Loading...
7a & b Lucas Igel AdditionCITYOF CHAN SEN 690 G0' Ce,ret Drive PO Box 147 MiJmc.,ota 5.~Z317 Pholle 952. 93.7. I900 Ge, era/Fax 952. 93-'. 5-3 9 952.93Z9152 Bui/dillg Departme, t 9529342524 li:i,b Site MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager FROM: DATE: Bob Generous, Senior Planner March 8. 2001 SUB J: Additional Correspondence Regarding the igei Subdivision Attached is additional infol'mation staff received since the last notice mailed notifying surrounding properties owners that the Igel subdivision would be reviewed by the City Council on March 12. 2001. _: CITYOF Photle ~52. 93,~ 1900 Ge, er,/Fax 952. Y3 ~. 5 539 E, gi, eeri,g Depm'tme,t Fax 9C. 93.7.9152 Bui/di,g Dqartme,t Fa.v 952.93~.252~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM' Scott Botcher, City Manager Lori Haak. Water Resources Coordinator DATE: March 6,200! RE' ~T ~ge~ Addition Request for Information" e-mail BACKGROUND On March 6, 2001, I received a copy of an e-mail to Max-'o~ ,~anoeu, C'i'tv Council and several staff members-fi'om Linda Landsm~.n (7329 Frontier 7'rail). The e- mail referenced a Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper article that summarized a study of the chemical and physical changes that occur in lakes as they age. MI L, ICATiONS \,Vlmout reading the original :'esea.,'cl] paper, it is difficult to determin qo* rnls smdv applies direotlv ro this subdivision. However. #~e e-m,:,ii ~ ' · rei~e;'o;e c: point zhat &e Cio' q./' C/~cm/~nss'en has known and addressed./bt quire .some time: u/'lYufization has marked ej?c!x The Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) was completed and adopted iii 1994 to assist the City in taking a city-wide approach to surface water management. Since 1994, City Council and staff have abided by the recommendations in the SWMP and have implemented many of the proposed improvements. The improvements have addressed xvater quantity and water quality issues v¢ithin the City. The City has also conducted several habitat improvement projects during this time. The goal is to decrease the effects of urbanization on Chanhassen's natural resources, including lakes. Ill 2001 1. . . , there are several measures proposed that will help to achieve this goal: A phosphorus-free fertilizer ordinance is currently being drafted. This ordinance, if adopted, is aimed at decreasing the amount of phosphorus entering Chanhassen's lakes, streams and wetlands. At least one SWMP project is proposed for Lotus Lake. The project will address water quantity and/or water quality within at least one of Lotus Lake's subxvatersheds. Staff is actively encouraging lakeshore property owners to consider "lakescaping," a less intensive approach to landscaping that employs native plants as buffers between lawns and lakes, habitat for insects and wildlife, and an alternative method of shoreline stabilization. In short, the City has chosen to address these issues by planning for development and the water-related concerns that result from development rather than prohibiting it. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at extension 105. Thank you. CC: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Bob Generous, Senior Plmmer Page 1 of 2 Aanenson, Kate From: Chanlal@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 10:10 PM To: Mayor@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Rayotte@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; slabatt@ci.chahassen.mn.us; Cpeterson@ci.chanhassen.mn. us; kaanenson@ci.chanhassen, mn. us; Bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Mkroskin@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: Chanlal@aol.com; paulseng@juno.com Subject: Igel Addition request for information Fti all, I would like to share some information with you as I feel that it relates to the Igel request to subdivide a parcel of property in the established Sunrise Hills Division of Chanhassen. Aside from the items that have already been addressed at prior Planning Commission and Council meetings, I would like to address information that is new to this request as it stands. An article in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, dated 11-10-2000, written by Tom Meersman, addressed new research that has been completed by scientists from our own Science Museum of Minnesota. Two researchers have completely contradicted the conventional thinking about what happens to lakes as they age, thereby implicating human activities as a major factor in lake degradation. Lakes DO NOT naturally become more full of nutrients and algae as they get older. The scientists, Daniel Engstrom and James Almendinger who are ecologists at the museums St. Croix Watershed Station studied 33 pristine lakes in Alaska, that ranged from 10 years old to 14,000 years old. They found that the water become clearer and less full of nutrients over time. Engrstrom was quoted as saying "this has a definite bearing on how we view the human impacts on lakes in places like Minnesota." Ed Swain, a research scientist with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency said that the study "fills a big void" for aquatic ecologists, and it also has important policy implications for most towns and cities in our State that have lake districts. "In Minnesota, we have a lot of questions about lakeshore development," Swain said. "If the excuse can be make that we're just hastening something that would have happened anyway, it shifts emphasis of the discussion." The article goes on to say that decision makers that impact any lake, need to look carefully at how additional homebuilding and other development will affect our lakes. Adding an additional home to that lot will impact run off, lake use, nutrient leaks into the lake and last but certainly not least, the nesting and habitat of wildlife and birds that make that property their home. I watched Lake Minnetonka die, and come back from the dead over a 25 year period. The death was caused by stewards of the lake that didn't know how their decisions would impact the health of the lake, and years of disrespect of the Lake by most of it's human users. Its rebirth came after millions of dollars (and those were millions in the 70s and 80s) were spent cleaning up the lake by the Freshwater Biological Institute and a strong effort by the state and the communities around the lake. I hope you understand, as stewards of our lakes in Chanhassen, that their preservation should come first. Your grandkids, and their granddads are counting on you to keep the lake alive, unlike what happened in the 70% to Minnetonka. I don't believe that adding another home on the Sunrise Hills property, which in my view doesn't meet city code any way they cut it, is acting as responsible lake stewards. Chanhassen has ample opportunity for, and has already established, high, medium and Iow density housing areas throughout our fair city. I strongly believe that in neighborhoods of Iow density housing that have established, the neighborhoods issues need to be addressed and code must be strictly adhered to when it impacts the Lake, as this action would. Please help us to keep the buildup of shoreline to a minimum. The DNR recommends strong 'stewardship' within 1000 feet of any lake in the state. Please keep that in mind as you come to a decision. The city will grow, the planning commission will change hands, Chanhassen may get sued, but life will go on. If we set into motion actions that endanger and degrade the lake, I fear a precedent will be set that no amount of dollars or years will be able to make right again. Sincerely, Linda Landsman 7329 Frontier Trail Chanhassen Page 2 of 2 Deborah S. Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ms. Kate Aanenson Planning Director City of Chanhassen Chanhassen City Hall Clnanlnassen, MN 55317 Marcln 7, 2001 Reference: David Igel Subdivision Please include this information with the packet sent to the Mayor and City Council Fol' fine meeting on Marcln 12. 2001 Deal' Kate: The Comprelnensive Plain on page 12 states: Ttne city will maintain a comprehensive and up-to-date set of' ordinances to ensure that development is consistent wittn fine plan while resulting in thigh quality, sensitively designed projects. Ordinances slnould be reviewed and modified as necessary to improve performance standards for new development to ensure that they incorporate higln quality design, landscape, etc. City Code Chapter 1 -General Provisions Section 1-2 Rules of construction and definition states' In the construction oftlnis Code and all ordinances the rules and definitions set out in this section slmll be observed unless sucln construction would be inconsistent witln the manifest intent ofttne city council. City Code Clnapter 20 Zoning Article 1. In General Section. 20-3 Interpretation states: \Vlnere tile conditions imposed by any provision of this chapter are either more or less restrictive than conditions imposed by otlner ordinances, tile ordinance wtnich is most restrictive slmll prevail. \Vheln this clmpter provides botln general regulation as well as specific regulation ora subject, tile specific regulation slnall apply. Chapter 18 -Article III. Design Standards Section 18-56 Tine proposed subdivision shall conform to fine comprelnensive plan, zoning ordinance and design handbook. Tine design features set forth in this chapter are minimum requirements. Tine city may impose additional or more stringent requirements concerning lot size, streets and overall design as deemed appropriate considering tile property being subdivided. Ctnapter 20 Section 477 Compliance Tine use of any shoreland of public waters; the size and shape of lots; tine use, size, type and location of structures on lots; tine installation and maintenance of water supply and waste treatment systems, fine grading and filling of any shoreland area; fine cutting of shoreland vegetation; and the subdMsion of land stnall be ill full compliance wittn tine terms oftlnis article and other applicable regulations. As a taxpayer and resident oftlne City ofClmnhassen I expect tine City staffto adhere to the regulations set forth to control tine city's development. Tine Igel subdivision does not meet all of tine standards. Both proposals for subdivision require variances. The Planning Commission instructed Staff to insure tlmt all conditions were met before moving finis on to Council. I believe you are failing to meet tlneir directive. Kev Points of Contention %vo Lakesbore Lots 1. Section 20- 480 Zoning 90 ft xvidth at OHW line The measurement at the OHW of each lot has not been provided. It is estimated to be 75 fi. Both lots require variances. 2. Section 20- 480 Zoning 90 fi width at building line. Lot 2 doesn't meet this standard. Requires variance. 3. Section 20-481 (a) Placement of structures on lots- Sightline of existing adjacent structure at 7301 Laredo Drive has not been considered. Since txvo nexv structures are being proposed the grandfather clause does not prevail. Requires variance. 4. Section 18-60 Lots (i) Driveway grading plans have not been provided. Driveway slopes may exceed 10% grade. Variance may be required. 5. \Vithout grading plans, the measure of runoff can not be calculated. Building two structures will increase the impervious surface coverage by 50-100% over the existing conditions. Increased runoff will result due to the increase in impervious surface and the slope of the land. 6. \Vithout grading plans the tree loss is not accurately represented. ' One Lakeshore Lot / One Non Lakeshore Lot 1. Section 18-57 (o) 30 foot easement - . The plat for the upper/non lakeshore l°t does not describe the private street easement. 2. Section 20-481 b 4 20 fi setback fi'om right of way The edge of the easement is the right-of-way and structure setbacks are measm'ed fi'om- that point, not fi'om the pavement. (Black's Laxv Dictionary - Roger Knutson letter of 2/19/01) The setback fi'om the easement must be identified on the plat. 3. Section 18-61 d Design Standards 60 x 60 building pad - When all code requirements are properly applied the building pad will not fit the non-lakeshore lot. A variance is required. 4. Section 18-60 Lots (i) Driveway grading plans have not been provided. Driveway slopes may exceed 10% grade. Variance may be required. · 5. Without grading plans, the measure of runoff can not be calculated. Building two structures will increase the impervious surface coverage by 50-100% over the existing conditions. Increased runoff will result due to the increase in impervious surface and the slope of the land. 6. Without grading plans the tree loss is not accurately represented. The Paulsen's have provided documentation from extensive research of City files, DNR support, and other sources. I will not burden you with that additional proof at this time. However I am available for clarification of any issue. One final point, there is no "private drive" ordinance. The use of this term continues to camouflage the real issues. Sincerely, ! l .-.':. f-_.:.~ ',/-...; ~x,~ ,~ .... ,-' ....... Deborah Lloyd 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 March 6, 2001 Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Proposed Igel Addition; Isn't it Strange? (For attachment to Staff Report) Isn't it Strange? That a 30-foot easement encompassing the private street/driveway is not shown on the plat? An easement is required by code (Sec. 18-57), and must exist to provide access for the lot that is not on the cul-de-sac. An additional 20-foot setback from the right-of-way is required (Sec. 20-481) (see Attachment 1, item 1). Isn't it Strange? That the surveyor has never explicitly stated the length of the Ordinary High Water (OHW) line? On 3/18/2000, Kathryn Aanenson asked Mr. Igel to have his surveyor provide this data. None of thefive revised plats subsequently submitted shows the length of the OHW line. The OHW line is the line that must be used to calculate the area of the lot, so the length must be known. Isn't it Strange? That it took us four weeks to convince the Planning Dept. that the requirement for the OHW line defined in code had not' been used since 1994 when the Shoreland ordinance was adopted? The city was reminded by the DNR (Attachment 2, Slather Addition, Lake Susan, 1996) that lot area and lot width standards must be met at the OHW line, and at the building line. Isn't it Strange? That when we questioned whether the developer could prove that at least 75 Pr' existed on each of the proposed lakeshore lots, the OHW line was lengthened on the subsequent plat by accentuating the curvature? (Refer to our letter in the StaffReport dated 5/8/2000; subject: "Battle of Bulge"). The surveyor fudged +by modifying the OHW line. The Staff Report dated 7/18/2000, states that the frontage is exact/,), 75.00 Pr. Isn't it Strange? That the Planning Dept. refers to a private drive ordinance when none exists? Code was amended in 1994 (Sec. 18-57 (o); see Staff Report, 9/5/00, attachment 17), and in 1995 (Sec. 18-60 (a)) to change references from private "driveway" to private "street" (Attachment 3). Isn't it Strange? That the City Attorney has continued to ignore answering our question about code that specifies all lots must abut on a public or a private street (or be a flag lot) (Sec. 18-60)? The city is aware that designation as a private street results in restrictions (e.g., setbacks) on this development that require additional variances, but they refuse to admit that a private street traverses the lot. Isn't it Strange? That the Planning Dept. hasn't required a variance because the proposed private street has a grade exceeding the maximum of 10% (Sec. 18-57)? The proposed private street exceeds the maximum grade of 10%, and therefore a variance is required. This requires the Planning Commission to review the application. The 10% grade is exceeded on both plans submitted by the developer. Teresa Burgess, City Engineer, acknowledged that the grade of the private street has a grade of approximately 12½%. The Staff Report states that the grades for the proposed house "al)pear" to be greater than 10%. Isn't it Strange? That when the City Attorney responded (letter dated 10/6/00) to our questions, he stated that a definition in Sec. 20-1 "is a definition, not a regulation", but in the same letter he responded to another question by using a definition from Sec. 20-1 to defend his answer? Isn't it Strange? That when we challenged the validity of a plat to meet code requiring a maximum of 25% of impervious surface (Sec. 20-485), that on the subsequent plat, the area of the proposed house was deleted? Reference our letter dated 9/19/2000 (subject "Mission Impossible"). Isn't it Strange? That the Planning Dept. says that a deck is not an impervious surface, but that the DNR states that a deck is included in impervious surface (see Attachment 1, item 2)? Isn't it Strange? That when we contended (letter dated 9/19/2000) that the front lot line on the plat dated 7/13/2000, is the lot line separating the lot from a street fight-of-way (Sec. 20-1), there were three contradictory opinions? First, Bruce Malkerson (counsel for the developer), cited a MN Supreme Court decision that the front lot line is the lakeshore (he did not respond to our request to identify the case cited). Correspondence from the DNR states that they are "u~m~,are of the Supreme Court case addressing this issue ". Robert Generous then stated that the front lot line is apoint nearest the cul-de-sac. City Attorney Roger Knutson, then cited a court decision in Apple Valley that the front lot line is any line that results in the least restrictive interpretation. This is a good example of Chaos Theory. Isn't it Strange? That when the realtor for the Bairds asked the Planning Dept. about splitting the lot she was told a serious variance would be required to subdivide, but the Igels were told no variance would be required to split the lot? ' Isn't it Strange? That when the Planning Dept. encounters code that clashes with a desired outcome, the solution is to label the code as a "glitch", and then propose changing or eliminating the code? E.g., the requirement for a developer to demonstrate that a 60x60 building pad exists (Sec. 18-61), and changing wording in shoreland code (Sec. 20-481 (b)). Isn't it Strange? That staff.gave the Igels a copy of the Staff.Report for the 6/6/00 Planning Commission meeting while telling us it was unavailable until four days later, and then only gave us a copy when we insisted on seeing it? The Igels used their copy of the Staff.Report to attempt to persuade us to agree on a two-lakeshore plan if they provided a conservation easement on the upper part of the lot. Our main concern is protection of the lake, and enforcement of ordinance. Adding another house on the lot would be detrimental to the lake by increasing impervious surface and surface runoff. It would also adversely impact property values of neighboring homes. Cordially, ~erald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 Attachment 1: Letter from Russ Schultz, DNR Shoreland Hydrologist, 10/6/00 Attachment 2: Letter from Joe Richter, DNR Hydrologist (Slather Addition, L. Susan), 2/7/96 Attachment 3: Excerpt from Ordinance Amendments Memo from Kathryn Aanenson, 6/30/95 Janet Dee Paulsen DNR WATERS, 1601 MINNESOTA DRIVE, BRAINERD, MN 56401 218/828-2605 October 6, 2000 Gerald W. Paulsen 7305 Laredo Dr.8069 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. Paulsen: John Linc Stine has asked n'tc to respond to your recent letter regarding questions on the states Shoreland Management rules. Below are answers to your questions listed in the order they were asked. QUESTION 1. By DNR standards, what is included in the definition of "road"? Does it include the entire right-of-way or is it only the paved surface? ANSWER: The definition of road includes the entire right-of-way. Setbacks are measured from the right-of-way. In cases where there is no .right-of-way, such as many private drives and parking areas, then thc setback is meas, ured from the paved surface. Below is the applicable rule language from the "Statewide Standards For Management of Shorcland Areas." 6120.3300 Subp. 3. F. Proximity to roads and highways. No structure ma3.,' be placed nearer tha_n 50 feet from the right-of-way line of any federal, state, or county highway; or 20 feet from the right-of-way line of any town road, public street, or others not classified. 6120.3300 Subp. 5. A. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbac'ks and must not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, the5' ma5' be placed vdthin these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts. QUESTION 2. Do dec/~:~ constitute an impervious surface under the Shoreland regulan'ons? Doing the math on a I 0 by 14 foot deck with 3/8 inch spacing between deck boards reveals a 95 % impervious surface area. Other deck configurations reveal about the same impervious surface percentage. Publications, research documents and professionals involved in estimating surface water runoff generally treat decks as impervious in their calculations. Surface water runoff increases with a deck. Just how much depends on deck layout, elevation and ground treatment below the deck. For all practical purposes decks should be considered impervious. ANSWER: Decks should be considered imperMous. QUESTION 3. Must Chanhassen submit Shoreland Ordinance amendments to DNR for approval? ANSWER: It is advisable to contact the DNR Area Hydrologist.in advance of when a Shoreland Ordinance amendment is being considered. Depending on the amendment, DNR approval may be needed. Tmvis Germundson is the DNR Area Hydrologist sen, ing your ci~:. Please feel free to contact him He can provide advice and assistance to )'our city in determining whether DNR approval is needed or not. Travis can be contacted at: DNR Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul. MN 55106 651 - 722-7910 I hope this addresses ,,,our questions. Please feel free to contact me or Travis should you have an,,- further questions. Sincerely, Russ Schultz Shorcland Hydrologist cc: Travis Gerrnundson. Area Hydrologist John Linc Stine. Water Management Supervisor Steve Johnson. Community Stewardship Supervisor PHONE NO. STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MEmO WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 772-7910 FILE NO. February 7, 1996 Mr. John Rask, Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Iv~'N 55317 Slather Addition, Lake Susan (10-13P), City of Chanhassen, Carver County (City #96-3 SUB) Dear Mr. Rask: We have reviewed the site plans (received January 26, 1996) for the Slather Addition (SW1/4 SW1/4 Section 13, T116N, R23W) at 8508 Great Plains Boulevard and have the following comments to offer: Lake Susan, a Public Water (10-13P), is on the proposed site. The applicant should be aware that activity below the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of 881.8' (NGVD, 1929) for Lake Susan, that alters the bed of the lake, is under the jurisdiction of the DNR and may require a DNR permit. , The OHW of 881.8' (NGVD, 1929) for Lake Susan (10-13P) should be noted on the plat. Since Section 20-47-9(c)(4) of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requires that only land above the OHW shall be used to meet the lot area standards, ancJ lot width standards must be met at the OHW and the building line_, the location of the OHW should be shown on plats. ~though it is the top of bluff setback that is most restrictive in this case, the OHW location is also needed to verify structure setbacks are met. . The proposed plan does not indicate how the stormwater will be managed. If a stormsewer is proposed for the subdivision, then the water should be treated before it is released to Lake Susan. If the stormwater will flow overland to Lake Susan, then the vegetation within the shore impact zone should be left natural and unmowed. The unmowed vegetation will act as a filter that will remove most of the pollutants from the stormwater. . A FEMA designated floodplain exists for Lake Susan. While it appears that the structures will not be within the 100-year floodplain of Lake Susan, the City should be sure that the applicant is aware of the applicable floodplain regulations of both the City and t,h..~.2,,il~m Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. FEB 0 8 1996 5~ . Lake Sum h~s a shoreland classification of Recreational Development. The ~hof'elaJtd district extends 1000 feet from the OHW. The development must be 6onslstent with City shoreland management regulations. In particular: A bluff occurs dose to Lake Sum The homeowner should be informed that Section 20482 of the Chanhassen Shoreland OrdNance requires bluffs to be undisturbed and structures to be placed at least 30' from the top of the bluff. bo Section 20-482, subdivision b2 of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requkes the retention ofvegemtion and topography in a natural state in the bluffimpact zone. The bluff~pact zone is an area within 20' of the top of the bluff. C. Section 20-485A of the Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance requkes impervious surface to cover less than 25% of the area of each lot. Although we did not use a planimeter, it appears that the impervious surfaces on each of the lots may cover more.than 25% of the lot surface. We recommend that impervious surfaces be minimized to avoid increasing negative impacts that the development may have on_Lake Susan. do The structures in the development should be screened from .view froTM Lake Susan using topography, existing vegetation, Color, landscaping and other means approved by the city. It appears that the riparian lot includes land that is below the OHW of Lake Susan. In general, we are against platting of land below the OHW of Public Waters due to the land's unsuitability for residential use. We recommend that the lot lines be adjusted to allow all of the lots to meet the size requirements without platting land that is below the OHW of Lake Susan. The following comments are general and apply to ail proposed developments: a. Appropri,'ate erosion control measures should be taken during the construction period. The guidelines within "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas - Best Management Practices for Minnesota" or their equivalent should be used. b. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, the contractor will need to obtain a DNR appropriations permit. It typically takes approximately 60 days to process the permit application. If construction activities disturb more than five acres of land, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Dan Sullivan ~ 296-7203). Mr. John Rask February 7, 1996 Page g;3 do 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 JP, Jcds Robert Obermeyer, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District Gary Elhman~ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers City of Chanhassen Shoreland File .':'~l~nning CommiSsion /'"'~i~hi~c~ Amendments '~jun'~' 50,' 1995 :page 4 ' .. · · ;' parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system - consistent with the comprehensive plan. . · · , 3. The use of a private street will Permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and protected areas. . , Comment - There has been an increase in the number of flag lot requests. Staff is recommending that there be standards for reviewing flag lots that may not be approPriate at all locations. · Sec. 18-58, AlleYs AlleyS are prohibited except for fire lanes in commercial and industrial development cxccpt or if approved as a part of a PUD. . Comment - Alleys should be prohibited With the exceptions noted. In a PUD+ especially a small lot or multi-family they may be appropriate. Sec; 18-60, Lots (a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private drivc street or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of thirty (30) feet of frontage. Comment - The change from drive to street is necessary because a drive is not necessarily public.. The 30 feet of frontage is a standard in the RSF district but should . be placed in the design standard section. · . (i) Driveway grades shall be a minimum of one-half (iA) percent and a maximum grade of ten (10) percent. · Comment - This is a standard for driveways although it is located in the building and bUilding regulations of the city ordinances. Placing this standard in the subdivision ,regulation establishes the criteria for reviewing driveways during the review of the -plat. '.. .. Sec. 18-61, Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. · ~,. Misspelled scientific names of trees: -.:. As spelled: Corrected (underlined): Betula payryiter Betula pap3'rifera C -Y 0 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 ~c'~idr~ by ¢~/Ad~n~ Don Ashworth, City Manager Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner II Dar,; Y.~;2'.'ni~ed t~ Go~ne. Jl (..:- r"~-9' '~ DATE: June 6, 1994 SUBJ: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Section 18-57. streets, by amending sections (n) and (o), to include Standards for Private Streets serving R-4, R-8, R-12, R-16, and Non-Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV. Off-Street Parking and Loading. BACKGROUND/PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE ' Staff published this ordinance amendment fOr the May 18, 1994, Planning Commission.meeting. At the meeting, staff noted that the City Attorney had suggested additional changes which required staff to republish the requested amendment as required by City Code. On May 18, 1994, staff requested that the Planning Commission discuss the requested ordinance amendment and give staff some direction and feedback on any changes or issues they wanted to see addressed. The two issues that were raised were the impaCt of this amendment on affordable housing and hard surface coverage. The private street ordinance will have a positive impact on both the hard surface coverage as well as affordable houSing because the streets are built narrower. ,: On June 1, .1994;' the.planning CommiSsion recommended that the CitY C°unci[ approve this ordinance. Mr. Smart Hoarn, a realtor with Burnet Realty, questioned the'impact on lots of record that will have to conform according to the amendment proposed bY staff. We have added a minor modification that would exempt lots of rec°rdl We are aware of two subdivisions that fall into this category. The first is located on'.Do~Wood and the second is served off of Great Plains Boulevard. :" , ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The current private driveway ordinance sets standards for the Residential Single Family District only. A number of the high density residential as well as non-residential use proposals that have Mr..Don Ashwort~ June 6, 1994 Page 2 . been submitted to the city, have been utilizing private driveways. The zoning and subdivision 0~flifi~C~s do not have Standards to measure these types of private driveways. Staff is proposing ~" amendment" t'6 .the subdivision ordinance, Section 18-57 (n) and (o) and to the zoning "0fdinance, Article XXIV, Off-Street Parking and Loading, to read as follows: (n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the metropolitan urban service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan, shall be constructed to urban standards as prepared by the city engineer's office. Streets to be constructed in Subdivisions located outside the metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural standard requirements as prepared by the city engineer's office. The construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18-57 (o). (o). Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16. Up to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private ddvcway street if the city finds the following conditions to exist: ' The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making ~is determination the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. 2, After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. o The use of a private drivcway street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including Wetlands and forested areas. .- . .. If the use of a private drivcway street is to be allowed, they shall be subject to the following standards: le The common sections of a private drivcway street 'serving 2 units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a seven (7) ton design, paved to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fee marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Private streets serving R-8, R-12, and R-16, shall be built to a seven (7) ton design, paved a minimum width of 24 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire. Marshal based on applicable fire codes. Private streets serving business, industrial, and office districts shall be built to a nine(9) ton design, paved a minimum width of 26 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by CITYOF Ci9, Ce, ret Drive, PO Box I47 ~a,hasse,, Mi,,esota 55317 Pho,e 612.937. I~00 Se, cml Far 612 937 5739 gi, eering Fax 612.9379152 blic S~3O, Fa4' 612.93<2524 ~b wtt,tt~ ti. &a,hasse,.,t,. us MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: September 19, 2000 SUB J: Lucas Igel Addition As part of the City Council meeting for September 25, 2000, two preliminary plats for the property are being presented. One plat requests a variance from the lakeshore lot width requirement and proposes the creation of two lakeshore lots. The other plat does not require any variances and proposes one lakeshore and one non-lake shore lot. Both plats will be presented to City Council for final determination and decision. The one lake shore and one non-lakeshore lot complies with ali the requirements of the subdivision and zoning ordinances subject to the recommended conditions of approval. The request for a variance from the iakeshore lot width is reasonable, given the benefits to the neighborhood of this alternative. However since it does require a variance, the City Council may deny the request for that plat. g:\plan\bg\development review\igel cover memo.doc City of Chanhassen. A growi,~ com,m,it~, wit/., c/e,m/ak(:c, et:a/itt sc/_~oo/s, a c/'.~amih~f dow,tow,, t/.,'ivi,~, bv. si, esses, a,d bea,.aifid parks. A ~reat p/,7,'e to ~ire, work, 7305 Laredo Dr. Chanhassen MN 55317 September 19, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Proposed Igel Addition, Mission Impossible (please attach to Staff Report) Attached is a sketch of the August 4 plat representing the upper, non-lakeshore lot. This sketch illustrates that the developer/surveyor erred by understating the impervious surface for the lot. The impervious surface (proposed building plus the private street), exceeds the limit of 25% of the property area. In fact, the impervious surface figure given by the developer on this plat and the previous plat (April 20), is understated by 350 ft2. The summary table shows that the developer says that on this plat and the previous plat, the proposed impervious surface is 5420 ft2. The allowable coverage is shown as 5438 ft2 (again the same on both plats). The developer says he is 18 ft2 under the allowable . 25%. The lower half of the table summarizes our measurements of impervious surface. We calculate this area to be 5790 ft2 (350 ft2 overthe allowable area of 5438 ft2). In the upper right comer of the sketch is an area identified as Area 1. The dashed line to the left is the property line as shown on the April 20 plat. The line to the right is the new lot line. On the recent plat, the developer has added a section of the private street to this lot that was part of the other lot on the previous plat. This adds 145 ft2 of impervious surface. In the upper left comer of the sketch is an area identified as Area 2. This represents the portion of the private street that must be 20 ft wide (not 18 ft wide as shown). This adds another 70 ft2 of impervious surface. The total impervious surface is 6005 ft2 or 565 ft2 over that allowed. Mission Impossible is to reconcile the figures provided bY the developer with the measured values. I can't do it. Cordially, ~'Gerald W. Paulsen 1 o%1 (%9'Zg:) 999 , ~gAO 09g ~009 lelO.l. §'l.g+ g'l, seaJV 06Z9 lelolqn$ 06Z9 § 1.9Z:+ J1S/a^IJQ 9 I, 9~:+ c_;g~ )loaO 9g~z 0~ig: asnoH 0PZ~: (%9'9~:) .lea0 lelolqn$ J1S/a^!JQ ' >ioaQ asnoH 9 ~ , Japun 9~ Japun · %6"¢~ alqe~Olle JeAO { From: Jerry/Jan Paulsen Date: September 19, 2000 To: Chanhassen City Council Subject: Proposed Igel Addition (please attach to Staff Report) These are the reasons for denying approval of variances for the Proposed Igel Addition: #1. All 6 conditions for granting a variance in Chapter 20 are not met. Chapter 20 Zoning Division 3. Variances Sec. 20-58. General conditions for granting. A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: (1) That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majodty of comparable property within 500 feet. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. (2) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. (4) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. (5) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. (6) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. a. Sec. 20-58, criteria (1) (undue hardship; pre-existing standards): The developer will not be caused "undue hardship" if not Permitted to split the lot. The lot can be put to reasonable use for a single home the same as it has been used for over 40 years. The removal of many mature trees, or the construction of an additional house that impairs the view of neighbors would detrimentally change the character of the neighborhood. Sunrise Hills was developed under covenants that prescribed a 40-ft front lot setback and a 12- ft side lot set back. These are pre-existing standards for a developed neighborhood. Code -- states there should not be a downward departure from pre-ex/sting standards. The developer should not be permitted to depart downward from these setbacks. Conclusion' Denial of a variance would not cause "undue hardship". The developer should be held to the more restrictive pre-existing standards in Sunrise Hills. The developer fails to fulfill variance criteria (1). b. Sec. 20-58, criteria (3) (increased value; income potential): The developer stated (Staff Report, June 6, p. 14) the request is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the lot. Rather, he states that the neighborhood would be improved. Staff concedes that "the creation of (multiple) lake shore lots would increase the value of the property". Creating two lots from one must be viewed as increasing the property value. The Staff Report states "staff does not believe that [the desire to increase the value of the property) is the so/e reason for the request". Staff concludes that if there is more than one reason for the developer to split the lot, then it is irrelevant that the developer wants to increase the property value. This is specious reasoning. Conclusion: The developer fails to fulfill variance cdteria (3). c. Sec. 20-58, criteria (4) (not a self-created hardship)' The developer purchased the property on the speculation that the lot could be split. The seller was told by the realtor that they could apply to the city for a variance in order to split the lot. Conclusion: The developer fails to fulfill variance criteria (4). d. Sec. 20-58, criteria (5) (not detrimental to the neighborhood): Both proposed plats (2 lakeshore, and 1 lakeshore + 1 non-lakeshore) would result in a substantial loss of trees, including mature trees 160+ years old (predating the Civil Wad). Water runoff would be significantly increased because of impervious surface, and steep slope. The proposal would adversely impact the views and property values of neighboring homes. Conclusion: The developer fails to fulfill variance criteria (5). e. Sec. 20-58 criteria (6) (safety; diminished property values): Adding a house would increase congestion on Laredo Drive. The cul-de-sac has a smaller diameter than normal cul-de-sacs. A school bus cannot navigate the cul-de-sac without backing up. Snow plows and emergency vehicles cannot use-the cul-de-sac without backing several times. Splitting the lot would create a private street. Since ordinance prohibits parking on a private street, the increase in vehicular traffic would have to be accommodated by parking on the cul-de-sac. Laredo Drive is too narrow to accommodate parking on both sides. The length of a private street and driveway would impair entrance of emergency vehicles. The removal of trees would diminish the value of adjacent properties. Conclusion: The developer fails to fulfill variance criteria (6). #2._AIl 4 conditions for granting a variance in Chapter 18 are not met. Chapter 18 Subdivisions. Article II. Administration and Enforcement. Division 1. Generally. Sec. 18-22. VarianCes. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that al_l of the following conditions exist: (1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; (2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; (3) The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; (4) The granting of a vadance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Conclusion: All 4 conditions are not met for the same reasons pertaining to Sec. 20-58, above. #3. The developer does not meet ail the conditions of a hardship as defined in MN Statute. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Hardship - the same as that term is defined in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462. MN Statute 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. (2) "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments or the goveming body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent properties. The property can be put to reasonable use without splitting the lot. Even a new house on the lot might not change the character of the subdivision. Subdividing the lot would alter the essential character of the neighborhood as described above. Conclusion: The developer does not meet all requirements of a hardship. #4. The developer's proposed subdivision is not consistent with ordinances. CHAPTER 18. Subdivisions Sec. 18-39. Preliminary plat--Generally. (f) The findings necessary for city council approval of the preliminary plat and the final plat shall be as follows: (1) The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; (2) The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Conclusion: The developer's proposed subdivision is not consistent with zoning ordinance, and requires multiple variances. Final Comments: A preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission in March. However: Staff erroneously said the plat met code. The lot width was not measured at the Ordinary High Water (OHVV) line as required by code. The lot width was not measured at the setback line. The lot width did not meet the 90-ft width required by Chanhassen code. The lot width did not even meet the 75-ft DNR minimum until a subsequent plat miraculously elongated the OHW line (reference our May 8 letter; affectionately called "Battle of the Bulge"). It is particularly important for the city to require that shoreland regulations be followed, and that our lakes be protected. Chanhassen should not have a reputation as being an easy mark for approval of deviation from code. The city has an obligation to protect the quality of our lakes, and maintain the character of existing subdivisions. Conclusion: The developer does not meet the criteria for approval of variances for the proposed development. The application should not be approved. Thank you. Date: To.' Subject: Jerry/Jan Paulsen; 7305 Laredo Drive; Chanhassen MN September 19, 2000 Chanhassen City Council Proposed Igel Addition, Unresolved Issues (please attach to Staff Report). #1. Use of terms private street/driveway vs. "shared" or "common" driveway. There has been conflicting discussion on the definition of the terms private street and private driveway. Staff agrees that the terms private street, private right-of-way, private road, private driveway, and private drive are used synonymously in code. We find no definition in code for "shared" or "common" driveway. In 1994, code was changed to replace the term "private driveway" with "private street". Attached are two pages (Attachment A) from a staff Memorandum (May 26, 1994) proposing the term "private street" replace "private driveway". We are waiting for an opinion from Mr. Knutson on the application of private street in this proposal. #2. Multiple definitions of front lot line. It seems that no one can agree on what defines the front lot line of Lot 2 (Attachment B, 2 lakeshore lots). We contend that the north lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 where the private street crosses from Lot 1 into Lot 2, defines the front lot line for Lot 2. Sec. 20-1 defines the front lot line as the line separating a lot from a street right-of-way. Attorney Malkerson (applicant's counsel) said the MN Supreme Court said the lake defines the front lot line. Mr. Malkerson has not responded to our request to cite the specific case. The DNR says they have not heard of such a ruling. Bob Generous said Mr. Malkerson was wrong; the front lot line was the point nearest the cul-de-sac where the two lot lines converge (with a length of 0 it!). City Attorney Knutson says all the preceding are wrong; the lot has no front lot line as defined in Sec. 20-1. He says that when the interpretation of ordinance is debatable, the interpretation that is least restrictive applies (either the northerly line or the south-westerly line is the front lot line). Two sections of code contradict Mr. Knutson's premise that the least restrictive interpretation takes precedence. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot line, front means the lot line separating a lot from a street right-of-way. In the case of a corner lot it shall be the lot line with the shortest dimensions on the street. Sec. 1-2. Rules of construction and definitions. Generally. Where any provision of the Code imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than the general provision imposed by the Code, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. Sec. 20-3. Interpretation. (a) Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this chapter are either more or less restrictive than conditions imposed by other ordinances, the ordinance which is most restrictive shall prevail. #3. We are waiting on answers from the City Attorney on six items (Sep 17 letter to Scott Botcher): · All lots must abut on a public or private street. · A private street requires a 20-t~ setback. · A lot accessed by a private driveway requires a 100-ft lot width at the front building setback line. · The area occupied by street fights-of-way must be excluded from total lot area when calculating impervious surface. A private street cannot divide a lot. The 2 lake shore proposal requires multiple variances. Thank you, / / C -Y 0-- 690 COULTER DRIVE · P.O. BOX 147 · CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 · FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commissioq FROM' Sharmin A1-Jaff, Planner II DATE: May 26, 1994 SUBJ' Zoning Ordinanc.~ Amendment to Section 18-57. Streets, by. amending sections (n) and (o), to include Standards for Private Streets serving R-4, R-8, R-12, R-16, and Non-Residential Uses and Amendment to Article XXIV. Off-Street Parking and Loading. BACKGROUND Staff published this ordinance amendment for the May 18, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. At the meeting, staff noted that the City Attorney had suggested additional changes which required staff to republish the requested amendment as required by City Code. On May 18, 1994, staff requested that the Planning Commission discuss the requested ordinance amendment and give staff some direction and feedback on any changes or issues they wanted to see addressed. The two issues that Were raised were the impact of this amendment on affordable housing and hard surface coverage. The private street ordinance will have a positive impact on both the hard surface coverage as well as affordable housing because the streets are built · . , narrower. ' - :'.. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT · ~. . The current private driveway ordinance sets standards for the Residential Single Family District only. A number of the high density residential as well as non-residential use proposals that have been submitted to the city, have been utilizing private driveways. The zoning and subdivision ordinances do not have standards to measure these types of private driveways. Staff is proposing an amendment to the subdivision ordinance, Section 18-57 (n) and (o) and to the zoning ordinance, Article XXIV. Off-Street Parking and Loading, to read as follows: (n) Public streets to be constructed in subdivisions located inside the metropolitan urban service area line, as identified in the city comprehensive plan shall be constructed to Planning Commission May 26, 1994 Page 2 (o). urban standards as prepared by the city engineer's office. Streets to be constructed in subdivisions located outside the metropolitan urban service area shall conform to the rural standard requirements as prepared by the city engineer's office. The construction of private streets are prohibited except as specified in Section 18-57 (o). Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16. Up to four (4) lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts may be served by a private drivcway street if the city finds the following conditions to exist: -- 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 geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. o After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street sys.t, em 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 a private drivcway street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. - If the use of a private drivcway street is to be allowed, they' shal1 be subject to the following standards: le The common sections of a private drivcway street serving 2 units or more in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R4 districts must be built to a (7) seven ton design, paved to a width of 20 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based upon guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Private streets serving R-8, R-12, and R-16, shall be built to a (7)' seven ton design, paved a minimum width of 24 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround acceptable to the Fire Marshal based on applicable fire codes. Private streets serving business, industrial, and office districts shall be built to a (9) nine ton design, paved a minimum width of 26 feet, utilize a maximum grade of 10%, and provide a turnaround area acceptable to the fire marshal based on guidelines provided by applicable fire codes. Plans for the drivcway street shall be submitted to the city engineer. Upon completion of the driveway, the applicant shall submit a set of "as-built" plans signed by a registered civil engineer. , Private drivcways streets must be maintained in good condition and plowed within twenty-four (24) hours of a snowfall greater than two (2) inches. Covenants concerning maintenance shall be filed against all benefitting properties. 0 , ,L o,"/ j. oo(y..dj :' ~, NOIIlCIOY -1301 S¥:DFi-1 03SOdO~d 3NV-I O03~Vq ///'" / / / Deborah Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-934-5696 To~ Re: Date: Honorable Members of Chanhassen City Council and Mayor Mancino Proposed Igel Subdivison - Sunrise Hills September 19, 2000 The Paulsen's have some very basic questions about the City of Chanhassen's Code in relation to the Igel Subdivision. Since their questions have not yet been answered, I will address some other basic but related points. I believe the Chanhassen City Code and Comprehensive Plan are written in simple language, and not too encumbered with technical jargon. Yet, when it comes to applying this simple language, I am left with the overwhelming impression that - English is my second language. Let me assure you, it is not. It appears that staff has the liberty to interpret this code and this interpretation can cloud original intent of the language. Since the role of the Planning Commission is to put their faith in Staff there is no one to question applicability unless of there is opposition to a development. Case in point was the first subdivison proposal of the Igel lot, which was approved by Planning Commission. The Staff report error regarding the lakeshore frontage requirement, made it appear that the subdivision met code, when indeed it did not. Had the Paulsen's not reviewed code, the subdivision would be history. Over the past several months I have reviewed many subdivison files. Let me just simply say that there are plats, which have been approved with flaws. And when the flaws are allowed to become "historical precedent" we've only enabled the perpetuation of errors. That of course wouldn't be our intent, but it will become the unfortunate outcome. "Historically we've applied code this way". Don't buy that as the only reason to interpret the code other than as written. Ask questions? Seek the truth. For example, we have Shoreland Regulations. Do we apply them for all land within 1,000 feet of a lake? Simply the most alarming or disheartening element of this process was not that errors are made, or that code is not applied. Rather, It was that that when discovery was made of code relative to this situation was found and questioned, that some powers that be attempted to change the code rather than uphold it. CITY PC DATE: 6/6/00 6/20/00 7/18/00 CC DATE: 6/26/00 9/25/00 REVIEW DEADLINE: 6/20/00; 8/19/00 Bas walveo review ~leactlnl~ STAFF REPORT BY: RG, DH PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for preliminary plat with a variance to lakeshore width requirement to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 sihgle family lots, Lucas Igel AddiiSon Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive David and Rachael Igel 6195 Strawberry Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 (952) 920-8300 11Fr~ 'r~ ~"~ i? ~, Tr'r~ 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4 units/acre) ACREAGE: 1.09 acres (47,501 sq. ft.) DENSITY: 1.83 units per acre, gross and net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for subdivision approval received on April 21, 2000, to create two lakeshore lots with a variance to the lakeshore width requirement. Lot areas are 27,159 square feet and 20,342 square feet. These parcels shall be accessed via a shared driveway. The existing house on the site will be razed to accommodate the two new houses. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Lotus Lake Jl Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 2 The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing the subdivision of a lot into two lots. The proposed lots meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance, but not the requirement for lakeshore frontage. The lots also continue the pattern of lot and house placement along the street. The applicant is, therefore, requesting a variance from the lakeshore width requirement. The applicant has also prepared a plan that demonstratcs that they could subdivide the property in a manner that complies with all elements of the zoning ordinance. However, this alternate also has significant visual impacts on the neighborhood. Staffhas reviewed the properties around Lotus Lake and discovered that 55 lots have lakeshore widths less than 90 feet. The smallest of these lots had a lakeshore width of 47.27 feet as shown on the plat. Interestingly, a lot in the Sunrise Hills subdivision in which this property is located has a lot with a lakeshore width of 70 feet (75 feet at the survey line). At least three of the properties with less than 90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted the shoreland management district regulations. Staff has also looked at the size of lots in the area to determine if lots are in fact larger in this neighborhood than elsewhere in the community. The lots in the Sunrise Hills 1st Addition range in size from 13,846.38 to 47,127.09 square feet based on GIS calculations. The average lot area in this development is 18,992.65 19,154 square feet. The proposed development has lot areas of 27,159 square feet and 20,342 square feet. Minimum lot area for RSF zoned property is 15,000 square feet and for lakeshore property is 20,000 square feet. Adjacent zoning and land uses are N - RSF, single family home, S - RSF, single family homes, W - RSF, single family homes, and E - Lotus Lake. Water and sewer are available to the property and currently connected to the existing house. The site slopes from west to east with a high point at Laredo Drive of 940 and a low point at the lake at 896.3 (the Ordinary High Water elevation of the Lake). The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans propose using the existing blacktop driveway for common access and the driveways split approximately 70 down the lot with a new driveway constructed for both lots. The site has approximately 77 percent canopy coverage. The ultimate canopy cover will be 69 percent. Code requires a minimum canopy coverage of 55 percent. The existing house on the site has a basement elevation of 914.4. The proposed houses have lowest floor elevations of 913.5 and 911.0 on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. (Lot 1 is the proposed northerly lot and Lot 2 is the proposed southerly lot.) The proposed lots are 27,159 and 20,342 square feet. Minimum lot size for shoreland propelxy is 20,000 square feet. The proposed lots meet ali requirements for subdivision except for the 90 feet of shoreland frontage. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 3 The applicant has also prepared an alternative subdivision plan that meets all requirements of the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one lakeshore and one non lakeshore property. While this plan complics with the ordinance, it does significantly impact the amount of tree removal, increasing canopy loss from eight percent to 22 percent of the site. The placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternate xvould stack the houses, altering the pattern of development along the street. Finally, the two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the lake, vis h vis the applicant's preferred plan. The neighbors have provided the city with a copy of restrictive covenants for Sunrise Hills First Addition. Item number 18 appears to prohibit the applicant from subdividing the parcel. However, the city does not enforce restrictive covenants. Rather, it is our responsibility to review the proposed development for compliance with City Ordinances. Additionally, the applicant stated that the restrictive covenants expired in 1987 and that they are no longer applicable to this lot. Subject to the revisions contained in this report, staff believes that the benefits of approving a variance exceed the potential negative impacts of the alternative plat, which complies with City Ordinance, and is, therefore, recommending the subdivisiOn and variance for approval. RESPONSE TO ORDINANCE INTERPRETATION Staff has reviewed the Ordinance Interpretations submitted at the June 6, 2000, Planning Commission hearing regarding the Lucas Igel Addition. Following is the comment and staff's response' _ 1. Lot width. Variance request is for 75 feet lakeshore per lot. Code requires 90 feet. Chapter 20 Zoning Article VII. Shoreland Management District (a) Lot area and width standards (2) Sewered lakes- Recreational Development: Riparian Lots Area Width Single 20,000 90 Conclusion: Developer actually requires two variances, 15 ft. for each lot. Response: Staff concurs. The proposed subdivision is requesting thel5 foot variance for each lot. 1. The 90' lot width defined in item #1 must be met at both the OHW line and at the building line. See. 20-480. Zoning and water supply/sanitation (4) Additional Special provisions. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 4 Sec. 20-1. Definitions Building line - a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Setback - the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or roadway easement line; and, within shoreland areas. Setback also means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark. Conclusion: South lot (Lot 2) must be 90 ft. wide at the building line, i.e., at the line delineated by the 75 foot setback from the OHW line. The width at the building line for the south lot is less than 90 ft. and does not meet code. Response: Staff concurs. Staff estimates that the width for Lot 2 at the building line is 86.5 feet. The 90 foot width requirement is part of the shoreline width requirement from which the applicant is requesting a variance (Section 20-480 (a) (4)). Since the applicant is already requesting a 15 foot variance, we included any deficiencies in width as part of this variance. Staff was more concerned that the applicant meet the 90 foot lot width at the middle of the building pad area to assure that adequate building area be available in the buildable area of the lot. Lot width means the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. For Lot 2, this distance is 90.5 feet. 2. A 60' x 60' buildable pad (window) is required on all RSF lots. The south lot fails this requirement. Chapter 18. Subdivisions Sec. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. (4) In single-family detached residential developments, the applicant must demonstrate that suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a sixty-foot by sixty-foot building pad (which includes deck area) without intruding into required setbacks and easements. Conclusion: The south lot does not accommodate a 60' x 60' building pad without intruding on required setbacks. The pad does not fit within the building window. The lot does not meet code. Response: Staff interprets this ordinance to mean that subdivisions must be reviewed to determine that a suitable building site exists on each lot. A 60 by 60 foot building pad represents a 3,600 square foot area. The applicant has drawn a 3,770 square foot buildable area with average width of 53.5 feet and average length of 70.5 feet. These dimensions could adequately accommodate most houses and decks that are proposed in the Cit3, of Chanhassen. However, the buildable area for Lot 2 begins at the point at which the lot, accessed via a private drive, achieves the 100 foot lot width (Section 20-615 (3). This area is approximately 84 feet wide by 70.5 feet in length which exceeds the 60 foot by 60 foot requirement. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 5 3. The terms private street, private right-of-way, private road, private driveway, private drive and shared drive are used synonymously. Sec. 18-60. Lots. (a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as reqzdred by the zoning ordinance or on a private street or a flag lot which shall have a minimzm~ of thirty (30)feet of frontage. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Private street - a street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land which is not dedicated to the public but is owned by one or more private parties. Street means a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-way approved pursuant to the requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting property. The te~Tn "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity comply with the preceding requirements. Conclusion: The south lot does not abut a public street. Therefore code requires that it must abut a private street, and what the city refers to as a driveway ttn'ough the north lot is, in fact, a private street. Response: Staff agrees that the driveway accessing Lot Two is a private drive/street and that it can be defined as a private street in the subdivision ordinance. The City of Chanhassen distinguishes between public right-of-way and private property in calculating lot area, net density, impervious surface, etc. This lot meets the criteria established for permitting a private street in the subdivision ordinance. Any lot accessed by a private driveway must have a lot width of 100 feet. The north lot is accessed by a private driveway, and is shown on that plat as having a width of 90 ft. (not 100 ft.). Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district. (3) Lot width on neck orflag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line. Remarks: Compare the current Staff Report with the previous Staff report (March 15th). The current staff report (p. 5, Compliance Table) refers to the south lot (Lot 2) as a "Lots accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of i00 ft..." Note that this private drive originates in the north lot (Lot 1) and crosses into the south lot (Lot 2). Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July I 8, 2000 Page 6 Now refer to the previous March 15th Staff Report.-The Compliance Table again refers to the south Lot (Lot 2) as "Lots accessed via a private drive (which) must have a lOt width of 100 ft..." However, note that this private drive, in contrast, originates in the south lot. Conclusion: It doesn't make any difference whether the private drive originates in the north lot or the south lot. In both cases the requirement is for a lot width of 100 ft. These two examples show that the city considers both the north and south lots to be accessed via a private drive. In both cases, the city states 100 ft. is required. Therefore, any lot accessed via a private drive must have a width of 100 ft. at the front building setback, i.e., on the current plat, both lots require a 100 ft. lot width. The north lot shows a lot width of 90 ft., not 100 ft. Response: One lot has its entire frontage on a public street and technically could access via-a separate driveway at any point on the street frontage. The other property has no street frontage and must therefore access via a private driveway across the other property. It is only for the convenience of the neighbors and to preserve trees that the City of Chanhassen is requiring both properties to access via the same curb cut. Since Lot 1 could access directly to the street, we do not interpret that this lot must comply with the 100 foot lot width requirement. However, if you look at the preliminary plat, the line drawn across Lot 1 at the front of the house is 106.1 feet. Were the City of Chanhassen to interpret the cOde as requiring that this width be met, Lot 1 would already comply with that requirement. 5. The lot area must exclude the area defined as street rights-of-way. This impacts the 25% impervious surface requirements. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot area - the area of a horizontal plan bounded by the front, side or rear lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of lakes or rivers or by street rights-of-way. Street means a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-way'approved pursuant to the requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity comply with the preceding requirements. Sec. 20-485. Storm water management. Impervious surface coverage of a lot shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area,... Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to gravel driveways parking area, buildings and structures. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 7 Since portions of the lots are crossed by a private street, that portion must be excluded fi'om the lot area. The calculation for a maximum 25% impervious surface for both lots must be recalculated. Response: The City of Chanhassen only excludes public right-of-way fi'om lot area calculations. As stated previously, we distinguish between public right-of-way and private property. Both lots meet the impervious surface requirement as defined in the City of Chanhassen Code. 6. The entrance street requires a 10' setback from the north property line, but has-only 8' (both plats). Sec. 20-484. Placement and design of roads, driveways... (b) Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternative exists, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. The common 20 ft. wide private street does not have a 10 ft. setback from the north property line. Response: While it could be argued that this ordinance applies to the lake setback requirement, staff can concede the issue. This problem can be easily rectified by adding a condition of the preliminary plat approval that the driveway alignment meet structure setback requirements. The applicant shall realign the driveway to meet the 10 foot side yard setback. A very minor portion of the entrance to the street is only eight feet from the north property line. This flaw is not fatal in regards to the approval of the subdivision. 7. The definition for a lot states it is an area of land undivided by any public street or approved private road. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot means a separate parcel, tract, or area of land undivided by an:}, public street or approved private road, which has been established by metes and bounds subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, and which is occupied or intended to be developed for and occupied by a principal building or group of such buildings and accessoo~ buildings, or utilized for a principal use and uses accessory thereto, including such open spaces and yards as are designed and arranged or required by this chapter for such building, use or development. The private road on these plats does not traverse the perimeter of the property as is true in the examples we have seen in the city. It crosses through the middle of the lots which code says cmmot be done. Response: Staff has historically interpreted that in the lot definition a private street does not divide the lot unless a private street is included in a separate parcel or outlot that divides the Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July ! 8, 2000 Page 8 property in to two separate parcels. A private street that is included within an easement over one or more lots does not divide a parcel into separate parcels. It would be similar to assuming that a drainage and utility easement or any other easement that runs down the middle of a lot would be creating two lots, one on each side of the easement, which is not the case. The private street ordinance is designed to enhance environmental protection. We could have the applicant run the private driveway along the property line to access Lot 2 and have a separate access for Lot 1. However, we would lose all tree preservation that we hope to achieve through . the current design. Staff Conclusion: Staff stands by the comments of the staff report for the June 6, 2000, Planning Commission meeting with the addition of the condition that the driveway maintain the 10 foot side yard setback. While it may not be 100 percent clear that there are two variances involved, one for each lot, the staff report clearly intends to address a 15 foot lakeshore width variance request for each lot. Included in this request would be a variance from the 90 foot width at the building line, since this requirement is in Section 20-480 (a) (4). BACKGROUND In 1956, the Town Board of Chanhassen approved the plat for Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition. On December 19, 1956, the Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition was accepted and approved by the County Board of Carver County. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2000, to review the proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission voted four for and none against a motion recommending approval of the subdivision based on staff's interpretation that 75 feet of shoreland was required. Upon discove~3~ of this error, staff notified the applicant that we could not support the subdivision because it did not meet code and no variance was requested as part of the public hearing process. The application was withdrawn to pursue a subdivision with the appropriate variance request. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Igel Addition development are as follows: Total upland area Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation Proposcd trcc prcscrvation 47,501 SF or 1.091 ac. 77% or36,576 SF 55% or 26,126 SF 69% or 32,776 SF (with variance) 55% or 26,126 SF (altcrnativc) The developer meets minimum canopy coverage, therefore no replacement plantings are required. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 9 Existing vegetation serves as appropriate buffer yard plantings for most of the development. There had been some question regarding trees that were shown on the plans as dead or diseased. The City Forester inspected the site on May 22nd. The oaks identified as diseased have dead wood in their canopies, but they are not diseased and do not merit removal since they are healthy. The dead ash is indeed dead. Staff recommends that plantings be added to the area directly north of the proposed home on Lot 1. This area is currently paved driveway and will become yard for the proposed home. Assuming a 10' x 100' buffer yard, minimum requirements include one overstory tree, 2 understory trees and three shrubs. GRADING/DRAINAGE There is an existing home on the lot that is to be razed for redevelopment. Grading plans propose fairly minor grading to develop two new house pads. Both lots are proposed to be two- story rambler, walkout-type dwellings. Grading around the dwelling will encroach upon the 75- foot setback from the lake, however; only minimal tree loss is anticipated with this grading activity. This grading activity is necessary to maintain positive drainage away from the proposed dwelling. At time of building permit application, a detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required with each lot. At that time, staff will address erosion control measures necessary with individual permits. The site contains an existing blacktop driveway that cun'ently serves the existing residence. The plans propose on constructing a new driveway through Lot 2 to service both of the new parcels. Upon review of the driveway layout, staff recommends that due to the steep drivexvay grades, Lot 1 should utilize the existing blacktop driveway and Lot 2 should have a new driveway as shown. This will reduce the common portion of the driveway xvhich needs to be built 20 feet wide, 7-ton per axle design through the common portion. A cross-access easement for both lots will need to be prepared and recorded for the common portion of the driveway through Lot 2. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The existing house is co~mected to city sewer and water. In conjunction with razing of the existing dwelling, the appropriate demolition permits w, ill be required. The parcel has been previously assessed for one sewer and water unit, therefore, the newly created lot will be responsible at time of building permit issuance for one sewer and water hookup and connection charge. The 2000 sanitary sewer and water connection charges are $4,075 each and the trunk sanitary sewer and watermain hookup charges are $1,300 and $1,694, respectively. These fees may be specially assessed against the property at time of building permit issuance. Extension of sanitary sewer service to Lot 2 will involve encroaching upon Lot 1. The applicant will need to prepare private cross-access easements for extension of the sewer and water lines through Lot 2 to be recorded against both parcels. Cun'ently, one water service exists for the existing building. A new water service will need to come from Laredo Lane to the property line to service Lot 2. This will involve open cutting of Laredo Lane to tap the existing watermain. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 10 water service for Lot 2 from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot 1. The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. Staff recommends the applicant escrow with the City $2,000 to guarantee extension of a sanitary sewer service from Lot 1 to Lot 2. STREETS The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans propose using the driveway to service both lots. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the first building permit for a home in this development. COMPLIANCE TABLE AREA (sql ft.) FRONTAGE (ft.) DEPTH Lake.Froni~':i_ftji ..................... Code Requirements 20,000 90 125 90 Lot 1 27,159 90 278 75 # Lot 2 20,342 100 * 397 75 # Total 47,501 Altematc Lot 1 21,752 90 155 Not applicable Alternate Lot,. '~ 25,749 190.21 l~,~ ~'~, . ,, ~ ~.~,,,<r~ Lots accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet as measured at the front building setback. A 15 foot lake front variance is being requested. Minimum state shoreland standards are 75 feet. SUBDIVISION FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District subject to approval of the shoreland width variance. The alternate plat complics with all code requirements. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable plans. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 11 , The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause envirolm~ental damage; Findin~o: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to the conditions of approval. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather xvill expand and provide all necessary easements. 0 The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: Lack of adequate sto~xn water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitm2~ sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the sun'ounding 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. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 12 (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The prevailing development pattern does not make it feasible or appropriate to construct a public street. The proposed private street serving the development is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. In order to preserve the trees in the western portion of Lots 1 and 2, the use of the existing driveway on Lot 1, in its present configuration, is appropriate. The use of a public street is impractical. SUBDIVSION VARIANCE FINDINGS Section 18-22, Variances, states: The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: (1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; (2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape topographical conditions of the land; (3) The condition or conditions upon which the variance is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; and (4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehenSive plan. Finding. The proposed variance to the shoreland width is not a mere inconvenience, rather it is a mechanism to reduce the potential impacts of the addition of the new lot to the neighborhood by preserving the trees along the western property line, maintaining the character of the area by pushing the houses away from the right-of-way, and maintaining off site views of the lake. The proposed variance is generally in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. VARIANCE FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not gram a variance unless they find the following facts: ao That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 13 b. C, d. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does create a hardship. The topography of the site, the desire to preserve the natural amenities on the property and the wish to preserve the character of the area make the granting of the variance more desirable than requiring the applicant to meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Approving the variance will not depart downward from pre-existing standards since the lot size is consistent with other lots in the area and another lot within the Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition has lakeshore frontage that is even less than that proposed in this subdivision. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are not applicable to all properties in the shore land management district. The desire to preserve natural amenities on the site, the enhancement of lake views, the desire to maintain the lot patterning of the neighborhood are unique to this development proposal. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: While the creation of lakeshore lots will increase the value of the property, staff does not believe that is the sole reason for the request. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The difficulty in meeting the ordinance is due to the lot configuration which meets ordinance requirements in area, depth, frontage, "lot width," but not lakeshore width. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in xvhich the parcel is located. Requiring the applicant to meet all requirements of the ordinance would be more detrimental to the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. Requiring Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 14 the subdivision to meet all requirements of the ordinance would create the potential for the crowding of houses near the cul-de-sac. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public heating on June 6, 2000, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and tabled the item to pelmit staff to respond to questions regarding the ordinance interpretation. The Planning Commission held a hearing on July 18, 2000, to review the request for preliminary plat approval with a variance to lakeshore width requirement to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots. While not a public hearing, the commission permitted interested parties to comment on the proposed plat. The Planning Commission voted five for, none against, and one abstention, to recommend denial of the preliminary plat. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the preliminary plat with a variance to the shoreland width requirement, Subdivision #00-2, for Lucas Igel Addition, as shown on plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000, and revised April 20, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. A demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The existing building must be demolished prior to recording the final plat. 2. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the appropriate department or agency. 3. Final reports must be provided for any soil correction work before building permits will be issued. 4. Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code. o A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time of building permit application for city staff to review and approve. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to site grading. o All lots shall maintain the neighborhood drainage Pattern. Erosion control measures will be required on the building permit Certificate of Survey. Erosion control fencing shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits. A rock construction entrance may Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 15 also be required at Laredo Lane. . The applicant and staff shall work together in dete~Tnining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 2 from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and sanitary sewer services tl'u'ough Lot 1 to Lot 2. The applicant shall escrow with the City $3,500 to guarantee the water and sanitary sewer service extension across Lot 1 to serve Lot 2. A sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charge will be applied at time of building permit issuance on Lot 2. The cost of extending the water service to Lot 2 from Laredo Lane shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge for Lot 2. The applicant shall prepare and record a cross-access easement agreement for the water and sanitary sewer lines that encroach upon the lots. The typical 5-foot and 1 O-feet wide side, front and rear yard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. In addition, a 20-foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs tttrough Lot 1. . The developer shall be responsible for all city attorney fees associated with the review and recording of the final plat documents, Park and Trail fees, Surface Water Management Fees, and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 10. All driveways shall be paved with an all-weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Both lots must be accessed via a common curb cut as shown on the plans. The location of the driveway is to be reviewed by the applicant and staff to minimize tree removal. The common portion of the driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7-ton axle weight design. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and recordec[ against both lots. The driveway access easement shall be 30 feet wide. 11. The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements including one overstory tree, two understory trees and two shrubs. The buffer yard plantings shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot 1. 12. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the first building permit for a home in this development. 13. The developer shall grant to the City of Chanhassen a conservation easement over the property westerly of the access easement alignment. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 16 14. The driveway shall maintain the 10 foot side yard setback." ATTACHMENTS' o 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Findings of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application Letter from Gerald W. and Janet Dee Paulsen Dated March 3, 2000 Letter from Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated March 28, 2000 Letter from Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated April 3, 2000 Letter from Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated April 6, 2000 Letter from Adolfo R. Zambrano dated April 17, 2000 Letter from David Igel dated April 21, 2000 Letter from Norbert Kerber dated 5/01/2000 Letter from Chris Baird dated May 7, 2000 Letter from Gerald W. Paulsen dated May 8, 2000 Letter from Debbie Lloyd dated May 9, 2000 Letter from Bruce D. Malkerson dated May 9, 2000 Map of Lakeshore Lots Less Than 90 Feet in Width at Lake Sunrise Hills 1 st Addition Lot Areas Memo From Jill Sinclair to Kate Aanenson dated 5/25/00 Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List Letter from Bruce D. Malkerson to Kate Aanenson dated June 15, 2000 Letter from Bruce D. Malkerson to Kate Aanenson dated June 16, 2000 Letter to Residents from Robert Generous dated June 15, 2000 and Mailing List Letter from JoAnne Lipe to Kathryn Aanenson dated 6/26/00 Letter to JetTy & Jan Paulsen form JoAnne Lipe dated 6/26/00 Planning Commission Minutes of 6/6/00 Letter from Gerald W. Paulsen and Janet D. Paulsen to Craig Peterson dated 7/8/00 Planning Commission Minutes of 7/18/00 Sunrise Hills Lot Area Calculation by Debbie Lloyd Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 17 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Lucas Igel Addition Subdivision On June 6, 2000 and July 18, 2000, the Chm~hassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of David Igel for preliminary plat approval and lake shore width variance of property. The Plalming Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is cmu'ently zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Lox,,, Density. 3. The legal description of the property is' Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: bo The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance; The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topogq'aphy, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 18 d. The proposed subdivision does not make adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter due to its limited size; e. The proposed subdivision will potentially cause environmental damage; f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and g The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) 2) 3) 1. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. The plam~ing report #00-2 dated June 6, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous is incorporated herein. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to permit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After 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 street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested areas. Finding: The prevailing development pattern does not make it feasible or appropriate to construct a public street. The proposed private street serving the development is not necessary to provide access to adjacent properties. In order to preserve the trees in the western portion of Lots 1 and 2, the use of the existing driveway on Lot 1, in its present configuration, is appropriate. The use of a public street is impractical. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 19 Section 18-22, Variances, states: The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision ordinance as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: (1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; (2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical SUl7'oundings, shape topographical conditions of the land; (3) The condition or conditions upon which the variance is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; and (4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the pm-pose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The proposed variance to the shore land width is a mere inconvenience. The proposed variance is not in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Section 20-58, General Conditions For Granting, states: A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to alloxv a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship. The owners have a reasonable use of the property with one single family home. , . , That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding. The creation of two lakefront lots is more valuable than one lakeshore lot. Lucas Igel Addition June 6, 2000 Revised July 18, 2000 Page 20 5. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Findinff. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship since the applicant has a reasonable use of the property with one single family home. 6. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Finding. The variance will be perceived as detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. . The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property- values within the neighborhood. Findinff. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. The surrounding infi'astructure will be adequate for the proposed lot development. The proposed lots will not adversely affect property evaluations in the neighborhood because the proposed lots are consistent to lots for neighboring homes. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Preliminary Plat with the shoreland width variance. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of July, 2000. CHANHAS SEN PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: BY: Its Chairman Secretary g:\plan\bg\lucas igel addition revised.doc lucas Igel Addition revised CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) ~1 ? "- '~ ~ O - ~; 3 gob OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment .. Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit ~.- Interim Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment ... Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' '~, Subdivision' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost*' ($50 CU P/SP R/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ '.-,~'"_.~ (0 ' ~ ~/,. "/' A fist of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application, Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews, *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION '~"~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL AC REAG E WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST L YES ~ NO 1. This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. ! have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information 1 have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. ~e of Applicantt,."~ Date ~ign-Atu~'e o1: Fee On~ Date ,pplication Received on I~/tl/~ FeePaid '~'7~,. ~ ReceiptNo. "he applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen PiN 55317 March 3, 2000 2000 Planning Commission City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Replat of property at 7303 Laredo Drive We live adjacent to the subject property that was recently purchased. We have been told that your meeting on March 15th has an agenda item to permit subdividing the single lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (previously owned by the Bairds) into two lots. We wish to express our concern and objection to this change, and call your attention to the following factors. Our subdivision, Sunrise Hills, has Restriction Covenants filed with Carver County. One of these items prohibits reducing the size of any building site from the established size. A copy of the Restrictive Covenants is attached. it seems strange that the purchaser of the Baird property claims not to be aware of the Restrictive Covenants. It is normally revealed by a title search. Our Mortgage Deed explicitly states our property is "Subject to Restrictive Covenants of record dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957 under document No. 6183" These Restrictive Covenants, which apply to 60 Sunrise Hills residences, have already been upheld in a legal ruling in the 1980's. Your rejection of this application will avoid protracted legal action to reconfirm the validity of the Restrictive Covenants. Adding another residence would adversely affect our property and that of ten or mere adjacent properties because of visual impact resulting from two houses in the place of one, and because of the loss ef mature trees. Adding another lake shore residence will further overload the capacity of Lotus Lake and contribute to it's environmental and visual degradation. Cordially, "/Gerald W. Paulsen Janet Dee Paulsen Attachment' Restrictive Covenants (3 pages) RE~T~OT~E COVENANTS TO THE PUBLIC: ¥~tERE~S, ]~be~t A. Scholar and Celine R. Scholar, husband and wife, are owners of the property duly platted as "Sunrise Hills ~'irst Addition", Carver · County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file an~ of record in the off ica of the Registrar of ~itles of said Carver County; and WHEREAS, it is the intention ani desire of said owners to assure the permanency of said Addition and %he stability of the property values therein; and %~EREAS, it is the fumther desire of said o~ners to establish restrictions for the mat~al benefit of p~esent and future owners of property included in Sunrise Hills First Addition, NUJ THEREFORE, in order to effectuate the foregoing, RObert A. Scholar Caline R. S choler do hereby promulgate and adopt the following provisions, covenants and restrictions and 'do hereby make said covenants a~/ restrictions a part and condition of each and every sale, transfer, conveyance or mortgage of said Addition or any part or lot therein; ami said covenants ani restrictions. shall run with the land and shall be. binding on all parties hereto and on all persons c!a~ming under them until July 1, 1987, at ~ich time these covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten years, unless by a vote of a majority of the then owners of the lots in said Sunrise Hills 'First Addition, it is agreed to change said covenants and restrictions in full or in pa~t. Invalidation of any of these covenants and restrictions hereinafter set forth by Judunent or court order shall in no way affect any of tho other covenants, res%fictions or provisions ~hich shall remain in full force and effact~ 1. All lots shall be knowr% used and described as residential lot~. structure shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to re~in on any lot in said plat other than one detached single-family dwelling not to exceed two stories in heighth with attached pri~ate garage, except as hereafter provided. 2. All garages must be within tho dwelling or attached to the dwelling either directly or by breezeway or other part of dwelling. wktch 3. No shed, shops or out buildings of any kind/may bo considered unsightly or objectionable to other residents of said Addition. may be erected at any time. ~hls restriction, hog,ever, shall not preclude t/~e construction of sightly or att~x~¢tive structures for tho comfort or onJo2m~ent of owners of tho dwelling and - .. his family, including such ~t~ctures as non-commercial £amilV ~roenhouaaa, pl~hou~os and ch~dron's play equlpm~ 4. No st~cture .~ a ~mpor~ charac~ s~ be used at any 5. ~l buil~gs here~ter proposed for sa~ S~e }~ F~t ~dition , ~st ~ erec~d by ~bo~ A. S~oler or his assi~ . 6. No buildin~ s~ be located ne~er t~n fo~y feet from ~e front ~t line. 7. 8. No building shall be closer to side lot lines than twelve feet. The minL*m~ square foot area, exclusive of garage and breezeway, or porches, of any one-story dwelling shall be 1,000 square feet, and of any one and one-half and two story ch~elling shall be 1,200 square feet, and in case of the latter, both floors must be finished, The raininure square foot area, exclusive of garage and breezeway, or porches, of any dwelling located on a lot with lake- shore frontage shall be 1,200 square .feet. 9. 'Ihs exteridr of any dwelling placed ca any lot in said Addition shall be covered with stone, wood, brick or stucco; and all exterior woodwork must be painted, varnished or stained, The exterior of any dwelling must be finished immediately and must not be allowed to remain unfinished in any pa~t for more than six months from the date of the beginning of said construction. 10. No building shall be constructed of concrete blocks or of cinder block construction. ll. No second hand materials may be used for any construction. 12. No building may be moved onto any lot. 13. ~o dog~ shall be kept in said Addition except those confined strictly to the owner's property and kept on leash or in control of the owner at all times. Dogs which are habitually noisy shall be deemed a nuisance and may be eliminated from tho area. 14. No cows, goats, or any domestic or other animal, poultry or f~l of any kind shall bo kept in said Addition except dog~ and cats, and tho keeping of dogs shall bo subject to regulation set forth in tho precoeding paragraph. 15, No com~rcial activity of any kind shall be undertaken and carried -'W lot in said Addition, but %his restriction pursuit of hobbies which are whol~ co~ed with~ the dwoll~g offensive or of'a kind which ~ a~ way bec~es the neighborhood. 16. ~ach owner of any lot shall have the right to use the playground area, provided by tho above named aobert A. Scholer and Celine H. Scholer for the bono£it of purchasers of lots in said Addition, for access to and from Lotus Lake by foot. Use of boat slips and channel shall be subject to nominal charge for installation, maintenance and upkeep thereof. No private docks shall be erected on or from the area playground and beach. No buildings shall be erected on the area playground and beach without the permission of ~obert A. Sd~oler. Any and all maintenan~e and improvement of and on said area playground and beach shall be made at the expense of the owners of the lots in said Sunrise Hills First Add, ion. 17.. Landscaping of any lot on which a dwelling has been constructed shall be completed forthwith upon completion of dwelling construc~tion. 18. Robert A. Scholer reserves the right and privilege to regrade any of said lots owned by him ami improve the same by enlarging said lots by consolidating two or more lots or any part of any lots, but in no event to reduce the size o£ final building sites from the sizes of lots now est~blished. IN TESTI~]NY WHEHEOF. ~obert A. Scholer and Celine R.. Scholer have set their hands this __ _ day of June, 1957, -3- In Presence of~ ' :'-, ': -"-' STATE OF ~[~INESOTA) ) ss CO~4TY OF ] '~NNEPIN) On this ~/.,.~day of June, 1957, before me a aotary Public within and for said County persom~ll¥ appeared Robert A. Scholer and Celine R. Scholer, husband and wife, to mo known to be t~n persons described in, and who executed the foro~oing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the san~ as their free act and deed for the purposes and objectives therein set forth. 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 March 28, 2000 Craig Peterson Chair, Chanhassen Planning Commission 1340 Oakside Circle Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Staff Report: Case # 00-2 SUB The Planning Commission had a public hearing on March 15th to discuss splitting this lot on Lotus Lake into two lots. The City Staff Report said the proposed development complied with City Ordinances and recommended approval. The four Planning Commission members present voted to recommend approval to the City Council. We have been told this item will be on the April 24th City Council agenda. We have searched City Code for lake shore requirements, and found what appears to be a significant oversight by City Staff. We believe the code states that the minimum lake shore lot width is 90 feet, measured at the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level; not 75 feet, measured at the survey line as stated in the Staff Report. The Code we are citing is Chapter 20 (Zoning), Article VII (Shoreline Management District): Sec. 20-47'9 (Shoreline classification system and land use districts) classifies Lotus as a Recreational Development Lake. Sec. 20-480 defines lot area and lot width standards. For a Sewered lake-- Recreational development, Riparian Lots, Single residential lot, the requirements are: Area 20,000 ft2, Width 90 ft. Subsection (4) further states: "Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line.". The Staff Report (p. 4) states that code requires a minimum of 75 feet Lot Frontage, measured at the survey line. The report states the survey line measurement for the lot is 152.97 feet, and therefore adequate for two lots. On Friday, March 17th, we asked Kathryn Aanenson, whether the lot width should be measured at the OHW level instead of the survey line, and she agreed it should be. She said the developer, David Igel, would be notified, and told to contact his surveyor to determine the lot width at the OHW level. As of today the surveyor has not formally replied to the City about the lot width. Bob Generous, assured me on Friday, March 24th that the surveyor had verbally said the lot width was adequate. We are not even convinced that the lot is 150 feet wide at the OHW level because the property lines converge toward the lake. We measured the lot width at the OHW level to be several feet less than the width at the survey line. We believe that the lot width requirement has to be resolved before the Planning Commission recommends action to the City. A primary reason for us and 40 other homes in Sunrise Hills opposing the splitting of the lot is because adding another lake shore home on Lotus Lake will be detrimental to the quality of the lake. Lotus is a small, shallow, fragile lake which is already overtaxed with traffic. It is an important asset of the community that should be protected. Cordially, Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 e-mail paulseng@juno.com Janet D. Paulsen Copy: Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission Matthew Burton, Planning Commission Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission Debra Kind, Planning Commission Craig Peterson, Planning Commission LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director Bob Generous, Senior Planner Nancy Mancino, Mayor Mark Engel, Council Member Mark Senn, Council Member Steve Labatt, Council Member Linda Jansen, Council Member Roger Knutson, City Attorney 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen 1MN 55317 April 3, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 6620 Galpin Blvd Excelsior MN 55331 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Staff Report: Case # 00-2 SUB The letter, dated March 30, from Bob Generous, Senior Planner, to David Igel regarding a change in interpretation of City Ordinance raises more questions. Issue # 1, lot width as related to zoning: Bob's interpretation o£ Sec. 20-480, subsection (4) (Shoreland Management, Additional special provisions) is predicated on his interpretation that all three sentences pertain to PUDR zoning, because sentence #1 references PUDR. We believe the intent of this code is that these three sentences are separate provisions, and sentences #2 and #3 are independent of PUDR. Sentence #2 states "Only land above the ordinary high water (OHSV) level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line.". If sentence #2 applies only to PUDR, where in city code is there a definition for determining lakeshore lot area for non PUDR zoning? This contradicts the intent of PUDR to have less stringent requirements than SFR. Sec. 20-501 (Intent) states "Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility...through the relaxation of most normal district standards.". Sentence #3 of 20-480, states 'qt~e sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property.". Can this be interpreted to be applicable only to PUD[L, and not specifically to all shoreland? Any reference to OHW level is logically related to Shoreline Management regardless of zoning. If the city believes 20-480, subsection (4) relates solely to PUDR, then both lots require 90 feet at the OHW level. The preliminary plat states zoning is PUDR (as does the developer's application). Conclusion: the preliminary plat was erroneously approved. Issue #2, building height: Sec. 20-481 (Placement, design, and height of structures), subsection (f') (Height of structures) defines maximum home height as 35 feet. The MN DNR publication "A Guide for Buying and Managing Shoreland" in the section titled "Shoreland Management Program", states that building height is limited to 25 feet in city residential districts. The preliminary plat defines both houses as two-story. Conclusion: ifa two-story house exceeds 25 feet in height, the preliminary plat was erroneously approved. City code exceeds the state's 25 foot mininum. Issue #3, lot area as related to impervious surface: Sec. 20-485 (Storm water management) states impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area. Lot area (defined in Sec. 20-1) excludes area occupied by street rights-of-way. A private street (defined in Sec. 18-1) is a street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land.., owned by one or more p?ivate parties. Since both lots are accessed by a private street, the area occupied by the right-of-way must be excluded from the total lot area for the purpose of determining whether the impervious surface requirement is met. The corresponding adjusted lot area data should be included on the preliminary plat. Other inconsistencies lead us question the integrity of the Staff Report: The preliminary plat omits required data as defined in Sec. 18-40 (Preliminary plat--Data required): · Existing zoning classifications for land within and abutting the subdivision are not provided (per subsection (2) (b)). -· Lot dimensions exclude lot width at the OHW line (per subsection (2) (c)). The plat defines square footage as total area above the OHW elevation. Therefore the surveyor knows the lot width at the OHW line. The city requested the lot width at the OHW line on March 17, but we were told by Bob that the developer has not formally responded. · Adjoining platted or subdivided land is not identified by name and ownership (per subsection (2) (e)). In summary, Sec. 20-4. (Compliance) states "...no building permit shall be granted and no plat approved that does not conform to the requirements of this chapter.". The city admits to "misinterpreting" city code. Local code must adhere to state minimum shoreland requirements, but can def'me stricter requirements. What criteria are used to decide when a revised preliminary plat must go back through the Planning Commission for public hearing and approval? We wish to see an interpretation of these issues from the city attorney. If these issues cannot be-resolved in a timely manner for our review prior to the scheduled City Council meeting on April 24 (or Planning Commission meeting if appropriate), then the issue should be moved to a subsequent meeting. Cordially, Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 (home) (651) 456-7784 (office) e-mail paulseng~juno.com Janet D. Paulsen Copy: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Scott Botcher, City Manager Nancy Mancino, Mayor Mark Engel, Council Member Mark Senn, Council IVlember Steve Labatt, Council Member Linda Jansen, Council Member Roger Knutson, City Attorney Craig Peterson, Chair, Planning Commission Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission Matthew Burton, Planning Commission Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission Debra Kind, Planning Commission Craig Peterson, Planning Commission LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission Therese Berquist, President, Sunrise Hills Civic Association* 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 April 6, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; StatTReport: Case # 00-2 SUB In our letter of April 3rd to you we questioned the city's interpretation of the requirement for lake shore lot width as stated in city ordinance, Sec. 20-480, subsection (4) (Shoreland Management): "Additional special provisions. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be allowed if designed' and approved as residential planned unit developments. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subsections (1), (2) and (3) can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property." Attached is a reply from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources stating that the cited code must be interpreted as three stand alone sentences. This means 90 feet measured at the OHW line is required for take shore property, not 75 feet as stated by city staff. We are awaiting a reply from the city on why city code permits a SFR maximum height of 35 feet while the DNR Shoreland standards dictate a height of 25 feet. Cordially, Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 (home) Janet D. Paulsen (651) 456-7784 (omce) Copy: Scott Botcher, City Manager Roger Knutson, City Attorney Bob Generous, Senior Planner Nancy Mancino, Mayor Mark Engel, Council Member Mark Senn, Council Member Steve Labatt, Council Member Linda Jansen, Council Member Craig Peterson, Chair, Planning Commission Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission Matthew Burton, Planning Commission Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission Keven Joyce, Planning Commission Debra Kind, Planning Commission Craig Peterson, Planning Commission LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission Therese Berquist, President, Sunrise Hills Civic Association ~Juno e-mail printed Wed, 5 Apr 2000 12:39:03, page 1 From: "Russ Schultz" <russ.schultz@dnr.state.mn.us> iTo: <paulseng@juno.com> Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 11:34:32 -0500 iSubject: Re: sample shoreline management ordinance ilMr. Paulsen, your e-mail was transferred to me for response. ,Answer to first question: The sentences in Section 5.14 A. are stand ~alone sentences. They apply to all types of residential development. Whether single, duplex, triplex, quad or planned unit development, the iappropriate lot size and suitability requirements apply. !:Second question: For the purposes of the Shoreland Management regulations, only land above the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) can be used to meet minimum lot area requirements. Yes - in determining lot area the OHW can be used as one of the lines. However formal platts and isurveyed subdivisions may show different lot lines, because of different !aws and procedures, but the minimum lot size is still based on land above the Ordinary High Water level. .! hope this comes close to answering your questions. iSincerely, i>>> Gerld W Paulsen <paulseng@juno.com> 5:49:36 PM 4/2/00 >>> 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 April 2, 2000 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul MN iSubject: Sample Shoreland Management Ordinance, June 1999 You sent me a copy of this document (subtitled "DNR Waters: Shoreland Management Program"). Sec. 5.14 (Additional Special Provisions) states: A. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding '~hose in the tables in-sections 5.12 and 5.13 can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments under Section 8.0 of this ordinance. Only land above the ordinary high water !evel of public waters can be used to meet lot area standards, and lot 'Mdth standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at :he building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in Section 5.12 can only 3e used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the :)roperty. Are these three sentences standalone items, or is either the 2nd or 3rd ~entence tied to the first sentence? I.e., are the 2nd and 3rd sentences ~applicable only to a residential planned unit development? It seems iogical that these three sentences are standalone items. JVe were unable to find a definition of lot area for a lake shore :)roperty. Is the ordinary high water line used to define one of the 3oundaries when determining lot area? Thanks, ,.Gerald W. Pauisen ',95~) 9~4-7032 (home) April 17, 2000 Ms. Kathryn Aenenson Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ref: Splitting Lotus Lake Properties Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredso Drive Dear Ms. Aenenson As a member of the Sunrise Hill Association I would like to state my position against the splitting of lots which are part of an already developed area. I am for development, but against crowding. I am certainly against derating environmental standards to allow incremental proliferation of pollution. If the City Code requires a minimum of 90 feet at the OHW line for lake properties, relaxing this standard is a step backward which opens the door for the progressive environmental deterioration of Lotus Lake. 7301 Frontier Trail April 21, 2000 David Igel 6195 Strawberry Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen Chanhassen, MN Dear Mr. Generous, I am withdrawing my request to go in front of the City Counsel this Monday, April 24 regarding the proposed Lucas Igel Addition and I am instead requesting to be put on the agenda for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for May 17, 2000. As you know, I began this subdivision process in September of 1999. I have met and spoken with members of the planning department numerous times and recently, was given staff recommendation to approve, as well as unanimous approval by the Planning Commission for this proposed plat. However, this week I was informed that the City had changed its stance on the minimum lot width requirement from 75 feet to 90 feet and that I would need to start the process over and request a variance. As we have discussed, I have made every decision on this property based on the 75-foot width requirement including the decision to purchase the lot. Consequently, I would not have spent this money or invested in surveyors, attorneys and others if the original width requirement had been more than 75 feet. It is very important to us that from here forward, this proceeds properly and with no further changes by the City. Please keep me appraised of the status of this file and if there is any further information I can provide to you on this issue. 5-01-2000 Norbert Kerber 7216 Frontier Trail Chanhassen MN 934-1391 939-1378 w Kathryn Aanenson: Community Development Dir. Chanhassen Planning Commission. Chanhassen City Council. Dear Sir or Madam. I am writing this letter in reference to the proposed "Lucas Igel Addition" that is on your May 17th Planning commission Agenda. As a resident of the Sunrise Hills and a resident of Chanhassen for 40 years I have a concern when someone wants to come into a neighborhood and change the very reason people built and bought homes in the Sunrise Hills area of Chanhassen. The Sunrise Hills area was an attraction to my father when he built a home there in1968 he liked the modest homes on large lots that gave him a bit of the farm with the city life. It is also impo~tant to me, as I purchased my father's home became two years ago for the same reason. Now we have before us a proposal to take one of these large lots and subdivide it into two parcels. The first attempt by the new owner to subdivide was sent back to the Planning Commission when it was discovered that he needed 90 feet of lakeshore instead of 75 feet that was believed to be the minimum required. (Kind of like a bad stock tip). While I was not in favor of the first proposal I felt that the Proposal would be passed as we had no legal grounds to stop it except a set of Covenants that restricts any subdivision. Although it holds no legal merit it does convey the wishes of the people that bought into the neighborhood. However now the new owners of the property are applying for a "Shoreline Variance" now this issue takes on a new prospective. A variance is a request to change an existing regulation because of a hardship, well I see no hardship here. They have an existing house on an existing lot that fits in well with the sun'ounding neighborhood. The only hardship here is financial hardship. And as for the alternate plan to chop down a bunch of trees to shoehorn in a second house makes less sense than the first and looks like a arm twisting maneuver. In conclusion I am not in favor of the subdivision. When we start to tear down a modest sized home on a large lot and replace them with two large homes on a small lot it starts to completely change the character of the neighborhood. Please do not allow this variance to pass it does not meet the criteria of a variance, there is no hardship and if the owner feels that he is losing this battle, he is not, and he stills has a beautiful single family lakeshore lot in a nice neighborhood. Thank you for your time to review my concern. 483 Mission Hills Way E. Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 May 7, 2000 I 0 000 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Dir. City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Subject: Igel Lotus Lake subdivision (formerly Baird property) Please include the following in the repor~ for the Planning Commission: My brother, sister and I were raised in the home at 7303 Laredo Drive. After my father died, I lived with my mother in the home until I got married last year. After my mother died last summer we had to settle our mother's estate. We contacted the city through our realtor Noel Wellman (Burner, 844-6000). She asked a man in the planning department if it were possible to divide the lot. If we had been able to sell half the property, I might have been able to keep the home for my own family. The answer from the city was no, the lot could not be divided. Now we hear that Mr. Igel, is asking the city to permit him to divide it into two lots. Since we were told the lot could not be divided~ Mr. Igel should not be permitted to divide the lot. Sincerely, Chris Baird 949-6121 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 May 8, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, Planning Commission meeting May 17, 2000 (Please attach this to the Staff Report). Since 1994 the city has required a minimum width of 75 feet for residential lake shore. Code was recently interpreted to require 90 feet. Attached are parts of two preliminary plats submitted by the developer. The left side (Plat # 1) is dated March 10, 2000 (March 15th Planning Commission meeting). The right side (Plat #2) is dated April 20 (May 17th Planning Commission meeting). Please direct your attention to the Ordinary High Water (OHW) line, a contour line at an elevation of 896.3 feet, just left of the Lotus Lake shore line. Note the difference in the OHW line on each of the two plats. At points A and B the OHW line on the recent Plat #2 is lengthened by pronounced bulges toward the lake. Point B on Plat #2 is shifted toward the lake by two feet. The net result is an increase in the length of the OHW line. The length of the OHW is critical because it is the lot width for meeting the code requirement for lake shore, and for calculating total lot area. The length of the OHW line was not specified on Plat #1 as required by code. The Staff Report for the March 15th Planning Commission hearing stated that the required shore line length was met at the survey line (to the left of the OHW line some 16+ feet). Kathryn Aanenson requested the length of the OHW line from Mr. Igel on March 17. This request was ignored for five weeks. The length ofthe survey line is 152.97 ft. Plat #2 now defines the OHW line as being exactly 75.00 feet for each of the two proposed lots. This saves the developer from having to admit to not having a full 75 feet on Plat #1 which would have required a variance. Bob Generous stated that after reviewing both plats, he sees no change in the OHW line. Gerald W. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 Attachment: Preliminary Plats p.1 Survey for: DAVID Survey for: DAVID IGEL PLA-i- Son,or C' Water Elevation = 895.34- (October 6, 1999) \ t. . .. / /L/ A~ LuCAS ~GF..L A-~0tTIozO 7302 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 May 9, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, Attachment for Staff Report Please include the following in the Staff Report for the Planning Commission meeting 17 May 2000. Attached is a copy of a petition circulated in Sunrise Hills. It is signed by 86 individuals representing 53 residences in our subdivision expressing opposition to the subdivision of the property at 7303 Laredo Drive. Cordially, ! Debbie Lloyd (952) 934-5696 Attachment: 5 page petition PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS I ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION' SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. ADDRESS PHONE q3q- 7o'3t f13 -7o L cfM- PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSEB LOT SUBDIVISION . _ :. Fie, the undersigned~ residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen ~innesota, are opposed t° permitting the' subdivision of the l°t at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, Ist Addition) into two separate lots. .._ Restrictive Covenants exist·, -inclUding one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be .reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in CarVer County, 'd~ed~'-june 21, -1957, filed JulY 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. - - _ ADDRESS !