9.5. Ted Slathar, 8508 Great Plains Blvd: Preliminary and Final Plat.CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
STAFF REPORT
PC DATE: 2/21/96
CC DATE: 4/8/96
CASE #: 93 -3 SUB
By: Rask:v
�Z
a
, J
Q
n
PROPOSAL: Preliminary and final plat approval to subdivide 1.22 into two (2) single family lots,
and a variance from Section 18 -57(o) to allow a ten (10) foot private street, Slathar
Addition
LOCATION: 8508 Great Plains Blvd. The property is located on the west side of Great Plains
Blvd.
APPLICANT: Ted Slathar Owner: Don Slathar
4425 Chatsworth 8508 Great Plains Blvd.
Shoreview, MN 55126 Chanhassen, MN 55317
486 -7015 492 -3239
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential Action by city
0
ACREAGE: 1.22 acres
DENSITY: 1.64 units per acre Date—
Date Submitted to Commissio
ADJACENT ZONING 4- L� � L
AND LAND USE: N - Lake Susan, RD - Recreational Development Qa'e Sob .'Ited to Council
S - RSF, Residential Single Family, Future Highway 2 "
E - PUD, Planned Unit Development, Mission Hills
W - RSF, Residential Single Family
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the property.
PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The lot has approximately 70 feet of lake frontage. A number o
pine trees are located on the eastern end of the lot with a variety o
trees along the bluff. A single family home is currently located ne
the center of the lot.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density
Slathar Addition
' April 8, 1996
Page 2
' PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
The original preliminary plat submitted by the applicant contained three lots. All three lots met the
' minimum lot area and width requirements, but two lots exceeded the maximum impervious surface
coverage of 25 %. The location of the private street across the lots made it impossible to construct a
reasonable sized home without exceeding the imperious surface requirement. Creating three lots
' from the existing parcel would have caused extensive tree removal on the property. Adjoining
property owners also expressed concern regarding the number of proposed lots and the impacts it
would have on the neighborhood. The Planning Commission tabled the application and requested
' that the applicant revise the plat to conform with applicable City Code. In addition, the
Commission requested that the applicant work with staff to reduce the width of the private street
from 20 feet to a width that would allow for preservation of the trees along the existing driveway,
while maintaining adequate access for public safety vehicles. Revised plans were submitted to the
Planning Commission showing two lots with a 10 foot wide private street. By a unanimous vote,
' the Commission recommended approval of the subdivision as revised by the applicant. The
Commission emphasized that approval of the variance was recommended in order to preserve the
trees which serve as a significant buffer for the existing residence as well as neighboring properties.
' PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide an existing 1.22 acre parcel into
two lots. Both lots meet the minimum width, depth, area, and impervious surface requirements of
the zoning and subdivision regulations. Lots 1 and 2 are 33,272 and 20,003 square feet,
' respectively. Lot 2 is a riparian lot and contains approximately 70 feet of lake frontage. The
applicant is proposing to construct a ten (10) foot wide driveway located in a 20 foot easement
along the easterly property line. Discussion has occurred between the applicant, neighbors, and
' staff concerning the use of a shared private driveway to serve the Slathar property and the future
subdivision of the Gilman property. At this time, it does not appear that an agreement can be
reached among the property owners concerning a shared access. A shared private street would
eliminate an access point onto Great Plains Blvd., reduce costs to both residents, and would provide
access for the future subdivision of the Gilman property.
' Staff examined the feasibility of locating a public street to provide access for the future subdivision
of the parcels along Great Plains Blvd. Due to the shallow lot depths, narrow parcels, location of
' the lake, and the future status of Great Plains Blvd. as a frontage road, a public street is not feasible.
A public street would provide little benefit because a limited number of homes could be served by
the short cul -de -sac. Therefore, individual private streets appear to be the most feasible alternative
in providing for future access and subdivision of these lots located between Great Plains and Lake
Susan.
Slathar Addition
April 8, 1996
Page 3
Staff recommends that the preliminary plat be approved for two lots subject to the conditions
provided in the staff report. The common section of the private street would need to meet the
private street standards, with the exception of the driveway width which may be 10 feet.
BACKGROUND
The 1.22 acre lot is an unplatted parcel of land located along Lake Susan. The majority of parcels
along this section of the lakeshore are unplatted and have subdivision potential. In 1992, a lot split
occurred on a parcel to the north. A 1.5 acre parcel owned by Eugene Klein was subdivided into
two lots. Both lots were riparian lots which had adequate street frontage. The lot depth did not
allow for fiu they subdivision beyond the two lots.
STREETS /ACCESS
The revised plans propose on utilizing the existing 10 -foot wide driveway. Given the relatively
close proximity to Trunk Highway 101 and the driveway serving only two homes, the City's Fire
Marshal is comfortable with deviating from the private driveway requirement of a 20 -foot wide
driveway. Staff recommends that the driveway be paved. A cross access easement will be
necessary for ingress and egress to Lot 2.
