromise maintains a minimum 40 foot setback (10 foot buffer strip and 30 foot setback from the buffer edge) from the wetland. The variance requirement for a 10 percent street grade is based on the design alternative proposed by the applicant. Staff has prepared a roadway alternative that eliminates the need for a variance and therefore cannot make the finding for hardship or special conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE At the January 3, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission adopted the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial for the 10 percent street grade variance request." It should be noted that with the revision to the plat being reviewed, there is no longer a need for the street grade variance. On February 7, 1996, the Planning Commission held on public hearing regarding the proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions of the staff report. A contentious issue for the developer and the surrounding property owners is condition number 24 requiring the dedication of 30 feet of right -of -way over the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5, Block 1. Staff recommended this condition to possibly provide an alternate access option for the development of the Donovan parcel to the east of Knob Hill. There are four potential options for the Donovan property to be accessed: 1) the Knob Hill road extension into the parcel -may -be- weal =de= sac; - with -or- without- aTrivate Lilac Lane, 2 the- Knob��Hill- road- extensior. could connect at a "T" intersection into a roadway off Lilac Lane, 3) the Knob Hill road extension could be constructed as a continuous street to Lilac Lane, or 4) there could be no access to Knob Hill and all access to the Donovan property would be limited to Lilac Lane. Until the Donovan property comes in for development, there is no way of knowing which option would be used. n 1 C Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 12 ' The applicant has provided documentation that an access easement from Lilac Lane to the Donovan ' parcel provides adequate provision for access. However, staff concludes that this easement is for private purposes and could not be used for public right -of -way. Any use of this easement for public right -of -way purposes would require the consent of the property owner of Lot 5, Block 1, Ithilien Addition. Also, due to its location, it would seriously impact the existing house on Lot 5, Block 1, Ithilien Addition. The City, as part of the approval of Ithilien Addition, required the dedication of 17 feet of right -of- way along Lilac Lane to bring the total right -of -way to 50 feet. No additional right -of -way requirements are anticipated if the Cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen were to agree to an upgrade of Lilac Lane. The Donovan parcel has approximately 21.5 feet of frontage on Lilac Lane. With the dedication of 30 feet of right -of -way on the Knob Hill plat, there is a potential for 50 plus feet of right -of -way off Lilac Lane into the Donovan parcel. The final need for this right -of -way is dependent on the design for the development of Donovan's land. RECOMMENDATION ' Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: ' "The City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -20 for 12 lots, one outlot and associated right -of -way, plans dated Jan. 1996, prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc.; and a front yard setback variance of 10 feet and a variance to the wetland setback of 10 feet for Lots ' 5 and 6, Block 2, subject to the following conditions: 1. Full park and trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication. 2. A minimum 40 foot building setback (10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback from buffer line) shall be maintained from the wetland on Lots 5 and 6, Block 2. 3. A Tree Conservation Easement shall be designated on the southern and eastern wooded areas on Lot 5, Block 1. The applicant shall prepare a legal description and survey for this ' easement for city approval. 4. Fifteen foot tree removal limits shall be required around the building pads on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. This tree removal limit shall be shown on the building permit application for each lot. All lots shall show existing trees on building permit application surveys. f' Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 13 5. The applicant is required to plant 37 trees as replacement and reforestation plantings. Trees must be selected from the City's Approved Tree List. 6. Any proposed entrance monument must comply with city code. A separate sign permit must be submitted to the city. 7. Submit street names and turning radius dimensions to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 8. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits and Type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. 11. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 -year and 100 -year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 -year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The sediment -- p°ond shall- be- desigried# adJacent�to- the onrLotwS Block °2• °outside - the- street-right -of way. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. �j I 1 u fl � Ll 1 II u Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 14 13. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. ' 15. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 16. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. C 17. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 -year high water level. 18. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations. 19. The proposed single family residential development of 7.69 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $6,152 and a water quantity fee of $15,226. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Credits will be given to these fees based on the applicant providing for the City's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review. 20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 21. Retaining walls shall be employed in the rear yards of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and street grades modified to be more conducive with existing grades. 22:- lrrdivrdual grading; drainage, - tree - preservation, - and - erosion - control- plans-wi�ll -be- required -- for Lots 1, 2, and 5, Block 1, and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2, at the time of building permit application for the City to review and approve. Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 15 23. The public street and utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the City's street and utility standards. The private streets shall be constructed in accordance with current city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 24. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat street right -of -way along the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5, Block 1. 25. Fire hydrants shall be installed with 300 feet maximum spacing. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 26. Delete Outlot A and combine with the adjacent Lots and dedicate a 30 foot private street easement over Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, for ingress and egress. 27. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to minimize grading on the site. 28. The temporary cul -de -sac shall be made to look permanent and setback the appropriate amount, i. e., 20 to 30 feet, from the Donovan property." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Review Application 2. Project Summary 3. Wetland Exemption Request 4. Memo From Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 11/27/95 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List 6. Letter from Bradley J. Nielson to Bob Generous dated 12/6/95 7. Letter from Robert Generous to Bradley J. Nielson dated 12/18/95 8. Planning Commission Minutes of 12/6/95 9. Planning Commission Minutes of 1/3/96 -YO. " Planning" "commission- M February 7,4-996 11. Letter from Mike J. Preble to Kate Aanenson dated received 1/16/96 12. Letter from David C. Hempel and Robert Generous to Mike Preble dated 1/17/96 13. Schematic of the recommended 30 foot roadway dedication on Lot 5, Block 1 14. Neighborhood petition dated 11/30/95 against the further connection to Lilac Lane F J �l fl L it Knob Hill January 17, 1996 Page 16 t 15. Easement document for the Donovan Parcel 16. Part of the North Half of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23 West ' 17. Certificate of Survey for Lot 5, Block 1, Ithilien Addition with easement superimposed Ci L L F L CITY OF CHANHASSEN ' 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937.1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: c R P,Q,C 4 OWNER: - ADDRESS: ;_:_, ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE: , 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW /Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. ✓ Variance - 3. Interim Use Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non - conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP /SPRNAC /VAR/WAP /Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ i,? 00 ■ - ilst of all property owners Within "500 feet of the boundaries of the property included with the application. Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8 1 /2" 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 , PROJECT NAME, LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION >�; 7 P, PRESENT ZONING Z,5, F ' REQUESTED ZONING h PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ' 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 1 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. ' I 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. C / "fiature of Applicant Dafe I C, /o o S -- ature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on (1 � �� Fee Paid I Z �.C> `? 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. Land Surveyors Planners NAN. valley Survo Co., P. A. 17 (612) 447 - ?570 Suite 120C Oc o er 26, 1995 16670 Franklin Trail S.E. Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 RECORD DESCRIPTION FOR KNOB HILL: Certificate of Title No. 7870 That part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the center line of Apple Road and the north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, which said point is the northeast corner of the tract of land originally Registered July 5, 1952, and is described in Carver County Certificate of Title #3205; thence East along the north line of said Quarter - Quarter 809.7 feet to a point marked by a Judicial Land Mark (hereinafter referred to as a JLM); thence South 16 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 122.31 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 45 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 186.78 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 63 degrees 42 minutes West a distance of 81.08 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 70 degrees 22 minutes West a distance of 84.36 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 49 degrees 12 minutes West a distance of 48.51 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 36 degrees 22 minutes West a distance of 54.09 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 28 degrees 17 minutes West a distance of 98.85 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence North 21 degrees 43 minutes West a distance of 6.53 feet to a point marked by a JLM; thence South 28 degrees 17 minutes West a distance of 66.2 feet; thence South 52 degrees 57 minutes West a distance of 100.3 feet; thence South 89 degrees 32 minutes West along a line parallel with and 608.0 feet north of the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter a distance of 385 feet more or less to the center line of said Apple Road; thence northeasterly along said center line 602.4 feet more or less to the point of beginning. That the boundary lines of the above described premises as marked by Judicial Landmarks, the locations of which are shown on the plat of said survey of F. C. Jackson on file herein, are hereby fixed and established as the boundary lines of the above described premises. Pr ed by- Ronald A. Swanson, Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 10183 file no. 8221 I w LI e 11 F--j i i PROJECT SUMMARY OF KNOB HILL CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA I PROJECT LOCATION: The site is approximately 8.3 acres in size and is located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 116, Range 23, City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota. The site is on the North boundary of Carver County bordered on the West by Yosemite Street and surrounded by various small acreage tracts. The site consists of rolling hills with a small (0.66 acre) wetland along Yosemite Street extending East into the property with mature stands of trees around the perimeter, and extending into the property on the North, South, and East borders. 0 f J SITE DEVELOPMENT: Existing trees and topography were taken into account to design a development that would not severely impact the natural characteristics of the site and still allow for the development of 12 single family lots. To best preserve areas of mature woods, the site will be accessed by a short (470 feet) cul -de -sac running East from existing Yosemite Street, with additional lots accessed by a private driveway running South from the proposed cul -de sac. In using this method of access, it will be possible to preserve large areas of trees that would be destroyed by an East to West through street such as the extension of Lilac Lane. The existing topography in the northeast corner of the site, at the end of existing Lilac Lane, is prohibitive to street construction due to the existing steep slopes (15% - 25 %) , and the number of large trees (14" - 36" Oaks, Hickory, Basswood, and Elm) that would be removed for the extension of Lilac Lane. To best preserve the existing topography and to limit the area disturbed by site grading, a variance for street grade will be required. The variance to use a ten percent (10 %) grade will allow for the preservation of several 12" - 24" Pine and Cedar trees which are located at the end of the proposed cul -de -sac. The ten percent (10 %) grade, while steep, will not be noticed due to a long reverse vertical curve; there will be no section of street that will actually be built at ten percent (10 %) vertical grade. The street, as proposed, is at a grade of approximately eight percent (8 %). This grade will maintain the natural topography as much as possible while eliminating the need`for extensive grading and tree removal in the area. Lot 10 will be accessed from existing Yosemite Street to preserve trees and avoid impact to the existing wetland. SITE UTILITIES• Lots 1, 10 and 11 will be served by the existing services as constructed in 1972 under City Project 71 -1D. The balance of the site will be served by a gravity sanitary sewer system which will connect to the existing sanitary sewer in Yosemite Street by the construction of a manhole over the existing sanitary sewer line. Watermain will be constructed from the existing watermain in Yosemite Street, looped through the site and connected to the existing watermain in the Southeast corner of the site. Storm water drainage basin and enter the of the wetland. WETLANDS: will be routed through a small stilling S existing wetland at the Northwest corner A Type 1 Agricultural /Urban Wetland exists on the property. This wetland is dominated by Reed Canary Grass. The low plant diversity and marginal wetland hydrology make the functions and values of this wetland low. Lots 11 and 12 require a wetland setback variance to allow for an appropriate structure. The proposed wetland setback variance for Lots 11 and 12 is 30 feet (10 foot buffer strip and 20 foot setback from buffer strip). The 10 foot buffer strip will be monumented and maintained around the entire wetland. All other lots will have a 50 foot set back (10 foot buffer strip and 40 foot setback from buffer strip). The alternative to the variance is to mitigate the area inside the setback requirements on Lot 12. This mitigation would impact and disturb the wetland more than the proposed variance. Exemption #25 of the Wetland Conservation Act will be used to fill a 370 square foot "pot hole" Type 1 Agricultural /Urban Wetland located on Lots 7 and 8. See exemption request for additional information. 1� I I t 1 t WETLAND EXEMPTION REQUEST PROJECT: Knob Hill Development I Knoblauch Property r r It is requested that the City of Chanhassen issue a Wetland Fill Exemption Certificate. Using Exemption #25 of the Wetland Conservation Act, the Knoblauchs plan to fill a 370 square foot Type 1 "pothole" Agricultural /Urban wetland. Existing Characteristics: Size: < 370 square feet Type: 1 - Monotypic Vegetation: Dominant Species - Reed Canary Grass Individual Species - Green Bulrush Topography: This wetland exists in a swale "pothole" where water is trapped prior to draining to a larger Type 1 wetland. The wetland is dominated by Reed Canary Grass and only contains one additional wetland species. Wetland hydrology is very marginal (no hydrology indicators in the top 12 inches and only weak indicators from 12 -18 inches). CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official. K DATE: November 27, 1995 SUBJECT: 95 -20 SUB(Knob Hill, John Knoblauch) Background: I was asked to review the plans stamped "CITX OF CHANHASSEN, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced project. recommendations from the Inspections Division for the proposed project, Analysis: H RECEIVED, NOV 03 1995, Below are an analysis and Street Names. In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department. Proposed street names are not included with the submitted documents. The proposed street name may have a maximum length of three words 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 elevations as well as garage floor elevations and entry level elevations are 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, if applicable, roust be furnished to the City and a permit for septic w system` abandonment, 'if - appl citble,`musrbe'obtained and"the septic 'system "abaridoned' "prior'to issuance 'ot a demolition permit, Recommendations: The following conditions should be added to the conditions of approval. C Bob Generous November 27, 1995 Page 2 1. Submit street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. 2. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 3. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. enclosure: January 29, 1993 memorandum 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 �cr I 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. FLO o: RLO Desib Cates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout This includes dwellings with nie basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R 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 many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry 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. TU r SE R SEWO WO FLO - - - - -- I , -- , - - -- orALO 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. 