// PHONE . . _ ~,.../~/~ PETITION' SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, inCluding one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. NAME ADDRESS ~ ~ .... ,'. ~: : :. L . : . ~'~ . , ~ : ~ ~ . c: ~ ~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ' ,,~ PHONE PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of SunriSe Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. ADDRESS PHONE MALKERSON ILLILAND MARTIN SUiTe I§00 AT&T TOWEr @01 Harou ETtE AVENUE MiNNEaPOLiS, MiNNESOta 55402-3205 TELEPHONE 612-344-Illl FACSIMILE 612-344-1414 LLP R ,ECEIYED 1 0 2000 Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial No. 612-344-1699 May 9, 2000 Bob Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen P O Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Igel's Request For Variance At 7303 Laredo Drive Dear Mr. Generous: I represent David and Rachel Igel who own property at 7303 Laredo Drive in Chanhassen ("the Property") as shown on Exhibit A. The Igels have applied to the City of Chanhassen for a variance, if needed, related to the minimum lot width at the lakeshore of the Property. Assuming a variance is needed, we believe that the City has ample discretion to grant a variance for the proposed lot width at the shoreline. The City should exercise its discretion to grant the variance for the reasons noted herein. THE CITY HAS AMPLE DISCRETION TO GRANT A SHORELINE WIDTH VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY. As you know, a state statute gives citie, s authority to grant variances from zoning requirements. Minn. Stat {} 462.357 provides that cities: ·.. may hear requests for variances from the literal provision of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality· Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of'the ordinance·.. 38378.DOC Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 2 The City's specific standard for a variance is similar to the state standard, but it also provides additional guidance as follows: Sec. 20-58. General conditions for granting. A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: o That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, butto recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. , That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. o That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. o That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Minnesota cities have broad discretion to make zoning decisions, and, in particular, to grant variances. Sagstetter v. City of St. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488,490 (Minn. App. 1995) (a court "will not invalidate a city's zoning variance decision if the city acted in good faith and within the broad discretion accorded it by statutes and ordinances"). Minnesota courts rarely disturb the variance decisions of approval of city councils. In Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 3 fact, I am unable to find any appellate court decision in Minnesota reversing a city council decision granting a variance. The following analysis will consider the statutory language giving cities authority to grant variances, which is similar to the City's ordinance, and the City's ordinance and will show why the City should approve the variance. I have been a City Attorney for various cities, townships and counties throughout the State for 27 years. I have lectured extensively during my 27 years to state planning groups, The League of Minnesota Cities meetings, county planning workshops, and to municipal land use attorneys at Minnesota Continuing Legal Education seminars, etc. I note this to you because based upon this experience I am generally familiar how attorneys, planners, planning commissions and council members have viewed certain principles of land use law throughout the last 27 years. Until the Rowell case was decided in 1989, most city attorneys, planners, planning commission members and council members believed that it was very difficult under the statute and, therefore, under the ordinances adopted pursuant thereto to erant variances, except in the most extreme cases. Such situations typically were, for example, when because of the ravine on a preexisting lot, a house could not have been built unless a variance from a setback was granted, etc. Also variances were granted, when, if a variance were not granted as to,.for example setback, numerous lovely old trees would have to be removed. However, many of us had always understood that the strict application of phrases, such as "undue hardship," "reasonable use," "circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner," etc. were not tests to be as strictly applied as was typically happening in the municipalities throughout the State. In fact, many planners used to say that given how they thought the tests in the statute should be so strictly construed, that if a city found that it was granting variances, that the city should amend its ordinance so that variances were not necessary in the future. That however is not required by State law and, in fact, as a review of recent case decisions will show, the Courts have found that the Legislature never intended to so restrict the flexibility of the cities. Ie STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE SHORELINE WIDTH REQUIREMENT WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP UNDER THE STATUTORY TESTS BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. Variances are available where a zoning provision will cause undue hardship. Three statutory factors are considered in evaluating whether there is undue hardship. Each of those three factors applies in this case and each is considered below. THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE PUT TO A REASONABLE USE WITHOUT A WIDTH VARIANCE AS TO THE SHORELINE. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 4 A review of the case ofRowell v. City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989) shows that the Igels do not even need to show there is no other reasonable use to meet the standards for a variance. The Court in Rowell approved a setback variance for the expansion of a church. The Court noted that where there is no reasonable use of property without a variance, the constitutional requirement prohibiting takings of property without compensation requires the grant of the variance. Rowell, 446 N.W. 2d at 922. See also Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112S.Ct. 2886, 2895 (1992)(zoning requirement constitutes a taking if it denies a landowner "all economically viable or beneficial use of the property"); Wheeler v. City of Wayzata, 511 N.W.2d 39, 41-42 (Minn. App. 1994). That is not the situation in Rowell or in this case. The Court said in enacting the statute authorizing cities to grant variances that the Minnesota Legislature intended to give cities greater discretion to grant variances than they would have in any event under the provisions of the Constitution addressing takings. Rowell 446 N.W.2d at 922. Thus, the Rowell Court concluded that the Legislature did not intend to authorize variances only when there was no reasonable use without a variance. Instead, according to the Court, the statute authorizes variances whenever the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable way: The statute is clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances in cases where the Constitution does not compel it. Thus, we read the first part of the definition of"undue hardship" as requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the ordinance. Rowell, 446 N.W. 2d at 922. Thus, the question in addressing the first part of the definition of undue hardship is a simple one: is the lot width proposal for the shoreline a reasonable one. The answer to that question is "yes" because the property owners would like to modify the width in a reasonable manner as discussed herein. As stated in this letter, my clients would like to have a variance for the minimum lot width at the lakeshore of the Property. The request is reasonable for many reasons, including, but not limited to the following: 1. The owners plan to build two single-family homes on the Property, which is acceptable under the Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 18; Subdivisions, and they want to do this in a way that has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood and on the Property itself. To minimize the impacts, the owners want to place a lot split that runs perpendicular to the lakeshore creating two riparian lots. These two lots each would have a seventy-five foot shoreline (which is the minimum State of Minnesota requirement for shoreline lot width). The two homes would be placed on the Property at over 160 feet and 260 feet from the street, which would make them barely visible from the surrounding neighborhood and street. Construction of these two houses would minimize the overall removal of trees on the Property, eliminate the need to remove the larger trees located in Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 5 the most dense and most natural area of the Property and limit the reduction of canopy coverage from 77 percent to 69 percent of the total lot. Under this plat design, the placement of the two homes would enhance the view of the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) because of the opening that would be created up the middle of the Property by replacing the existing sprawling house with two more narrow profile homes. See Exhibit B. In addition, the house pads on this plat are situated on the flattest parts of the Property and require minimal grading with easy management of drainage issues. Finally, the hardcover impacts on this plat are minimized because of the limitations of the Property in the building area, which is more narrow in width resulting in more narrow home designs and better use of the current driveway location. It is not unreasonable for the Property owners to want to use the Property in a way that least impacts the surrounding neighborhood and the Property itself and takes the most advantage of the Property layout. 2. The City Code allows the owners to construct a lot split that runs parallel to the lakeshore creating one riparian and one non-riparian lot. Such a lot split will not result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have on the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot would be ten feet from the West property line and forty-five feet from the cul-de-sac. See Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible from the road and the rest of the neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the largest trees from the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will reduce the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifty-five percent. This house will almost completely block the existing view of the lake from the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots. 3. The decreased shoreline lot width is necessary and it is not unreasonable given the fact that the City has been approving lot splits with seventy-five foot lot widths at the shoreline for sometime under the apparent misinformed assumption that it followed the State of Minnesota guidelines requiring a minimum of seventy-five feet and because sixty-three other shoreline lots on Lotus Lake are under ninety feet in width. This slight decrease of fifteen feet will not be detectable from onlookers and will fit in with the general landscape of the surrounding properties on Lotus Lake. Moreover, to limit this property owner to ninety feet where the City has historically set a standard of seventy- five feet for lakeshore lot width would be unreasonable. It is more reasonable to continue applying the seventy-five foot minimum to prevent the unfair application of the City's code. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 6 Be THE VARIANCE IS NEEDED BECAUSE OF CURCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH WERE NOT CREATED BY THE LANDOWNER. Some of the information that follows in this letter is repetitive. I repeat the information under several different section headings so each section is a self contained section without the need to cross reference to other sections. Hardship in this case arises from a number of facts, which have been explained in this letter. The property owners would like to have a variance for the lot width at the lakeshore for the Property, and the proposed width is reasonable for many reasons including but not limited to the following: 1. The owners plan to build two single-family homes on the Property, which is acceptable under the Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 18; Subdivisions, and they want to do this in a way that has the least impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the on Property itself. To minimize the impacts, the owners want to place a lot split that runs perpendicular to the lakeshore creating two riparian lots. These two lots each would have a seventy-five foot shoreline (which is the minimum State of Minnesota requirement for shoreline lot width). The two homes would be placed on the Property at over 145 feet and 260 feet from the street, which would make them barely visible from the surrounding neighborhood and street. Construction of these two houses would minimize the removal of trees on the Property, eliminate the need to remove the larger trees located in the densest and most natural area of the Property and limit the reduction of canopy coverage to 77 percent of the current coverage. Under this plat design, the placement of the two homes would enhance the view of the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) because of the opening that would be created up the middle of the Property by replacing the existing sprawling house with two more narrow profile homes. See Exhibit B. In addition, the house pads on this plat are situated on the flattest parts of the Property and require minimal grading with easy management of drainage issues. Finally, the hardcover impacts on this plat are minimized because of the limitations of the Property in the building area, which is more narrow in width resulting in more narrow home designs and better use of the current driveway location. It is not unreasonable for the Property owners to want to use the Property in a way that least impacts the surrounding neighborhood and the Property itself and takes the most advantage of the Property layout. 2. The City Code allows the owners to construct a lot split that runs parallel to the lakeshore creating one riparian and one non-riparian lot. Such a lot split will not result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have on the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot would be ten feet from the West property line and thirty-five feet from the cul-de-sac. See Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible from the road and the rest of the neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the largest trees from the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will reduce Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 7 the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifty-five percent. This house will almost completely block the existing view of the lake from the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots. Ce THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE LOCALITY. The immediate locality of the Property is in the Sunrise Hills neighborhood. See Exhibit A. The current lot size of the Property is one of the largest parcels in the neighborhood. Splitting of this lot will result in two lots, both of which are individually larger than the average lot in the neighborhood. Based on the Carver County ½ Section Maps for the area, the average lot size in Sunrise Hills is 19,021.56 feet. The proposed side-by-side lakeshore lots on the Property are 20,342 feet and 27,159 feet. In addition, in evaluating all of the residential lake lots on Lotus Lake, of the 145 lots, 63 of the lots (43 percent) are less than ninety feet in width at the shoreline. The neighboring lakeside homes to the North of the Property are 160 feet and 180 feet from the cul-de-sac, whereas the proposed side-by-side lots' homes to be located on the Property are 160 feet and 270 feet from the cul-de-sac. The locality here, in effect, is a residential area made up of varying lot sizes, lakeshore widths and distances from the street. There is no way that the addition of the side-by-side lot split, which both lots will individually provide wider lakeshore widths than over 40 percent of the current lots on the lake, can in any way, alter the essential character of the locality. De THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTE'S PROVISIONS ON ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS. Minn. Stat § 462.357 provides that: ... Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. (Emphasis added)... The requested variance is fully consistent with this provision. First, the variance request is not premised on economic considerations at all. As discussed herein, the variance request is necessitated by a number of unique characteristics of the property discussed above. Thus, non-economic factors support this variance request. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 8 mJ ISSUANCE OF THE VARIANCE IS FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED HEREIN. In order to determine the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance it is important to look at the relevant sections of the zoning ordinance as a whole. On page 1158.8, in Section 20.2, the purpose of the code is to carry out the following: 1. Protect residential, commercial industrial and institutional areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses; 2. Prevent overcrowding of land; 3. Conserve and enhance the city's tax base; , Protect against fire, smoke, explosion, noxious fumes, offensive noise, vibration, dust, odors, heat, glare, and other hazards to people; 5. Preserve the natural beauty and amenities of the city and achieve excellence and originality of design; 6. Facilitate the provision of public services; 7. Secure equity among individuals in the use of their property. As noted, if my clients cannot subdivide with a lot split perpendicular to the lake, my clients wilt subdivide with a lot split parallel to the lake, which will not prevent overcrowding of land, nor conserve the natural beauty and amenities of the City and achieve excellence and originality of design, nor secure equity among individuals in the use of their property. A home on the proposed non-riparian lot, will not promote the natural beauty of the City, achieve excellence and originality of design or secure equity among my clients in the use of their property. The Policy Section for the Shoreland Management District, Article VII, Section 20-476, Page 1191, states as follows: The uncontrolled use of shorelands of Chanhassen affects the public health, safety and general welfare not only by contributing to pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best interests of the public health, safety and welfare to provide for the wise subdivision, use and development of shorelands of public waters. The legislature of Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local governments of the state to regulate the subdivision, use and development Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 9 of the shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. The granting of the variance will merely change the layout of the lots on the Property, since under the City Code the owners will still have a right to split the Property into two lots in any event. As a result, there will not be a net increase in potential negative effects to public health, safety and general welfare. The concern over the impairment of the local tax base also will not be realized because the splitting of the Property will result in an increase to the tax base for the local area. It must also be noted that the City has been approving lot splits with less than ninety feet of shoreline width for sometime and has approved sixty-three other shoreline lots on Lotus Lake under ninety feet in width. In addition, the current lot size of the Property is one of the largest parcels in the Sunrise Hills neighborhood, which is one of many neighborhoods surrounding Lotus Lake. Splitting of this lot will result in two lots, both of which are individually larger than the average lot in the neighborhood. Based on the Carver County ½ Section Maps for the area, the average lot size in Sunrise Hills is 19,021.56 feet. The proposed side-by- side lakeshore lots on the Property are 20,342 feet and 27,159 feet. In addition, in evaluating all of the residential lake lots on Lotus Lake, of the 145 lots, 63 of the lots (43 percent) are less than ninety feet in width at the shoreline. The neighboring lakeside homes to the North of the Property are 160 feet and 180 feet from the cul-de-sac, whereas the proposed side-by-side lots located on the Property are 160 feet and 270 feet from the cul-de-sac. The locality here, in effect, is a residential area made up of varying lot sizes, lakeshore widths and distances from the street. There is no way that the addition of the side-by-side lot split, which both lots will individually provide wider lakeshore widths than over 40 percent of the current lots on the lake, can in any way, negatively impact the City's duty to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shore lands, and provide for the wise use of waters and related land resources. My clients want to promote the aesthetics in the area by constructing two quality homes that will enhance and blend nicely into the surrounding community. By utilizing the Property in this way, the result will be aesthetically pleasing and the neighborhood will not feel overcrowded as a result of the large lot sizes available on the Property and the fact that the lots open up to over 100 feet where the homes will be built. Again, as noted above also, the variance of 15 feet for each of the two lots will not stand out as small or crowded lots on the lake. Therefore, we believe that the variance is fully consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 10 III. A SHORELINE WIDTH VARIANCE MAY BE GRANTED BY THE CITY IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET. On page 1163, in Section 20-58, the Code states the general conditions for granting a variance including the following: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Res£onse: The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship and will not result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have on the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot would be ten feet fi'om the West property line and thirty-five feet from the cul-de-sac. See Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible from the road and the rest of the neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the largest trees fi'om the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will reduce the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifty-five percent. This house will ahnost completely block the existing view of the lake from the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot will block the remainder of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high degree of slope. To accornmodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to _prevent damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the houses of these two lots will have wide buildingpads and additional hardcover because the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots. h~ comparing the property within five hundred (500)feet of my client's property, nineteen lots are less than 15,500feet in size and the average size lot is 18, 711feet. See Exhibit D. The proposed side-by-side lakeshore lots on the Property are 20,342feet and 27,159feet. hz addition, the proposed building padsfor each lot would be located on an area of the Property that is l O0 feet wide. The houses to the left and right of the Property also are ~ OO feet wide at the building pad. ]n evaluating the properties within five hundred (500)feet of the Property, the lot immediately to the West and the Property are the largest at the shoreline. In addition, when the shoreline lot and the internal lot on the Property are combined, the Property is the largest by far within the surroundingfive hundred (500)feet. When the Property is split into two lakeshore lots they are each seventy-five feet in width at the lakeshore, whereas there is a lot within five hundred Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 11 (500) feet of the Property that is sixty feet in width at the lakeshore. Therefore, utilizing the Property with the variance wouM blend with the surrounding neighborhood's pre- existing standards and would not depart downward from them. (2) That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Response: In evaluating the other lots in the zoning classification, this lot is unique because the existing housing pattern is set and the existing house on the Property blocks the house to the southeast (7305 Laredo Drive) from a lake view. By placing two houses on lots perpendicular to the lake, view areas would be created that would allow this rear property to have a nice lake view. If the Property were split parallel to the lake, the internal lot would have a dramatically negative impact on this rear lot (7305 Laredo Drive). The conditions unique to the Property also include the fact that the comparable property in the area benefited from the City's misapplication of a seventy-five foot minimum shoreline lot .width requirement. Whereas my clients are being required to comply with a ninety-foot minimum shoreline lot width requirement because of the City's realization of its earlier mistakes of allowingfor fifieen feet less shoreline lot width requirements. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Response: The variance request is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but instead is requested to utilize the Property in a way that blends with the neighborhood's pre-existing standards and does not depart downward from them. The goal of my clients' is to create two lakeshore lots to allow them the best use of the Property without impacting negatively on their neighbor's lots. (4) That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Response: My clients have not created the hardship that would result from the literal enforcement of the City Code. The City Code allows the owners to construct a lot split that runs parallel to the lakeshore creating one riparian and one non-riparian lot. Such a lot split will not result in a reasonable use of the Property because of the negative impact it will have on the Property and the neighborhood. For example, the house on the non-riparian lot would be ten feet from the West property line and forty-five feet from the cul-de-sac. See Exhibit C. This house will be highly visible from the road and the rest of the neighborhood. Construction of this house will require the removal of several of the largest trees from the most densely treed and natural area of the Property and will reduce the remaining canopy coverage of the Property to fifty-five percent. This house will ahnost completely block the existing view of the lake from the house to the immediate southwest (7305 Laredo Drive) and the house on the riparian lot wilt block the remainder Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 12 of the view. In addition, this house will be built on a section of the Property with a high degree of slope. To accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard, extensive grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the houses of these two lots will have wide buildingpads and additional hardcover because the width of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots. The decreased shoreline lot width is necessary and it is not unreasonable given the fact that the City has been approving lot splits with seventy-five foot lot widths at the shoreline for sometime under the misinformed assumption that it followed the State of Minnesota guidelines requiring a minimum of seventy-five feet and because sixty-three other shoreline lots on Lotus Lake are under ninety feet in width. This slight decrease of fifteen feet will not be detectable from onlookers and will fit in with the general landscape of the surrounding flroperties on Lotus Lake. Moreover, to limit this property owner to ninety feet where the City has historically set a standard of seventy-five feet for lakeshore lot width would be unreasonable. It is more reasonable to continue applying the seventy-five foot minimum to prevent the unfair application of the City's code. (5) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Response: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental because the proposed lot split will be consistent with the surrounding lots in the area and the location of the building pads will barely be visible from the street, h~ fact, the new lot to the east would not be viewable~'om the street. Based on the proposed lot split of the Property, there will be no detrimental effect to the public or be injurious to any surrounding land improvements. (6) That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Response: The variance will not result in property use that will impair light and air supply to the neighbors because the proposed lot layouts allow for ample space between the proposed homes and the surrounding neighbors, hz actuality, the variance will be an improvement over the current layout of the Property because the neighbors will benefit fi'om better views of the lake, higher quality home designs and, at the same time, have no effect on the current light and air quality available to the surrounding neighbors. There will be no increase in congestion of the public streets because the streets were designed Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 13 for residential use and are, therefore, adequate. There will not be an increase in the danger of fire or endangerment to public safety because my clients plan to improve the quality of home currently on the Property by using the latest in building design and improved building and home products. They also plan to clean up the Property to eliminate dead and diseased trees and vegetation and remove garbage and other items that have blown onto or been left on the Property. If the proposed variation is not allowed, my clients will be utilizing the internal lot on the Property, which will have a negative impact on the neighboring property because of the proximity in which the new house will be to the neighbors to the southeast (7305 Laredo Drive) and to the street. In addition, as described earlier, it will be necessary to remove more trees, require heavy excavating of the lot and result in larger building pads if the variance is not allowed. As a showing of good faith, my clients are willing to ensure the protection of trees on the Property by them or any future owner of the Property by creating a "tree preservation easement" over the area along the southerly boundary to be given to the neighbors at 7305 Laredo Drive. In addition, my clients are willing to plant additional trees near the southeast border (or any other border connected to neighboring land) of the Property to prevent any unwanted views of the Property (including varieties of pine trees to eliminate views in the fall and winter seasons). However, the proposed variation would result in views that are no worse than the current views of the Property. It could be argued that a variance would be required under Chapter 18 of the City Code entitled, "Subdivisions." According to Ch. 18, Sec. 18-38, a finding must be made that "The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance," which may mean that my clients need to meet the requirements of the variance test set out in this Chapter. However, these standards are even easier to satisfy than the standards set out above. For example, Ch. 18, Sec. 18-21, states the following: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; . The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; . The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; o The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. As described in Section III of this letter, my clients easily meet each of these standards. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 14 IV. THE RECENT SAGSTETTER DECISION FULLY SUPPORTS THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE. The Court's statements in Rowell were recently endorsed again and expanded upon in the 1995 Sagstetter decision. A thorough review of the case is very instructive and supports the granting of the variance requested by the Igels: 1. The City owned a parcel of land with nine softballs fields, which certainly was an existing reasonable use of the parcel (similarly Igels could subdivide a non- riparian lot on the Property). 2. The City wanted, however, to build a dome over a softball field, which would be 90 feet high at the peak. The ordinance allowed for only 30 feet without a variance. The City also needed a 20-foot side yard setback variance. 3. The parcel was immediately surrounded by residential development. The proposed dome was only 49 feet from the garages of an apartment building (Igel's plat design is consistent with the lot designs of the surrounding neighborhood). The adjacent property owners objected and introduced uncontroverted expert testimony that a 90-foot high dome would adversely affect their property values. (In Igel's case, there is evidence to suggest that the plat design will increase property values throughout the surrounding neighborhoods, as well as increase the tax-base for the City). 4. The City said the design of the entire park resulted from the City's desire to ameliorate local problems by adding parking spaces, concession facilities and public restrooms. This could only be accomplished from the revenue from renting the dome. (Igel's desires to minimize the destruction of trees (including large mature trees), prevent the elimination of the back neighbor's view of the lake, minimize hardcover, minimize impact to drainage areas, minimize views of the houses from the street, and promote property values, preserve trees and the natural setting, preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and eliminate the need for massive regrading of the lots to alloxv for proper building surface.) 5. The Board of Zoning Appeals approved the variances. The Council denied the variances based on the testimony. The Council, at a later meeting, reversed itself and approved the variances even though no additional testimony had been provided. The District Court upheld the grant of the variances. In affirming the grant of the variances, the Minnesota Courtof Appeals showed a~ain that the variance tests should not be narrowly applied to limit flexibility. As to "Reasonable Use," the Court stated at 492: Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 15 Appellants construe the statute and ordinances sections, which state that the property "cannot be put to a reasonable use" under the strict provisions of the code, to mean that if the property can be put to any reasonable use, then granting a variance is unreasonable. This Court has previously construed this language to mean that the landowner would like to put the land to a reasonable use, but that the proposed reasonable use is prohibited under the strict provisions of the code. Here, the city wants to put the land to a reasonable use: placing a dome over the field to enable year-round use. The design of the entire park results from the city's desire to ameliorate local problems by adding parking spaces, concession facilities, and public restrooms. These are reasonable responses to valid concerns. As to "Unique Circumstances," the Court stated at 492: Evidence was presented that soil conditions and a sewer main prohibited excavation that would allow the field to comply with the 30-foot height limitation in the ordinance. The plan alleviated parking problems, and if a different design were used, the plan would not provide as many parking spaces. The evidence supports the city council's determination that unique conditions justify a variance in this situation. (There was no evidence that the dome could not have been erected over one of the other fields.) As to "Spirit and Intent of the Zoning Code," the Court stated at 492: Appellants argue the neighborhood petitions show that the domed field is not in keeping with the spirit of the code or consistent with health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. The dome would allow local residents to take part in year-round activities such as playing softball on lighted fields, and a golf driving range. These factors show the city councils' determination was reasonable. As to "Increase of Value or Income Potential," the Court stated at 493: Although increased revenues likely played a role in the city council's decision, it also considered other factors supporting the decisions. The plan responds to several valid concerns. We conclude the city council's decision was reasonable. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 16 As discussed in this letter, my clients' reasons for the requested variance in all respects are far stronger than the reasons the Court approved in Sagstetter. It also is important to note that my clients have complied with every aspect of the City' s planning process including relying to their detriment on the City's understanding of their Code and by making numerous alterations to their plats to accommodate the requests of neighbors. The following is a factual history of the many steps my clients have taken leading up to this letter: · Early September 1999, Igels identified that 7303 Laredo is on the market, talked to listing agent, Noel Wellman, who suggests lot is sub-dividable. Met with City Planner, Bob Generous, and received city subdivision code and setback information. Mr. Generous identifies 75 feet as minimum lake frontage required per lot. Hired surveyors Carlson & Carlson to survey the lot before committing to purchase property. Surveyors determine a split into two lake lots is possible based on code and setback information given by City. Met with Bob Generous with site sketch. (Exhibit E). City staff agrees that minimums are met, and reconfirms 75-foot minimum lake frontage, but does not support the lot lines needed to keep the existing house intact. Bob Generous confirms the removal of the house would allow for two lake lots. · January 11, 2000, Igels close on the Property based on the City's confirmation that after removing the existing house, the Property will allow for two lake lots. Working with the City, Carlson & Carlson prepares preliminary plat, tree survey, grading plans, canopy coverage, average setbacks, hard cover calculations, easements, access, zoning, Ordinary High Water mark and all other requirements. · Submitted the Lucas Igel Subdivision proposal to the Planning Commission. Some attempt to block sub-division by reference to existing covenants. After review, my clients find that the covenants of the neighborhood expired in 1987 and have not been renewed. Deed restrictions are invalid and are removed from title of property. In any event, the City does not enforce private covenants. · Meeting before the Planning Commission: - Numerous neighbors came to comment on subdivision proposal. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 17 Igels offered their perspective on priority to protect the integrity of the established neighborhood, keep as many healthy trees on the property as possible, remove any underbrush or unhealthy trees choking out the healthy tree growth, build two homes that would complement the surrounding neighborhood, etc. Planning commissioner requested a narrower driveway or different driveway path to limit the number of trees that would be taken for the driveway development. Igels were not interested in an alternative driveway route, but acquiesced to the change to satisfy the neighbors and commissioner's concern over tree destruction and then, worked with Carlson and Carlson to redirect the driveway. - The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Lucas Igel Subdivision upon the driveway and other minor changes. At this point, the City Planner indicated that all Igels have to do is wait for Council approval because they had met all of the City requirements to subdivide the property. Two weeks after the Planning Commission meeting, the City contacted Igels regarding the "building line" and indicated that the City's support was withdrawn. Igels made minor modifications to the plat to accommodate the City's new position. Mr. Generous reviewed the change, agreed that the new plat conformed to their new interpretation of the ordinance and again reconfirmed the City's support. Within one week of the date the City Council was to vote on the subdivision, the City Planner informed the Igels that the lot widths were too narrow because the City Code required a ninety-foot shoreline width minimum. This position was inconsistent with the City's original position that the minimum shoreline width requirement was seventy-five feet because it followed the State of Minnesota requirement. Again the Igels worked with Carlson and Carlson to redraft the survey another time to meet the City's latest requirement. Only, this time, the Property was not wide enough to accommodate the shoreline width minimums and now, the Igels are unable to subdivide the Property into two lakeshore lots and therefore, destroys their purpose for originally buying the Property. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 18 V. THE CITY SHOULD GRANT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. As demonstrated above, the City has full authority to grant the requested variances. The City should exercise its discretion to do so and should approve the variances for the reasons discussed above. VI. INTERPREATION OF THE SHORELINE WIDTH RESTRICTION. Even if the City were to find a variance is needed, there is ample legal and factual support for such a variance. See above discussion related to the shoreline width variance. VII. PRECEDENT. Sometimes I find cities believe the granting of a variance will set some sort of adverse precedent, so the City must grant some future variance for some other party. I have found that the Courts do not favor finding such a precedent to be controlling because every variance application involves facts and circumstances and time periods different from prior situations where variances may have been granted. See Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N.W. 2d 802, 806 (Minn. App 1991). Shoreline width variances denied in the past in residential zones are irrelevant to this situation where the lot is in a Shoreland Management District, far larger than many of the other shoreline lot widths in the same district. There are numerous other unique factors related to this requested variance as discussed above. VIII. PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. Finally it should be noted that the fact that the City's shoreline width requirements in the zoning ordinance may have been known prior to acquisition is irrelevant in determining if a variance should be granted. In Myron v. City of Plymouth, 562 NW2d 21, 23 (Minn. App. 1997), the Court stated: One of those prerequisites is that the need for the variance not be "created by the landowner." If that includes mere purchase with knowledge, a municipality would, in effect, be_prohibited from granting a variance to every subsequent owner who purchased with knowledge that a variance would be required for development. This blanket bar to granting variances is not in accordance with the legislature's general intent to give municipalities broad discretion in the land development area. Although such knowledge is irrelevant, my clients had no prior knowledge of the minimum shoreline width requirements because the City specifically told them that the minimum was seventy-five feet and my clients relied on this information before and after the moment they acquired the Property. Mr. Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen May 9, 2000 Page 19 IX. CONCLUSION. As to the shoreline width, we ask that the City approve a variance for the width requested (15 feet). We think the variance should be granted for the reasons noted above. . If the City feels it is important to adopt some conditions relating thereto, as part of such approval, then we ask that you state what those conditions are as part of your approval so that we know whether or not we can proceed with the variance subject to those conditions. ge As to any of the above, we welcome the City's recommendation as to how we might modify our proposals so that the City, using whatever procedural mechanism is appropriate, can approve my clients' proceeding for-ward. I apologize for the length of this letter, but because of the fact situation involved, and the importance of the recent Court cases as to variances, I had no choice but to provide such a lengthy analysis. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at the above referenced telephone number. Very truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson Enclosures cc: Rachel Igel David Igel 28 ~ 14 ~ 5 ~ 7189 ~ 7191 cu 7193 c~ 7195 7194 7196 7198 ~ 6 ~ 7 ~ ; ; ~, 25~210020 -,~ )u~OT A - ";"' '" OUTLOT A 11 .7:,7 r 1 ,."~ 2 , . ~'t~7' 2 '~.:~ ~; ( o ,.,,.~ ~k,<,'; (¢~0~ '* ~ .; X.; ~1' ~ ~ 7 ~ ~~ 5 ~ .:.~ ~:-.=.. 7329 ~ 7331 ~ 7333 ~ 7~5 Frontier Tre// , -.:.-:~.~ " ~ ~ Highland Drive Highland Drive ~ ~ ~ 4 ~~ 503 ~ 501 2 411 ~ 409 ? 407 ~ 405 0403 ~ ~ .... ~/~ 505 7332 7334 ~ ~ 7336 (',,I \%" c~ ' 5 400 '2 PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION .x, ~"? ' ,x,.,,.,_..-: ",, ~"~ \ \. \ ~. "., ',., / \ '., , ',, .~ ................ . .... ; ......... ~. ~ ~.~ '. ~ Existing~ Orivew~ I / Garage " 0 '""Ct ', ' ,. ..... ,.,, ..... -- '.. *~' i 1 t, Block I ~ ~' ,,.. , ...~ .... ~.,., Monument round , M ...... t ~t / J ule~ for new house,. G~e F~r -- 921.0 Proposed ' '" ~,, ~o( ' oO~g., %'~ / / /' /. Survey for: DAVID IGEL O.H.W. Elev:= 896.3 I I <- 0 Water Elevation - 895.34 (October 6, 1999) ,, I .................. IIII1~11 ........................... ' ....... Illllll PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION ', '":'" ~ ~ - - ~,- -'- ~ _, ,,,, :ut Hydrant = 942.87 / / / / Survey for: DAVID IGEL O.H.W. Elev.- 896.5 / ! 0 Water Elevation - (October 6, 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 Sizein ~et 43600 210OO 21450 242O0 23750 22200 16700 14000 13400 14750 13500 32000 22300 27900 12000 14000 14000 14000 14000 34300 18000 14550 4500 15400 15400 15400 14000 14125 14000 14000 14000 14000 14000 18200 42245 Property within 500ft 19 lots under 15,500 35 654870 18711Avg. sq. ff. 0.425 Acres/lot SCALE: 1' = 30' Townline Ro~l , Lotus Lake PJ/'eekness ttl  W 78th _ \ w 'i,'8m St SUNRISE HILLS F RST ADDITION LOT AREA 5/11/2000 Lot, Block 1&2, 1 3,1 4,1 5, t 6,1 7,1 8,1 9,1 10 1 111 12 1 13 1 14 1 15 1 161 17.1 1,2 22 32 42 52 62 72 82 92 10,2 11,2 1,3 Total Average Area 17 057.59 19 359.00 4O 233.24 14 037.54 13 950.44 13 995.73 14 118.66 17562.06 32.331.92 47 127.09 24,4O2.89 36 370.45 13 846.38 15 399.34 15 893.97 15 363.72 16 658.00 14 000.00 14 000.00 14 000.00 14 000.00 15 400.00 15 400.00 15 400.00 15 400.00 13 665.00 15 750.70 17,070.48 531,794.20 18,992.65 g:\plan\bg\sunrise hills l st.xls CITYOF Cio, Ce, ret D~ive, PO Box 147 }a,ha~'se,, Minnesota 55317 Pho,e 612.Y37.1900 ~5,em/ F~r 61293~ 5739 gi,eri,g Fax 6I Z 93Z 9152 ~/ic Sa)O, F~v 612 93< 2524 }b wwu~ci.&anhasse,, m,. us MEMORANDUM TO' FROM: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Jill Sinclair, EnviromnentaI Resource Specialist~ DATE' 25 May 2000 SUB J: Igel Addition On Monday, May 22, I inspected the Igel property in order to verify the submitted tree inventory. According to the inventory, there are two oaks identified as diseased and a dead ash tree. The oaks both have dead wood in their canopies but do not merit removal because of 'disease'. They are both healthy trees with full canopies. The dead tree indicated on the survey is indeed dead. C/tv o£Cha,hasse,. /I .~rowhi~, co,,mo#tv ~,/th c/e,m hkes. mmhh, schonh, a r/~am~i,v d,w,to,m, t/,'i~i,v businesses, and hea,tifid narkr. A oreat n/ace to lithe, work. and nlav. ** THIS ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED UNTIL TUESDAY, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING** JUNE 6, 2000 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL. COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Subdivision of APPLICANT: David Igel Lake Shore Lot LOCATION: 7303 Laredo Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, of David Igel for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots with a variance from the lake shore width requirement on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Ddve, Lucas Igel Addition. 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 Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is dosed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and 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 Generous 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 May 25, 2000. Lotu Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® 3ERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 3 FRONTIER TRL kNHASSEN MN 55317 {RISE HILLS ) LONGVIEW CIR kNHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE 7307 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN 7305 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN H HARMER & 402 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOWELL A & JUDY D VETTER 404 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IERT H GREELEY I FRONTIER TRL iNHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID O & RACHEL IGEL 73O3 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HOWARD & MARY JEAN MEUWISSE 406 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 tERT H GREELEY I FRONTIER TRL t. NHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD J & EUNICE M PETERS 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT SAVITT & 408 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 .IS A BOVY ) FRONTIER TRL iNHASSEN MN 553 17 ALAN & ANNABEL FOX 7300 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG A & MARIAN WESTERMANN 410 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~,LEY ANN NAVRATIL FRONTIER TRL ,NHASSEN MN 55317 D L CUNEO JR FRONTIER TRL ~NHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD 7302 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOKAS 7304 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DONALD M & DARLENE H HUSETH 7332 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES J & RITA M WALETSKI 7334 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 L M & WENDY M WIENS FRONTIER TRL ,NHASSEN MN 55317 FELIX & LOIS WHITE PO BOX 96 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT L & GLORY D WILSON 7336 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 &N L JOHNSON FRONTIER TRL ,NHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARSON 7307 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & LINDA MADY 7338 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NIS W & LINDA A LANDSMAN FRONTIER TRL ~NHASSEN MN 55317 WAYNE L & KATHLEEN J MADER 400 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI 7340 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed Sheetsm Use template for 5160® PATRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO 7203 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE K & SUSAN C SAVIK 7215 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN & THERESE BERQUIST 7207 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ADOLFO & LEONOR ZAMBRANO 7301 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55B 17 HELEN BIELSKI 7209 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID J WOLLAN & 7303 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY 7211 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOEL S & MARY G JENKINS 7305 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,ION H & JANET B HOLLER 7206 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J THIELGES & 7208 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH & KATHELEEN WITKEWICS 7210 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL & ELLEN DIFFERDING 7228 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R & DORTHEA F SHAY 7230 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R & LINDA D KRAFT 7213 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ise Hills Homeowner's Association. >avelko, -Frontier Trail hassen,. MN 55317 Kurvers Point' HomeOwner's Association 7241 Kurvers Pt. Road Chanhassenl MN 55317 ' Colonial Point Homeowner's Association Mr. Bill Kirkvold, President 201 Frontier Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lake Homeowner's' Association ~ric Lavanger, President Bmle Circle hassen, MN 55317 :ier Trail Homeowner's Association Peg Kirkvold Frontier Trail hassen, MN 55317 Lores Lake Betterment Association at Colonial Grove Mr. Herb LaPlatt, President 7012 Cheyenne Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317-9504 · . · Lotus Lake Estates Mr. William Shimp 155 Choctaw Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 MALKERSON OILLILAND MARTIN SUITE 1500 ATaT TOWER 901 MAROUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-32.05 TELEPHONE 612-344-1111 FACSIMILE 612-344-1414 Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial No. 612/344-1699 June 15, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Kate Aanenson, Planning Director City of Chanhassen City Hall P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Application by Rachel and David Igel Our File No. 1392.001 Dear Ms. Aanenson: As attorney for Rachel and David Igel, my clients waive their rights under the so called "60 Day Rule" as set forth in Minnesota Statutes related to their proposed subdivision of their property on Lotus Lake in the City of Chanhassen, and specifically request that the City take such time as the City deems necessary to review and act upon their application. Very truly yours, CC: Rachel and David Igel (via facsimile) Bruce D. Malkerson 39562 MALKERS©N C_~ILLILAND MARTIN ._ ~ LLP SUITE 1500 AT&T TOWER 901 MAROUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-320§ TElePHONE 612-344-11II FacsiMile 612-344-I414 JUN 1 ~ 2000 CITY OF CH^NHA$SEN Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial No. 612/344-1699 June 16, 2000 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL Kate Aanenson, Planning Director City of Chanhassen City Hall P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Application by Rachel and David Igel Our File No. 1392.001 Dear Ms. Aanenson: This will confirm that we have asked to be on the next available Planning Commission meeting which we understand is July 18 because of the July 4 weekend. We have requested the continuance from the June 20 meeting because that date did not provide enough time for my clients to try and modify their plat to address Mr. Paulsen's concerns he raised for the first time at the June 6 meeting. My clients are trying to address his concerns through minor changes to the plat, even though those changes are not required by the City's ordinances. Very., truly yours, Bruce D. Malkerson cc: Rachel and David Igel (via facsimile) 39562 CITYOF June 15,2000 Dear Residents: This letter is to notify you that the applicant for the Lucas Igel Addition has requested the item be postponed until the Plmming Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Should you have any questions, please feel fi'ee to contact me. Sincerely, Senior Planner imooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® >dCK F & KATHRYN A PAVELKO FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD 7302 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID J WOLLAN & 7303 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 H & JANET B HOLLER FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES R & LINDA D KRAFT 7213 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOEL S & MARY G JENKINS 7305 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ERT J THIELGES & FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID O & RACHEL IGEL 7303 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARLIs A BOVY 7339 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RISE HILLS LONGVIEW CIR NHASSEN MN 55317 STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOKA 7304 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS W & LINDA A LANDSMAN 7329 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ';PH & KATHELEEN WITKEWICS FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE K & SUSAN C SAVIK 7215 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRED L CUNEO JR 7335 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 /EN & THERESE BERQUIST FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN 7305 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN L JOHNSON 7331 FRONTIER 'FRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 N & ANNABEL FOX LAREDO DR NHASSEN MN 55317 ADOLFO & LEONOR ZAMBRANO 7301 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOEL M & WENDY M WIENS 7333 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~2N BIELSKI FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE 7307 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARSO 7307 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 5JAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY FRONTIER TRL NHASSEN MN 55317 SHIRLEY ANN NAVRATIL 7337 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H GREELEY 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 tARD J & EUNICE M PETERS LAREDO DR NHASSEN MN 55317 FELIX & LOIS WHITE PO BOX 96 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 7343 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® DONALD M 8: DARLENE H HUSETH 7332 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HOWARD & MARY JEAN MEUW[SSE 406 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL & ELLEN DIFFERDING 7228 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOWELL A & JUDY D VETTER 404 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES J & RITA M WALETSKI 7334 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN H HARMER 402 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 553 t7 JAMES & LINDA MADY 7338 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG A & MARIAN WESTERMANN 410 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL R & DORTHEA F SHAY 7230 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT L & GLORY D \VILSON 7336 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI 7340 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H GREELEY 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYNE L & KATHLEEN J MADER 400 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT SAVITT & 408 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Hills Homeowner's Association tvelko, 'rontier Tra'il assen,-MN 55317 Lake Homeowner'S Association ic Lavanger, President lrule Circle assen, MN 55317 '.r Trail Homeowner's Association eg Kirkvold 'rontier Trail assen, MN 55317 Kurvers Point Homeowner's Association '7241 Kurvers Pt. Road Chanhassen,' MN 55317 ' Lotus Lake Betterment Association at Colonial Grove Mr. Herb LaPlatt, President 7012 Cheyenne Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317-9504 Colonial Point Homeowner's Association Mr. Bill Kirkvold, President 201 Frontier Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Lotus Lake Estates Mr. William Shimp 155 Choctaw Circle Chanhass. en, MN 55317 JoAnne & Leonard Lipe 1345 Lexington Court · Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Phone 952.448.5187 · Fax 952.831.8946 June 26,2000 Kathryn AanenSon Community Development Director City of Chanhassen - 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 re: Igel Lotus Lake subdivision (fOrmerly Baird Property) Dear Ms. Aanenson: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter I sent to Jerry and Jan Paulsen today. Based on the contents of my letter, is it possible to retract or in some way remove the letter with Chris Baird's signature from the Planning Commission report? Chris did not write the letter and was manipulated into signing the letter by Mr. Paulsen. In fact, it is pretty likely that Chris didn't even sign the letter sent to you dated May 7, as he was at the hospital all day that day, with many friends and family members present, celebrating the birth of his daughter. It is not the desire of the Baird family to block the Igels in their pursuit of subdivision of the lot in question. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please feel free to call me at 952.831.4207 if you have. any questions. . . Sincerely, JoAnne Lipe June 26,2000 JoAnne & Leonard Lipe 1345 Lexington Court · Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Phone 952.448.5187 · Fax 952.831.8946 RECEIVED JUN 2 8 2000 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Jerry & Jan Paulsen 7305 Laredo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Paulsen, I am Chris Baird's sister, and my husband and I have been handling my mother's estate since her death last July. On June 22, Noel Wellman faxed me copies of a letter dated June 16 that you sent her, along with the enclosures to that letter which included a letter signed by Chris addressed to Kathryn Aanenson at the City of Chanhassen. As you probably know, Chris has had a stroke. As a result of the stroke, Chris suffers from aphasia, which means he has lost some ability for speech, and is also far more emotional than the average adult. He is having a very difficult time coping with the death of'both parents in a short period of time and having to sell the family home. I believe he is suffering from depression, although to my knowledge he has not sought professional help. Because of Chris's disabilities, it is very difficult for him to find and hold employment. As such, his income is very limited. Also, Chris was not the sole owner of the lot. Ownership of the lot was divided equally among the three Baird siblings. In order for one sibling to remain in the house, _the other siblings' shares would have had to been purchased by the sibling retaining ownership in the lot. Due to Chris's financial situation, there was never any posSibility for Chris to continue living in the house, even if the family had been able to subdivide the lot, and Chris knew that. Also, Ms. Wellman never told us we couldn't subdivide the lot. She told us it would be unlikely that we'd be able to subdivide. However, she told us if we wanted to put the time and effort into the project, we could pursue obtaining a variance from the City of Chanhassen and then sell the lot as subdividable if and when we obtained City aPproval. The alternative was to put the house on the market as is and hope for a quick sale. Since the house had a large mortgage and the brothers weren't interested in contributing to monthly payments to keep the mortgage current, we put the house on the market as is and sold the house a month before it went into foreclosure. Chris was aware of this, also. I spoke to Chris and his wife, Char, on June 22 regarding your letter to Ms. Wellman and the enclosures, including the letter Chris signed. Chris informed me that you wrote the letter and he signed it. Because of Chris's aphasia, which becomes more pronounced when he is under stress, he was probably unable to tell you that the above-mentioned items in the letter that you wrote for his signature were not true. He probably tried to, but it was difficult for him to get the words out. When this happens, Chris has a tendency to agree to whatever is being said. page 2 Back in March, after your conversation with Ms. Wellman regarding subdivision of the Igel property, both Char and I told Chris he had to forget about the Igel property and move on with his life. He agreed that he would. However, apparently you continued to call him on a regular basis, creating further distress for Chris. Because he knew his family would be upset, Chris told no one that he was still involved in your fight with the Igels. The Baird family believes you have taken advantage of Chris and that you manipulated Chris into signing the letter to Ms. Aanenson. The letter is very misleading and contains statements that simply aren't true. The Baird family believes the proposed subdivision of the Igel property is none of our business. It's your fight, not ours. We would appreciate it if you did two things: 1. Stop calling Chris. This business is very distressing for him, and his life is already stressful enough without you adding your problems. 2. Leave Ms. Wellman alone. She did nothing wrong. She gave us our options, and we made the best choice for the entire Baird family, including Chris. Aisc, I don't think our arrangements with Ms. Wellman, or anyone else, for that matter, are any of your business. If you have any questions, please call me. My work number is 952.831.4207. Thank you. Sincerely, JoAnne Lipe cc: Kathryn Aanenson, City of Chanhassen Noel Wellman, Coldwell Banker Burnet David and Rachel Igel CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 6, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deb Kind, Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, and Uli Sacchet MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner I; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.1 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE LAKESHORE WIDTH REQUIREMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 11. BLOCK 1, SUNRISE HILLS 1sT ADDITION, 7303 LAREDO DRIVE, LUCAS IGEL ADDITION, DAVID IGEL. Public Present: Name Address Joshua Paulsen Emiiv Paulsen Steven & Teresa Berquist Eunice & Richard Peters Ron & Ann Kleve Debbie & Dick Lloyd Joel S. Jenkins Don Huseth Helen Bielski Jerry & Janet Paulsen Linda Landsman Fred Cuned David Wallin Robert & Susie Eastman Jim Waletski Carl Alexander Rachel & David Igel Bruce Malkerson Steven Chepokas 1500 St. Olaf Avenue, Northfield 7305 Laredo Drive 7207 Frontier Trail 7301 Laredo Drive 7307 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Frontier Trail 7332 Frontier Trail 7209 Frontier Trail 7305 Laredo Drive 7329 Frontier Drive 7335 Frontier Trail 7303 Frontier Trail 26115 Shorewood Oaks Drive, Shorewood 7334 Frontier Trail 8447 Powers Place 6195 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood 901 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis 7304 Laredo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of Bob from fellow commissioners? Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000 Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Run through our options again. The proposal before us is. Generous: A subdivision with a variance for the lakeshore. Blackowiak: Okay, so that is actually the only thing that we are to know? You're shaking your head. Generous: To refresh, that's the one that the applicant has proposed. You can always recommend something that's lesser than that. So in this instance you could recommend approval of the plat with the variance. You could recommend denial of the plat with the variance. Or you could recommend that they need to comply with the ordinance and ask them to prove the alternative plat. Blackowiak: So are we, from what I understand you would be approving the alternative if we denied? Generous: No. Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: Okay. That's what, I just wanted to clarify, that. Okay, thank you. Peterson' Other questions? Kind: Mr. Chair? Bob, could you tell me how you measure building height when it's a walkout? Generous: What we do is we take the average of the =oTade on the side of the house and so it'd probably be like the mid-point of the side and then we measure to the mid-point of the roof on gabled roofs. Kind: And oh, one question about on page 5 of the staff report. I'm guessing that, on the compliance table there's txvo footnotes. The one that's xvith the pound sign. Should that line say, the second sentence say, the minimum state shoreland standards are 90 feet? Generous: No. Aanenson' It's a minimum of 75. DNR is 75. Generous: State standards are 75. The City, has higher standards. Kind: Oh! Interesting. Okay, thank you. Peterson: Anybody else? Kind' That's it for now. Peterson' Anything Matt? Burton: No. Peterson: Would the applicant or designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forxvard and state your name and address please. Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000 Bruce Malkerson: Good evening. My name is Bruce Malkerson and I'm the attorney for David and Rachel Igel. My address is 901 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota. We reviewed the staff report. We think it's very thorough and I know this matter's been in front of you before so I think you probably know all of the relevant facts so I'm not going to go through things that have already been set forth by city staff and that you've seen before. We'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. We would like an opportunity to respond to any comments from the public relating to the application, if there are any. The only thing that I would like to stress to you is, as noted in my letter to you that's in the packet. I've been practicing land use law for 28 years and I've appeared in front of a lot of planning commissions and councils everywhere in the state, and I've represented a lot of planning commissions and councils. And I've been out in this city probably over 28 years, 15-20 times through the years. And I don't know how the Planning Commission has acted before on variances. What their understanding of the law is on variances. You may know it very, very well, but I just want to, in case you're not familiar with the Rowell Case and the Sagstetter Case which I cite in my memo to you. I just wanted to remind you that the courts have made it very clear that some of the old historical ways of viewing variances and undue hardship and that it was an impossibility to prove the need for a variance unless it would otherwise be an unconstitutional taking of the property, that that is not the law. A lot of people thought that in the 60's and 70's and the courts have made it clear through the years that is not the case. And I am sure that if your city attorney, Roger Knutson, who I am sure looked at a copy of my letter, believed that I was misstating the law, that he would have so informed staff. I mean the bottom line is, if you believe that the applicant has shown a sufficient basis for a variance, which the court has said is not that great. If it makes sense to do what is being proposed, then you have all the latitude under the law to grant the variances requested tonight. And if you have any questions as to any of the basis that we have set forth as to why we think that the variances should be granted, again we'd be glad to answer any questions that you have but otherwise I don't intend to take up any more of your time. Thank you. Peterson: Any questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair I have a question. On the plans that I call the compliant plan. All that complies that requires no variances. What is the reason that the building pads are so much different and bigger than the one shown on the plans requesting the variance? Bruce MalkersOn: Well I think part, building pads can vary as we know no matter what as long as they're within the side yard setbacks and the rear yard setbacks and everything else. I think to a certain extent it is illustrative. If the Planning Commission feels it's important to limit the size of the building pads under one approval or another, I mean we'd be glad to talk to you about it but for the most part they were houses that we're trying to fit in to the site, and whether or not Rachel or David have, who worked more closely with the architect than I have, perhaps they have some thoughts on that. Yes Dave. David Igel: One of the things that we considered when we looked at building pad width or the actual width of the home, initially was we were limited in width on the original plat. Where we had the ability to go ~vider, we didn't have those restrictions and I think you can see the buildings pads are drawn in here. We were able to go wider. What we would propose is probably more of a rambler, spra~vling rambler style house than a stacked 2 ½ story. That's just our preference because we can do the width on the other, on the original plat. That's what we'd do. Kind: That's what I was wondering. So the compliant plan is, it will have a lower profile. It will be walkout ramblers rather than. Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000 David Igel: That's right. That's what we would anticipate right now. Kind: And the variance plan, those footprints are for 2 stories plus a walkout, right? David Igel: Correct. Kind: So 3 stories on the lake side. David Igel' Correct. Kind: Okay, just a minute. See ifI have another question for you. I think that's it. Thank you. Bruce Malkerson: IfI may, as to the plan that doesn't require a variance, of course ifsomeone decided they wanted to do 2 stories, they would be able to do so but at least this is what the thinking is of the applicant but that doesn't mean that somebody who bought the lot to the rear wouldn't decide to put it, the full 2 ½ story, whatever is allowed under the code, house at that location. Which of course as noted in the materials, we think that whether it says the walkout there or the 2 story would block the view of the neighbor to the rear to the lake. And probably, as you probably also noted that the elevations on the plan that requires the variance are substantially below that that could be there other~vise and so I think that even ~vith the 2 ½ story, 2 story house, that somebody to the rear would have a view not only through the view corridor but also over the house to a great extent. Thank you. Burton' Mr. Chair. one more question for counsel. Do you think that xvhen we evaluate the reasonableness of the request that we should look at the restrictive covenants on the property? Bruce Malkerson' Good question. I analyzed the restrictive covenants when I first heard of them and Igel's did have an opinion of counsel which is a correct opinion, that after a certain time, which has now since past, that those restrictions as a matter of law have become void. The State legislature decided, in it's wisdom, right or ~vrong, to adopt a statute years ago that limited the len~h of the effectiveness of such restrictive covenants so they are not in effect today. Burton: So xvhen it terminated in 1987, even though it says that it renews automatically for successive periods of 10 years, your position is that the legislature. Bruce Malkerson: My understanding is that it's void as of that date and that there's a legal opinion by an attorney to that effect, and I have no reason to doubt the validity of that and I haven't seen any legal anaIvsis to the contrary. And by the way, although it's relevant, as your staff has said, restrictive covenants are something benveen private parties in any event and is not relevant for decisions on land use, but putting that aside, my understanding is that it's void. If it weren't void, we wouldn't be taking up your time. Rachel Igel: Just to also underscore that, just so you know, it has been removed from the title of the property so there's no longer a restrictive covenant on the property. Bruce Malkerson: And that's torrens property too. And with torrens property, as you may know, we have two types of property,. Abstract and torrens and the only restrictions of any sort, other than zoning, that can ever be valid on torrens are those that are actually showing on the Certificate of Title. That's why we have what's called the torrens system and so the courts in the torrens proceedings determined that it was no longer valid and removed it. Any other questions? Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000 Peterson: Thank you. Bruce Malkerson' Thank you. Peterson: Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing ~vas opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Jerry Paulsen' Good evening. My name is Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. We're one of the many neighbors of the Igel's that live in Sunrise Hills. And it seems like only 3 months ago we were here discussing this same thing and during that time interval the applicant has had a chance to go through a series of preliminary plats. These are the fourth and fifth ones that you see before you, attempting to find something that they think will fit into this lot to justify the splitting into two parts. We're here to say that we think we have, we foresee problems with both plats and we'd like to raise those with you tonight. Let me just say one thing that, less you think we're being unneighborly, that we do have a personal involvement in this obviously because we're neighbors to the new property owners, but we do have, we hope that the Planning Commission considers two points. One which is, either one of these will have an impact on our property value and those of the surrounding neighbors I think. The one maybe a little more so than the other. And secondly I would urge you to uphold city code because we're setting a precedent here. This 90 foot thing hasn't been around for too long, that the city's aware ofan,vway. But it is a serious variance. It's not like adding a deck onto a home or something like that. It's a little different category I think. So let me call to your attention those of you, and maybe I did myself today. It's called D-Day and you've heard of that no doubt. It's when the Americans invaded France during World War II and one of the other events that comes to mind as a result of D-Day is something that came up later in about December of '44 called the Battle of the Bulge. And you're probably familiar with that if you study your history. And we have our o, wn little Battle of the Bulge here tonight. If you refer to your packet, which is a fairly thick packet obviously, but in chronological order there's a series of letters attached there, one of which is dated May 8m. So if you go down and look chronologically, you'll see that there's a letter with an attachment to it and... These represent two different plats that the Igel's have submitted. The one on the left kind of outlined in yellow is the one that you saw on March 15th at your meeting. The one on the right is the most recent one. There was considerable amount of interest in this because originally they said they had easily 75 feet of lakeshore, which the city believed was necessary at that point. Subsequent to that obviously the city recognized that 90 feet was necessary according to their code, but the critical thing here is that they said they had 75 feet was at the survey point. And that's the survey line and that's about 12 to 14 feet back from the shore. If you look at the property lines they converged down towards the lake and we were very concerned about whether they really had 75 feet at the lake because the ordinary high water mark is right next to the lake, as you can see. And the question xvas whether they had 75 feet. So on the left one you can see that there's a dashed line. That's the contour line representing the high water line and that's determined by DNR because it's 2 feet above the lakeshore. The normal height of the water. Anyway, the one on the right is the way that came up later. As a matter of fact it was 5 weeks after the developer had been asked to submit the answer to what we really had for a high water line length there and it took them 5 weeks and he came back with a plat which is slightly different because as you can see it has a few bulges in it and the repercussion of that is a len~hening of the line. The more curve there is in that line, the more len~h the developer has to work with. Anyway, he came up with exactly 75 feet for each lot, which was very good from his standpoint, at Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000 least he could say he had 75 feet that way. So enough of this reminiscing of the war. I'll save my other war stories for the council meeting next time. But I'd like to go through with you a couple of series of items that we think are problems with primarily the first plat, which is the two lakeshore plats. And I think you have a copy, something that was just handed to you just to keep tabs on what's going on here. There's a series of items here I'd like to call to your attention to. First one, item number one. The code. Peterson: Can we get staffa copy of this? Jerry Paulsen: What it is is a series of arguments with a little block of code, kind cfa synopsis of the code thrown in there for you to back it up and take home and take a look at later. Basically the first one says they need 90 feet at the lakeshore. What we call the ordinary high water line, which is the contour line. But the code also says not only do they need that at the high water line, and so that would be...two lakeshore properties here. They don't, they need it not only at this high xvater line, the curved line here, but they also need 90 feet past the building line which does not occur on this plat. They don't have quite 90 feet the way it's arranged right noxv. If you read the code it says they need it at the building line, or at the high water line, ordinary high water line, and at the building line, which is more in here. If you take a ruler to that, that's from the 90 feet. Okay. The next item then is the code requires ~vhat we call, it was done by the building window or building pad. If you look at item 3, I've got a little template here that shows the code that's represented by Chapter 18 there. Section 18-61. That says you need a 60 x 60 pad' in order to even think of putting up a building. You don't use it for the building necessarily, but you do need to require that pad as a minimum area. If you stick that pad on the plat and you have to allow for all setbacks. 10 foot on each side. For the one end, on the setback from the lake, which is 75 feet, the area here. The...setback overlaps by several feet at this point here. They'll probably...but that's another problem, for meeting code an,vway. And next item. Item number 4. There seems to be, and I don't pretend to be a code expert because it's hard to read code at times and some of it's a little ambiguous but there is a discrepancy, the problem with understanding what private roads are, private streets. Private driveways. Private drives. Shared driveways. We're contending that they all mean the same thing and I think you had a position paper on this recently discussing the impact of private driveways because you were getting more involved in it recently I think. Anyxvay, it says in this section of the code that a private street provides access to 2 or more parcels of land but is owned by 1 or more private parties. So we're saying that what the developer has presented on any of these plats is in fact a private disagreement because it's shared with another home. On most of the homes or examples that we've seen, usually go along the perimeter of the property, rather than cutting directly across it. So this is probably a unique situation staff'than what we've seen before. The other part of the code there, item 4 under Section 18-60 it says all lots shall abut on a publicly dedicated street. In other words, normally you have a lot with a street on it, or on a private street. Those are the two options. In this case by definition it'd have to be a private street because it's not a public street. Okay. Item 5 says, any lot that is accessed by a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet. If you look at the north lot, both lots are accessed by a private drive and that's in some of this.., lakeshore option here. That says they have to have a lot width of 100 feet, and if you look at the north lot, it shows a lot width of 90 feet at this line, instead of what should be 100 feet. They do have...on the south lot which is this line here. Okay, to give you an example. Looking back at the old, at the first plat that you saw, by definition this was a lot line and this drawing that came in here, which is called Lot 2, had a little asterisk next to it and...Lot accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet. So they said, Lot 2, the south lot had to have 100 feet. In this case it didn't and the developer had to go back and revise the line a little bit to get that 100 feet here. Now they're saying the same thing on the current plat that if you look at it as your footnote to the...package that you got from the staff in the staff report, and that where it says that this lot is being accessed by a private drive and requires the 100 feet. So what we're saying is that this is a private street. The lot line, it's more restrictive. You need a little more footage there. Point 6. The lot area must Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000 exclude the area defined as street right-of-way's. In other words, when you're figuring your total lot area, you're not supposed to be able to include a private street as a portion of that area to meet your minimums. Now they come very close, or they probably don't have' a problem of meeting their minimums of 20,000 for a lakeshore and 15,000 for a non-lakeshore, or even for 20 and 20. But the implication is that it does impact their impervious surface requirement and if they subtract out that part of the street you'll see that their impervious surface coverage is within 10 to 15 feet and it's getting very critical. Not to go beyond that 25% of coverage. The purpose of which is to prevent erosion. You're not supposed to pave your whole lot it basically says. Okay, where are we here? We're on number 6. I finished that. 7 says normally you need a 10 foot setback from a property line when you have a driveway. If you look at the, or either one in this case. In other words the setback from this 20 foot wide driveway here comes at least 10 feet on the north side, which is not... What they're doing is they're getting in a bind for their total property. They realize that if they start shifting things around that they're going to be in more trouble as far as making the minimums are concerned. Okay. One more definition here. Number 8. The last one under the word Findings. It says that a lot, definition of a lot states that an area, that's an area of land undivided by any public street for improved private road. Now we're interpreting this to be a private street or a private road and unless it's dividing the property,, so we're looking whether that meets code. Some of these are kind of fine points and we'd like to, if it comes to we may need a decision from the City Attorney I think to clarify these things. Aanenson: IfI can make a point of order. That's your job and that's the City. Council's job to make those clarifications. Peterson' I agree. Aanenson: They will make an interpretation and a recommendation. Jerry Paulsen: Okay, fine. So that basically takes a look at the two lakeshore options. Obv!ously we're not happy with either one necessarily, but the easiest way for anyone to avoid answering your question I guess is to, or if they don't know the answer is to avoid answering the question so if you have questions of either side, please ask them and we'll try to answer them. I hope that the Planning Commission draws a line in the sand and says this far and no further and in essence we're not supporting the variance by any means and we're not supporting either proposal obviously for those of us complying ourselves. The petition that we passed around last time now has 55 signatures on it. That's 55 residences represented with about 88 signatures, which is almost everyone signed it. That are not supporting and are in opposition to the splitting of this property. So what you see are some yellow ribbons, or orange ribbons being worn tonight. The, and I hesitate to call him a developer because it's probably kind of derogatory so we'll came him a mini-developer because he's doing a small...but he was good enough to put up, to define the location of the upper lot with poles...what I would like him to do actually is put one up 35 feet in the air also to show the extreme that can be built in there and how it would destroy our view. So in essence what I'm saying again is I hope the Planning Commission takes a view that we don't want our property values adversely affected and we don't believe they're going to be helped by going through with a plan like this. And the other point is that we hope you'll uphold city code because I think this is a good time to say this is far enough. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Kind: Mr. Chair, before he sits down I have a couple questions. Peterson: Sure. Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000 Kind: Mr. Paulsen? The impervious surface part of your discussion I didn't quite get. Will you explain it to me. If you take out, to me if you take out the driveway that improves their impervious surface. Jerry Paulsen' Well you have to, if the driveway takes up 6,000 square feet, you have to subtract that from the total area and then you figure out what the impervious surface is and apply it back into the total to see... Kind: I've been on the commission for a year now and the way we count impervious surface is it's included. The driveway's included in the impervious. Jerry. Paulsen: In counting the impervious surface, the house, the driveway, the deck. Kind: And the driveway. Jerry' Paulsen: And the driveway, yes. Kind' It's all counted. Jerry Paulsen' It counts as an impervious surface and the DNR, we were talking about guidelines set up by the DNR. Chanhassen has adopted the code in '94 which kind of parallels it and is not quite as restrictive as the DNR looks for in some respects. I'm sorry.', did 1' answer your question about impervious surface? Kind: So I'm supposed to take away the area of the driveway. To me it's a wash. Jerry Paulsen: The street right-of-way, take this block out of there for that, you're eliminating that from the total area that's eligible to be counted as part there. So if they have a total area of 20,000 square feet say on the property., and you subtract out 5,000 for the driveway in addition to the other impervious surface, that's not been done. The driveway has not been subtracted out for both properties here. Well, I think it has in this instance. Kind: Okay. And then the other question I have for you is, if your choice is between the proposal that complies, that requires no variances. They could go build it tomorrow and apply for a building permit and go do it, and if your choice is between that and, or giving this variance, which set up of homes would you prefer? Jerry Paulsen: Well we're proposing that they need a variance either way and I guess that's for you to decide how serious some of this other stuff is. Kind: Because of the private drive? The private street? Jerry Paulsen' Well, the private street and the building pad. Building measures and the building layout. As a matter of fact, it doesn't make it on the outlot either. Kind: Okay. Planning Commission Meeting- June 6, 2000 Jerry Paulsen: So I think there is some serious code questions here on either side. As I say, what I wonder is basically protecting property values in Sunrise Hills, but I also think it's very serious for the city to uphold their codes. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? David Wallin: Yes, good evening. My name is David Wallin and I live at 7303 Frontier Trail. I was also up here at the previous meeting when your cameras and audio went faulty and you were unable to come up with a real deal here, like we're doing tonight. Alright. I'm opposed to this and I feel that my neighbor, Jerry Paulsen, has brought up some very pertinent questions to you, the city. I feel that you kind of already have made your decision by what you just said, which I'm sorry to hear Deb. You said the variance that complied. Kind: No way of knowing. David Wallin: He's proving or is trying to prove. Peterson: ...make some assumptions here.., if you would. David Wallin: I guess I was listening to what she was saying. Peterson: Okay. David Wallin: And if that's the case I guess I'm quite concerned because I don't have a lot of money behind me like a lot of these attorneys do coming in here trying to get some variances on lots that are already established. Alright. These lots were established quite some time ago by contractors that felt these are correct lots, right lots, right sizes for the families that were going into them. There's a lot of questions that have come up most recently in the last decade, for sure in the last 2 or 3 years from the City of Chanhassen in regards to Lake Lotus. And what's being done in regards to the runoff. What's being done to preserve the shoreline. What's being done to preserve the city. Making it old Chanhassen. We're trying to bring back all these streets and cobblestones and things like that. And we want to try to, excuse me. And now there is a possibility of people that are going to be splitting their lots, which are going to make it uncomfortable for the people that actually moved in there quite some time back. If they are able to split this lot, you're going to have considerable runoff from their driveways, the roof areas. Double what would be normally put into the lake, and that's a serious concern of the DNR. I know this for a fact by talking to the Mayor of Champlin most recently in regards to some lake areas there where people are looking at subdividing some lots. They did not pass it just because of, they want to keep that lake natural as much as they possibly can. I'm opposed to this also in regards to the additional dwellings that he said this is going to enhance Chanhassen by adding another family, what have you. Well he's packing them in. I don't know if any of you on the board have been there. It's worth while to go there and take a look around because it's in a very small cul-de-sac. It's not a cul-de-sac that they make these days for houses and multiple dwellings, which this person is trying to put in. Alright. It's very small. If somebody came in there, a 4 family in each one of those houses, you'd have an area down there of about 5 houses. That would be more than crowded. We already have a problem with that street area when it was opened up all the way through, Frontier Trail. And we've already had a serious accident that resulted in a death because of traffic just down the road from my house. And it's getting worse. They're small concerns but they're concerns that are going to come back to the city and possibly bite you. Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000 Especially with the DNR. And if they don't meet code. So I'm opposed to it and I think that you guys ought to really look at some of these things before you make a decision like this that could be strapping to you and have ramifications in a negative way to our city. We're here to make sure that, as a board, as a neighborhood, that things you know run smoothly. Run well. For someone to come in and try to just make things work for, it's tough for me to say but possibly greed. I'm not sure what else. I mean what else would he be selling it for. To improve Chanhassen? I beg your pardon. And I just want to let you know I'm opposed to this. Thank you very much. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Dick Lloyd: Hi. My name is Dick Lloyd. My family and I have lived in Chanhassen for 20 years now and our home is 7302 Laredo Drive, which is 2 blocks from the proposed development. We moved to this community because we, and have remained here, because we greatly appreciate the community's natural resources, specifically Lotus Lake. In light of the city planning staff's reluctant to do so, I would hope this commission feels that it's it's duty to protect these resources. You're being asked to approve 2 significant variances to a lakeshore frontage requirements. These variances represent a 20% deviation from code. After reading the staff report it seems the Senior City Planner is recommending that you approve these two lakeshore variances because they supposedly represent the lesser of two evils.' Mainly you increase the density on, and the environmental deterioration of Lotus Lake in order to preserve trees on the western property line. It seems to me that these two proposals should be addressed independently of each other. As stated in the staff report regarding the proposal requiring the two lakeshore variances, there's been no hardship demonstrated by the applicant. As it relates to the alternative plat,-despite the applicant's statement that the restrictive covenants expired in 1987, the issue has yet not been determined in a civil proceeding. Despite the city planner's statement in the staff report to the contrary, the city, has, and in fact restricted development in violation of the covenants over the years in our neighborhood. The applicant should be aware that we intend to proceed with enforcing the covenants. 17 personally find the applicants attempt to blackmail this commission into approving the lakeshore frontage variance with an alternative plat disgusting. However it's not surprising given the applicants tactics to date. I for one am willing to deal with the consequences and let the applicant attempt to proceed with the alternative plan. It doesn't appear to be viable nor economical, or may even meet code. In summary ! would suggest the applicant be content in owning a nice home on a beautiful lot in a wonderful neighborhood. If you're over your head financially, put the house up to for sale and cut your loses. After alienating over 50 of your perspective neighbors you probably wouldn't enjoy living here anyway. Peterson: Thank you. Ron Kleve: Hi. My name's Ron Kleve. I live on 7307 Laredo Drive. I don't know if you've had an opportuni ,ty to be on Lotus Lake. Fortunately I have. 17 personally think that Todd Hoffman should have some jurisdiction over the lake. It's a beautiful resource and I think it should be protected. I enjoy cruising the shoreline at sunset and on more than one occasion have had friends of family that, whoever we're entertaining, mention how unique Lotus Lake is. That the houses aren't that prevalent from the lake and everything is set back with mature trees coming out. You have a sense of being up north and I think vou are the caretakers of this resource right now and I think you should consider that because you're setting a precedent here. This is only adding one more house, but you're aware of the 90 foot variance now and you're going to have to make more variances in the future and this is setting precedent. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? There's one more. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000 Debbie Lloyd: Hi, I'm Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive and I've been a resident of Chanhassen for over 20 years. At the last Planning Commission meeting addressing this development the neighborhood spoke out in many different ways against this proposal. Unfortunately we do not have a word by word transcript of that session, but to the best of my recollection, at that meeting Mr. Ladd Conrad was sitting there that evening and he addressed Mr. Generous and he said, Bob. Is there any reason that this should be stopped? Is there any reason this does not meet code? And Mr. Generous said no. This does meet code. And then Mr. Conrad said unfortunately, he looked at the neighborhood and said unfortunately then there's nothing we can do. But fortunately for the neighborhood, for the city and for the future generations who will enjoy Lotus Lake, that was not the case. Mr. Generous did indeed not know our code and tonight again he said he was under the impression it was 75 feet of lakeshore. A 90 foot lakeshore is the requirement. It's his job responsibility to know the code, and it's his lack of knowledge that is why we're back here tonight. Thankfully, thank you Bob. Yet Mr. Generous who did not know the city code then feels compelled to recommend approval of the lot split permitting two 75 foot, or less lakeshore lots. Two. We're talking two, not one. I want to ask why he is motivated to ignore code. Why is he so generous? Neither proposal meets code according to what Mr. Paulsen presented, and I'd like you to take a look at that. And I'm asking is this city ignorance again? Peterson: Thank you. Steve Chepokas: Well I told my wife I wasn't going to do this. Hi Matt. I haven't seen you since grade school. I'm Steve Chepokas. I live at 7304... Burton: I saw your broken let. Steve Chepokas: I know. It's better. You know I feel bad for you people, I really do. I'm not coming up here, I'm not going to tell you anything you've already heard. You're big people. You know what to do. All I can say is I think the whole thing was handled wrong from day one. Anybody in Sunrise Hills, by the way we've only been here a year and I was born and raised in Deephaven, as Matt can back me up. We're both Deephaven boys our entire life. And I was transferred out to Arizona and transferred back and I bought my house 13 years ago in,,Deephaven and I couldn't afford to live back in the neighborhood so. This is the same type of neighborhood which is what attracted me. It's got the Deephaven feel. It's got the small feel. It's got the lake community feel. It's got the big lots and the houses. That's why we're here. My house was built in 1958 and everybody in the association knows that I am married to Martha Vila. My wife is bet~veen Martha Stewart and Bob Vila, and we have more projects going than the Pope has Catholics. And I say that respectfully to all my St. Hubert's friends. My point being is we're fun people. We host, we weren't even here a few months and I volunteered, my wife and I, to host the whole party for the entire association. I just spent $28,000 on a deck, which you granted. Thank you. On a deck and a screened porch. I mean we live to have fun. I'm severely, horribly diabetic. On insulin 4 times a day, otherwise thank god I'd probably be drinking all the time. Because I love to party and have fun. But I don't need to do that. My point being is we've got a fun neighborhood. We've got fun people and the way this whole thing started, I'm sorry. I mean here's my biggest thing. I've got my son Mitchell who's 7 years old and Mitchell's best friend is Jesse Kleve. Ron was the guy up before me. ! mean these kids should have been in the womb, they're so close. The thing I don't like is all the added cars. All the added traffic. Now the house is being rented. I understand they've got to do what they've got to do and they've got to pay their bills, and hey listen. I'm not going to stab anybody. But anyway, that's why I tend to slow down. But I'm concerned about the kids. I'm concerned about the traffic. I'm concerned about the noise. I'm concerned about, I mean I'm just concerned. I mean we didn't move here for this crap, you know. We've been here a year and now all we're hearing from our neighbors is yeah, it's a legitimate gripe but you know, quite frankly between you and I and the fence post, I moved out of 1l Planning Commission Meeting - June 6, 2000 Deephaven because of all the politics. You know it's not about money. It's not about what kind of car you drive. It's not what, you know I saw an interesting picture. It's called, by Successories. Priorities. And on the bottom it says, it doesn't matter what house you live in. It doesn't matter what your bank account reads. And I mean it doesn't matter who you're, what matters is touching the life ora child. And what matters if family and I:ma survivor of cancer. I've been in remission for 3, 2 ½ years. Prostate cancer and colon cancer. You guys think you know hell? You don't know hell. That's hell. And I'm alive. After 30 radiation treatments and 12 chemotherapy treatments, I've gained weight and I gave a lot of hair. And by the way celebrating it so, whatever's done I just want it to be the right thing. I think you know how I feel about it. I'm not going to say anymore. So make the right decision, please. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Closing comments. Oh, there's one more. Bruce Malkerson: Well while I'm up here if I could. What we would like to do, new information's been submitted that we haven't had a chance to see since it was just passed Out and we believe in doing our homework and being thorough. And we don't believe in asking planning commissions to act when some questions have been raised. I don't think that's fair to the neighbors or the applicant or the Planning Commission or to staff. So we would ask that, after you take your last comments, that perhaps if the Planning Commission were willing to just asking other questions that you might have or express any concerns and then allow us to take a look at all this new information and analyze it and submit appropriate response and have the matter taken up at the next meeting. And we would waive any of the requirements under the statutory, 60 day rule so that you don't have to worry about timing. Thank you very much. Peterson: So noted. Other comments? Jerry. Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen once more. My only comment is that we moved here in 1970, 30 years ago. It was the closest thing we could have to lakeshore. We don't have lakeshore. With the reason we moved in this house, Jan found a house. We didn't think we could afford it at the time, but it has access to lake shore and obviously that's a prime prerequisite for valuable' properties in the metro area. Lake shore use. No doubt valuable propert7. But we don't have a lakeshore home in Minnetonka. We're going to retire here and we'd like to r~tire in a home that replicates lakeshore and we hope that we can keep it halfxvay close to lakeshore. Those people who can afford lakeshore at a very young age should...and enjoy it while they can. The other thing, the restrictive covenants which are said to be gone. There is a part of city code that says you can't obligate cities by a restrictive covenants. Bob and the city, take the view that they're irrelevant but in fact they are relevant. The Igel's are the only ones that took this restrictive covenant, purged it from their title. I have not. It gives me access to the beachlot. We have the deeded beachlot. If I took that out of my title, I would lose that and nobody else is going to take that chance. Unfortunately the Igel's have chosen to go that route. I'm not sure why but thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Kate, we've got 8 different things and 2 or 3 of them are relatively self explanatory and we can interpret. Do you want to take on the challenge of trying to do that tonight or do you want some time to go through it and do it for next time? Or Bob, excuse me. Generous: If we can address them all at one time. If we could table. 12 Planning Commission Meeting' June 6, 2000 Aanenson: Yeah, put them in writing I think might be helpful. Peterson: Seems prudent. Commissioners, any thoughts? Blackowiak: I'll save my comments for the next time then if we're tabling. Kind: Yeah, I think it makes sense to table it. I think the private drive, lot width of 100 feet is a very good point and I'm interested in staff's opinion on that. Sacchet: Mr. Chair I have a comment. First of all I want to apologize that I was late. I was not here when you had this topic previously but I did read the transcripts so I have a little bit of an idea what transpired. And I want to respond to the last comment whether we're taking the covenants serious. It's not that we don't take them serious. It's just that it's my understanding the covenants are not relevant to the city. They're relevant to the neighborhood. It's something that is in your hands as a neighborhood to keep the covenants active and enforced. That's not something city enforces. I just want to clarify that. And I think that's important to understand. Peterson: I'!1 entertain a motion. Kind: I move that we table. Sacchet: Second. Peterson: Any further discussion? Kate, in us tabling this now, do you have enough direction from us that you can move forth and work with the applicant? Aanenson: It's clarifying these issues. Obviously there's a difference in interpretation and I don't think we can resolve that here...but I think as the applicant's requested, we'll put it all in writing. Peterson: Okay. good enough. It's been moved and seconded, any further discussion? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission table for t3vo weeks the request for preliminary plat to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots ~vith a variance from the lakeshore width requirement on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive, Lucas Igel Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: So can we look for this at the next meeting potentially? Aanenson: Correct. We will not have a meeting that first meeting in July so it'd be my recommendation to try to keep that on track, two weeks from tonight. Peterson: That's a common goal? Aanenson: We don't have a meeting, the 4th of July will be in a month so what would be my recommendation to try to keep this item moving is June 20th. Peterson: Okay, thank you all. 13 7305 Laredo Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 July 8, 2000 RECEIVED JUL 1.':8 2000 CITY OF CHANHA$$EN Craig Peterson Chair, Chanhassen Planning Commission 1340 Oakside Circle Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Lucas Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive; Sunrise Hills Commissioner Peterson: The Planning Commission had public hearings on March 15th and June 6th to discuss splitting this lot on Lotus Lake into two lots. The issue was tabled at the June 6th meeting until the July 18th meeting because a series of deficiencies were raised. Staff responded to the Planning Commission in a Memorandum from Bob Generous dated June 8th. Attached is the Memorandum with our responses to the staff responses. We contend that staff has understated the number of required variances on the two lake shore plat. We are also contesting some of the staff responses. - Also attached is a series of deficiencies pertaining to the alternate plat of one lake shore and one non lake shore lot which staff states is fully compliant with code. Also attached is an additional item for the two lake shore deficiencies. Cordially, Gerald W. Paulsen Janet D. Paulsen (952) 934-7032 e-mail paulsen~juno.com Attachments: 1. Deficiency List: Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies. 2. Deficiency List: 1 lake shore lot, 1 non lake shore lot. 3. Deficiency List: Additional item for 2 lake shore deficiencies 4. Letter from John Linc Stine, DNR Waters, St. Paul MN. Copy: Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission Matthew Burton, Planning Commission Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission Debra Kind, Planning Commission LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission Uli Sacchet, Planning Commission Nancy Mancino, Mayor Scott Botcher, City Manager Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director Bob Generous, Senior Planner DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4120/00 Preliminary Plat): Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies 07~08~00 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: June 8, 2000 SUBJ: Response to Two Lake Shore Lots Ordinance Interpretation Staff has reviewed the Ordinance Interpretations submitted at the June 6, 2000, Planning Commission hearing regarding the Lucas Igel Addition. Following is the comment and staff's response: #1. Lot width. Variance request is for 75 feet lakeshore per lot. Code requires 90 feet. Chap 20 Zoning Article VII. Shoreland Management District (a) Lot area and width standards (2) Sewered lakes - Recreational Development: Riparian Lots Area Width Single 20,000 90 Conclusion: Developer actually requires two variances, 15 ft for each lot. Response: Staff concurs. The proposed subdivision is requesting the 15 foot variance for each lot. REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: This deficiency was not explicitly stated in the June 6 Staff Report Running total: 2 variances. #2. The 90' lot width defined in item #1 must be met at both the OHW line and at the building line. I Sec. 20-480. Zoning and water supply/sanitation (4) Additional Special provisions. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters shall be used to meet lot area standards and lot width standards shall be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. Sec. 20-1. Definitions Building line - a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Setback - the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or roadway easement line; and, within shoreiand areas. Setback also means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark. Conclusion: Lot 2 (south lot) must be 90 ft wide at the building line. I.e., at the line delineated by the 75-foot setback from the OHW line. The width at the building line for Lot 2 is less than 90 ff. and does not meet code. Response: Staff'concurs. Staff estimates that the width for Lot 2 at the building line is 86.5 feet. The 90 foot width requirement is part of the shoreline width requirement from which the applicant is requesting a variance (Section 20-480 (a) (4). Since the applicant is already requesting a 15 foot variance, we included any deficiencies in width as part of this variance. Staff was more concerned that the applicant meet the 90 foot lot width at the middle of the building pad area to assure that adequate building area be available in the buildable area of the lot. Lot width means the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. For Lot 2, this distance is 90.5 feet. DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4/20/00 Preliminary Plat): Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies 07/08/00 REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: The code specifically references the width at the building line (a line equivalent to the 75-foot setback from the OHW line). Code says at the buildin.q line; not lot width at the midpoint of the building line. This deficiency was not stated in the June 6 Staff Report. This should be a separate variance. The staff response would interpret code to permit a 90-foot width at the OHW line narrowing to any width at the 75-foot setback from the OHW line, and then widening out to a 90 feet width to begin definition of a buildable area. This contradicts the DNR interpretation (see attachment). Running total: 3 variances. #3. A 60 x 60 buildable pad is required on all RSF lots. Lot 2 (south lot) fails this requirement. Chapter 18. Subdivisions Sec. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. (d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans: (4) In single-family detached residential developments, the applicant must demonstrate that suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a sixty-foot by sixty-foot building pad (which includes deck area) without intruding into required setbacks and easements. Conclusion: Lot 2 does not accommodate a 60 x 60 building pad (%vindow') without intruding on required setbacks. The pad does not fit within the building window. The lot does not meet code. Response: Staff interprets this ordinance to mean that subdivisions must be reviewed tO determine that a suitable building site exists on each lot. A 60 by 60 foot building pad represents a 3,600 square foot area. The applicant has drawn a 3,770 square foot buildable area with average width of 53.5 feet and average length of 70.5 feet. These dimensions could adequately accommodate most houses and decks that are proposed in the City of Chanhassen. However, the buildable area for Lot 2 begins at the point at which the lot, accessed via a private drive, achieves the 100 foot lot width (Section 20-615 (3). This area is approximately 84 feet wide by 70.5 feet in length which exceeds the 60 foot by 60 foot requirement. REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: We concede that 60x60 pad can be accommodated (however, is the 30-foot set back line on the plat on the west side of the Lot 2 meant to be a distraction)? Regardless, it is not logical to say that the building pad dimension can be something other than a 60x60 foot square. Since this is 3600 ft2, would a 40x90 pad be equivalent? Would a 10x360 pad be equivalent?. If the code were intended to be 3600 ~, it would say so. The only other reference to a pad is in the wetlands code: Sec. 20-4436. On single-family subdivisions in the RSF district, the applicant must demonstrate that each lot provides sufficient area to accommodate the applicable front yard setback, sixty-foot by forty-foot deep buildin.q pad, and a thirty-foot rear yard area. The wetland pad is also defined as having specific dimensions (60x40). These dimensions are less restrictive than the RSF 60x60 pad. Code states that the greater restriction takes precedence over the less restrictive code. Sec. 1-2. Rules of construction and definitions. Where any provision of the Code imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than the general provision imposed by the Code, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling. Conclusion: A 60x60 pad is required for RSF zoning. DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4120100 Preliminary Plat): Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies 07/08/00 #4. The terms private street, private right-of-way, private road, private driveway, private ddve, and shared ddve are used synonymously. Sec. 18-60. Lots. (a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private street or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of thirty (30) feet of frontage. (b) Side lines of lots shall be substantially at right angles to straight street lines or substantially radial to curved street lines. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Private street - a street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land which is not dedicated to the public but is owned by one or more private parties. Street means a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-way approved pursuant to the requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal pdmary means of public access to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity comply with the preceding requirements. Conclusion: Lot 2 (south lot) does not abut a public street. Code requires that it must abut a private street, and what the city refers to as a driveway through Lot 1 (north lot) is, in fact, a private street. Response: Staff' agrees that the driveway accessing Lot Two is a private drive/street and that it can be defined as a private street in the subdivision ordinance. The City of Chanhassen distinguishes between public right-of-way and private property in calculating lot area, net density, impervious surface, etc. This lot meets the criteria established for permitting a private street in the subdivision ordinance. REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: Defining the access to both lots as a private street is used to prove our next point. #5. Any lot accessed by a pdvate ddveway must have a I°t width of 100 feet. Lot 1 (north lot) is accessed by a private driveway, and is shown on that plat as having a width of 90 ft (not 100 ft). Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district.. (3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line. Remarks: Compare the current Staff Report (June 6, 2000) with the previous Staff Report (Mar 15, 2000) The current staff report (p. 5, Compliance Table) refers to Lot 2 (south lot) as "Lots accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 ft..." Note that this private drive originates in Lot 1 (north lot) and crosses into Lot 2 (south lot). Now refer to the previous March 15 Staff Report. The Compliance Table again refers to Lot 2 (south Lot) as "Lots accessed via a private drive (which) must have a lot width of 100 ft..." However, note that this private drive, in contrast, originates in Lot 2 (south lot). Conclusion: It doesn't make any difference whether the private drive originates in the north lot or the south lot. In both cases, the requirement is for a lot width of 100 ft. These two examples show that the city considers both the north and §outh lots to be accessed via a pdvate ddve. DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4/20/00 Preliminary Plat): Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies O7/O8/OO In both cases, code states 100 ft is required. Therefore, any lot accessed via a private ddve must have a width of 100 ft at the front building setback. I.e., on the current plat, both lots require a 100 f. lot width. Lot 1 (north lot) shows a lot width of 90 ff., not 100 ft. Response: One lot has its entire frontage on a public street and technically could access via a separate driveway at any point on the street frontage. The other property has no street frontage and must therefore access via a private driveway across the other property. It is only for the convenience of the neighbors and to preserve trees that the City of Chanhassen is requiring both properties to access via the same curb cut. Since Lot 1 could access directly to the street, we do not interpret that this Lot must comply with the 100 foot lot width requirement. However, if you look at the preliminary plat, the line drawn across Lot 1 at the front of the house is 106.1 feet. Were the City of Chanhassen to interpret the code as requiring that this width be met, Lot 1 would already comply with that requirement. REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: We disagree. The Compliance Table in the staff report (p. 5) incorrectly states that 90 ft of frontage is required for Lot 1. 