6. Arundel Addition, 3531 Maplewood Circle: Preliminary & Final Plat.CITY OF
�,, CHANHASSEN
ACREAGE: 1.3 acres
STAFF REPORT
IZ
a
, J
Q
PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 1.3 Acres into 2 single family lots on property
zoned RSF, Residential Single Family, Arundel Addition.
LOCATION: 3531 Maplewood Circle. Lot 5, Block 1, Maplewood.
APPLICANT: Steve Arundel Steve Arundel & Sven Arne Wasberg
3130 Groveland School Road 3130 Groveland School Road
Minnetonka, MN 55391 Minnetonka, MN 55391
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District
0
DENSITY: 1.5 Units per Acre -Gross
ADJACENT ZONING AND
LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family District
S - RSF, Residential Single Family District
E - RSF, Residential Single Family District
W - RSF, Residential Single Family District
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site.
PC DATE: 5/1/96 L
CC DATE: 5!20/96
CASE #: 96 -7 SUB
By: Al -Jaff
Action 0 City AAdministrator,
Endors y DU)�t+
ModiRe�
Rejected_
Date Submitted to Commission
Hate SuLmitted to Council
f " -'-'6 -
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The majority of the site is flat. Mature trees are scattered on the site.
A single family home occupies the northeast corner of the site.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential -Low Density
I
A B
o 0 ° C) CD o 0 0 0 C>
C) n 0 C5 C) C) C) C5 C) G7 C) p 0
C14 CD 0) co r ko LO V rq C H
sr M fn M m rn rr) fn m
Minnewa obta
w 62nd St. Heights Park
l Ca c art
� lVirginia
\e CartwaY
- � CAS > � �y� ;
E
1 2� 1
FF
X
��� � I ��1 o►L.o
rive
Lake
Minnewashta
U)
cu
o "
-C
u
0
Park
Lake':
St Joe
I�N
Arundel Addition
May 20, 1996
Page 2
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.3 acres into 2 single family lots. The property is zoned
RSF, Residential Single Family.
Lot 1 contains a single family home and is proposed to have an area of 30,025 square feet. Lot 2
is reserved for future development and is proposed to have an area of 27,475 square feet. The
resulting gross density of this subdivision is 1.5 units per acre. Both proposed lots meet the
minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. An existing shed
located on Lot 2 is proposed to be removed. The structure must be removed prior to recording of
the plat. The site is located southwest of Maplewood Circle and is proposed to gain access from
the cul -de -sac. Lot 2 will have a cross access easement over Lot 1, to gain access to the public
right -of -way.
The site has mature trees scattered on the site. Some of these trees will be removed due to the
construction of the new single family home and the driveway. A 30 inch silver maple is located
southeast of the proposed house. Staff is recommending the new home be moved further to the
west to minimize impact on the silver maple. The majority of the remaining trees will be saved.
Park and trail fees will be required in lieu of land in accordance with City Ordinances.
In summary, staff believes that the proposed subdivision is well designed. We are
recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report.
BACKGROUND
Maplewood Subdivision was approved in 1964. It consisted of 8 lots. The applicant is
proposing to divide Lot 5 into two parcels. This is one of the largest parcels in the subdivision.
There is an existing residence on Lot 5, which was built in 1977.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 1.3 acre site into 2 single family lots. The density of
the proposed subdivision is 1.5 units per acre. Both lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet
of area with Lot 1, which contains a single family home, having an area of 30,025 square feet.
Lot 2 is reserved for future development and is proposed to have an area of 27,475 square feet.
The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Both proposed lots meet the minimum
area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. An existing shed located on Lot 2
is proposed to be removed. The structure must be removed prior to recording of the plat. The
site is located southwest of Maplewood Circle and is proposed to gain access from the cul -de-
Arundel Addition
May 20, 1996
Page 3
sac. Lot 2 will have a cross access easement over Lot 1, to gain access to the public right -of-
way.
Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The parcel slopes from a northeasterly to southwesterly direction. This lot is a low point of the
neighborhood and conveys most of the neighborhood drainage from the northeast. A 10 inch
storm sewer culvert conveys storm water runoff from Maplewood Circle along the east lot line
towards the rear of the lot where it discharges into a drainage swale down to Lake Minnewashta.
The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a water quality pond down by
the lake to pretreat storm water runoff before discharging into Lake Minnewashta. This
subdivision creates an opportunity to acquire additional easements just upstream of the lake to
provide the water quality pond. A very small sediment basin currently exists just south of this
proposed subdivision. The small sediment basin could be expanded to overlap into this
development to provide for the necessary storm water quality pond. Construction of this pond is
not necessary with this development. Staff believes it would be prudent to work with the
applicant to acquire additional drainage easements over the southerly portion of the lot which
will not impair construction on the lot. The applicant will receive credits against their S WMP
fees for the additional land dedication. Based on 0.63 acres of new development (the existing lot
is exempt), the applicant will be responsible for storm water quality and quantity connection fee
of $1,751. The final plat should also dedicate a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement over
the existing drainage culvert as well as along the southerly 20 feet of the lot to maintain the
drainage pattern through the parcel. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion
control plan will be required at the time of building permit application for review and approval
by the city. Since the lot elevation is lower than Maplewood Circle, utility extension to the
house will require filling a portion of the lot for the driveway and dwelling. An emergency
overflow will need to be maintained adjacent to the driveway to maintain drainage from
Maplewood Circle should the catch basin become inoperable.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water service is available from Maplewood Circle. The applicant will need
to extend an individual sewer and water line to the property which will result in excavating the
street. The elevation of the sanitary sewer in the street is too low to service the new lot via a
gravity system. An ejector pump system will be required in order to lift the sewage from the lot
to Maplewood Circle. The plumbing codes (See. 4715.2430) requires specific design and
construction elements which must be adhered to when installing this sanitary sewer from the
C
r
Arundel Addition
May 20, 1996
Page 4
house to the street. The applicant should make all prospective homeowners and builders aware
of these specific requirements. The new lot will also be subject to a hook -up fee in the amount of
$2,575 for the sewer and water. This fee is payable at time of building permit issuance. The
connection fee of $7,000 will be waived assuming the applicant will be responsible for extending
the sewer and water line to the property. Staff recommends that the applicant provide the city
with a $2,500 escrow in the form of a letter of credit or cash to guarantee street and storm sewer
restoration.
STREETS
A 30 foot wide driveway easement is proposed along the east side of the lot for access to the new
parcel. The driveway access will require removal of some of the pines /spruce trees. The
addition of one lot will not adversely increase traffic on Maplewood Circle. The driveway may
require modifications to the storm sewer and catch basin in Maplewood Circle depending on the
driveway's exact location. If a new catch basin casting is needed, the applicant will be
responsible for providing and installing the casting. The applicant will also be responsible for
any modifications to the curbs and storm drainage system as a result of extending the driveway to
the lot.
PARK AND TRAILS
The Park and Recreation Director recommends full park and trail fees be collected per city
ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and /or trail construction.
COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT
Lot Lot Lot Home
Area Width Depth Setback
Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front /rear/
10' sides
BLOCK 1
Lot 1 30,025 118' 220' 30730'
10'
Lot 2 27,475 125' 220' 30'/30'
10'
E
Arundel Addition
May 20, 1996
Page 5
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
The Arundel Addition is a nicely wooded property with approximately an 80% canopy coverage.
Since the Addition is in a low density residential area, minimum canopy coverage requirement is
55% of the lot. Tree removal for driveway and house will take out approximately 28% of the
canopy, leaving 52 %. The developer is required to replace the 3% difference at a rate of 1.2
times and must plant two trees on the site.
There are two large trees on the proposed lot, a 30" silver maple and a 30" ash. Both of these
trees are tolerant of root severance and compaction and are therefore excellent candidates for
preservation. Staff recommends developer work to move the proposed home in between the
large trees.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On May 1, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application. The main
issue of concern dealt with the drainage of the neighborhood. Many neighbors were concerned
that the new development will impede the natural drainage way. Staff explained that the drainage
will not change.
The second issue was in regard to the future subdivision of the remaining seven parcels within the
subdivision. At the meeting, staff explained that if they meet the minimum requirements of the
zoning and subdivision ordinance, then they would be able to subdivide the property. After the
Planning Commission meeting, staff researched the remaining properties within the subdivision
for division potential and discovered that six of the eight parcels would not meet the depth and
setback requirements of the City Code. One parcel will need a variance to the width of the cross
access easement to serve a structure if the lot was subdivided. In all cases, the City would have a
reason not to approve a future subdivision within this neighborhood.
The basic concern with this subdivision was the issue of privacy. All members of the Planning
Commission agreed that there will be an invasion of privacy for the property located east of the
subject site, however, City ordinances do not address this issue. This is a legal subdivision and
meets ordinance requirements. To protect the neighbors, the Planning Commission recommended
the applicant shift the proposed driveway to the westerly edge of the driveway easement and keep
it as far as possible from the easterly property line. The Planning Commission also recommended
the applicant place the two trees required by ordinance in a location that would :maximize
screening to the property to the east.