4rs q , � PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, DECEMBER 6, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. Chanhassen Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Project: Knob Hill Developer: John Knoblauch Location: East side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen- Shorewood city limits U i LOCATION Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. ' The applicant is proposing preliminary plat approval of 8.35 acres into 12 lots, one outlot and associated right -of -way on property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential; a variance for street ' grade of 10 %; and a variance to wetland setback of 20 feet for Lots 11 and 12; property is located on the east side of Yosemite at the Chanhassen- Shorewood city limits. The project is known as Knob Hill. ' 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 Bob at 937 -1900 ext. 141. "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 November 23, 1995. ��5 William & Ginni Nordvik Steven Olson Timothy & Kristen Rosenfield, 1375 Lilac Lane 1530 Creek Run Trail 1540 Creek Run Trail Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert & Louri Underkofler Don & Jeanne Becker Gregory & Marissa 1550 Creek Run Trail 1560 Creek Run Trail Frankenfield Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 1570 Creek Run Trial ' Excelsior, MN 55331 John Colburn & Laura Duncan Kevin & Jacqueline Bidgood Edmund & Marsah Fadel 1571 Creek Run Trail 1561 Creek Run Trail 1551 Creek Run Trail Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ' David & Susan Arthur Susan Hume James & Norma Donovan ' 1541 Creek Run Trail 1531 Creek Run Trail 1375 Lilac Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert Sutfin & Diane McGuire 1320 Ithilien Micahel & Denise Reid 1328 Ithilien Scott & Joanne Dake 1336 Ithilien ' Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Robert & Sandra Hanson Mike & Ann Preble Timothy & Collen Browne 1344 Ithilien 1352 Ithilien 1360 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ' ' Jeffrey Smith & Lori Johnson Darwin & Mary Boutiette James & Barbara Quiring 1368 Ithilien 1376 Ithilien 1384 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ' John & Deborah Marceau Kenneth & Tamra Boehm Philip & Carol Hamlin 1392 Ithilien 1391 Ithilien 1385 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 ' Randall & Diane Schwan Edward & Rhonda Perkins David & Diann Jones 1377 Ithilien 1351 Ithilien 1329 Ithilien "Excelsior, - N4N 55331 'Excelsior; Y N"5533 "Excelsior, Troy Anderson Barry Conda & Gordon Koehnen Charles & Tracy Horan Cool 1600 Koehnen Cir. E. 6285 Audubon Cir 1601 Koehnen Cir , Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 I Stewart & Karen Reamer Stephen & Cynthia Donis Melvin Schmid k 331 Ashton Ct. 6398 Teton Lane 1620 W. 63rd Street xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 k obert & Brenda Poston Kenneth L. Larson Roy Rockvam Audubon Cir 1610 W. 63rd Street 6340 Yosemite 1 295 xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 I Kathryn T. Stoddart Shirley A. Hopf Bruce & Nanette Twaddle 1611 W. 63rd St. 6420 Yosemite 6430 Yosemite xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 C arolyn J. Wise Charles B. Hebert James, Sr. & Mary Emmer O Box 2413 6411 Yosemite 6321 Yosemite Palm Springs, CA 92263 -2413 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Todd D. Bogema Mark & Kathryn Basktiansen Troy Stottler & Terry Scheurich 371 Yosemite 6301 Yosemite 6320 Yosemite xcelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 C ity of Shorewood Attn: Planning Dept. William & Carol Wilson Mike & Lisa Kroonblawd Country Club Road 23060 Stratford Place 22020 Stratford Place t 755 horewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 J oyce Unruh Kathia Jo Anderson Lisa Jetland 23080 Stratford Place 22040 Stratford Place 24000 Stratford Place I horewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 onald & Lori Zenk Richard & Deborah Osgood Lee Paris & Penny Rogers 2060 Stratford Place 22035 Stratford Place 23000 Stratford Place Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Carl & Marcia Walker Alan & Virginia Whitaker David & Janet Finken R 2015 Stratford Place 23020 Stratford Place 22055 Stratford Place horewood, ""Shorewood,"'MN`'5533 i - Slrorewcod,�MN 55 i Roger & Ellen Bushell A. Chris & Carol Pehle Walter & Martha Cleveland Stratford Place 22075 Stratford Place 6185 Apple Road t 3040 horewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Larry & Linda Stokes 21710 Lilac Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Glen & Jeanette Ames 6145 Apple Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Thomas & Jennifer Wilder 21740 Lilac Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Elden Beckman 6125 Apple Road Excelsior, MN 55331 John & Jane Danser 21640 Lilac Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Joseph Garaghty 6075 Apple Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Thomas & Jeanne Flavin 6080 Mill Street , Shorewood, MN 55331 Laurie Pearson & Bradley Heppner 21780 Lilac Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 ' MAYOR Robert Bean 1 6 December 1995 COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bruce Benson Jennifer McCarty CITY OF Dou Malam SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 ' Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' Re: Knob Hill - Preliminary Plat ' Dear Mr. Generous: Our office received a copy of the above - referenced plat and found it to have little or no impact on adjoining property in Shorewood. We have since been advised that the City is considering a possible through connection to Lilac Lane. This is to advise you that the City of Shorewood has serious concerns about any such connection to Lilac Lane. Lilac Lane is a very substandard, narrow street serving only six homes in Shorewood. Given the low density and large lot character of this neighborhood, Shorewood has no plans for extending the street. It does not appear that such a connection would benefit ' Shorewood residents. We understand the desire to provide for the development of the Donovan property, and ;would be interested in seeing any plans you may have developed in this regard. However, at this time the City of Shorewood does not favor making Lilac Lane a through street. It is our understanding that your planning commission wiii consider This maitCi at their meeting tonight. Please pass our concerns along to them. If you wish to discuss this ' project with Shorewood staff, please do not hesitate to contact me at 474 -3236. Sincerely, ' CITY OF SHOREWOOD Bradley J. - ielsen Planning Director cc: John Knoblach Larry Brown RECEIVED ' L)E C 0 6 1995 CITY OF CHANHASSEfv ' A Residential Community Minnetonka's on Lake South Shore CITY OF CHANHASOrN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 1 Mr. Bradley J. Nielson, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8927 Re: Knob Hill - Preliminary Plat Consideration Dear Mr. Nielson: I am in receipt of your letter dated December 6, 1995 regarding the above referenced plat. As part of the review of the plat, city staff was concerned about the future accessibility of the Donovan property located immediately east of the Knoblauch property. Due to severe topography and significant wooded area at the end of Lilac Lane, staff did not recommend a continuation of Lilac Lane. Rather, we recommended that the roadway in Knob Hill be extended to the easterly property line at a point south of the wooded area and the steep slopes (see attached staff's concept dated 11/29/95). This roadway has the potential of being connected to Lilac Lane, "T" into another roadway off Lilac Lane, or terminating in a cul -de -sac on the Donovan property. Should the roadways ever be connected, public safety access for the residents of Lilac Lane will be enhanced. The City of Chanhassen is very aware of the substandard nature of Lilac Lane. However, if staff's recommendation to provide access through Knob Hill is not incorporated as part of this plat, the only access to the Donovan property will be via Lilac Lane. As you may recall in conjunction with the subdivision of Ithilien Addition in the southwest corner of Teton and Lilac Lanes, the cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood considered entering into a cost sharing agreement for the upgrade of Lilac Lane east of Teton Lane. Due to financial restraints, an agreement was reached between the cities whereby the cost of upgrading Lilac Lane was incurred by the City of Chanhassen and the maintenance responsibility of Lilac Lane was assumed by the City of Shorewood. When the Donovan parcel develops, the cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood�iaaa_y -be- faced -- with - the- s- amerissues. - However, the `City ofCharihassen may not having funding available to participate in the upgrade when warranted. With the implementation of staffs concept on Knob Hill, the need to upgrade Lilac Lane is reduced significantly. 1 December 18, 1995 t Mr. Bradley J. Nielson December 18, 1995 Page 2 Based on current zoning ordinances, the Donovan property has the potential for subdividing into 12 - 15 single- family lots. We believe that we would be remiss if we did not address providing alternate access to the Donovan property at this time. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at 937 -1900 extension 141. Sincerely, Robert Generous, AICP Planner II Enclosure c: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer N LILAC LN DONO PARCEL 1 1 • j i t � srA'vzy °9$ Ear 1 1 1 arrace � t I P i Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: ...we certainly will at the next Planning Commission meeting and I know that that doesn't help you because you want to go ahead with your plan. Another comment was made from the audience at this point. Mancino: And you may also work with the staff on a variance for a certain lot also having to do with Lot I ... we would certainly entertain that. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10 %; AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12• PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN- SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. Public Present: Name Addiress Marc Simcox Diane & Randall Schwanz Joanne Dake Bob Hansen Michael Reid Jim Donovan Jim Emmer Tom Wilder Mike Prebble 21600 Lilac Lane, Shorewood 1377 Ithilien 1336 Ithilien 1344 Ithilien 1328 Ithilien Chanhassen Chanhassen Shorewood 1352 Ithilien Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: I have a couple very quickly. The accepted grading is due to dwelling type? Is due to what? Hern -pel: Well >the¢street w praposed•- right- tzp~tlrroughw the hill' there -- to` preserve the "topography as well as 10% street grade and ... There's not going to be as much grading probably... staffs 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 alternative. It fits the terrain though much better. You're not significantly lowering the knob or filling in for the house pads. Mancino: So the difference between that concept and what the applicant has brought is that you're going south... southern turn and this will eliminate even greater the 10% grade? Hempel: We believe we're working with the existing grades better than the proposed plan before you this evening. Mancino: Another question is, and none of us are ... to the east. They have access to Lilac Lane so they do have an access point... Hempel: We have a limited access point to Lilac Lane. Approximately 18 to 20 foot wide. The street is a substandard city street. It actually borders right between the city of Shorewood. It's also here in Chanhassen. I believe the city of Shorewood has maintained that street. At this point tonight we're not looking at a thru street connection. We're just trying to provide full street access and utility service to the Donovan parcel. Mancino: And as you said, Lilac Lane is owned by Shorewood? Hempel: I believe it's maintained by the city of Shorewood. Mancino: Thank you. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning Commission? John Knoblauch: I'm John Knoblauch. I'm the developer of the proposed parcel called Knob Hill. Craig from Engelhardt has two drawings here. One showing the proposed cul -de -sac that's been submitted. Also on the top would be a likely scenario if staffs recommendations are followed. Just to quickly mention on David's comments on looking at the, only the service of the Donovan parcel. I believe in the staff report on page 5, the bottom. When abutting property develops, staff met early on with the applicant's engineer and requested that they look at extending the street to the east to service Donovan's and potentially when the abutting property develops out to Lilac Lane. So that's really the issues that we're going to talk about here. This is going to sound like a broken record because what you just went through before. I'm in the same boat here. This property's been in my family 85 years. It's been my wife and myself's dream to eventually build on the homestead site of my great grandfather's home. I build homes for a living. My goal's not to be a developer but , developing this- -piece rnyselfhwasx the~ only - thing° -I` could° do" to,- °make"sure't11at-th -e" homestead site be preserved and the site be carefully planned the way my family would want it. I've probably more questions than answers for you but I think all the issues at hand need to be 29 1 1 n Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 addressed further than this meeting with city staff, my engineers and myself. But I appreciate the commission hearing our concerns on hopefully the successful development of this parcel. Other than the details that are addressed in the staffs report, the plan in my mind boils down to two basic road layouts which I think is why everybody is here tonight. My plan number one, my plan of a cul -de -sac to service the parcel and staffs recommended plan for a continuation of a road through my parcel and eventually continuing through the Donovan parcel to the east when it is developed and hook up to Lilac Lane. A cul -de -sac plan, not necessarily my proposed cul -de -sac that you see on the bottom plan over there, but a cul -de- sac meeting staffs wishes and the grade and the right -of -way areas is preferred by myself and the surrounding neighbors. A continuation of this road, which I call the top cop's road to the east, in my estimation would be confronted with the following. Two hills near the connecting collectors, neither of which meet Shorewood or Chanhassen's specs for safety. Lilac Lane and Powers Boulevard intersection. This intersection is a 28 foot wide roadway that was improved 2 years ago up to Teton Road. The city prefers a 31 foot wide roadway. Grading on this improvement was an 8.26 grade. The city prefers a 7% maximum grade. But we're a 7% grade as close as 50 feet to Powers Boulevard. The city prefers a 2% max grade within 50 feet of this intersection. Or of any intersection. I understand that may be a State recommendation, I'm not sure. A transitional speed zone at the intersection of 45 mph and 30 mph and poor sight lines for the drivers east bound and south bound. This roadway is 85% in the city of Shorewood and 15% in the city of Chanhassen. Also another issue that I'd like to bring to the commissioner's attention is the hill at Apple Road at the county line which is actually on the northwest corner. Yosemite Street turns into Apple Road at the county line, which is the northwest corner. The average grade for the first 450 feet into Hennepin County is 9.08. At the hill crest this grade's within 150 feet to the center of my proposed road coming into Yosemite. In regards to the Donovan parcel, which is actually shown to the southeast of the top drawing, it's almost a 90 degree turn on the Donovan parcel. The sight lines for the Donovan property are poor with mature trees blocking vision on the entire west side. There's a dangerous ravine at the end of Lilac Lane which would definitely be a hazard. Not to mention there's about 20 significant trees that would be lost on the substandard part of Lilac Lane. Another issue of concern is the servicing of just the Donovan parcel. It's come to my attention recently that Mr. Donovan does have a 50 foot easement for road purposes for future development. Therefore when future development would take place, it could access onto Lilac Lane. So there's no need to take road right -of -way from my parcel to service his land. ...The first page is just a map showing how close Apple Road and Powers connect just to the north of this parcel. And Lake Lucy Road would be the other collector to the south. And the next three are the existing Lilac Lane improvement that was done from Powers to Teton Lane, which is probably about half of Lilac Lane. Maybe a little less. A third to a _. half -andwthat,slho_ws.the�28°lo wi dth. _The-8_.26 - g -rade - coming- into- Po- wers-- Boulevard- basically no landing. And the last page just shows how much was in Shorewood and Chanhassen. The next page does show the grade. This is from the city of Shorewood on the 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 grade of the hill just to the north of where Yosemite turns into Apple Road. The average is 9.08 in that first section. The next half section map shows Ithilien, which is a lot of the neighbors that are here tonight in that subdivision. It does show highlighted Lot 5, which is the issue with the Donovan easement. The next page, with the easement over Lot 5 does confirm from Valley Surveying and also Del Cutter at Carver County Abstract, that this is a valid easement. It's a 50 foot wide easement. 28.51 onto Lot 5 and 21.5 that is on the existing Donovan parcel. And the next legal document is that easement dated 27th of April, 1973. On the next three pages is a petition, obviously concerned residents. 