5. Preliminary and Final Plat Request to Subdivide, 6225 Ridge Road, James and Karen MeyersCITY OF
y CHANBASSEN
Single Family Residential, RSF
STAFF REPORT
1 -
PROPOSAL: Preliminary and final plat request to subdivide 6.24 acres into four lots with a
1 variance from Section 18.57(o) to permit more than four (4) homes to be served
by a private drive, Meyer 2nd Addition
Iz
Q LOCATION: 6225 Ridge Road, Lot 2, Block 1, Meyer's Addition, and Parcel 1 which contains
1 V the Meyer Home.
J
APPLICANT: Carl Zinn Owner: James and Karen Meyer
1 Q... 5820 Ridge Rd. 6225 Ridge Road
Q Shorewood, MN 55331 Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 470 -2534 470 -5431
1 PRESENT ZONING:
' ACREAGE:
' DENSITY:
�a
Iw
1 �n
6.24 acres
.64 units /acre
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N -
S-
E-
W-
WATER AND SEWER:
PC DATE: 8/2/95 5 —
CC DATE: 8/28/95
CASE #: 95 -16 SUB
By: Rask:v
Actbd by City Administrator
Podiler
Ramon
Date 9
Bate Submitted to Commission
Data Submitted to Council
Residential, City of Shorewood 9-
RSF, single family homes
PUD -R, open space /park
RSF, single family homes & Christmas Lake
Available to the site
I
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site currently contains one single family home ( Meyer's
residence), a cabin, and a detached shed/garage. The eastern 1/3
of the property is heavily wooded, with sparsely scattered trees
throughout the remainder of the lot. The lot slopes from west to
east.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4.0 units /acre)
!Lff_A N D
ZWIJ
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
Page 2
I
PROPOSAL /SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to subdivide 6.24 acres into four lots. The subdivision will create four
lots from the existing two. In conjunction with the subdivision, the applicant is requesting a
variance from Section 18.57(0), private street standards, which allows no more than four (4)
homes to be serviced by a private driveway. The application, as submitted, does not dedicate any
right -of -way or provide for any improvements to the existing private street.
The four lots average approximately 1.56 acres and range in size from 47,891 square feet (1.10
acres) to 96,017 square feet (2.20 acres). All lots meet the minimum width, depth, and area
requirements of the zoning ordinance. Minimum lot area for a RSF, Residential Zoning District,
is 15,000 square feet. Proposed Lots 3 and 4 are a replat of Lot 2, Block 1, Meyer's Addition,
and proposed Lots 1 and 2 are a subdivision of an existing parcel which contains the Meyer
residence. The existing cabin and shed /garage would be removed to accommodate the proposed
building pad on Lot 3.
Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision and variance request subject to the conditions
of the staff report. It should be noted that staff continues to recommend that Ridge Road be
upgraded to city standards and that an emergency vehicle turnaround be provided.
BACKGROUND
Ridge Road was created in the early 1930's by the owners of the property on the east shore of
Christmas Lake and the west shore of Silver Lake. It consists of a series of easements which
provide access to the various parcels. Ridge Road is approximately one mile long. The north
.8 miles is located in the City of Shorewood with the remaining .2 miles located in the City of
Chanhassen. The road is blocked with a chain gate at the city limits between Shorewood and
Chanhassen.
In November 1978, the city approved the Meyers Addition ( #78 -12 SUB) creating three lots on
the east side of Ridge Road. As part of subdivision approval, a variance to the subdivision
requirement for lots to front on dedicated public streets was approved. The subdivision included
two additional lots south of the Meyer residence. Lot 1 of the original subdivision contains a
single family home which was constructed in July, 1993. Lot 2 is currently vacant and is
proposed to be replatted into two lots as part of the current subdivision request ( #95 -16 SUB).
In January 1981, the city approved the Edwards Addition ( #80 -5 SUB), creating two lots on the
west side of Ridge Road. As part of the subdivision approval, a variance to the subdivision
requirement for lots to front on dedicated public streets was approved. The concern at the time
' was to have an assurance that the lots would be able to access the private drive in perpetuity.
It was also believed that Ridge Road would remain a private street.
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
Page 3
In March 1990, the city amended the subdivision regulations through Ordinance Number 125 to
provide the standards for private driveways that exist in the code today. These standards were
established to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare by assuring to the maximum
extent feasible that all properties would be accessible for public safety vehicles. The use of
private driveways to access up to four properties was contingent on the city making the following
findings:
1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible 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 geographical 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.
3. The use of the private driveway will enhance protection of wetlands and mature trees.
In March 1994, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a variance (Variance 94 -1), for
Patrick Cunningham from Section 18 -57(0) to allow two additional points of access onto Ridge
Road. The applicant applied for and received a variance prior to requesting preliminary and final
plat approval to address the private street issue before incurring the costs of a preliminary plat
and the associated surveying and engineering fees. On January 23, 1995, the City Council
approved the preliminary and final plat for Cunningham Estates (Sub 94 -20), creating three lots.
ANALYSIS
The Meyer property and the other properties along Ridge Road are served by a substandard
private street. Under current ordinance, common sections of a private street in a RSF district
must be built to a seven -ton design, paved to a width of twenty (20) feet, utilize a maximum
grade of ten (10) percent, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based
upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Ridge Road is between twelve (12) and
sixteen (16) feet wide and does not have adequate turnaround area. A road width of twelve feet
permits only one vehicle at a time to use the road. Traffic passing in opposite directions is
difficult and may be impossible in many instances. In addition, the overgrowth of trees and
brush reduces the width of the roadway. These deficiencies in the private street presents a
potential safety hazard to residents who access their property on Ridge Road. The variance from
the private street standards, as proposed, would increase congestion on the street and negatively
impact fire and/or public safety.
Private streets may be permitted by ordinance if the city finds the following conditions to exist:
1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
Page 4
public street. In making this determination the city may consider the location of existing
property lines and homes, local or geographical conditions and the existence of wetlands.
r
1
u
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.
3. The use of the private driveway will enhance protection of wetlands and mature trees.
Prevailing development patterns would make it infeasible and inappropriate to construct a public
street at this time. Property line and home locations, as well as the location of trees along the
roadway would make it difficult to upgrade the road to urban street standards. Ridge Road
currently provides access for eleven properties (eight homes and three undeveloped lots). If this
subdivision is approved, another two homes would be permitted to use this private street.
Because of the number of homes, a narrow road width, and lack of turnaround area,
improvements need to be made to the existing private street in order to address public safety
concerns.
Location of bluffs, the existing home, tree preservation easements, wetlands, and proposed
building pads eliminates the possibility for future subdivision along Ridge Road. This also holds
true for the other lots located along Ridge Road. If this subdivision and variance are approved,
thirteen (13) homes would be the maximum and total number of homes served by Ridge Road.
Staff is recommending that a variance be granted to allow a total of thirteen (13) homes to be
served by the private street, provided the street is upgraded to the private driveway ordinance
standards including a turnaround, and that parking is prohibited on both sides of the street.
STREETS /ACCESS
Access to the site is from Ridge Road which is a private street. City ordinance prohibits more
than four homes on a private street. If this development receives approval, there will be a total
of 13 homes on the private street. There is also no turnaround at the end of the road (city
limits). A chain gate exists to restrict through traffic to and from the City of Shorewood.
' A standard development would be required to dedicate one -half of the 60 -foot wide street right -
of -way and constructing the street to urban standards (31 -foot wide, back -to -back, with concrete
curb and gutters). The street currently exists as a 12 to 16 -foot wide bituminous surface with
' no storm drainage improvements. This development proposal is very similar to the Cunningham
subdivision directly across the street. In that proposal, the City required the developer grant a
' permanent easement for public right -of -way purposes at no cost to the City. The easement
becomes effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge Road).
The City does allow for private streets to serve more than four homes in higher density land uses
iLj
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
Page 5
such as multi - family R -8 and R -12 land uses. However, the streets are basically constructed to
City standards with the exception of roadway width. Roadway width would be a minimum of
24 feet wide with parking prohibited. Staff is concerned with the storm sewer runoff and
providing acceptable turnaround for public safety vehicles with this development proposal. Since
Ridge Road is and probably will remain a private street, the applicant should obtain and convey
the necessary cross - access /driveway maintenance agreement for the new lots to gain ingress and
egress along Ridge Road. The street should also be posted No Parking to permit adequate room
for traffic to pass.
Staff still contends that the street should be upgraded to city urban standards, however, due to
the existing development pattern, this may not be feasible given the close proximity of existing
homes. In order to satisfy public safety concerns, the street should be upgraded to the private
driveway ordinance including a turnaround and prohibit parking on both sides of the street.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water lines are located in Ridge Road and along the rear of the parcels
adjacent the wetland to service this development. The sanitary sewer in Ridge Road is relatively
shallow, approximately 10 feet deep. The applicant and/or builder shall verify the sanitary sewer
elevation in Ridge Road prior to constructing any homes. Due to the sewer elevation this may
require relocating the homes further up the hill closer to Ridge Road. Another option would be
to extend a service up the hill from the line located adjacent the wetland. This route would
require additional tree removal and slope disruption. The new lots may be responsible for hook
up and connection charges ($2,425 and $7,000) depending on previous assessment history.
LANDSCAPING /TREE PRESERVATION
Canopy calculations for the site have been performed. Estimated coverage is 55% (3.4 acres).
Minimum canopy coverage to be maintained according to ordinance is 35% (2.2 acres). Tree
removal due to development is .64 acres, leaving 2.76 acres or 44 %. The proposed subdivision
is within the tree removal limitations of city ordinance and therefore will not have to provide
replacement plantings. The applicant will be required to provide one tree in the front yard
setback area if one does not already exist.
Trees and wooded areas are scattered throughout the site with the major concentration of trees
occurring along the eastern edge of the property. Construction of homes will mainly impact the
western and central portions of the site. In order to protect the trees and the wooded nature of
the eastern edge, staff recommends a tree conservation area be established on the easterly 135
feet of Lot 3 and the easterly 200 feet of Lot 4. To further reduce construction impact on the
woods, staff recommends the building pad on Lot 3 be pulled 30 feet to the west. This would
lessen the amount of grading done in the wooded area.
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
Page 6
Two trees of special interest exist on Lot 1, a 36 inch multi- stemmed maple and a 36 inch oak.
The oak is scheduled to be removed as part of the grading for the house and the maple will be
heavily impacted by the driveway that will be constructed less than 5 feet away. Staff
recommends the driveway be moved to the north side of the lot in order to reduce or eliminate
construction damage to the maple. Presently it is unknown whether or not the oak could be
saved. The only possible alternative appears to be relocation of the home closer to the road.
This would potentially reduce the need for grading east of the building pad close to the tree. The
applicant may suggest other possible alternatives.
LAKES AND WETLANDS.
It appears that the only wetland on or near this plat is the wetland associated with Silver Lake.
Silver Lake is a Department of Natural Resource protected water (27- 136P). The ordinary high
water (OHW) elevation of Silver Lake is 898.1 feet and the wetland borders this elevation. The
OHW should be marked on the grading plan. The property is considered riparian to Silver Lake,
and therefore, the shoreland district extends 1,000 feet from the OHW of 898.1 feet. The
development must be consistent with Chanhassen's shoreland management regulations.
Staff requires that a qualified wetland biologist survey the property for wetlands and write a brief
' letter verifying the existence or non - existence and impacts, if any, of wetlands on site. If there
are wetlands on -site they must be staked, surveyed, and included on the grading plan and plat
map.
Buffer Strip
The City of Chanhassen has a wetland ordinance protecting wetlands from alteration. There is
also a buffer strip requirement associated with the protection of each particular wetland. If the
wetland is natural, the buffer strip width is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20
feet. If the wetland is ag /urban, the buffer strip width is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average
width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback from any wetland is 40 feet measured from the
outside edge of the buffer strip.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN f SWMPI
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect,
preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm
water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and
minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. The water quantity portion of the plan uses
a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer
piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for
predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has
been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore,
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
Page 7
different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum
phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
Storm Water Quality and Associated Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based
on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment
of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond
construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of
$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City's SWMP proposes one regional water
quality pond for this site area. The best location for the regional water quality pond is on the
property to the south along the edge of the wetland bordering Silver Lake. The proposed SWMP
water quality charge is $800 /acre for single- family residential developments, and therefore, this
development will be responsible for approximately 6.55 acres of developable land or $5,240.
Storm Water Quantity and Associated Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable
acre. The total developable area of the property is 6.55 acres. Therefore, the proposed
development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $12,969.