1�
L
L
L
C
' Arundel Addition
' May 20, 1996
Page 6
' RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat for (Subdivision #96 -7) Arundel
' Addition for 2 single family lots as shown on the plans dated April 3, 1996, prepared by Coffin &
Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. The landscaping plan shall include trees to be planted. A snow fence shall be
placed along the edge of trees showing grading limits prior to grading.
' 2. The proposed development of 0.63 developable acres shall be responsible for water
quality and quantity connection charge of $1,751. These fees are payable to the city prior
' to the city filing the final plat. Credits may be applied to this fee for dedication of
additional drainage easements for ponding needs on Lot 2, Block 1.
' 3. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the city engineer.
t 4. The applicant will be responsible for all street restoration and storm sewer modifications
that result in providing the driveway to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow with the city,
' $2,500 in the form of a letter or credit or cash escrow to guarantee street restoration and
storm sewer maintenance. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat, a drainage and
utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 1 and 2 and along the southerly 20 feet
t of Lot 2. The driveway shall be shifted westerly as far as possible per the staff's
approval.
' 5. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required
for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve.
' 6. Construction of the sewer and water system for Lot 2 shall adhere to plumbing code
Section 4715.243. Lot 2 will require an ejector system to serve the house with sanitary
sewer.
' 7. An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed adjacent to the driveway of Lot 2 to
maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle.
' 8. Lot 2 shall be subject to a hook-up fee in accordance with city codes. The connection fee
J p Y
will be waived assuming the applicant extends sewer and water from Maplewood Circle
to the property line.
7
Arundel Addition
May 20, 1996
Page 7
9
10
11.
12.
13
14.
Cross access or driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be prepared and
recorded with the final plat to guarantee ingress and egress through Lot 1.
The applicant shall work with city staff in negotiating an additional drainage easement on
Lot 2 for future storm water pond.
Fire Marshal conditions:
1
J
a. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department /Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992
Premise identification (copy enclosed). I
Park and Recreation conditions:
a. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land, in accordance with City Code.
The existing shed on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the plat. A
demolition permit will be required.
The applicant must plant two trees on new lot to meet ordinance requirements, and place
the trees in a way to maximize screening to the properties to the east,
13. The applicant must attempt to locate home in between the 30" ash and silver maple. Tree
preservation fencing must be installed prior to grading. Fencing must be installed at the
grading perimeters."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Charles and Pamela Rienstra.
2. Letter from Bill and Danielle Modell date April 23, 1996.
1 4715.2430 BUILDING DRAINS BELOW BUILDING SEWER.
4. Memo from David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer dated April 25, 1996.
5. Memo from Mark Littfin dated April 24, 1996 and Policy No. 29 -1992 Premise
Identification,
6. Application Form dated March 15, 1996.
7. Notice of Public Hearing.
8. Planning Commission minutes dated May 1, 1996.
9. Preliminary plat dated April 3, 1996.
r
r
r
I� f •
PRELIMINARY PLAT
ARUNDEL ADDITION
1 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION FOR "
STEVE ARUNDEL
OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, MAPLEWOOD
1 CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
11 1 � ont —
i
l �6i: ,7t.eS 1
207.59
N 84024' 17" E Cp / e Oj
007 2s�'
H ` =t.f
,
I g• �t i �l�
1
' trw • 10 yu` ° 10 bast � •
=g , o .
1 I d�e o f
ta- �. to ." 1 >g0.025 +— ag. Pt
i •
to .v+F° to: 'i
+: to•
:"o
'°
1 I t
o •to .o.uc• 2 • =vim tr Jp C11
30 �t0 -p—
i N
y
•
o '. �I a - . —� '-C— 3' 4r0. t F 1 ' N C
O :04, ng setbock roes (typ)' ,
Co 30 v
h
°
1 -- Z
try l ' 2747 ft
r
1 I i .rt
, I
,
N E 10.00 ;
� G L �Sj/ M.IIL /t✓io0
-
V /f /.✓ /TY MAP Ci -rtf 'rLrF •
f ' G
44C` BY)
LWa Lake
OWNER: • tw
1 STEVE ARUNDEL S,*.tt 1 Minnewashia
3130 GROVELAND SCHOOL ROAD
WAYZATA. MN. 55391 !°t ♦ , f
1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Q-
Lot 5, Block 1, MAPLEWOOD
g �
1 VICTORIA""'.`
I hereto• certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super- DAIC 4 -5-96
1 ! 1 1
vision, " nd that I am a duly registered Civil Enginter and Land Surveyor under .
the laws of the State of Minnesota. SCA r i "_ 60
ftns No. 96074
1 Mark S. Gnatberg Minnesota License Number 12755 `
96 - 7Q
Lvrz 2L- 6
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
L
We, Charles and Pamela Rienstra, are homeowners of 3511 (Maplewood
Circle. We have lived here twenty years. When we purchased our lot the city I
had approved the Maplewood Sub - division to consists of eight lots.
We have concerns about the change in drainage by building another '
home at 3531 Maplewood Circle(Arundel Addition). There is a substantial
amount of runoff from Greenbriar Avenue which funnels through the Maplewood
Addition. All lots on Maplewood Circle presently drain to a culvert which runs to
the back of 3531 Maplewood Circle where the proposed addition is to be located.
We feel that building another home at this location may cause drainage '
problems.
We are also concerned about the increase in traffic and snow removal I
with an addition of another driveway to the cul -de -sac.
We hope that these issues will be taken into consideration before a final I
decision is made to grant this addition. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Charles and Pamela Rienstra
d
Gvt- q6, - 6
TO: City of Chanhassen Planning Commission
FROM: Bill & Danielle Modell
3521 Maplewood Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
DATE: April 23, 1996
' RE: Concerns regarding proposed subdivision at 3531 Maplewood Circle
(Public Hearing to be held May 1, 1996)
1A. Interruption of natural flow and drainage of storm water runoff that runs from the
' street and also neighboring yards through the proposed development site.
1 B. Possible pooling of storm water runoff in our backyard if the natural flow is
' interrupted.
1 C. Possible wet basement if water is not allowed to flow naturally around our house
as it does now.
2A. Placement of driveway leading to proposed building site being located on or near
' the property line considering that our house is only approximately 30 feet off the
property line.
' 2B. Where would the snow from the driveway end up when removed? Over the
property line? Out in the dead end street where it already can be a problem
when there is a substantial snowfall?
' 2C. Noise from vehicle traffic using proposed driveway which would be located
approximately only 30 feet from our bedroom windows.
' 3. Increased traffic flow on Maplewood Circle that is an already heavily traveled
p Y Y
dead end street.
4. Lack of privacy n our backyard due to front of p house overlooking Y Y P p 9 our
backyard.
' 5. Concern that all the items above would ultimate) lead to decreased property
Y p P rtY
values both monetary and aesthetically.
We are adamantly opposed to this development proposal and we ask that you take the
' above concerns into serious consideration when making recommendations to the City
Council.
' Thank you for your consideration.
r�
\ . 1: •ii
kill
Z07
Al'
M ti 4q
-
`" ,(. i,/C' �'o /': �C� )vif /l /i'c.' / /rlF c,� 9 E'C � 7.i /!; ,P. 73 ,e . — •.
35 lql4 r 44 E li o a'
g ero9l
1
r
n
7
Subp. 2. Heel or side -inlet bends. A heel or side -inlet
quarter bend shall not be used as a vent when the inlet is
placed in a horizontal position or any similar arrangement of
pipe or fittings producing a similar effect.
Subp. 3. Obstruction to flow. No fitting, connection,
device, or method of installation which obstructs or retards the
flow of water, wastes, sewage, or air in the drainage or venting
system in an amount greater than the normal frictional
resistance to flow shall be used unless it is indicated as
acceptable to this code by having a desirable and acceptable
function and as of ultimate benefit to the proper and continuing
functioning of the plumbing system. The enlargement of a
three -inch closet bend or stub to four inches shall not be
considered an obstruction, provided the horizontal flow line or
insert is continuous without forming a ledge.
Subp. 4. Dead ends. In the installation of a drainage
system, dead ends shall be avoided except where necessary to
extend piping for a cleanout so as to be accessible.
STAT AUTH: MS s 326.37 to 326.45
4715.2430 BUILDING DRAINS BELOW BUILDING SEWER.
Building drains which cannot be discharged to the sewer by
gravity flow shall discharge into an approved watertight,
gas -tight vented sump or receiving tank, so located as to
receive the sewage or wastes by gravity. From such sump or
receiving tank the sewage or other liquid wastes shall be lifted
and discharged into the building gravity drain by approved
automatic pumping equipment. The system or drainage piping
entering such sump shall be installed and vented as required in
this section for a gravity system.