52 adults from the surrounding area. And last but not least, a letter from the City of Shorewood that I received today and it reads as follows: Our office received a copy of the above referenced plat and found it to have little or no impact on the adjoining property in Shorewood. We have since been advised that the city's considering a possible thru connection to Lilac Lane. This is to advise you that the City of Shorewood has serious concerns about such a connection to Lilac Lane. Lilac Lane is very substandard, narrow street serving only 6 homes in Shorewood. Given the low density and large lot character of this neighborhood, Shorewood has no plans for extending the street. It does not appear that such a connection would benefit Shorewood residents. We understand the desire to provide for the development of the Donovan property and would be interested in seeing any other plans that you may have developed in this regard. However at this time the City of Shorewood does not favor making the Lilac Lane a thru street. It is our understanding that your Planning Commission will consider this matter at the meeting tonight. Please pass our concerns along to them. If you wish to discuss this project with Shorewood's staff, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director. I understand that at least cul -de -sacs have been granted within the past years within a half mile. Shadow Ridge, Ithilien and the Mason property. And also to clarify the staff and the commission why we propose a 10% grade variance on our plan for the cul -de -sac was for one purpose and one purpose only. That was to save trees which is really my high priority on this parcel. And I was told by Engelhardt that in order to save more trees we had to raise the road grade, in order to especially save, there's quite a few cedars up where I'm going to live on the big parcel on Lot 5. That is going to be left as one lot. Besides all the safety issues I've raised for a continued street, it seems very clear to me that a continuation of the Knob Hill Road was not meant to be. It should have been planned through the Ithilien property, not a band -aid thru street. This is why a cul -de -sac makes sense for my neighborhood. It's safe for my kids and the Knob Hill traffic can go to Powers Boulevard, via Apple Road to the north and Lake Lucy Road to the south. Both level intersections that would be safer for all. I'm sure with staffs help we can come up with a cul -de -sac plan that meets the grade staff prefers and preserves the best liability of the trees and the surroundings of my family property. We're moving onto this . land_to._make , fr-iends,.:not.-ene-mies- and:- to-- cantribute�to- the -eomrr unity and +copefully�we� can find common ground. So I'd ask the Planning Commission to make a motion to staff not to pursue the connection of the roadway through the Knob Hill Addition to service Donovan's 31 1 1 V� iI L d I Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 I property but to allow for sewer service only and to pursue a cul -de -sac plan that will enhance the area. Mancino: Thank you. I did have a question for you. Just state for me very clearly, forget Lilac Lane and what will happen if it goes through the Donovan parcel. You seem to want the cul -de -sac and what are the reasons for you wanting to continue or to just have a cul -de- sac on Knob Hill. Just 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. r John Knoblauch: Actually to be honest with you, I'm not really opposed to servicing Donovan's property. If it was Donovan's property alone and I could be assured of that, I would not be against dead - ending my road at his property line. And that I've made clear to staff. As far as the cul -de -sac, obviously it makes my lots more valuable. I have two growing boys and one on the way, and they're pretty active. I guess that's really the gist of it and I think that's the way my family would have wanted it, so. Since the issue of the easement came up with Donovan's, and he's really got his own entrance off of Lilac, I guess I'd prefer a cul -de -sac because if he didn't have that, I probably would work something out with him. Mancino: Thank you. Can we have a motion to open this for a public hearing? Faimakes moved, Meyer seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was opened. Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission. I'm going to stop for just one moment. It's 9:25. Kate, we have to be out of here by 10:00? Aanenson: Correct. Mancino: If we are not done by 10:00, because I see that we have quite a few people who are going to be addressing us. We may have to table this and come back and resume the public hearing because we must be out of here by 10:00. Anyone else who is on the agenda, I don't think we're going to get to you tonight. Do you have any recommendations or any other suggestions? So I just through I'd tell you that no one else will go on tonight. It won't be until January 3rd. We'll come back and we'll continue the public hearing at 10:00. We'll see you again on January 3rd. I hope this doesn't hold up anything for the applicant, etc, and I hope that everyone who did come tonight can join us again after Christmas. With that the public hearing is open and I'd like your name and address. Mike Prebble: Thank you. My name is Mike Prebble and I live at 1352 Ithilien, which is Lot 5 on the Ithilien Addition and I stand to be the one most affected or not affected, 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 depending on which plan that the city and Mr. Knoblauch go forward with. This is my lot right here and for a thru street... I believe Mr. Knoblauch should be able to develop his Knob Hill Addition as a cul -de -sac. He has shown me a plan that shows a very subtle use of land with home sites nestled in amongst the existing trees with the least impact on changing the neighborhood with an increased density of people. He has 12 home sites. It's been my experience that, at least where I live it's 2 car families and pretty much both work and so that's two cars leaving, two cars coming home and maybe a kid to pick up and maybe go shopping and so if you count all of those car passages from one house, I came up with 8 minimum and if you multiply that times 9 homes, that's 96 cars minimum going, plus you talk of things like mail delivery and garbage pick -up and etc and I forgot something so I go again. My lot being the corner of Lot 5 on the Ithilien Addition, apparently the planning and zoning commission, when they put my house on this lot. It was built in 1991, into '92 is when we moved in. We didn't know or didn't realize Mr. Donovan's easement onto it but I believe, according to the map and the measurements that I've done, if this street is put in as a thru street according to the existing easements, the corner of my attached screened porch would be 17 feet from the curb and I heard from the previous thing that it's 30 feet is the minimum so apparently my home was placed in a position that, according to what was Mr. Donovan's right -of -way, and I don't know if the city. Maybe the city didn't know of his easement or not. My house could have been moved. It didn't have to put right there because it's a new home and I wish that would have been addressed when we were in the stage of getting approval for where to place the homesite where our home is built. A thru street there, that's 12 homes. If Mr. Donovan or someone who buys his property and develops that, I talked with Mr. Hempel and I suggested 10 or 12 homes may go there. Mr. Hempel thought maybe 15 was more appropriate so that's another 15 homes. I'm going to guess 2 car families. I'm going to guess 8 trips minimum in and out. We're looking at around 300 cars a day could be potentially going past my house. Stop. Turn the corner. Go. Come back. Stop. Turn back. Some of those cars may be not so well tuned up. Some of those being trucks. The hill right there, my home. Northwest general air movement. I'm really concerned about air pollution right into my porch. I'm concerned about noise pollution. I'm concerned about how busy that street could become. I have three children. A freshman in high school, a 9 year old at Excelsior Elementary and a 3 year old. I believe that Mr. Knoblauch should be able to develop some fashion of a cul -de -sac. Your question of why do you want a cul -de -sac is why I bought that house on a cul -de -sac. It's homey. It's neighbors. The only people really who drive on our street are the people who live there. Occasion person who may be lost or looking for something but I look around, when I see people, it's the people we live with. A thru street is not homey. Is not neighbors. We met with the safety people last winter at one of our neighbor's homes talking about neighborhood safety - 7wateh_andhow -nice it- is every©ne - knows °and =can-see¢arrd can come and':ga °s'owif you something suspicious, meaning something you haven't seen for a while, you can easily think. Maybe I should call. Maybe not. A thru street does not allow that familiarity. My 33 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 recommendation to your group is some fashion of a cul -de -sac and Mr. Knoblauch mentioned something about, he could service Donovan's property. I love that idea. If some fashion of cul -de -sac ends with some fashion of a dead end here on Donovan's property, a nice road about here, that's another... If Mr. Donovan's easement is taken off my property, the Ithilien easement is taken off my property, I stand to lose approximately 20% of the land that I've got there. So thank you. I � Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission. Jim Donovan: Yes, my name is Jim Donovan. I'm the famous Donovan resident there with the property. As far as the easement is concerned, I know I can. say whatever I want here in front of the Council because it doesn't mean anything as far as saying it about development. I have no intentions of ever developing that piece of property. I have no intentions of ever selling it. I'm going to die there when I'm 100 so. I'm 61 now so I've got a long time to go. And Mike and his wife can feel free that there will be no, nothing done with that corner. I know that that has no legal standing or anything else like that but that's my feelings. As far as allowing Mr. Knoblauch to have a circle in there, that would be my choice. As I look out my house, when I come out of my garage, that's to the north of my property there looking at his piece of property. It would look down. I'm up on the hill there. You can see the pond and I am just to the south of that pond there on a hill. I look down, my driveway goes down and winds around the trees. The beautiful trees there and I was thrilled when John and his wife came over to my house and said that they had no intentions of destroying those trees. I know that all the neighbors were very, very concerned about a developer coming in and potentially ripping out 20 to 30 of those beautiful trees that are in there that have been there for ages and ages. This is Apple Road territory and apple tree territory. The trees may not be the greatest because they haven't been kept up but it is a very old and very lovely area there. As far as I'm concerned, and the people that I've talked to, we would like to see, and me especially, I would like to see a circle on the property as John has proposed. I would not like to see a road abutted to my lot line because basically what the town is telling me is that, hey. Eventually we're going to come through your piece of property and we're going to link up with Lilac Lane. Well, you know I don't like that. I don't want to have my property... lighting that goes all the way down the driveway. I've got a security system that's underground that goes down the driveway. I've got over 1,000 foot long driveway. I've got two stone pillars at the end of Lilac there that have a bar, or a radio prism that goes it through. When a person or a vehicle comes onto the property, it sounds at my house. All of these wires and electrical has been laid underground and led to my house there. So I have no intentions of ever developing that. Ripping up that piece of property. I would hope that the .town .would- not,or. the- city - wo -uld- have -no- push -to -put - -a- r -oad- through- there- eventually. -tend the idea of having John make a road that would abut to my property there and then running basically a service road along my property line there, my northern property line there, does 34 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 not make sense really. John's idea of a circle with a road there servicing these homes here makes much more sense. It lends to the landscape. It does not degrade the property. It does not scrape it away. I mean there's beautiful homes. There is beautiful trees there. There's a cedar tree there. There's the slope of the land lends itself to what John has proposed and has done a hard job of trying to make the property look at least developed, if we could put it that way, as possible. This is an old area and it's a beautiful area and it's an area where people come to rest, relax, get away from city life. It's not an area where, as Mike said, you want to have 90 cars screeching around the corner. You want to have horns honking. Things like this. I think that everybody who lives in Chanhassen wants a nice, quiet life. I mean we're developing this city at a very, very rapid pace, as shown by what's happened downtown. The area that we happen to be in is the most northern part of Chanhassen, adjoining Shorewood there. We are sort of the last frontier as far as the northern part of Chanhassen is concerned and it's an area that has got it's own charm and it's own mystique. It's an area that John has proposed developing with the idea that, let's keep it the way it is right now. Let's not make it into a fast lane. Let's keep it so that when people drive in here, they're driving into their home. They're not driving into a big wide open, busy area here. And John has done, what we think and I think, a very admirable job of developing the property, of proposing to develop the property as far as the roads are concerned. As far as I am concerned, being the prime piece of property on the south side of this development here, and as far as the city is concerned, I would have potentially, any access that I would ever need, and as I prefaced my beginning remarks to the Council here. I have no intentions of ever doing anything. And the way I would like to have it, I would like to have it as John has proposed. I feel that that is the best plan for the entire area. Thank you. Mancino: May I respond to a couple things you said. First of all, I want to make perfectly clear you understand that the staffs proposal to stop it at your property line would not at this point, or at any point until you decide to develop, would it go through your property. Jim Donovan: Right, I understand that. Mancino: There wouldn't be a service road. There would be nothing. It would just stop Jim Donovan: I understand that. But you're bringing up a road to butt up against my property. Mancino: Yes. That is true. .. Jim,. Donovan: - Which - is- .an- ugly,m.ug1.; . Mancino: To the property line. IN 7 F r r J Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Jim Donovan: Yes, it's an ugly type of situation. Whereas now it's a .beautiful type of thing. Mancino: And it would be a turn around and there would have to be some sort of turn around so it would look very much like a cul -de -sac. Jim Donovan: But right up against my property. Mancino: It would be up against your property line. Jim Donovan: Yeah, which is very bad. Mancino: And secondly it is, I mean we have to look ahead, after 100 years. Between 61 and when you're 100 and to your next life and say, then what's going to happen. I understand that you're going to be there and at this point do not see ever developing it. But we, as a planning commission, must look even further ahead than that. That's what we need to do for the city and I don't know what we're going to decide but I'm just also giving you our perspective on what we need to be looking at too. Jim Donovan: Well what you're telling me then is that, if you were to bring up, if you were to disregard John's proposal, put forth your proposal to abut onto my piece of property there, it would not be done during my tenure. But that some time a large swath of my property would become public road property. Mancino: If whoever, your heir, whoever you sell it to wants to develop. If that one person. Jim Donovan: But what you're proposing would basically degrade my property. It would decrease the value of my property. Mancino: As it stands now, someone would come in. If you wanted to sell it someone or give it to an heir who wants to develop it, and that would be up to you. Jim Donovan: No, what I'm saying is that what you're proposing or what you're saying is that if you were to put a road with a circular end to it, up against my northern boundary, it would decrease the value of my property. There's no doubt about that. Hempel: Madam Chair, if I could make a couple comments. The first thing, the handout you have before you tonight with the easement, the 50 foot easement across Lot 5. First of all that.is:a-private..:.roadway� easement. That,,.cannot. >be--dedi•cated for,,pul) - It's -a- sel: easement for Mr. Donovan to use. Okay, so that can never be upgraded to a city street. Now 36 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 acquisition of property from Lot 5, which we have no desire to do. Your subdivision, well maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Your property... (Dave Hempel stepped over to the overhead projector and his comments were not picked up by the microphone.) Jim Donovan: That's fine with me. I understand that. Mr. Knoblauch might be willing, if that 28 feet, if you're saying that mine's a private one, right? That's only to be used by me, So Mr. Prebble has no worry because it will never be used because I've built what I'm going to build there. What if Mr. Knoblauch was to grant 21 or 28 feet, or whatever was necessary there? Hempel: That's one of our recommendations that he dedicate a 30 foot swath... Jim Donovan: Okay, but I'm saying on Lilac. From Lilac, that would Lilac west. Dave Hempel's comments were not picked up by the microphone. Jim Donovan: Right. So if he dedicated 28 feet, that would solve that easement, or that would solve that entrance. Hempel: That would get him... driveway. Jim Donovan: Okay. Alright. Then there would be no reason then to abut a road onto my northern part of my property. Hempel: The thing that we have to look at is the overall picture... Jim Donovan: As far as water and sewer is concerned, there is water and sewer on the property already. It comes in from Apple Road. City water and sewer comes into the property from Apple Road right now. Hempel: There's water...sewer line here. Jim Donovan: No, sewer runs to the east. My sewer runs from the east. It comes right in. ...I have city water and sewer. ...Hempel: You> have, city sewerrand water? Jim Donovan: Yes. It comes in this direction... 37 L L L 1� Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Any other comments? Jim Donovan; Okay, thank you. John Knoblauch: I just had one. If it's a private easement... Generous: If we can make the findings for the private street... There's environmental protection. Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Jim Emmer: My name is Jim Emmer. I live in the property immediately south of the second round square from Yosemite. And as you can see from this, the driveway coming from the abutted road would come along the property line and those headlights would be right in our living room. Do you see that in that area? And on this plan ... this would be the driveway... We like the plan at this time. I'd like to know why the road is needed. Can somebody answer that please? Mancino: Excuse me, why what road is needed? Jim Emmer: Why, in a future time Mr. Donovan's property needs to be served from Yosemite rather than from Lilac Lane, Generous: When we look at development, Lilac Lane was a substandard street. This would be a, meet city code and the street that Mr. Knoblauch... Additionally, whenever we're looking at developments we try, where possible to provide two means of access to that for emergency purposes. Jim Emmer: Well no cul -de -sacs have two means of access. Generous: That's right and we, at a staff level we try not to keep getting cul -de -sac's in there. Jim Emmer: Can I take a poll of how many people here live on cul -de -sacs? Mancino: Excuse me, can you wait and come on up. Thank you. Jim Emmer: That's really all I have to say. I have a hard time understanding why we have ,torhave ..a..thru-road.patential -ly. and.- I- agFee- with -you -thit- when -Mr. - Donavan - passes -on,- that's going to be developed but why it can't be developed from Lilac Lane, because you're not adding, what are you adding potentially? 12 lots there at the most. 38 0 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: 12 to 15. Jim Emmer: On Mr. Donovan's property? Mancino: That is what has been stated earlier. It has the potential. Whether it does or doesn't, we don't know what's going to happen but it has the potential to add 15 more lots. Tom Wilder: Hi. I'm Tom Wilder. I'm from Shorewood so maybe you don't have to listen to me but he's talking about his living room. I'm talking about my bedroom. I live right at the L of Lilac. My house was built a year ago and it happens to be, what you can't see from the drawing here is this, the house is about 20 feet down from the grade of the street so every, you know we're talking about a year, a couple years ... stop sign being right here, you know the headlights would be shining right in my bedroom and I wouldn't like that. It just seems to me, I hate to keep talking about if Jim's alive but you know, maybe he'll sell his one parcel. You know maybe it never will be developed. Maybe he'll sell his beautiful estate as it is right now. So that should be considered. It's my understanding the reason why it was put on the books in Chanhassen as well as ... protecting the current virgin row of trees and a lot of big trees, including 4 very large ones on my property would have to come out if you upgraded to what is a very pretty Lilac Lane into a quote, perfectly plowable city street. When Chan developed, or when Chan improved Lilac Lane a couple years ago you know they took the lilacs down. There are no more lilacs except for on my property and if you improved it, you'd get them all. I have some wetland concerns. There's, you know it's a dead end. A lot of children there. I would think that would be a concern to the Planning Commission. And to upgrade Lilac Lane would, you'd have to take out what's about, it's 2/3 of Shorewood's street so you'd probably have a fight there as well but 17 feet is what I consider a wildlife corridor. Beautiful sumac. Very large oaks. I mean you know, you've destroyed it. And it seems to me, and somebody has already pointed this out, that people move out to Chanhassen, Shorewood area and some of the other surrounding suburbs to live on cul -de -sacs, to live on dead ends and I think it's you know, the proof is in the putting. I did a little, I'm kind of a numbers guy. I went through the Planning Commission, you know the members and I went through the City Council and 86% of you who are thinking about extending our street, live on dead ends, non -thru streets or cul -de -sacs. Only two, Nancy you don't. But you have a nice driveway. Mancino: Thank you. Tom Wilder: And Mike Mason, I'm not sure where he lives. I can't find Woodhill Road _:- But.,the. rest- of,you- ,1 -i:ve -on dead -ends < or- eul =de- sacs -so. Farmakes: I live on Utica which is a thru street. 39 I 1 J i L Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Tom Wilder: Utica, Utica is not exactly a dead end but it's kind of just goes around in circles. You know it's not a thru. Farmakes: It is a thru street. It comes down from the highway, it goes down along the lake and goes back up to the highway. If you enter it on one end, you come out on the other. Tom Wilder: Okay well, maybe I'm wrong there so let's make it 83 %. Skubic: I live on a thru street also. Tom Wilder: Yeah I know you do. I didn't say you all did. I said 87% of you don't and so you should maybe have a basic understanding of what we're talking about here. That's all I've got to say. Mancino: Okay. I'm going to discontinue the public hearing until January 3rd, Jim Donovan: ...make a comment. Mr. Hempel made a comment here before about my easement being a private easement. What would it take on my part to make it a, if I dedicated that easement to the city of Chanhassen in return for the Knoblauch project being a circle rather than an abutted street into my property? Would that help? Mancino: I think that you can certainly negotiate with the staff at a private time. Call up Bob Generous and ask to get an appointment with him and talk about that. Jim Donovan: I mean is that a concern of the city, since there's, I mean I don't see how you say that this is a private easement. How did you come to that determination? Hempel: Grantor to grantee. It's not to the city of Chanhassen. Jim Donovan: Oh I see. Okay. I'm not legally, but if I did, am I able to dedicate it to the city of Chanhassen? Hempel: With the underlying property owner's consent I suppose. You could ask him. Mancino: I don't think we're going to decide that tonight. But there is a willingness to talk to you about that. , 41m-Donavan: -Thank " you. M Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 1995 Mancino: Okay, so we will close the public hearing. Not close but continue it on January 3rd at 7:00. Can they be first Bob or do you have an agenda already? Generous: DeLancy was tabled too. Aanenson: And we've got 4 other subdivisions on that night. I'm not sure how... We'll have to check. Mancino: We will check. We can't promise you that right now but we will check and let you know. Thank you. Thank you for coming. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: Under new business, I apologize for the timeliness of this but this was a direction given from the City Attorney regarding a park dedication that's on for the City Council on Monday night. Betty O'Shaughnessy, as part of the Autumn Ridge plat and that large outlot, you should have received a copy of this. When we looked at the Gateway West property and the Autumn Ridge property, when we talked about the city requiring 4 lots. This map it's shown as Outlot, or Lot C and D. Approximately 60 acres. The city, Mrs. O'Shaughnessy will be dedicating that property to the city. It has a value of approximately a little over a half million dollars and the cost to the city would be the assessed levied amount which is about $40,000.00. The City Attorney's position is that the Planning Commission should formally act on recommending acceptance of the dedication of the park property so you need to make a motion. Mancino: And it doesn't have to go through a public hearing or anything? Aanenson: No. Mancino: Any discussion from commissioners on this? Commissioner Peterson. Peterson: Go for it. Mancino: Commissioner Farmakes. Farmakes: I think she should get a monument sign. ..Aanenson::..L.t}}i.nk she will get sornesreeognrtior:. Mancino: Commissioner Skubic. 41 IJ 0 L C 1 Ll I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION ' REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 3, 1996 ' Vice Chairman Farmakes called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Bob Skubic, Jeff Farmakes and Don Mehl ' MEMBERS ABSENT: Nancy Mancino and Mike Meyer STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin ' Al -Jaff, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I, Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern ' OLD BUSINESS: JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 ' LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; A VARIANCE FOR STREET GRADE OF 10 %; AND A VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 11 AND 12• ' PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN SHOREWOOD CITY LIMITS. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL. Public Present: Name Address Jim Emmer Cl.tirles Pickard Marc & Linda Simcox Randy & Diane Schwanz Mike Preble John C. Knoblauch Joe Knoblauch Bob Hanson Joey Johnson Jane & Eric Danser Tom & Jennifer Wilder Martha & Walter T. Cleveland Jim' 6321 Yosemite Avenue 1215 Lilac Lane 21600 Lilac Lane 1377 Ithilien 1352 Ithilien 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie 13017 Maywood Lane, Minnetonka 1344 Ithilien 1275 Lilac Lane 21640 Lilac Lane 21740 Lilac Lane 6185 Apple Road 1375 Lilac Lane I Bob Generous presented the staff irpoit on this item. Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Farmakes: Do the commissioners have any questions? Is the applicant here? Would you like to come forward? Would you like to come forward and make any comments? John Knoblauch: I didn't have any comments... Farmakes: Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion? Conrad: To open the hearing? Is it a public hearing? Aanenson: It was a public hearing last time. It was continued based on the fact that we were at the Rec Center and we had to be out of the building. So if you so choose to take comments, certainly that's an option. Farmakes: Does anybody wish to make any comments that's here? Eric Danser: My name is Eric Danser and I live on Lilac Lane. My wife Jane is also here and we both feel the same way about this project. We've lived in our house about 18 years now and the reason we moved into this house is because Lilac Lane is a dead end street. We have two young children and we're concerned that if this road is tapped into the Donovan property to service it, there's no doubt in our mind that at some point it's going to be connected to Lilac Lane and then Lilac Lane will be a thru street and it will pretty much nullify every reason we moved into the neighborhood in the first place. And I know I speak for quite a few neighbors along Lilac Lane and in the Ithilien development as well. I think we're all going to be affected and none of us really wants to see this road go in to make it possible to connect it. Even though, I don't know his name but the gentleman that was speaking earlier said that it could be a cul -de -sac in the Donovan property if it should ever be subdivided. I have a gut feeling that there will be no such thing as a turn around in there or a cul- de- sac... connected to Lilac Lane and I, for one, do not want to see this happen and I would appreciate it is you'd consider this project through the eyes of the neighbors... so you can see what situation we're dealing with and not see it as ... definitely subdivided at some future point. Right now Mr. Donovan has a beautiful home and pond on his property. It's all, it's basically an estate and we can't figure out how you can even consider that it would ever be developed into 15 homes. I don't know how many of you have seen his property and the way it's laid out but it's pretty impossible to turn that property into a track home development as you suggest it might be. So all I'm asking is that you see it from our point of view and for what it's worth, that's our, my opinion. My wife's opinion and also I spoke with my neighbor next door tonight, and she's not able to attend the meeting and she feels the _same way we_do sodo .you - need -to- know - her -name- for-the- record? Farmakes: Sure. N n �I � I 11 I 'l Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Eric Danser: Her name is Stokes, S- t- o- k -e -s. And her name is Linda and her husband's name is Larry. Thank you very much. Farmakes: Thank you. Any further comments? State your name and address please. Jim Donovan: My name is Jim Donovan. I live at 1375 Lilac Lane and would you put up that. Since the meeting in December, my property is the property that is being discussed here for a possible, potential future road. Since the meeting in December ... I have taken it upon myself to have two very reputable real estate companies appraise my property on the present basis and on the basis of what the Planning Commission is wanting versus what the developer has planned. I also had a certified appraisal firm come and do an appraisal of my property on the basis of what it was now and what it would potentially be. They all, the consensus of everything was that the loss in value of my property really, would you please put up that other one like I asked. So the road abutting into my property there, and a potential service road running from east to west along the northern boundary of my property and the southern boundary of the now proposed Knob Hill development there, the loss to my property in value would be inbetween 15% to 18% on a present day basis. ...It would substantially reduce any potential sale of my property inasmuch as lessening the number of people and the price that people that might be interested in buying my property in the future, except for developers who would in turn know that they were the only group that would potentially be able to do something with this property versus an individual like myself who has lived there and built it into what it is now. Another person buying my property would not want to buy it with a potential for an abutting road to the property plus a potential road going through part of the property over my existing driveway right now and connecting up to Lilac Lane. Across the service road runs right next to my property so it would substantially reduce the value of my property. I have talked to two legal opinions ... and they said that I would have a good case, they thought that there would be substantial evidence available that I would have a good case to press my feelings on it. The idea that the city would bring a road up to the property and potentially at a future time when I passed away or something happens to the property, run a road through it would destroy the beauty of that piece of property. There is a lake, a pond right where that word is right there. There's a driveway that comes right up along the lot line there leading up to my house. The driveway is approximately 1,000 feet long. There is an underground sprinkler system. Underground electronic detection system in the ground there. All for the privacy of that property. In addition, on ... I do have a 50 foot permanent road easement. This easement, the Planning Commission said was a private easement. I've had two legal opinions that it is not a private easement whatsoever. That could legally be used in the future. If and when it was needed. The easement extends right from the dead end of Lilac Lane fr.om_the- .eastern. - part- .of.the� tine. -50- ,,foot. In-- conolusion-1 -d4ike �to- -s -a.y 4l+at -none of the neighbors, nobody in our area would like to have any kind of a road coming up to the property... land that the developer developed with a cul -de -sac in the middle of the property. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 With the access road running in front of the houses that would border on my north border and his southern border. This is what the neighborhood would want and we would hope that you would see to our wishes, thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Before we proceed, would you like to respond to the issue of public or private easement, Dave? Hempel: Certainly Mr. Chairperson. As I mentioned at the last Planning Commission meeting, the easement documents supplied to the city was an exclusive private road easement from Donovan's to another individual, or vica versa for their sole use. It's not for general public use. Solely for those two individuals. That right could be passed onto a future property owner if they sell the property but not the general public interest. i Farmakes: Thank you. I'm sorry. Would you like to come forward and state your name and , address please. Joey Johnson: Joey Johnson. I live at 1275 Lilac Lane... I'm here also because I am... My property was heavily impacted by the... Ithilien... It appears that should Lilac Lane become a thru street... expansion of the road on the Chanhassen side will heavily impact these residents of Ithilien Way and myself. May I also ask why ... It seems to me that Apple Road, which is a thru street, provides more than adequate access to Route 17, Powers Boulevard, Lake Lucy Road... provides adequate ingress and egress to future residents... The suggestion and speculation that Mr. Donovan's property someday may develop is not an issue at this time and I was a realtor ... and I know Mr. Donovan's property as well a neighbor and friend and the way it is set up, it's truly a private estate. A developer would have to... I employ you not to force Mr. Donovan to put in this connector road to further serve Lilac Lane which will impact the quality of life plus the safety... Farmakes: Thank you. Does anybody else wish to make a comment? Please come forward. Mike Preble: Can you turn the overhead back on? Hi. My name's Mike Preble. I live at 1352 Ithilien. I live right there. The northern part of my property borders on ... western part of my property borders on Donovan's property and I calculated approximately 40 -45% of my property would be taken if Lilac were improved to a standard city street as Mr. Hempel suggested for an appropriate width and then the turn there to go up to the Donovan property. My house sits fairly close to the Donovan side and the thru street that apparently the part of the Planning Commission is wishing to propose would put a corner of my... approximately 17 to-20 feet, away. .from:.this.streeLandkwith -that r being -a,.1-would -guess -i -t =«being -a -stop. , fturri �fo the properties going down... I'm concerned about traffic... air pollution. Air movement basically through the northwest and across my property. I am very much in favor of Mr. F51 Ll r 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Knoblauch...property as he has proposed with a cul -de -sac coming onto his property from Yosemite. I'm also in favor of Mr. Donovan being able to keep his property as it is without trying to make him look at developing it because of what the streets... change his property character. So I would appreciate the Planning Commission approves Knoblauch's plan. Thank you. Farmakes: Thank you. Any other comments? Does anyone want to make a motion to close the public hearing? Com -ad moved, Peterson seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was closed. Farmakes: Comments. Ladd. Conrad: Boy, I think the staff recommendation