100 ft of frontage is required for both lots. This frontage must be measured at a radial to the cul-de-sac, i.e., perpendicular to the street (cul-de-sac). Instead it is drawn parallel to the lake shore. Frontage must be measured in relationship to the street (cul-de-sac). CHAPTER 18 Subdivisions Sec. 18-60. Lots. (b) Side lines of lots shall be substantially at dght angles to straight street lines or substantially radial to curved street lines. #6. The lot area must exclude the area defined as public or private rights-of-way. This impacts the 25% impervious surface requirements. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot area - the area of a horizontal plan bounded by the front, side or rear lot lines, but not includin.q any area occupied by the Waters of lakes or rivers orby street rights-of-way. Street means a public right-of-way accepted or a pdvate d.qht-of-wav approved pursuant to the requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector, avenue, .drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity comply with the preceding requirements. Sec. 20485. Storm water management. Impervious surface coverage of a lot shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area ... Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Impervious surface means any matedal that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shaft include, but not be limited to gravel driveways parkin.q area, buildings and structures. Conclusion: Since portions of the lots are crossed by a private street, that portion must be excluded from the lot area. The calculation for a maximum 25% impervious surface for both lots must be recalculated. Response: The City of Chanhassen only excludes public right-of-way from lot area calculations. As stated previously, we distinguish between public right-of-way and private property. Both lots meet the impervious surface requirement as defined in the City of Chanhassen Code. DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4120/00 Preliminary Plat): Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies 07~08~00 REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: We disagree. The point we want to make is that the area within the street right-of-way (public or pdvate) must be excluded from the total lot area. However, for the purpose of determining impervious surface coverage, this street area must be included as part of the impervious surface area. The net effect is that when a street right-of-way is involved, it becomes more difficult to meet the impervious surface requirement (maximum of 25%). This is especially cdtical for Lot 1 because it is within 15 ft2 of maximum impervious surface coverage. The intent of the ordinance is to discourage long private .streets. #7. The entrance street requires a 10-foot setback from the (north) property line, but has only 8 ft (both plats). Sec. 20-484. Placement and design of roads, driveways... (b) Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement altematives exist. If no alternative exists, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be design to minimize adverse impacts. Conclusion: The common 20 ft wide private street does not have a 10 ft setback from the north property line. Response: While it could be argued that this ordinance applies to the lake setback requirement, staff can concede the issue. This problem can be easily rectified by adding a condition of the preliminary plat approval that the driveway alignment meet structure setback requirements. The applicant shall realign the driveway to meet the 10 foot side yard setback. A very minor portion of the entrance to the street is only eight feet from the north property line. This flaw is not fatal in regards to the approval of the subdivision. REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: This "flaw" was ignored in the Staff Report. #8. The definition for a lot states it is an area of land undivided by any public street or approved private road. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot means a separate parcel, tract, or area of land undivided by any public street or approved private road, which has been established by metes and bounds subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, and which is occupied or intended to be developed for and occupied by a principal building or group of such buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for a principal use and uses accessory thereto, including such open spaces and yards as are design and arranged or required by this chapter for such building, use or development. Sec. 18-76. Easements. (b) Easements at least 10 feet wide along all street right-of-way lines, 5 feet along both sides of rear and side lot lines, shall be provided for utilities where necessary. If appropriate, easements of lesser or greater width may be required by the city. All utility easements shall have continuity of alignment from block to block. (c) Easements shall be provided along each side of the centedine of any water course or drainage channel, to a width sufficient to provide proper maintenance and protection and to provide for storm water run-off from a one-hundred-year storm of 24 hours' duration. Where necessary, drainage easements corresponding to lot lines shall be provided. Conclusion: The private road on these plats does not traverse the perimeter of the property as is true in the examples we have seen in the city. It crosses through the middle of the lots which code says cannot be done. DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4/20/00 Preliminary Plat): Responses to staff responses to 2 lake shore deficiencies 07/08/00 Response: Staff.has historically interpreted that in the lot definition a private street does not divide the lot unless a private street is included in a separate parcel or outlot that divides the property in to two separate parcels. A private street that is included within an easement over one or more lots does not divide a parcel into separate parcels. It would be similar to assuming that a drainage and utility easement or any other easement that runs down the middle of a lot would be creating two lots, one on each side of the easement, which is not the case. The private street ordinance is designed to enhance environmental protection. We could have the applicant run the private driveway along the property line to access Lot 2 and have a separate access for Lot 1. However, we would lose all tree preservation that we hope to achieve through the current design. REPONSE TO STAFF RESPONSE: When easements are defined in code, they are required to follow lot lines. The only exception is for a water course or drainage channel easement which logically follows the path of the drainage. A lot must be accessed by a public or a private street. A private street must access at least two lots, or it cannot be defined as a private street: Sec. 18-60. Lots. (a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance o_.r on a private street or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of 30 feet of frontage. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Private street - a street serving as vehicular access to two or more parcels of land which is not dedicated to the public but is owned by one or more private parties. "Historically interpreted". Does that mean the city justifies an action by previous mistaken interpretation rather than by code? E.g., "we've always used 75 h of width as required for lakeshore". The only way a private street can exist is to locate it next to a lot line. Staff Conclusion: Staff'stands by the comments of the staff.report for the June 6, 2000, Planning Commission meeting with the addition of the condition that the driveway maintain the 10 foot side yard setback. While it may not be 100 percent clear that there are two variances involved, one for each lot, the staff.report clearly intends to address a 15-foot lakeshore width variance request for each lot. Included in this request would be a variance from the 90 foot width at the building line, since this requirement is in Section 20-.480 (a) (4). REPONSE TO STAFF CONCLUSION: Assuming that the 10-ft side yard setback is a "condition" to be met, there are at least three variances on the two lake shore plat, plus other items cited above. DEFICIENCY LIST: 1 LAKE SHORE LOT, I NON LAKE SHORE LOT (4120100 Lucas Igel Preliminary Plat) 07~08~00 Private Street: The terms "private street", "private right-of-way", "private road", "private driveway", "private ddve", "shared driveway", and "streets not classified" are used synonymously in ordinance. Both lots are accessed via a pdvate street. This was confirmed by Staff (June 8 response to 2 lake shore deficiency list). #1. Because Lot 1 (non lake shore lot) is accessed by a pdvate street, it requires a 100 ft lot width, a front yard set back of 30 ft, a rear yard set back of 30 ft, and a side lot set back of 10 f. The building '~vindow" is inaccurately defined on the plat. CHAPTER 20. Zoning Article XII. RSF Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" Distdct subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by pdvate driveways shall be 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line. (6) The setbacks for lots served by pdvate driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: a. For front yard, thirty (30) feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of- way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. b. For rear yards, thirty (30) feet. c. For side yards, ten (10) feet. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Building setback line--a line on a lot, generally parallel to a lot line, high water mark, shoreline or road right-of-way line, located a sufficient distance therefrom to provide the minimum yards required by this chapter. The building setback lines delimit the area in which buildings and other regulated structures are permitted subject to all applicable provisions of this chapter. Conclusion: Lot 1 (non lake shore lot) is accessed by a private street. The lot width must be 100 ft at the building setback line (a line parallel to road right-of-way). This defines the west line of the building "window". The lot width for the west side of the building '~vindow" is not 100 ft. The developer shows a building window arc on Lot 1 30 ft from the cul-de-sac and a house with a 5-foot setback from the building window. A house cannot be located as far west as the location shown. We'conclude that the developer is intentionally misrepresenting the building window with the object of creating the maximum shock effect. He is saying to Sunrise Hills residents, if you object to my two lots on the lake, I'm going to create a non lake shore lot and put a house where it has the most visual objectionable result. The attorney for the developer has one reference (letter of May 9, 2000, p. 5, item 2) to a house on the non-riparian lot 45 ft from the cul-de-sac (not in the location shown on the plat). It appears that the developer has also tded to confuse the issue by enclosing an area on Lot 1 with a ~foot orange snow fence to lead us to believe this is the part of the wooded area that would be obliterated by a house on the non-riparian lot. If his intent is to delineate the trees that will be protected if he gets his two lake shore lots, then he is not including all the trees that would fall into this category. Staff is playing the same game by approving the erroneous preliminary plat, while stating in the staff report (Compliance Table, p. 5) that Lot 1 has 90-feet of frontage (not shown on the plat). DEFICIENCY LIST: 1 LAKE SHORE LOT, 1 NON LAKE SHORE LOT (4/20/00 Lucas lgel Preliminary Plat) 07/08/00 #2. Lot 1 (non lake shore lot) is located in "shoreland". The building "window" requires a 20 ft setback from the pdvate street ("streets not classified"). Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Shoreland means land located within the following distances from public waters: 1000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300 feet from a dver or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on a dver or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner. Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (b) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody: Setback From: Setback (in feet) (4) Right-of-way line of town road, public streets, or other roads or streets not classified. 20 Conclusion: For Lot 1, staff says the private street traversing the north side of the lot (providing access to Lot 2 (lake shore lot) requires a 10 ft setback on each side of the private street. This results in a 30 foot width along the north side that is unbuildable. Sec. 20-481 states that another 20 foot setback is required on the south side of this pdvate street resulting in a total of 50 feet along the north side of the lot which cannot be included in the building "window". (On the plat, the building "window" is erroneously shown as overlapping the private street). #3, A 60 x 60 building pad is required on all RSF lots. Both lots fail this requirement. Sec. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. (4) In single-family detached residential developments, the applicant must demonstrate that suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a 60 foot by 60 foot building pad (which includes deck area) without intruding into required setbacks and easements. Conclusion: Lot 2 (lake shore lot) does not accommodate a 60x60 building pad without intruding on required setbacks. To accommodate a 60x60 building pad, the lot line would have to be moved west. Lot 1 (non lake shore lot), with the 50 foot setback described in item #2, also does not accommodate a 60x60 building pad without intruding on required setbacks. #4. Relocating of the building "window" further to the east as stated in item #1 above, would require a longer private street (20 ft wide) which would increase the impervious surface. The plat shows the impervious surface as 5420 ft2 with allowable coverage of 5438 ft2 (only18 ft2 difference). #5. The lot area must exclude the area defined as street rights-of-way. This impacts the 25% impervious surface requirement for Lot 1 (non lake shore lot). Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot area--the area of a horizontal plane bounded by the front, side or rear lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of lakes or rivers or by street rights-of-way. Street--a public right-of-way accepted or a pdvate d.qht-of-way approved pursuant to the requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal pdmary means of public access to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector, avenue, ddve, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity complying with the preceding requirements. Article Vii. Shoreland Management District Sec. 20-485. Storm water management. Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 25 percent of the lot area... DEFICIENCY LIST: 1 LAKE SHORE LOT, I NON LAKE SHORE LOT ~4/20/00 Lucas Igel Preliminary Plat) 07/08/00 Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Impervious surface - any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, .gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. Since portions of the lots are traversed by a private street, that portion has to be excluded from the lot area. The calculation for a maximum of 25% of impervious surface for Lot 1 (non lake shore lot) must be recalculated. The staff response (June 8) stated that The City of Chanhassen only excludes public d.qht-of- way from lot area calculations (not private r~qht-of-way). We disagree with that interpretation. The definition for a street includes public and pdvate right-of-way. #6. Preservation and protection of trees is not observed by placing a house on the upper lot as shown. Sec. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. (d) The following standards shall be used in evaluating subdivisions and site plans: (1) It is a policy of the City of Chanhassen to protect the integrity of the natural environment through the preservation, protection and planting of trees. The city finds that trees provide many benefits including: stabilization of the soil.., prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm water runoff..., improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection and increase of property values, protection of privacy, etc. Conclusion: Removal of 33 mature trees plus many others would violate all the mentioned benefits including protection of property values for some 6-7 other homes whose view would be affected. #7. Preservation of views is not adhered to. Sec. 20-110. Standards (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light_and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Conclusion: Removal of 33+ mature trees including oaks up to 150 years old, plus many other trees, would have substantial effects on neighboring land use, would be detrimental to neighboring property values and would have a visual impact on neighboring properties. The staff report, in many places, describes the negative impact and undesirable nature of ~e alternate plat for I lake shore and I non lake shore lot. DEFICIENCY LIST: PROPOSED LUCAS IGEL ADDITION (4/20/00 Preliminary Plat): Additional item for 2 lake shore deficiencies 07/08/00 The east-west lot line between Lot 1 (north lot) and Lot 2 (south lot) where the private street crosses from Lot 1 into Lot 2, defines the front lot line for Lot 2. The rear lot line for Lot 2 is therefore the lot line on the south side of the lot (terminating at the lake shore). CHAPTER 20 Zoning Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot line, front means the lot line separating a lot from a street d.qht-of-way. In the case of a comer lot it shall be the lot line with the shortest dimensions on the street. Lot line, rear means the lot line which is parallel to and most distant from the front lot line; or in the case of triangular or otherwise irre.qulady shaped lots, a line 20 feet in length, entirely within the lot, parallel to and at the maximum possible distance from the front lot line. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks for lots served by pdvate driveways and/or neck lots are as follows: a. For front yard, 30 feet. The front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public d.qht-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite from the front lot line with the remaining exposures treated as side lot lines. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" District subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter and chapter 18: (3) The minimum lot depth is 125 feet. The location of these lots is conceptually illustrated below. Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line. Remarks: The front lot line is the line where the private street provides access to the Lot 2. The lot line immediately east and continuing to the lake shore is a continuation of the front lot line. Lot 2 is an irregularly shaped lot. The rear lot line must be the lot parallel to and most distant from the front lot line. The rear lot line is therefore, the south most lot line that contacts Lotus Lake. The two remaining lot lines are the rear lot lines (the south lot line trending NW to SE, and the north/south line bordering Lotus Lake). Conclusion: The lot depth (north to south) does not meet the 125 Pt required by code. The building "window" for Lot 2 must provide the required 30-foot setbacks from the front and rear building line. The resulting window does not accommodate a 60x60 ft building pad. r-rom: "uonn unc ~ane ~-jonn.suneL~,on,.sLaLe.mn.us> To: <Paulseng@juno.com> Cc: <Mary.cummins~house.leg.state.mn.us> Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:39:33 -0500 Subject: Shoreland Rules Inquiry Mr. Paulsen; ! am responding to a letter that was sent to Kent Lokkesmoe, DNR Waters Director by Representative Workman on May 23, 2000. I presume you have a coy of Rep. Workman's letter. If not, please contact me and I will end you a copy. There are two ques§ons in Rep. Workman's letter: 1) re: Lot width - the lot width standard must be met at the OHW (near the lake) and at the building setback (from the OHW) line. Emphasis added. From DNR's perspective, there is no requirement that the lot width be met at the street setback line, unless that line is coincidental with the structure setback from the OHW line. The goal of this standard is to have consistent lot widths between the structure setback from the OHW and the lake to better provide for aesthetics and area for natural vegetative igrowth to better protect the lake environment. 2) re: streets not classified. A private street would be included in DNR's definition of a "street not classified" from our "Guide to Buying and Managing Shoreland" brochure. The following rules (MN Rules '6120.3300, subp. 5) apply: Subp. 5. Placement and design of roads, driveways, and parking areas. Public and private roads, driveways, and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. They must be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other applicable technical materials. A. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts. B. Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access-related parking areas may be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this subpart are met. For private facilities, the grading and filling provisions of subpart 4, item B, must also be met. Hopefully, this answers your questions. Please let me know if l can do more to assist you. John Linc Stine DNR Waters Phone: 651.296.0440 Fax: 651.296.0445 Visit our new website @ www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters MALKERSON GILLILAND MA.RTIN LLP SUITE 1 500 AT&T TOWER 901 MARQUETTE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402~3205 TELEPHONE 6 I 2-344- 1 11 1 FACSIMILE 612-344-1414 Bruce D. Malkerson, Esq. Direct Dial No. 612/344-1699 E-Mail: bdm@mgmllp.com July 13, 2000 Chanhassen Planning Commission 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, 1542'4 55317 Re: 2000 Application by David and Rachel Igel for Preliminary Plat and for Variances as necessary to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into two single family lots Case No. 00-2SUB - To be heard again by the Planning Commission on July 18, Our File No. 1392.001 Dear Chairperson Peterson and Commission members: I. Introduction. Thank you for having patiently listened to testimony at tile meeting of June 6, 2000 concerning tile above- referenced application. As we know sometimes emotions run strong when somebody seeks to develop a parcel of property in an existing neighborhood. That is understandable. We have tried during this application process, however, to address in hopefully a very rational way, all issues that have been raised by the Planning Commission, City staff and the neighborhood. My clients have drafted and redrafted the plans repeatedly to address issues that tl~e neighborhood has asked them to address, even though those issues did not require changes pursuant to the code and, of course, to implement suggestions that the staff had at different times relating to the development of this parcel. Therefore, unfortunately, this application has taken more time in front of the Planning Commission than an application for a small development of this sort should have taken. What we are trying to do in this letter is respond specifically to the written objections submit-ted by Mr. Paulsen at the Planning Commission meeting of June 6, 2000. As you may recall, xve requested that this matter be tabled because we did not have the benefit of being able to review tile objections that Mr. Paulsen had prior to that meeting. We did not think it was a beneficial use of your time, the staffs time or the neighborhood's time to debate those issues that were raised for the first time by Mr. Paulsen at that meeting without everyone having had an opportunity' to read his written materials, analyze them pursuant ~o the code and then respond in writing. Again, thank you for granting our request to continue this matter to the above-referenced meeting. II. Overview of the Application before you as of the prior Planning Commission meeting on dune 6, 2000. As you may recall from tile staff report, at the June 6, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, tile Planning Commission had before it an application for preliminary plat with variances as necessary to subdivide a I. 1 acre lakeshore parcel into two single family lots on property zoned RSF. The request for subdivision approval ]lad 39518 Chanhassen Planning Commission July 13, 2000 Page 2 received prior approval by the Planning Commission on April 21, 2000 to create two lakeshore lots, with the variance to the lakeshore width requirement. The lot areas shown are 27,159 square feet and 20,342 square feet. The parcels would be accessed by a shared driveway. The lot to the north will be razed to accommodate the two new houses. Thereafter, staff found that although State law requires only a 75 foot lot width at the front building setback line, the City ordinance required a 90 foot lot width at the ordinary high water mark and at the building line. Therefore we decided it was appropriate to apply for a variance and bring the matter back in front of the Planning Commission again, which of course has been done, and you reviewed this matter on June 6, 2000. Prior to that meeting the staff report recommended approval of the variances for the lot width for both lots. The detailed report by staff outlines all the reasons why they think it was approl~riate to approve the requested lot variances. As part of this re-application to the Planning Commission, my clients asked that in the event that the City does not approve the necessary variances to allow for the two lakeshore lots then my clients asks that the Planning Commission and the CitT Council approve an alternative plat, which they provided to the City and has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, showing one lot on the lake and then one lot to the rear. In the event that my clients are not able to obtain approval for the two lots on the lake, they have no choice but to subdivide the property in such a way so that there is one lot on the lake and one lot off the lake. By having those two applications concurrently in front of the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission also had the benefit of seeing which subdivision made the most sense from an overall planning and neighborhood perspective. As was noted by staff, and I believe by one or more members of the Planning Commission at the June 6 meeting, the alternative proposal of having one lot on the lake and one lot to the rear met all of the requirements of the zoning and subdivision code without any variances required. However, as was outlined by my clients and by fhe staff, such a plat is not the best for the City and the neighborhood for all the reasons noted, including but not limited to the following: As stated in the June 6 staff report, "while this plan complies with the ordinance, its does significantly impact the amount of tree removal, increasing canopy loss from eight percent to 22 percent of the site. The placement of the homes is close to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternative would stack the house, altering the pattern of development along the street. Finally, the two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the Lake, vis-g-vis the applicant's preferred plan." In addition, my clients have concluded that to accommodate the foundation, driveway, parking and yard of the rear lot, extensive grading must be done and engineered retaining walls will likely be required to prevent damage to the neighboring property and surface water drainage patterns. Finally, the houses of these two lots will have wide building pads and additional hardcover because the widths of the homes will not be limited by the width of the lots. It seemed as though those individuals who spoke from the neighborhood felt that if the application for a plat approval for the two lots on the lake were denied that then this property would not be developed into two lots in any case. I am not sure why some in the neighborhood believe that is the case, but it is clearly not the case. I think perhaps those people who spoke hope that if the City denies the plat for the m,o lots on the lake then this existing parcel of property will always just have one house on it. That is an unrealistic hope and assumption, given the fact that the total acreage is 1.09 acres and it is one of the largest lots in the area and a subdivision of the property can be accomplished as discussed by City staff in its report without any variances. Quite frankly, not many people can afford to own one large lot on the lake and pay the principal and interest on a mortgage relating thereto and the phenomenally high real estate taxes that are a result of ever increasing land values in the City generally and on Lotus Lake. III. Response to Information submitted by Mr. Paulsen at the June 6, 2000 meeting. As you know, Mr. Paulsen submitted a memo to the Planning Commission raising several questions based upon how he interpreted the ordinances of the City. The City staff at that time indicated that it did not agree with his interpretation. Subsequent thereto, the staff has submitted to you a memo that addresses each of those items. While 39518 Chanhassen Planning Commission July 13, 2000 Pa~e 3 we~agree with City staff's conclusions and believe they should be given great weight by the Planning Commission, my clients have also decided that they will seek to slightly modify the application before you as it relates to the proposed two lots on the lakeshore to once again, hopefully satisfy the requests of the neighbors relating to how this properW should be subdivided. We do not believe that these changes are necessitated by ordinances, but we submit these changes as an amendment to the plan to address those concerns raised by Mr. Paulsen. Enclosed find a copy of the plat map for the two lots on the lakeshore that was submitted to you at your June 6, 2000 meeting with some changes noted thereon that reflect my client's voluntary amendment of the plat application before you. For ease of reference we have noted on the plat by number the issues raised by Mr. Paulsen and the response thereto. Lot 1 - Lot Width. Mr. Paulsen states that tile variance request is actually for a variance for the lot width of each lot from 90 feet to 75 feet and therefore, it is two variances, one of 15 feet per each lot. The City staff agree and we agree. The application in front of the City of course has always shown that the plat requires a variance from 90 feet to 75 feet, or 15 feet per lot. All of the reasons for granting that variance have been set forth by the City staff and in prior communications to you by me and my clients. Those reasons are briefly summarized hereinafter: As stated in the June 6 staff report findings of fact: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; the proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable City, County and regional plans, including but not limited to the City's comprehensive plan; the physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stonnwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development; the proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewer disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; the proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; the proposed subdivision will not conflict with the easements of record; and the proposed subdivision is not premature. In regards to the need for development of a public street to service the proposed subdivision, the staff concluded the following: The prevailing development pattern does not make it feasible or appropriate to construct a public street. The proposed private street serving the development is not necessa13, to provide access to adjacent properties. In order to preserve the trees in the western portion of Lots 1 and 2, the use of the existing driveway on Lot 1, in its present configuration, is appropriate. The use of a public street is impractical. As required under Section 13-22, variances, the Ci/5' staff made tile following finding: Tile proposed variance to the shore land width is not a mere inconvenience, rather it is a mechanism to reduce the potential impacts of the addition of a new lot to the neighborhood by preserving the trees along the western property line, maintaining tile character of the area by pushing the houses away from the right- of-way, and maintaining off-site viexvs of the lake. The proposed variance is generally in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. As required under Section 20.58, General Conditions for Granting, states: A variance may be granted by the board of adjustments and appeals or city council only if all of the following criteria are met: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. "Undue hardship" means the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within five hundred (500) feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variance, but to recognize that in developed 39518 Chanhassen Planning Commission July 13, 2000 Page 4 neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. The City staffmade the following Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does create a hardship. The topography of the site, the desire to preserve the natural amenities on the property and the wish to preserve the character of the area make the granting of the variance more desirable than requiring the applicant to meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. The literal enforcement of this chapter would negatively impact the property and the neighborhood. The applicant has prepared an alternative subdivision plan that meets all requirements of the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore property. While this plan complies with the ordinance, it does significantly impact the amount of tree removal, increasing canopy loss from eight (8) percent to twenty-two (22) percent of the site. The placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternative would stack the houses, altering the pattern of development along the street. Finally, the two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the lake, vis-fi-vis the applicant's preferred plan. Staffhas reviewed the properties around Lotus Lake and discovered that fifty-five (55) lots have lakeshore widths less than 90 feet. The smallest of these lots had a lakeshore width of 47.27 feet as shown on the plat. In addition, a lot is Sunrise Hills subdivision, in which this property is located, has a lot with a lakeshore width of 70 feet (75 feet at the survey line). At least three of the properties with less than 90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted the shore land management district regulations. The average lot area in this development is 18,992.65 square feet, whereas the proposed development has lot areas of 27,159 square feet and 20,342 square feet. Minimum lot area for RSF zoned property is 15,000 square feet and for lakeshore property is 20,000 square feet. _ 2. That the conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally~ to other property within the same zoning classification. The City staff made the following finding: In evaluating the other lots in the zoning classification, this lot is unique-because the existing housing pattern is set and the existing house on the property blocks the house to the southeast form the lake view. The desire to preserve natural amenities on the site, the enhancement of lake views, the desire to maintain the lot patterning of the neighborhood are unique to this development proposal. If the lots were stacked, the internal lot would eliminate almost all of the views of the lake vis-fi-vis the applicant's preferred plan. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income- potential of the parcel of land. The City staffmade the following finding: According to the applicant, the variance request is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the property, but instead is requested to create two Iakeshore lots to allow the best use of the property in a way that blends with the neighborhood's pre-existing standards and does not depart downward from them. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. The City staff made the following finding: 39518 Chanhassen Planning Commission July 13, 2000 Page $ The applicant has not created a hardship that would result from the literal enforcement of the City Code. The difficulty in meeting the ordinance is due to the lot configuration which meets ordinance requirements ill area, depth, frontage, "lot width", but not lakeshore width. The applicant }las prepared an alternative subdivision plan that meets all requirements of the ordinance. This plan stacks the lots, creating one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore property. While this plan complies with the ordinance, it does significantly impact the amount of tree removal, increasing canopy loss from eight (8) percent to twenty- two (22) percent of the site. The placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternative would stack the houses, altering the pattern of development along the street. In addition, tile two proposed houses would eliminate almost all views of the lake, vis-a-vis the applicant's preferred plan. Finally, fifty-five ($$) lots around Lotus Lake have lakeshore widths less than 90 feet. At least three properties with less than 90 feet of lakeshore xvidth have been subdivided since the CIE,' of Chanhassen adopted the shore land management district regulations. These lots all meet the 75 foot lakeshore lot width. In addition, a lot is Sunrise Hillslst Addition subdivision, in xvhich this property is located, }las a lot with a }akeshore width of 70 feet (7.5 feet at the survey line). That the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The City staff mead tile following finding: The variance xvill not be detrimental to the public, welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Requiring the applicant to meet all requirements of the ordinance would be more detrimental to the neighborhood. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental because the proposed lots will be consistent with the surrounding lots in the area. The proposed lots continue the pattern of lot and house placement along the street and the building pads will be barely be visible fi'om the street. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent prope~%, or substantially increase the congestion of the public stTeets, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair propenT values within the neighborhood. Tile City staff made tile following finding: Tile proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially incase the congestion of the public streets. Requiring the subdivision to meet all requirements of the ordinance would create the potential for a crowding of houses near the cul-de- sac. The proposed lots allow for ample space be~veen the proposed homes and the surrounding neighbors. The proposed lots continue the pat-tern of lot and house placement along the street and the building pads will be barely visible from the street. The surrounding infrastructure will be adequate for the proposed lot development. The proposed lots will not adversely affect property evaluation in the neighborhood because the proposed lots are consistent to lots for neighboring homes. The 75 foot Dine is shown on the enclosed map at location number one. Mr. Paulsen's second question is related to where do you determine the 90 foot lot width. He states that tile 90 foot width at the building line for the south lot must be at the building, which is 75 feet from the ordinary high water line. He believed that the width at that building line at tile south lot is less than 90 feet and does not meet the code. 39518 Chanhassen Plann ing Commission July 13, 2000 Page 6 This issue is identified generally as number two on the enclosed map. The staff's response is that the 90 foot width requirement is part of the shoreline width requirement from which the applicant is requesting a variance for both lots. Since the applicant requests a 15 foot variance for both, the staff rightfully concluded within that request is any variance necessary for the required 90 feet at the building line, which is 75 feet back from the ordinary high water line. The staff is 100% correct that this is the plain meaning of the code. Although staff is correct and we could keep the plat application before you the same, once again my clients, in atteml~ting to address the concerns of the neighborhood, are amending their application to move the lot line slightly between the north and the south lots so that there is a 90 foot width of the lot line at the building line and that same 90 feet or greater lot width continues through the entire buildable area of 60 x 60 feet. This is not required by the code. Mr. Paulsen stated that he did not think the 60 x 60 building pad is met on the south lot. The City staff has - stated in its report that a 60 x 60 building pad represents a 3,600 square foot area. The building pad shown on the south lot is 3,770 square feet, with an average width of 53.5 feet and an average length of 70.5 feet. The staff notes that the buildable area begins at a point at which the lot, access via private drive, achieves the 100 foot lot width (Section 20-615(3)), and that area is therefore approximately 84 feet by 70.5 feet in length, which exceeds the 60 x 60 foot requirement. Staff is saying, therefore, that my clients' application was 100% in compliance with the code in this regard. However, again, in order to address the questions raised by theneighborhood, my clients have modified their plat slightly to move the line so that even under Mr. Paulsen's interpretation of the code, there is more than 60 x 60 foot building pad for each lot that does not intrude into any of the required setbacks. That is shown on the enclosed drawing as area number 3. Mr. Paulsen has argued that what has clearly been shown as a private drive from Laredo Drive, which services Lot 1 and also services Lot 2, is somehow to be construed as being a public right-of-way or a private right- of-way that provides public access to Lot 1 or Lot 2. As noted correctly by staff, a private driveway does not provide public access to either Lot I or Lot 2 and therefore, Mr. Paulsen's arguments are not relevant to this fact situation. As staff correctly points out, Mr. Paulsen has misread the sections of the code relating to lot widths and those lots accessed by a private drive such as the proposed southern lot and a lot that has access directly on the public cul-de-sac, which is the case with the northern lot. As staff notes, the northern lot has its entire frontage on the public street and could have access via a separate driveway at any point on the street frontage. The southern lot has no street frontage and must therefore have access via a private driveway across the property, which is allowed by the City code. It is only for the convenience of the neighbors and to preserve trees, that the City is requiring that both properties have access via the same curb cut. Even if you were to accept Mr. Paulsen's arguments, Lot 1 does have a 100 foot lot width as measured at the building set back line. Staff notes that it is at 106.1 feet. With the modifications that my clients have made in order to satisfy other desires of the neighborhood, with the resulting moving of the building pad area slightly to the west, the lot width is no longer 106.1 feet, but is 100 feet, which still is in compliance in the event that you accept Mr. Paulsen's interpretation of the code, which as you know has been re}ected by City staff. Concerning Mr. Paulsen's argument that the private street area must be excluded for determining the maximun~ 25% and impervious surface, City staffhas rightfully pointed out that the City's ordinances only excludes public right-of-way and a right-of-way that is made available for public access. This private driveway does not allow the public to travel up and down it and, therefore, it is not public access. Mr. Paulsen argues that the entrance street requires a ten foot setback from the north property line, but it has only eight feet as shown on the plat, on the lake or the plat with only one lot on the lake and one lot to the rear. In response thereto, my client has moved the driveway two feet to the south as shown as area number 7 on the 39518 Chanhassen Planning Commission July t 3, 2000 Page ? enclosed plat. Therefore, this is a non-issue. Please note that no additional trees need to be removed by moving it two feet. Mr. Paulsen argues that because there is a private driveway coming onto Lot 1 that also services Lot 2, somehoxv that means the area of Lot 1 needs to be modified by deducting that portion of the lot that is easterly of the driveway as it traverses over Lot 1 to Lot 2. City staffhas stated that definition implies and private street is included in a separate parcel or outlot that divides the property into t~vo separate parcel. City staff correctly notes that the private street ordinance is designed to enhance environmental protection and tile City could require that the applicant run the private street along tile property line to access Lot 2, however, then there would be a loss of trees that would not be necessitated by the use of the designed presently in front of the Planning Commission. Quite frankly my clients are very frustrated on this issue for the reasons I will discuss. My clients submitted to the Planning Commission a layout, please refer to Proposed Lucas Igel Addition, revision date 3/8/2000, which shows that the driveway for Lot 1 and the driveway for Lot 2 would both be located on Lot 1 at tile cul-de-sac. This is alloxved by code. The driveway for Lot 2 would then swing immediately from Lot 1 into Lot 2 and extend down to tile building site on Lot 2. However, Mr. Paulsen did not like that because he did not want to have the trees removed on Lot 2 near his property line. Tile Planning Commission asked my clients therefore to modify the plan to make sure that the access for Lot 2 by the private driveway was moved further to the east and away from Mr. Paulsen's property line. Although my clients did not want to do so, they did acquiesce with Mr. Paulsen's and the Planning Commission's request as shown in the plat that was submitted to you, please refer to Proposed Lucas Igel Addition, revision date 3/30/2000: Now, on June 6, Mr. Paulsen wants to argue that by doing something that he asked the Planning Commission to have us do that somehow my clients should be penalized for that. My clients are doing what Mr. Paulsen wanted them to do and what the Planning Commission asked them to do. My clients would in fact prefer to have the driveway configured the way that they showed it to you originally. Instead of asking for a variance if one is necessary, my clients have modified the plat again to go back to what they have showed previously to the Planning Commission (see Exhibit A), which hopefully now will satisfy Mr. Paulsen regardless of what interpretation of the ordinance is used and will not require any variance relating thereto under anyone's interpretation of the ordinance. We realize that this is contrary to what the Planning Commission wanted. However, we agreed to give the Planning Commission what the7)' wanted and the Planning Commission wanted that because that is what Mr. Paulsen wanted. Now that is being used against us and we assume, therefore, that the Planning Commission may acquiesce to Mr. Paulsen's desire to interpret the code in that way which results in our needing to go back to the original plan, please refer to Proposed Lucas Igel Addition, revision date 3/8/2000, even though, now under anyone's interpretation, a variance is not required, because my clients are going back to the original position or layout, which Mr, Paulsen apparently wants us to do, which results in the removal of trees that otherwise would not have been removed, my clients once again are xvilling to give the tree conservation easement over the northerly ten feet so there will not be any removal of trees, and my clients are willing to plant no less than six trees of a height no less than four feet along the line, even though not required by code and even though this road location is now being necessitated by Mr. Paulsen's desire to interpret the code in a certain way. IV. Summary. I apologize for the length of this letter, once again. However, as shown above, it was necessary to address these last minute comnlents by Mr. Paulsen, and to show you why at least one of his comments reverses what Mr. Paulsen wanted my clients to do before, which caused prior delays for my clients when they modified their plans to do what Mr. Paulsen wanted. Again, as stated above, although the City staff and I agree that other modifications are not necessary, except as it relates to the setback from eight feet to ten feet of the private driveway, in order to try to satisfy the neighbors again, my clients are modifying the lot line to eliminate those issues raised by Mr. Paulsen, which are non-issues from the perspective of code compliance and interpretation of the code. I do not know what else my clients can do. I imagine that the neighbors will say my clients should not seek to subdivide this property in 39518 Chanhassen Planning Commission July 13, 2000 Page 8 any way. However, as discussed above, that is not a realistic option. My clients ask you to approve the plat as it is now before you, with two lakeshore lots for all the reasons discussed by staff, and my clients in the past. If the Planning Commission is not willing to recommend approval, then we ask that you recommend approval of the alternative plat that meets all requirements of the code as found by City staff, so my clients can proceed accordingly to the City Council for final action. I think that if the neighbors ever realize that my clients can divide this property without any variances with the lot to the rear, the~, would be the first to say that it is far preferable to grant the minimum variances necessary to allow the two lakeshore lots in lieu of having a non-lakeshore lot with a house thereon that is visible to the neighborhood and would adversely impact Mr. Paulsen's view to the lake as has been discussed. However, the neighbors may feel that by denying the two lakeshore lot plat then this will end the matter. As noted, it will not. Hopefully, the Planning Commission will agree that what makes the most sense for the neighborhood given the facts and the most sense for the City as a whole is to approve the two lakeshore lots for the reasons discussed. Again, I realize the neighbors may say "do not do that," but that will result in the non-lakeshore lot being developed, which we know also the neighbors do not want. As I said on June 6, the Planning Commission does have discretion to grant the variances requested. The court cases are clear on that subject. In fact, this very fact situation demonstrates why the courts have granted this sort of flexibility to the City. The Planning Commission is faced with having two lots on the lake or one lot on the lake or one lot off the lake. The layout with one lot off the lake does not require a variance so that is the simple solution, but that is not the right solution, that is not the right way to plan the development of this property for all the reasons stated. This is why you have the very flexibility that the courts have talked about so you can do what is right. Perhaps somewhat similar thereto was the variance noted by one of the objecting neighbors who said that he enjoys sitting on his new porch that cost him $28,000, for'which a variance was requested and granted. The Planning Commission and the City Council used the flexibility allowed to it under the ordinance and State law to do what was right in that situation. It is also important to mention that my clients recently received a letter from the previous owners of the property at 7303 Laredo Drive. It appears that Mr. Paulsen has attempted to place my clients in a bad light by suggesting that somehow the previous owners were denied the right to subdivide the property by the City and by the Igels. As you can see from Ms. Lipe's letters (see attached), Mr. Paulsen's statements are not supported by the record. One could say more, but I will not do so. We have been told by the City's Planning Department that numerous calls have been made by Mr. Paulsen to members of the City Council and possibly the Planning Commission, perhaps making similar statements. It is unfortunate that Mr. Paulsen has chOsen to take such a position. However, I can assure you that my clients have approached the sale of the property and the subdivision process with the highest integrity and have put their faith in the public process. If you need any additional information or would like to tour the property with my clients, please call me at the above telephone number or call David or Rachel at (952) 401-3377. If, in order to approve the plat with the two lots on the lake, you feel that some additional conditions must be imposed in order to recommend approval then we ask you to please articulate what they are and to make them conditions of approval. I am sure that we all agree that there is need for closure on this subject. Hopefully that can be accomplished at the next Planning Commission meeting. However, again, if information comes up that requires more study, we will ask for a continuance because we do believe, as it has been demonstrated by the City staffmost recently, again, in response to comments by Mr. Paulsen, if one looks at the facts, the facts and the law support the requested variances. Enclosure cc: David lgel Bruce D. Malkerson / 39518 Chanhassen Planning Commission July 13, 2000 Page 9 Rachel Igel 39518 JoAnne & Leonard Lip.e 1345 Lexinston Court · Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Pl~one 952.448.5187 · Fax 952.831.8946 June 26,2000 Rachel and David Igel 6195 Strawberry Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Igels: : · , i am enclosing a copy of a letter that i sent to Jerry and Jan Pauis~n today, i did not learn uf ~ne letter with Chi'is Baird's signature sent t:: Ms. Aanenson at the City of Chanhassen until June 22. .. Needless to say, I found Chris's.letter very distressing. -. I would like to apologize to you for Chris's actions. Chris has been-very upset by the sale of the house, but he had absolutely no busines.s getting involved with the Paulsens; In fact, he was told in March by his wife and me to leave it alone. However, Jerry Paulsen repeatedly called Chris and was finally able to get Chris to sign a letter that Jerry wrote. FranklY,-I'm pretty sure the letter sent to -the City wasn't actually e~/~n signed by Chris. That letter is dated May 7. On May 6, Chr~s's wife had a baby and the entire family was at the hospital on May 7. i,m positive Chris was-not .Sign_lng letters for Mr. Paulsen on that day. - The Baird family has no desire to stop you from doing whatever you Want with the property: Ydu bought it; it's yours, and if the City of.Chanhassen fee. Is you have presented them with a~ apPropriate plan for subdivision of the property, then that's what you should be allowed to do. I am very sOrry for any delays that may have been caused by Chris's particiPa;don in the Paulsens' actions. Please let me know if there is any way that I can be of assistance to you in this matter. Sincerely, JoAnne Lipe - . RS: On what I assume to be a totally ur~ielated matter, coul'd you please sign the release for the escrow account at your earliest Convenience so that Peer Environmental can get the money owed them? Thank you. JoAnne & Leonard Lipe 1345 Lexington Court · Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Phone 952.448.5187 · Fax 952.831.8946 June 26,2000 Jerry & Jan Paulsen 7305 Laredo Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Paulsen, I am Chris Baird's sister, and my husband and I have been handling my mother's estate since her death last July. On June 22, Noel Wellman faxed me copies of a letter dated June 16 that you sent her, along with the enclosures to that letter which included a letter signed by Chris addressed to Kathryn Aanenson at the City of Chanhassen. As you probably know, Chris has had a stroke. As a result of the stroke, Chris suffers from aphasia, which means he has lost some ability for speech, and is also far more emotional than the average adult. He is having a very difficult time coping with the death of both parents in a short period of time and having to sell the family home. I believe he is suffering from depression, although to my knowledge he has not sought professional help. Because of Chris's disabilities, it is very difficult for him to find and hold employment. As such, his income is very limited. Also, Chris was not the sole owner of the lot. Ownership of the lot was divided equally among the three Baird siblings. In order for one sibling to remain in the house, the other siblings' shares would have had to been purchased by the sibling retaining ownership in the lot. Due to Chris's financial situation, there was never any possibility for Chris to continue living in the house, even if the family had been able to subdivide the lot, and Chris knew that. Also, Ms. Wellman never told us we couldn't subdivide the lot. She told us it would be unlikely that we'd be able to subdivide. However, she told us if we wanted to put the time and effort into the project, we could pursue obtaining a variance from the City of Chanhassen and then sell the lot as subdividable if and when we obtained City approval. The alternative was to put the house on the market as is and hope for a quick sale. Since the house had a large mortgage and the brothers weren't interested in contributing to monthly payments to keep the mortgage current, we put the house on the market as is and sold the house a month before it went into foreclosure. Chris was aware of this, also. I spoke to Chris and his wife, Char, on June 22 regarding your letter to Ms. Wellman and the enclosures, including the letter Chris signed. Chris informed me that you wrote the letter and he signed it. Because of Chris's aphasia, which becomes more pronounced when he is under stress, he was probably unable to tell you that the above-mentioned items in the letter that you wrote for his signature were not true. He probably tried to, but it was difficult for him to get the words out. When this happens, Chris has a tendency to agree to whatever is being said. page 2 Back in March, after your conversation with Ms. Wellman. regarding subdivision of the Igel property, both Char and I told Chris he had to forget about the Igel property and move on with his life. He agreed that he would. However, apparently you continued to call him on a regular basis, creating further distress for Chris. Because he knew his family would be upset, Chris told no one that he was still involved in your fight with the Igels. The Baird family believes you have taken advantage of Chris and that you manipulated Chris into signing the letter to Ms. Aanenson. The letter is very misleading and contains statements that simply aren't true. The Baird family believes the proposed subdivision of the Igel property is none of. our business. It's your fight, not ours. We would appreciate it if you did two things: 1. Stop calling Chris. This business is very distressing for him, and his life is already stressful enough without you adding your problems. 