The preliminary plat dedicates the southerly 31+ feet of the parcel for street right -of -way (Great
Plains Boulevard /Trunk Highway 101). No additional right -of -way is required. When Trunk
Highway 101 is upgraded the existing Trunk Highway 101 will be used as a frontage road to
service the site. Traffic concerns at that time will diminish somewhat.
LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION
Based on information provided by the applicant, existing canopy coverage is 27,234 square feet, or
51 percent coverage of the site. Remaining coverage after development will be 24,113 square feet,
or 45 percent coverage. The required canopy coverage for a low density development is 35 percent.
Therefore, no replacement plantings are required.
The significant trees on Lot 2 appear to be outside of the construction limits. However, a proposed
sanitary sewer service will dissect the rear yard and sever the roots of several trees. The applicant
will be required to submit a tree removal plan showing proposed tree protection fencing.
The Planning Commission requested that staff inventory the trees located along the existing
driveway which are being preserved by reducing the driveway width. Approximately 44 trees are
located along the existing driveway and within the buffer on the south end of the lot. These trees
consist of a mix of Blue Spruce, White Fir, Red Pine, and Norway Spruces.
7
L
n
r
r
L
LI
11
Slathar Addition
April 8, 1996
Page 4
GRADING
With the elimination of one lot, even less grading is needed to prepare the site for development.
The existing gravel driveway is proposed to be ten feet wide to avoid impacting the existing
trees. An individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required
by the City with the building permit application for Lot 2.
I DRAINAGE
The site basically sheet drains in each direction. Only a minimal increase in runoff is anticipated
with the additional impervious surface from rooftops and driveways. Due to the small size of the
development, no storm drainage improvements are recommended except for drainage swales
around the home on Lot 2 to direct runoff from the driveway. The existing neighborhood
drainage pattern will be maintained as it exists today.
' The City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) does not propose any storm drainage
improvements on the site. Therefore, the applicant shall be responsible for the applicable storm
water quality and quantity connection fees. Based on single - family development, the water
' quality connection fee is $800 per acre and $1,980 per acre for water quantity. The SWMP does
exclude existing homes or developments from these fees. Therefore, Lot 1 is exempt from the
Surface Water Management fees. Applying the single - family development rate to the remaining
' 0.46 acres (Lot 2) equates to $368 for the water quality connection charge and $911 for the water
quantity connection charge. These fees are payable to the City prior to recording of the final plat.
' UTILITIES
Municipal utility service is available to the site. A 12 -inch water line exists along the east side of
' Great Plains Boulevard (Trunk Highway 101). One water service has already been extended
across Great Plains Boulevard to the property line for the existing house. One additional water
line will need to be extended to service Lot 2. Due to the great distance between Lot 2 and the
t existing watermain, a 1'/4 -inch or 1' /2 -inch diameter water line will be necessary. Extension of
the water service will require a permit from MnDOT for work within the Trunk Highway 101
' right -of -way.
The existing residence is connected to sanitary sewer but not City water. The home still utilizes
' a well system. This well may be continued to be used until the well fails, then the well must be
abandoned in accordance with City and State Health Department codes and the existing home
connected to City water.
Slathar Addition
April 8, 1996
Page 5
A 12 -inch sanitary sewer trunk line runs along the west lot line of Lot 2. The plans propose on
extending a second sewer line from the existing trunk line to service the future home. Plumbing
Code does not allow for shared private sanitary lines. The new lot (2) will be subject to hook -up
and connection charges for connecting to the City's sewer and water systems. These fees are
paid at time of building permit issuance. Currently, connection charges are $7,000 per unit and
hook -up charges are $1,050 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,375 for a water permit.
COMPLIANCE TABLE
BLOCK
LOT
AREA (SQ. FT.)
FRONTAGE
DEPTH
1
1
33,272
153
308
1
2
20,003
103
240
FINDINGS
1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Findinz: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single
Family District.
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 are suitable for the proposed development;
Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report. Further, reducing the impervious surface will improve the
quantity and quality of storm water drainage.
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;
J
J
J
' Slathar Addition
' April 8, 1996
Page 6
' Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure and
the necessary conditions added to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
' 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to
' conditions if approved. The site contains a wooded bluff along the shoreline.
Minimum setback from the bluff shall be maintained. Vegetation removal shall be
prohibited in this area.
' 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.
A private drive will provide access to the interior lot. The subdivision meets the
necessary conditions for the use of a private street.
Section 18 -57(o) states that private streets may serve up to four (4) lots in the RSF
district if the city finds the following conditions to exist:
' 1. The prevailing development pattern makes in 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 reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the
public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area,
' improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
Slathar Addition
April 8, 1996
Page 7
3. The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's
natural resources including wetlands and forested areas.