DRAINAGE
The property drains east down steep wooded slopes and bluffs in the southern part. The
northerly portion of the lot contains vegetated steep slopes before discharging into Silver Lake.
Three additional building sites are proposed with this development. Staff believes detailed
grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans should be submitted to the City for
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The plans should address roof and
driveway runoff by designing a plan to dissipate the stormwater over a large area. This will
allow for the natural infiltration of some of the runoff. The rest of the runoff will be filtered
through the property and the wetland before entering Silver Lake.
Ridge Road does not have a storm drainage system. The roadway carries the runoff southerly
to the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Ridge Road. With new home construction
occurring, this road has been a source of erosion in the past. There are no storm sewer facilities
in Ridge Road or Pleasant View Road to accommodate the runoff. The City's Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a future water quality treatment pond at the southerly end
of the wetland complex adjacent to Silver Lake (east of Ridge Road/north of Pleasant View
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
' Page 8
Road) to pretreat approximately 12 acres. This area includes the drainage from these proposed
lots. As a result of this subdivision, staff does not believe the increased amount of runoff from
this subdivision will adversely impact the wetlands. Staff is concerned about the runoff from
Ridge Road and believe storm drainage improvements may be warranted with or without this
' development. At this time, Ridge Road is not upgraded to city urban standards (concrete curb
and gutter and storm sewers). Staff recommends the applicant pay the applicable SWMP
connection fees in lieu of constructing any of the downstream stormwater improvements as
' outlined in the SWMP.
GRADING
' The preliminary grading plan proposes only minimal grading to prepare the driveways and house
pads. To further reduce grading impacts, staff recommends moving the house pads up (west) the
hill closer to Ridge Road on Lots 3 and 4. The final grading plan should show erosion control
measures and the plan signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
EROSION CONTROL,
An erosion control plan needs to be incorporated into the final grading plan and submitted to city
' staff for review and approval. Staff recommends erosion control fence be used at the grading
limits at the top of the slope. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and
mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall
' be sodded and staked or restored with wood -fiber blanket.
COMPLIANCE TABLE,
BLOCK I LOT I AREA (SQ. FT) I FRONTAGE I DEPTH
1 1 47,981 100' 380'
1 2 96,017 351' 408'
1 3 66,182 155'
1 4 61,706 152'
TOTAL 271,886
FINDINGS
' 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance;
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
Page 9
Findine: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential
Single Family District, provided that the existing private street is upgraded to
urban standards.
2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans
including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan;
Findine: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans, including
the City's Comprehensive Plan.
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;
Findine: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions
specified in this report.
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;
Findine: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure
subject to the conditions specified in this report.
5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage;
Findine: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject
to conditions if approved.
6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record.
Findine: 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.
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
Page 10
Findina: The proposed subdivision is not premature provided that improvements
are made to the existing private street. Adequate access would consist of a public
street built to city standards or upgrading existing Ridge Road to a twenty foot
pavement width.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE.
' On August 16, 1995, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the preliminary
plat request for the Meyer's 2nd Addition. The Commission, by a unanimous vote, recommended
approval of the preliminary plat subject to seventeen (17) conditions.
' The Commission moved to strike the first sentence of condition seven (7) requiring the private
street to be upgraded to meet the City's private driveway ordinance standards which includes a
' 20 foot wide, 7 ton design street section and turnaround to accommodate public safety vehicles.
In order to address the public safety concerns, the Commission added conditions 14 through 17
to their recommendation. Staff believes and continues to recommend that the first sentence of
r Condition 7 be included as a condition of approval. Staff believes that the road can be widened
without impacting significant trees excessively.
Chanhassen Fire Marshal's comments /recommendations for Ridge Road:
As previously stated in my July 13, 1995, letter to Planning staff regarding the request for a
' variance, there were a number of issues which I was greatly concerned about. I will attempt to
list the problems and acceptable corrections.
' 1. The narrowness of the road - Currently the road width varies from 12 to 16 feet. (This
does not take into account winter snow buildup.) I have visited the street four separate
times at various times of the day. The first visit a mini -van was parked on the side of
' the road reducing the width, which would have blocked fire apparatus access. The second
visit, a lawn service company had parked in the middle of the road, blocking traffic
completely. If emergency equipment had been responding to a call, valuable time would
' have been wasted in arriving at the scene. The third time, access was acceptable; the
fourth was slow due to vehicles parked on the road. When our volunteer fire fighters are
responding to an emergency, whether it be a house fire or an emergency medical call, we
need adequate access to reach the scene. I don't want them hindered with blocked roads
due to parking and narrow roadways. This is specifically why the fire code addresses
roadway width, surface, turnarounds, and grade.
Corrective action - Install "No Parking" signs the entire length of Ridge Road. Widen
' road to a width acceptable to Engineering, Planning, Fire Department and residents.
Depending on the width of road decided on, parking may be allowed on one side. The
Fire Code requires 20 feet. It can be reduced if structures are equipped with approved
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
Page 11
automatic fire sprinklers.
2. Tree and brush growth must be trimmed and cut back on a regular basis to prevent ,
damage to emergency equipment and also to improve site lines.
3. The Fire Code requires an approved turnaround for fire apparatus for access roads in
excess of 150 feet. Ridge Road is .2 miles long with no current turnaround that would
accommodate fire apparatus. If the road were to be upgraded, this would be the
appropriate time to review turnaround options. I did review the turnaround on the
Shorewood side, and it would not accommodate turning around of fire apparatus. Here,
again, the Fire Code has an exception that if structures have approved fire sprinkler
systems the requirement may be modified.
Editorial Comments:
I occasionally hear the comment "We've never had a fire here in 30 years." Well, they
have been lucky. National statistics show one in four households will experience a fire
in their lifetime. This year the Chanhassen Volunteer Fire fighters will respond to in
excess of 500 fire /rescue calls. I wonder how many of these 500 said "It will never
happen to me."
Condition 14 requested that the City Attorney review the liability issues associated with not
upgrading the private street. Upon review of current state law, Roger Knutson, City Attorney,
concluded that the City is immune from certain types of liability issues under state law. These
immunities appear to cover any claims based on the City's approval of a plat with a potentially
unsafe driveway access (please see letter from Roger Knutson dated August 18, 1995).
The Commission directed staff to examine the turnaround located on the Shorewood side of
Ridge Road to determine if it would be feasible to utilize this turnaround. The turnaround would
be used in conjunction with a breakaway gate. Upon inspection, staff found that the turnaround
would be sufficient for car traffic, but would do very little to accommodate fire apparatus. The
same type of improvement could be easily accommodated on the Chanhassen side of Ridge Road.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves the preliminary and final plat and the variance request from Section
18 -57(0) permitting up to thirteen (13) homes on a private street for Subdivision 95 -16, Meyer's
2nd Addition, subject to the plans dated July 14, 1995 and the following conditions:
1. Individual detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be
submitted to the City for each lot. The City shall review and approve the plans prior to
issuance of building permits on the lots.
Meyers 2nd Addition
August 2, 1995
Page 12
2. All wetlands and wetland buffer strips shall be delineated on the grading and drainage
' plans. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
of the new houses. The applicant will be charged $20 per sign. A qualified wetland
biologist shall survey the property for wetlands and write a brief letter verifying the
existence or non - existence of wetlands and impacts, if any, to wetlands on the site.
' 3. The proposed single - family residential development of 6.55 developable acres shall be
responsible for water quantity and quality connection charges of $12,969 and $5,240,
respectively. These fees will be due at time of final plat recording.
4. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading is completed. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be sodded and
staked or restored with wood -fiber blanket.
5. The grading plans shall include the following items:
a. Erosion control fencing.
b. Move the house pads on Lots 3 and 1 closer to Ridge Road to improve driveway
grade and minimize tree removal and grading.
C. Access Lot 1 from the northern end of the lot to minimize tree removal.
d. The plan certification shall be signed by a professional engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota.
6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a permanent right -of -way easement over the
westerly 30 feet of Lots 1, 3 and 4 and the west 25 feet of Lot 2. The easement shall
become effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge
Road). Subsequent to the adoption of the resolution, the road shall remain as a private
right -of -way and not maintained by the City. The applicant shall obtain and grant cross -
access and maintenance easements over the lots to gain ingress and egress along Ridge
Road.
7. Ridge Road shall be upgraded to meet the City's private driveway ordinance which
includes a 20 -foot wide, 7 -ton design street section and turnaround to accommodate public
safety vehicles. Parking on Ridge Road shall be prohibited. The applicant shall provide
and install the necessary traffic signs.
8. A tree conservation area be established on the easterly 135 feet of Lot 3 and the easterly
200 feet of Lot 4. To further reduce construction impact on the woods, staff recommends
the building pad on Lot 3 be pulled 30 feet to the west to accommodate a driveway which
does not exceed a ten (10) percent grade and for tree protection.
' 9. The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days
after the final plat has been recorded. The applicant shall obtain the necessary demolition
permits.
Meyers 2nd Addition '
August 2, 1995
Page 13 '
10. Obtain a permit and install a pool fence prior to recording the final plat.
11. 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.
12. Tree and branch overgrowth along Ridge Road shall be trimmed to the satisfaction of the f
Fire Marshall.
13. A thirty (30) foot front yard setback shall be maintained from the dedicated right -of -way.
14. The City Attorney shall review this proposal and report on the issue of the City's liability '
in not requiring the applicant to bring the road up to minimum standards as described in
the ordinance.
15. The Meyees shall provide a break away fence or gate which meets the standards set by
the State Parks.
16. The Meyer's shall present to the city staff a brush removal plan to clear as much of the '
road as possible, and give the staff and the City Council assurances that this can be
maintained in the future. '
17. City staff shall review the use of the turnaround on the Shorewood side to see if it meets
the needs of Chanhassen." '
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter to Planning Commission and City Council from James and Karen Meyer, dated
July 11, 1995
2. Memo from James and Karen Meyer dated August 9, 1995
3. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 16, 1995
4. Letter from Roger Knutson dated August 18, 1995
5. Map of Christmas Lake Watershed
6. Memo from Steve Kirchman, Building Official, dated August 3, 1995
7. Memo from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal, dated July 13, 1995
8. Memo from Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern, dated July 24, 1995
9. Memo from Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator and David Hempel, Assistant
City Engineer, dated August 7, 1995
10. Letter from Joe Richter, DNR Hydrologist, dated July 24, 1995
11. Referral Notice
12. Public Hearing Notice
13. Fourteen (14) letters from surrounding property owners
I AUG -09 -95 WED 02:29 PM BURNET REALTY MINNETONKA FAX NO. 6124749583
' TO: THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANING COMMISSION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
FR: JAMES AND KAREN MEYER - SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS
6225 RIDGE ROAD
' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HOME TELEPHONE - 474 -2900
' DATE:AUGUST 9, 1995
RE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING OUR REQUESTED
' SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR MEYER'S 2ND ADDITION
We have some additional 'information and suggestions which we hope will be
helpful to you in approving our subdivision and granting our variance in order to
keep Ridge Road unchanged.
SAFETY ISSUES
A key point with regard to safety is that Ridge Road is not a "dead end" street.
The south end of Ridge Road is a through street which for many years (without a
problem) has been blocked at about the county line by a chain hung between two
cement- filled poles. The original purpose of the chain was to restrict traffic to
Ridge Road residents There is a large turnaround on the Hennepin County side
of the current chain as well as egress through the Hennepin end of the road. In
order to accommodate emergency vehicle ingress and egress we will agree to
remove the chain and the cement filled poles and construct a sufficiently wide
gate similar to those found at the entrances to state parks. The gate will be locked
in such a way as to permit emergency vehicles easy access to the north end of the
road while at the same time restricting public traffic. We can provide keys for
emergency vehicles and/or use a lock which can. be cut with the bolt cutters
carried in emergency vehicles. We will agree to repair any damage done to the
gate by emergency vehicles.
We also agree to trim the trees on our property to a height and width necessary for
the safe passage of emergency vehicles.
P. 02/03
As you know there are two fire hydrants on this .2 mile section of Ridge Road.
We will agree to keep them visible and accessible year around.
AUG -09 -95 WED 02:30 PM BURNET REALTY MINNETONKA FAX NO. 6124749583 P.03/03 I
Page 2
"SETTING PRECEDENT" ISSUES
We understand there is a concern that a granting of our variance will set a
precedent for future subdivision on Ridge Road.. To al.loviatc this problem, we
will agree to place restrictions in the deeds of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Meyer's 2nd
Subdivision eliminating future subdivision of these parcels.