STAT AUTH: MS s 326.37 to 326.45
HIST: 9 SR 1557
4715.2440 DESIGN OF SUMPS.
Subpart 1. Construction. Sumps and receiving tanks shall
be constructed of poured concrete, metal, or other approved
materials. If constructed of poured concrete, the walls and
bottom shall be adequately reinforced and designed to acceptable
standards. Metal sumps or tanks shall be of such thickness as
to serve their intended purpose and shall be treated internally
and externally to resist corrosion.
Subp. 2. Discharge line. The discharge line from such
pumping equipment shall be provided with an accessible backwater
valve and gate valve, and if the gravity drainage line to which
such discharge line connects is horizontal, the method of
connection shall be from the top through a wye branch fitting.
The minimum size of any pump or discharge pipe from a sump
having a water closet connected hereto shall not be less than
two inches.
97
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHA SSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: April 25, 1996
SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat for Arundel Addition
Land Use File No. 96 -6 (Lot 5, Block 1, Maplewood)
Upon review of the preliminary plat prepared by Coffin and Gronberg, Inc. dated April 3, 1996, I
offer the following comments and recommendations.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
The parcel slopes from a northeasterly to southwesterly direction. This lot is a low point of the
neighborhood and conveys most of the neighborhood drainage from the northeast. A 10 inch
storm sewer culvert conveys storm water runoff from Maplewood Circle along the east lot line
towards the rear of the lot where it discharges into a drainage,, swale down to Lake Minnewashta.
The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a water quality pond down by the
lake to pretreat storm water runoff before discharging into Lake Minnewashta. This subdivision
creates an opportunity to acquire additional easements just upstream of the lake to provide the
water quality pond. A very small sediment basin currently exists just south of this proposed
subdivision. The small 'sediment - , basin could be expanded to overlap into this development to
provide for the necessary storm water quality pond.- Construction of this pond is not necessary
with this development. Staff believes it would be prudent to work with the applicant to acquire
additional drainage easements over the southerly portion of the lot which will not impair
construction on the lot. The applicant will receive credits against their SWMP fees for the
additional land dedication. Based on 0.63 acres', new development (the existing lot is exempt),
the applicant will be responsible for storm waterquality and quantity connection fee of $1,751.
The final plat should also dedicate a 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing
drainage culvert as well as along the southerly 20 feet of the lot to maintain the drainage pattern
through the parcel. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan will be
required at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the city. Since the
lot elevation is lower than Maplewood Circle, utility extension to the house will require filling a
portion of the lot for the driveway and dwelling. An emergency overflow will need to be
r
r
r
7
L
I
r
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
April 25, 1996
Page 2
maintained adjacent to the driveway to maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle should the
catch basin become inoperable.
I UTILITIES
J
Municipal sewer and water service is available from Maplewood Circle. The applicant will need
to extend an individual sewer and water line to the property which will result in excavating the
street. The elevation of the sanitary sewer in the street is too low to service the new lot via a
gravity system. An ejector pump system will be required in order to lift the sewage from the lot
to Maplewood Circle. The plumbing codes (Sec. 4715.2430) requires specific design and
construction elements which must be adhered to when installing this sanitary sewer from the
house to the street. The applicant should make all prospective homeowners and builders aware
of these specific requirements. The new lot will also be subject to a hook -up fee in the amount of
$2,575 for the sewer and water. This fee is payable at time of building permit issuance. The
connection fee of $7,000 will be waived assuming the applicant will be responsible for extending
the sewer and water line to the property. Staff recommends that the applicant provide the city
with a $2,500 escrow in the form of a letter of credit or cash to guarantee street and storm sewer
restoration.
STREETS
A 30 foot wide driveway easement is proposed along the east side of the lot for access to the new
parcel. The driveway access will require removal of some of the pines /spruce trees. The
addition of one lot will not adversely increase traffic on Maplewood Circle. The driveway may
require modifications to the storm sewer and catch basin in Maplewood Circle depending on the
driveway's exact location. If a new catch basin casting is needed, the applicant will be
responsible for providing and installing the casting. The applicant will also be responsible for
any modifications to the curbs and storm drainage system as a result of extending the driveway to
the lot.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The proposed development of 0.63 developable acres shall be responsible for water
quality and quantity connection charge of $1,751. These fees are payable to the city prior
to the city filing the final plat. Credits may be applied to this fee for dedication of
additional drainage easements for ponding needs on Lot 2, Block 1.
I 2. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found during
construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the city engineer.
J
Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
April 25, 1996
Page 3
1 The applicant will be responsible for all street restoration and storm sewer modifications
that result in providing the driveway to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow with the city,
$2,500 in the form of a letter or credit or cash escrow to guarantee street restoration and
storm sewer maintenance. The applicant shall dedicate on the final plat, a drainage and
utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lot 1 and 2 and along the southerly 20 feet
of Lot 2.
4. Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required
for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve,
5. Construction of the sewer and water system for Lot 2 shall adhere to plumbing code
Section 4715.243. Lot 2 will require an ejector system to serve the house with sanitary
sewer.
6. An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed adjacent to the driveway of Lot 2 to
maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle.
L
I I
7. Lot 2 shall be subject to a hook -up fee in accordance with city codes. The connection fee '
will be waived assuming the applicant extends sewer and water from Maplewood Circle
to the property line.
Cross access or driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be prepared and
recorded with the final plat to guarantee ingress and egress through Lot 1.
The applicant shall work with city staff in negotiating an additional drainage easement on
Lot 2 for future storm water pond.
L
ca Charles Folch, City Engineer t
d
7
A ADDITION
OF
PROPOSED , SUBDIVISION FOR,
STEVE ARUNDEL
LOT 5, BLOCK 1, MAPLEWOOD
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
I MA /LEw000 „(,
cl-tCLE I
-3
E 207.59 a <5;, jQ we
N 8 °24 17 _ _ ��
' 10" s uce e 7pFuce
' \
8" �x r
201' tree 1910" sprvcs • 1 I bcut y
10^ � I I \ z11 a 1 1. 1 / 21.4 I 4
10 " w�10^ to +"�0.025 + sq.�tt,
II
+: •10" � ` 10: ` p% T 10^
aol S
I
010" spruce 986- I e
O) I I `• 10 �ugOr I
i 10^ I � 010" spruce 12 sr ugar 10"
04 10^
' 30 ( � � , y yr ,� I
)Fyruee �- 8 _sPrj�e3 "_ "l. J ''Y
10" - s -
W i spruce n� •.
Imo'
- 1
I - - - %; ✓96 1b
I �" M l bpd( M�1ut
O I s race s a
O I Buldjng setback lines � i ; F
I 30 Yi
OI �
f.__J -- - } `� I"�t She v° «(w
rrw is"
1
1} j ?" I 27475 + -�. w
r . I I
I I s 1 30" "bah '
yu dwr I !
i - -- - II" ___
- 0rdnag. and uti e°s-te
N 89° 5'GQ" 10.00
A
V ,1
OWNER:
STEVE ARUNDEL
3130 GROVELAND SCHOOL ROAD
WAYZATA, MN. 55391
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES:
Lot 5, Block 1, MAPLEWOOD
a ✓i 1�
4'n V
i
x C9�1). , DIJUbTGS �� � o.S,EV � ✓.
r ---- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - .
I
I
i
r
i
hydrmt R'"'
V /C/A/ /Tf' ` MAP
I 11 If/ \%
— VICTORIA
' a _
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared byme or Ider my direct super-
vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer am and Surveyor under
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANNASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE i P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II
FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE: April 24, 1996
RE: Request for preliminary plat of Lot 5, Block 1, Maplewood into two single
family lots on property zoned RSF and located at 3531 Maplewood
Circle, Arundel Addition, Steve Arundel.
Planning Case: 96 -7 SUB
1
I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In
Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division
city ordinance /policy requirements. The site plan revi
information submitted at this time. As additional plan`
appropriate code or policy items will be addressed:
1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department /Fire
Premise identification (copy enclosed).
order to comply with the
, I have the following fire code or
ew is based on the available
s or changes are submitted, the
Policy No. 29 -1992
glsafety /ml /96 -7SUB
r
r
CITY OF
CHANHASOrN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICY
PREMISES IDENTIFICATION
General
Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
' buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible
from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall
contrast with their background. Size and location of numbers shall
' be approved by one of the following - Public Safety Director,
Building Official, Building Inspector, Fire Marshal.
Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where
t no address numbers are posted.
Odw RewIrernerrt3 a General
' 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from'the background.
2. Numbers shall not be in script
' 3. If a structure Is not visible from the street, additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size
and location must be approved.
4. Numbers on mall box at driveway entrance may be a minimum of 4 ". However, requirement #3 must still
' be met
5. Administrative authority may require additional numbers If deemed necessary.
J
7
i
Residential Regulreffmmts (2 or less dweMnq untq
1. Minimum height shall be 5 1/4 ".
2. Building permits will not be finaled unless numbers are posted and approved by the Building Department
Cortwnercial Requiremetrts
1. Minimum height shall'be 12 ".
2. Strip Malls
a. Multi tenant building will have minimum height requirements of 6 ".
b. Address numbers shall be on the main entrance and on all back doors.