Finding: Staff finds that the prevailing development pattern and the size of the lots makes it
inappropriate to construct a public street. A public street system is not required to serve other
parcels in the area or improve access. In addition, the use of a private street will permit enhanced
protection of the city's natural resources. Staff recommends approval of a driveway variance to
permit a ten (10) foot driveway to further allow for the protection of trees.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the preliminary and final plat for two lots (SUB #96 -3), Slathar
Addition, and a variance from Section 18 -57 (o) Private Street Standards subject to the plans dated
April 2, 1996 and the following conditions:
1. An individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan will be required by the
City with the building permit application for Lot 2.
2. No more than two (2) homes shall be served by the ten (10) foot wide private street unless
approved by the City Council.
3. The existing dwelling on Lot 1 may continue to use the well until the well system fails. At
that time the well must be properly abandoned in accordance with City and State Health
Department codes and the existing home then connected to city water.
4. The existing pines along Trunk Highway 101 shall be trimmed back to improve sight lines.
The existing driveway shall be paved to a width of 10 feet. Cross - access and maintenance
agreements will need to be prepared and recorded against the lots.
5. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the amount in
force at the time of building permit application.
6. The applicant shall comply with the conditions recommended by the DNR as stated in the letter
from Joe Richter dated February 7, 1996.
7. The applicant shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and water quantity connection
charges in the amount of $368 and $911, respectively. These fees are payable to the City
prior to recording the final plat.
0
' Slathar Addition
April 8, 1996
Page 8
I 8. Lot 2 will be subject to a sanitary sewer and water hook -up and connection charges in
accordance with current city ordinance at time of building permit issuance."
I ATTACHMENTS:
L
1.
Planning Commission minutes dated March 6, 1996
2.
Planning Commission minutes dated February 21, 1996
3.
Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer dated February 28, 1996
4.
Memo from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer dated February 13, 1996
5.
Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated February 8, 1996
'
6.
7.
Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated January 26, 1996
Memo from Joe Richter, DNR Hydrologist dated February 7, 1996
8.
Application from Ted Slather dated January 18, 1996
9. Letter from George Gilman dated February 13, 1996
10. Letter from Brad and Carol Willmsen dated February 19, 1996
7.
Preliminary and final plat dated April 2, 1996.
L
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 6, 1996
Chairwoman Mancino called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nancy Mancino, Bob Skubic, Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Mike
Meyers, Don Mehl, and Jeff Farmakes
MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Planner II; Sharmin
Al -Jaff, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.22 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 10' PRIVATE DRIVE LOCATED ON
PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 8508
GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, TED SLATHAR, SLATHAR ADDITION
John Rask presented the staff report.
Mancino: Thank you. Do any commissioners have a question of staff at this point? Okay,
thank you. Mr. Slathar, do you wish to come up?
Ted Slathar: I don't have much to add except that, that's our main concern too is to save the
trees, along with the neighbors and I believe the city's. And we'd like to do that... variance.
We planted those trees ... The other thing that I'd like to suggest, if I could is, in our last
meeting the sewer was an issue. Putting it next to the Gilman's house and we put a sewer
line right with the existing house, about 2 years ago we put in a sewer line that is on the west
side of the property and if it would be possible, we'd like to gust connect that sewer line with
the Lot 1. And that would take care of any problems that might happen with the foundation
or the other concerns that you have.
Mancino: Okay. I think that is addressed on, I don't know if it's a condition but it is
addressed on page 6 of our staff report which says the 12 inch sanitary sewer trunk line runs
along the west lot line of Lot 2. The plans propose on extending two sewer services from the
existing trunk line to service Lots 1 and 2. Is that correct Dave?
Hempel: Partially. The existing sewer service to the existing home, I'm not quite sure where
that runs through the property. I thought it went right through the middle of the property. I
guess it would have to be relocated when the new house is built to Lot 2.
n
I I
I Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1996
Ted Slathar: It's more on the west end Dave. It's, well if you can see on, it follows west
' under the house. Then straight down to there. So on this side, it comes off of this corner
Dave and then goes down.
' Hempel: I believe the building department codes also require separate sewer services for each
home because that's on a smaller sized pipe and it probably is capable of one residence only
on it but I could verify that with the building department.
' Ted Slathar: Would it be ossible Dave t
p o make a pipe, or use a bigger pipe to service both?
' Hempel: Again, I'd have to check with the building codes. They do require separate service
for each home, but there may be some exceptions.
Ted Slathar: At any rate, if we could put that on the west side, that would at least clear up a
few problems.
' Mancino: Of getting too close to the Gilman home and the foundation of the home. Okay.
We can certainly put that in as a condition that the applicant will work with staff to locate
' that sewer line and make sure that it can be, it can travel on the west side if at all possible.
Ted Slathar: If you want it on the east side, that's fine too...
' Mancino: Thank you. Can we have a motion to open for a public hearing please?
' Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to open the public healing. The public healing was
opened.
' Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue? Seeing none,
may I have a motion to close the public hearing?
' Farmakes moved, Peterson seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was
closed.
' Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Craig.
' Peterson: I think that the direction that we gave the applicant at the last meeting was
adequately addressed. I think it certainly does minimize the number of trees...last time so I'm
very comfortable with the plan as it stands.
' Mancino: Okay, thank you. Ladd.
2
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1996
Conrad: No, nothing. Looks fine. Much better than the last time in.
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: Nothing to add.
Skubic: Nothing to add.
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: It's fine.
Mancino: Don.
Mehl: I have nothing to add either. I support the staff recommendation.
Mancino: I do too. I have nothing to add. May I have a motion please?
Peterson: I'd make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend the approval of the
preliminary plat for two lots, Subdivision #96 -3, Slathar Addition and a variance from Section
18 -57, private street standard subject to the plans dated February 28, 1996 and the conditions
1 through 11 with the additional condition that staff look into the viability of connecting the
sewer line on the west edge of the existing home and sharing the same sewer system.
Mancino: Is there a second?
Skubic: I'll second it.
Mancino: Thank you. Discussion.
Skubic: Staff has...
Mancino: Right, question for you. Are you suggesting that we, that the motion is for the
revised conditions of approval?
Peterson: Correct.
Mancino: Dated March 6, 1996. That includes 12 conditions and then you're adding a 13th?
Peterson: 13th.
C
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1996
Mancino: Okay. May I have a second for that friendly amendment?
' Meyer: I'll second that.
' Peterson moved, Meyer seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the
preliminary plat for two lots (Sub #96 -3), Slathar Addition, and a variance from Section 18-
57(o), Private Street Standards, subject to the plans dated February 28, 1996, and the
' following conditions:
1. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required by
' the City with building permit application for Lot 2.
' 2. No more than two (2) homes shall be served by the ten (10) foot wide private street.
The driveway may be expanded to twenty feet in the future to provide access to other
parcels subject to city ordinances and approval.
' 3. The applicant shall prepare a development plan prior to final plat consideration. The
development plan shall indicate the building type, and lowest floor, top of block and
' garage floor elevations for each lot.
4. The exact alignment of the sanitary sewer service for Lot 1 (existing home) shall be
determined in the field. The applicant shall then prepare a private easement agreement
for the sanitary sewer and water lines which encroach each lot.
I 5. The applicant shall provide a private driveway easement over the northerly 20 feet of
Lot 1 for access to Lot 2.
L
6. The existing dwelling on Lot 1 may continue to use the well until the well system fails.
At that time the well must be properly abandoned in accordance with City and State
Health Department codes and the existing home then connected to city water.
7. The existing pines along Trunk Highway 101 shall be trimmed back to improve sight
lines. The existing driveway shall be paved. Cross - access and maintenance agreements
will need to be prepared and recorded against the lots.
8. Full park and trail fees shall be paid at the time of building permit approval in the
amount in force at the time of building permit application.
9. The applicant shall comply with the conditions recommended by the DNR as stated in
the letter from Joe Richter dated February 7, 1996.
4
r
Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 1996
10. The applicant shall be responsible for SWMP water quality and water quantity
connection charges in the amount of $368 and $911, respectively. These fees are
payable to the city prior to recording the final plat.
11. Lot 2 will be subject to a sanitary sewer hook -up and connection charge and water
connection and hook -up charges in accordance with current city ordinance at time of
building permit issuance.
12. Lot 2 will be subject to a sanitary sewer hook -up and connection charge and water
connection and hook -up charges in accordance with current city ordinance at time of
building permit issuance.
13. That staff look into the viability of connecting the sewer line on the west edge of the
existing home and sharing the same sewer system.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL OF A RETAIL BUILDING OF 8,321 SO
FT. AND A PARKING LOT SETBACK. VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD, AND
LOCATED ON LOTS 2 AND 3, BLOCK 1, MARKET SQUARE, MARKET SQUARE 3
PARTNERS, INC., AMCON CORPORATION
Shminin Al -Jaff presented the staff repoit on this item.
Mancino: So were you able to work with the applicant during this last two weeks on the
sign? And where the signs go on the frontage? I mean one of the things was we asked for
the applicant to work with staff on this.
AI -Jaff: One of the concerns that we have is if we allowed a variance on the signage to add
more than two facias of signage on the building, then we have the potential of Wendy's
coming in and requesting signage on a third side. The same could happen with the Edina
Realty's building, and that's what we're trying to avoid.
Mancino: So the other Market Square I, II, the other additions.
Al -Jaff: Could come in and request.
Mancino: But right now they are all following the PUD.
5
1
n
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
7
' PUBLIC HEARING:
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.22 ACRES INTO 3 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS LOCATED ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
' FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 8508 GREAT PLAINS BLVD, TED SLATHAR, SLATHAR
ADDITION.
i
Public Present:
Name Address
Pam B.