With regard to our property, we believe that a precedent was set when the
Cunningham variances and subdivision requests were approved in 1994 and 199;x.
In the Staff Report to The Board of Adjustments and Appeals on the Cunningham
request dated March 14, 1994, the City is advised that they will be creating a
precedent for our property. The ANALYSIS section of the Staff Report reads:
"Permitting additional access for the Cunningham property
off of the private drive will create a precedent for the ether
properties along Ridge Road. Currently, there are only two
homes on the east side of Ridge Road. However, there is
ample vacant land available between these houses to permit
the further subdivision of these properties if the owners
would so choose."
This variance was subsequently granted by the City and the Cunningham
subdivision approved. We think we are entitled to equitable treatment and should
not be encumbered with additional requirements which will create an undue and
severe hardship.
Thank you for your review of this additional information as well as for your study
of the entire proposal. Hopefully you will agree with us and with all of our
neighbors that this property can be divided without changing our neighborhood
"country road ".
Sincerely,
0 ,� A Ct .�
James Meyer Karen Meyer
TO: THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANING COMMISSION
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
FR: JAMES AND KAREN MEYER - SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS
6225 RIDGE ROAD
' CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HOME TELEPHONE - 474 -2900
DATE: JULY 11, 1995
RE:- REQUEST SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR MEYER'S 2ND
ADDITION
We are the owners of the attached referenced properties. We wish to divide our
homestead, a 3.44 acre parcel at 6225 Ridge Road, into two lots by creating one
approximately 1.2 acre parcel to the north of our home,
AND
we wish to divide our lot to the south of our homestead, MEYER'S Addition lot 2,
a 3.11 acre parcel, into two lots of approximately 1.5 acres each.
We understand that a platted subdivision is required rather than a simple "lot
split" because even though the proposed lots conform to all other ordinances,
Ridge Road is a sub - standard private road and requires a variance to create an
access /driveway for each of these two new lots.
BACKGROUND ON RIDGE ROB
Ridge Road was created in the early 1930's by the owners of the property on the
east shore of Christmas Lake and the west shore of Silver Lake. The road was
created on this glacial ridge, then called Silver Ridge, to provide access to the
road on the south, The Excelsior - Eden Prairie Road, now named Pleasant View
' Road, and the road to the north which must have been close to what is now State
Highway 7. The road is unique and historic.
' Ridge Road (then and now) is described as "a series of easements restricted to no
more than 12 feet in width, with an occasional stretch not to exceed 16 feet in
width to accommodate the passing of vehicles ". The road is maintained today as
it was then by an association of landowners along the road.
The road is approximately one (1) mile long. The north .8 mile of Ridge Road is
in the city of Shorewood in Hennepin County. The south .2 mile is in Carver
County, City of Chanhassen. All of the subject property is in the City of
Chanhassen, Carver County.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION
The proposed subdivision will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property nor substantially increase the congestion of the public streets,
nor increase the danger of fire, nor endanger the public safety nor diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood. All of the neighboring
properties are on similar sized parcels and are of similar value.
The Carver County side of the road is fairly straight and level with good sight
lines for safe access. There is no through traffic; the road is blocked by a chain at
the county line. The City just approved additional access to Ridge Road on the
west side of the road for the Cunningham Subdivision. The additional traffic
from two additional homes will not cause a safety problem. This type of roadway
is not unique. As an example, a similar length of road at the entrance to the north
end of Ridge Road, the northern most .2 miles of the north .8 miles (the portion of
Ridge Road in Shorewood) services the traffic of over 30 homes. The north end is
curved at several points, is much more sloped, is the same dimensions and
construction, and is still safe and works well. Another example is Holly Lane on
the west shore of Christmas Lake where the City recently approved a subdivision
(Ravenswood Sub.) on a sub - standard road. Carver Beach on Lotus Lake, is
another example as are many of the roads around Minnewashta (Red Cedar Cove)
and Lake Riley. In fact, because of the uniqueness of lake shore development
many if not most of the areas around our lakes which have roads which are sub-
standard by current ordinance.
The subject properties are the last parcels on Ridge Road in Chanhassen which
meet the frontage and area requirements for subdivision. The two additional
access points should be the last access points required for development according
to the "reasonable use" standards as defined by all of the comparable properties
within 500 feet of the subject property. The requested variance is made necessary
by the pre- existing standards of the neighborhood. The contemplated subdivision
will meet the "reasonable use" standards.
We have looked into the possibility of accessing the subject property from the east
with a private road off of Pleasant View Road. We have discussed this with the
planning department of the City. We believe this is not a viable access due the
steep grade which would require extensive grading, retaining wall construction
and extensive loss of trees in what appears to be a Bluff Impact Zone. This would
also require an easement over Lot 1 MEYER'S Addition (Eastwood's Property)
and/or the City /County property to the east. There are designated wetlands on the
County property. In addition, the city would have serious questions about an
access to Pleasant View at that point because of the nearness to a large curve and
restricted sight lines. The lots would be less desirable with a road on both the
front and the back of the lot.
' The literal enforcement of the "private road ordinances" would cause undue
hardship. The property could not be put to "reasonable use" because there is no
other reasonable way to access these parcels. The lakes and wetlands prohibit
access from the east or the west. The topography of the ridge is unique and
clearly defines the only access as Ridge Road. The proposed lots are
homogeneous with all of the property within five hundred (500) feet and the pre-
, existing standards of the neighborhood. There is no downward departure from the
existing neighborhood standards.
It is most important that the City not require Ridge Road to be widened as a
requirement for subdivision approval. The neighborhood is, and should continue
1 to be, a "country neighborhood" served by a "country road ". The road is lined by
mature trees. It is an idyllic setting, aesthetically pleasing to the entire
neighborhood. We have planned lots far larger than required by the City in order
to maintain the existing "countryside" nature of the neighborhood.
Please contact our representative, Carl Zinn, for additional information and for
giving notice of any necessary meetings and/or hearings.
Thank you for your consideration. We respectfully request your approval.
Sincerely, /
AV �J
' James Meyer Karen Meyer
CARL ZINN - OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE e4�r
' 5820 RIDGE ROAD BUS TELEPHONE 470 -2534
SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 HOME TELEPHONE 470 -5431
��f
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
6. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing
material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc.
are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can
use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the
building materials.
7. All freestanding signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed
eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height.
The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the
quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's
entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one
monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign
must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent
in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a
sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site.
8. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the
development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a
square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting.
All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than
1/2 foot candle at the property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting
equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right -of -ways shall be used in
the private areas. Wall pac units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off -
site and no more than 1/2 foot candle of light is at the property line.
All voted in favor .wd the motion dried un:mimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
JAMES AND KAREN MEYER FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT REOUEST TO SUBDIVIDE
6.55 ACRES INTO 4 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND VARIANCE REOUEST TO SECTION
18 -57(0) WHICH ALLOWS UP TO FOUR LOTS TO BE SERVED BY A PRIVATE
DRIVE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6225 RIDGE ROAD, NORTH OF PLEASANT
VIEW ROAD, JAMES AND KAREN MEYER.
Public Present:
Name
Jim & Karen Meyer
Jack Fess
Address
6225 Ridge Road
6280 Ridge Road
5
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Colleen Rosenberg
Jon & Irene Joseph
Dean Wetzel
Carl Zinn
6175 Ridge Road
6290 Ridge Road
6260 Ridge Road
5820 Ridge Road
John Rash prvseuted the staff rep011 on this item.
Mancino: Any questions for staff at this time?
Conrad: Is it a private road now? When the Cunningham Addition went through, what did
we change the status of that road in any way?
Rask: No.
Conrad: It's still private?
Rask: Yes, it's still private. A variance was granted at that time
Conrad: What's our obligation to that road?
Hem p el: Nothing from a street maintenance standpomaintain.
o have utilities, sanitary sewer
and ater lines within a public easement that we o
Mancino: John, I have a question on your conditions of approval. Number 10 says obtain a
and install a pool fence prior to recording the fin
plat. Where's that corn
permit n
ing from?
Rask: Okay, that was pointed out by the building official. The city has an ordinance that
fires all ools to have a fence around it and it appears that, well with the subdivision, this
requ P
one will not have a fence around it so that's kind of.
Mancino: And this is on the Meyer property?
Rask: Yes it is and it will remain with that existing home.
Mancino: Okay. Okay. And the cabin right now, does it have a driveway off the private
road?
Rask: No it does not.
R
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
we can wort: around some of these tree conservation. We're as interested in that as anybody.
As a matter of fact, and not to jump the gun. In fact I wonder, could I use your first visual
aid, because it's better than what I have. You know, trees are an issue and your forester made
a significant point about trees being conservatory, and I might add that right along here, right
next to the road there are a lot, this is all heavily wooded and we walk along here and
counted, I mean there's a lot of trees. There's 39 to 43 of them, something like that going all
the up that are 8 to 10. There's huge evergreens that would literally have to go because I
can't take somebody else's property to make this land bigger. And along here it's the same
thing. There is a shoulder here that's kind of a packed gravel and of course trucks do meet
on that. Right now my home is being built over there and we've had huge, you know the D8
Cats coming up oil flatbeds and there's been building on Ridge Road over in Shorewood have
used the road over the years. What I'm saying is huge vehicles have gotten through there and
have the 23 years I've lived there. We've not had a fire and we've not had any accidents on
the road. There has never been a safety problem, but that I understand doesn't mean that
there couldn't be one and that we can't make some sort of access or some sort of something to
help this out. Basically then we don't have a lot of major issues with this. It would appear to
me that the road is a very sensitive issue. It's a very sensitive issue to my neighbors. They
would like it to be the kind of country road that it is. The fire and safety commissioner or
what have you, came out to our house and we walked the road and he has some
recommendations to make about cutting the trees, the brush back so that it wouldn't interfere.
Maybe putting no parking signs along the road so that the vehicle, if public safety needed to
come up, there wouldn't be any cars parked there so that would mean they'd have to park in
their driveways. I would point out as you have already mentioned that this is a thru street.
This is not a dead end. There's a gate there and we want to, and are going to, bring that gate
up to code. And what I mean by that is right now it's just a chain with a paddalock ... get a
gate that's going to be approved by the ... so this gate can be dealt with in two ways. It can
either be just drive through by a big vehicle or it will have a lock on it and we will make the
keys available to police and fire and both communities, Shorewood and Chanhassen, which
we do at this time. So at this time they can go through and they go right through the gate
and there is a turn around there and I would agree with you Madam Chairman that, in
actuality, when that event would occur. It hasn't occurred in the last 22 years that I've been
there but that they could go through that gate one of two ways. They could just drive
through it and turn around there and come back out. So in reality then, this is not a dead end
and I know that there are other streets in Chanhassen that you've had to deal with that have a
dead end, private roads. You can exit this two ways. You can enter it two ways. I would
also point out from a safety standpoint in terms of fire, there are two fire hydrants on this
road and I would point out that in a very short distance here, there's a fire hydrant right by
the Wetzel's and there's another one right up by here. So for these homes there's a fire
hydrant and for these homes there's a fire hydrant and I think that's significant. If you don't
have a pumping truck and all that kind of thing, you know if there should be a fire. So we
8
1 Planning Colllllllsslon Meeting - August 16, 1995
are considering the trees and I think that we're making a real move. I think if we're so
' interested in that tree conservation, that we should... preserving the trees along the road...
Another point, Mr. Cunningham did his subdivision and was approved in March. The staff
notes read that there was a precedent made. Now I can understand that from a legal
standpoint that that precedent is probably not legal binding. But I do think that there's a
sense of fairness. A sense of ethics. A sense of logic that would say you know what, we did
it there. These people, and the 14 or 15 neighbors who have written letters to you are saying
' that they're willing to take that, while they want to keep it the way it is, that's what they
want. I've not seen any opposition to this subdivision. I mean I live there. I want it to be
just like you do. We will maintain it. We do plow it. We do pave it. And so in reality
here, there's one other tiling that's not mentioned in the staff report but I'm sure they're aware
of it. That another thing with extending a road. On the east side of the road right here, there
is a gas line. The gas line is not under the road. It's right adjacent to it and I would assume
of course that that gas line would have to be torn up. I put that gas line in there. I paid for
that gas line for that whole piece of road some time back. It wasn't cheap then. I'm sure
replacing it is, to me represents a hardship. I guess that individuals who have already wanted
t to purchase on my property, have looked at the road and they aren't bothered by the fact that
it's narrow. The road is paved. There is a shoulder there right now that's a heavy gravel that
you can meet a large vehicle oil it. It's not ideal. But I'll tell you this. It works. It has
worked for a long time. I have one neighbor that's lived there for 43 years and I'm not sure,
but anyway I'll let any other people address that. Bottom line is, we're asking the Planning
Commission to make a recommendation for the variance to the road to leave it as is. And
' basically I think that that's going to save trees. We still have the safety with the fire. We're
going to improve the gate. We have a turn around area that has been addressed and I think
that will be a very suitable neighborhood. Thank you very much.