3. If address numbers are located on a directory entry sign, additional numbers will be required on the
buildings main entrance.
Approved - Public Sa:� Director
Chanhassen Fire Department
Fire Prevention
Policy #29 -1992
Date: 06 /15/92
Revised:
Page 1 of ,1
4if PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
_ f
CITY OF CHANHASSEN '
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT. Ia rtt y\ C\P—L, OWNER: k r
ADDRESS: 3 l 3 O G KOVC a v A S d,-c,p ` I �A ADDRESS:
M i vine Aev" �`n'ZxJ
TELEPHONE (Daytime) y Lo — (0 7 d0 TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
— Vacation of ROW /Easements
Interim Use Permit
_ Variance
Non - conforming Use Permit
_ Wetland Alteration Permit
Planned Unit Development*
_ Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
_ Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site Plan Review*
X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attomey Cost **
($50 CUP /SPR/VAC /VAR/WAP /Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision*
TOTAL FEE $ 1 5V
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
*Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8 X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
1
1
1
NOTE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME 1'� -'
LP 1 ,, �
LOCATION �--�
' LEGAL DESCRIPTION �3) crck 1 ,ems
TOTALACREAGE
' WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
' PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
' REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
L
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.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
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.
The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are approved by the applicant.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Fee Owner
'S ' Fee Paid Receipt No.
I Application Received on
3� /s -9G
Date
Date
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.
0
WARRANTY DEED '
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ _5 - o o _
Date: February 22 , 1996 '
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Transamerica Financial Services Inc.,
a Minnesota corporation (a /k /a Transamerica Financial Services),
grantor, hereby conveys and warrants to Shen D. Arunde.lvi and.,
Sven Arne Wasberg, grantees, an undivided each '
as tenants i cn tenants real property in Carver County, Minnesota,
described as follows:
Lot Five (5), Block One (1), "Maplewood" ,
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging ,
thereto, subject to easements, conditions, restrictions and
reservations of record. Grantor certifies that grantor is not
aware of any wells on the described property.
GRANTOR: '
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)Ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL I
SERVICES INC.
By 1:q ) ? , 20� '
It L. W h' e Asst. Secretary '
By
Its: Bu Sanders Asst. Secre
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 2 day
of FPhrliary _ 1996, by Robert L. Whit
and R„r1d; R. Sand , the Asst. Secretary and
_A - qt - S_prratar�� , respectively, of Transamerica
Financial Se r�rices Inc., a Minnesota corporation (a /k: /a
Transamerica Finan es), behalf of
IT cc >r ora ion.
AoftL KELLY J. DALBEO
$,_✓7 � - NOTARY PUBLIC • ApNNEOOTA
WRIGHT OOUNW — -
my Cant MW EOwAa it of a y bl i.c
Kelly J dalbec
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BYs
RETURN TO:
Kevin J. Dunlevy
Fryberger, Buchanan, Smith & Frederick
1190 Capital Centre
386 North Wabasha Street
St. Paul, MN 55102
.J: \WCn:C \M:SC \ii�0 *7EEL.WD 11551 -49
Tax statements for the real property described
in this instrument should be sent to:
0. Arum vz_�
3130 C --cam., I(x_r-\8 Sch
1�0.�Za��c'A , ►'Y� � 5 5 3 ' .
0
1
HC 1007 (s /s4I Affidavit of Purchaser of Registered Land
'
State of Minnesota
Countyof Carver ss.
' Stephen D. Arundel being duly sworn on oath says that he makes this affidavit on behalf of
the purchaser(s) of REGISTERED LAND situated in Carver County, Minnesota.
' The name of said purchaser is Stephen D. Arundel
The purchaser resides at 3531 Maplewood Circle Cityof Chanhassen
' Countyof Carver Stateof Minnesota Zip 55317
is
' of the age of 18 years or older, is under no legal incapacity
is not
I and is married to 7[17ann r_ Crnnrfol
'
whose xis residence is above set forth 3130 Groveland School Road, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
who of the age of 18 years or older, is under no l ega t incapacity
E] is not
I - -
' Signed ' -
Stephen D. Arundel
I Subscribed and s4n to bef0Te 26th
day F ruary 1996
MISTINE L. FRIEDERICHS
Not II NOTARYPUBLIC- MINNESOTA
He nnepi County inn. �� M Commission EwiresJan 31 2000
' My commission expire
' CC0451
Verslon 1.0 AFFID 8/94
HC 1007 (5/94)
State of Minnesota
County of Carver
Sven Arne Nasb
Affidavit of Purchaser of Registered band
being duly sworn on oath says that he makes this affidavit on behalf of
the purchaser(s) of REGISTERED (AND situated in Carver County, Minnesota.
The name of one of the purchasers is Sven Arne Nasberg
The purchaser resides at 3531 Maplewood Circle City of Chanhassen
County of Carver State of Minnesota Zip 55317
Xis
of the age of 18 years or older, is under no L egal incapacity
r7 is not
andis married to Arlene DeCandia
whose residence is above set forth
who Vis
of the age of 18 years or older, is under no legal i ncapae i ty
is not
0
Signed -
/
Sven Arne)wa&rg
Subscribed l ebruary worn to before me this
day of L KRISTINE 1. FRIEDEn^ICHS
NOTARY PUBLIC- MINNE "CH'
N tary Pub c, a pin nty,Mlnn. M yCammas�onExoiresJan 31 2000
My com ission expire
CC0451
Version 1.0 AFFID2 8194
' 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
NOTICE OF PUBLIC M M M M M M
' HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION ss
' MEETING s� eight ght 0
ar
Wednesday, MAY 1, 1996 t
ark
' at 7:00 p.m.
r
City Hall Council Chambers e�
690 Coulter Drive C0
' k
Project: Arundel Addition v
1
i
a �
Developer: Steve Arundel
��r o►L.
'
Location: 3531 Map lewood Circle
4rr<
r
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
' area. The applicant, Steve Arundel, is proposing a preliminary plat of Lot 5, Block 1,
Maplewood into two single family lots on property zoned RSF, and located at 3531 Maplewood
Circle, Arundel Addition.
' What Hap Meeting ens at the : The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about
g
the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the
' meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
' 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
' Questions or Comments If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City
Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact Sharmin at 937 -1900, ext. 120. If you choose to submit
' written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting.
Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
' Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager April 25, 1996.
David L. Obee
Stephen Spartz
Kenneth Durr
'
2060 Majestic Way
3670 Hwy. 7
4830 Westgate Road
,
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Excelsior, MN 55331
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8863
'
William & Vonnie Barnett
Daniel & Barbara Stoflet
Gerald & Janice Kruse
6321 Church Road
3502 Maplewood Circle
3510 Maplewood Circle
'
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
Excelsior, MN 55331
'
Terry Kathryn Sherwood
�' Y
Robert & Dianne Swearingen
g
William & Danielle Modell
3520 Maplewood Circle
3530 Maplewood Circle
3 521 Maplewood Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8886
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8886
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8886
'
Charles & Pamela Rienstra
Robert & Paula Crippa
Olive Schmierer
'
3511 Maplewood Circle
3503 Maplewood Circle
6341 Greenbriar
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8886 Excelsior, MN 55331 -8886 Excelsior, MN 55331 -8863 '
Claud & L. Johnson
Brian & Patricia McCarthy
Joel Mellenthin &
'
6331 Greenbriar
6311 Greenbriar
Katharine Kocina
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8863
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8863
6:301 Greenbriar
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8863
'
James & Elizabeth Thompson
Marvin & Patricia Onken
David & Donna Hoelke
6231 Greenbriar
6221 Greenbriar
3621 Ironwood Road
'
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8861
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8861
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8890
'
Thomas &Sharon Wright
Annalee M. Hanson
n
Steven & Judy Emmi g s
3611 Ironwood Road
6400 Greenbriar
6350 Greenbriar
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8890
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8864
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8862
'
,
Robert & Sally Hebeisen
Richard & Ann Zweig
Harlan Waterhouse
3607 Ironwood Rd.
3601 Ironwood Road
6321 Greenbriar
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8890
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8890
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8863'
C I '
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
areas. As Jeff pointed out, the residents are frequently input their feelings on this. I'd be
reluctant to approve an interim use for this site.
Mancino: Kevin.
Joyce: I basically agree with the other commissioners. I agree with Don. I feel that there's
some overkill out there with those boats and I'm real uncomfortable with all those boats being
out there and suddenly this is an issue a year after the fact. I appreciate the business and
economic issues to the applicant. I mean this is part of their business and they need to lease
that space but I'd have to say that I couldn't support it either unless there was some way of
working out a very, very specific methodology there of 1 or 2 boats and a certain time frame
but you know they've shown them now in the past that they just put boats out there regardless
of any sort of enforcement so I guess I'd have to say I'd deny it at this point.
Mancino: Okay, Ladd.
Conrad: Yeah, I think staffs report is right on the money. Nothing new to add. When we
put in highway business, we worked real closely over many years with the neighborhood. It
was real clear what we intended to do and it was not to put in a boat dealership there. It
obviously doesn't work. It just doesn't work there.