to us is probably what we always do in Chanhassen in terms of development. Give future possibilities to access to sites that right now claim they don't want to develop but usually in Chanhassen they do. And what we find is when we don't have the foresight and we say well that person's never going to develop, there are very few that, and I've been here for quite a few years. Most land in Chanhassen does develop. The money is there. The potential for subdivision is there and when somebody says I won't, in a few years they do. And that's kind of too bad because my preference would not be to have it develop. My preference would be to keep things as pristine and as they were. But practicality is, that just doesn't happen in Chanhassen. So I respect what the neighbors are saying. If I were them, I'd be here asking the same thing. And Jeff, to be real honest I wasn't sure, I think staffs recommendation is appropriate to give the flexibility for that street expansion. That's what we do and I just can't recall any cases where we go against that, unless it's really harmful to the environment. Unless there's a really significant problem so, but I did hear some comments from property owners, owner, that said maybe were this road would go in is not in the right place in terms of how it would impact his property. So that concerns me a little bit. My opinion would be therefore, I think staff has given us probably the right direction. I'm not real wild about the plat that I've seen before us from the developer. It's sort of clunky. It's got a lot of variances and we typically try not to allow variances in Chanhassen. There are rules and sometimes when you go beyond those rules and you say there's extenuating circumstances, I don't see that here. I just don't see the extenuating circumstances for the variances. It's a lot of land. It can be developed properly. But I guess I'm not sure that I have Jeff the direction to go in tonight because I did hear a few concerns about where that alignment would be. The road alignment .if .ti. e_did..it. - S.o- bottom:_l.inesfor -me would = -be, I'd41ke- to-g1-ve the-pertential-for •a-cul-de =sac that would probably give the land to the east access, if that person decided to subdivide at 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 some point in time. I don't want to force that. That's his decision but I think we'd probably remiss in not allowing for that alternative in the future if he decides to sell his property. Far makes: The issue of access, you're talking about cul -de -sac situations? The issue of variance, I think we got a 10% street grade variance request. You don't think that there's a case for that. Craig? Peterson: Couple questions of staff first. Have we ever done anything in the past with the situation with the Donovan property as far as having covenants between the city and the landowner not developing or sell or how do you ... sale of potential properties... Is that possible? Aanenson: I don't believe so. You're saying on an adjacent property that they couldn't develop? No. No. Peterson: Could it be granted to the city in some form or fashion? Aanenson: No. That's the $64,000.00 question. That's the hard job that we're struggling with is to predict the future and we talked about as much options. We're concerned with the gentleman that lives on the corner of Ithilien and the right -of -way. Mr. Donovan says that there's a road access there. We'd be concerned about the impact to that neighborhood. If they believe that that's the access to serve that property, that would concern us. That's why we've taken the position that we're trying to provide the most flexibility. We're certainly not advocating that you develop at this time. We try to provide the most flexibility in the future that there are options instead of saying this is the only option. That may not be the one that they want, that's their first choice either. So nobody's trying to force development. We're just providing options. Try to look at the future and that sort of thing and no, we cannot say he can't develop. Who's to say what's going to happen in the future financially or whatever. Conrad: It's illegal? Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: As far as easements... land to the city. Aanenson: You're just talking strictly now about the easement? No. As Dave had indicated, you have to have a public street if you're serving more than two properties and we believe that that is just for one driveway. Beyond that you'd have to have a public street and that's what we're saying. Actually- that.,easement goes - over the corner -that- proprerty -fere or: Ithilien. That lot and we would be concerned that it be that close to that's gentleman's home. 0 C C 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 We certainly wouldn't want a public street right there. So that's why we're looking at some ' other options of how that would be serviced. Peterson: Well, with that in mind, my thoughts clearly parallel Ladd's in that, I certainly ' wouldn't want to force development on anyone but I think we do have to ... and I would... favor of what the staff is recommending along with denial of the street variance. 1 Farmakes: Bob. Skubic: I also have a couple questions of staff. Could you point out the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet that you are proposing for the street right -of -way. Generous: That would be to provide 30 feet along the corner of...property. Skubic: Okay, but under 60 feet wouldn't get you anywhere near the proposed road coming off the Knoblauch property, is that correct? Generous: Correct. Skubic: Would the access, the road to the Knoblauch property, would that need to be developed? Could we just have an easement or it could be used for future development? Hempel: Maybe I can address that one a little bit. It's not that uncommon that the road would fall short of the property line, say 10 -15 -20 feet. To give some buffer to that adjacent property owner so there would leaving some vegetation. Something like that... When the road is extended in the future, that property owner that develops is responsible for the cost of extending the road which could add up ... $150.00 a linear foot. Plus utilities. But that would be the developer of the Donovan property as far as... Skubic: So it is possible where they're having the road run close to the Donovan property, to have an easement say between Lots 5 and 6? Aanenson: Right, they wouldn't have to... Hempel: The road right -of -way would be dedicated with the plat. The road be help back say 15 -20 feet from the edge of the property. Temporary cul -de -sac. ..Skubi.c:.�I_,also 4hare-the car- n.Fnents -on -Ladd , and- eraigw regarding the ~ - variance - forwthe grading. I know staff has recommended some alternatives and I would like to see something some with 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 that and I would be in favor of tabling this until that can be worked or denying their request as it's written. Farmakes: Okay, thank you. Don. Mehl: I just have a couple of notes here... substantial property value ... Some discussion regarding traffic... versus the cul -de -sac. I guess I can speak for my own experience. I live on a cul -de -sac and I've lived on a thru street as well. We get an awful lot of traffic down our street, even though it's a cul -de -sac. A lot more than just the residents who live down there. I don't know what they're doing down there. They're either just curious or they're quackers or they're looking for trouble or something. They come down there of course and then they have to turn around and go back so the people who live up 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 houses, get to see that car go by twice so ... cul -de -sac forces people to turn around and cars go back ... versus a thru way where they can continue on. I'm in favor of voting for denial of ..I would agree with... Farmakes: Thank you. My comments on this are, I would like to see something worked out to the access and egress of these properties. It disturbs me when we get into this situation where there isn't really a solution. The city to run efficiently has to have an infrastructure. It can't be a city of dead end streets. But we have people that move here and they want dead end streets. They want cul -de -sacs because, a couple of reasons. One is the perception of why they move out to the, what they perceive as the country. And builders of course like to build cul -de -sacs because they can charge more for it. On the other hand you have services that are provided by the city and for other infrastructure services, delivering mail, emergency services, picking up kids and dropping them off, school buses and so on. Obviously if you have a city of dead end streets, it makes it difficult to efficiently egress areas of the city. And Ladd was talking about what we've done in the past. We've tried to maintain a direction here in looking at these issues. The problem that I have with this, that often we have old Chanhassen bumping up against new Chanhassen where we're looking at development. And you have a situation where we have the criteria for a warehouse type of development and it butts up against what I would define as more of a large lot type of situation. The problem also that we have as planners is that often we see in front of us situations that occurred 30 -40 years ago where you're seeing old Chanhassen butting up against new Chanhassen but the problem of course is now with this development that was 30 -40 years ago, it doesn't fit now. We can't access a particular piece of property or we can't make the new development fit with the old development. So I'm, there isn't a real ready solution for this kind of thing and I would like to see something worked out. Normally how we attack this sometimes is having some leniencv.in..cul7;.dez sac., situation :wh ere-we -try >- to-avoid-long >cul- de- sacsbut- the -issue about a cul -de -sac in the future, egress into the other property, it's not my intent nor do I think is it the intent of the city to try and penalize property owners or people who have been N. J r i Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 here. I'm pretty familiar with that particular part of Chanhassen and as it stands right now, it's a beautiful piece of property. I'm familiar with the streets that are there now and a very low type of travel. But we also have to look at the future here so I'm, I'd entertain a motion here, the issue of trying to work out some of these things. Does somebody want to make a motion? Conrad: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the 10% street grade variance request. Farmakes: Is there a second? Mehl: Second. Conrad moved, Mehl seconded that the Planning Commission mcommend denial for the 10 peivent stmet glade valiance iiequest. All voted in favor and the motion cm-iied unanimously. Farmakes: Does somebody want to make a motion in regards to the remaining of the staff recommendation? Conrad: Yeah staff has, for those of you who are here. Staff really gives us a lot of information and you're probably not looking at what we have but basically, and for sure you're not looking at what we're looking at. And this is, because there's so many points on, and I think what we want to do is table this and see what the developer can do. Kate, there are 25 points here. 29 points, and I guess that's not necessarily how I want to table it. Those are things the developer should look at but to be very honest and candid, I haven't assessed each one of those 29 points. It's real important to me that we not force the property to the east to develop. It's real clear. I don't want to do that. But it's real clear that if they do, that we have the road structure capable of servicing it. That's real clear in my mind. There's just no doubt. That may concern some of you here but that's what you've got to do if you run a city the size of, if you run a city. But anyway, my point to tabling would be, for the developer to come back and solve some of these problems. That's specifically the 10% street grade but Kate, is there a reason the 29 points are in the tabling motion? Usually when we table we say, hey we table it. Come back and fix this. But these are not necessarily, is this your report Bob? Generous: Yes it is. We put it in in case you wanted to approve it and then you could take ' out. The real condition was realigning the roadway and changing the grading plan so that you would see. an-accurate-depiction .of-that�alter-ation. rIf you-- didn'ti alon-g-- with- , -that - -issue and you went with their plan, then you could just drop that one. 9 1 Planning Commission Meeting - January 3, 1996 Conrad: Okay, I hear you. Okay. So if I made a motion, excuse me for chit chatting here but if I made a motion just to table, what kind of direction, without the points, which I don't want to have in there, do we have enough direction based on what we said? Aanenson: In summary, the two points are street grades and future access. Trying to resolve that and I think that's the direction you give us, or the applicant. Conrad: Okay, then I'd recommend, I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend tabling the preliminary plat for Subdivision 995 -20 for the 12 lots and whatever so that staff and the developer can come back and resolve the street grade issue as well as the future access issue to the property to the east. Farmakes: Motion's been made. Is there a second? Peterson: Second. Conrad moved, Peterson seconded that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat for Subdivision 995 -20 so that staff and the applicant can resolve the street grade and future access to the property to the east issues. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR OAK PONDS /OAK HILL SITE PLAN /DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT LOCATED BETWEEN POWERS AND KERBER BOULEVARD JUST NORTH OF WEST 78TH STREET. Public Present: Name Address Drew Clausen Dean Johnson 7717 Nicholas Way 8984 Zachary Lane Till Sinclair presented a slide presentation and the staff report on this item. Farmakes: Did we ever get an answer in regards to the public safety issue? Sinclair: Yeah. I talked to Bob Zydowsky, the public safety officer, and additionally to Steve. Kirchman .;.:in.,th.e.,bail.d.ing, and. there-rare-no rules- or - regulations-pertaining- to-safety treatments of walls. It doesn't matter how high the wall is. 10 11 E, Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 1l 3. Review the number of feet from a public or private road right -of -way. 4. Under Section 5 -22, Issuance, change from the operator to employee. 5. Under Section 5 -22, Issuance, number 11(b). Having continual access so that animals can get in and out. All voted in favor and the motion caiiied. Mancino: When will this go in front of the City Council? Be presented. Aanenson: The 26th. Mancino: February 26th. Go in front of the City Council. Thank you. JOHN KNOBLAUCH FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL OF 8.35 ACRES INTO 12 LOTS, ONE OUTLOT AND ASSOCIATED RIGHT -OF -WAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; AND A VARIANCE TO THE WETLAND SETBACK OF 20 FEET FOR LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 2; THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF YOSEMITE AT THE CHANHASSEN- SHOREWOOD CITY LfMM. THE PROJECT IS KNOWN AS KNOB HILL Public Pivsent: Name Address Martha Cleveland Joanne Dake Dan & Tom Wilder ' Marc Simcox John Knoblauch Joe Knoblauch 6185 Apple Road 12336 Ithilien 21740 Lilac Lane 21600 Lilac Lane 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie 13017 Maywood Lane, Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff mpoit on this item. Mancino: Is the applicant here? And does he wish to address the Planning Commission - pl ease , on tlrege ~charrges - affd - the - current; what we're 'lo6king at now. - In the conditions. `Tf you could respond to those please. John, could you state your name and address please. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 John Knoblauch: Oh, I'm sorry. John Knoblauch, 16921 Weston Bay Road, Eden Prairie. I'm the developer of the parcel known as Knob Hill. There was a problem in January so now I'm back again. I handed out two plats there and Bob's right about the, I think we've addressed a lot of the concerns that he had referring to future access to the Donovan parcel, and also hopefully solving the road grade situation on the roadway... I'm still unhappy with the ... one issue on the plat. Or on staffs recommendation for approval of a preliminary plat. That condition is the 30 foot right -of -way being recommended by staff on the northeast corner of the property, and that's to provide, as Bob mentioned, possible extension or for future connection of a public street to Lilac Lane. This 30 foot right -of -way is what most of the property owners to the east are concerned about and that's why they've taken time to come to a few of the meetings we've had so far and basically it's just based on that one issue. To review briefly what's happened so far. The first review and introduction of Knob Hill came December 6th when we passed out the same information that you're seeing now. And we made some... discovery as far as how future connection to Lilac Lane would affect the surrounding area. I'll refer back to that in a minute. The second meeting took place and the public hearing got completed. The plat was tabled because of the road variance request. I was instructed by a motion and I believe Mr. Conrad to resolve the grade issue and connection issue for future development to the Donovan parcel. I brought in a new plan to the staff that basically met all the city requirements ... serve Mr. Donovan's parcel... I believe, is that correct Bob? Generous: Yes. John Knoblauch: So we've complied basically with the city needs to provide access to the east and I have the 7% road grade accomplished which meets, I believe is that staffs city code? Aanenson: Yes. 7% does. John Knoblauch: So basically I feel we've complied with the city's need to provide access. The rest of the staffs conditions can easily be met with the exception of one. That is where the staff is requiring 30 foot of public right -of -way in the proposed tree preservation area. Basically the information speaks for itself but I'll review it with you a little bit. We've got two substandard roads that are proposed to possibly be connected in the future to Lilac Lane and Apple Road... We've got nearly 60 neighbors that don't want to see a thru street in this area. We've got poor visibility area for sight lines. We have a large stand of trees that would be removed in the 30 foot right -of -way area to make it work, and that's not including the two -dozen - trees -or- so ilac Lane, - as `I °mentioned before.' - We "also' a ravine, a pretty steep drop that drops about 10 feet in elevation and 20 feet at the, in or near staffs recommended 