Mancino: Thank you. May I have a motion to open for a public hearing?
' Meyer moved, Peterson seconded to open fo►• a public hewing. The public hearing was
opened.
' Mancino: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come up now. State
your name and address and please give us any comments you have on this.
' Jack Fess: Hi, good evening. My name is Jack Fess ... neighbor. Second house on the left
hand side going up to the Shorewood chain. I'm also the designated neighbor fellow that tries
' to take care of the road from a maintenance standpoint. I've got a couple comments. The
first one is, oil the same side of the road there that Jim and Karen are trying to subdivide, my
house was the last house that was subdivided along that road back in 1982 where we had to
get a variance also and for a number of years, for 12 years I looked across and I had nothing
1 9
1
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
but beautiful trees and then Mr. and Mrs. Joseph next door to me developed that large corner
lot on the corner of Pleasant View and built that pretty home there last year. One of the
concerns that I had was me losing the trees across the street from me where the first house
was built on the east side of Ridge Road in that corner, 2 acre lot. If you walk down my
driveway today and look up to the front of my house, you would notice in the summertime,
because those trees were not cut. Jim at one time owned that property and there was a gate
in there which those people were still using that gate and they actually their driveway right
through that gate where the tractor used to go through to cut the grass and that property is
now trying to subdivide. And I can't even see that house across from there. Now my feeling
is, as far as the road's concerned, the trees that Jim has in front of that property, since there's
only going to be one driveway cutting into that large parcel for both of those homes, we're
only going to have one more driveway on the south side of Jim's current house. And none of
those trees really would probably be touched, which means that all of us on the west side of
the road would probably not even see these homes because we cannot see that property
currently because that's all in grass down there. The other thing is, I think significant is that I
have the plans. I wish I had them with me of the Department of Transportation new gate that
we want to put in up there and that gate would border Jim's property and the Shorewood
house on the county line and would bring it up to Department of Transportation standards,
which are very similar at our city and county parks where we have where the gates open. In
fact it's the same drawing. One of the questions'we have right now, since we all need a
variance to go across that road, anyone who lives on Ridge Road, we only have 12 or 13
houses oil the Chanhassen side. The rest of those homes are controlled by the Shorewood
side. So my counterpart on the other side of the chain, we're trying to work this out and
move that actually down where it'd be more feasible for the safety vehicles to come in there.
Plus I also want you to know that on the Shorewood side of that chain, a lot of folks don't
know that. They don't have city water period over there so we did have a fire there about 19,
I think you were out of town Jim. We had a fire when a new house was being built on Ridge
Road about 10 years ago. It burned to the ground. It was 2 weeks before there was to be
occupancy and we think it was a sabotage deal. A new one went up on top of it but it did
burn to the ground and the Chanhassen fire department came to the aid of that fire and they
just took that chain with those big cutters they have. Cut that chain off and that fire truck
actually went through there. No problem whatsoever. To show you how ridiculous it was, I
was sleeping all night and I didn't hear that fire truck. When I got up the next morning and
J
ogged around the lake, the house was literally burned to the ground. It was a brand new
house so they can get through there and, we'd like to repave the road when all this
construction is finished. It's quite an expense and do what we need to but I don't think any of
us would be against cutting back the brush and possibly maybe build the side of that road up
a little bit with some more gravel and maybe put some more asphalt on there so. So far it's
worked out pretty good. Thank you.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Mancino: Thant: you.
Jon Joseph: My name is Jon Joseph. I'm at 6290 Ridge Road, and that lady was my wife.
When we built our house over tills last year, one of the things that we were lucky enough to
do was to be able to sell some trees that we had to take down... This area is, when people
speak to you about trees, they're not just saying trees as in scrub brush. This is a very old,
mature area that is just lovely. It serves as a recreational area, not only for the people who
live on Ridge but the people across the street who come from Fox Chase subdivision and
there's a constant stream of people going up and down this street. These people are not
threatened in any way by motor vehicles or we would know it by now. I think the other
issue brought into the record is that everybody on Ridge Road has written the City Council in
support of leaving the street the way it is. I think that's a very important point and I know
for myself, I have really very little use for Ridge Road beyond where my house come in,
which is about 30 feet into the road. In fact when I built my driveway, I built it in such a
way that it would be almost impossible for me to go up Ridge Road. I think that the City
Council needs to loot: at this as a very unique place. One that's already been given a number
of variances because of it's uniqueness and one that can tolerate some more variances.
Mancino: Thant: you. Anyone else like to comment or approach the Planning Commission?
Please come up.
Dean Wetzel: My name is Dean Wetzel and I live on 6260 Ridge road. I guess I'm kind of
the senior member there. I'm in my 43rd year. I'd also like to mention that since I moved in,
my taxes have gone up 6,000 %. Not 600. Not 1,000. 6,000 %. Now I realize that doesn't
buy me anything except equal time up here. But I just thought it was worth mentioning it.
We have some of us that have been there that long, I guess I'm the only one down there.
We're paying our dues and we'd kind of like to be part of our own destiny. I said I would
speak to this point, which I have been in this room many, many times over these years and
I've spoken to many issues and I said that I would limit my comments to under an hour and a
half. It will be more like 10 minutes. Do you have a pointer up there? I'd kind of like to
find a couple of things that might be of interest. Well actually I can do it on there. My
property is right here, off of this kind of little bend in the road and when I moved in there 43
years ago, this was a dirt trail. There were three homes on the road. Here, here and here and
all the rest of this was open space, as it was up above. So I've seen a lot of change and I
moved out here from Minneapolis to enjoy the beauty of this area. I did come down and talk
to the planners to get some idea of what the concerns were and share with them a little bit of
what my experience has been and in the 43 years that I've lived there, I'm not aware of any
accident on that road. It's a narrow road. It winds a little. It's quaint. It has trees on it.
People take it easy. Not only that, there are walkers and joggers and bikers up and down the
road all day long. They go around Christmas Lake. It's a 4 mile jog around the lake and for
12
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
the mile plus from Pleasant View Road up to Covington Road, I guess it's a private road and
I say it's cherished by all these people that walk their dogs and their kids and so it's a neat
place and I've enjoyed it all these years. We raised a family there and feel that it really has a
lot of offer. On the emergency side, yeah there's been emergencies up there in all those
years. Fire that some of you referred to up in the Shorewood area. The trucks went through.
They went straight through and they don't have to turn around. They can go up to Covington
Road and come back or they can come in from the other way. So it's not a hazard. It's an
inconvenience. But the inconvenience ... an awful lot of pleasure and an awful lot of beauty
for a number of people. And as earlier mentioned, thanks to the earlier planners and
engineers and Council, we have water and sewer down here. They put in sewer on the north
side when the laws went through to shield Christmas Lake but they didn't put water in up
there so we're sitting down there with the fire hydrants with the availability to service the
north side, which is Hennepin County, again which we're glad to do and which has been done
and successfully. So again we don't need pumper trucks or tank trucks to come up our road
to take care of the problems we might have. Now the tree issue is big. It's big on the
property that's being developed, and it's especially big right along the road. All the way up
from Pleasant View. And there are reasons why there are such beautiful trees right up next to
the road. There's a fence about 4 feet from the road and as Dr. Meyer mentioned, there's a
gas line between the road and the fence and when ... built this home, about 1956 or so, a few
years after I'd been there, he pastured this with horses. He actually had horses out here and
they kept it all ... and chewed down to where the only trees that really had a chance to grow
were on this little wedge which runs along the road. In addition to that, over the years with
Dr. Meyer's permission, I had nurtured the trees either way from my home along the road
here, where there haven't been any homes and in the 70's when we had that drought, I
actually watered from my property the trees along that side of the road. So there are big,
beautiful trees there. Pine trees. Maple trees. Ash. Hackberry. All natural. So expanding
the road to the right, to the east would be devastating to that coverage of trees. Expanding to
the right, to the west is practically impossible. Jack Fess is, as he mentioned, lives right here.
His driveway starts on a steep hill right up to the road. My driveway, my home is only 30
feet from the edge of the road as it stands today. Susan Price's home is up here and the
architect that built that, and he was an architect that lived there, made a mistake or two and
her bedroom's about 15 feet away from this road right here, right now, just across from the
driveway of Dr. Meyer's. So on a practical basis, you really can't expand that road without
some devastating effects, and I don't know how you do it frankly again without tremendous
cost. So again, adding all this background and sentiment, etc, I think that it's also important
to know that because of the configuration of the lake, is why the road went where it did.
Like I said, that was a dirt trail when I moved in. The lake being to the left so the road
wound up the hill there ... indian trail and the homes were built right up tight against the road
because obviously there was never going to be any more development. We were the only
ones there. We wanted to live on a dirt road this far from Minneapolis. And times do
13
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
change. So we've maintained this road with diligence all these years. The ones of us that
live there, finally graveled the road and graded it and then a number of years ago, paid for the
paving of that road and we've maintained it with a lot of pride and we keep it clean. We
keep it picked up. So I guess I'll get down to the point that this location would be a problem
and I would hope that we aren't going to injure a neighborhood in order to protect. Getting
back to the baby and the bath water. Just wash the little kid and throw the water out and
keep the baby. Thank you.
Mancino: Thant: you. Anyone else?
Carl Zinn: I'm Carl Zinn. I live at 5820 Ridge Road and I'd like to just address the safety
issue for a second because I travel several times a day along the busiest part of Ridge Road,
the 2 /10ths with the egress and ingress on the north end and it's far curvier. It has much
more slope. The sight lines are more restricted by a great deal than they are on the south end
and we don't have a problem. More cars. It services over 30 homes and people go slow.
There's walkers there. People understand that. We don't have thru traffic and so for the
benefit of my experience to you hopefully is ... safety issue is something that the residents of
the road control and respect and we're able to use that side of the road without a safety
problem. Thanks.
Mancino: Thant: you. Anyone else wish to approach? Well come up again.
Jack Fess: Okay. Jack Fess again at 6280 Ridge Road. I forgot to mention that a number of
years ago, in 1982 or 1983 when I moved here from the East Coast, I wasn't familiar with a
private road but was familiar with lawsuits back in the East... I said to my neighbors, one of
the things that we need to really watch is getting the Department of Transportation legitimate
road signs saying Chanhassen, State of Minnesota so we took our road fund budget and...
those folks of you who have been down here to look at this property will notice that we do
have a 5 mph speed limit posted as you enter Ridge Road. It's been there for 12 years now
and it says no thru street. These are the same signs that work in Chanhassen. So we want to
let you know that we do have a speed limit and maybe that's one of the reasons that we don't
have problems. That we would also like to upgrade a few things once some of this gets
finished because we want to do some more signing on there also. I think that one
recommendation is that no parking, to be very honest with you, we don't have any parking on
the street. I think when some of you folks might have been out looking at the property, we've
had two things going on. We had Jon Joseph having a driveway installed 2 weeks ago. At
the same time, Jim and Karen were having trees removed on the Cunningham property. And
last, if not least, Jerry Schneider who lives next door to me is having an addition right now, a
four season porch put on the house next to me so we've had 3 out of 9 homes, some
construction going on that day so I do know it was congested there for a few days.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Mancino: Mr. Fess, I have a question. Just a point of interest. I also live on a private drive.
Not as many homes but what's it like in the winter. I mean because that's obviously the
hardest because of snow plowing and it doesn't allow you any sides at all to park or to pass
each other.