Mancino: My comments are not any different than those that were just previously said. It is
a neighborhood business district. The intent is in keeping it to serve the neighborhood, and I
do go over and frequent the shopping center quite a bit and it just doesn't seem, I agree, to
belong in a neighborhood district. So may I have a motion please.
Conrad: Can I just make one comment? ...a neighborhood business is not really a boat sales.
It's clearly not intended to sell boats. It's not. Yet there are some ways to make a center site,
even on a neighborhood level and a boat event on a weekend could do that so I'll end my
discussion with that.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion please.
Farmakes: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the interim
use permit based on the findings presented in the staff report dated April 17, 1996, 1 through
5.
Mancino: A second please.
Joyce: I'll second that.
6
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Mancino: All those in favor, oh. Any discussion?
Farmakes moved, Joyce seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
Interim Use Permit #96 -1 based on the following findings:
1. Outdoor display of boats for sale is not a permitted use in the BN District.
2. A boat dealership is inconsistent with the intent of the BN zoning district.
3. Boat sales are not an appropriate interim use at this location based on the purpose and
intent of interim uses as stated in the zoning ordinance.
4. Outdoor display of boats for sale is inconsistent with other uses in the 13N zoning
district.
5. The proposed use is aesthetically incompatible with adjoining land uses consisting of the
neighborhood oriented retail center and residential developments.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOT 5, BLOCK 1, MAPLEWOOD INTO TWO SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, AND LOCATED AT 3531 MAPLEWOOD
CIRCLE, ARUNDEL ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Robert Crippa
Pam & Chuck Rienstra
Bill & Danielle Modell
Paul Modell
Bob Hebeisen
Leo & Carole Breitman
Gerry Wenkus
Gary Peterson
Bob Swearengin
3503 Maplewood Circle
3511 Maplewood Circle
3521 Maplewood Circle
3441 Shore Drive
3607 Ironwood Road
8549 Ironwood Road
3531 Maplewood Circle
315 East Lake Street, Wayzata
3530 Maplewood Circle
10
f.
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
' Shmmin Al -Jaff and Dave Hempel presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: So Dave there would be a pond created on Lot 2.
Hempel: Part of Lot 2 and it would expand south into the neighboring property. Where it
exists today.
Mancino: Into the adjacent property. And will there still be, what I saw, will there still be
the pipe that goes down underneath?
Hempel: The pipe will remain as it is today. It may be necessary to extend that with the
construction of the house on the design of the house.
' Mancino: How much, I don't know how easy this is for you to show us but how many
people's property drain into this now? Now that we have Highway 7 and that re- routing,
' where is the water coming from? Where is most of the water coming from?
Hempel: Most of the water is coming from Lots 3, 4, 6 and 5. There may be some
additional from Lot 7 going through there. Plus all of the runoff from Maplewood Circle.
You have the front yards draining out to the street and going down through that property
today.
' Mancino: And what about the lots on Maplewood Circle that are north there that you didn't
p Y
' circle? Where do those drain?
Hempel: The front yards drain out to Maplewood Circle. The rear yards drain out back
' towards Highway 7.
Mancino: Okay. Any questions for Dave at this time?
' Joyce: I do have one question in regards to the water, holding water where you suggest there.
Is that going to be a condition in the recommendation or are you going to use that as kind of
' an incentive type thing?
Hempel: No. We're working with the applicant to acquire the easement for it and credit their
' SWMP fees in turn for the easement. We're not looking at constructing a pond at this time.
That would be at a later date.
Joyce: Would that be something we would look at as a condition?
I 11
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Mancino: When you saw at a later date, does that mean when the house is constructed on I
that lot?
Hempel: I think it has to do more with the capital improvements with the Surface Water '
Management Plan. I think it is outlined 5 years maybe down the plan. I'm not positive on
that but we can certainly check on it. It's not a high priority at this time, and adding one
additional house will not significantly increase runoff to the area. '
Skubic: Wouldn't it be more timely to put it in when the construction is going on on that lot?
Hempel: There's really not much construction other than sewer and water service into the ,
house. It's a little excessive to put that type of condition I believe...
Mancino: Because everybody's generating. '
Hempel: That's correct. It should be more of a public improvement project or a Surface I
Water Management Project.
Aanenson: Maybe just to add to what Dave is saying is that part of the stornn water '
management plan, we put together a long capital improvement plan identifying high priority
problem areas. As Dave indicated, this is on the program, it's just years down the road. As
Dave has stated that we don't believe that this is making the situation worst. We have '
identified that there needs to be some correction in there and we're programining into the long
term plans to fix it but we felt it would be onerous at this time to expect one person to solve
the problem when it's a little bit larger. But it is being programmed in the capital '
improvements.
Mancino: So it certainly adds to the problem. ,
Aanenson: No. I
Mancino: It won't take it away. Or are you telling me there's a net.
Hempel. There's an opportunity here to ... impact the current situation down there. '
Mancino: Thank you. Done with the staff report? I
Al -Jaffa I'm done. We're recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined
in the staff report. Thank you. I
12 1
'
Planning ommission Meeting - May 1 1996
g g Y
Mancino: Thank you. Does the applicant or their designee wish to address the Planning
Commission.
Gerry Wenkus: Good evening Madam Chair, commission members. My name is Gerry
Wenkus. My address is 3531 Maplewood Circle. The property being discussed tonight. I'm
here representing the current owners of the property, Steve Arundel and Arne Wasberg and as
stated, we're trying to do a subdivision for a future building site upon which I would possibly
construct another home. That's my business. I'm in the building business. I think that the
applicants would be receptive to the proposed drainage pond that Dave is talking about and I
' think currently the situation that we're in now, it seems to work quite well but I think Dave's
concerns were the water quality into the lake and I think that by enlarging it a little bit it will
create more of a sediment than carry out. But the amount of water going into that pond right
' now has been significantly reduced with Mr. Durr developing the property to the west. So if
there's any questions, I'm here to answer those.
' Mancino: Any questions? Thank you. May I have a motion to open the public hearing
please, and a second.
Mehl moved, Skubic seconded to open the public hewing. The public healing was opened.
Mancino: This is open for a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning
' Commission, please come up. State your name and address.
Charles Rienstra: Hi. My name's Charles Rienstra. I live at 3511 Maplewood Circle. I have
' a couple, a few concerns about the property that's been developed. I've lived in this area for
20 years. It was originally developed as 8 lots. Even the majority of the lots there have been
subdivided ...concerned about that continuing through the neighborhood. About the drainage.
I've been there 20 years. I've seen what drainage comes down there. Every lot there, 8 lots,
some part of them drain down that road. All the lots on the south side of the road, basically
the entire lot drains down there We get a half inch rain, there's a river down Maplewood
Circle. Until Gerry put that culvert in, and it wasn't a city put culvert, there were times in the
winter where it was a skating rink down there, where the water puddled. The runoff also
comes from Greenbriar. It comes across my back yard in the lots behind me drains towards
my house and then turns in the swales down in this property. I've seen it first hand. I'm not
an engineer but it doesn't take a scientist to know water goes downhill. And it's a problem. I
' think it's addressed properly and the concerns are met, I don't think they are to be handled but
I think it's a major problem that has to be addressed. The other thing, you have 8 lots there.
There's 31 licensed vehicles on that 8 lots, 3 boats and 4 dogs. They say it's not going to
' affect the traffic. It is. I sat Sunday, 13 cars, none of them belonging to Maplewood Circle
drove up and down that road in a 2 hour period. This is a dead end. Are we going to have a
' 13
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
problem with traffic? This is our access is going to be limited on that circle. I bring it up.
Snow removal is another point that's got to be brought up. It's a tight area down there. So
those are my basic concerns.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commiission.
Bill Modell: Hello. I'm Bill Modell. My wife Danielle. We live at 3521 Maplewood Circle
and.. just being here tonight that I have concerns about the proposed development. I'm the
closest resident that's most affected by this proposed development. I'm just to the east on Lot
6, right next to number 5. I have many personal concerns affecting my own property and I've
submitted a list which is in your staff report. She's got the pointer there on number 6. That's
my lot. One of my personal concerns is turn to your page in your staff report. There are
many. I'll make it as brief as possible. The key concern is the interruption of the natural
flow and the drainage of the storm water that runs around, down the street, through the
neighboring yard and my yard's the last one so what my concern is, if this is changed or
stopped up or if the natural flow is changed or lost in any way, what's going, to happen? Am
I going to have a wet basement? Things like that. Now my back yard now already has like a
creek almost, or just a low spot where all the water comes in the back yards and down into
the neighboring Lot 5. I'm concerned that there's going to be pooling of water—and then the
second concern.
Mancino: Excuse me. You did hear Mr. Hempel or Dave say that it shouldn't be any worse
than it is now?
Bill Modell: Right.
Mancino: And that it is a priority on the city's list.
Bill Modell: Sure.
Mancino: Now when that will actually come up to the top, we don't know. I mean I can't
answer that for you tonight.