2. Leave Ms. Wellman alone. She did nothing wrong. She gave us our options, and we made the best choice for the entire Baird family, including Chris. Also, I don't think our arrangements with Ms. Wellman, or anyone else, for that matter, are any of your business. If you have any questions, please call me. My work number is 952.831.4207. Thank you. Sincerely, JoAnne Lipe cc: Kathryn Aanenson, City of Chanhassen Noel Wellman, Coldwell Banker Burnet David and Rachel Igel CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 18, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Uli Sacchet, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Burton _STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Dave Hempel, Assistant City; Engineer; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Cindy Kirchof£, Planner I; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator ' REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE LAKESHORE WIDTH REOUIREMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 11, BLOCK 1, SUNRISE HILLS IsT ADDITION, 7303 LAREDO DRIVE, LUCAS IGEL ADDITION, DAVID IGEL. Public Present: Name Address Steven & Becky Chepokas 7304 Laredo Drive Don HUseth 7332 Frontier Trail Linda Landsman 7329 Frontier Trail Eunice Peters 7301 Laredo Drive Ann & Alan Fox 7300 Laredo Drive Tom Pzynski 7340 Frontier Trail Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Ron & Ann Kleve 7307 Laredo Drive Dana Muller 500 Highland Drive Janet Holler 7206 Frontier Trail Jim Waletski 7334 Frontier Trail Arlis Bovy 7339 Frontier Trail Connie Robertson for Fred Cunes 7335 Frontier Trail Joel S. Jenkins 7305 Frontier Trail Shirley Navratil 7337 Frontier Trail Cathy Greeley 7341 Frontier Trail Greg Larsen 229 Benton Avenue Rachel & David Igel 6195 Strawberry Lane Bruce Malkerson 901 Marquette Robert Eastman 2115 Shorewood Oaks Drive Larry Couture 8713 Dayton Avenue So. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 Peterson: Questions of staff. Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, we receiVed a new proposed plat for two lakeshore lots that's dated 7/13/2000 and that addresses some of the width issues. All of the width issues with exception of the 75 foot width so right now we're looking at just the 75 foot width, which is a 15 foot variance on two lot's. That's the only variance we're looking at right now. Generous: Correct. And also as part of we approve it does say revised. We should add this last revision date of this plat so we're aware of which copy we're working on. .- ' Kind: And then are we tonight considering the alternate plat? If We deny the two lakeshore lots, are we in effect approving the alternate plat? Aanenson: No. Kind: No. Generous: You would have to make a specific motion to recommend approval. Kind: And the alternate plat was not provided in this week's packet but I'm assuming it's the same as what we've seen before. Generous: Correct. . Kind: And if we decide that that's the way to go, if there's revisions to that, then we'll deal with that. Aanenson: You'd go back through the process. Peterson: Other questions? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I have a question about there is a driveway alternate option in the plat that was handed out. What's the status of that? Generous: The applicant is just showing a proposal that separates the driveways on the site. Staff would not support that. Our position is we'd want them to stay together and we would preserve the area to the west of any easements. That would be created for those driveways. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Rachel Igel: Hi, my name is Rachel Igel and I live at 6195 Strawberry Lane in shorewood. Just wanted to take a quick moment and re-introduce myself, our attorney.and also the neighbors that will be moving in to the lot next to us. First off my husband is David Igel and our attorney is Bruce Malkerson and we should have done this last time but I just wanted to take a quick moment to introduce the Eastmans. Bob Eastman is right there. Susie Eastman and their two children. They are our current neighbors in our current neighborhood and they're planning to move with us into the new neighborhood. The other thing I Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 wanted to mention is as far as the plat goes, we were not asked or required by the city to change the plat. However we chose to go ahead and make different changes to keep this as simple as possible and be as cooperative as possible in the process and at this point we agree that the onlY variance that is needed is for the width at the lakeshore. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that if there are any other comments that are made, if we could have an opportunity at the end to respond to those as well. Thank you. And if you have any questions, please let one of us will be happy to answer them. Peterson: Okay. Then I'll question to my fellow commissioners. Should we open this for public hearing? Conrad: Question Mr. Chairman, is this a public hearing? I thought that was closed. Peterson: That's correct. I'mjust asking, should we open it up again. And I don't know whether we legally can. Kate, is that. Aanenson: You can always open it up for comments. You legally have had the public hearing..' Peterson: Why don't we do that. I guess the caveat being that in lieu of everybody's Consideration of time and for a lot of presentations are going to be made tonight so if we could limit those comments to anything that's additional or new, it would be greatly appreciated. So with that, any additional comments. Please come forward and state your name and address please. Debbie Lloyd: My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. The first thing I'd like to present is signatures, a petition from 25 other lakeshore owners who are against the division of a lot on Lotus Lake. I have a lot of comments. I'I1 try to keep them simple. I'm just going to follow the staff report tonight. So if you turn to page 2, paragraph 3. Interestingly, a lot in Sunrise Hills subdivision in which this property is located has a lot with a lakeshore width of 70 feet. I want to point out that was grandfathered in before there were city ordinances... It had established lot size, lakeshore frontage, everything before there were rules here in Chanhassen. Next I'd like to show. These are copies of just one page from the three lots that are next referenced. That says at three of the properties with less than 90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted shoreland management regulations. And what I'd like to point out to you in each of these pages is that staff overlooked the regulation. And you at the Planning Commission relied on staff for accuracy as did the City Council. On the first one, frontage required by code. It refers to 90 feet. There is no identification there of lakeshore frontage. That's on the Hiscox plat. On Alicia Heights, the next page, again you'll see there's no notice of lakeshore and if you go through the files like I did, there's extreme documentation of every aspect of the lot, but they totally ignored what the lakeshore frontage requirement was. And the third shows the documentation of this one after by the way Mr. Paulson found that there was a different lakeshore requirement here in Chanhassen than was on the original staff report. So I'm submitting these to you to show you that errors have occurred in the past and that we don't expect variances should set precedent for changing code. And that if you seriously consider changing these lots to 75 feet, I suggest you go through the entire process of exploring changing code regulations for lakeshore lots in the city of Chanhassen. Not set a precedent. There's no precedent set here because errors were made. The next point. The average lot area in this development is 18,992 square feet. Forgive me ifI don't know the technical term but this plat is where that information came from. They're documents from the city offices. It's the GIS which they showed Sunrise Hills and the lot size for every lot. Subsequent to this I have received an estimate of what the lakeshore frontage is. So if you go through the first two pages are going to come up with tile average lot size in Sunrise Hills. Tile average lot size is 22,432 feet. The next two pages will show you the average lakeshore lot. That area is 36,353 feet and the average lakeshore Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 width or lakeshore frontage is 126 feet. Another neighbor will be addressing downward, how can I say. Decrease in standards within the neighborhood and that's why I'm pointing this out to you. On page 3, second paragraph. Third statement. However the city does not enforce restrictive covenants. Th6 city does not enforce restrictive covenants, although historically the city has taken historic covenants, any restrictive covenants int° consideration. At the bottom of the page, The zoning provisions. I just want · to say that the DNR has substantiated the support of the regulations on the lake. They have agreed that that is what the regulation is. Next I'd like you to turn to page 9 but continue, hold your hand on page 4. Page 9. First paragraph. Last sentence. Referring to landscape and tree preservation. Assuming a 10 ' foot by 100 foot buffer yard, minimum requirements include 1 oversize tree, 2 understory trees and 3 shrubs. I'm pointing this out to you because this was the specific dimension in front ora buffer yard. It's implying if you look, it's saying a 10 by 100 foot buffer yard, which is 1,000 square feet. It is not saying a 5 foot by 200 foot buffer yard. It is not saying a 20 foot by 50 foot buffer yard. Now, if you go back to page 4, point 2. The city's response to Jerry Paulsen's question about a 60 by 60 foot buildable Pad. It reads, a 60 by 60 building pad. Again, it's a 60 by 60 pad. It doesn't represent 3,600 square feet in by 40 by 90. Or by the next configuration, 20 by 180. That's not what it represents. It's an adjective to what the buffer yard is or it's an adjective to whatever the noun is you're to describe. And I have checked that out with other cities. I don't have it documented but it has been verified. Page 8. Background. Second paragraph. It says upon discovery of this error staff notified the applicant. I want to point out Mr. Paulsen discovered the error. He and his wife Jan have diligently been working on it trying to interpret everything and I'm afraid that that's being misconstrued as not being good citizens or something. They are diligent. We don't have attorney representation. We're trying to define everything ourselves. Variance findings, page 12. Just points I want to make. Someone else again will be addressing these. Put to reasonable use. I think the property is reasonably used right now. It has been for 40 years. Single family home. On a lot that works well. Pre-existing standards in this neighborhood, without departing downward, and again we'll be addressing that. Mr. Malkerson's letter dated July 13th. I'm going to read a sentence in the introduction. We do not think it was beneficial use ofy0ur time, the staff time or the neighborhood's time to debate those issues that were raised for the first time by Mr. Paulsen at that meeting without everyone having had an opportunity to read his written materials, itemize them and pursuant to the code, to respond to them. Well, we came to the first Planning Commission meeting that addressed this with a real emotional response. As a neighborhood we were upset. We were very emotional. Since then we've learned you need to look for the facts. I think the facts very well support our dislike of the subdivision. And it's not emotion. I mean it's emotional because it affects our lives and because of what it's become. But there's facts supporting it. Page 2 on the top of the page, and I've got to start from the previous page. Underline, the request for subdivision approval had received prior written approval by the Planning Commission on April 21st to create two Iakeshore lots. This is a key word, it says with the variance to the lakeshore width requirement. That's wrong. Without. You didn't know a variance was needed. Again I want to point out, thereafter staff found. No, Jerry Paulsen found. The second paragraph. As when...by staff, and I believe by one or more members of the Planning Commission at the June 6th meeting, the alternate proposal of having one or more lots on the lake to the rear met all the requirements of the coding zone. I don't know if anyone really has conceded that the alternate plan meets code. I don't think we've come there yet. The last statement before paragraph 3. Again, this is the attorney's statement. Quite frankly not many people can afford to buy . one large lot on the lake and pay the principal and interest on a mortgage relating thereto and the phenomenally high real estate taxes that are a result of ever increasing land values in the city generally and on Lotus Lake. I have to ask, we all take risks in investments. This is a risk. Do people over buy? Maybe so thinking they could divide but that's their risk. I'm holding back on some comments so. Page 4. Third paragraph. Last two sentences. The placement of the home. This is the alternate plan. The placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternate would stack the houses altering the pattern of development along the street. Finally the two proposed homes would Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 eliminate almost all views of the lake vis a vis the applicant's preferred plan. Well, I think we've.all tried to be sold on the alternate plan and I think that mistakenly people can be led to think that self interest is above public interest. But I have to tell you, the Paulsen's are people that care about the land. They care about public interest and if they were in this for themselves, they'd totally be adamant that yes, we want two lakeshore lotS. Because that house wouldn't be butting up to their property. But they're not those kind of people. They're amazing people. They're taking the public interest ahead of their own personal interest and the risk that that house could be built right in their back yard. And I think that's amazing. And repeatedly you know little comments, they're being put down. It's amazing to me that people are put down for seeking the truth. For trying to find the .right. For analyzing everything.. To come to a good decision, a right decision and I know that's been referred to in here. It's a right decision. I do want to correct one other thing here. My neighbor is the one who built the $28,000 porch. He sits right next to me. He didn't need a variance for that. It's alluding to the fact he needed a variance. He didn't. Findings of Fact. Page 17. Section 4.a. I want to clear up one thing here. The proposed subdivision is consistent within the zoning ordinance. That has to be inconsistent. If you vote for a variance on the lake, you can't put the word consistent. That's inconsistent and I think again, we'd have to explore city code. By the way, I did go up to the city and that's where I got some of this good stuff and everyone, I have to say, is exceedingly helpful. I have to say staff goes out of their way to help us. But I did ask for a file and that was the shoreland regulation file because another interested party in the city told me, you really need to look at the file and explore why the law was changed in '94 on the shoretand regulation. You need to know that. Guess what? The file's missing. They searched for two days. The last person that was known to have the file was Bob and he can't find it. I'd like to know where it is because I would really like to explore why the code was changed in 1994. OkaY. On the JoAnne and Leonard Lipe letter to the Paulsen's. Paragraph 5. JoAnne states, Ms. Wellman never told us xve couldn't subdivide the lot. Okay, that's a sound fact but the next statement is, she told us it would be unlikely that we would be able to subdivide. I'm getting more comfortable up here. I'm sorry I'm at the end of the report because the more I talk up here, I feel so much better. The first time I was nervous as all heck. I was like quivering. This has almost starting to be fun. Thank you for the opportunity. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else, please come forward. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. I'm Jerry Paulsen. Live at 7305 Laredo Drive and we just happen to be the joy of being on vacation in Glacier National Park this past week and I wish you could all have the same opportunity some time. We raced back here to shorten our vacation a little bit so we wouldn't miss this exciting event. Sunday morning as I was lying in my sleeping bag, your thoughts so through various things obviously. Two topics came to my mind. One was a bear walking through the campground and secondly, being back here in time for this meeting. So sometimes I wake up early in the morning and think about those things. So after being away for 10 days, we may be not aware of some of the more recent information that's been presented as far as the staff report is concerned. I apologize for that if I interpret anything improperly. So it will be something ora review, if you allow me time to do that. It appears that the developer has yet another plat. I'm not sure if it's number 6 or 7 now, but it's kind of like a shell game where you lift one shell and the developer says no. That plat is not quite right. Will you revise that one and the next one the attorney says well, that's the right now but we're going to revise it a little bit more so we're still waiting for a final plat that the Planning Commission is going to be asked to approve I believe. First question I think the Planning Commission has to answer is, do any of these plats fulfill city code, and we believe that all of them are short in some respect. Admittedly, th'e plan for the two lakeshore ones need a variance as you know. 90 feet instead of the 75 feet. The second question you must answer is, should tile city approve a plat with numerous variances in it? And tile developer has admitted there are multiple variances as opposed to one variance, which was presented to in the staff report on June 6~h. Again, we believe the developer does not meet all of the city code, and admi.ttedly you Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 have the right to go ahead and recommend approval even if they don't meet city code, but our point here is that we hope you'll take this into consideration. As I said at the last Planning Commission meeting, our intent is not to be unfriendly with our new neighbors the Igel's. Rather it's our hope that the city will stand by it's code and especially the new interpretation of the code in regard to lakeshore property. Both from the Standpoint'of protecting the lake and protecting the character of the neighborhood:' And in fact only through a series of variances that you can approve, we believe, the subdivision of this property. The most serious variance obviously is the 90 foot lakeshore, and I don't think it's anything like granting a 5 or 10 foot deck extension. It's certainly more serious. Has more impact, both on the city and on the lake and on the neighborhood. It's not a routine variance that falls in this category. The city readily admits they made a mistaken in recognizing that 90 feet was required instead of 75 feet in the'past here. Just as an aside, the developer and his attorney has stressed that it's unfortunate this issue has 'been prolonged, starting back in March and June and going to this meeting. They say, everything sailed through the first meeting properly and you approved it. And then we came upon the fact that the city should require 90 feet instead of 75 feet and that did throw kind of a monkey wrench into the procedure obviously at that point. The fact is that we walked into the Planning Commission meeting on March 15th cold, not knowing city code and it was an emotional issue as far as the people who spoke, saying we don't want the property split. Now we're on more solid ground certainly. Calling on code to be the decision factor. The developer on the other hand had several months in advance to get his ducks in line and through his staff of attorneys to make sure everything was fine. Oddly enough, through all these attorneys, you would think that one of them would have had at least the opportunity to look at code and realize that there was a deficiency in presenting this plat, these plats as presented. And my contention is any attorney worth their, his or her salt should have found these things instead of a private citizen finding them. ...neighbors by revising a plat. The fact is I think he's acknowledging that one plat doesn't quite meet the code and therefore he goes onto the next plat to see if he can meet code with the next plat, and that's why you've gone through a series of plats here. Developer has also not responded to our question about whether or not there really is a full 150 feet of lakeshore available. We pointed out in the last meeting, and I called it the Battle of the Bulge. Why was the contour lines of the ordinary high water line changed on one subsequent plat to apparently be lengthened to a full 150 feet and allow 75 feet per lot? We don't think they have 75 feet for a lot at the high water line. Originally they were going on the fact that they had 75 feet at the survey line, but that was pointed out to be an error also. Another argument the developer says is this is at the 75 feet that the lakeshore requirement comes from the DNR. That's true. The DNR requires a minimum of 75 feet of lakeshore. Chanhassen chose in 1994 to say 90 feet is required. Other cities in the metro area have stricter regulations than what the DNR requires. I can name a neighboring city that requires 120 feet of lakeshore as opposed to 90 feet, which Chanhassen requires. So the DNR requires a minimum for many things and each city can go beyond that if they want to, or stick with it. Actually Chanhassen did not go with the DNR code that says what the maximum height of the lakeshore property should be, and we see that. And perhaps that's something that should be considered in the future as being no more restrictive. The most, I'm reading, we're going about 70 miles an hour down the interstate so I hope I can read my own writing here. In my quick skimming of the recent letter from Attorney Malkerson, I see a sprinkling of my name in it saying I'm responsible for this. I'm responsible for that. I should be, I'd like to give a little more credit to those people who actually have helped in this. My family, my neighbors and other friends. I am not certainly solely responsible for raising this issue and the people who have come to these meetings and are neighbors, if it hadn't been for them supporting us on this issue, I don't think we'd be here tonight arguing this issue. Attorney Malkerson in his letter of July 13th states that someone in the Planning Commission told him that I had made numerous calls to members of the City Council and possibly the Planning Commission. Yes, after the March 15th meeting I did in fact call several Planning Commission members with the intent of alerting them to the fact that we had discovered the 90 feet requirement and I wanted to see if they had signed off on the approval, which would be passed onto the City Council, and I wanted to short cut that if Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 possible. I would challenge anyone in the planning department to name a member of the City Council that I have initiated a phone .call to. Which Attorney Malkerson alludes to. I have never initiated a phone call to a member of the City Council at this point. So I question the validity of that statement. If it's improper or sinister for me to call a Planning Commission member or a City Council member, then I plead guilty to that. I think any citizen has the right to do that and I don't think that the developer should complain about me or anyone of the citizens of Chanhassen expressing an opinion to the commissioners or to the City Council. And the fact that this sort of rhetoric has kind of polarized the issue a little bit more than it should be perhaps. The developer says now the city has two choices. Two lakeshore or one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore lot. Both of which we believe require variances. Staff says the second 'choice of one up, one down is not, would be a lousy idea, and we agree. We also don't think that the two lakeshore ones, plan is a valid, a good way to go either. Either one of them is going to destroy a bunch of trees and let me just give you a couple pictures that show a view of the mature trees that are involved with our property. I think we've been spoiled with our...forests there for years since the bears lived there since 1970 when we moved in, This is just to show the fact that there are a lot of mature trees. Many of which would go if the plan is approved. I guess I say the same thing I did last time. The motive, prime motive is to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and not to change the character of the neighborhood by allowing a subdivision and two large houses to go into this property, whether it's on the lake or up and down. Either way it would have an impact on the lake and on the adjacent properties and the character of the neighborhood. Finally, let me make one suggestion. The 10 day notice is really a, cuts things pretty short for allowing people to react. I've come to other Planning Commission meetings since then and I see people up here saying, what can we do to stop this and they don't really have time to do it. Maybe a 20 day notice would be more proper. In this case admittedly we've had a little bit more time since the early March meeting and prolonged because the developer has asked for delays at times to work out a fexv problems here. But the more time you have obviously the more possibility that you might have of answering questions, as far as the citizens are concerned I think. So thank you and I hope you all have the opportunity to go to Glacier National park some day. I enjoyed the beauty of the park out there. Peterson: Excluding the bears, right. Anyone else? Linda Landsman: Hi. My name is Linda Landsman and I live at 7329 Frontier Trail. And I guess the question that I'd like to bring before you is the city ordinances around what constitutes a variance and when it should be granted. According to Section 18-22, which is your subdivision code, when I go through and read this it basically says that the council, and i.e. in preparing for this the Planning Commission, can grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the land. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to any other property. And the granting a variance will not substantially be detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the chapter on subdivision, the zoning ordinances and the comprehensive plan. First I guess I would like a definition of hardship. I don't feel that the Igel's are in hardship here. I feel that they made a decision financially that they came into the property. Saw dollars. Bought and probably looked around and saw well, it's kind of a sleepy little neighborhood. Kind of sleepy little town. Sleepy little Planning Commission and Council. This should be pretty easy. We're not a sleepy little neighborhood, and I don't live in a sleepy little town. I hope you are fully awake and engaged in the process of determining if they should even be looking at a variance based on your code. You need to make the Igel's and anyone else present here understand that code is passed and law is passed for good reason. We and you are stewards of this community, of our natural resources, and of our neighborhoods. Please keep that in mind when you make your decision. Thank you. Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Janet Holler: My name's Janet Holler. I live at 7206 Frontier Trail. Just a couple brief comments. First of all I do hope you take into account the character of the neighborhood and the size of the lots at the . . lakeshore. I think it's' Very important. -Many of us signed a petition and we agreed to the covenants. The Igel's 'have had them removed legally. We think they're very important. The character of the neighborhood is very important and we would like you to preserve that. Also, I hope that you enforce this restrictions. I think You saw the petition. How many people signed the'petition? How many was it, like 60 or so? - . Audience: 55. Janet Holler: 55. Our request is that you follow and keep those regulations. We are behind you. We support you in following those regulations that you've set up. The Igel's put a note in some of°Ur mailboxes today. It was with my mail, and the first point that they say is that they've invested a major investment in time and money. That was their first point. I hope that that is not a factor in your determining what you do on this lot. I can give you names of people that looked at that lot before the Igel's. Knew that this was probably not a lot that could be subdivided and he stopped at that point. The fact that they're looking back on it now, I hope is not a determining factor in your decision.' Their time and money, that was their decision. I also think that, in this letter it was stated that if we understood more we would agree with them and I just want you to know that we do understand. As you can tell many people have done quite a bit of homework. It's not that we don't understand. It's that we disagree. And lastly on a personal note, these letters that were sent around to the neighbors that personally, I thought were pretty derogatory to the Paulsen's and I think the Igel's owe the Paulsen's an apology by sending these around to the neighbors. I thought it was very inappropriate and had nothing to do with building a house on a piece of land by slandering someone's name. Peterson: Anyone else? Bruce Malkerson: Good evening. I'm Attorney Malkerson, 901 Marquette, Minneapolis. First of all, the last comments. The Igel's sent a letter to the neighbors saying we are to talk about anything you want. We're trying to communicate. We're trying to find out what your concerns are. If you've got any questions, anything you want to discuss with us, we'd love to discuss it with you to see whether or not we can address the questions that you have. The concerns that you have. There is in the city's flies, there is letters relating to what may or may not have been communicated by others to the prior owners that are in the file and I think you've got them. And I think you got them a month ago. We just found out the other day that indeed they were filed and we couldn't let them sit there and the ones that were filed with you,' paint a story that's totally different from what the sellers to us are saying in writing, Which we didn't even ask them for. But they found out about it and they said, wait a minute. What was being filed by others with the city was not correct and we want the record clear. S'o it was our affirmative duty to make sure that people understood not what we asked for, but what the sellers to the Igel's thought was appropriate to make sure that people understood were the facts so that they weren't being painted incorrectly. We're not painting anybody anything. As we said in the letter, we're just trying to answer questions. We're an open book. We'll provide all the facts to you and that's what we've tried to do. Now at the end of the last meeting a lot of facts came in at the meeting and we did ask for a continuance and you were gracious enough to grant one, because I think that's important to make sure we have that chance. Everyone has a chance to respond to new information. Now again this evening, all sorts of new information was submitted. I don't even know what it was. Copies weren't offered to us. They were Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 submitted to everybody for the first time tonight. I guess we could ask for another continuance so that we could review those things. But out deference to you and to the neighbors so they don't have to come out again another night, I guess it's time to proceed on. Because I certainly think, and you've.beenon the Planning Commission. You understand these things. You understand there are always conflicts of facts' and different interpretations of the law. There always are and you have to weigh the facts. You've got to decide what weight you're going to give the staffs recommendations. And staffs i'nterpretation of the law. And I'm sure if staff's interpretation of your' law was wrong the city attorney would have said staff, you're wrong. I'm not really hearing a whole lot of statements that there's proof that there's any misinterpretation of the law that the staff has presented to you. Staff has recommended repeatedly approval. We are down to under anyone's interpretation, one variance for each lot. The lot width. Yeah, we've made some changes. We've made some changes to try to address staffs concerns. Your · concerns. Neighbors concerns. We've made changes that we don't think are required by code. Staff doesn't think is required by code but my god, if there's any way we can make people feel more comfortable, that's what we're doing, so we did it. And so you have in front of you a plat that requires. the one variance for each lot and no others. If somebody thinks it really requires another' variance, I'd love to talk about it because I don't think staff thinks it requires anything. But again, if there's something else we can do, we'll be glad to address it and do it. So it probably is time to go ahead and make a recommendation, unless you have some information you need from us. We'll be glad to provide it or answer any questions that you've got and if that requires us to ask for another continuance so we can get some more information to you, we'd be glad to do it. But again, I think everybody's been pretty well stated and re-stated and we've just been trying to address concerns that are raised, whether they were valid or not. We're trying to address them. Thank you very much. Peterson: Thank you. Jerry Paulsen' Jerry Paulsen again. One thing I forgot before was, just before we went on vacation we provided the Planning Commission and the staff with a list of deficiencies for the one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore plat. We haven't seen a response to those and therefore we still believe that that alternate plat does not meet code also. We haven't seen a response to that. If there is a response, we'd like to see that. I was asked by a Planning Commission member at the last meeting whether I had a choice between one and two, which would I take? The multiple choice should be extended to three choices I believe. Keep the one lakeshore lot as is and allow another large house to go up there at the prerogative of the purchaser. Thank you. Peterson: Any final comments? Joel Jenkins: I'il keep my comments brief. My name is Joel Jenkins. I live at 7305 Frontier Trail and I've been at two meetings. Now this evening and the briefly for the meeting on June 6th and I had to leave early. And the bottom line I think comes down to, do we want Chanhassen to have increased density? Or do we not? Is it not the Planning Commission's responsibility to determine what is increased density. We as a neighborhood bought, 19 years ago I bought my home there and then purchased a second home across the street because of the neighborhood. We have multiple People who have moved from our neighborhood and returned to that neighborhood because of the size of the lots. Of the neighborhood itself. And if you allow this variance to go through and these two houses to be built, you are setting a precedent that Chanhassen wants increased density. Now a few years ago I stood here in front of Mayor Tom Hamilton and a few other people and said that we are a citizenry of people who live here. We are not developers who are coming in to build the community and then be gone. I'm thankful that people who are here tonight are planning on living there because if they weren't I would be much more upset. Because at that Planning Commission, and I don't think any of you were on that, we Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 had a development at the end of Frontier Trail that started out with I think 121 lots. They were told to reduce it by 8. And when it was finalized, I think there were 132 lots. Just because of pushing and shoving, etc. Increased density.. Planning around the rules that were set up to maintain the integrity of- this community. NOw attorneys Can give you emotional pleas, and Mr. Malkerson certainly having his . last say hopefully did that this evening. I hope that my comments to you about let's keep Chanhassen a community for the 'people who live here and not increase the density any more. Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: I just have one more quick comment. I forgot the paperwork at home. My table was full of things and I was scrambling. I realized afterwards, I had gone up to the city to get the minutes from the last planning meeting and at that meeting, for those of you that were present; you discussed a subdivision that had been granted adjacent to a wetland and a mistake had been made. Mistakes are made and that's why we have tO review the plats and I know that upper lot, there's some issues there as - well and I don't want that to be overloOked. I know mistakes are made but people have to be accountable. I know in my position, ifI don't do my job, ifI don't run down my checklist to make sure I've done everything related to my contracts, I wouldn't be working where I am. Thank you again. Peterson: Any other comments? Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. And I do have an issue with the present plat and now they've changed the lines a little bit. But thanks to Mr. Malkerson's delay we looked at that. What is the front of that lot? Lot number 2. And we decided, I'll turn it around: This is the front of the lot according to code. And this would have to be the back of the lot according to code. And a lot like this is not accessed by the street. It's accessed by a private road. It has to have 125 foot depth and this lot does not have 125 feet depth. It's not adequate. This is the front. This is the back, It's a multi sided lot. The way you measure that according to code is to run out a 20 foot line parallel to the front line, which would be about down here. You extend that out, I left my ruler back there. That's not 125 feet. This isn't the front. This isn't the back. This is the front and back. And it's not wide enough. Not deep enough. There's no room for the building pad. There'.s-no room for the 30 feet- for the front yard and there's no room for the 30 feet for the back yard. So thank you Mr. Malkerson for the extra time. Peterson: Any other comments? Bruce Malkerson: Bruce Malkerson. I do believe in extra time. Make sure that everyone has a chance to analyze everything. Having heard that comment for the first time, I would note to you and perhaps your staff is aware of it, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that when it comes to lakeshore lots, as a matter of law in the State of Minnesota, the portion of the lot that fronts on the lake is the front of the lot. And the portion that doesn't is the back of the lot. And I don't even quite understand the comment but no matter what, I mean that's the law of the State. If it's at all relevant but again it's just another whatever, I think if staff thought that they were wrong in their interpretation, they would have pointed that out too but I don't think there is validity to that. Thank you very much. JeffMortenson: I'm here this evening. I own a property that's on the lake and I have similar circumstances to this and I'm curious of our property and it's possibilities of subdividing it and that sort of thing. It's a similar sized property. I don't know. I just want to, for the record I want the same considerations if I decide to look at some of these types of options in the future. You know this type of planning and that. I believe I have the same square footages and density. I don't know if that's a consideration but most certainly I'd like the same consideration as these people if I wish to approach this type of situation with my property at 7199. Thank you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 Peterson: If you could for the record, state your name too please. Jeff Mortenson: JeffMortenson. Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners. I don't know. Conrad: Public hearing closed? I move to close the public hearing. Peterson: It's not a public hearing so. Conrad: I thought it was. Just comments? Peterson: Comments, yeah. For those of you who have seen the movie Groundhog Day, I kind of feel like Bill Murray to some degree. We are challenged tonight with obviously an emotional one full of interesting facts and I think our task tonight is to both interpret the intent of city code and ordinances, along with the interpretation of what's in front of us tonight so with those opening comments, any. follow-up comments by my fellow commissioners? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question for staff before we get into comments. Just for clarification. If the Igel's decide to pursue the alternate plat, plat approval does need to come through City Council? Or Planning Commission and City Council? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: So it will come before us again. Aanenson: Correct. With a new staff report. Kind: And is there a public hearing for such a thing? So it's not entirely true that they could just subdivide and go ahead without any public input. Okay. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I guess somebody has to start from up here. I'm really torn with this. I mean my personal opinion, I really feel for the neighborhood and personally I don't like to subdivide lots. But I don't feel that our responsibility is where we can, our control is not the density of the people living in this city. Our task, the way I understand is to see how does this fit with the ordinances and the zoning. And we as a commission work based on the research and the effort that city staff puts into this. Now granted, everybody makes mistakes and we learn from them. Looking at the facts here, it appears to me on that basis what's I front of us is the request to approve or deny the variance... In terms of subdividing the lots, you know personally I really don't like the idea of subdividing it. If I look at the mathematics of how this works, xve have two tables in our packet. One shows the lot sizes of properties within 500 feet. The other one shows the lot sizes for the Sunrise Hills 1st Addition. In either case, there are lots that is under consideration to be subdivided is clearly the largest lot in both groups. In the list that we have. Now I know it's being questioned tonight the accuracy of those lists. I have to work with what is in front of me. I have a hard time believing that these lists are so inaccurate that we cannot draTM conclusions from them. Based on those lists, subdividing those two lots,'that lot into two, in the Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, the resulting lots are the 4th largest and 6th largest out of 28 lots. If we look at the properties within 500 feet, we have 35 lots. The resulting lots is the 7th largest and 14th largest. On that basis, mathematically, and I would think ultimately legally, I feel very hard pressed opposing that on the basiS 11 - Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 that it does meet the zoning in terms of the size and ali the other aspects. You know it's tricky. Personally I'd like to say this lot cannot be subdivided. But Chanhassen has a reputation as be!ng a city. that's relatively hard to work with because there's a lot of restrictions and all that, and here I find myself' on a hunting expedition trying to find things that can prgvent this from happening,-and I don't think that's quite fair. I'll stop at this point. I want to hear from some other people but at least trying to break the ice here a little bit. ' Peterson: Sure. Consider it broken, please: Sidney: Mr. Chair. I didn't attend and I waSn't present at, well I wasn't present at the June 6th meeting and so this is the first time I've seen this packet of information and I believe a lot of the comments - prObably that came up in the first meeting tonight. And I think I'd like to restate what Uli stated, and if you look at the staff report, it says the city's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance and that's what we're looking at. And we have two choices here in terms ora subdivision. We have the first one which requires a variance, and we have a second Which does not. It meets ordinance as it stands. And unfortunately that one is not the most desirable of theSe subdivisions. And with that I do agree with staff's analysis, especially on page 13 'when it's stated that granting a variance is more desirable than requiring the applicant to meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. And I also agree with staff's condition 13, and that a conservation easement be placed over the property to the west of the access easement in the report, so I'll leave it at that. Peterson: Thank you. Any other comments? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I'll continue down the line here. The first time this project came before the . Planning Comtnission, Ladd I believe made the comment toward the end of the meeting that unfortunately there's nothing we can do because the subdivision'meets code. And as we all know that it turned out that it didn't. And so now there is something we can do to stop the two lakeshore lots, which I guess I'm inclined to do. I'm not convinced that two 75 foot lakeshore lots are more desirable than the alternate plat. The alternate plat has drawbacks as well, but I think there's some positive aspects about it and one being that the building heights would be lower because the setbacks allow for a larger footprints and the possibility for walkout ramblers instead of two stories on the lakeshore. And I think as far as lake quality, aesthetics has a lot to do with that and having three stories on the lake side is a 10t to look at and a walkout rambler is a nicer lake home. I think that's a positive of the alternate plat. I think the alternate plat allows for the lakeshore lot to be more in keeping with the neighboring lots as far as the length of the lakeshore, or yeah. Of the lakeshore. There's only one other lot that's less than 75 feet. All the others have quite a bit more than 75 feet of lakeshore, and when you're measuring lakeshore it's the amount of beach that counts. I think that it protects the lake by limiting dock and boat access: And also protects the lake by limiting the oPening up of views for one home rather than two homes. Lake owners have the right to clear trees so that they can create a view for themselves and one home which would lessen that amount that would be taken away from the shoreline itself. So I guess I'm not convinced that the two 75 foot lakeshore lots are more desirable than the alternate plat and I'll be interested to hear what Alison and Ladd have to say. Convince me otherwise. Blackowiak: Okay. Well the question before us tonight is does this plan, this proposal, meet the requirements or not? And as I look at it, the code states 90 feet. Cities have the right to require more strict standards, but cannot depart downward from State law. State law says 75 feet, but Chanhassen has chosen 90 foot for their lakeshore frontage. So the city has every right to do that. I don't see a problem with that at all and that in and of itself is not a reason to grant a variance, just because a state has chosen 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 a lower number. We have a deck variance ahead of us, coming up this evening and I'd like to rephrase, staff has recommended denial of that variance because it doesn't meet requirements and I wanted to sort of rephrase some of the possible responses to the Igel variance request using what, the verbiage that's used on the deck response. For example. Literal enforcement would cause undue hardship. The deck response is, a single family home exists on the site so the applicant has reasonable use of the property. Applies here. B. Conditions upon which petition for a variance are 'based are not applicable generally to other properties within the same zoning classification. The deck response is, there are many properties located, and I'll paraphrase here, on lakes that are required to meet required setbacks. It applies here. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. The response to the deck people is well the fact that the applicant is proposing a design that does not meet ordinance requirements is creating'the hardship. I think that applies here too. They're proposing a design that does not meet the requirements and that is not something that the city is asking to do or the neighbors are asking to do or anything.' It's their choice. Therefore self created. Granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public Welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The response to the deck variance is, it will permit a, and I'll say lakeshore width here, that is less than those within 500 feet. I mean as I look at the response that we're giving to a deck request, I can easily apply to this. I think the applicant has reasonable use of the property. There's a home on the property right now. I think that there are other properties in the area that are required to meet the setbacks. I feel that it is the design that is driving the variance, nothing else. And finally I think that others in the neighborhood, iakeshore widths specifically are equal to or greater than the 90 foot requirement by the city, therefore I don't really feel that the applicant has met the burden and I don't find any of those facts. Finally I can't comment as to whether or not any other proposal may or may not meet our variance requirements,.but I can say that I do not believe that the proposal before us tonight does. Peterson: Thank you. Anything Ladd? Conrad: Sure. Joel, I was around when that subdivision came ill. That's really sad. I really think it's pretty clear. It's not, I'm not waivering here and maybe it's too much history. It's probably too much history. The reason we have 90 feet shoreline ordinance is for a couple reasons. One, we set the, we are sort of a leader in the State of Minnesota in terms of wetland preservation, water quality, caring about the environment. We really are. Whether that's sort of hype in our literature that we put out in newsletters but we've set the way. The committees that we formed 20 years ago sort of put the movement in. The 90 foot lot lines are not a mistake. They're not. They were there for a reason so, because and I've got to tell you because some of you haven't been here that long. It affects water quality. It affects intensity of use on the lake. Now 15 feet doesn't matter much. You know it's not really going to, and if you were on Lotus Lake last weekend you would say well, it's packed anyway so who cares? Another couple boats doesn't matter, but that's the intent and that's what we're kind of doing here. We're playing with the intent of the ordinance. And you can probably doubt me because my memory's going a little bit but I do remember Joel back a few years ago. It is for water quality and water intensification. You just have to stop it. And this is one reason that you, one leverage tool that you have. So to overcome this one thing tonight we have to say there's a reason to allow that. There's a better purpose there, and that's what I was kind of waiting. And neighbors, I think they probably have rights to put two homes there. I think based on what we've seen in the past, there's a good chance they're going to be able to put a second lot there. I'd be hard pressed, and again we haven't looked at it very seriously but you've got to know, we've allowed things like that in the past. They have enough square footage. We allow private drives. They're probably going to be able to do it. That's a different issue however. Totally different issue. The issue we're looking at right now is do we allow a variance? Well yeah, I could make a case for it. Well one lot has to be the right size but then, because they've got enough feet for one. You've got to make one the right footage. You've got to. Split the difference. Anyway, so you look at the code and the Code 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 .. says something and specifically you look at the plat. You look at Sunrise Hills. The Subdivision doesn't -fit. It just visually doesn't fit. So you look at that. You look at the covenants. Their intent, which shame on you to let them expire. Well whatever happened, again much better if you have control over it than 'letting us have control. The covenants said something. Look at that. Look at the 34 foot elevation drop on the property. That's what lakeshore footage istrying to do. This is not a 2% grade. This is a different deal. This is what the ordinance was set up tO rea. lly monitor. Look at th~.community" · involvement. Look at the two variances when really they should only be applYing for one. One can meet the 90 foot. The rest, we should be looking at one variance. A lot that's 30 foot short. So I looked at the positives. The positives are, they're probably going to get. The poSitive's allowing the variance. -. They'll prObably get the second house. They're probably going to impact the Paulsen's a lot more with that second house. They'll be right in yoUr front yard. The tree coverage, they're going to reduce the ' tree coverage but even at the tree coverage elimination, and I looked at it, it's not that bad. I can't find, if Mr. Paulsen came up here, you know he's the one that's going to be impacted when the second house goes in. If he was, he's the one that's going to be impacted and he would have been the chip that I would have played one way or another on this. And even if that was the chip, I don't think I coUld do it because ! know what the purpose of the 90 foot frontage was. That's all. Peterson: Okay. Thank you Ladd. My comments are not dissimilar to the last few that you've heard. Every time I do a variance I look for a compelling reason to do the variance and tonight I don't see that I have a compelling reason for the variance. My only caveat to that is, I believe ifI had a choice I would prefer to grant this variance versus the one that will probably be here in a few weeks, and that is the only thing that doesn't set well with me tonight ifI vote to deny this variance. The one I get in a few weeks as far as a subdivision where I don't have a choice, will not be as good of a community integration. So that's my concern but based upon what I have tonight, and that really is the only reason that I would vote against it is I don't see a compelling reason to grant the variance. The other issues brought up tonight I don't see as being that relevant in it's interpretation of the facts and I think that facts present themselves I think pretty clearly tonight that this is the only variance that is required. So with those final comments I would entertain a motion. Conrad: I would make the motion that the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat and the variance to the shoreland width requirement of the subdivision #00-2 for the Lucas Igel Addition as shown on the plans in the staff report dated February 11th per the staff report. Peterson: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. My other concern about what was presented at the last meeting as the alternate plat. And personally I believe that alternate plat is far less desirable than the plat that requires the variance. I'm looking quite a bit at tree impact and looking at the plat, and having looked at the property out there, I'm quite convinced that it will have a great impact on the neighborhood, the look of the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood with another house being stacked above the lower one. Personally I think that it will be more detrimental to the neighborhood than splitting it into two lakeshore homes. So I'm torn. So at this point I'm really hard pressed to make a decision personally one or the other on that basis. Peterson: Understand. That was the issue I brought earlier so any further discussion? 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 .. Sidney: I guess one comment. Thanks Ladd for the history on lakeshore and I guess when I'm thinking about it here that really I aTM torn, like Uli, and I had a chance to look over some of the materials but not all of them necessarily. But I do think that we should go through the process in this case and I guess I'm changing my views as I'm sitting here with having listened to the other commissioners and would not .support the variance at this point and 'continue the process. Conrad: Mr. Chairman? Just a quick comment. It could end up worse. Could. We're only. look at one thing tonight. So that's what you've got to review. We're not playing a game of cards where we can, . 'you know as we're looking at one thing in the site plan. You're looking at it the right way. It could be worse. But, and not I'm making, not for the lake. Maybe for the neighbors but not for the lake and that was the intent of the ordinance that is really managing our discussion. Kind: Mr. Chair? Also on the alternate plat what we've been shown to date I 'believe is a worst case scenario. I think there probably are other ways to position the buildings on the site and ifI was the · applicant I would have presented the worst case scenario also so, I guess I agree with LuAnn. I'd like to have the process continue and just look at the variance tonight. Peterson: With that in mind, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat with a variance to the shoreland width requirement, Subdivision #00-2 for Lucas Igel Addition as shown on the plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000 and revised April 20,2000. 'All voted in favor, except Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: This goes onto the Cit3, Council on the 19th of August, is that right? Generous: No, that was mistaken. It's the 14th. Peterson: Of August? Generous: Yes. Pcterson: Thank everybody for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW REOUEST FOR A 100,000 SO. FT. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING (DATA LINK CORPORATION) TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 5, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7TM ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND LOCATED WEST OF UPLAND DRIVE AND NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE WEST, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff'?. 15 SUNRISE HILLS ESTABLISHED 1957 ASSOCIATION LOT SIZE House Number # of Lots 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 FrontierTrall (southside) 7194 7196 7198 7200 7206 7208 7210 7212 7214 7216 7218 7320 7226 7228 7230 7332 7334 7336 7338 7340 Lot and Block Lot 5 Block 3 Lot 6 BloCk 3 Lot 7 Bloc{< 3 Lot 8 Block 3 LOt 9 Block 3 Lot 10 Block 3 LOt11 Block 3 .Lot 12 Block 3 !Lot 13 Block 3 Lot 14 Block 3 Lot 15 Block 3 jLot 3 Block 1 ILOt 19 Block 3 Lot 20 Block 3 Lot 21 Block 3 Lot 7 Block 2 Lot 8 Block 2 Lot 9 Block 2 LOt 10 Block 2 Lot11 Bock2 FrontierTrail- 21 7201 22 7203 23 7207 24 7209 25 7211 26 7213 27 7215 28 7301 29 7303 30 7305 31 7307 32 7329 33 7331 34 7333 35 7335 36 7337 37 7339 7341 38 (17057plus4291) Kiowa 39 7200 40 7202 41 7204 42 7203 Laredo 43 7300 44 7301 45 7302 46 7303 47 7304 48 7305 49 7306 50 7307 Highland 51 400 52 402 53 404 54 406 55 408 56 410 57 401 Longview 58 7340 59 7320 60 7321 61 7361 Northside ILot 1Block 1 !Lot 2 Block 1 i Lot 1 Block 2 !Lot 2 Block 2 ILOt 3 Block 2 iLotl Block 1 ~:Lot 2 Block 2 iLot 3 Block 2 i Lot 4 Block 2 ',Lot 5 Block 2 !Lot 17 Block 1 i Lot 8 Block 1 !Lot 7 B Io<~ 1 ~=Lot 6 Block 1 iLot 5 BE)ck 1 ;iLot 4Block 1 !Lot 3 Block 1 ~.Lot 1,2 Block 1 [. Lot 1, Block 3 ! Lot 2, Block 3 i Lot 3, Block 3 i Lot 4, Block 3 !Lot 13 Block 1 iLot 12 Block 1 !Lot 14 Block 1 !Lot 11 Block 1 i Lot 15 Block 1 iL or 10 Block 1 iLot 16 Block 1 !Lot 9 Bloc~ 1 iLot 1 Block 2 i Lot 2 Block 2 iLot 3 Block 2 Lot 4 Block 2 Lot 5 Block 2 I!LOt 6 Block 2 iiLot I Block3 iLot 5, Block 1 iLot 4, Block 1 I Lot 2, Block 1 iLot 1, Block 1 7343*FrontierTrail [ Total , i Average SUNRISE HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS Add- Ition 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 '4[ 4! G.I.S.Area (rounded down) 17942 20458 22670 24074 23390 23441 22193 20117 20307 31135 36734 31807 18024 15442 15433 15509 15446 15399 13784 15096 57964 44021 23430 21409 23763 26244 22999 20313 19631 21099 15363 14118 13995 13950 14037 40233 19359 21348 22658 23200 67490 21463 36370 24402 13846 47127 15399 32331 15893 17562 17341 13932 14047 14005 14030 15310 17070 19547 19962 19527 14246 1368435 22432.21 22,432 I1' AVG LOT AREA ALL LOTS 1st Addition Lakeshore V ¢5S~Sm Lot Ar~ Fron~ge 1550g 15446 15399 13784 15096 15363 14118 13995 13950 14037 4O233 120 19359 110 21348 70 36370 24402 112 13846 153 47127 15399 150 32331 15893 17562 17341 13932 14047 14005 14030 15310 17070 536302 715 19153.64 119.1666667 19,153 FT 119 FT AVG AVG LOT LAKESHORE AREA OF LOTS IN ADDITION I ADDITION 1 '7343 Frontier Trail is within 500 ft of property, but not Sunrise Hills all lots with 1st add1 SUNRISE HILLS ESTABLISHED 1957 ASSOCIATION LOT SIZE House Numben # of Frontier Trail Lots (southslde) i Lot and i Block 7194 ;Lot 5 Block 3 7196 iLot 6 Block 3 7198 ILot 7 Block 3 7200 !Lot 8 Block 3 7206 !Loi 9 Block 3 7208 !Lot 10 Block 3 7210 iLot 11 Block 3 7212 !Lot 12 Block 3 7214 !Lot 13 Block 3 7216 iLot 14 Block 3 7218 ;Lot 15 Block 3 7320 Lot 3 Block 1 7226 i Lot 19 Block 3 7228 iLot 20 Block 3 7230 !Lot 21Block 3 7332 iLot 7 Block 2 7334 iLot 8 Block 2 7336 i Lot 9 Block 2 7338 iLot 10 Block 2 7340 ~Lot 11 Block 2 ! G.l.S.Area Add-i (rounded ition down) 2 ! 