Don Slathar
Brad Willmsen
George Gilman
Ted & Tris Slathar
Wayne Hultman
Al Klingelhutz
Norm Grant
8508 Great Plains Blvd.
8508 Great Plains Blvd.
8510 Great Plains Blvd.
8506 Great Plains Blvd.
4425 Chatsworth, Shoreview
8524 Great Plains Blvd.
8600 Great Plains Blvd.
9021 Lake Riley Blvd.
John Rask presented the staff repot on this item.
Mancino: This sounds as if there's three lots right now, that if it goes, if the applicant is not
going with two lots, that we may want to see that back and how the lots are split up and what
can be done with the private road at that time. Is the applicant here? Do you wish to, thank
you.
' Ted Slathar: My name is Ted Slathar and we're willing to comply with staffs
recommendations. We'd like to, our main concern is to save as many trees and I think
everybody's concern is that, to save as many trees as we can so we'd like to divide it to where
the lot closest to the lakeshore and the parcel and lot... So we'd go with staffs
recommendation on...
n
Mancino: On what?
Ted Slathar: On this.
Mancino: On that specific division, okay. Any other comments on the staff report?
Ted Slathar: No. I think that John did a lot better job of presenting this than I could. He
handled everything, covered everything and we're willing to comply with everything...
13
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Mancino: And I take it the property has been in your family for some time.
Ted Slathar: Yes, for over 30 years.
Mancino: Thank you.
Thank you very much
please.
� I
Any commissioners have any questions for the applicant at this time? '
May I have a motion to open this, and a second, for a public hearing
Fwtnakes moved, Meyei° seconded to open the public hewing. The public healing was
opened.
Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission at this time, please do.
Please state your name and address.
George Gilman: I'm George Gilman, 8506 Great Plains Blvd. Right next to the Slathar
development, or proposed development. My main concern is, if this driveway is put in 20
feet wide starting down ... is about 5 -6 mature pine trees. They're 30 -40 feet high. If the
Slathar's agree to go back to 2 lots, which I think they're giving up a lot. Personally I hate
seeing anything develop but I didn't make the laws and I got to go along with it. I would
suggest that the driveway be left alone, the way it is right now... I measured it out last night.
There's 25 feet from my property coming over to the center of the trunk of the trees. The
trees could be trimmed up a little bit. The branches and leave the driveway the way it is...
blacktop it. Raised it on my side that would keep the water on their side and drain it out
towards TH 101. What also could be looked at, if I were to develop in the future, which I
don't have any plans for it right now but if development proceeds, sooner or later I'm going to
be forced to do it or sell it to somebody that's going to do it. My land, or the new driveway
for my development could be pushed against that driveway and if more houses were built in
there, I mean there'd be a wider driveway. I know there's concerns for fire trucks getting in
there. If somebody had to get in, if they had a fire truck, knock down my fence if they have
to. That really doesn't stop a fire truck from getting where they are. It's hard to get up and
talk on this because I'm not developing right now and if I were doing a development I'd want
three lots on there. The lot on the lake is worth the money. The way I look at development
costs, you throw away one lot to pay for what the city wants in there. I like to be fair to my
neighbors also and state that here. I could be standing here 3 years from now begging for
three lots and I don't like ... but it's going to happen. And I didn't buy with that intention. But
I would suggest not cutting those trees. I won't object to the driveway coming up against my
driveway. It's that way right now and one more house in there, it's not going to bother me. I
don't want to see more trees come out of there than what have to. That's about it.
14
L
J
I Planning ommission Meeting - February 21 1996
g g �' >
Mancino: Okay. Thank you for your comments and your letter also. Anyone else wishing to
address the Planning Commission?
' Brad Willmsen: My name is Brad Willmsen. I live at 8510 Great Plains Boulevard, adjacent
to the proposed development. I'd just like to ask if the survey that was used for this
development is recent or current. I understand there's some disagreements as to where the
property lines, where they are along the lake and ... how current that survey is.
Mancino: Bob, what does the city, John. Thank you. I mean how do we know that it's a
' legitimate survey?
Rask: Well in this case, we were aware that there has been some disputes. I don't know if
' there is on this particular lot or not. The survey was prepared by a registered surveyor in the
State. What happens is it becomes more of a civil matter between the two. The city's in no
position to settle a dispute amongst property owners in this situation. If it doesn't line up,
they may have problems recording the plat in each case. If it changes significantly, it could
have to come back through.
' Mancino: Then it comes back and goes through.
Rask: If it's a few inches here or there, I don't think we'd have to go through the preliminary
' plat. Maybe just do an administrative subdivision to settle it so it is something though that
the property owners would have to work out amongst themselves.
' Mancino: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, may I have a motion and a second
to close the public hearing please.
' Meyer moved, Faimakes seconded to close the public healing. The public healing was
closed.