Bill Modell: Well yeah, no. I understand that. What I thought I heard from. him is that
adding another house isn't going to add any more water or more drainage.
Mancino: More runoff.
1
LI
14 1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Bill Modell: Runoff towards the lake. What I'm concerned about is adding another house.
What's going to happen upstream. You know if we change things down there, how it's going
to affect the water that's running through this empty lot now.
Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I can address that at this point. Right now there is a house
on the lot. The drainage does go on the property line. The east property line. Until you get
' towards the southern part of the lot and then it does head westerly through the back portion of
the lot. When they built on that lot, one of the requirements in the conditions of approval is
that they submit a grading and drainage, erosion control, tree removal plan for staff to review
and approve prior to issuance of the building permit. At that time there's another opportunity
for us to assure that the drainage patterns for that neighborhood is maintained. That's another
reason why we suggested to push the house further to the west on the lot. Leave the eastern
part of the lot alone as it drains today.
Mancino: Could it possibly even be better?
' Hempel: It would not be any better.
' Mancino: It would not be any better, okay.
Bill Modell: Okay ... we can talk further on that but my second concern is where this proposed
' driveway would be getting access to the property. From what I see there, from what I've got
according to the city's staff report, it shows a driveway on or near the property line on the
eastern property line which abuts my property and I'm wondering about a couple things that
have to do with that as far as like when the snow removal goes on in the winter, where is the
snow going to go? Is it going to end up on my property? Is it going to make more trouble
out in the street where we already have problems when there's a significant snowfall. And
also it's a big concern because my bedroom window's like 30 feet from the property line and I
dust don't want a driveway there...
Mancino: Let me see if we can answer a couple of those questions. Sharmin, as far as the
private driveway goes back to that second lot that will be constructed, how far away from the
' Modell's property line does it need to be? Can it be right on the property line?
Al -Jaff: By ordinance it can go up to the property line.
Mancino: Okay. Does that mean the paving part?
Al -Jaff: Correct. There is a 30 foot wide easement. Most probably it will be in the middle.
1 15
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Hempel: Madam Chair, maybe I'll touch on that a little bit too. There is currently a storm
sewer pipe running along that easterly property line. We would recommend that the driveway
be shifted to the westerly portion of that 30 foot easement to maintain that storm sewer and
also maintain an overflow drainage swale should the water, we get an intense storm with
spring runoff and icy conditions, that the water has the capability of going over the curb and
following that property line back, as it does today. So we don't want to disturb that drainage
pattern that's out there today so we would recommend that the driveway be shifted to the
westerly point.
Mancino: At least 10 feet over?
Hempel: Right.
Mancino: To allow an easement.
Bill Modell: You're saying that would be 10 feet off the property line?
Mancino: Yes. It could go there. And you can certainly talk with the applicant and have
discussions with the applicant about where that does go.
Bill Modell: Okay. I guess another concern also that I stated in my list of concerns in the
staff report would be again noise from the driveway being on the bedroom side of my house
or on the sleeping areas. And also increased traffic flow, which my neighbor touched upon as
well. As far as how many cars are going to be coming past my house. That is a dead end
street and it gets plenty of traffic as well. Another big concern for my wife and I is we like
privacy in our back yard because this house, if you look at that picture would, that would...
my back yard and I have a very private back yard now and that was part of my reason for
purchasing the property and I was hoping it would stay that way. And now I didn't see this
coming. That's a key concern is privacy. There are ways that that can be addressed with
trees, with fences, that kind of stuff but I'd like... I guess I think all these different concerns
could lead to decreased property value, and it's not the money I care about you know
monetary wise. It's the neighborhood in general aesthetically. I don't think, you know I
guess if it was me in that house, I wouldn't want a driveway within you know, from me to
him from our front door and that's what, it brings that driveway over to the other side, it's
going to be cutting right through the front yard of this other house, which is virtually non-
existent or very small the way it is. The front of that house would be all driveway. And it's
like I say, from studying the staff report, this is some of my personal concerns. I mean
they're there. You can look at them but what I see from studying the staff report, it appears
to me that the city has a major concern with the drainage. They've addressed it. They've
addressed it in a large couple of paragraphs in the report and I think it's a problem and they
16
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
know it's going to be a problem and if it's not dealt with properly, you know it's going to be a
future problem. And what happens if they grant the ... working at the time but what happens in
a year or two when it does back up or something does go wrong. Where do I turn?
Mancino: What is the process Dave for that? If there has been construction and it's not,
something wasn't done correctly,
Hempel: It would revert back to the applicant to resolve the problem.
' Bill Modell: I guess in closing I just wanted to say that I do believe that the development
would have a very negative impact on the existing neighborhood because the neighborhood is
totally developed in my opinion and after hearing the concerns that I have, I hope that the
city and the neighborhood would support me in seeing that the approval of this development
be denied. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them right now.
' Joyce: I have a question, maybe for you Dave. You said a key point was the house looking
into your house. Isn't this area lower than the other homes on the other lots? I thought I read
in there that it's a few feet lower than most of the other.
Hempel: It's probably equal in elevation to the roe to the east as you continue. The
p p rtY Y
south part of the lot is lower but where the building pad is for this whole, and the type of
' home that would be constructed, I'm envisioning the house would be up a little bit higher.
Joyce: Okay but it's not, what I'm trying to say is equal to the other houses. Is it going to be
overlooking any house there now?
' Hempel: It depends on the house type. If they do a rambler. If they'd like a rambler
lookout, then they would elevate the homes somewhat.
' Joyce: I'm trying to remember how, I went out and looked at the site and I'm just thinking, it
felt to me it looked lower but you know I couldn't tell. Thank you. That's my only question.
Bill Modell: Anybody have any other questions? Okay, thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else?
' Paul Modell: My name is Paul Modell. I live at 3441 Shore Drive and the person you just
heard from is my son. Bill lives around the corner from me on Maplewood Circle. I'd like to
' refer to Bill and Danielle's property as the Modell property and of course the proposed as the
subject property. My understanding that the Modell property has 130 feet of frontage on
17
ri
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Maplewood Circle. It has one driveway. My understanding is that the subject property has
50 feet, or there abouts, on Maplewood Circle and it's proposed that that have two driveways.
I've been in the real estate business for 23 years. I helped Bill and Danielle find their house.
Searched it out and did the transaction... One of the major factors when they selected that
house. It was advertised with a large, private, wooded back yard. The whole block had large
lots and that's what they purchased. That's what we found three years ago and now less than
three years later, they're going to give up their entire privacy of their back yard. What Bill
was talking about with the house overlooking his house, it's not higher or lower or whatever.
The point is he has a private living room, dining room, kitchen, back yard. lvow we put a
house in his back yard. Essentially that's what it is. It's right next to his back yard. And
that house overlooks his formerly private yard and house. I can tell you from being in the
real estate business for 23 years that this will significantly reduce the value of the Modell
property, and I would propose to you that unless the developer is willing to look at a
significant dollar amount for that reduction, I strongly suggest that this proposal be denied.
Because the damages are significantly monetarily devaluing the Modell property. I'll be
happy to answer any questions.
Mancino: Thank you. Are there any questions? Dave, it isn't two driveways. It will be one
driveway with a cross access easement, correct?
Hempel: One driveway access point from the cul -de -sac, which is currently there.
Paul Modell: What about the driveway that's currently there? Are you talking about one
driveway will come off of the other driveway?
Hempel: That's correct.
Paul Modell: So the house in the back will drive, they'll drive right next to the existing
house?
Hempel: It will be like a Y. As you turn off the cul -de -sac and go into the driveway, the
existing driveway, there will be another driveway that Y's off to the left.
Mancino: So you'll either be able to go straight into the existing house or go left.
Paul Modell: I guess I wouldn't want to own either of those two properties...
Mancino: Thank you.
Paul Modell: Thank you.
18
1
L
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Bob Swearengin: My name is Bob Swearengin. I live at 3530 Maplewood Circle. Just to
the north of the proposed development. My neighbors have addressed the technical issues in
regards to the development of the property. I guess I'd like to address a different point of
view, and that's that a neighborhood isn't all technical specifications and setbacks and
requirements. There are other factors involved in what makes up a neighborhood. I think we
all purchased property in this neighborhood because of it's larger lots. Relatively low density.
We've all seen Chanhassen develop. I grew up here. I remember when Chanhassen was a
two lane highway and the farm store and Pauly's were the only thing on the street. I've seen
what the City Council and the Planning Commission has done to improve Chanhassen. I've
seen the development behind my property, which has made a drastic improvement from a
field to a very nice development. I've seen my grandfather's farmhouse support close to 400
houses, which is now Longacres. Chanhassen has become very prestigious and a welcome
place to live and I would like to see it stay that way. I'm not opposed to development. I
don't think any of us are. I think what we are concerned about though is, it's not our
neighbor anymore that is developing this house. He is no longer the one that owns that
property. This is another person that is going to come in and simply profit because there's an
extra piece of land available to subdivide. I would hope that the City Council could say there
are many places we have in Chanhassen to develop, but let us retain the quality in this
particular neighborhood and not maximize each parcel of land that's possible and retain what
we have in our neighborhood. And so I would hope the Council would vote no for this
proposal.