Jack Fess: Well, since 1982, we had that two monstrous snows if you recall in December a
number of years back. Larry Kerber, who I think ... out here on County Road 17. Larry
comes in with his Bobcat and his truck and we actually pay him to haul the snow right out of
there. Now we normally can plow it on the right and the left hand side of it. It actually does
go through the fence that Jim has there. It just literally goes right through the fence and we
have all that extra road there. But we have really only had one time since 1982 that I've been
involved with the road that we had to haul snow out. It's not a problem. The one nice thing
about our side of the road compared to Carl's side, the north side of Christmas Lake Road
gets no sun. It's all shade. And we have a private person that plows it and it sands it and
salts it. And to give you an idea for that road, we have 20 houses on that road. Our
snowplow removal budget, we just paid that bill here in April, was $4,400.00 for that road. I
mean it is very expensive just for snowplowing and I kind of get upset because we'd like to
put 2 inches of blacktop on that road but we looked at an estimate. We did one -third of the
north side of that road last year, it was $18,000.00. It's $50,000.00 to put on 2 inch asphalt
from the corner of Covington to the corner of Pleasant View. So you know, we leave that
road open for all the kids that J. I mean we have people going by there constantly. It's
like the hot spot in Chanhassen. We ought to make it a designated area for the parks
commission. The fact of the matter is, I'm out there today sweeping the road myself. I'm
sweeping it. The city of Chanhassen has never come up that road. I've seen one policemen
up there in 13 years I've lived there and I called. So I mean we really, the road thing is
getting to be, it's tough for us to maintain it but we really are dedicated to maintaining this
and keeping it this way and it's getting expensive, there's no doubt about it.
Mancino: Thank you. Anyone else? May I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Coui-ad moved, Meyer seconded to close the public healing. The public heming was closed.
Mancino: Comments from commissioners. Commissioner Conrad.
Conrad: I think staffs report is very appropriate. I think they did a good job on the analysis.
There's really nothing wrong with the recommendation. I think the only issue that I'll focus
on in my comments, and I'll make them brief is number 7. The road. Like I do so many
times, I plead guilty for making previous decisions and I think when the Cunningham
subdivision came in, we all knew, at least those of us who voted for it, knew what we were
doing. There's just no doubt. You don't allow that subdivision without knowing what's going
15
' Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
across the street so when we set the precedent, we really did know that the Meyer's were
going to divide someday. Had no idea when so, and at that time I don't think we really had a
real concern. I think we understood that it's a unique ar.;a. The neighbors, like they did
tonight, were here for the Cunningham's. I think they're a very responsible group. I think it's
' a unique area in the city. I think there's some, it's just tough to apply city standards to this.
It's just plain tough and I'm probably, I'm not going to be the one to enforce them here. It's
just, we'd be destroying some things to protect some, or to maybe help some other areas but
again, I think as long as our legal advice says that we're really not opening ourselves to
lawsuits, for allowing something like this to happen. As long as the legal advice says that,
then I'm really very much in favor of letting this go through. I think some of the things that
' the Meyer's have volunteered are real important. I think we need that gate structure to be
upgraded. I think they have volunteered that. I think that's important. I think they
volunteered to restrict further subdivision. I think that's important. I think I've heard that we
may want to loot: at some brush and whatever. Those are temporary things. Those things
drive staff wild. That solves it today and what happens later on. Staff doesn't want to hear...
They can't deal with it. I would, but I also heard the neighborhood say that they may be
' upgrading the street a little bit, whether that be surface or expansion of the pavement or
whatever. So other than making some comments that kind of, I really want to make sure that
the city is protected from any kind of potential lawsuits by not enforcing some of our
standards. As long as that's the case, I really feel that the subdivision is appropriate and we
should grant a variance. I think again the staff report is appropriate from their standpoint.
They're doing exactly what they're supposed to do. I we uld stick something in, a
' recommendation that really talks about working with the neighbors as they upgrade their
paving and I don't know what the words are. Nothing's very enforceable and nothing really
probably meaningful but I guess if they do that, my recommendation would be if we could
somehow incorporate the city into that process where we're either widening the curves or the
gravel on either side of the paved lot or somehow giving some future thought into
' maintaining the width of the street. That's all I have.
Mancino: Thank you. Bob.
Skubic: I share Ladd's feelings regarding the safety and liabilities of the street. There seems
to be some latitude regarding, on the part of the Fire Marshal regarding what is required for
that street. There is no mention in there of the street needing to comply with the driveway
ordinance. I don't know if you assume that would happen on top of the three
recommendations that lie made. So there seems to be some latitude there and he also makes
' mention that a suitable sprinkler system might provide some room for compromise there. But
I favor this plan with some additional comments regarding item number 7. Recommendation
number 7 that perhaps staff and the applicant can work together to do something there. And
' one more thing is item 6. It seems to be related to item 7. Maybe we're deferring the issue
16
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
here a little bit because item 6 requests dedication on the westerly edge of three or four of the
lots for a public street, which means that the street would be widened and the trees would be
taken out I assume. And I also wonder if there's a complication there, if I read the drawing
here correctly. There's a gas line running along the easterly, westerly side. Easterly side on
the road which seems to be the side that would be widened. Maybe Dave perhaps can shed
some light on that. Is that a complication that the gas line would underneath the side of the
road that would be widened?
Mancino: Yeah, excuse me. Could both you and John talk a little bit about that item number
6.
Hempel: Madam Chairman, commissioners. Item number 6 relates to future widening,
upgrading of Ridge Road at some future date, 50, 100 years whatever. It gives us the
Opportunity to obtain the necessary easements, right -of -way to do that at no cost. Typically
when a subdivision like this comes forward, we require the applicant dedicate the necessary
street right -of -way with the final plat at that time. With this instance, we're recommending
that they dedicate the permanent easement at the time that the City Council authorizes the
project to upgrade that road. So we would obtain it at that time at no cost to the property
owners. Otherwise the city would have to purchase the right -of -way at that time in the future.
Conrad: Dave, that's exactly what you worded in the Cunningham agreement.
Mancino: That's exactly what I was going to ask.
Hempel: The final condition of the Cunningham Addition and we thought it would be
appropriate in this development as well.
Mancino: Okay, thank you.
Skubic: That's all.
Mancino: Okay, Craig.
Peterson: Well my thoughts are similar to my two predecessors in the fact that I think we do
have to maintain what is legally, what we are legally responsible to do. I guess I ask staff,
has that been formally reviewed or not by Council?
Rask: No it has not. We have not approached it with the City Attorney yet but it's certainly
something we can check prior to Council.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
i
Peterson: I guess number one, I mould like to see that formally done. And number two. If
' we were to go ahead and approve this, I would like to integrate in as one of the
recommendations that the sign be up, I don't see that formally, the gate be formally upgraded
to what has been discussed by the residents this evening. So other than those two, I have no
■ other comments.
Mancino: Mike.
Meyer: I don't have any additional comments besides something that we've talked about
before Nancy and that was they've said that there's no further subdivision of the lots but I
' don't see it as a point in here and maybe that's something we could add in.
Aanenson: I don't think legally we can do that. If somebody wants to ... a piece of property,
' they have a right, if it meets the ordinance, to go through the process. I don't think that the
City Attorney would say that we could prohibit that. If someone wants to assemble property,
they certainly the right to try to get a subdivision so, it's something we couldn't enforce.
' Mancino: Can we say something to the, add to the recommendations about the street. The
Ridge Road. Maybe it being modified if there are additional homes. 13 homes. Or does that
just, will that just automatically come up again?
Aanenson: No matter what, everytime one comes back, we're going to bring that before you.
' That's certainly an issue of health, safety and welfare issue that would be...
Mancino: Will keep coming back up, okay. Are you done? I have no new comments. I
agree. I think that the subdivision is compatible with the area. The existing area and I think
it's well done. Well thought out. I appreciate staff looking at the pad placement and moving
some of that to turn out beyond the slope section of Lots, I think it's 3 and 4. Removing
those to the west a bit. And I also agree with keeping the driveway, the private drive as it is
and not widening it at this point. And those are all my comments. Can I have a motion?
Conrad: Sure. I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve the preliminary plat and variance request from Section 18 -57 permitting up
' to 13 homes oil private street for Subdivision 995 -16, Meyer's 2nd Addition, subject to the
plans dated July 14th and the following conditions as stated in the staff report with an
exception to Item number 7. I will eliminate the first se rtence. The balance of 7 stands. I
would add a point 14. That the City Attorney review this proposal to ensure or to make a
recommendation or report as to the city's liability in not bringing the road up to a minimum
standard as described by ordinance. Number 15 would be that the Meyer's supply, number 15
' would be that the Meyer's are obligated to bring the break away fence or gate up to a
18
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
standard that's maybe set by the State parks. Number 16 would be that the Meyer's, and this
might sound ridiculous but that the Meyer's would present to the city staff ..present to the city
staff some brush removal plan to clear as much of that road and give the staff and the City
Council.
Mancino: A comfort level?
Conrad: Yeah, these are the most soft words. Some kind of assurances that this can be
maintained in the future. And then I won't include, and that's the end of my motion but again
I think I'd really like the neighborhood to work with the city when you're doing your
upgrading and get their input. And who knows what's going to happen to this motion but
again, from a very personal, I think the neighbors treat this very personally. They're very
involved. They're very responsible and I guess I'd ask them very much to incorporate the city
as they upgrade themselves, the asphalt. Preferably to get city input and that's what staff is
really good at doing. They really do work very well with neighborhoods. So anyway, that's
the end of my motion.
Mancino: Would you accept a friendly amendment?
Conrad: Maybe.
Mancino: The friendly amendment has to do with the turn around. An acceptable turn
around to city staff that works at the end of, and I think that you had asked, staff had asked
on 7 that the roadway be to a 7 ton and a turn around to accommodate public safety vehicles
If there is a way for staff and the applicant, and maybe ilie City of Shorewood, to ascertain
whether that one turn around can serve both ends of the private road.
Conrad: That's a good one. For city staff to review the use of the turn around on the
Shorewood side to see if it meets the needs of Chanhassen.
Mancino: And if it doesn't, then another resolution has to take place on the Chanhassen side.
Do I hear a second for the motion?
Skubic: Second.
Mancino: Any discussion on the motion?
19
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
Coinad moved, Skubic seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council approve the preliminary plat and the variance request from Section 18 -57(o)
permitting up to thirteen (13) homes on a private street for Subdivision 95 -16, Meyer's 2nd
Addition, subject to the plans dated July 14, 1995 and the following conditions:
' 1. IndividUal detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be
submitted to the City for each lot. The City shall review and approve the plans prior to
issuance of building permits on the lots.
2. All wetlands and wetland buffer strips shall be delineated on the grading and drainage
' plans. Weiland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
Of the new houses. The applicant will be charged ! ;20.00 per sign. A qualified wetland
biologist shall survey the property for wetlands and write a brief letter verifying the
existence or non- existence of wetlands and impacts, if any, to wetlands on the site.
3. The proposed single family residential development of 6.55 developable acres shall be
responsible for water quantity and quality connection charges of $12,969.00 and
$5,240.00 respectively. These fees will be due at time of final plat recording.
4. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading is completed. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be sodded and
staked or restored with wood fiber blanket.
5. The grading plan shall include the following items:
a. Erosion control fencing.
b. Move the house pads on Lots 3 and 1 closer to Ridge Road to improve driveway
' grade and minimize tree removal and grading.
c. Access Lot 1 from the northern end of the lot to minimize tree removal.
d. The plan certification shall be signed by a professional engineer registered in the
' State of Minnesota.
6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a permanent right -of -way easement over the
' westerly 30 feet of Lots 1, 3 and 4 and the west 25 feet of Lot 2. The easement shall
become effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge
Road). Subsequent to the adoption of the resolution, the road shall remain as a private
right -of -way and not maintained by the city. The applicant shall obtain and grant cross
access and maintenance easements over the lots to gain ingress and egress along Ridge
' Road.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - August 16, 1995
7. Parking on Ridge Road shall be prohibited. The applicant shall provide and install the
necessary traffic signs.
8. A tree conservation area shall be established on the easterly 135 feet of Lot 3 and the
easterly 200 feet of Lot 4. To further reduce construction impact on the woods, staff
recommends the building pad on Lot 3 be pulled 30 feet to the west to accommodate a
driveway which does not exceed a ten (10) percent grade and for tree protection.
9. The existing cottage and garage shall be razed or removed from the site within 30 days
after the final plat has been recorded. The applicant shall obtain the necessary
demolition permits.
10. Obtain a permit and install a pool fence prior to recording the final plat.
11. 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.
12. Tree and branch overgrowth along Ridge Road shall be trimmed to the satisfaction of
the Fire Marshal.
13. A thirty (30) foot front yard setback shall be maintained from the dedicated right -of-
way.
14. The City Atlomey review this proposal to and prepare a report as to the city's liability in
not banging the mad up to a minimum standaW as described by oildinance.
15. The Nleyer's aw obligated to being the break away fence or gate up to a standard that's
maybe set by the State paits.