' Mancino: Before we start with commissioners, well I'll wait. Don.
' Mehl: I support the two lot concept. The one that was just shown up there on the overhead.
It just looks like it's balanced better. And I support whichever one will result in the fewest
trees being removed. I understand that that is the one that will take the fewest trees or am I
' wrong?
Mancino: Will that take less trees? It certainly won't on the way coming into the driveway.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Rask: Yeah, you'll lose some more from the driveway. It's kind of hard to tell at this point.
You would lose a lot of the, if it's a 20 foot driveway, you would lose all of these pines
pretty much. You're going to lose a few for the placement of the house pad and the grading
of the house pad. If you move the property line back to here to try to put a house in here,
you're going to lose almost all the pines and I believe there are some oaks there so it's hard to
say. You're going to lose them either way. It's just which trees have to go. This one you do
preserve that buffer along TH 101, which is kind of a nice amenity right now. With this one,
because of the bluff, the setback requirement from the top of the bluff, in our current
ordinances they would not be allowed to remove vegetation in that area so those trees would
be preserved along the shoreline there. So it's hard to say which one's worst but they both
have pros and cons.
Mancino: And we can certainly off the suggestion of a variance for the driveway being 20
feet also. I mean there are different options, and just have two houses.
Mehl: Yeah, I would support that concept. I like the buffer of TH 101 being maintained if
we can.
Mancino: Jeff.
Farmakes: No further comments. I'm for the staffs recommendation.
Mancino: Bob.
Skubic: I have a question of John. If we approve the two lot plat here, would the applicant
still be able to divide the, further subdivide in the future?
Rask: Yeah. They would still be over on that impervious surface requirement so, I wouldn't
say no. If they went in a combined development with one of the adjoining neighbors where
they shared access or something, it could be possible that in the future they would get one
more lot. But at this time, no. They would not be able to further subdivide.
Skubic: Unless they got a variance.
Aanenson: Unless they got some relief from the ordinance, correct.
Skubic: Thank you. I have nothing further to add.
Mancino: Mike. Craig.
16
r
C
L
'
Planning ommission Meeting -
g February 21, 1996
1
' Peterson: John, if you could put up the slide again. I guess I'm a little confused as to where
the, if we do two lots, where the pads...
' Rask: Yeah. On this one the house pad would remain as shown on the lake lot. On the
riparian lot there and then this is the existing home so the home, these two lots would be
combined so the home would sit on this larger lot here. The other option here, again these
' are all, we're trying to preserve the existing home. This would be a lot. You could possibly
shift this house pad further to the north to make it fit in there better but we're still pretty
limited because of the setback, as far as where they could go and then the existing house
' would sit on Lot 2 here which would be all of this so there would be nothing additional
between the house and the lake. So you just move this one up slightly.
' Peterson: Are you recommending the first or are you recommending the change?
Rask: I guess staff really didn't have a preference. They both meet ordinance requirements.
' I think the applicant has indicated his preference would be the additional lake lot. As far as
we're concerned, they both meet ordinance requirements. The impact as far as tree removal
are similar.
L
I
LJ
Peterson: I guess if I had to approve one or the other, I guess I would have a tendency to
approve the first one that the rest of the commissioners spoke of so no further questions.
Mancino: Okay. I'd actually like to see this come back. I'd like to see it come back with
some of the details worked out and that would be the two lots and I also concur with the
applicant, with the Lots 1 and 2. With the front lot, the first lot be the one that has the
existing building and the existing home and the second one be the one on the lakeshore. I'd
like to see something worked out so we can save the trees. Not only on TH 101 but on the
driveway because there's about 120 feet of mature coniferous trees there that add greatly to
that lot and I'd like to see some way that we could keep the driveway existing and not make
it wider. And if we do, I don't know what the width of the driveway is. I think it's
approximately 10 feet and go 10 or 12 feet but we have given other variances to existing
driveways in areas like this and there's only two homes off of it so I'd like to see staff work
with the applicant and with Public Safety so we can work something out. And whether that
even has to work with the property owner on the east, Mr. Gilman so that if there is an
emergency, that something can be worked out to go over that private driveway too. So I'd
like to see that come back. I'd also like to know where, if we have the two lots, where the
driveway for that second lot will go. Whether it will go next to Gilman's. Whether it will
cut and go a little west and enter that second lot. I'd like to see it pulled away from the
Gilman property if possible and save those trees there. I have a question that Mr. Gilman
wrote in his letter to us and one of it was having to do with the sewer line that's coming up
17
Planning Commission Meeting o February 21, 1996
from Lot 2 that will come up. And he had a question about when you go to dig the sewer
line, the compaction of the soils, will that be next to his property line because his home is 18
inches on the east side of the property line. Will there be any repercussions from that? From
you know, to his foundation of his home, etc.
Hempel: That's a good question. The sewer line would go along the north property line,
probably 8 to 10 feet off the north property line.