Mancino: Thank you.
Robert Crippa: My name's Robert Crippa. I live at 3501 and 3503 Maplewood Circle. I
have a duplex at that address. I have a few concerns. The number one is the drainage
problem. I am the one that is butted up against Greenbriar Avenue. Every time it rains, I see
the water come up Greenbriar, through my back yard and... He didn't say anything about the
back yard drainage off of Greenbriar Avenue. Off of the houses across the street on
Greenbriar, which are higher than us. I have had city crews, when they've been coming in
and repairing the streets, put tar to build up the road so that it won't wash down my yard. It
comes down and it takes all the pine needles with it.
Mancino: Robert, could you point to where your home is.
Robert Crippa: I own this parcel right here.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Robert Crippa: We get all the drainage from these lots. It comes right through here and
comes right through our back yards. My other concern is, I have three young children. The
people across the street have two young children. More cars coming down that road, we're
right at the tip where everybody turns in. They come around that corner pretty fast '
sometimes and my concern is, if there's two more vehicles, that's two more chances. There's
enough traffic on that road. The other concern is, hey. I have enough land. I can subdivide
and put up another house too. Do you want to see another house there? You know we all
own big lots. We could put, every one of us could put another house up. Is that what
Chanhassen wants? That's my concern. Thank you.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? May I have a motion to close the public hearing
please.
FwTnakes moved, Joyce seconded to close the public hewing. The public herring was closed. '
Mancino: Ladd. I
Conrad: Sharmin or Kate, basically what the applicant is asking for is legal.
Al -Jaff: Correct. It meets ordinance requirements. '
Conrad: For a private drive, are there any special requirements when we allow a private '
drive?
Al -Jaff: If you have more than one person, one household using the driveway, it has to be
built up to a 7 ton standard. Other than that, all we need is a 30 foot easement where the
driveway's going to go. '
Conrad: In terms of the invasion of privacy, we really don't have anything that protects that.
I did see in the staff report that we may have to take down some trees. That's significant. '
Al -Jaff: There are some spruce trees. There's one specific spruce tree that will go.
Conrad: But you didn't make an issue out of it so I'm assuming, and you're claiming it's not
an issue. That's tough. I understand what the neighbors are saying. I think on the other
hand, our role is to review this. I guess I've been looking for, my preference would be not to '
add a house there. Yet on the other hand it is legal. I don't know if I can give you anything
that's solid tonight to be honest with you. I think it's maybe another commissioner might see
something different than I but I think the staffs done it's job. I think what you'll find is that, I
what you've got is engineering looking at the issue and paying far more attention than you
20 1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
might have had otherwise. I think engineering staff certainly is looking at the major issues.
' We certainly, one house shouldn't make a major difference. I'm always concerned that we
don't delay water projects, especially if they impact the lake but as long as I know it's on our
task for making sure that all the area runoff is pre- treated, that's important. I agree with the
staff report. I just have a tough time dealing with this but I think the applicant has the right
to do this and it does affect privacy and I can relate to that. The only thing I'd like to do
with the staff report is make sure that we shift that driveway to the left as much as we can.
I'd really like to get it. I really don't like allowing private drives on that property line. It just
bothers me and maybe we should look at that sometime because that just really does seem
like an invasion of privacy. I don't like it. It's there. The neighbors are stuck with it but
maybe we, it won't help you out but maybe we can take a look at it for other people and see
if there's something we can do. So again I'd like to shift it. I think the staff report's good.
It's looking at the issues and if we make sure that the staff follows them up, it will protect it
as much as I think we can in the city.
Mancino: Kevin.
Joyce: Well I think the staff did a great job of addressing all the issues that the neighbors
brought up. I mean I think you did an excellent job. I think the drainage issue certainly has
been addressed. As Dave said, they're looking into a detailed grading, drainage, tree removal,
and erosion control plan so I think the city is certainly taking it seriously. It's not taking it
lightly. I think it's basically an aesthetic problem and listen, I can agree with you. I mean,
particularly the Modell's. They're going to be the ones, I think you're going to be the ones
' that are going to have the biggest impact because it's going to be right next to your property.
The rest of the neighborhood, you know I can accept the cars going through and things like
that but what Ladd said is right. I mean they have a right to, someone bought this property
and intended to use it for something. It's in the guidelines. I don't have anything else to add.
I just, I am concerned about the drainage issue but if they're comfortable not putting it in as a
part of the condition but that it will be looked at, and I think it will be, I'd be in favor of it.
Mancino: Bob.
' Skubic: Well I think staff dealt with the issues that they could. Drainage and the grading
and such and it's unfortunate that there is that invasion of privacy with the private drives so
close to the adjacent land and we've encountered this in the past. I can recall two or three
' occasions and I agree with Ladd that that's something that we should probably take a look at.
I have a question, what is the subdivision potential of the other lots on Maplewood Circle
here in regards to traffic? Future traffic congestion.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Aanenson: How the other lots could be subdivided in the future? A lot of it depends on the
home placement of the lots. Whether or not you could get the common driveway. I think
Ladd's right on the mark as far as the private driveway issue. You have to realize that staff
struggled with this application for several months. When it first came in there was a lot of
discussion as to how it could be, whether or not we even could support it but our hands were
tied as we worked a lot closer with the City Attorney's office and based on the fact that he
could do a private driveway, which is allowed by ordinance, it did allow it. Again this is the
largest lot in the subdivision. It's well over an acre and as you look over time, that's what
we're seeing subdividing. The pressures for taxes become onerous for some people and they
have an acre and a half and an opportunity to subdivide. Certainly this is an. issue we
struggled with because it does change the character of the neighborhood, whiich we are
concerned about. But there is an opportunity, the minimum lot size is 15,000 and people
have enough to meet the standards of the ordinance. They have that opportunity. I think
based on the discussion we're hearing tonight, that you would like the staff to revisit the
private driveway issue and see what other opportunities to prevent this sort of situation. But I
think based on the fact that because it is a large lot and we see that all the time, the pressures
to subdivide are great based on financial reasons. So there may be other opportunities maybe
just look at it just a broad brush approach to see. It depends on how the house is sitting on
the lot, whether or not you can get other driveways. The neighbors have indicated that's not
always the most desirable if you're going to split, to have a driveway come closer. But that
doesn't mean people can't... common one down between two lots where they're set back
further ... but you raise a good point.
Skubic: Yeah, I don't have the basis to deny this or vote against this application.
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: Pretty much everything's been covered here. We've seen this issue several times
when older developments come into play with someone who wishes to either finance
development through subdivision or we get into the issue of buffering next to a higher density
development next to a larger lot development. There's no solution for this outside of where
our ordinances are, and we have to follow what is legal. The property owner's entitled to
legally develop their property. Chanhassen does not have a large lot, single family resident
zone. We have a minimum development that is required in this city as far as square footage
goes on the lot. In fact there are a lot of forces both in the city and outside the city to reduce
that even further and a lot of times neighborhoods come in where there's larger lots are in
place and they talk about that they've lived here for a considerable length of time and having
lived here for a considerable length of time myself, it's true. There is an ... there's a feeling
that is not in some of the smaller lot developments and I think it's unfortunate that there is no
recourse for that but that's simply the way that it's set up. We have looked at that. There is
22
n
L
r
r
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
' no support that I know of for large lot minimums, as a separate zone. And it is the only way
that that issue would ever be tackled. We have I think a record out there, if we look at some
of these older urban areas from Minneapolis to Edina to Minnetonka to Eden Prairie.
' Eventually all these lots get subdivided because eventually what happens is that somebody
comes in to purchase the property and uses that subdivision capability to finance the purchase.
And eventually areas are just maximized out for that development under what the minimums
' are. There's always exceptions to the rule but primarily if you look around, that's what
happens.
' Mancino: Eventually.
Farmakes: Eventually. And as planners we have to look at the long term development
' situation and we also have to deny or approve based on what the city's ordinances are and I
don't see any way to not approve this. That's it.
' Mancino: Don.
Mehl: I agree with what's been discussed here. They definitely have a right to develop it.
' One major concern I've got is that the street and circle does slope quite heavily down toward
that end. Down toward that property and there's a potential for a lot of water to go down
there. And the thing I'd be concerned about is the, well I support the driveway being shifted
' to the west. The driveway's certainly going to perhaps be raised some more so that the
immediate grassy areas, so the water then may be channeled into a tighter, smaller area or
something. I guess I'd be concerned that the drainage problem be worked out, not so it
' should work but it will work. If that can be done. You know so the city and the developer
and the applicant can work that out.
' Mancino: Will work that out. Okay, thank you. I have a question about the private drive.
You say a 30 foot private drive with 20 feet has to be paved because it's serving two houses.
' Oh, excuse me.