16. The Meyer's present to the city staff some bnish removal plan to clew as much of that
►-oad .uid give the staff and the City Council some land of assurances that this can be
maintained in the future
17. City staff review the use of the hun around on the Shorewood side to see if it meets the
needs of Chanhassen.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
21
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
Attorneys at L iw
Tl, uLI, 1. ( :,nui •hell
,� ;luh 'I1
Thoini \1. ;coil
lich-
I nnc� R. Ci'.Il�r„n
Elliott l). Knct,h
BY FAX AND MAIL,
Ms. Kate Aanenson
Chanhassen City Hall
690 Coulter Drive, Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
(612) =152-5000
Fax (612) 457 -5550
August 18, 1995
RE: Zinn Preliminary Plat Request -
Meyers 2nd Addition
Dear Kate:
\11,11Ull rochlcr
\131',uerite M. NlcC:arr,m
( Iom- , c T. �t i hrm n
You asked for my opinion on the City's potential liability for approving a subdivision on a
substandard private drive. Concern has been expressed that emergency vehicles could be prevented from
accessing the site.
Based upon the current state of the law, although the City would very likely be sued if a tragedy
occurred, the City should prevail. Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 provides that the City is immune from
liability under state law for:
• Any claim based upon the performance or the failure to exercise or perform a
discretionary function or duty, whether or not the discretion is abused.
• Any claim for a loss based on the failure of any person to meet the standards needed for
a license, permit, or other authorization issued by the municipality or its agents.
These immunities appear to cover any claims based on the City's approval of a plat with a
potentially unsafe driveway access. These statutory provisions, however, could be repealed and they
don't protect us from any claims based upon federal law. A successful claim based upon federal law,
however, is remote.
Very truly y6urs,
AZ@PBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT
& fVCHS, P.A.
WIN IMM
BY:
Roger N. Knutson
V
�uit� � 17 • E i, ul.l ile Officc Center • 1 380 0 Corporate Center Curve • E.i,,in, L1ti 55121
CHRISTMAS LAKE WATERSHEDI
PRESENT WATERSHED
457 Acres 57% INCREASE
CM 0-
----------
ORIGINAL WATERSHED
291 Acres
f. ' � ` ; - ,tea ���
.4
J-L
41
CITY OF
�SANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE 9 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bob Generous, Planner II
FROM: Steve A. Kinchman, Building Official
DATE: August 3, 1995
SUBJECT: 95 -16 SUB (Meyers 2nd Addition, James and Karen Meyers)
I was asked to review the subdivision proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED,
JUL 18 1995 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project.
Demolition Permits. Existing stnrctures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition
permits. Proof of well abandonment, if applicable, must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic
system abandonment, if applicable, must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance
of a demolition permit.
Existing Structures. The submitted plans indicate there is a swimming pool on the existing lot. An
inspection on 8/3/95 revealed the swimming pool is not fenced. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20 -1021
requires all in -ground swimming pools be protected by a fence not less than five feet high with self -
closing, self- latching gates. The fence must be designed to be nonclimbable and designed such that a
sphere four inches in diameter cannot pass through.
A new lot cannot be created which violates City ordinances, so the required fence must be built before
the subdivision can be recorded.
' 1. Obtained demolition permit for existing structures before their removal.
2. Obtain a permit and install a pool fence. This must be done before the plat is recorded.
I g:\ safety \sak\memos�)Ian\xneyers.bgI
CITY OF
�BRNHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
Robert Generous, Planner II
Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal
July 13, 1995
Ridge Road
PLANNING CASE: 95 -8 Variance
I have reviewed the variance request in order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire
Department/Fire Prevention Division, and have the following fire code or city ordinance /policy
requirements. The site plan review was 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.
The Fire Prevention Bureau has 3 items of concern that I would like addressed and corrected:
1. Due to the narrowness of the road, the tree and branch overgrowth over the road is
substantial. Currently, if fire apparatus had to negotiate the road, damage such as
broken emergency lights, broken mirrors and scratched paint would occur. Tree
trimming must be done, preferably by City crews.
2. This is also a serious concern that due to the narrowness of Ridge Road (roadway
width varies from 12 to 16 feet), firefighting access could be greatly jeopardized if
vehicles were parked on Ridge Road, resulting in delayed or blocked emergency
vehicle access. With 13 homes at stake, there must be assurance that access is
maintained at all times. Therefore, "No Parking Fire Lane" signs must be installed
per city policy #06 -1991. Copy enclosed.
3. Section 10.204 (d) of the Chanhassen Fire Code states that "Dead end fire apparatus
access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved
provision for the turning around of fire apparatus. With the length of Ridge Road
being .2 miles long, an approved turn - around must be considered.
Memo to Robert Generous
July 13, 1995
Page2
If this were a new project being proposed, 3 homes or more on a private drive would have to
' comply with the Fire Code requirement pertaining to roadway width, design and turn around.
With 8 existing homes on Ridge Road, and the potential of those increasing to 13, the
accessibility concerns have to be corrected. The Fire Department also recognizes the fact that
there were homes existing there prior to a City Fire Code being established. The first two items
should be easy to correct. With regards to item three, in lieu of a turn around, the Fire Code will
take into account that when buildings are completely protected by an approved automatic fire
sprinkler system, the provisions may be modified by the Fire Marshal. This is something that
I would consider.
I gNsafety\mMdgerdmem
CITY OF
�HANBASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: John Rask, Planner I
FROM: Jill Sinclair, Forestry Intern {
DATE: July 24, 1995
SUBJ: Tree Preservation and Removal, Meyer Addition
Canopy calculations for the site have been performed. Estimated coverage is 55% (3.4 acres).
Minimum canopy coverage to be maintained according to ordinance is 35% (2.2 acres). Tree
removal due to development is .64 acres, leaving 2.76 acres or 44 %. Applicant is within the
tree removal limitations of city ordinance and therefore will not have to provide replacement
plantings. Applicant will be required to provide one tree in the front yard setback area if one
does not already exist.
Trees and wooded areas are scattered throughout the site with the major concentration of trees
occurring along the eastern edge of the property. Construction of homes will mainly impact
the western and central portions of the site. In order to protect the wooded nature of the
eastern edge, staff recommends a tree conservation area be established on the easterly 135 feet
of lot 3 and the easterly 200 feet of lot 4. To further reduce construction impact on the
woods, staff recommends the building pad on lot 3 be pulled 30 feet to the west. This would
lessen the amount of grading done in the wooded area.
Two trees of special interest exist on lot 1, a 36 inch multi- stemmed maple and a 36 inch oak.
The oak is scheduled to be removed as part of the grading for the house and the maple will
be heavily impacted by the driveway that will be constructed less than 5 feet away. Staff
recommends the driveway be moved to the north side of the lot in order to reduce or
eliminate construction damage to the maple. Presently it is unknown whether or not the oak
could be saved. The only possible alternative appears to be relocation of the home closer to
the road. This would potentially reduce the need for grading east of the building pad close to
the tree. The applicant may suggest other possible alternatives.
MEMORANDUM
Meyer Addition
July 24, 1995
Page 2
' Recommendations:
1. Tree Conservation Easements be established on the easterly 135 feet of lot 3 and the
easterly 200 feet of lot 4.
2. Relocate the building pad on lot 3 thirty feet to the west.
3. Relocate the building pad on lot 1 thirty feet to the west.
4. Access lot 1 from the northern end of the western edge.
G
1
CITY OF
Ajq8AN8AS0EN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: John Rask, Planner I
FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator
David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer aw
DATE: August 7, 1995
SUBJ: Meyers 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat Review - File Nos. 95 -16 SUB, 95 -27 LUR
Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings dated July 17, 1995 prepared by Schoell and
Madson, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations:
LAKES AND WETLANDS
It appears that the only wetland on or near this plat is the wetland associated with Silver Lake.
Silver Lake is a Department of Natural Resource protected water (27- 136P). The ordinary high
water (OHW) elevation of Silver Lake is 898.1 feet and the wetland borders this elevation. The
OHW should be marked on the grading plan. The property is considered riparian to Silver Lake,
and therefore, the shoreland district extends 1,000 feet from the OHW of 898.1 feet. The
development must be consistent with Chanhassen's shoreland management regulations.
Staff requires that a qualified wetland biologist survey the property for wetlands and write a brief
letter verifying the existence or non - existence and impacts, if any, of wetlands on site. If there
are wetlands on -site they must be staked, surveyed, and included on the grading plan and plat
map.
Buffer Strip
The City of Chanhassen has a wetland ordinance protecting wetlands from alteration. There is
also a buffer strip requirement associated with the protection of each particular wetland. If the
wetland is natural, the buffer strip width is 10 to 30 feet with a minimum average width of 20
feet. If the wetland is ag /urban, the buffer strip width is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average
width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback from any wetland is 40 feet measured from the
outside edge of the buffer strip.
MEMORANDUM
John Rask
August 7, 1995
Page 2
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP)
The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect,
preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm
water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and
minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. The water quantity portion of the plan uses
a 100 -year design storm interval for ponding and a 10 -year design storm interval for storm sewer
piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for
predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has
r been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore,
different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum
phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies.
Storm Water Quality and Associated Fees
The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based
on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment
of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond
construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning.
Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of
$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City's SWMP proposes one regional water
quality pond for this site area. The best location for the regional water quality pond is on the
property to the south along the edge of the wetland bordering Silver Lake. The proposed SWMP
water quality charge is $800 /acre for single - family residential developments, and therefore, this
development will be responsible for approximately 6.55 acres of developable land or $5,240.
Storm Water Quantity and Associated Fees
The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average
city -wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition,
proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage.
Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable
i acre. The total developable area of the property is 6.55 acres. Therefore, the proposed
development would then be responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $12,969.
DRAINAGE
The property drains east down steep wooded slopes and bluffs in the northern part. The southerly
part contains vegetated steep slopes before discharging into Silver Lake. Three additional
building sites are proposed with this development. Staff believes detailed grading, drainage,
erosion control and tree removal plans should be submitted to the City for review and approval
' prior to issuance of building permits. The plans should address roof and driveway runoff by
designing a plan to dissipate the stormwater over a large area. This will allow for the natural
John Rask
August 7, 1995
Page 3
infiltration of some of the runoff. The rest of the runoff will be filtered through the property and
the wetland before entering Silver Lake.
Ridge Road does not have a storm drainage system. The roadway carries the runoff southerly
to the intersection of Pleasant View Road and Ridge Road. With new home construction
occurring, this road has been a source of erosion in the past. There are no storm sewer facilities
in Ridge Road or Pleasant View Road to accommodate the runoff. The City's Surface Water
Management Plan (SWMP) proposes a future water quality treatment pond at the southerly end
of the wetland complex adjacent to Silver Lake (east of Ridge Road /north of Pleasant View
Road) to pretreat approximately 12 acres. This area includes the drainage from these proposed
lots. As a result of this subdivision, staff does not believe the increased amount of runoff from
this subdivision will adversely impact the wetlands. Staff is concerned about the runoff from
Ridge Road and believe storm drainage improvements may be warranted with or without this
development. At this time, Ridge Road is not upgraded to city urban standards (concrete curb
and gutter and storm sewers). Staff recommends the applicant pay the applicable SWMP
connection fees in lieu of constructing any of the downstream stormwater improvements as
outlined in the SWMP.
GRADING
The preliminary grading plan proposes only minimal grading to prepare the driveways and house
pads. To further reduce grading impacts, staff recommends moving the house pads up (west) the
hill closer to Ridge Road on Lots 3 and 4. The final grading plan should show erosion control
measures and the plan signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
EROSION CONTROL
An erosion control plan needs to be incorporated into the final grading plan and submitted to city
staff for review and approval. Staff recommends erosion control fence be used at the grading
limits at the tow of the slope. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and
mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall
be sodded and staked or restored with wood -fiber blanket.
UTILITIES
Municipal sewer and water lines are located in Ridge Road and along the rear of the parcels
adjacent the wetland to service this development. The sanitary sewer in Ridge Road is relatively
shallow, approximately 10 feet deep. The applicant and /or builder shall verify the sanitary sewer
elevation in Ridge Road prior to constructing any homes. Due to the sewer elevation this may
require relocating the homes further up the hill closer to Ridge Road. Another option would be
to extend a service up the hill from the line located adjacent the wetland. This route would
John Rask
August 7, 1995
Page 4
require additional tree removal and slope disruption. The new lots may be responsible for hook
up and connection charges ($2,425 and $7,000) depending on previous assessment history.
STREETS
Access to the site is from Ridge Road which is a private street. City ordinance prohibits more
than four homes on a private street. If this development receives approval, there will be a total
of 13 homes on the private street. There is also no turnaround at the end of the road (city limits).