17942 2 i 20458 2 I 22670 2 24074 2 23390 2 23441 2 22193 2 20117 2 2O3O7 2 31135 2 36734 4 31807 2 18024 2 15442 2 15433 1 15509 1 15446 1 15399 1 13784 1 15096 Frontier Trail - Northside 21 : 7201 iLo! 1Blo.ck 1 22 ~--' 7203 :Lot2Blockl 23 : 7207 Lot 1 Bloc~ 2 24 7209 Lot 2 Block 2 25 7211 Lot 3 Block 2 26 7213 Lot 1 Block 1 _ 27 7215 'Lot 2 Block 2 28 7301 iLot 3 Block 2 ._ 29 7303 :Lot 4 Block 2 30 7305 Lot 5 Block 2 31 7307 rLot 17 Block 1 32 7329 Lot 8 Block 1 33 , 7331 Lot 7 Block 1 34 7333 :Lot 6 8lock 1 35 7335 :Lot 5 Block 1 __ 36 7337 Lot 4Block 1 37 7339 Lot 3 Block 1 7341 (17057plus 4291) Lot 1,2 Block 1 57964 44021 23430 21409 23763 26244 22999 20313 19631 21099 15363 14118 13995 13950 14037 40233 19359 21348 Kiowa 39 7200 Lot 1, Block 3 40 7202 Lot 2, Block 3 41 7204 Lot 3, Block 3 42 7203 Lot 4, Block 3 Laredo ' 43 7300 Lot 13 Block 1 ; 44 ' 7301 !Lot 12 Block 1 : 45 ~ 7302 'Lot 14 Block 1 46 7303 :Lot 11 Block 1- 47 i 7304 !Lot 15 Block 1 48 ! 7305 :Lot 10 Brock 1 49 7306 :Lot 16 Block 1 Lot 9 Block 1 50 ' 7307 HighTand - 51 400 52 402 53 404 54 406 55 - 4O8 56 i 410 57 ' 401 Lot 1 Block 2 Lot 2 Block 2 Lot 3 Block 2 Lot 4 Block 2 Lot 5 Block 2 ;Lot 6 Block 2 Lot 1 Block3 Longview ~ 58r 7340 7Lot 5, Block I 59 r 7320 Lot 4, Block 1 6~0 i 73~21__.:Lot 2, Block 1 61 7361 :Lot 1, Block 1 7343'Frontier Trail Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Average 22658 23200 67490 21463 36370 24402 13846 47127 15399 32331 15893 17562 17341 13932 14047 14005 14O3O 15310 17070 19547 19962 19527 14246 1368435 22432.21 Lakeshore Frontage 150 145 Lakeshore Lots G,I,S, Area 57964 44021 120 110 40233 19359 21348 36370 112 ; 244O2 153 _ ! 47127 150 _ 1010 290824 Lots Withln 500 FT G,I,S. Area 23390 23441 22193 15433 15509 15446 15399 13784 15096 44021 23430 21409 23763 26244 22999 20313 19631 21099 15363 14118 13995 13950 14037 40233 19359 21348 SUNRISE HILLS 22,432FT NEIGHBORHOOD AVG STANDARDS LOTAREA ALLLOTS 126.25 126 FI' AVG LAKESHORE 36370 24402 13846 47127 15399 32331 15893 17562 17341 13932 14047 14005 14030 15310 17070 57594 901262 36353 ---r 21458.62 __ 36,353 13' 21,459 FT AVG LOT AVG LOT AREA AREA OF '7343 Frontier Trail is within 500 ft of property, but not Sunrise Hills Lakeshore Frontage Lots within 500 FT 150 145 120 110 7O 112 153 150 32O 1330 147.78 147 FT AVG LAKESHORE OF LOTS LAKESHORE LOTS WITHIN'WITHIN 500 FT LOTS 500 FT all lots with 1st add1 CITY OF PC DATE: 9/5/00 CC DATE: 9/25/00 REVIEW DEADLINE: 'I 0/3/00 CASE #: 00-2 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lake shore parcel into 2 single family lots (one lake shore and on non-lake shore) on property zoned RSF Lucas Igel Addition -. LOCATION: Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive APPLICANT: David & Rachel Igel 6195 Strawberry Ln. Shorewood, MN 55331 (952) 920-8300 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 - 4 units/acre) ACREAGE: 1.09 acres DENSITY: 1.83 units per acre, gross and net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for subdivision approval to create two lots, one 21,752 square feet and the other 25,749 square feet. These parcels shall be accessed via a shared driveway. The existing house on the site will be razed to accommodate one of the two new houses. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi judicial decision. Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to create two lots from a 47,501 square foot property. One of the lots would be a lake shore lot. The other lot would be a non-lake shore lot. The applicant has shown a 60' by 60' building pad as well as an estimate of the eventual building to be included on the property. It should be noted that the buildable area for Lot 1 is constrained on the west by the line where the lot width meets the 90 foot width. Adjacent zoning and land uses are N - RSF, single family home, S - RSF, single family homes, W - RSF, single family homes, and E ~ Lotus Lake. Water and sewer are available to the property and currently connected to the existing house. The site slopes from west to east with a high point at Laredo Drive of 940 and a Iow point at the lake at 896.3 (the Ordinary High Water elevation of the Lake). The two lots will be accessed via a common driveway which will enter onto Laredo at the existing driveway, paralleling the north property line. The site has approximately 77 percent canopy coverage. The ultimate canopy cover will be 55 percent. Code requires a minimum canopy coverage of 46 percent. The existing house on the site has a basement elevation of 914.4. The proposed houses have lowest floor elevations of 929 and 912 on Lots 1 and 2, respectivelyl (Lot 1 is the proposed westerly lot and Lot 2 is the proposed easterly, lake shore, lot.) The proposed lots are 21,752 and 25,749 square feet, Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Minimum lot size for shore land property is 20,000 square-feet and non-shore land property is 15,000 square feet, _ The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. Plans propose using the existing blacktop driveway to service both lots. Subject to the revisions contained in this report, staff believes that the proposed development complies with City Ordinance and is therefore being recommended for approval. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Sections r8-56 through 18-63, Subdivision Design Standards Sections 20-476 through 20-486 Shoreline Management District Sections 20-611 through 20-616 RSF, Single Family Residential District Section 20-905, Single Family Dwellings Section 20-908, Yard Regulations BACKGROUND In 1956, the Town Board of Chanhassen approved the plat for Sunrise Hills 1st Addition. On December 19, 1956, the Sunrise Hills 1st Addition was accepted and approved by the County Board of Carver County. A separate plat for the parcel is also proceeding through the review process. This other plat requests a variance from the lake shore lot width requirement and proposes the creation of two lake Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 3 shore lots. Both plats will be presented to City Council for ultimate determination of which will be approved. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Igel Addition development are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) 47,501 SF or 1.091 ac. Baseline canopy coverage 77% or 36,576 SF Minimum canopy coverage allowed 46% or 21,850 SF Proposed tree preservation 55% or 26,126 SF The developer meets minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore no replacement plantings are required. Existing vegetation serves as appropriate buffer yard plantings for most of the development. However, staff recommends that plantings be added to the area directly north of the proposed home on Lot 2. This area is cun'ently paved driveway and will become yard for the proposed home. -Assuming a 10' x 100' buffer yard, minimum requirements include one overstory tree, 2 understory trees and tt~'ee shrubs. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will_ be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable xvith the first building pmunit for a home in this development. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLANT (SWMP) l~'ater QualiO, Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates with a medium density use at $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of 1.09 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project would be $872.00. Water QuantiO, 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/low density developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. Therefore the applicant will be responsible for a $2,158.20 fee. Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 4 These fees are due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL There is an existing home on the lot that is to be razed prior to redevelopment. The submitted plan shows garage floor and basement elevations for each of the proposed homes. Since the homes are proposed to be custom graded at time of building and a detailed grading and drainage plan was not provided, staff is unable to determine the full grading impacts. Minimal tree loss is anticipated on Lot 2 since the proposed home is in close proximity to the existing dwelling. Grading activity for Lot 1 will impact approximately 1/3 of the trees on the lot. This would be difficult to avoid because of the number of trees on the lot. Prior to final plat approval, a detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer will be required for staff review and approval. UTILITIES Municipal sewer and water service is available to the site. The existing house is connected to City sewer and water. In conjunction with the razing of the existing dwelling, the appropriate demolition permits will be required. The parcel has been previously assessed for one sewer and water unit; therefore, the newly created lot Will be responsible for one sewer and water-hook-up and connection charge at the time of building permit issuance. The 2000 sanitary sewer and water connection charges are $4,075 each and the trunk hook-up charges are $1,300 for sanitary and $1,694 for water. These fees are due at time of building permit issuance and may be specially assessed against the property. The cost of the water service from Laredo Lane to the property line will be deducted from the applicant's water connection charges on Lot 1. The applicant shall notify the City 30 days in advance to request the water service extension from Laredo Lane. The plan shows two proposed sanitary services to the new house on Lot 2. Staff recommends deleting both proposed lines and utilizing the existing sanitary service for Lot 2. Extension of sanitary sewer service to Lot 1 will involve encroaching upon Lot 2. The submitted plan does not address the issue of water services for the two lots. Currently, one water service exists for the existing building. It may not be possible to utilize this service for the proposed house on Lot 2. If the existing water line lies under the proposed house pad for Lot 1, then a new water service would have to be installed. Either way, a new water service will need to come from Laredo Lane to the property line to service one of the two lots. This will involve open cutting of Laredo Lane to tap the existing watermain. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend the water service to the property line of Lot 1 from Laredo Lane. The applicant shall escrow with the City, $2,500 for the water service extension from Laredo Lane. Prior to final plat approval, a utility plan signed by a registered civil engineer will be required. The applicant and staff will work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. Staff recommends that the applicant escrow $2000 with the City to guarantee extension of a sanitary sewer service form Lot 2 to Lot 1. Further, the applicant will need to prepare private cross-access easements to be recorded against both parcels for the Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 5 extension of sewer and water lines through Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Typical front, rear, and side yard drainage and utility easements will also be required for each lot. STREETS The site is accessible from Laredo Lane through an existing blacktop driveway. The plan proposes using the driveway to service both lots while widening the common portion of the drive to meet the 20-foot wide, 7-ton per axle design requirement. Staff believes that this driveway meets the private driveway/street ordinance. The driveway grades for the proposed house on Lot 1 appear to be greater than 10%. This may necessitate lowering the proposed garage floor elevation one foot. A cross-access easement and maintenance agreement for both lots will need to be prepared and recorded for the common portion of the driveway through Lot 1. COMPLIANCE TABLE AREA (sq. ft.) FRONTAGE (ft.) DEPTH Lake Frontage (ft.) 20,000 lake 90 125 90 shore; 15,000 non-lake shore Lot 1 21,752 64.29# 219 NA Lot 2 25,749 187.4'. 142 175 Total 47,501 Code Requirements Lots on cul-de-sac lnUSt meet the minimum 90 feet lot width at the building setback line. Lots accessed via a private drive nmst have a lot width of 100 feet as measured at the front building setback. There has been considerable discussion whether Lot 1 must meet a 90 foot or a 100 foot lot width at the building setback line. The City Attorney has stated, "the only reasonable interpretation of the requirement is that it only applies to lots that don't have direct frontage on a street." However, the plat, as proposed could comply with both the 90 and 100 foot width requirement. The front setback line would just shift back on the property. The buildable area would be compressed, but there is still a considerable area for building within the setbacks. There has been additional discussion whether the area of a driveway easement is included or excluded from the lot area calculations. Staff contends that unless the driveway is located on a separate parcel of land, such as an outlot or another property, the area under the easement is included in the lot area for that lot. The City Attorney concurs with this interpretation and states, "Shared private driveways are not excluded from lot area requirements." The ordinance states that the area included within a neck or flag of a lot is excluded from lot area calculations (section 20- 615 (1) For neck or flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained with the "neck" has been excluded from consideration) in order to dete~Tnine that minimum lot area is being met. However, this provision of the ordinance does not apply to the proposed plat. Further, the area contained within a driveway easement does not divide a lot in to separate parcels. The City Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 6 Attorney concurs and states, "Shared driveways are not excluded in calculating lot area. A shared driveway does not 'divide' a lot into two lots." SUBDMSION FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District and the Shoreline District regulations. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans. . The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, suSceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; . Finding: 'The proposed site is suitable 'for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. . The proposed sUbdivision makes adequate provision for water supPly, Storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required bY this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all required easements. 4 The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 7 Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infi'astructure. PRIVATE STREET FINDINGS In order to pe~rnit private streets, the city must find that the following conditions exist: (1) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the sun'ounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to se~we other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources including wetlands and forested re'cas. Finding: The prevailing development pattern does not make it feasible or appropriate to construct a public street. The proposed private street serving the development is .not necessary to provide access to adjacent propertieS. Were a public street installed, even more trees would be impacted than proposed under this plan. The private street will minimize the impervious surface on the property. The use of a public street is impractical. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 5, 2000, to review the proposed subdivision. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the preliminary plat with modification to condition 1 and the addition of conditions 15 tb2'ough 18. 1. The front setback for Lot 1, Block 1, shall be at the line where the lot width meets 90 feet. The applicant shall also show the front setback line where the lot width meets the 100 feet. 15. The engineering department will review to make sure that there is no increased runoff into the lake from the construction of the private street and driveway. 16. Relocate the 60 x 60 foot pad to make sure that it is totally legal and defensible on the subdivision submitted. 17. Staff will review all the information and documents received at the Planning Co~nmission meeting and respond appropriately in time for the City Council meeting. 18. The applicant will delete the house foot prints and tree removal information from the preliminary plat before going to City Council. Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 8 Staff has requested that the applicant provide a preliminary plat plan showing both the 90 and 100 foot lot width lines and deleting the estimated house pads and tree removal area. The Council can then decide if it wants a 90 or 100 foot lot width as the front setback line and modify condition number 1, accordingly. The proposed conditions 16 and 18 should be shown'for City Council review and approval as part of the preliminary plat and are therefore not necessary as conditions. Staff believes that the City Attorney and staff, as part of the update, have addressed the issues raised as directed by proposed condition 17. Impervious surface coverage. The applicant has shown a plan that estimates future impervious coverage of the site. This plan states one coverage, an interested neighbor has calculated another coverage. Either way, the ordinance permits a maximum site coverage of 25 percent. If the house and or driveway are too large, then one or both will have to be reduced. Please note that when we calculate impervious surface coverage, we exclude the area under a deck unless this area is compacted or covered in concrete for a patio since water can and does run through the boards in a deck to the ground below. 60 x 60 foot pad. Staff believes that the intent of the subdivision ordinance for the 60 x 60 foot pad was to calculate tree removal area when a specific house plan was not know. The ordinanCe specifies a "suitable building site". The applicant has shown more than a suitable site. HoweVer, this is a moot point since they have also shown a 60 x 60 foot area. The applicant's survey is to provide this on the plans for review. 90 versus 100 foot lot width at front building setback. While staff belieVes that the 90 foot width is appropriate, the applicant can comply with the 100 foot width at the front setback line. The applicant's survey is-to provide this on the plans for review. Multi-sided lots. This issue is not limited to this property. The City of Chanhassen is not a perfect world with property lines running along all section lines. The existing lot has five sides. While the proposed plat has additional impaCts to the neighborhood, it is within the standards established as part of the City of Chanhassen ordinance requirements and, therefore, should be approved. Private street. See City Attorney's letter. As far as the 20 foot setback is concerned, staff contends that this setback is from the edge of the paved surface, not the edge of the easement. One of the conditions was for staff to revieTM the runoff from the private driveway in comparison to existing runoff conditions. The Planning Commission specifically requested that no additional runoff be generated to impact the lake with the additional lot. Upon review of the drainage patterns for this area, the lot currently sheet drains easterly towards Lotus Lake from Laredo. Plans proposed to expand a small portion of the driveway to 20 feet in width which will add very little additional runoff towards the lake. There is a long distance between the driveway and the lake whereby vegetative cover will slow the velocity of water and filter sediments from any runoff prior to reaching the lake as it has done in the past. Staff does Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 9 not believe that an additional homesite impervious surface will negatively impact the lake over and above what currently exists on the property due to the fact the house is set back a significant distance from the lake. There is no doubt that an additional homesite on the property will incrementally increase the amount of runoff through the site due to the increased impervious surface coverage on the lot. Again, staff does not believe any negative impacts will occur to the lake with an additional homesite being placed on the property. We are not recommending any additional storm drainage improvements or mitigation measures. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves preliminary plat, Subdivision #00-2, for Lucas Igel Addition, as shown on plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000, revised April 20, 2000, and revised August 4, 2000, and subject to the folloxving conditions: 1. The front setback for Lot 1, Block 1. shall be at the line where the lot width meets 90 feet. 2. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the approPriate department or agency. , 3. Final reports must be Provided for any soil correction work before building permits will be issued. 4. Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code. 5~ The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements including one overstory tree, two understory trees and two shrubs. The buffer yard plantings shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot 2. . The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees xvill be payable with the first building permit for a home in this development. o The proposed residential development of 1.09 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $872.00. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $2,158.20. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. 8. A demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The existing building must be demolished prior to recording the final plat. Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 10 o Ail existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the City's Building Department. All sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code and/or the City of Chanhassen's standard utility specifications. 10. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan along with a utility plan will be required prior to final plat consideration for city staff to review and approve. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to site grading. 11. The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 1 from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and sanitary sewer services to Lot 1. The applicant shall escrow with the City, $4,500 to guarantee the water and sanitary sewer service extensions. A sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charge will be applied at time of building permit issuance on Lot 1. The cost of extending the water service to Lot 1 from Laredo Lane shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge for Lot 1. The applicant shall prepare and record a cross-access easement agreement for the water and sanitary sewer lines that encroach upon the lots. ~ 12. The typical 5-foot and 1 O-foot Wide side, front and rear'yard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. In addition, a 20-foot Wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through Lot 2. 13. The developer shall be responsible for all city attorney fees associated with the review and recording of the final plat documents, 'Park and Trail fees, Surface Water Management Fees, and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 14. All driveways shall be paved with an all-weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Both lots must be accessed via a common curb cut as shown on the plans. The location of the driveway is to be reviewed by the applicant and staff to minimize tree removal. The common portion of the driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7-ton axle weight design. Cross-access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and recorded against both lots. The driveway access easement shall be 30 feet wide. 15. The engineering department will review to make sure that there is no increased runoff into the lake from the construction of the private street and driveway." ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 11 2. Development Review Application 3. Reduced Copy of Preliminary Plat 4. Letter from Gerald W. and Janet Dee Paulsen to Scott Botcher dated 8/21/00 5. Letter from Debbie Lloyd to Kathryn Aanenson dated August 28, 2000 6. Public Heating Notice and Mailing List 7. Letter from Gerald W. Paulsen to Kathryn Aanenson dated 8/30/00 8. Letter from Debbie Lloyd to Planning Commission dated 8/30/00 9. Letter from Roger Knutson to Robert Generous dated 8/31/00 10. Planning Commission Minutes of 9/5/00 11. Impervious Surface Calculation, Gerald Paulsen 12. Letter from Gerald W. and Janet D. Paulsen dated 9/17/00 13. Letter from Rachel A. Igel to Kate Aanenson and Robert Generous dated 8/2/00 14. Memo from David Hempel, Asst. City Engineer dated 9/20/00 15. Letter fi'om Roger Knutson to Robert Generous dated 9/19/00 Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 12 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Lucas Igel Addition Subdivision On September 5, 2000, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of David Igel for preliminary plat approval of property. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Single Family Residential. 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven (7) affects and our findings regarding them are: lo . o The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; 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; Lucas Igel Addition September 5, 2000 Page 13 , . o The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, stmrn drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: mo Lack of adequate stom~ water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitms, sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. . The planning repol~t #00-2 dated September 5, 2000, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Plmming Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat. ADOPTED by the Chm~mssen Plarming Commission this 5th day of September, 2000. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY' Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary g:\plan\bg',lucas igel addition.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN · · 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION !LF_PHONE (Day time) OWNER: ADDRESS: ~ELEPHONE: · Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/EaSements Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit .. Planned Unit Development* Variance Wetland Alteration Permit' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X _~ Su~ivision* Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CU PIS P R/VACNA~AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ L~.,.~ o___,,.~ '~ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/='. X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract 3TE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each' application. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 'L...-O~ % ) '~ ~,oc:_'Y__ '~ 1 ~L.,M~(~ TOTAL ACREAGE \-~k WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING_ --~ REQUESTED ZONING NO DESIGNATION PRESENT LAND USE REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied 'by all information' and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions.- Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the Applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that 1 am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with '- all City requirements with regard to this re,quest. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party Whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to th~s apphcation. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make. this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for-submiSsion of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my kn0wledge. .~ The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. //Si~natu~of Applicant S,gn'~ure of Fee Owner '~ ~)"' ~ Application Received on Fee Paid Date Date Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. SCALE: ! 1' = 20' ~ LAREDO LANE PROPOSED LUC¢~ IGEL ADDmON NOTE: T~ ~ ~ ~ ~W. (~) ~ b 47. ~I ~. ~ ~ 1.~1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~21,~.~ z~ ~ (~ ~ ~ 10~. O.H.W. 7~ ff O.H,w. E~.- / ¢ '1:- CITY OF CHANHASSEN ,MU6 o ~ 2ooo CHANt~o ................... 7305 Laredo Dr. Chanhassen MN 55317 August 21, 2000 Scott Botcher, City Manager City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Proposed Igel Addition, 7303 Laredo Dr., request for City Attorney ruling. Manager Botcher: Following is a list of three items pertinent to the subdivision of property on Lotus Lake. We differ with the interpretation made by staff, and wish to request that the City Attorney make a ruling on these items prior to the September 5 Planning Commission meeting.. #1. Any lot accessed by a private driveway must have a lot width of 100 feet. Refer to Attachment A (developer's plat #8). The following code applies: Chap 20 Zoning Article VII. Shoreland Management District Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The folloxving minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district. (3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line. Sec. 20-1. Definitions Building line - a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Setback - the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or roadway easement line; and, within shoreland areas. Setback also means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the ordinary high water mark. Staff view: Since Lot 1 could access directly to the street, it is not necessary that it meet the 100-foot lot width requirement. Our view: Both proposed lots are accessed by the same private driveway/street. Both lots must meet the 100-foot requirement. Lot 1 (west, non-lake shore lot), fronts on the cul-de-sac, and must have a width of 100 ft. On the plat, Lot 1 does not meet the lot width requirement for a front building setback line. It measures only about 80 ft, and therefore does not meet code. (c) Easements shall be provided along each side of the centerline of any water course or drainage channel, to a width sufficient to provide proper maintenance and protection and to provide for storm water run-off from a one-hundred-year storm of 24 hours' duration. Where necessary, drainage easements corresponding to lot lines shall be provided. Such easements for drainage purposes shall not be less than 20 feet in width. Staff view: Staff has historically interpreted that in the lot definition a private street does not divide the lot unless a private street is included in a separate parcel or outlot that divides the property in to two separate parcels. A private street that is included within an easement over one or more lots does not divide a parcel into separate parcels. It would be similar to assuming that a drainage and utility easement or any other easement that runs down the middle of a lot would be creating two lots, one on each side of the easement, which is not the case. Our view: The question is not whether an easement divides a lot. The question is whether a private street/driveway can divide a lot. The private street/driveway shown on the plat Attachment B) does not traverse the perimeter of the property as is true in the case of other private streets which the city has approved. The private street for Lot 2 (south lot) divides/crosses through the middle of Lot 1 (north lot) which code says cannot be done. Cordially, (952) 934-3032 (home) (651) 456-7784 (work) Attachments: A: 8/4/00 Lucas Igel Addition Plat #8 (stacked lots) B: 4/20/00 Lucas Igel Addition Plat #7 (2 lake shore) Copy: Roger Knutson, City Attorney Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director Robert Generous, Senior Planner Nancy Mancino, Mayor Mark Engel, Councilman Linda Jansen, Councilwoman Steve Labatt, Councilman Mark Senn, Councilman Craig Peterson, Chair, Planning Commission Alison Blackowiak, Planning Commission Matthew Burton, Planning Commission Ladd Conrad, Planning Commission Debra Kind, Planning Commission LuAnn Sidney, Planning Commission Ulrico Sacchet, Planning Commission Janet D. Paulsen . - \ \ · I I / ' I / / ! / ~% / ~ 3 ..Zg. Ot.~g N / , NOI.LICIOV q301 SVOFI-I 03SOdO~d O00Z/t,/g :po,!^, O00:/O~:/t, :pos!^; O00E/O['/[' :pos!^, O00~/g/~ ( q:l(t[I '11 I0'1 lU;Ul~ \ ~NV-i oo. - Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, Mn 55317 August 28, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Ddve Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Proposed Lucas Igel Addition, Staff Report Attachment Attached is a copy of a petition circulated in sundse Hills. It is signed by 89 individuals representing 55 residences in the Sunrise Hills Civic Association expressing opposition to the subdivision of the property at 7303 Laredo Drive. This supersedes the letter and petition of May 9, 2000. Also attached is a petition signed by 25 property owners on Lotus Lake expressing opposition to the subdivision of this lot into two lakeshore lots Also attached is a map of the Sunrise Hills subdivision, and a recent newsletter from our President, Therese Berquist. This is to illustrate that our Association consists of 61 homes, and represents a social organization that is an important part of the city. Please include these items in the next Staff Report. Respectfully submitted, Debbie Lloyd Attachment: Petition, Sunrise Hills Homeowners, 5 pages, Petition, Lotus Lake property owners, 2 pages, Sunrise Hills Civic Association information, 2 pages. PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersiqned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Cha~hassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION' SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Kills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which..states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants a~e recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. ADDRESS PHONE ~- /~/2 . . o PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS l ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size · of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. o · NAME ADDRESS PHONE 9'.7 PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Sunrise Hills, Chanhassen Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Drive (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st Addition) into two separate lots. Restrictive Covenants exist, including one which states that the size of an existing lot cannot be reduced. These Restrictive Covenants are recorded in Carver County, dated June 21, 1957, filed July 15, 1957, under document No. 6183. N~IE~"~ ADDRESS ~i~ ~ ' '~ - ~ ~ -~,'~--~°~'~',~, PHONE PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 1ST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Chanassen, Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Ddve (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st addition) into two separate lakeshore lots of 75 feet each. Standards adopted by the city to protect Chanhassen's natural resources should not be compromised. Chapter 20: Zoning Article Vii.. ~ho~eland Management District reads: (a) Lot area and width standards (2) Sewered lakes- Recreational Development Riparian Lots Area Width Single 20,000 feet 90 feet ADDRESS PHONE PETITION: SUNRISE HILLS 'IST ADDITION PROPOSED LOT SUBDIVISION We, the undersigned, residents of Chanassen, Minnesota, are opposed to permitting the subdivision of the lot at 7303 Laredo Ddve (Lot 11, Block 1, 1st addition) into two separate lakeshore lots of 75 feet each. Standards adopted by the city to protect Chanhassen's natural resources should not be compromised. Chapter 20: Zoning Article V11. Shoreland Management Distdct reads: (a) Lot area and width standards (2) Sewered lakes- Recreational Development Ripadan Lots Area Width Single 20,000 feet 90 feet NAME ADDRESS /I PHONE ~. . ~_//~.- ;: unrise Hills Civic A, - oei tinn Hello neighbors. Spring has arrived and the first thing we do is collect association dues of $65. Please send your check to our treasurer by April 15. Sunrise I-fills Association c/o Donald Huseth7332 Frontier Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317 We have all the traditional activities planned for the coming year beginning with the Easter egg hunt on April 22. Katie Trent sends you a flyer with details. Please show up for the beachlot cleanup the Saturday before, April 15 at 9 AM. Bids for summer mowing of the beach lot will be accepted by Ed Nye up until April 10. Please contact Ed if you are interested in making a bid. Also contact Ed to reserve the beach lot for large events. The other event we'd like .you to think about is the Annual Spring Meeting and Progressive Dinner. Rita and Jim Waletski will host the meeting and hordeurve course. If neighbors volunteer soon to host the salad (4 homes), main course (4 homes) or dessert close (1 home) planning time will be saved as we all become busier in the spring. You may call Therese Berquist or DwightJRose Koning. We are lucky to 'have such a clOse neighborhood-and to have a wonderful beach lot to enjoy our Minnesota summer. Help keep the association going strong by volunteering and taking part in activities whenever you can! Let's encourage those we haven't seen in a while to join us in the fun. The current board members on behalf of the association members thank the outgoing board members. Calendar olEvents Beach lot cleanup ........................... April~..15 Easter egg hunt ............................... April 22 Spring mtg/Progressive dinner ........ May 20 Summer picnic .................................. July 15 Fall beach lot cleanup ......................... Sept 30 Fall meeting ........................................ Oct 14 Winterfest ........................................... Dec I0 Therese Berquist, president Charlie Robbins, vice president Donald Huseth, treasurer Ed Nye, beach lot chair Katie Trent, secretary Konings, social directors NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Subdivision of Lake Shore Lot APPLICANT: David Igel LOCATION: 7303 Laredo Drive NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, of David Igel for preliminary plat approval to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive, Lucas Igel Addition. 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 Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is dosed and the CommissiOn discusses project. Questions and 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 iabout this project, please contact Bob Generous 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 August 24,.2000. / I ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 7343 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNRISE HILLS C/O CHARLES ROBBINS 7340 LONGVIEW CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H GREELEY 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD V & ANN L KLEVE 7307 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD & JANET D PAULSEN 7305 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID O & RACHEL IGEL 7303 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 si~qel sseJpp¥ JOHN H HARMER & CAROL WALTER 402 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOWELL A & JUDY D VETTER 404 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HOWARD & MARY JEAN MEUWISS 406 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H GREELEY 7341 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 553 17 ARLIS A BOVY 7339 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD J & EUNtCE M PETERS 7301 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALAN & ANNABEL FOX 7300 LAREDO DR CttANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT SAVITT & JEANNE BORGSTROM 408 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG A & MARIAN WESTERMANN 410 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SHIRLEY ANN NAVRATIL 7337 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRED L CUNEO JR 7335 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & DEBORAH LLOYD 7302 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN l~ 55317 STEPHEN T & REBECCA L CHEPOK 7304 LAREDO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DONALD M & DARLENE H HUSETH 7332 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES J & RITA M WALETSKI 7334 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOEL M & WENDY M WIENS 7333 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FELIX & LOIS WHITE PO BOX 96 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT L & GLORY D WILSON 7336 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN L JOHNSON 7331 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS W & LINDA A LANDSMAN 7329 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & GWENDOLYN J PEARS 7307 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYNE L 8: KATHLEEN J MADER 400 HIGHLAND DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES & LINDA MADY 7338 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS R & SHIRLEY J PZYNSKI 7340 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TRICK F & KATHRYN A PAVELK )3 FRONTIER TRL ,,~ANHASSEN MN 55317 EVEN & THERESE BERQUIST )7 FRONTIER TRL !ANHASSEN MN 55317 LES BIELSKI )9 FRONTIER TRL ANHASSEN MN 55317 LLIAM D & SHERRI L MALONEY 1 FRONTIER TRL kNHASSEN MN 55317 H & JANET B HOLLER FRONTIER TRL ANHASSEN MN 55317 BERT J THIELGES & ~ESE WEST 8 FRONTIER TRL ANHASSEN MN 55317 iEPH & KATHELEEN WITKEWICS LISTEES OF TRUST 0 FRONTIER TRL ANHASSEN MN 55317 LIL & ELLEN DIFFERDING i8 FRONTIER TRL ANHASSEN MN 55317 ¢HAEL R & DORTHEA F SHAY FRONTIER TRL ANHASSEN MN 55317 /IES R & LINDA D KRAFT 3 FRONTIER TRL ANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE K & SUSAN C SAVIK 7215 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ADOLFO & LEONOR ZAMBRANO 7301 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID J WOLLAN & SUSAN K LIPPKA 7303 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOEL S & MARY G JENKINS 7305 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SmoOth F~.~.d ~h~fcTM Use template for 5160® Mr. Bill Kirkvold Colonial Point Homeowner's Association 201 Frontier Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Herb LaPlatt Lotus Lake Botterment Association at Colonial Grove 7012 Cheyenne Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317-9504 Mrs. Peg Kirkvold Frontier Trail Homeowner's Association 201 Frontier Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 Kurvers Point Homeowner's' Association 7241 Kurvers Pt. Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Mr. Steven Bloom Lotus Lake Estates HOA Association 6781 Brule Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 ¢ner's Mr. Steven Erickson Pleasant Acres Homeowner's Association 3850 Leslee Curve Exclesior, MN 5533 I- Chanhassen, MN 55317 7305 Laredo Dr. Chanhassen MN 55317 August 30, 2000 Kathryn Aanenson, Community Development Director City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Proposed Igel Addition, Plat Discrepancies (1 lakeshore, 1 non-lakeshore) This is to call attention to erroneous data and other discrepancies by the developer and staff for the proposed subdivision of this lakeshore lot. The developer has submitted two preliminary plats for his alternative to the 2 lakeshore plats. Following is a list of the plats submitted to date: No. Date 1 2/11/00 2 3/8/00 3 3/30/00 4 4/20/00 5 4/20/00 6 7/13/00 7 8/4/00 2 lakeshore [3/15/00 Planning Commission Mtg,]. 2 lakeshore (Lot 1:5 sided; Lot 2:6 sided). 2 lakeshore. 2 lakeshore (Lot 1: 5-6? sided); Lot 2:6 sided) [6/6/00 PC Mtg,]. 1 lakeshore (5 sided), 1 non-lakeshore (4 sided) [6/6/00 PC Mtg,]. 2 lakeshore (Lot 1: 6-7? sided; Lot 2: 5-6? sided) [7/t8/00 PC Mtg.] 1 lakeshore (7-sided), 1 non-lakeshore (6-sided) [9/5/00 PC Mtg.] Added 60x60 pad. DESCREPANCIES ON LATEST PLAT (Plat #7 (8/4/00), 1 lakeshore, 1 nOn-lakeshore). /41. 100-ft lot width rerluired at front buildin~ line. The location of a proposed building on Lot 1' (non-lakeshore) violates code. There must be a lot width of 100 ft before a front building setback line can exist (Sec. 20-615). Both lots are accessed by a private street, and require a 100-ft lot width at the front building setback line (a line parallel to the road fight-of-way). The building window (buildable area) is inaccurately depicted on both plats. The proposed building is located too close to the cul-de-sac, and deceptively exaggerates the impact on adjacent properties (loss of trees, proximity to adjacent property, etc.). The intent was to make a 2 lakeshore plat the lesser of two evils. The developer did not alter the location of the house from the 4/20/00 plat even though it was called to his attention at the July 18 Planning Commission meeting. We are waiting on a ruling from the city attorney on the 100-f~ requirement. #2. 20-ft setback from the private street ¢Shoreland Ordinance). Both lots fall in the category of shoreland. The building window requires a 20-ft setback from the private street ("streets not classified"). (Refer to Sec. 20-1 for definition of shoreland and Sec. 20-481). Sec. 20-481. Placement, design, and height of structure. (b) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the waterbody: Setback From: Setback (in feet) (4) Right-of-way line of town road, public streets, or other roads or streets not classified. 20 For Lot I (non-lakeshore), staff says the private street traversing the north side of the lot (providing access to Lot 2 (lake shore) requires a lO-ft setback on each side of the private street. This results in a 30-ft width along the north side that is unbuildable. Sec. 20-481 states that an additional 20-ft setback is required on the south side of this private street resulting in a total of 50 ft along the north side of the lot which cannot be included in the building window. The DNR has stated that "streets-not classified" are included in the definition of a private street. The city has not responded to this item on our Deficiency List of July 8. #3. Lot area excludes area occupied by street rights-of-way. The lot area for Lot 1 (non-lakeshore) must exclude the area defined as street rights'of-way. This impacts the 25% impervious surface requirement (Sec. 20-485) for Lot 1. The City Attorney in his letter of Apr 17 to Bob Generous (see Staff Report) references the definition of lot area: Chapter 20 Zoning Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot area means the area of a horizontal plane bounded by the front, side or rear lot lines, but not includin,a any area occupied by the waters of lakes or rivers or by street rights-of-way. Street - a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-way approved pursuant to the requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting property. The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity complying with the preceding requirements. Lot 1 is traversed by a private street. The area included in the right of way (10-ft driveway/street plus 10 ft on each side) must be excluded from the lot area. The impacts the impervious surface for Lot 1 because the impervious surface area remains the same, while the total lot area is reduced by about 5100 ft2 (170 x 30). The staff response (June 6) stated that the. city only excludes public right-of-way from lot area calculations (but not private right-of-way). We disagree with that interpretation. The definition for a street includes public and private right-of-way._ We have asked the city for a ruling from the city attorney. #4. Leneth of lot line incorrect. The length of the south lot line for Lot 1 (non-lakeshore) is shown as 266.23 ft. The actual length is 262.23 ft. Cordially, / 'Gerald W. Paulsen Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive Chanhassen, Mn 55317 'August 30, 2000 Dear Planning Commission Members: :Please review the document Sunrise Hills Association Established 1957 attached. Information was provided . by the City of Chanhassen, and all numbers have been rounded down. This is the most accurate information on lot size and lakeshore frontage compiled to illustrate lot size, and lakeshore frontage for all additions in Sunrise !Hills and lots within 500 ft of the Igel property. We consider all additions of Sunrise Hills our neighborhood. Sunrise Hills is registered with the State of Minnesota, we hold regular annual meetings, planned social functions and maintain a beach outlot which area and lakeshore frontage was not included in this analysis. I have separately prOvided a petition from Sunrise Hills residents who are opPosed to the Igel subdivision. Respectfully submitted. Debbie Lloyd / ,r SUNRISE HILLS ESTABLISHED 1957 ASSOCIATION LOT SIZE # of Lots 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 House Number Frontier Trail i (southslde) '. Block 7194 iLot 5 Block 3 7196 !Lot 6 Block 3 7198 iLot 7 Block 3 7200 '.Lot 8 Block 3 7206 ',Lot 9 Block 3 7208 ~Lot 10 Block 3 7210 ;Lo! 11 B!ock 3 7212 Lot 12 Block 3 7214 ~Lot 13 Block 3 7216 Lot !4 Block 3 11 7218 12 7320 13 7226 14 7228 15 7230 _ 16 7332 17 7334 18 7336 19 7338 2O 734O Lot 15 Block 3 Lot 3 Block 1 Lot 19 Block 3 Lot 20 Block 3 :Lot 21Block 3 Lot 7 Block 2 Lot 8 Block 2 Lot 9 Block 2 ;Lot 10 Block 2 Lot 11 Block 2 Frontier Trail - Nodhside __ 21 7201 Lot 1Block 1 __ 22 : 7203 Lot 2 Block 1 23 7207 Lot 1 Bk)ck 2 __ 24 7209 Lot 2 Block 2 25 7211 ]Lot 3 Block 2 26 72t3 Lot 1 Block 1 27 7215 Lot 2 Block 2 28 7301 Lot 3 Block 2 29 7303 Lot 4 Block 2 30 7305 Lot 5 Block 2 31 7307 Lot 17 Block 1 __ 32 7329 Lot 8 Block 1 33 7331 Lot 7 Block 1 G.I.S.Area Lot and Add- (rounded down) 17942 20458 22670 24074 23390 23441 22193 20117 20307 31135 36734 31807 18024 15442 15433 15509 15446 15399 13784 15098 2 579~4 2 44021 Lakeshore Frontage 2 23430 ition 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21409 2 23763 2 26244 2 22999 2 20313 2 19631 2 21099 15363 14118 13995 13950 14037 40233 150 145 34 7333 Lot 6 Block 1 35 7335 Lot 5 Block 1 36 7337 Lot 4Block 1 37 7339 Lot 3 Btock 1 _ 7341 38 (17057plus 4291) Lot 1 2 Block 1 1 Kiowa 19359 Lakeshore Lots G.I,S. Area 57964 44021 Lots Within 500FTG.I.S. Area 23390 23441 22193 15433 15509 15446 15399 13784 15096 44021 23430 21409 23763 26244 22999 20313 19631 21099 15363 14118 13995 13950 14037 Lakeshore Frontage Lots within 500 FT 150 145 120 40233 40233 120' ~10 19359 19359 110 21348 70 21348 21348 70 112 __ 153 3637O 24402 47127 36370 24402 13846 47127 15399 32331 15893 17562 17341 13932 14047 140O5 14030 15310 17070 112 153 150 39 7200 Lot 1, Block 3 22658 _ 40 7202 Lot 2, Block 3 41 -' 7204 Lot 3, Block 3 42 7203 Lot 4, Block 3 Laredo 7300 7301 7302 7303 7304 2 23200 2 67490 .... 2 21463 -150 290824 36353 57594 901262 21458.62 36,353 FT 21,459 FT AVG LOT AVG LOT AREA AREA OF LAKESHORE LOTS WITHIN LOTS 500 FT 32O 1330 147.78 147 FT AVG LAKESHORE OF LOTS WITHIN 5O0 FT 48 7305 49 7306 Lot 16 Block 1 50 7307 ]Lot 9 Block 1 Highland ; _ 51 : 400 Lot 1 Block 2 52 : 402 ;Lot 2 Block 2 53 . Lot 3 Block 2 54 :Lot 4 Block 2 55 Lot 5 8lock 2 56 :Lot 6 Block 2 57 Lot 1 Brock3 Lot 13 Block 1 iLot 12 8lock 1 __ Lot 14 Block 1 Lot 11 Block 1 Lot 15 Block 1 'Lot 10 8~ock 1 36370 244O2 13846 47127 15399 32331 15893 17562 58 Lot 5, Block 1 59 . Lot 4, Block 1 60 : Lot 2, Block 1 61 ' Lol 1, 8lock 1 4O4 4O6 _ 4O8 410 401 Longvi~w 7340 7320 7321 7361 17341 13932 14047 14005 14030 15310 17070 7343*Frontier Trail Total 4 19547 4 19962 4 19527 __ 4 14246 1368435 22432.21 __ 22,432 FT AVG LOT AREA ALL LOTS 1010 126.25 126 FT AVG LAKESHORB Average -T SUNRISE HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD STANDARDS '7343 Frontier Trail is within 500 fl of properly, but not Sunrise Hills all lots with 1st add1 Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law (651) 452-5000 Fax (651) 452-5550 Direct Dial: (651) 234-6215 E-mail Address: rknutson~ck-law, com Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl* John F. Kelly Matt_hew J. Foli Marguerite M. McCarron Gina M. Brandt *A~o licensed in ~,¥/isc(msin August 31,2000 Mr. Robert Generous City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive, Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: LUCAS IGEL ADDITION Dear Bob: You asked me to respond to a series of statements made by the Paulsens. Their statements and my response to each follows: STATEMENT: A Iot requires a 60 by 60 foot .building pad. RESPONSE: Section 18-61 of the City code [the subdivision ordinance] provides that "in single family detached residential development the applicant must demonstrate that suitable home site exists on each lot by describing a sixty foot by sixty foot building pad .... "The purpose of this provision is to ensure that every lot has a large enough area to construct a home. Staff has interpreted this provision as not requiring an exact 60 by 60 foot pad, but rather a reasonably shaped area with the square footage. Staff's interpretation is reasonable because it satisfies the intent of the requirement. An ordinance amendment -is being processed that would codify staff's interpretation. STATEMENT: The 90 foot lot width required by shoreland ordinance must be met at both the OHW line and at the building line. RESPONSE: In the Shoreland Overlay District Section 20-480(a)(4) requires that lot width requirements be met at both the ordinary high water level and the building setback line. - . STATEMENT: Any lot accessed by a private driveway must have a lot width of 100 feet. RESPONSE: Section 20-615 of the City Code provides: Suite 317 · Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121 Mr. Robert Generous City of Chanhassen August 31,2000 Page 2 "The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district. (3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private drive,rays shall be JOO feet as measured at the front building setback line." The only reasonable interpretation of the requirement is that it only applies to lots that don't have direct frontage on a street. All, or virtually all, lots have driveways. If it is interpreted to mean that any lot with a driveway has to meet this requirement then the provision would apply to all lots and the provision would serve no purpose. STATEMENT: On the 2 lake shore plat (see attached plat), Lot 2 (south lot) is an irregularly shaped lot with 5 sides. The east-west lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 where the private street crosses from Lot 1 into Lot 2, defines the front lot line for Lot 2. The rear lot line for Lot 2 is therefore the east-west lot line on the south side of the lot (line terminating at the lake). RESPONSE: The lot does not have a "front lot line" as that term is defined in Section 20-1 of the City Code: "Lot line, front means the lot line separating a lot from a street right-of-w~. ,. In the case ora corner lot it shall be the lot line 3vith the shortest dimensions on the street. "' For lots not abutting a street Section 20-615(6)(a) provides: -"Thefi'ont yard Jhall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel. The rear yard lot line is to be located opposite j3'om the fi'ant lot line 3vith the remaining exposures treated aa' side lot lines." This .provision is not easily applied to the lot because two lot lines' converge in a point at the location closest to the nearest public right-of-way. When the interpretation or application of a zoning ordinance provision is debatable, the interpretation that is the least 'restrictive applies. SLS Partnership v. City o. f Apple Valley, 511 NW2d 738 (Minn. 1994). Using this rule of construction, either the northerly lot line or the south-westerly lot line is the front lot line, whichever results in the least restrictive setback. STATEMENT: The definition for a lot states it is an area of land undivided by any public street or approved private road. RESPONSE: Shared driveways are not excluded in calculating lot area. A shared driveway does not "divide" a lot into two lots. This interpretation is consistent with common sense and well established past practice in interpreting the provision. If it were otherwise, then the area on both sides of a driveway would both have to meet minimum lot size requirements. STATEMENT: For determining impervious surface area, the area occupied by street rights-of- way must be excluded from total lot area. At the same time, the total impervious surface must still include the area covered by building, decks, street rights-of- way, etc. RESPONSE: Section 20-1 of the City Code defines lot area as "the area ora horizontalpla~ bounded by the front, side, or rear lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of lakes or Mr. Robert Generous City of Chanhassen August 31,2000 Page 3 rivers or by street rights-of-way." Shared private driveways are not excluded from lot area requirements. This is consistent with the City's past practice in interpreting the Code. Since the driveway is an impervious surface it is included in calculating the allowed impervious surface coverage. If you have any questions, please call. Regc~rds, //"-C,~MPBELL KNUTS~ Roger N. Knutson RNK:srn cc: Scott Botcher CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Alison Blackowiak, Uli Sacchet, and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 11, BLOCK 1, SUNRISE HILLS 1sT ADDITION, 7303 LAREDO DRIVE, LUCAS IGEL ADDITION, DAVID IGEL. Public Present: Nam e Ad d tess Jerry & Jan Paulsen 7305 Fred Cuneo 7335 Arlis Box,3, 7339 Shirley Navratil 7337 Don Huseth 7332 Helen Bielski 7209 Eunice Peters 7301 Joel & Wendy Wiers 7333 Ann & Ron Kleve 7307 Norbert Kerber 7216 Bob & Cathy Greeley 7341 Joel S. Jenkins 7305 Mary Ellen Kuhi 2703 Laredo Drive Frontier Trail Frontier Trail Frontier Trail Frontier Trail Frontier Trail Laredo Drive Frontier Trail Laredo Drive Frontier Trail Frontier Trail Frontier Trail Chesmar Farm Road, Excelsior Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson' Any questions of Bob? Kind' Yes Mr. Chairman, I have a question. The house pad that you discussed that would need to be shi£ted, does that need to appear on this plat at all for approval? Gellerotls: No. Kind: Yeah so, I think lnaybe just get rid of any house footpril~t kind of' inf'ormation f'or council. And same with tree preservation or tree removal. That does not need to be identified either. Planning Colnmission Meeting - September 5, 2000 Generous: Well it would, if they shift the house pad it would change so we'd have to revise that. Some of the trees that they proposed removing may not have to be removed. Other ones may be moved. Kind: Right. But as far as approving this subdivision we do not need to see a tree removal plan. That would be something that when they're going to actually come in through the approval process for a particular home plan. Generous: Correct. Kind: Okay. That's all for now. Peterson: Uli. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. I just want to confirm, and you made comment in the report that both plats are going to be forwarded to the council meaning that the two lakeshore option as well as the two stacked lots, is that correct? Generous: That is correct. Sacchet: And then my second question is, there xvas a list of concerns that wereraised that xvere submitted to the city attorney and as far as I was able to understand the language fi'om the city attorney, all these issues have been reasonably settled, con'ect? Generous: That's correct. It's the last attachment to the report are his responses to tliat. He summarized them rather than doing a point by point detail review of this. - Sacchet: Okay. Generous: So and then the plat itself stands alone as complying xvith the ordinance. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Yeah two quick ones, Bob or Dave. Drainage down the road. Hoxv do you prevent that from being, I know we xvere asking for more erosion. Or looking for erosion control but in terms of having a drive that's aimed at the lake. What, how do you prevent severe drainage coming down that incline? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. The proposed development will not significantly increase the amount of runoff cun'ently going down the driveway or has been over the past few years. One method to divert the drainage would be to overlay the driveway to shift the drainage to one side of the driveway or the other to have it filtered through the grasses of the yard or so forth. There is a pretty substantial distance between the end of the driveway and the lake, 75 feet. And given the amount of runoff down the driveway, it's relatively small to be pre-treated. Staff believes that the existing lawn and wooded area will address any runoff concerns to the lake. Conrad: So you haven't made your final recolnmendation on that Dave, or have you? In terms of how the driveway really gets, pushes the water off. Planning Commission Meeting- September 5, 2000 Hempel: We don't believe that the driveway as it exists today, it's created any real problems on the site. And what they're proposing really won't intensify the current driveway. Conrad: What's the angle of the drive? Is that a significant decline? Hempel: Not really. Again there's sufficient distance between the lake and the end of the driveway. The driveway in the staff report we're referring to is from the existing driveway to the proposed house pad. Wasn't relatively steep. 