Hempel: Sorry Madam Chair. The private driveway, the common portion of the private
' driveway would have to be 20 foot wide. The remaining portion of the driveway could be on
up to I believe probably 10 feet.
' Mancino: Oh good. So as you go into the existing house, you're going straight and then
when you bear off to the left, that left arm could be 10 feet so it doesn't have to take down as
many trees. Doesn't have to, it can be even go over to the west even more. Great. Good.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Hempel: Madam Chair, that's a minimum of 10 feet. I guess it's typically up to a builder
Homeowner. Standard driveway width's probably 14 or 15.
Mancino: 14 or 15 feet, okay. And that would still, one of the other questions that was
asked was, it would still give enough room for snow removal, etc on each side of the
driveway. Correct Dave?
Hempel: With the driveway being shifted westerly and reduced in width, yes.
Mancino: Okay. Are there trees that need to be added to this development, and could they
be added in a place that would serve the new lot and the existing homeowner to have some
privacy. Could we have the trees placed there so that we do have a little bit of buffering, a
little bit of privacy provided?
Al -Jaff: It's all going to depend on how many trees they take down after they finish
development of the site. That's when we will.
Mancino: Assess how many trees. At this point did you make a general calculation
Sharmin?
Al -Jaff: Correct. Yes we did.
Mancino: Isn't it, was it 2 trees?
Al -Jaff: The requirement is 55 %. The tree removal and the house would take approximately
28 %. So it leaves 52 %. So the developer will be required to replace 3% difference.
Mancino: And we could say in our conditions that any other trees that are taken out, that
those be placed so that they can buffer or make it be the adjoining property?
Al -Jaff We can require that.
Mancino: Okay,
Al -Jaff: There is a drainage way in that area also so we need to make sure that it...
Mancino: Okay. Okay, I understand. Anything that we can do there, I would like to see the
applicant do so there could be some natural buffering.
Aanenson: I think that's probably the best way to word it. Leave it so we can work with it.
24
r
1
L
J
11
L
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
Mancino: So we can work with that. This will continue happening in areas like this, correct.
Sad. It's hard.
Aanenson: You're going to see a lot more of it, yeah.
Mancino: And it's legal and it's what we do and it is going to continue happening over the
city and that's too bad. Do I have a motion?
Conrad: Yeah, I'd make the motion Madam Chairman that the Planning Commission
recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision 996 -7, according to the staff
report dated May 1, 1996 with the 13 points listed in the staff report but with addition to
point number 4 that the driveway be shifted to the west a minimum of 10 feet or that
recommended by the staff. Moving the private drive to the west from the property line. My
other, I want to add, it won't be a point but it will be a strongly worded statement to the
applicant that the city's Planning Commission strongly recommends that the applicant work
with the staff to minimize the visual impact to the property to the east through whatever
means possible and I think they should do this just in terms of being a good neighbor and I
would hope that staff could work with the applicant on this aspect of the recommendation.
Mancino: And you did not want to make that a point in the conditions?
Conrad: Well I just don't know how to do that. It's not legal. It's not, I just would like it
there but I don't know that we can force it to happen.
Mancino: Okay. Do you accept a friendly amendment to item 14 that says at this point, the
applicant must plant two trees on a new lot to meet ordinance requirements and I would just
like to add to say, to reword that to say the applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to
meet city, to meet ordinance requirements and to add buffering to the lot on the east. To Lot
6. I didn't say that very well.
Conrad: Boy, I couldn't figure that out.
Aanenson: The way I understand it is, if we worked to place those strategically so they
provide the best buffering. If we can't put it in that area because of the drainage Swale, that
we work to provide the best screenage for the neighboring property. Whether it's so you can't
see into their living room or their back yard, whatever we work to strategically place that tree,
is that what you're looking for?
Mancino: Exactly.
25
J
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
C
Aanenson: Provide the best screening. '
Mancino: So can you say that in 5 words or less?
Aanenson: And place trees in a way to maximize screening to the properties; to the east. '
Mancino: To the abutting property to the east. '
Conrad: Yeah, I would accept it. That's in addition to what point Madam Chair?
Mancino: 14. ,
Conrad: 14. And maybe staff could note that we have two 13's on the page. I
Mancino: Is there a second?
Skubic: Second.
1
Mancino: Any discussion? '
Conrad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the '
preliminary plat for Subdivision #96 -7, Arundel Addition for two single family lots as shown
on the plans dated April 3, 1996, prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., subject to the
following conditions: '
1. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping reforestation plan on
the site. The landscaping plan shall include trees to be planted. A snow fence shall be '
placed along the edge of the trees showing grading limits prior to grading.
1 The proposed development of 0.63 developable acres shall be responsible for water ,
quality and quantity connection charge of $1,751.00. These fees are payable to the city
prior to the city filing the final plat. Credits may be applied to this fee for dedication of
additional drainage easements for ponding needs on Lot 2, Block 1. '
3. The applicant shall report to the city engineer the location of any drain tiles found
during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the city '
engineer.
4. The application will be responsible for all street restoration and storm sewer ,
modifications that result in providing the driveway to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow
26
1
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
' 11. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Comply with Chanhassen Dire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992
' Premise identification (copy enclosed).
12. Park and Recreation conditions:
' a. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land, in accordance with City Code.
I 13. The existing shed on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the plat.
A demolition permit will be required.
I 14. The applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to meet ordinance requirements, and
place the bees in a way to maximize screening to the properties to the east.
' 27
I
with the city $2,500.00 in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
street restoration and storm sewer maintenance. The applicant shall dedicate on the final
plat a drainage and utility easement along the easterly 20 feet of Lots 1 and 2 and along
the southerly 20 feet of Lot 2. The driveway shall be shifted westerly as far as possible
'
per the staff's approval.
'
5.
Individual grading, drainage, tree preservation and erosion control plans will be required
for each lot at the time of building permit application for the city to review and approve.
'
6.
Construction of the sewer and water system for Lot 2 shall adhere to plumbing code
Section 4715.243. Lot 2 will require an ejector system to serve the house with sanitary
sewer.
'
7.
An emergency overflow swale shall be constructed adjacent to the driveway of Lot 2 to
maintain drainage from Maplewood Circle.
'
8.
Lot 2 shall be subject to a hook -up fee in accordance with city codes. The connection
fee will be waived assuming the applicant extends sewer and water from Maplewood
'
Circle to the property line.
9.
Cross access or driveway easement and maintenance agreement shall be prepared and
recorded with the final plat to guarantee ingress and egress through Lot 1.
'
10.
The applicant shall work with city staff in negotiating an additional drainage easement
Lot 2 for future
on storm water pond.
' 11. Fire Marshal conditions:
a. Comply with Chanhassen Dire Department/Fire Prevention Policy No. 29 -1992
' Premise identification (copy enclosed).
12. Park and Recreation conditions:
' a. Park and trail fees shall be paid in lieu of land, in accordance with City Code.
I 13. The existing shed on proposed Lot 2 shall be removed prior to the recording of the plat.
A demolition permit will be required.
I 14. The applicant must plant two trees on the new lot to meet ordinance requirements, and
place the bees in a way to maximize screening to the properties to the east.
' 27
I
Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 1996
15. The applicant must attempt to locate home in between the 30" ash and silver maple.
Tree preservation fencing must be installed prior to grading. Fencing must be installed
at the grading perimeters.
All voted in favor and the motion carned.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved, Mehl seconded to note the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated April 17, 1996 as presented.
CITY COUNCIL UPDATE:
Aanenson: There were light items on as far as planning issues. Just to update you.
Southwest Metro is working on a transit hub located on Highway 5 between Prairie Center
Drive and what will be the new alignment of Technology Drive. They did present those
plans to the City Council. Since we are one of the partners, along with Edert Prairie and
Chaska in Southwest Metro, Sharmin is active in working on, that's one of the areas that we'll
be looking at putting some housing. We're working with Carver County HRA to do a
housing project there so it'd be the transit hub, some commercial and some houses so we're
working on the design of that. Just wanted to let you know that even though it's in Eden
Prairie, that we're pursuing some hopefully some creative designs on that piece of property to
meet some of our housing goals. Then the other thing, there was a planning issue on that
Council meeting was the wetland alteration permit and then I have quite a few ongoing items
I'd like to update you on.
ONGOING ITEMS:
Aanenson: The Masse request, which was the property off of Lyman and Galpin which was
requesting for the multi- family project, has been withdrawn based on the recommendation
from the Planning Commission. So it will not go to the Council. In that same vein, Mr.
Hoben has withdrawn his application on his subdivision too.
Mancino: On Melody Hill?
Aanenson: Correct. Yes, he withdrew the application. Other ongoing items. Met Council
held a meeting out here regarding the growth options. There's three different options. I'll be
providing a report to the Council and also I'll include that to you. There were three different
options in that same vein. The builders commissioned their own study to present, kind of
lobbying their position on that. Obviously one of the positions is to not extend the MUSA.
What that does is, what they're trying to do is create more infill and when you can see the
pressures of some of that is to provide, where we do have a lot of large lots, is to provide
28
J