A chain gate exists to restrict through traffic to and from the City of Shorewood.
A standard p required development would be to dedicate one -half of the 60 -foot wide street right -
of -way and constructing the street to urban standards (31 -foot wide, back -to -back, with concrete
curb and gutters). The street currently exists as a 16 to 20 -foot wide bituminous surface with no
storm drainage improvements. This development proposal is very similar to the Cunningham
subdivision directly across the street. In that proposal the City required the developer grant a
permanent easement for public right -of -way purposes at no cost to the City. The easement
becomes effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge Road).
The City does allow for private streets to serve more than four homes in higher density land uses
such as multi - family R -8 and R -12 land uses. However, the streets are basically constructed to
City standards with the exception of roadway width. Roadway width would be a minimum of
24 feet wide with parking prohibited. Staff is concerned with the storm sewer runoff and
providing acceptable turnaround for public safety vehicles with this development proposal. Since
Ridge Road is and probably will remain a private street, the applicant should obtain and convey
the necessary cross - access /driveway maintenance agreement for the new lots to gain ingress and
egress along Ridge Road. The street should also be posted No Parking to permit adequate room
for traffic to pass.
Staff still contends that the street should be upgraded to city urban standards, however, due to
the existing development pattern, this may not be feasible given the close proximity of existing
homes. In order to satisfy public safety concerns, the street should be upgraded to the private
driveway ordinance including a turnaround and prohibit parking on both sides of the street.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,
1. Individual detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plans shall be
r submitted to the City for each lot. The City shall review and approve the plans prior to
issuance of building permits on the lots.
2. All wetlands and wetland buffer strips shall be delineated on the grading and drainage
plans. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's
1
John Rask
August 7, 1995
Page 5
wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction
of the new houses. The applicant will be charged $20 per sign. A qualified wetland
biologist shall survey the property for wetlands and write a brief letter verifying the
existence or non - existence of wetlands and impacts, if any, to wetlands on the site.
3. The proposed single - family residential development of 6.55 developable acres shall be
responsible for water quantity and quality connection charges of $12,969 and $5,240,
respectively. These fees will be due at time of final plat recording
4. All disturbed areas as a result of construction shall be seeded and mulched or sodded
immediately after grading is completed. Slopes steeper than 3:1 shall be sodded and
staked or restored with wood -fiber blanket.
5. The grading plans shall include the following items:
a. Erosion control fencing.
b. Move the house pad on Lot 3 closer to Ridge Road to improve driveway grade
and minimize tree removal and grading.
C. The plan certification shall be signed by a professional engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota.
6. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a permanent right -of -way easement over the
westerly 30 feet of Lots 1, 3 and 4 and the west 25 feet of Lot 2. The easement shall
become effective once the City adopts a resolution to upgrade the private road (Ridge
Road). Subsequent to the adoption of the resolution, the road shall remain as a private
right -of -way and not maintained by the City. The applicant shall obtain and grant cross -
access and maintenance easements over the lots to gain ingress and egress along Ridge
Road.
7. Ridge Road shall be upgraded to meet the City's private driveway ordinance which
includes a 20 -foot wide, 7 -ton design street section and turnaround to accommodate public
safety vehicles. Parking on Ridge Road shall be prohibited. The applicant shall provide
and install the necessary traffic signs.
ktm
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g \eng \diane \planning \meyers pc
I
1: n�SnTATEE OF
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
t PHONE NO. METRO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO.
772 -7910
July 24, 1995
Mr. Robert Generous AICP, Planner II
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
1 „E
James and Karen Meyers, Silver Lake (27- 136P), City of Chanhassen, Carver County
(City #95 -16 SUB)
Dear Mr. Generous:
We have reviewed the site plans (received July 18, 1995) for the above - referenced project (Sections
1 and 2, T116N, R23W) and have the following comments to offer:
1. Silver Lake (27- 136P), a Public Water is on the proposed site. Any activity below the
ordinary high water (OHVAT) elevation, which alters the course, current or cross - section of
Silver Lake is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. The OHW
r for Silver Lake is 898.10' (NGVD, 1929).
2. The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. The project site
t contains steep slopes and bluffs that could be severely damaged by erosion by runoff from the
project site. Routing untreated stormwater to Silver Lake could also cause sedimentation and
water level bounces that are detrimental to Silver Lakes wildlife values and water quality.
A stormwater management plan should be developed for the site that will protect the steep
slopes and bluffs from erosion and remove sediments from the stormwater before the
stormwater reaches Silver Lake.
3. There should be some type of easement, covenant or deed restriction for the properties
adjacent to the wetland areas. This would help to ensure that property owners are aware that
the DNR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Chanhassen have jurisdiction
over Silver Lake and that the wetlands cannot be altered without appropriate permits.
r
I AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Mr. Robert Generous
July 25, 1995
Page 2
4. Silver Lake has a shoreland classification of Natural Environment. The shoreland district
extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be consistent with Chanhassen's
shoreland management regulations. In particular:
a. The project area contains bluffs and steep slopes. The bluffs overlooking Silver Lake
should not be disturbed and all structures should be setback at least 30' from the top
of the bluff. Topographic alterations should be minimized in areas containing steep
slopes.
b. The vegetation and topography should be retained in a natural state in the shore and
bluff impact zones. The minimum shore impact zone is an area within 75' of the
OHW. The bluff impact zone is an area within 20' of the top of the bluff.
C. The plans indicate that areas of woods will remain untouched by the project, which
is good. The structures in the development should be screened from view from Silver
Lake using topography, existing vegetation, color, and other means approved by the
city.
Silver Lake (27 -136P) should be labelled as such in future plans or plats and the OHW should
be noted.
6. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments:
a. The site contains steep slopes and bluffs which could easily be severely damaged by
erosion. Erosion control measures must be taken during the construction period to
prevent damage to the site. The Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment
Control Planning Handbook (Board of Water & Soil Resources and Association of
Metropolitan Soil and Water Conservation Districts) guidelines, or their equivalent,
should be followed. The City of Chanhassen should inspect the erosion control
measures on the site on a regular basis and after heavy rainstorms.
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.
Mr. Robert Generous
July 25, 1995
Page 3
C. 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,
Joe Richter
Hydrologist
cc: Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WSD, Bob Obermeyer
USCOE, Gary Elftmann
Chanhassen Shoreland File
Silver Lake (27 -136P) File
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive, P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(612)937 -1900
Date: July 17, 1995
To: Development Plan Referral Agencies
From: Planning Department
By: Robert Generous, AICP, Planner II
Subject: Preliminary plat request to subdivide 6.55 acres into 4 single family lots and variance request to
Section 18 -57(0) which allows up to four lots to be served by a private drive on property located
at 6225 Ridge Road, north of Pleasant View Road, James and Karen Meyers.
Planning Case: 95 -16 SUB
The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen
Planning Department on July 14, 1995.
In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we
would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic
circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public
lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or
problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can
make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council.
This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on August 2, at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no
later than July 24, 1995. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your
cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated.
1. City Departments
a. City Engineer
City Attorney
%City Park Director
ire Marshal
e uilding Official
f. Water Resources Coordinator
2. Watershed District Engineer
3. Soil Conservation Service
4. MN Dept. of Transportation
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(;' Minnegasco
6 �-' N Dept. of Natural Resources
, ,Telephone Company
(US West or United)
� 1
�lec� tric Company
(NSP or MN Valley)
r
y 10 ./Triax Cable System
11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
12. Carver County
a. Engineer
b. Environmental Services
13. Bonestroo Engineering
14. Other-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, August 2, 1995
at 7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
690 Coulter Drive
I Project: Meyers 2nd Addition
Y
1 Developer: James and Karen Meyer
I Location: 6225 Ridge Road
I
Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your
area. The applicant is James and Karen Meyer for a preliminary plat request to subdivide 6.55
acres into 4 single family lots and variance request to Section 18 -57(o) which allows up to four
lots to be served by a private drive on property located at 6225 Ridge Road, north of Pleasant
View Road.
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you
about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project.
' During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following
steps:
1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project.
2. The Developer will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
r 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission
will then make a recommendation to the City Council.
Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish
to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937 -1900, ext. 141. If you choose
to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 20, 1995.
FAEGRE & BENSON
PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
2200 NORwFST CENTER, 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -390I
TELEPHONE 612 - 336 -3000
FACSIMILE 612 - 336 -3026
JERRY W. SNIDER
61 2/336 -3142
July 21, 1995
City of Chanhassen Planning
Commission and City Council
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Mever's Subdivision on Ridae Road
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council:
We write in support of James and Karen Meyer's proposed
subdivision at 6225 Ridge Road. We own the property at 6270
Ridge Road, which is directly across the road from the proposed
subdivision. Our conclusion to support the subdivision was
reached after reviewing the detailed subdivision plans as well as
participating in a meeting of our neighbors to discuss the
subdivision proposal.
We are very impressed with the thoughtful approach the
Meyers bring to the decision to subdivide their land. In
particular, we appreciate that the plans carefully consider the
environmental impact of the development as well as public safety
concerns for our neighborhood. In our opinion, the variance they
seek is a reasonable one, represents the best use of this
property, and, because of increased tax revenue enhancement, is
in the public interest. We believe this limited subdivision
proposal is consistent with the overall character of the
neighborhood.
While strongly supporting the subdivision proposal, you
should know that there is neighborhood concern that Ridge Road
remain "as is" without widening or altering the roadway. In our
opinion, the present roadway can easily absorb three additional
homes without creating congestion or safety concerns to the
community. Moreover, Ridge Road is a "through" roadway and can
be approached from either the north or the south by emergency
vehicles. We believe there are no safety concerns created by the
proposed subdivision.
In short, the proposed subdivision has our wholehearted
endorsement and support. We respectfully request the Planning
Minneapolis Denver Des Moines Washington, D.C. London Frankfurt Moscow Almaty
July 21, 1995
Page 2
Commission and the City Council vote to approve the Meyer's Ridge
Road subdivision as proposed.
JWS /jhh
MLL•29C96.WP5
CC: James and Karen Meyer
Carl Zinn
Very truly yours,
Jerry W. Snider
Katherine M. Snider
s } � of Ch,anhass� en I July, 199 it
Planning Commission and City Council
P 0 Box 147
Chanhassen, Mid. 55317
Re Meyers Subdivision on Ridge Road
Gear Commission Chair,
My wife and I have lived at 6110 Ridge Road for 27 years. We support the
proposed subdivision of Jim and Karen Meyers and their desire not to have
Ridge road widened. Ridge Road residents like the road the way it is. We
have lived with the road the way it is for over a quarter century and see no
reason to alter it now. Thank you for your consideration.
S'incereI
Tom aind Cokey Thl�:
6 1 10 R i dc�e Road
C .. 1�'nr`
Y � �
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
MCLAUGHLIN GORMLEY KING COMPANY
8810 TENTH AVENUE NORTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55427
WILLIAM D. GULLICKSON, SR.
CHAIRMAN
July 21, 1995
City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission and City Council
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Sir or Madam:
We have recently been informed of Dr. & Mrs. Meyer's plans to build
a home on Christmas Lake and to subdivide their property on the east side of
Ridge Road.
As only two houses will be built east of Ridge Road, Mrs. Gullickson
and I fully support the "Meyer Subdivision on Ridge Road" and trust that you
will approve their request.
Very truly yours,
William Gullickson, Sr.
John S. Fess
6280 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Ph: (612) 474 -0045
Fax: (612) 470 -9144
July 18, 1995
City of Chanhassen
City Council
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, IN 55317
Dear City Council Members:
Re: James Meyer property located at 6225 Ridge Road and the Meyer's
request for a variance for two additional access points to Ridge Road
while wishing to divide their 3.44 acre homestead property, as well as
Lot #2, a 3.11 acre parcel into two lots.
I write to you to explain my position as a homeowner at 6280 Ridge Road
relative to the James Meyer property.
This is not the first time I have written to the Planning Commission and City
Council in support of neighbors asking for permission to divide their
properties. This request will be the last time I will support a variance for
property subdivision on Ridge Road. In regard to the property in question, it
is very highly desirable, beautiful and large. To put three additional new
beautiful homes on the east side of Ridge Road with minimum turnoffs would
only enhance our unique neighborhood. The lots are quite large, and this
would complete the subdividing of the east side of the road from Pleasant
View to the chain with a total of five homes. The west side of the road is
currently complete and contains a total of eight lots.