30 foot right -of -way recommendations. The environmental impact of that one 12 I r i LI Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 area alone is ... watershed implications to the pond. I believe it's to the north. We have road grades in here at both intersections that don't meet city requirements. We have neighbors who have spoken out against this right -of -way citing everything from loss of property values... who this public right -of -way is supposed to benefit if it doesn't want it and doesn't need it and to top all this, I mean disregarding any minor issues, we have a city to the north that owns 2/3 of Lilac Lane. The Lilac Lane right -of -way that has issued a... I don't know if anybody disagrees with these facts but that's pretty much the bottom line to where we're at with the public right -of -way. It's very clear, I stated this before that the thru street, if it was needed for the city to function appropriately, it should have been planned for long before the Ithilien Street was put in to the east. Clearly the logical thing should be done, as a condition for the right -of -way should be removed as one of staffs recommendations to the platting of my property... It reminds me of the ... both the city and developer in this case, that you can't always get what you want but if you try, sometimes you finally get what you need. In essence the developer, that is me, doesn't get what I want, which is a cul -de -sac on my development. Chanhassen engineering department doesn't get what they want of public right -of -way. I do get what I need, which is to build my home and get my property developed. And staff gets what they need by providing Mr. Donovan access. And hopefully everybody goes home happy. Now I'm not naive enough to think that... compromises can be met at, all the time since everyone in this room realizes that politics plays a big part of everyday life but in this case I'm asking the Planning Commission to do just that by revising the entire community space in the city government which is basically the bedrock of the entire democratic way. As a note, don't get me wrong about my attitude towards the city staff. I've been involved in building over 250 homes over the past 7 years in over 20 different communities. Never have I gotten so much cordial help in trying to accomplish a goal and helping hand and to get basically educated on how to develop this parcel. So I ask for a motion, a recommendation for the removal of the 30 foot right -of -way condition on my property so we don't have to... Then hopefully we will go full steam ahead with a successful development of my great grand- dad's land, Knob Hill. Mancino: Thank you. John Knoblauch: I believe, Dave we said the outlot could be changed? I'm sorry. We have an outlot for the private drive that was mentioned in the report which was not going to be an outlot. Mancino: Which will not be an Outlot A anymore. You are correct. There's not an outlot there anymore, and I think it's actually part of the 26. On condition 26 it says, delete Outlot A and comb irre - with °tlre"adjacent'lots`to dedicate a:J0 foot private street easement over Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 for ingress and egress. Does that make sense? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 John Knoblauch: Yeah. I thought I heard it mentioned before that there was still an outlot. Mancino: No. Part of the condition is to delete it. John Knoblauch: Okay, thank you. Mancino: We have had two public hearings on this but I would like to open this to a public hearing. If you have not come before the Planning Commission before or if you have new information to give to the Planning Commission tonight. So if you haven't had a chance to participate in the prior two public hearings, may I have a motion to open this for a public hearing? Peterson moved, Meyer seconded to open the public hewing. The public hearing was opened. Mancino: Is there anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission that has not? Please come up. State your name and address. Marc Simcox: My name's Marc Simcox and I live at 21600 Lilac Lane. I've been through this process before with other developers so ... ax to grind. We went through this process on Teton Lane. Our neighborhood was invaded with ... and we're not naive enough to know ... 5 years on that property... that what the city wants, the city most often gets. I think it's real clear here regardless of the disclaimer that there's no interest in putting Lilac Lane through or no concern about that until the Donovan property is developed but I think that's kind of a surprise to hear that when part of this process is the dedication of 30 feet of property for just that purpose. And I'd just like to pass on two observations. I wasn't going to say anything during this process because I thought it was so obvious that the city staff would pick up on the feelings of the neighborhood and actually look at this development and the possibility that Donovan's property would be developed and I think that's a foregone conclusion. It's going to be developed someday. We all know that. And it appears now that the bulldog hold that the city staff has now on this punching through this street onto Lilac Lane again, as they did with Teton Lane, is not going to go away. It's surprising to me on a couple of points. One is, that it appears that the developer is being forced to provide this property for extortion. I've heard of no, the city not offering anything other than approval of the plat for this property. If there's money or fear or exchange for the property for money, I haven't heard anything about that, and forgive me for saying that if that's true. If it's not true, it simply appears to be an extorted gift to the city in exchange for approval of the plat. One of the things that's different about this development than the other developments we've experienced in our neighborhood, -and •I- would-guess °lin- rrearly -all develclltrrerfts, is the "buil der ` - does not usually "live in the development afterwards. I remember we were referred to as the neighbors of the Centex development. The developer called us his neighbors and nothing's further from the truth. He 14 1 1 u 1� J L _7 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 has no intention of living in that development. And does not. Mr. Knoblauch intends to live here and raise his family in that area. I think his concern about the neighborhood is genuine. It's really obvious and I think it's well founded as well. I think that during this whole process we got to sit through another discussion concerning the David Carlson development over here off of Powers Boulevard and one of those concerns was, there was quite a bit of time spent on it. I didn't hear was the resolution was at the end but it was over the loss of one tree, and it was a large old oak tree, granted but during this process and maybe it happened after I heard half of the second or third time it came. I never heard anyone suggest. They suggested cutting the tree down as the only alternative left and then grassing it over. I never heard anyone suggest planting another tree, which was kind of surprising. This is a development where we'll lose a lot of trees. That doesn't seem to be any concern of the staff. This is eventually... Another thing that really surprises me is when you look at this whole thing, back and away is more of a, kind of an objective view. Why, when the Planning Commission considers this recommendation to Council, the 30 feet again you're talking about, the requirement. If the city ever did need that, the city could obtain that through condemnation. There's no doubt about that. But why it is that everyone, and I think John made it real clear. I have heard absolutely not one single proponent of this plan with the 30 feet, which is clearly ... plan through, from anyone who lives in the neighborhood. Not one. The only people that want this are city staff and city officials. And it's in the vein that a future city need would require the thru street, although cul -de -sacs are littered throughout that entire neighborhood. And they're littered through that neighborhood for reasons of the lay of the land is difficult in some cases but it's one of the things that makes Chanhassen such a desirable place to live. For the peaceful part of the neighborhood and actually gives a lot of value to those neighborhoods and makes people want to live in them. Want to pay school taxes and want to pay city taxes. I can't imagine, well we heard the Planning Commission say that their concern is what's going to happen 50 years and 100 years in the future and again, I'm just incredulous. I can't imagine why every single person that lives in that neighborhood would oppose it now. The people that live in those houses, 50 or 100 years from now, I can't imagine that they would want it. So if we want to think about 50 or 100 years in the future, think about the residents now because we're not talking about an area that's going to increase by another 50 or 100% development. It's almost totally developed. And one other thing when considering this 30 foot requirement that the dedication has. The connection, that's the connection to Lilac Lane. Is that the only thing that needs to be left here is the possible buffer. A buffer between a property that is sparsely developed, I think it's the 1 acre requirements just on the north side of Lilac Lane. There's a large wetland area that's dedicated on the north side of Lilac Lane with drainage from that area and there's just so many environmental considerations to ... part of this and I think in the approval of this plan -and ° the° proposal ~reconrnrerrdat'ons`toRCounciI on this'should take into consideration the desires of neighbors that live in that neighborhood and are going to continue to live in that neighborhood, including the developer, and the actual atmosphere of that neighborhood that 15 1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 would easily be preserved for the future and if the city at some time, 20 or 30 years from now or 100 years from now and Jim Donovan eventually moves on to some other place, that the city could still obtain that property if it was really necessary through some sort of condemnation proceedings or some other resources that they have to put it through to Lilac Lane, and that's the only thing I wanted to say. I continue to oppose that portion of the recommendation. Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate your comments. Anyone else? I'm Joe Knoblauch. I live at 13017 Maywood Lane in Minnetonka. John's my son. I'm here to tell you not about the development. About my Aunt Marguerite. She died last week. 102 years old. Lived on this property for 85 years. Same place. She came there in 1910 with my dad. My dad was just a kid. Went to Excelsior High School. She lived there all these years. That may not be a record but it's a heck of an accomplishment. 85 years until she was 92 years old. Same property. Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate that. Anyone else? Joanne Dake: My name's Joanne Dake. I live at 1336 Ithilien. I'm just going to read this because I'm really nervous. Mancino: That's fine. Joanne Dake: My name's Joanne Dake and I'm speaking as a concerned homeowner and taxpayer in the city of Chanhassen. We live at 1336 Ithilien with our backyard backing up to Lilac Lane. It's been suggested that with the Knoblauch development and the possible future development of the Donovan property, that Lilac Lane would become a thru street. If that is the case, we've been told that Lilac Lane has to be upgraded and widened 17 feet. We would have a busy street out of the back of our lot ... Cul -de -sacs are desired when buying houses... enhance property values of those homes. I think it is a common ... I think of Shadow Ridge development ...Lake Lucy Pointe, the one that... and just an example of Fox Chase which has 48 houses and only one entrance and ... has 38 homes after the last property... If access to the Donovan property was or is a concern, why wasn't it made possible off of Ithilien. The property at 1352 Ithilien ... has the potential of losing 15... If the widening of Lilac Lane has always been in the future plans, why was 1352 Ithilien given the variances to be built on it's present site? Why now are we as homeowners expected to sit back and you take a portion of our property and use... upgrade a road that is not only unnecessary but without the road, -property - val•ties -and - qual- ity-of life. - -wlro - live an th Shorewood side - oflhis. At I time Shorewood maintains the street. If Lilac needs widening, who will maintain it? I assume because it has to be widened on the Chanhassen side, that the city of Chanhassen would be 16 1 1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 responsible and hence more of our tax dollars would be spent on maintaining a road that was ' never needed or wanted. I can find nothing positive about this plan, but only the loss of property values and quality of life for those who's property... Lilac Lane. I'm not opposed to the Knoblauch development but I am opposed to the city direction that he give the 30 feet for a possible right -of -way for Lilac Lane to go through. I know it's your job to plan for the future and when we do there are many things to consider. I'm asking you to think about how is this going to impact the immediate neighbors, their property values and quality of life. Needless to say, if there's any property that is involved... In summary, access from the Knoblauch to the Donovan property can easily be achieved without doing anything to Lilac Lane. Access from Apple road appears to be the best solution and it's consistent with a ' number of other... When we moved to Chanhassen 2 years ago we received a ... Chamber of Commerce. On the back it reads, rich in tradition and quality. Chanhassen offers a ... mixture of relaxing countryside living and metropolitan ... opportunities. It's nice to know that places like Chanhassen still exist offering the kind of opportunities and quality of life that are... Come to Chanhassen. A friendly place to live, work and play. I would like to think that what that says is true but when I have to be concerned about lowering property values and the quality of life... If this potential road was going to be backing up to your property, what course of action would you take? Mancino: Thank you for your comments. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? ' Meyer moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hewing. The public healing was closed. Mancino: Before we go on, Bob I just have a couple questions or comments. On the 30 feet, that everyone has talked about tonight. Could you please go over for us again the reason for the 30 feet. Is it for in the future looking at and making Lilac Lane, take it from a substandard street to a standard street in the future? Is it for access into the Donovan property? What is the purpose for the 30 feet? ' Generous: I wonder if maybe Dave. Hempel: Madam Chair, thank you. Maybe I could show you on the overhead, if Bob could throw up that general neighborhood overview. Lilac Lane and Powers Boulevard to the west, and Teton Lane. That was upgraded I believe about 3 years ago as part of the Ithilien development. Lilac Lane was a substandard street actually maintained by Shorewood. The ' city, as a part of that, tried to enter into a cooperative construction agreement with the city for -. i- naneing -part °of -the- project. ° There - was berrefit"to "b -ith'the 'eity df" Chanhassen and city of Shorewood residents. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: And that is from Teton to Mill Street, or where was it upgraded? From where to where? Hempel: Powers Boulevard to Teton Lane. Mancino: Okay. Just the first, I don't know how many feet. Hempel: 400 feet maybe. Approximately and then Teton Lane down from the Curry Farm subdivision was also upgraded. Most of that cost was absorbed by the area residents of Chanhassen that were assessed. Also the developer picked up an additional 20% of the assessments and then the city of Chanhassen's general taxes picked up the rest of that. The City of Shorewood did not participate in the funding of that upgrade. So the residents of Shorewood did not receive any assessments for that. Mancino: Because they didn't benefit? Hempel: Well they did benefit. The city of Shorewood, through the assessments, did not want to proceed with the ... that road. Anyway, the agreement came up that the City of Shorewood then would maintain Lilac Lane versus the city of Chanhassen so. As you go west then on Teton Lane, it is back to a substandard 24 foot wide maybe rural type street section out there. As part of the Ithilien development there was an additional 17 feet of right - of -way granted or conveyed with that final plat of Ithilien for potentially updating Lilac Lane at some time in the future if it is so desired. The right -of -way is there now. Mancino: It's there now, existing. Hempel: It does not have to be purchased by the city and the burden put onto the taxpayers for that purchase. Mancino: Which is what, which is very standard for us to do when a preliminary plat comes in and we know that we may be upgrading a road? Okay. Hempel: That's correct. And if in the future, if the Donovan parcel develops some other fashion, the road doesn't go through, the property can be vacated or the right -of -way can be vacated and ... back to the property owner. Mancino: If we want to use that 17 feet, which the city of Chanhassen has as an easement -right -now, -they � ne°gotf ate - with - Shorewood who Is ' responsible `for the upgrade, ff'L'itac were to be continued to be upgraded from Teton west, correct? 