Mancino: To the east or the west?
Hempel: Well I would prefer to the east I guess.
George Gilman: How deep?
Hempel: Well it probably would be in the range of 8 to 10 feet deep at that point. There's
construction techniques such as a box to use to try and shorten or keep the width of that
trench as narrow as possible, could be one technique. Compaction though would be, usually
they use a mechanical vibrating hamper through there that will send some foundations through
a foundation and so forth of adjacent structures so.
Mancino: So what precautions does the city normally use?
Hempel: Well, I don't know if the city uses any in this instance here but the contractor doing
the particular work should be aware of the situation. I guess I would advise the homeowner
adjacent to the property to document the foundation condition of their home with pictures or
videotape to show that there has been damage caused if
Mancino: And at that time, can't the city kind of facilitate a meeting between the, whoever's
putting the sewer in and the homeowner on the east.
Hempel: Sure we could explain.
Mancino: To make sure they know what's going on and when it's going to happen and how
it's going to be. I think that'd be a good idea. Anyway, those are my comments. I'd kind of
like to see it come back and see what's really going to happen there once the two lots are
created and where the driveway is and what trees will be saved and if we can make sure that
the driveway is paved for the length that it needs to be but it stays the same width. The
existing width that it is now. May I have a motion?
18
J
n
L
r
r
11
I I
L
1
j
Planning Commission Meeting - February 21, 1996
Meyer: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends tabling the preliminary
plat for Subdivision #96 -3, Slathar Addition.
Mancino: And do we need to state or articulate any reasons for the tabling?
Rask: No. I think it's pretty clear.
Mancino: Is there a second to the motion?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion of the motion?
Meyer moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat for
Subdivision 996 -3, Slathar Addition for further review. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT A SECOND WALL MOUNTED SIGN LOCATED ON
PROPERTY ZONED BH, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT AND LOCATED NORTH OF
HWY 5, EAST OF MARKET BLVD ON WEST 79TH STREET, TIRES PLUS GROUPE,
INC.
Public Present:
Name Address
' Jim Dimond
Ron Fiscus
r
8609 Lyndale Avenue So., Bloomington
Yaggy, Colby Associates, Rochester, MN
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Mancino: Thank you John. Is the applicant here?
Ron Fiscus: It's been a while. A bit of history on this. Originally Tires Plus had an option
on the parcel of property across... recommended Tires Plus. Tires Plus originally... piece of
property across West 79th Street from this site where we're currently going and elected to
move to another site on the encouragement of the city administrative staff. A couple of
reasons for that. One was that they, the site that the HRA owned in this location had a
portion of wetlands on it. The site that Tires Plus had optioned had wetlands on it but had
19
C
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Rask, Planner I
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official
DATE: February 8, 1996
SUBJECT: 96 -3 SUB (Slather Addition, Ted Slather)
I was asked to review the site plan proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN,
RECEIVED, JAN 19 1996, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT." for the above referenced
project.
I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time.
g:.\safety\sak4n emos\p lan\slathe r.doc
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO:
John Rask, Planner I
FROM:
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
DATE:
January 26, 1996
SUBJ: Plat approval for subdivision - Slather Addition
Ted Slather, 8508 Great Plains Boulevard
Planning Case: 96 -3 SUB.
I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance /policy
requirements. The site plan review is based on the available information submitted at this time. As
additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed.
1. The proposed 20 foot wide paved driveway must be given a street name. Submit street
name to the Fire Marshal for approval.
ML:eb
g: /safety /m1/P1an96.3
S OF
U�J � Z Q) ' TQ
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES U�J
METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106
PHONE N0. 772 -7910
February 7, 1996
Mr. John Rask, Planner I
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Ivity 553
FILE NO.
RE: Slather Addition, Lake Susan (10 -13P), City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City
#96 -3 SUB)
Dear Mr. Rask:
We have reviewed the site plans (received January 26, 1996) for the Slather Addition (SW1 /4 SW1/4
Section 13, TI 16N, R23W) at 8508 Great Plains Boulevard and have the following comments to
offer:
Lake Susan, a Public Water (10 -13P), is on the proposed site. The applicant should be aware
that activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of 881.8' (NGVD, 1929) for
Lake Susan, that alters the bed of the lake, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may
require a DNR permit.
2. The OHW of 881.8' (NGVD, 1929) for Lake Susan (10 -13P) should be noted on the plat.
Since Section 20- 47- 9(c)(4) of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requires that only land
above the OHW shall be used to meet the lot area standards, and lot width standards must be
met at the OHW and the building line, the location of the OHW should be shown on plats.
Although it is the top of bluff setback that is most restrictive in this case, the OHW location
is also needed to verify structure setbacks are met.
The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. If a stormsewer
is proposed for the subdivision, then the water should be treated before it is released to Lake
Susan. If the stormwater will flow overland to Lake Susan, then the vegetation within the
shore impact zone should be left natural and unmowed. The unmowed vegetation will act as
a filter that will remove most of the pollutants from the stormwater.