I request that you support this proposal providing that Ridge Road remains a
private road is not changed and remains in its current form. ` I
John S. Fess
City of Chanhassen
Page 2
July 18, 1995
I am the road representative for the south portion of Ridge Road and handle
road maintenance for our neighbors as to plowing, road signs and general
repair. Each new homeowner who has built on Ridge Road since 1994 has
agreed to contribute a set amount of money for repair of the road when their
home is completed. This money is held in our road maintenance account. We
will use these moneys to reblacktop the road from Pleasant View to the chain
once all properties in question are sold and developed.
Ridge Road is a unique road in Chanhassen. The City has worked with our
neighborhood in granting variances in the past. We, as homeowners, watch
countless Chanhassen and Shorewood neighbors from adjacent developments
walk, jog and bike on our private road daily year around. They, too, enjoy the
quiet area. It is my intent that once and for all the Board approve this last
variance so that all may continue to enjoy this private road for years and
years to come.
Your help and cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely, I ,
?ss
-. -II -ILY '2 I C? ?L,
DE 4P C'ITY I.'-(.')!-INCIL MEMBERS,
1 411 IN FULL A1.3REEMENT WITH THE PLAN FOR THE MEYER.
A)e'D I V 1 1 ( :'N I T HOPut)(31-ILY BEL I E VE THAT T HE R I DGE ROAD SHOULD BE
KEDT IN I T OPE'�Erff 1 1- INDITION
1 H vE bEEN A PROPERTY OWNER ON RIDGE ROAD FOR X 10 YEARS, WE
H4\/E A (,)N CHR15TMA' LAKE, I HAVE LIVED ON PLEA'-;ANT
Pl"I 4. 1 F(l P i ") V E k 80 YEAP`3, I HA\iE NEVER EXPERIENCED, DUPING THE
Y 4 J4' -, 1 H4 - THf - - . RIUC�P Pf.')AF) &NY TP4FFII Op
PP('-.lBLF*f 7HL r c il i RY RQ4D CHARACTER OF RIDGE PCIAD HAS BEEN AN
111POP'I'ANT P4.Rl OF PEOPLE'S DESIRE TO LIVE HERE, IT 5HOULD NOT BE
'--H 4MIED
`51 N C E RE L Y,
�147 CI NNIN6HAM
D 1 1 1 IS I Ch,l WE L C
THF Mj�:YFP 7 ,1JR
LPF T(
- )ADF T()
L) 1-1�- ITH NC. i�LTEP-i�TiONS f
W,
I T L H C P
ii: NC)T
F�jT T(', THE E' [ Mill THE
5 THOSE
Hi"'. UP, WELL
Li
t - F" PLF[)(- T(") I IiN1 1H THE
T FP ? T I ("I r T(l THE TH
F P: I [I(
E PENtJ V F 1 - 1 Nly' E T 1 1 .) 1
F
F P
TE
FP
F DE
IT
TH-Lr' Y01
AT AND GRODY WHITE11
����L�- ----------
DEAR I_ I T C( )I,iNI_ I I
RE lIE'T EIS �,I �E,r► �; I I ►,r�
6 E l r I r lrl D I A TE NE I r;HB0R_, TO THE MEYERS, WE SUPP(:)RT AND
Er OUR A1;r THE A PPPO V AL OF THE , I VISI AS PLANNED.
pF�r;,�r;r;Ir.IG A LOW DENSITY DEVELOPEMENT THAT INCLUDES THE
DEVEI_C)PEP"' (.1WN HC;►ME ENCOURAGES THE CHARACTER OF THE
IEIc;HEsr,PH ►;�c:: T O REI A.IN C ONSTANT,
WE M)ULD L IK E TO SEE THIS DEVELOPMENT APPROVED WITH NO
C.HANGE_, T (,) THE WIDTH OR OWNERSHIP OF RIDGE ROAD. THE CURRENT ROAD
1 5 ADEOUATE TO SERVE THE MINIMAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, THE TREES
eQRDERIr THE ROAD SHOULD REMAIN TO ASSURE PRIVACY AND TO KEEP
FHE C 0l_Jf\I T RYSIDE CHAR OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
i HANk: Yf;)U
HA.Nw. ANC. _ 6PAEF
1
n J
A ZA- e--
r
Jon W. Joseph, M. D.
6290 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
July 21, 1995
City of Chanhassen
City Council
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Council Members:
I am writing to support the Meyer Subdivision oil Ridge Road I would also
like to voice my opposition to any requirements the city may feel necessary to
widen the road.
Dr. Jim Meyer is a very sensitive marl with a trite love of the atmosphere
along Ridge Road. The inevitable development of his property is best
completed with the requirements he is placing on the proposed home builders.
He has both a financial and aesthetic interest in this development since he will
be living across the street.
Unfortunately, I have been told that any further building on Ridge Road may
cause a "knee jerk" reaction by the City of Chanhassen to widen the road. I
would oppose that overreaction. The increase in density from the current
eight homes to the proposed or approved five more homes will not
significantly change the traffic activity. However, treating this road as a
typical subdivision throughway would be a pity.
I have full support for Dr. Meyer's home building plans. I also have a fear
he City of Chanhassen may impose inappropriate requirements on the
inevit ble deveATTent of the Meyer's land.
Sincere
Jon W Joseph. M. D.
cc: Dr. Jim Me er, 6125 Ridge Rd., Chanhassen, MN 55317
Carl ZintVM20 Ridge Rd., Shorewood, MN 55331
r
i
William A.J. "Tony" & Mary S. Boire
801 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
612 - 470 -9194
July 24, 1995
City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission & City Council
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Ref: Meyers 2nd Addition
To whom it may concern;
We understand our neighbors, Jim & Karen Meyer would like to subdivide their
property on Ridge Road. They would also like to maintain the current road width
that will preserve the wooded beauty of the area.
We support these requests and hope that the City of Chanhassen City Council and
Planning Commission will approve Jim & Karen Meyer's well planned and desirable
requests.
Thank you for your consideration.
��-�-
William A.J. Boire
CC:
Jim & Karen Meyer
6225 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
Mary S. Boire
July 12, 1995
Dr. and Mrs. Ronald Mason
901 4th St. N.
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Dr. and Mrs. Mason,
Karen and I want to inform you about two exciting events in the Meyer family and ask
your help in a matter we feel is very important to our neighborhood.
First, Karen and I have purchased a lake shore lot across from our current home at 6225
Ridge Road. We are very excited to have the opportunity to build a new house on
Christmas Lake without having to leave our wonderful Ridge Road neighborhood.
Secondly, we want to inform you of our plans to sell our home and our property on the
east side of our road. We have applied to the city of Chanhassen for the subdivision of
our land into two additional lots. We wish to divide our homestead, a 3.44 acre parcel at
6225 Ridge Road, into two lots by creating one approximately 1.2 acre parcel to the north
of our home, and we wish to another lot we own to the south of our homestead,
MEYER'S Addition lot 2, a 3.11 acre parcel, into two lots of approximately 1.5 acres
each.
We want the subdivision to be approved without any requirement to change the width or
construction of Ridge Road. We want Ridge Road to remain as it is and have included
the following paragraph in our request for subdivision. (Complete application is
attached)
"It is most important that the City not require Ridge Road to be widened as a
requirement for subdivision approval. The neighborhood is, and should continue
to be, a "country neighborhood" served by a "country road ". The road is lined by
mature trees. It is an idyllic setting, aesthetically pleasing to the entire
neighborhood. We have planned lots far larger than required by the City in order
to maintain the existing "countryside" nature of the neighborhood."
With regard to density, there are 8 home sites on the west side of Ridge Road between
Pleasant View and the county line. If approved as requested there will only be 5 home
sites over the same distance on the east side (an increase of two).
Our neighbor (6270 Ridge Road), Jerry Snider who is an attorney with Faegre & Benson
tells us that is extremely important that all the neighbors within 500 feet of our property
publicly support the subdivision if we are to get approval without having to significantly
change the width and construction of Ridge Road. We are asking you to write a letter of
support to the City of Chanhassen City Council and the Planning Commission. The letter
should reference the MEYER'S SUBDIVISION ON RIDGE ROAD and be addressed to
0
City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission and City Council
P. O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dr. and Mrs. Mason if you have any questions or concerns at all please call us (Meyer's
home - 474-2900), or if you wish call Carl Zinn with Burnet Realty (470-2534) who is
working on the subdivision process and the sale of the property.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
/�imand Karen Meyer
6225 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Tel. 474-2900
1 4
-S
c!
Michael & Mary Eastwood
Telephone 612 - 470 -4297
Fax 612 - 298 -1945
6285 Ridge Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission and City Council
P. O Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Council and Commission Members,
We are residents of Ridge Road and want to publicly voice our opinion on the proposed
Meyers Subdivision which is scheduled to come before the council on August 2, 1995.
The principle reason we built our home on this road was because of the country charm
and beauty that this road offers to its residents because it is a private road. We personally
do not feel that the additional homes being built by the proposed subdivision would
warrant widening the road. We are strongly against any changes being made to the road
and feel that they would ruin the privacy that is currently offered by the existing road.
We believe that the proposed development with its large lot sizes and with the
construction of the new homes designed to compliment the existing nature of the lots, is
a benefit to not only to the city but to the nearby residents as well.
We want you to consider the feelings of the residents of this road in studying this matter
for we will be the ones that will be affected by your decision.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael and Mary Eastwood
1
1
t
i
1
1
1
f
1
1
1
1
f
1
i
1
Susan K. Price, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist
80 W. 78th St Suite 265
Chanhassen MN 55317
612- 934 -2209
July 24, 1995
City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission and City Council
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen MN 55317
Re: Meyer's Subdivision on Ridge Rd.
i am writing to document my approval of the Meyer subdivision as long as there are no requirements to
change the Ridge road. The "Ridge" is a beautiful, private road and should remain so. As a resident on
the Ridge Road for twenty years, i believe it is important for the neighborhood to maintain control over
what is built and where it is located. This is a unique spot and maintaining that feeling is very important.
The potential addition of three more houses would not change significantly the character of the road or
the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Susan K. Price
Date: July 27, 1995
To: City of Chanhassen
Planning Commission and City Council
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, WN 55317
From: Steve & Colleen Rosenberg
6175 Ridge Road
Shorewood, VIN 55331
(612) 470 -7460
Re: MEYER'S SL:BDIVISION ON RIDGE ROAD
To Whom It Concerns;
We are the owners /residents on the Shorewood /Hennepin CoantL
border to the north that abuts the 1iever property on Ridge Road.
in Chanhassen.
As their neighbors, we support the Meyer's application to you for
Land subdivision.
z7 im anc Karen Meyer have been cooperati attentive and:
forthcoming to tl.e concerns and issues iha have been brought up
I
y the neighborhood as a result of this proposed subdivision.
Those issues we mutually agree on and support are as follows:
1. That Ridge Road should remain in it's current statre z.s a `
private country lane that works well as a result of cooperation
amongst both Chanhassen and Shorewood property 0 WTI rs. With
respect to width. construction. traffic, foliage and private
local control. Ridge Road sl1oulci rot ~era; r._ any chans;es as
result of this subdivision and should remain so.
2. As residents on the Slicire,vood;Hennepin County side of Ridge
Road, we agree and support the current common road use and
:maintenances with respect to privacy, traffic, access /egress,
snow removal, road gate upgrading, control, monitoring,
cooperation and, that. this successful working relationship
between communities and counties should remain so following the
subdivision.
3. That the proposed northerly lot shall define a restricted
building pad enforced as a permanent restrictive covenant and,
that this proposed buildable area is acceptable to us as
neighbors sharing a common property line with that lot (site plan
attached).
Respec t f ul l -� .
S i e v (v ,oI 1 een Rosenberg r
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
e
t
AUG 16 1 95 08 :55 6124963285
TO: CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CHANHASSSN
FROM: AL AND GAIL OFSTSHAGE
6140 RIDGL ROAD
SHORSWOOD, MN 95331 474 -7705
DATE: AUGUST 15, 1995
RE: MEYMS 2ND ADDI'T'ION REQUSST FOR
sIISDTVISION APPROVAL
P. 142
WS HAVS REVMWED TIM PLANS FOR THW
MSYSR SUBDIVISION WITH ENTHUSIASM. WE HFARTILY
SUPPORT THE PLAN AS PROPOSED. AS LONG TIME
RSSIDSNTS OF THE NEIGIMRHOOD, WS AGRSS THAT IT IS
MOST IMPORTANT THAT THE CITY NOT RSQUIRS RIDGE
ROAD TO BE WIDE AS A REQUIRSM= FOR
APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION.
A r' I -