18 I� , I I Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Hempel: That's correct. We would want to work with the city of Shorewood and try to get an cooperative agreement again for funding that project, because most of the residents right now, Chanhassen would not benefit from the road. The Donovan parcel's the only one that would use it. The Ithilien would service from the interior street and not take access from Lilac Lane west of Teton. The city of Shorewood residents on the north side do utilize that road... Mancino: So tell me, if when the Donovan property develops, and it is decided at that time that the temporary cul -de -sac that is put on Knob Hill is not to be continued, because remember we have four options at this point. Nobody's making a decision tonight whether ' Knob Hill will go through to Lilac Lane. That decision is not being made tonight. What is being made is that there is a temporary cul -de -sac in that area. Hempel: Right here. As Bob mentioned earlier, that exact location can be shifted back 15 or 20 feet from the property line to allow for a buffer area in there to keep the existing vegetation in place. We typically do put a barricade there with a sign saying this road may be extended in the future to let perspective homeowners know the potential. Mancino: So let's say the Donovan property comes and is developed. The City Council decides at that point that let's make that a permanent cul -de -sac. Let's not, I mean let's still access Donovan property off of Lilac. Let's keep Lilac just the way it is. Do we, does the city still need the 30 feet to be able to do that? From Knob Hill. Hempel: If I understood you correctly. If the Donovan parcel is going to be solely serviced ' from Knob Hill. Develop in a fashion where the road would extend through into a cul -de -sac and a cul -de -sac made up from this area here. This connection would no longer be needed. ' Mancino: So you would vacate that? Hempel: That's correct. The area that we're looking at for a 30 foot wide right -of -way is kind of a sliver or a pie shaped piece that's in this area here. There's approximately 18 feet I believe between the Knob Hill plat and the property corner of Ithilien so you've got a very small, well this would be like the property line on Ithilien so in here it's approximately 18 feet I believe. So with another 30 it gives you approximately closer to 50 feet. It gives you enough room to put an urban section street in there. Mancino: Okay. Any other questions from commissioners to Dave at this point on the -stFeet? Thank -you. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Hempel: Let me add just a point too that the property owner at this corner in Ithilien, there was an easement provided at the last public hearing showing that Mr. Donovan had a roadway easement across that individual's property and again it's an exclusive easement for Mr. Donovan. It cannot be...city for general public use so we are restricted in there to an 18- 20 some foot wide easement. And I heard tonight that Mr. Simcox I believe that the city could in the future go back and condemn that property if in fact when the time came that the Donovan property developed and that was the only access in. The city certainly could do that but at the cost of the Donovan ... or general taxpayers in the area to purchase that property. Mancino: To purchase it and go through condemnation hearings. Hempel: Right... Mancino: So that would be, okay. Thank you. Is there any other property that the applicant is dedicating? Are we asking for any other dedication off of Yosemite? Hempel: There is sufficient right -of -way along Yosemite at this time. Mancino: Okay. So we're not asking for any dedication there. Thank you. Hempel: No we are not. Mancino: Comments, questions from commissioners. Don. Mehl: That public street coming through that is definitely going to end in a cul -de -sac. So they will be ... turn and back out. Mancino: For public safety. Mehl: Yeah, right. Now the private driveway, private street would it be necessary ... Lots 1 and 2. Mancino: And 3. Mehl: And 3, actually 2 and 3. What's going to prevent people from coming down, or just driving down there? Is there a turn around? ...use that street. I'm talking about somebody who doesn't know anything about the neighborhood and they're in that cul -de -sac at the end , of - thepubfi•c street and` they - gee - this road °go °to - the right so - they go up it. 'Is there a way` for them to turn around down there? To back up ... in somebody's driveway. Will there be adequate signage telling them it's a private street? 20 �l 1 L I J 1 fl f Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Mancino: Bob, does there need to be a turn around at the end of the private street or gate? Generous: Only if the Fire Marshal requires it. Hempel: Typically they do place signs out by the street, private driveway and hang the addresses on there for public safety to find out the addresses back there and it is up to the Fire Marshal to determine whether or not the driveway is long enough where he needs to have a turn around back there or if he can back his vehicles out. Mancino: I can tell you on mine, yes. We have a sign that says private driveway and at the end there is a turn around that we have. Mehl: Does the sign keep people out? Mancino: Yes, actually it does. I mean you always get a few who want to see what's back there but I have a bear posted. Mehl: There is, you say you do have a turn around and I don't see what look like there would be a turn around up there. It looks like it just abruptly ends and then there's a pad. The road kind of curves around so the end of it, maybe ... get down there and have to back up. Mancino: That may be a condition you'd like the applicant and staff to work out. Mehl: Yeah. I think that ought to be looked at. Other than that, I guess I don't really have anything. I agree with the way staff is proposing this. I think we have to look at it from the standpoint that it's going to eventually develop and the road may, it could be 100 years from now, go through. It may not. But I think it has to be provided for. ' Mancino: Okay. So you feel comfortable with the 30 feet dedication. Mehl: Yeah, sure. Mancino: Bob. Skubic: I think it's unfortunate that the driveway to the south of their property couldn't be combined with the drive, than the development here save some of the topography and some of the trees over there. Also the driveways look like they're separated by 20 feet in some -sections -there... °Its - tlrat didn't °'work out'and"I appreciate' it was explored. Would you confirm that if the thru street would not go through from Knob Hill to Lilac Lane until and unless the Donovan property was developed. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Generous: Yeah, the city's not contemplating condemnation proceedings to continue that roadway now. We're just providing development options for the Donovan piece. Skubic: Thank you. And I favor providing the option of putting whatever street seems necessary in the future. I favor the option, I favor the 30 foot easement for the purpose of whatever street is necessary to put in there, I certainly hope it never comes to that but obviously there have been plans set forth to make provisions to get a street improved up to that point and I think this is a continuation... I don't understand what happened to the east of this property with Ithilien. It seems like maybe something could have been done there so on the one hand I say well, it's unfortunate that didn't happen. On the other hand, it's not too late to do some planning here for future provisions. So I'm in favor of passing this onto City Council with the 30 foot easement. Mancino: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: What came back is far better than the last time we saw it. Dramatically different. Dramatically better in my opinion. And just so you know from a resident standpoint I totally agree with what you're all saying. If I were where you're living, I wouldn't really want the character changed. The access changed. But also to let you know, tonight is not about the access, really. It's about preserving access to another site later on and just to have options open. And that's really what we do as a Planning Commission is make sure our options are open and when we close it, and we do that. So I think whatever we vote on tonight, it's not to say that's where we want to go. We want to go up Lilac Lane. Tonight it really doesn't make sense to me. I'd probably be saying that's not what we want to do. But on the other hand, the standards that we set and I was kind of offended by some of the things that you said. We do a very good job planning here. We really do. That's why people move out here. And it's because we kind of anticipate the future that people like the city. Obviously you've got a very valid concern and I agree with your concern but on the other hand, our job is to plan. Our job is to make sure that the staff is doing their job and they are doing their job in this respect. Just so you hear my opinion. I think what I see in front of me makes a lot more sense. There are less variances than we had before. I really didn't like what I saw before. Now I do. The only thing that I really would say on cul -de -sacs and I really don't like temporary cul -de -sacs. It's like saying we're coming through. In my mind, Mr. Donovan was here, said he's never going to build. Well that's not going to, you know he's never going to build. He will. Everybody, we hear that so many times and everybody comes back and wants to develop... But my point is, I don't like temporary cul -de -sacs. I like neighborhoods that have permanence to it and as long as, and I guess this is not going to be in a motion but ---aybe - it's = mare- of- �a� - eorr ment-towstaff-is,,you,- know- we- may"have "b`eon "talki'nig °about barricades or whatever at the end and that's just not, that just says we're not finished with the street and as far as I'm concerned we're finished with that street until we have to put access 22 LJ �l u F� '1 L 1 I r -I L.1 it Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 through there so the, I'd like to make that cul -de -sac look a little bit more permanent at there as it butts into the Donovan property. It for sure should be back from the edge of the property. There's just no doubt about that but it should look permanent. And then the other parts of the staff report, I agree with. Mancino: Actually Bob is there a, I didn't see a condition in here about the cul -de -sac. So is that something that we do need to add? Generous: I don't remember seeing a specific condition on that. It was more of a... Mancino: Okay. I think maybe we would want to add one. To have the cul -de -sac is placed 20 to 30 feet away from the Donovan property. Conrad: It's probably what's there but... Mancino: I didn't see it. Mike. Meyer: I don't have a lot additional to add. I guess as a Planning Commission we do need to keep our options open and I think that's what we're doing in this case. Overall I like the plan and I guess I'm in favor of it. I have nothing further additional to add. Mancino: Craig. Peterson: I also agree with the recommendations made thus far and certainly parallel Ladd's thoughts about making it look as permanent as possible. I think that is, I don't think that's an emotional response. I think that's a logical response because I totally agree too. Whenever I -,Pe that I go well, I wonder when this is going to happen so I'd like to see that as an amendment within the package going to Council. Mancino: Thank you. I think that the revisions to the plat from the last time, it's going to be a great subdivision. I also am concerned, like the neighbors on Lilac about what happens to Lilac Lane and we aren't making that decision tonight. I did on Saturday and Sunday I made some trips in that area and found that I could not get up Lilac Lane from Powers. I tried five times and could not so we have a little public safety concern there. Trying to even get up Lilac Lane. And I'm not sure that I would be in favor, just for public record, in the future of connecting this into Lilac Lane. So I would also like to see a more permanent cul -de -sac. In reviewing the conditions, Bob I would just like you to go over them in a little more detail on w corrdition - rrumlrer - 12 - and"I'm - irot going to spend much time on this. 'It`s Lot's, Block`2 instead of Lot 11. And in 21. The retaining walls are Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. 23 1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Generous: Correct. Mancino: And I would also like to add in 22, well actually it doesn't need to be a condition. But I would just like to direct staff and the applicant on Lot 1 and 2 of Block 1 there are significant trees on that eastern edge and if there's any way to pull those homes forward. I mean if you feel that some of those significant trees could be saved, I would be in support of a variance to the front yard setback. And I'd leave that up to staff and the applicant to decide. Otherwise I too am in support of this and I think that the staff and the applicant have worked well to revise the plans and have them come to us so may I have a motion. Meyer: I'll make a motion. Before I do Nancy, could you clarify how your second point, the revision that you made. Mancino: On number 21, that it's Lots 2 and 3, Block 1. Meyer: Alright. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #95 -20 for 12 lots, one outlot and associated right -of- way, plans dated January, 1996, prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates Incorporated and a front yard setback variance of 10 feet and a variance to the wetland setback of 10 feet for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 27. Amending number 12 to change Lot 11 to Lot 5, Block 2. And number 21. Adding in Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, just to clarify that. And I guess that's how it stands, unless you have anything. Conrad: I'd like to make a friendly amendment, if I can. Add point number 28. Where the cul -de -sac be made to look permanent and set back the appropriate amount, which might be 30 feet, from the Donovan property. Meyer: Would we still have the sign that says this street may be continued through? From the real estate standpoint, which is what I do, you know I can see where people get misled if it looks like a permanent. I know where you come from too though. Conrad: I don't know how to solve that. Meyer: City staff any? Aanenson: We've learned. We've learned that unless you apprise people in every way, shape and form, that they didn't know that it would go through. Conrad: But on the plat. Then we should do that on all access to the Donovan property, shouldn't we? Should we put one up on Lilac Lane too? 24 1 1 r t 1 Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 Aanenson: There's nobody there. Mr. Donovan's right there. Mancino: It is standard. Conrad: I just don't want to make, excuse me but it may be permanent. It may just be that way and I want to give the neighborhood the feeling that that's the way it is. And I'm not reacting to how the development of the Donovan property is made. I hope they never do it. And therefore I want to make this look, to put a temporary thing in. Mancino: Yeah, it takes away from the value of the subdivision. Conrad: It does. It does. Mancino: It just takes away from it. Conrad: Let the City Council figure that out. Who has the last word on this by the way. Mancino: So Mike, do you accept the friendly amendment of Ladd's, without that addition? Meyer: Without that addition of? Mancino: Of the sign. Meyer: I would accept it. Maybe we should make a note to them just to see what they say. Mancino: Okay. Do I have a second for the motion, or is there a second? Skubic: I'll make a second. Mancino: Any more discussion? Mehl: I'm just curious. Do we need to add anything to number 23 regarding staffs need to review and develop whatever, appropriate turn around radius at the end of the private drive? Mancino: Sure. Would you like to add that as a friendly amendment? Mehl: Yeah, is that added to the, as another condition or is it an extension of condition 23? Mancino: I think you can do it either way. You can add it to 23 and add a sentence after that second sentence. It says, second sentence says a private street shall be constructed in 25 L l Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 accordance with current city ordinances. Staff and the applicant will work out a turn around at the end of the private street. Or whether one should be constructed. Aanenson: The current ordinance covers that. That's our interpretation of it ... if it needs to have a dead end... Mancino: So are you saying it's not needed? Aanenson: Right. That would be our interpretation. If it needs to say dead end or not a thru street or it needs to have a stake to indicate the address, then we would make sure there's an appropriate sign. Mancino: Glad you brought that up. Any other discussion? Meyer moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat foi• Subdivision 495 -20 foe 12 lots, one outlot and associated light -of -way, plans dated Januaiy, 1996, prepared by William R Engelhardt Associates, Inc; and a front yard setback variance of 10 feet and a valiance to the wetland setback of 10 feet for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, subject to the following conditions: Full park and trail fees shall be paid per city ordinance in lieu of land dedication. t 2. A minimum 40 foot building setback (10 foot buffer and 30 foot setback from buffer ' line) shall be maintained from the wetland on Lots 5 and 6, Block 2. 3. A Tree Conservation Easement shall be designated on the southern and eastern wooded areas on Lot 5, Block 1. The applicant shall prepare a legal description and survey for this easement for city approval. 4. Fifteen foot tree removal limits shall be required around the building pads on Lots 3 and 4, Block 2. This tree removal limit shall be shown on the building permit application for each lot. All lots shall show existing trees on building permit application surveys. 5. The applicant is required to plant 37 trees as replacement and reforestation plantings Trees must be selected from the City's Approved Tree List. 6. Any proposed entrance monument must comply with city code. A separate sign permit must _be- submitted -to- the - 04111. N61 1 r Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 FJ 7. Submit street names and turning radius dimensions to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. S. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the city for review and formal approval. Type I erosion control fence shall be installed around the downstream side of the construction limits and Type III erosion control along the perimeter of the wetlands. Rock construction entrances shall be employed and maintained at all access points until the street has been paved with a bituminous surface. 11. All areas disturbed as a result of construction - activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc - mulched or wood -fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 12. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's SWMP for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre - developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins and /or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The sediment pond shall be designed adjacent to the wetland on Lot 5, Block 2 outside the street right -of -way. A wet meadow seed mix should be used to encourage native plants in and around the wetland. 13. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development - wcontr -ac*.. t 27 1� Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval 15. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and pending areas lying outside the right -of -way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 16. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the city's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20.00 per sign. 17. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100 year high water level. 18. Existing wells and /or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to city and Minnesota Department of Health codes /regulations. 19. The proposed single family residential development of 7.69 developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $6,152.00 and a water quantity fee of $15,226.00. These fees are based on the applicant providing for the City's SWMP requirements and will be deducted from the totals after final plat review. 20. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re- locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 21. Retaining walls shall be employed in the rear yards of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 and street grades modified to be more conducive with existing grades. 22. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation, and erosion control plans will be required for Lots 1, 2, and 5, Block 1, and Lots 2, 3, and 4, Block 2 at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve. 23. The public street and utility system shall be constructed in accordance with the city's „ s- treet- and,sutitity- gtatrdards. Tire- private~ streets` shall` be'- corrstru 'cted`in °acc'or'dance'wTt', current city ordinances. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with 28 u I fl I Planning Commission Meeting - February 7, 1996 I final plat approval. The plans shall be designed in accordance with the latest edition of the city's standard specifications and detail plates. Final plat approval is contingent upon approval of the construction plans by the Chanhassen City Council. 1 24. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat street right -of -way along the easterly 30 feet of the northerly 160 feet of Lot 5, Block 1. 25. Fire hydrants shall be installed with 300 feet maximum spacing. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. 26. Delete Outlot A and combine with the adjacent lots and dedicate a 30 foot private street easement over Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 for ingress and egress. 27. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to minimize grading on the site. 28. The cul -de -sac be made to look permanent and set back the appropriate amount, i.e.30 feet, from the Donovan property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Mancino: When will this go before City Council? Generous: February 26th. Mancino: Thank you. Thanks for coming. (Craig Peterson left the meeting during the following item and did not vote on the remaining items.) APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL REQUEST A SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 5,500 SQUARE FOOT APPLEBEE'S RESTAURANT; A SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST FOR TWO WALL SIGNS; AND A VARIANCE TO SITE COVERAGE OF 5% TO PERMIT 70% SITE COVERAGE LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED BH HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, CROSSROADS PLAZA THIRD ADDITION Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Mancino: Any questions for staff? 29 1 1352 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Jan. 15, 1996 Kate Aanenson, Planning and Zoning Commission Chanhassen City Hall Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED Dear Kate Aanenson JAN 16 REC Please help me out. I am confused, bewildered and frustrated. CITY OF ul ., — -- ° ■ My family lives at the NW corner of the Ithilien development. Our house was the first home to be completed, in Feb., 1992. We purchased this property and built in Chanhassen because of the warm and friendly spirit that pervades the community. We chose to live on a cul -de -sac because of the safety and quiet neighborhood it provides. Mr. John Knoblauch has proposed a 12 -site development directly to the west of our home. We are not against his developing this property. His proposal calls for a cul -de -sac entrance from Yosemite Ave. /Apple Rd., keeping his development a neighborly addition. Our frustration stems from the City Planners office and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Apparently some person, or some people, at City Hall insists Lilac Lane (directly to the north of our property) should be, must be and will become a through street, connecting to the Knoblauch street off of Yosemite. The developer does not approve of this notion. None of the residents along either side of Lilac approve and neither does Mr. Donovan, for whom the city planners say they are working to try and rectify past errors to avoid potential future problems. Two public hearings have already been held. Is there a place for public involvement in the decision making process of land development in the city of Chanhassen? I didn't see it happening at either meeting. I spoke with Mr. Dave Hempel at City Hall and his response was a definite "Yes" to the possibility of Lilac Lane becoming a through street. Not a single person wants Lilac to become a through street, yet the city planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission members continued to maintain their desire to connect Mill Street with Yosemite Ave. One commission member said the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't like to approve cul -de -sac developments. (I should like to know the number of developments approved in the past 5 years and the percentage that included cul -de -sac streets.) ' The widening of Lilac Lane would take approximately 15 -20% of my property. It is my understanding I'd be responsible for street assessments. Traffic out my back porch would increase dramatically. (One Commission member said he lived on a cul -de -sac and had more traffic than a through street). City staff and commission members said they had to consider future needs in terms of 20-50 -100 years, yet they placed my new home upon a lot potentially 17 feet from a proposed through street. The potential costs to me and my family are staggering: Loss of property to street widening. Street improvement assessments. Loss of neighborhood quiet and safety. Increased air pollution ' from increased traffic. Immense loss of property value. Degraded quality of life. Please advise as to how I might proceed to rectify this problem. Are legal proceedings the only route? I understand there are either city or state laws governing property value losses due to �neighboring_&velopments. I look forward to speaking with you and someone from the city planning staff regarding this matter in the very near future. Res full el � Mike J. Pr CC: City Council, City Manager & Engineer, John Knoblauch, Neighbors to the Development d I t January 17, 1996 Mr. Mike Preble CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1352 Ithilien Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Proposed Subdivision - Knob Hill Land Use Review File No. 95 -40 Dear Mr. Preble: Thank you for your letter to city staff dated January 15, 1996 regarding our concern for the Y g gY proposed development referred to as Knob Hill. We are writing a response to your letter to clarify and resolve some of your concerns. As you are aware, Knob Hill is a 12 lot subdivision which will access from Yosemite. The Knob Hill development will provide future access to the Donovan parcel which is located just west of your property. The Donovan property is an undeveloped parcel with the potential of further subdivision. Staff is also recommending that additional street right -of -way be set aside on the east side of proposed Lot 12, Block 1 for the possibility of extending Lilac Lane through the Donovan parcel in the future. Please understand that the Donovan parcel will be developed in the future based on past experience. It is the City's obligation to plan for it. With the recommended conditions of approval for Knob Hill, city staff has ensured the Donovan parcel will have the ability to be developed in accordance with city ordinances. At the last two public hearings on this development, residents from the cities of Shorewood and Chanhassen voiced their concerns and objections about the proposed development. Although your letter indicated you felt there was no public involvement in the decision - making process, the Planning Commission did hear your comments and made a decision based on public input and city subdivision ordinances. With regards to the widening of Lilac Lane, if and when it may occur in the future, no additional property -would - be - required- fronrthe properties �in Ithilien °During the review of plat for Ithilien, the City had required that the developer dedicate the necessary land in conjunction with the final plat approval for future widening of Lilac Lane, should or when this may occur. These are the same concerns and outlooks staff has with the Knob Hill development; to provide the necessary public service and access to the Donovan parcel. Although the Planning Commission's response to your concerns voiced at the public hearing for Knob Hill may not have been what you wished for, the Planning Commission is an advisory body which sends this item forward to the City Council which is the governing body that makes the final decision. Mr. Mike Preble January 17, 1996 Page 2 Your letter also had concerns with regards to future assessments for the widening of Lilac Lane. It is very doubtful that your parcel would sustain any assessments except for storm drainage if and when the street is widened. That issue would be explored during the feasibility study if and when the project is considered by either community. The City had the same concerns from residents with the development of Ithilien Addition. No one wants change, however, the City must look forward for the potential development of properties and make the best recommendations it can to assure that the development will comply with city ordinances, have a minimum of impact to existing development, and provide a safe community. I hope this letter has addressed your concerns and you are somewhat more enlightened of the reasoning and background of where the City is headed with this development. Should you need further information or would like to discuss this matter further, please contact us to arrange for a meeting. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF CHANHASSEN David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer DCH :jms c: Mayor and City Council Members Don Ashworth, City Manager Charles Folch, Director of Public Works John Knoblach g:\engNdaveV etters \prebl e Robert Generous, AICP Senior Planner 1 it t l 1 EXISTI . 7 EWAY TO \ REMOVED .\ 1038 EXI ING ',BUILD GS T BE REMOV D f o §O W `23'25" ° 8n9.54' r 4F 10 rQ 3p p f J u� p °) LOT, T 3 LO Iro jo 0 1004 006 _ �.. -J /i`� ° lb / / / . /' / 1 008 X # November 30, 1995 The following persons connections to Lilac in the.future on this way, 33'feet of which and 17 feet which is Name Address t L L� PETITION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: are against and opposed to any further Lane which would create a through street right of way! (Lilac Lane is a right of is in the city of Shorewood, Minnesota in the city of Chanhassen, Minnesota.) /&7 , C-Q-f Z il lS? Crea4c r _ UP 11jr � • �/ i /. .�/ � ..Iii MA I • L L� PETITION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: are against and opposed to any further Lane which would create a through street right of way! (Lilac Lane is a right of is in the city of Shorewood, Minnesota in the city of Chanhassen, Minnesota.) /&7 , C-Q-f Z il lS? Crea4c I November 30, 1995 1 i 1 PETITION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The following persons are against and opposed to any further connections to Lilac Lane which would create a through street in the .future on this right of way! (Lilac Lane is a right of way, 33'feet of which is in the city of Shorewood, Minnesota and 17 feet which is in the city of Chanhassen, Minnesota.) Address i L L F ME +�� i 1 November 30, 1995 PETITION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The following persons are against and opposed to any further connections to Lilac Lane which would create a through street in the ,future on this right of way! (Lilac Lane is a right of way, 33'feet of which is in the city of Shorewood, Minnesota and 17 feet which is in the city of Chanhassen, Minnesota.) Name Address -5 I. 4h / t 7 - / St Z1 71-��v� 32 t 1 1 t.ivuW ,. 1•+• teen Lr,•c.•a• ltw.+.. 1 .•rrn�..•1 • �•.,. K%IJIb �111�c�It��re, .dale the 7 � 7 day of April 1. 71 betttren Dan Schimmcipr.ennig and Glenda J. Schilrmalpfenn'i, husband and wife, of the Coauaty of .... ..Carver and Stale of ... Minnesota of eke ltrd Part. and James H. Donovan and Norma J. nnnntrwn, hoill,anA and wi rw t -, __.... ...... .............. ..............:. ........... ................................._.................._. ................._............. • ._.... .. ..., o/ tits Ceuntp of . llnnno.•1 n __o o._...j ..•.•_ .:• ....................... . pot. of IL. --ma J."." MihitSSttb, That the said parti s. of the first part, in oonsideration of the turn Of one Dollar . and othe,r an ...v�Iu.ab.le...consider.a.t, ion ......... ......................... DOLUn.l. _.....in hand paid by the said parties of the second part, the receipt whereof to hereby aeknolo'!• edged, do Y..._ hereby Grant, Bargain, Quitclaim, and Convey unto the said parties of the eeto,td lulrt ae joinl tenants and not at tenants in common, their a -UiI", the survivor of said parties, and the heirs and tusi; ;n of the survivor, Fordver, all the tract..... or parcel..... of land 1pin f and beinr in the County of - -_� d.1YeK .... _ ............ ...... _ ........ and State of hlinnesola, described to follows, to -uric: A perpetual Lasemerit for road purposes over all that part of the North 40 rods of the West 4- -rods of the Northeast 4 of the Northwest k of Section 2- 116 -23 lying westerly of the following described line, to wit, Commencing at the point of intersection of the center line of Apple Road and the North line of said Northwest k which said point is the North- east corner of the_ tract of land originally registered July 5, 1952, and described in Carver County Certificate of Title #32051 thence E&st along the North line of said Northwest k 809.7 feet to a point markod by a Judicial Land Mark, thence continuing East alc,na paid North lint I for a distance of 50 fee*_ to 4ho ? - t „_i =3 - , int Ot beginning of the line r-v be described; thence South 16 West to the point of intersection with the West line of the Northeast k of the Northwest quarter Of said Section 2, and there terminating. State Deed Tax due hereon is $2.20. .• STATE OF k :..' - O F ,I ��;rnD'rti1t. y'AATt 2 -1 2 0 TAX eatcsts TA Rjabe anb to �rlorb tbt QD amt, Torether u4th all the heredita,ntnts and appurtenances thers- unto betonring or in an,yu'ise appertaining to the said parfite of the second part, their auifnj,' the our- vivor of said parties, and the heirs and a sirns of the survivor, Forever, the said parties of the second part FLOM ;m. »tal:it►f a�,sjoint+tenante,.t► nett. notsroras ..r...s,rit�.w.......,m -•- 3cc �ttt(monp Wbtrtof The slid part ie.a. of the /fi rst part ve. hereunto scl 'heir... hand a Ow day and year first abovs written. A Shimr elp fehntq In Prusnce of c - /xc��.�,�� `GIA�ta. J� Sbhimrnelpfelinlq'� " "> - � , ice ....................... . _ ........ . ...................... �- -- tl r l �tcltc of -iilhitic!66ta Cou of Carver . ......... On thij 2- '7 ....... ............... ................ 'NoLary p :4y ol ....... ........ A J pr 1,9 73 . b rno. . .. ...... .. D an Sc " - " — ��IlPfCn-ig and .. at d for "' Co"tVl JM? J')Ftd11Y eIPPed'Od Glenda j. Schir'Melpfennig, husband and wife, to k-t b t h e Persons and Who '"uW the forejoinj i ms t rurnm g ............ .... .... .. . . . .... ....... and atknowWfod that ..thy the Jame a., t-hc oat and d THIS INSTRUMENT WAS ORAFTIED By Wallace C. Odel 250 N orth Centraf"" Odell . . .......... ...... Y"tary Pu-bUa . . ........ ... ..H ennegin . ....... ... A d d,.,,l . — Way a t 39�--- .......... mrnmLsvion e-r;7" Nove-Mber 28 HOTX: 71. W I RE rum; TO: CAAI-S!',Ii. (:;, .krU,—�R & LA 7P 670 PU1SB,;RY BUILD,-4C; MLILliuj'Ous. 14 WNESOTA !,5." ��, I , - _.�_. b � a v _. � . \ C! ML Ck 1 4 a I o`� °v' �tl v��3� �� 7 ��I 31 o kv a �`� Z`b S V4 cu/ of .; Sf.. 35 1 �o .. I A { LILAC L N•._..] 5 4 3 2 HILLWAY �. s 1 r. CORD a ..An4 (� / MOOC. Na 1 402637. B364♦ - r .�.�•uO '!' G .+ Z g. L702Ll ors rf o > ter. A LES ;.)aLaucri t:TA� I t •, �. 1 trlk 8� A,C VJ � /1. iel iz 0 ? t j C Ed N A RO E.1 /T.W LFE Q ( rnrltMAr....Ac F4ats. tA a Z 13 7 5' LI C A I.A NE S63• az'w !' .�.y n . •�' �° �b 7 /fN $ N E 3 ! I fi 0 ��L r •a !s 14 1S a ' o r .; as•Iz'r - ---- J ` .' ": a � 0 1rLaE � cr •a s� P soi �. l n ( N21'a LS i' i i 3 f ss 69 8 co Z S. J O 2 L o00 c L J J' I \R 37 ,� 2^ ,szf•li 3.0 /4L• ! szf�rr. sees 13 _ 1 66 Z 16 17 Z A \� LSO GLZ�dO 9 �� ' Por- 3 s2 23.7 Nfe.�.os ITHILI N .zsl F J N ATOLE r 1'S.ff • +j� •A 4R • °1 . J Sea V II 12 U 8.( 76, P 54 \ Y_1^. 2S.o�)310° `v t y � 1 �.9tc 10 �: a z5. ooz.lgoo ' 44 '.LASE'. IY bl° l^ Q ' ` � 1 C U.,! = � 'p ;� ' �2 7! • 2 \s ASHTON � Z. 1� .f�• ''p. 1foAt a a r s - - 6y o �..�es k. $ N. 1J. ,,.,r... ��'' Y y`J 13`! L.•r*c C.1 er ' S 4 RE4MERn COURT ` ^ /6•to+r 29s3♦ 3303. ?9 Yb9 °3 : Sw "E 80 t^ 0 0 �� 6 5:� F' J8[lt3 m I1: d�a 0 rNC. � r • 2cies ; ` y Z O , F tCL IL s • A. M ^1 44 )* •� ��' N. ; t ` P z` S S��I O 1St'+ 2 '� 2 <r� 'F /I O. .O�OS ! v.� A t � z O lip : t r5 F °v y,r L ; c b R)dERT EL CAMERJ'N ; la_ :v 25.06 Z- � SaQ •r %, O 1 , �Q I u i�Zry • °• S8 °CAA ;,TF NO •5901 A T 80CEMA rz �, zi. � _ A Y �. a2 0 r C • E ego_ 1 t � 0 '1 0t1 S t �i' 1 �\ �t . ' 1 �I .3 \ S6 ^ � �� IL /y 5.. Q� r M Q ¢ 10 9 V ^ JV %� Lj i ";1 s k voeC SON w 5 a °os w = a ` e� bit\ Q sf9 .s p cry vc .9'2/ OUTLOT 0 0 0 ,Yet O. C MRt�TIf•fQM� \ 2 2 S. eo 1? Z G S y it 6 �� 5 14 cgEF.T: 1 1+o� ► SAKE i z J / 2�/0 6 3 � ba� byt0 19- .00i , 1140 00c No '• •gfft ' ' 12 1 .; I Gu3o ��► /�S —T— 2 Z 5 0 0 0 'e' b - -- -i 3 � -` — -- - - TETON 1 Si t mZ u � c v 'A fE. K q �. .r• p ..,5 ; /d. .�At ACAN ST G."PLO ( ��a` 1 R1� `3L! (T ;� f r .��.�� . V7 r 1 V 1•'10AL. C�CteEN � J ~ r 5� 3 a 2 s. ov -Soo y 7 t ySSm.ry A,, 3 4 5 6 0 - 3 Sl R �ti D. PETERSON I.OoA,( Cp411l41S4•#, M'F rSf11 2 N V ^ 4 h y 4 4 l:il _ ±o 2 o w % N O e\y p u • = Cif [ IMA jdkgYe�I .: THOMAS STEWARD v► d�� i • c E Car !Te I 2422 Enterprise Orive Mendota Heights, IAN 55120 ,/1C3 NEr='R ur SUR YGRS • VAL ENCI ( 612) 68 1- 1914•Fox 6B1 -9488 n ��' n� PLANNERS , DSCAFC AtICHITE4T; 625 Highway 10 Northaaat * * i7 (612)��783 --1880 Fax 783 --1883 Certificate of Survey for: David A. Wllllam COnStrUCtlOt1 Co. House Address: Ith Lane, C a has n M N 89'14'51" w CS 04. 113.88 N a 0 CO d � r-- z 70.87 N $6'o0'OO W AF; =RC1 VED JO - Al DEPT: /t � qa� w i5 : a / s ,l�s DATE ° 00 BY: ie1 DEPT: / r DATE: / / -j f �- ' �roda (u� a5 q�w BY: $� DEPT PD Vo Cxe ti i1� c �(t,i, a- 0 S� ti , 0 9 0 04 ;j 'V� tDRnn n POI IqP PI ;7VOTIr1N