4. A FEMA designated floodplain exists for Lake Susan. While it appears that the structures
will not be within the 100 -year floodplain of Lake Susan, the City should be sure that the
applicant is aware of the applicable floodplain regulations of both the City and Jh�.. F,
Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. _ r.
FEB 0 8 1996
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CiH10H'S
1�
L
r
L
u
J
Mr. John Rask
February 7, 1996
Page 2
5. Lake Susan has a shoreland classification of Recreational Development. The shoreland
district extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be consistent with City
shoreland management regulations. In particular:
1 s
L
a. A bluff occurs close to Lake Susan. The homeowner should be informed that Section
20482 of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requires bluffs to be undisturbed and
structures to be placed at least 30' from the top of the bluff.
b. Section 20 -482, subdivision b2 of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requires the
retention of vegetation and topography in a natural state in the bluff impact zone. The
bluff impact zone is an area within 20' of the top of the bluff.
C. Section 20485A of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requires impervious surface
to cover less than 25% of the area of each lot. Although we did not use a planimeter,
it appears that the impervious surfaces on each of the lots may cover more than 25%
of the lot surface. We recommend that impervious surfaces be minimized to avoid
increasing negative impacts that the development may have on Lake Susan.
d. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Lake Susan
using topography, existing vegetation, color, landscaping and other means approved
by the city.
e. It appears that the riparian lot includes land that is below the OHW of Lake Susan.
In general, we are against platting of land below the OHW of Public Waters due to
the land's unsuitability for residential use. We recommend that the lot lines be
adjusted to allow all of the lots to meet the size requirements without platting land
that is below the OHW of Lake Susan.
The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments:
a. Appropriate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period.
The guidelines within "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas - Best Management
Practices for Minnesota" or their equivalent should be used.
b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million
gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It
typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application.
C. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must
apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan
Sullivan @ 296 - 7203).
Mr. John Rask
February 7, 1996
Page 2
d. The comments in this letter address DNR - Division of Waters jurisdictional matters
and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack
thereof for a particular project.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 772 -7910 should you have any
questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
a Joe Richter
Hydrologist
JR/cds
c: Robert Obermeyer, Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
Gary Elftmann, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
City of Chanhassen Shoreland File
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
I TELEPHONE (Daytime) - 70 / 5
1
r
OWNER:
OlD/1
�l�,�li eup
_ Vacation of ROW /Easements
Interim Use Permit
ADDRESS:
�� g
L
,2S
&'4'
z
TELEPHONE: q G I 2 `
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 /Attorney Cost **
($50 CUP /SPR/VACNAR/WAP /Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
Subdivision*
TOTAL FEE $
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
' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
r
PROJECT NAME LLar
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE f; 35 -5
WETLANDS PRESENT YES _ , NO
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
r
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 I
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. I
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.
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.
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.
Signa ure of Applica9t-
Sionature of Fee Owner
/ - A q6
Date
Date
� eV
Application Received on _ _ Fee Paid 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.
L
7 3
c`
v
'J
1 f
s'
Q
i
ee-<-:o c6
no
�•7.,�t_!! h � c�v-- �:��;' .� -�L-C 0?iL�•�t u cacP/ -�-c :JC- ; v -.�-L•
� l
1 .
l .--�- P
6 /
��.�,,� a ►-�-� `tom. �itti -- .�t9 G -�t� c �cv� , �- u. -<.. t -�.��
1
CY !L
-� "�, �';Li7J"C'1•�.2i �R�t ✓ ItL��V`�'�� - /,� .�� �l/' .�j -•�,. ✓��tti.-
r
`� , �� _J�-
�- <��Z ./�f�L� � / Lem- .- �`��n� .�i.•� �y��.� i -'�--
CW
tom- /tf'Z�7_�t t_s•CL�ytsuo - -�� Cr/L��
/
jj
Ante
PA-
1
February 19, 1996
City of Chanhassen
PI anning Commission
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Ted Slather Development
As a concerned property owner living next to the above named
proposed development, I would like to submit a couple of
concerns and comments.
1. Trying to put three lots on that piece of property
seems like it would be over- crowded and would
definitely take away from the beauty and value of the
properties around it. Most of us are living there because
of the beauty of nature and the seclusion that the big
beautiful lots provide for the neighborhood. We would
like to see the neighborhood stay as it is.
If this proposed development does pass approval then we would
like to make sure the following things as considered.
1. All property line disputes be settled now, with the
developer supplying a new (current) survey.
2. City should verify plan - that all dimensions are
correct, all codes and regulations that apply are met.
As adjacent property owners, we do not want disputes
to come up with new purchasers as lots are sold.
I
Brad and Carol Willmsen
8510 Great Plains Blvd.
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1
I
i
i
C