10% grade. By shifting the elevation of that house pad down 1 foot would resolve that. So even by relocating the house pad on the lot xvould also, we'd have to look at the driveway grades but we're comfortable and confident that the 10% or less can be achieved. Conrad: Okay, second question. Uli brought it up. I don't understand wily we're sending two plats to the City Council. We're making a motion tonight and two is not what we're making a motion. Generous: Tile previous plat was reviewed and tile Planning Commission recommended denial. That plat's going forward. This is a separate plat that they're coming through the process xvith so we're reviewing them both. Conrad: Okay. Peterson: Any further comments? Questions? Thank you Bob. Would tile applicant or their designee wish to address tile commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Were they planning Oil coining or not, do you know? Generous: They were plam~ing tile last I knexv. I haven't talked to them since last xveek though. Peterson: Okay. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forxvard and state your name and address please. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening, in3' name is Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. We're neighbors to tile proposed subdivision, as you know. This evening I'd like to present you with a mission impossible. Your mission, should you choose to undertake it is to be convinced that the data on this plat is completely compliant with city's code. I've given you a sketch, and I'll label it Item A. Representing the upper non-lakeshore lot fi'om this August 4th plat that you're reviewing tonight. It's a one page handout, and I don't know if I need an overhead necessarily to explain it to you since you have a copy but just in case. The purpose is to demonstrate that the impervious surface represented on this sketch by the proposed building, the deck and the driveway exceeds the 25% limit on the property area. In fact the impervious surface figure given by the developer on the plat is understated by about 340 square feet. I'm talking about now the upper lot only. I didn't do any measurements on the lower lot but that has more property on it so it may not be a problem there. You look at the summary table that is in the lower left hand corner of this sketch you'll see that the proposed impervious surface that the developer says he has is 5,420 square feet and I have two columns there. One for tile previous plat, tile April 20th plat and the August 4th plat, so nothing has changed. The figures are identical. Likewise, the upper, the allowable coverage has not changed either which is 5438. He just squeaked in by 18 feet under the 25% according to his figures an>~vay. Of the allowable figure. Now if you look at the lower half of the table you'll see Planning Commission Meeting- September 5, 2000 a section which I titled actual data, which is some rough calculations that I've done and I've rounded up to square figures on each of these, on the house, the deck, and the proposed driveway here. And you'll see that there's a little bit of difference because I've calculated and figured the 5,780 square feet, which is about 340 square feet over what the developer says he has on the plat. I'm saying that he's understated it by about 340 square feet. If you looked at the upper right hand corner of the sketch you also see an area identified as Area 1, which is dotted in there. This slashed line is the old property line on the Inkl~ plat. The darker line is the new property line. They moved the property line over about 15, 14 or 15 feet to the east. So therefore the driveway has been extended by an additional 14 feet or whatever. 10 feet wide. That amounts to about 145 square feet I'm seeing. Likewise, he didn't have quite 20 feet but add 18 feet on the driveway entrance over on the cul-de-sac so I added another 70 square feet for that. And if you take the total of all those figures, I'm coming up with about 5,995 square feet or about 550 square feet over the 25% limit. So I'm saying that the plat is inaccurate in that respect and in fact the developer's exceeding the impervious surface by that 550 square feet or so. Personally I found it, I was unable to co~nplete my mission of proving to myself that the developer met his impervious surface so you can judge for yourself I guess on that. Moving on to the issue which has come up before, is the ruling on the 60 x 60 pad which the city attorney now says is not an actual 60 x 60. Rather it's an area, it's interpreted to be an area of 3,600 square feet and we were arguing previously that in reality it was an actual 60 x 60. The attorney ruled in his ruling, he said that staff has interpreted to mean this is not a literal 60 x 60, but rather 3,600 square feet of a reasonable shaped area. So the attorney says that this is a staff definition and I think he's kind of evading the issue himself. He's saying staff interprets this way and therefore that's the way it is. Furthermore there's no definition of what a reasonably shaped area is. Whether it's 20 x 180 or ~vhatever. The city is saying that it doesn't necessarily have to be the 60 x 60. In your August 15th Planning Commission meeting you remember toward the end you were looking at some changes in code and one of the proposed Changes was to eliminate the reference to the 60 x-60. And because staff thought that was not consistent with the other pads that were mentioned the 40 x 60 for' the wetland. The 40 x 60 for the PUD. And so the staff's position.was that the less restrictive choice was the way to go. And so stafftold.the Planning commission that if they eliminated, ifthis 60 x 60 was eliminated from Chapter 18, it said the Planning Commission didn't have to give approval on it beCause it could be passed directly onto the City Council. And We asked the staff, is it they intended to propose this change to the City Council but, and what implications that might have as far as deciding this particular proposed split, and we didn't get a specific reply from that yet. And I did state it, I mean I thought it was rather unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game from the standpoint of eliminating a 60 x 60. The city attorney has stated that an ordinance amendment is being processed that it would codify this interpretation So he's saying the city is going ahead xvith this independent of what the council, or the Planning Commission might say. In the vernacular, the 60 x 60 pad is referred to by the staff as the glitch ordinance and it's a glitch because if applied properly it would require a variance in this case we believe. Our research shows that what is now a 60 x 60 pad was originally a 50 x 50 and it was in fact enlarged because of the implications of construction on roots of trees and the impact of that to allow a buffer to permit, to eliminate possibly damage to the trees. So it was increased to a 60 x 60 at some point in the past history. The 60 x 60 pad is shown as being about 3 feet away from the private street on this plat where in fact we believe it should be at least, requires the structural setback of 20 feet according to 20-481 because it falls under the category of streets not classified. If you look at the definition of streets not classified, the DNR says that's the same as a private street and it falls under, all in the same category of private streets, private driveways, or railroad which is the case for this proposed development. And we don't believe that the plat allows for this setback at this point. The window is in error and in fact the 60 x 60 cannot appear where it does on the plat. The staff report also states that there's a question ofxvhether the non-lakeshore must meet a 90 or a 100 width at the building setback line. It goes onto state that the plat could comply with the lot requirement, but it fails to say that the plat does not comply with the lot width requirement. Staff is saying, trust me. That the 60 x 60 or the 90 Planning Commission Meeting- September 5, 2000 foot, or 100 foot lot width could be accommodate a 60 x 60 pad even though you can't legally see it on the plat right now. One other fascinating aspect of the proposed lots is that they've evolved into a many sided polygon. The lower lot, or the upper lot is now a 6 sided lot, and the lakeshore lot has gone to 7 sides. So there depends on whether you consider a point to be another line, there could be more property lines in this plot than we see of 6 or 7. And the choice of front, rear and side lots becomes somewhat arbitrary we believe. Tile choice of measuring lot width and depth becomes a little more obtuse and difficult to measure I think when you get into irregularly shaped lots like this. And the question is, does the city really want to encourage development of polygonal lots like this? Which leaves some space to come to different conclusions I think. So if the city needs some advice on whether to accept the, or reject the plat for this one lakeshore or not, I think I just refer you back to the words that were in the old, the previous staff reports. It says the one up, one down does not continue tile patter of lot and house placement that exists currently in Sunrise Hills. The alternate plan, which is the one lakeshore, one non- lakeshore has significant visual impact on the neighborhood. The alternate plan significantly impacts the amount of tree removal, increasing the canopy loss from 8 to 22% of the canopy coverage. Assuming the percentage figures are correct in this case, which I haven't looked at. The alternate plan would stack the houses altering the pattern of development and the alternate plan xvould also eliminate almost all tile views of the lake and be detrimental to the adjacent property owners. The alternate plat is not the best for the city and the neighborhood. Those are the city's words and tile developer's words as a matter of fact so, they're not our words. Tile developer is now saying, don't take me seriously about all these bad things I said about tile last time around because this is a good plan he's saying. In conclusion then I'd sa5,' that the developer has kind of tacitly admitted by going thi:ough multiple revisions of the plat that he's attempting to meet code but is still having trouble doing it. He has come tip with 'short in complying with the code as far as we're concerned, and either way you cut 'it, building two lhrge homes in the place of one would-be detrimental to the character of the l~eighborhood and we believe this plat being reviewed this evening does not meet code and we would encourage you to deny the application. Thank you. Peterson: Okay. All)' questions of Mr. Paulsen? Thank you. Anyone else? Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I've been drawing pictures too. Now two different owners have tried to split this lot up and down and there are three ways to split it by code. In Section 18-60 it says all lots shall abut their full requiring minilnum fi'ontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance, or on a private street or flag lot. Noxv the minimum frontage for a publicly dedicated street is found in Section 20-615 and it is 90 feet. So obviously this lot does not front. Let me get to the... It doesn't front on a street so that can't be divided that way. So the rcmaining two are either a flag lot or a private street. The owners have chosen the private street route. So this is the private street here. And this is the paved area inarked with the stripes. The city has admitted that this is a private street. Not driveway but a private street. It says in the code, Section 18-57. It must be located within a strip of property at least 30 feet wide and extending out to the public right-of- way or covered by a 30 foot wide easement that is permanently recorded for all benefited impacted parcels. As the private street again. Now, there are shoreland regulations about private streets and driveways. In Section 20-484 the Shoreland Code, it says roads, drivexvays and parking areas shall meet structured setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. The structure setback is 10 feet from the property line. So the private street must be 10 feet fi'om tile property line, and I have that marked here. In Section 20-481, additional structure setbacks, the following structure setbacks apply. The setbacks from the right-of-way line ora town road public streets or other roads or streets not classified. As the DNR has said, that's a private street. 20 feet. Here's the 30 feet for the private road and here's 20 feet. Here's tile 100 foot fi-ontage which we maintain you must have since both of these lots are as specified a private Planning Com~nission Meeting- September 5, 2000 road. Not a driveway, but a private road. A driveways come off the Private road. This is his buildable area. It doesn't meet the 60 x 60 feet. The 60 x 60 feet was set up for woodland areas specifically. It's important. There are beautiful trees in there and they should be protected. The other way to divide the lot, if I take the flag lot. They didn't choose the flag lot route but I think this is what the previous owners, the Baird's children had asked about. On a flag lot they have specific directions on the prevailing develop, planning and so forth, but a neck lot, flag lot means that a lot does not provide the full required frontage on the public right-of-way but rather is served by a narrow neck of land that extends to the street. To meet the definition the neck must be at least 30 feet wide. So here it is, 30 feet wide. The striped area is the driveway. This is the lot line. This is the flag. They can't include this property as part of their lot area according to code. If this fellow wanted to have his own driveway, it would look like that. And it has to separate itself because of the shoreland rules from this property by 10 feet. Which leaves him with this buildable area right here since the 90 foot frontage for his property... It doesn't meet the 60 x 60. 60 x 60's important. The city lawyers admitted, it's in the code now. He says you changed the law to make it codified according to how the planning department is interpreting it, or has been using it. But it's not accurate. In conclusion I'd like to say the city has picked a favorite. First of all, why weren't the Baird children told of the private road easement option? They were told they needed a serious variance to build a... serious variance according to the real estate agent, which I talked to. She said that they didn't meet the 90 foot requirement. As you can see the 90 feet is right up there with no real buildable area. It was such a serious variance she didn't recommend that they really go ahead with it. In May while we were waiting for the latest city report on the up and down lot, the Igel's called us and asked roi' a meeting saying they had the report and could they discuss the situation. They had the report but we couldn't get the report. They arrived and asked us, what do you want? And I.said, we want you to live on the lot in a single house and join our association. Be part of our neighborhood_as full members. May I add now, we wanted them to enjoy their lakeshore and raise their boy to enjoy his trees and his wild area with the owls and the woodpeckers. The little-boy birthday parties.running through the woods. That's what we xvant. She said it's not going to happen. We bought the lot to split it. I asked fol' the city report. She finally gave it to me and I started to read it and she said I didn't like the way this conversation was going and she snatched it away. It xvas my neighbor who went and got the city report for us to read. Otherwise we would have had to wait for.several days before the meeting. Why is my city behaving this xvay? We've lived here for 30 years. We've been good citizens in good standing. I don't think this is fair and now when we prove they need a variance, they want to change the code. They want to change shoreland code. They want to change the 60 x 60 and I think it's outrageous. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Mary Ellen Kuhi: My name is Mary Ellen Kuhi and I live at 2703 Chesmar Farm Road in Chanhassen and when I read the notice I was absolutely outraged that the Planning Commission may allow this. That is such a beautiful piece of property with so much wildlife and so many beautiful trees. We don't have access on 5 or 41 for that many people. When I came home from work tonight, I came home at 6:30 and it was absolutely impossible. The traffic on Highway 5. We are turning, I've been here for 5 years and you are turning the city of Chanhassen into suburban sprawl, very much like I've seen in Arizona and in parts of California. And it just see~ns like any builder who comes out here and wants to build gets the permit to build. And I'm really sick of it. I have seen it in the last 5 years, the population almost triple out here. And xve moved out here to have some peace and country. The wildlife don't have anyplace to go anylnore and I am simply sick of it. I don't know what's going on at city hall. I'm very naive politically but I just can't see why you continue to allow the incredible grov, erh without really thinking about the xvetlands, the wildlife, the trees and the ecological ramifications of this kind of rapid, rapid growth in Chanhassen. Planning Commission Meeting- September 5, 2000 Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name's Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm going to give you a handout first. I wish the Igel's were here this evening and I hope that we don't find that we're like not in proper order by addressing this without them here. Could that be the case? Peterson: They don't need to be here. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. What I handed you is a 3 page letter that Rachel Igel walked around our neighborhood on July 17th, the night before the last meeting we had with you. And the second part of that is a letter that she had attached and brought with this letter through our neighborhood. And there was a neighbor who addressed this and made a comment about it, that she didn't like the tactic being used but I'm going to use this letter tonight to point out a few things. In paragraph 2, the first bullet point. It says after a major investment in time and money we closed on the property in January of 2000 with the understanding from the Chanhassen planning department that the property could be subdivided within the constraints of the city code. I'm asking why the planning department would agree to this for the Igel's when compared to the comments in the attached letter fi'om JoAnn Leitby, and I'm not sure if that's how you pronounce her name, but in paragraph 4. Ms. Wellman by the xvay is the realtor. Also Ms. Wellman never told us we couldn't subdivide the lot. She told us it would be unlikely that we'd be able to subdivide. However, she told us that if we wanted to put the time and effort into the project, we could pursue obtaining a variance from the city of Chanhassen and then sell the lot as subdividable, if and xvhen we obtained city approval. There's a profound difference between the manner in which the planning department handled the question by different parties. It's profound. Txvo different ansv,,ers for the same question. I want to know why. I really want to know why. Referring back to the Igel letter of July 18'~', on page 2. I want to point out some more misleading statements. Bullet point 2. Although xve will be subdividing the property, the average size of the lots will still be 30% larger than the average lot in the surrounding neighborhood. Lot area on the plats presented are, and you know we differ v,,'ith the plat. We're not convinced that the plats are accurate. I think you've seen that in tile discussion fi'om tile Paulsen's. But the lot area presented is 21,752 feet for Lot 1,25,749 feet for Lot 2. If these .calculations are accurate, Lot 1 meets the average lot size. However Lot 2 is a lakeshore lot and lakeshore lots average 36,353 feet. So the lot they're proposing on the lakeshore is 29% less than the average lakeshore lot in the neighborhood, and if you look with, if you look on the lot averages that I included in your packet for tonight you'll see lots within Sunrise Hills. Lots within 500 feet. And you'll see what those averages are. Furthermore, if Lot 1 were represented as a flag lot, which indeed it really is, then the lot area of the tipper lot actually comes down to about 17,000 square feet. And that's 22% less than the average lot within the neighborhood and xvithin 500 square feet. That's what I wanted to point out this ex'thing. I still want to make it on record, and I still want an acceptable answer xvhy the shoreline regulation file is missing from the city. It's still missing. I questioned it when I went and picked up the packets. I think it's unacceptable that a vital file like that. We're so proud of our lakeshore and our regulations, and all the history is gone. I think that's terrible. I don't knoxv xvhat kind of record keeping goes oil tip there. I don't know what Bob did with the file. He's the last one who had it. I think it should be produced. Thank you. Don Huseth: My name is Don Huseth. I live on 7332 Frontier Trail. I've been there since 1966. We love the neighborhood. The kids all grew up there. And now I'm there alone. I have a beautiful lot on Laredo Drive and Frontier Trail. And if this baby goes through I want to split that lot in 3. I can put 3 houses on that lot. Won't have much grass to mow, but if you can afford this and go through these ordinances, throw them out, take some new ones, then I'd like to put 3 houses on my lot and you should be very agreeable to that. You'd have a lot more tax money. So I have been following along xvith this and I'm very disappointed that it was agreed on to let then~ do this without having a little more information, or at least looking over the ordinances that were in effect. And I think we should stick with Planning Commission Meeting- September 5, 2000 the old ordinances, or maybe we should throw out the Constitution of the United States and then we could start all from scratch again. And that's about all I've got to say tonight. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing ~vas closed. Peterson: The public hearing is closed. Bob or Kate, any response to any of the issues or should we go onto discussion? Aanenson: Just to be clear, it's our opinion that the 60 x 60 pad can be met. They have a different interpretation of the DNR rules but it's our opinion that the 60 x 60 pad can be met. And as Commissioner Kind pointed out, I think if you take that house out, that may resolve some of that. We can show the 100 foot line. Have the architect do that. Or the engineer, excuse me, but it can meet the 60. Obviously there's a different interpretation of that DNR and where we believe the common driveway stops and the rest of the private driveway, there is no setback. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Kind' Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Will you speak to the 100 foot line versus the 90 foot line as far as your interpretation as where that needs to be, I-'m talking about their lot fi'ontage width. Should it be 90 feet back or 100 feet? Or not back. At the width I mean. Generous: The attorney's interpretation for tile front lot, it's the 90 foot lot Width is required. · . _ Aanenson: But we're showing that it Can meet the 100 foot, just to be sure. stone With the 60. That it can meet. Kind: And tile plat that's before us has 60 x 60 foot pads on them that do meet all the setbacks? Aanenson: Correct. That's our opinion. Sidney: Mr. Chair? Question for staff. Is it apPropriate to go forward or can we go forward without the applicant being present? What's your recommendation? Aanenson: It's our preference before the meeting started if the applicant wasn't here that ~ve not. Peterson: I don't think legally we have any reason to withhold it. Aanenson: Sure, that's fine. Peterson: It's their option to make a presentation an3avay so. Kind' Mr. Chairman, one other question. I think it was Mrs. Paulsen who brought up the point about the building pad setback needs to be 20 feet from a driveway. Let's not even call it a private drive. Just from a drivexvay. Could you speak to that? Generous: It's within the shoreland regulations it states that from a private street there's a 20 foot building setback. The private street is the paved portion of that. Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000 Aanenson: The colnmon portion. Kind: Not the easement? Generous' Not the easement. Aanenson' Correct. That's our interpretation and I think that's where the 60 foot, their interpretation of the 60 foot. Kind: So right now the way the building pad is drawn it's not 20 feet frol-ll tile driveway? Generous: Right, but that front house needs to slide back anyway because it doesn't meet. Kind: I'm not talking about the house. I'm talking about the 60 x 60 foot pad. Because right now it's like 3 feet from the driveway. Generous: Yes, but it still could slide over. Kind: I did a little tracing. I think it could still fit. Aanenson: It does. Kind: Yeah. Generous: 15 feet oll the south side. Kind' But there's 20 feet fi'om there. Generous: But again you lose tile private, that's a driveway there. It's not a private street. Kind' Right. It's 20 feet from the street itself. Just like we measure setbacks on public streets. Aanenson: Right, this isn't a public street. The common portion of the two driveways would be that para The 20 foot. This is just a singular driveway. One driveway so there is ilo setback. Kind: And then, just to clarify the flag lot question. What's before us is not a flag lot so there's none of those issues are before us. Would you speak to Debbie's questions about xvhy tile two different answers. Aanenson: This was brought up before. Nobody in this office recalls speaking to tile Baird's. There's all kinds of rumors and speculations. There was also several people that looked in the file. Bob is not tile last person that had that file, you knoxv. Kind: You're answering tile question about where the shoreland regulation is.'? Aanenson: Right. Right. Kind: And is that a document that can be recreated? Planning Com~nission Meeting- September 5, 2000 Aanenson: I'm sure DNR has some of them, sure. Sure. Kind: And the lakeshore lot size minimum, what's our requirement for that? 20,000? Generous: That's correct. Kind: I think that touches on the points that were brought up by the public. Peterson: Okay. Commissioners, who wants to tackle this one first? Volunteers going once. Going twice before I choose. Sacchet: Alright. I'll give it a shot. Well first of all I'm very disappointed that the applicant isn't here. Because at the bottom of this whole dilemma we have in front of us with this particular application is that apparently the applicant has found a way to weasel themselves out of the covenants, which is really fundamental. It doesn't go into the part that xve deal with from the city but I really feel I need to state this. I mean what good is covenants if somebody can buy a lot and register the title and erase the covenants? I don't know. Legally there must be some sort of a mechanism when that happens that the neighborhood gets notified or something like that. I don't know how that works, and I really wanted to ask that question to the applicant. Unfortunately that's not possible here because that is really where it's at. I mean the neighborhood is very clearly defined. It has it's pattern. It's incredibly closely knit and - here comes somebody and they can just sneak in and erase that from the title and here we have this mess in fi'ont of us. Sorry to call it that but it's pretty messy in my terms. I don't like this at all. I don't agree with one of the findings fi'om staff. Finding number 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause. significant environmental damage. I do believe' that this subdivision creates very significant environmental damage and it does that either way around. That's why at our previous meeting dealing xvith this we denied the variance to make it two lakeshore lots because we didn't want the environmental impact on the lake, and at that point ! actually was hesitant'to go that ?oute personally because I felt that the second option, which is now in front of us, has in terms of the neighborhood an even bigger environmental impact. So they're between a rock and a-hard place. Either we sacrifice some of the lake or we sacrifice the trees and the feel of the neighborhood so this is a-tough choice to make. Ho~vever, Debbie are you, your lot sizes this time because last time you didn't like my saying about lot sizes. And I still feel that from a city side it's very hard, certainly based on lot size to make a case. I mean using your figures, which is a total of 61 lots, the lot that's being subdivided is the third largest. And the two resulting lots will be the 10~h largest and 21~t largest out of 61 so on that basis it still is very subdividable. I would be, I would want to be sensitive to the issue Mr. Paulsen raised that impervious surface is beyond what's acceptable. I mean if they were obviously close before, and I don't have a calculator but I was tempted to start calculating this with my cell phone but I would have made too much noise. If it is really over, then that's certainly a reason why this should be denied. Aanenson: Let me just clarify that. They're not getting a house plan. I think Deb pointed that out earlier. When the house plan comes in, that has to be on the survey, okay? Sacchet: So that comes in when the house plan comes in? Aane~lson: Correct. Sacchet: That's not something that goes with the plat? 10 Planning Commission Meeting- September 5, 2000 Aanenson: Right. And that's what we're saying, we'll agree the 60 x 60 pad fits on there but the house pad at this point will come in when they're ready to build. And they have to show on the survey the impervious surface percentage. That's a requirement. Sacchet: Okay. So what do xve do with this at this point? Aanenson: I think Commissioner Kind's recommendation was to take tile proposed building pad off. The house pad. Leave the 60 x 60 on there but take that house off. We're not approving a house plan with this subdivision. All we're doing is recommending to the City Council at this point xvhether or not you're going to recommend on the subdivision. We're not approving any building plan at this point. Sacchet: And in order to not recommend subdivision we need to have a good reason. Which this impervious surface could be a reason. Aanenson: Plus I'm saying, they're not approving the house plan. It would be the recommendation to take that off. They have to meet the impervious surface. They can get a house on there would need to confirm this. Sacchet: Okay. Peterson: So it's not a reason to deny it because we're taking it off. Sacchet: Right, okay. Oka3', well I'm curious to listen to you guys. Peterson: Ladd, you're close to next. Conrad: Tharlks. I think when tile neighbors were ill before I said I didn't like tile previous subdivision and I don't like this one but it looks, you know if they can meet the ordinance, they can do it. And .it's really that simple and I think our obligation, and I'm kind of offended by a few, what a few of you said. It's as if we're trying to cram more population into town. Come on. You know that's not why we're here. There's some other things that are offensive and I've been around a while so you know, that's not wily I'm here. I'm here to try to protect some of the things that you care about. Usually it's an ordinance that does it and I think you're applying 3'our leverage on tile ordinance, and it's our job to make sure it's interpreted right. And we'll continue to do thafbut tile previous subdivision didn't do it and you challenged that but I think Mr. Paulsen, I also forecast the fact that what I'm seeing today is not that unusual fi'om other subdivisions in Chanhassen and if you don't like it, that's when we change ordinances. Now I think, if you don't like how we're interpreting things or like our ordinances, that's when you've got to get involved to make sure we change them. That's where we have control. Plus tile fact, it's legal. We've got tile ground on what tile attorneys say is right and you would want that right ' too. You're talking about tile people buying tile lot. Tile people selling tile lot have a chance to control file destiny of this lot. They didn't. They just didn't. These subdivisions are going on in my neighborhood alld I don't like them and we're talking to staff about how to control them. And we're talking to staff, how do you do it and it's hard to make rules. It's just, every situation's a little bit different. An3~vay, absolutely the impervious surface has to be met. Bottom line, I think it's legal if they meet the ordinance. And I think I forecast that if they meet the letter of the law, you've got to keep challenging to make sure everybody's doing tile right thing here. Staff has not reason to ram another lot in Chanhassen. They don't. Just trying to interpret what's there. They have no reason to deceive or to do anything, at least ill my view, so I would, you know my obligation here is to make sure that staffand our attorney is interpreting it as fairly as xve can. And if they meet the regulations, I think they can do 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000 this. But they've got to meet the regs and it looks like, based on staff, based on the City attorney, it looks like they can do it. Peterson: Okay, thank you Ladd. Other comments? Kind: Mr. Chair I'll make a couple. I'm comfortable with our city attorney's interpretation of the city code and the questions that were brought before him by the Paulsen's. And I really appreciate them pushing us to take that extra step. I think that that was a worth while because this is a sensitive area. I would like, always have preferred to not have fictitious house pads on subdivisions. I'm adding a condition to take that off of there and also any fictitious trees that may or may not go. I want those x's gone as well. The 60 x 60 foot building pad is all we need to see to make sure there's a buildable, sufficient area. Sufficient buildable area. Construct my sentence here. And I believe that the 20 foot setback from the driveway is reasonable. I also believe that the 60 foot by 60 foot pad still fits with that on there so I would add a condition that says, that that 60 x 60 pad needs to be moved away from that driveway before it goes to council. I guess those are my comments. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Any others? Sidney: Yeah Mr. Chair, I'll make just a few comments. I agree with Commissioner Conrad's comments and really could see how the staff report has become more concise and there is a lot of work put into this whole subdivision issue. I appreciate staff's work on this. And I do agree with their recommendation. As long as they meet the ordinance requirements, I see no reason to not recommend this. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Others? Burton: Yeah Mr. Chairman. I agree with Commissioner Conrad's comments. And I'll make a-few other points I guess. I don't think that restrictive covenants are an issue for the_Plamfing Commission. Those are private legal matters and xve haven't considered that in the past and I don't think it's appropriate in this case for us to consider those. And it is my unders{anding in any event-, that the restrictive covenant was removed from the property. I haven't seen the actual papers but it was represented to us at one point that that did occur. I have friends in the neighborhood so this next point is a little tough for me to say but I think there have been a lot of attacks on the staff in this case and I for one didn't particularly appreciate it and as a decision maker, those type of attacks aren't helpful at all in making a decision and doesn't carry any weigh with me. In fact the attacks tend to make you lose ground. My personal opinion is that the staff and the Planning Commission are very respectful to the community and try to be as responsive as we can be, and I don't think that a number of people who are in opposition to this have given the staff the appropriate respect and consideration that they deserve and that has disappointed me. I want to comment on one comment that somebody, I'm sorry. I can't remember the neighbor's name that had the letters saying that they had been given two different positions. You know as I read the letters it's just not supported by the evidence. There's a comment that says that the commission mentioned that they could be subdivided and then there's a comment from a realtor and that cannot be attributed to the staff. As the impervious surface issue, I think it's a valid concern and one that we'll watch out for when we see a site plan but I don't think this is the right time to look at that. In the end analysis is whether the subdivision meets the standards and I think it does with the conditions as the staff has put on it and I agree with their interpretation of the city code and with the city attorney's interpretation and I think that they're both consistent with our past practice and I think that this subdivision does meet the standards. 12 Planning Commission Meeting- September 5, 2000 Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I would say, I agree with what my fellow commissioners have said this evening. This brings me to something I've said before. There are times that I want to approve something but I can't because it doesn't meet the standards and there are times that I don't want to approve something but I have to because it does meet standards and this is definitely one of the later times. It appears it meets the standards. I believe even if the lot lines had to be shifted to potentially address the 555 foot impervious surface issue, that that could even happen to make it work. So I see really no reason or no legal reason that we can deny, in my opinion at this point in time. It seems to meet all the city codes that xve need to consider for this type of a request and I agree with staff's conclusions. Peterson: Okay, thank you. In closing, I would like to vote against this but as you heard the continuing theme, you know that's not why we're here to necessarily voice our personal opinions and vote that way. We're here to vote as we interpret the ordinances and assure that the ordinances are being interpreted properly as Commissioner Conrad has said earlier. I think that clearly xvhat tonight and over the past few months that this has been before tis is, we need to xvork on the subdivision ordinance and as Ladd also said, I think we need to focus on that. It's going to get worse as time goes on and we will be again working on that. And one thing that I will miss with this project is the sincerity that all of the people and the public have offered and their sense of passion and their sense of cause. That I think is truly commendable and I for one, and I think my fellow commissioners will miss that too so. With those closing comments I xvill call for a-motion. Conrad: Oh I should do that Mr. Chairman so everybody knows who they should not like up here. And again I think you really as a neighborhood, you've done an outstanding job. You've got to stay with this and make sure we're still treating this properly fi'om a legal standpoint. You should do that. But there's one more step and it's a pain to come to these things and you think We don't care. We kind of do but, stay with it one more step and see what City Council. The Mayor's here tonight listening so you may have her ear. So I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat subdivision #00-2 for the Lucas Igel Addition shown on the plans prepared by Carlson and Carlson dated as per the staff report March 15th. At least that's where this motion goes on. Per the conditions, the 14 conditions of the staff report with a few additions. They're probably not real significant additions but there the things that I'd staff to do. I want to make sure that the runoff issue as we put in a private drive and street, the runoff issue is totally taken care of and that the engineering department gives their total assurance that we have not increased at all any runoff into the lake. That'd be condition number 15. Condition number 16 would be to relocate the 60 x 60 foot pad to make sure that it's totally legal. It's totally defensible on the subdivision as submitted. I'd like staff, condition number 17. To review all the input that they've heard tonight and there's more documents and we don't get to read them now xvhen they come in here and hand them to tis. We don't really understand them but make sure that you, the city staff bas read that and responds appropriately in time for the City Council meeting. Those would be my additional points. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: So moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair, one fl'iendly amendment. What number are we up to Ladd? Conrad: I went through 17. 13 Planning Commission Meeting- September 5, 2000 Kind: Okay, 18. The applicant shall delete house footprints and tree removal information from preliminary plat. From the preliminary plat before presenting to City Council. Conrad: I would buy that Deb. And a comment. We all buy the 100 foot setback. Is there anything, for the 100 foot lot width. Do we need any further definition from staff on that? They meet the 90. They could meet the 100. Is there proof that the City Council has to see? Kind' Maybe direct staff to show, or direct the applicant to show both the 100 and 90 foot width on the next? Conrad: Do you want to keep that in the same? Kind: That sounds like a 19 doesn't it? Or is it changing one of them that's already in there? Number 1. The front setback for Lot 1, Block 1 shall be at the line where the lot meets 90 feet. Applicant shall also show the front setback line at the 100 foot width. Conrad: Yeah, I would buy that amendment. Peterson: Okay, it's been ~noved and seconded. Any other discussion? Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the- preliminary plat, Subdivision #00-2 for Lucas Igel Addition, as shown on the plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000, revised April 20, 2000 and revised AUgust 4, 2000, and subject to the following conditions: . The fi'ont setback for Lot 1, Block 1 shall 'be at the line where the lot width meets 90 feet. The applicant shall also show the fi'ont setback line where the lot width meets the 100 feet. , All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the appropriate department or agency. , Final reports must be provided for any soil correction work before building permits will be issued. . Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code. o The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements including one overstory tree, two understory trees and ~,o shrubs. Tile buffer yard plantings shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot 2. , The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the first building permit for a home in this development. , The proposed residential development of 1.09 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $872. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. Tile applicant is 14 Planning Commission Meeting- September 5, 2000 . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. also responsible for a water quantity fee of $2,158.20. These fees are payable to the city at the time of final plat recording. A.demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The existing building must be demolished prior to recording tile final plat. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the City's Building Department. All sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code and/or the City of Chanhassen's standard utility specifications. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan along with a utility plan will be required prior to final plat consideration for city staff to review and approve. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to site grading. The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths roi' the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 1 from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and sanitary sewer services to Lot 1. The applicant shall escrow with the City $4,500 to guarantee tile water and sanitary sewer service extensions. A sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charge will be applied at time of building permit issuance on Lot 1. The cost of extending the water service to Lot 1 from Laredo Lane shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge for Lot 1. The applicant shall prepare and record a cross access easement agreement for the water and sanitary sewer lines that encroach upon tile lots. Tile typical 5 foot and 10' foot wide side, fl'ont and real' yard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on tile final plat. Ill addition, a 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over tile existing sanitary sewer line that runs through Lot 2. Tile developer shall be responsible for all city attorney fees associated with tile review and recording of the final plat documents, park and trail fees, Surface Water Management Fees, and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinances. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. All driveways shall be paved with all all weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Both lots must be accessed via a common curb cut as shown on the plans. The location of the driveway is to be reviewed by the applicant and staff to minimize tree removal. The common portion of the driveway must be 20 feet xvide and built to a 7 toll axle xveight design. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by tile applicant and recorded against both lots. The driveway access easement shall be 30 feet wide. The engineering department will review to make sure that there is no increased runoff into the lake from the construction of the private street and driveways. Relocate the 60 x 60 foot pad to make sure that it's totally legal and defensible on the subdivision as submitted. Staff will review all tile information and documents received at the Planning Commission meeting and respond appropriately in time for the City Council meeting. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 5, 2000 18. The applicant will delete the house foot prints and tree removal information from the preliminary plat before going to City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: .REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6900 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, WHITE OAK ADDITION, COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Bob. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have two questions. Just to clarify xvhen this was in front of us last time there was an issue about a variance for that garage. The way it's drawn now there is sufficient setback? Generotls: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. And then the second question, one thing that I don't think the current report'touches on, the previous one did but didn't really suggest what's going to happen but there was a well on one of the lots. Is that something that we would usually address in this context? Generous: It should be addressed as a part of this, that it be properly abandoned. Sacchet: Will be abandoned, okay. Good, that's my two questions. Thanks. Peterson: Any other? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a question. On page 6 of the report. The section on streets, about t~vo thirds of the way down it says although these conditions compromise the city's subdivision standards somexvhat, etc. Can'you explain th-at to me please? Generous: I'm not sure if the Assistant City Engineer could address that for you. Hempel: Chairman, Planning Commissioners. There is a stipulation in the subdivision ordinance that prohibits half street dedication in subdivisions. I asked for a legal opinion on that from the city attorney's office. The intention of that was to prohibit premature development where the adjacent parcels in the future would be burdened with constructing an entire city street. Dedicating additional right-of-way and so,ne future property owner would have to do that. With the idea that some future property owner envisioned that he's got a street in front of him that he can subdivide off of but yet in fact it was inadequate street width, right-of-way width and so forth. The plan before you this evening we required the applicant to dedicate the entire right-of-way up to the cul-de-sac and approximately 2/3 of the cul-de-sac right-of-way with this proposal. In addition, they're proposing and we're requiring that the entire street width be built up to the cul-de-sac and then 2/3 of the cul-de-sac be constructed with this proposal with the understanding in the future when the property to the north, the Headla parcel subdivides, they would be responsible for dedicating the remaining portion of the cul-de-sac right-of-way 16 ,--,J I I "%.,,~ ..... ' ' . .................... n'. ........ ..0 0 1 ii ~ -, _ ~ , --" :-:. '_L'--'--' '..: '_.' '_'%~ , " ~' LOT'?-.. (_1 ' '~ pl'~"w, n'~',~ ..... : ...... ' ........... :' ::'"'~" ~ :~:" :~:'?!~.¢':ff~.:-',~?~:":::' ~'~'..:" ::: ~'"-./:. - ' / "-¢.¢ ^ ~ Lot area 21752 [No Ch(]] 21752 ""~"-~ ~ "-/~Cx.. / o Proposed im ervious r~,~,-, r.~.~ ,~,,,,, ~ '-.~ /,¢~, ', /. P 5420 o . surface . 5438 5438 Allowable coverage (25%) Under allowable coverage ACTUAL DATA Measured Over allowable coverage [No Chg] 24.9% Under 18 Under 18 House 2740 House 2740 "~..~ Deck 435 Deck 435 ~. Drive/Str +2610 Drive/Str +2610 SubTotal 5780 SubTotal 5780 '~'-,.... Areas(~ +215 Total 5995 Over 340 Over 555 (26.6%) .................... _(27.6%') 7305 Laredo Dr. Chanhassen MN 55317 September 17, 2000 Scott Botcher, City Manager City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Subject: Proposed Igel Subdivision, Clarification of City Attorney ruling. Manager Botcher: The subject subdivision is being presented to City Council on Septernber 25th with two alternate plats. This proposed subdivision is on Lotus Lake and is therefore regulated by The Shoreland Management Act, which regulates all land within 1,000 feet of a lake and which requires local governments to adopt the Standards of the act or stricter standards into their zoning ordinances. We have six bolded questions that merit an answer. We expect that the City of Chanhassen will fully evaluate the impact of its response in light of the intent of the code as written and its implications on this subdivision. All materials noted are from the Chanhassen City Code. Following are items that the city attorney has been asked to rule, and which we are asking for clarification (refer to Mr. Knutson's letter of Aug. 31 to Robert Generous). Issue 3. 100-ft lot width required for lot accessed by a private driveway. Chapter 20. Zoning Article XII. RSF" Single-Family Residential District Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in an "RSF" district. (3) Lot width on neck or flag lots and lots accessed by private driveways shall be 100 feet as measured at the front building setback line. (See Attachment A, stacked plat dated 8/4/00). Question 3. Since both proposed lots are accessed by the same private street (with an entrance on the cul-de-sac), does not code read that both lots need to meet the 100-fi requirement? Issue 4. The area occupied by street rights-of-way must be excluded from total lot area when calculating impervious surface. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot area means the area of a horizontal plan bounded by the front, side or rear lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of lakes or rivers or by street rights-of-way. Street - a public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-way approved pursuant to the requirements of the city by public authority which provides a legal primary means of public access to abutting property.' The term "street" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector, avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar term describing an entity comply with the preceding requirements. Mr. Knutson responded on the basis that a private street is not involved, referring only to a "shared driveway". Question 4. Rephrasing the question, for the non-lakeshore lot (Lot 1 on Attachment A) - must the area of the private street right-of-way be excluded from lot area? Issue 5. A lot is an area of land undivided by a public or private street. Sec. 18-60. Lots. (a) All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private street or a flag lot which shall have a minimum of thirty (30) feet of frontage. Sec. 20-1. Definitions. Lot means a separate parcel, tract, or area of land undivided by any public street or approved private road, which has been established by metes and bounds subdivision, or as otherwise permitted by law, and which is occupied or intended to be developed for and occupied by a principal building or group of such buildings and accessory buildings, or utilized for a principal use and uses accessory thereto, including such open spaces and yards as are design and arranged or required by this chapter for such building, use or development. Mr. Knutson answered the question on the basis that a private street was not involved, referring to a "shared driveway". I '9 O. .) ! I]OOZ ~0 9rW, ,'/ /' 6u!pf!dg \ \ I q,3e18 '11 P"I mcu~+l InN ,6% NOIZIOOV -1301 SVON-I O2,$OdO~d ~ NV"i 0<3'. 0 · OOfg-OZ6 (~ig) 'o~ euo~eI '00¥ 1SI SlllH 3SI~JN~S 'L ~::)ol~ 'I,L 1o] :NOI/dl~gSqO IYNIOI~O .Og = .t :3'1~. 0 ~ NOIIICIC]¥ lO! SVOflU Q3SOdOcYd IOM · IGEL Sep. 02 2000 04:31PM P2 RACHEL & DAVID IGEL August 2, 2000 FACSIMILE AND MAIL Ms. Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Mr. Robert Generous, Senior Planner City of Chanhassen City Hall P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Application for Daxdd and lLacbel Igel 7303 I,aredo Drive Chanhasse~n, MN Dear Ms. Aanenson and Mr. G-cnerous: This will confirm that we have asked to be placed on the next available Planning Commission nlceting agenda, scheduled for September 6, 2000. We-waive our rights under the s() called "60 Day Rule" as set forth/n Minnesota Statutes related to our pre)posed subdivision of tim above-referenced propcrty, 'and- specifically request that the City take such time as the City deems necessary to review and act upon our application. In addition, upon approval by thc City Council of ei~er of our subdivision plats before the CiD5 we'agree to remove the alternate subdivisio~ plat from consideration by thc City Council. Sincerely. Rachel A. Ig¢l cc: Bruce Malkerson (vh facsimile) 6195 STR.AWB£RR¥ LAN[{ - SHOR£WO¢)D. MN · 55.5.tl I'~ONI-;; 952.401.3377 - FAX: 9~.401.13(,2 CITYOF CHANHASSEN ~90 Ci(;' O;ne;' D','h'e, PO Box 147 P/.,o;;e 612.927.1900 Ge,ew.l Fax d12,~3Z 572~ E, gi,ee;'i;~g Fax 612237 9152 h~bfic Sf30' Fax 612.93q~2524 MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Senior Planner FROM' DATE: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer '~[.~/'." September 20, 2000 SUBJ' Planning Commission Update Igel Preliminary Plan Subdivision Request for Lucas Igel Addition Land Use Review File No. 00-06 At the September 5, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Colnmission approved the preliminary plat for Lucas Igel Addition with conditions outlined in the staff report plus three additional conditions. One of the conditions was for staff to review the runoff from the private driveway in comparison to existing runoff conditions. The Planning Commission specifically requested that no additional runoff be generated to impact the lake with the additional lot. _ Upon review of the drainage patterns for this area, the lot cun'ently sheet drains easterly towards Lotus Lake from Laredo. Plans proposed to expand a small portion of the driveway to 20 feet in width which will add very little additional runoff towards the lake. There is a long distance between the driveway and the lake whereby vegetative cover will slow the velocity of water and filter sediments from any runoff prior to reaching the lake as it has done in the past. Staff does not believe that an additional homesite impervious surface will negatively impact the lake over and above what currently exists on the property due to the fact the house is set back a significant distance from the lake. There is no doubt that an additional homesite on the property will incrementally increase the amount of runoff through the site due to the increased impervious surface coverage on the lot. Again, staff does not believe any negative impacts will occur to the lake with an additional homesite being placed on the property. We are not recommending any additional storm drainage improvements or mitigation measures. j ms c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Matt Saam, Project Engineer g:"eng'projects'dgel additionX, update.doc The CRv o/'Cha,hasse,. A e:,'owi,f co;;,;'amip.' w/th c/ca, lakes, a::.;hL' sd,ods, a d,,~.;?;~.i,.., dow, row;t, th;qz'i;~ bmi,esses, a;;d bea,tih,./ om'ks, l .oreat /)/ace to/ire. !09/20/00 15'$0 FAX 651 452 §$$0 CA3IPBELL KNUTSON ~ CHANHASSEN CH ~002/003 Thom~s J. Cnmphell Roger iq. Knutsun Tltomas M. Scott ElJiorr B. KneL=ch ],,el J. Jamnik CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Attorneys at Law (651) 452-5000 Fax (651) 452-5550 Direct Dial: (651) 234-6213 E-rnall Addr~s: rlcnutson(~clc-law, corn September 19, 2000 Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Drive, Box 1 47 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: LUCAS IGEL ADDITION Dear Bob' You asked me to respond to an additional set of qUestions posed by the Paulsens. Their questions and my responses follow: Q. Is A DRIVEWAY A PRIVATE STREET? ' ANSWER: Section 20-1 defines "street" as: "A public right-of-way accepted or a private right-of-way approved pursuam ro the requirements o/the city by public authority which provides a legal primao' means of public access to abutting property. The term "s,treet" shall include a highway, thoroughfare, arterial, parkway, collector. avenue, drive, circle road, boulevard or any other similar lerm describing an entity complying with the preceding requirements." Section 20-1 defines "private street" as: "I'rivate street meart~ a street serving as' vehicular access to two or more parcels of land which is not dedicated to the public, but is owned by one or more private parlies. " In order for a "driveway" to be a "private street" it would have to (1) serve two or more parcels of land, and (2) have been approved as a private street by the City. Is A .STREET A ROAD_'"? ANSWER: Section 20-1 states that the term "street shall include _.. rood" if if is o public right-of-way or private right-of-way approved pursuant to City requirements. Suite 317 * Eagandalc Office (.~enter - 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121 09/20/00 15:$0 FAX 651 452 5550 CAMPBELL KNUTSON ~ CHANHASSEN CH ~003/003 Mr. Bob Generous City of Chanhassen September 19.2000 Page 2 Q~ Qo IS A PRIVATE STREET EASEMENT CONSIDERED RIGHT-OF-wAY? ANSW.~R: The City Code does not define "right-of-way," Black's Law Dictionary defines it as the right to pass over the land of another. Assuming the private street easement allows passage over the property by someone else, then the answer to the question is yes, Is ONLY THE COMMON PORTION OF A DRIVEWAY DEFINED AS A PRIVATE STREET, OR [S THE ENTIRE EASEMENT, INCLUDING THAT PORTION SERVING ONLY ONE PARCEL, DEFINED AS A PRIVATE STREET? ANSWER: The portion of a driveway only used by one property owner cannot be a "private street" because it would not meet the definitions requirement of serving two properties. is THE 20 FOOT SETBACK (,SEC, 20-48i(B)(4)) REQUIRED FROM THE EDGE OF THE EASEMENT OR FROM THE PAVEMENT WITHIN THE EA.~EMENT? ANSWER: If tine "edge of the easement" is the right-of-way line if is measured from that poTnt, not the pavement. JF A PROPERTY HAS FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET, BUT MUST ACCESS VIA A PRIVATE STREET, DO WE NEED TO MAKE THAT PROPERTY MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF PROPERTII~.S ACC:ESS VIA PRIVATE STREETS? ANSWER: I don't understand the question. What setback requirements? RNK:srn cc; Scott Botcher Kate Aanenson Regards, _- ~.:, ~o g e~'-N. Knutson